Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[Arthur Mann]

But the good ideas won out in the end though, didn't they?

Did they?

 

[Michael Mozina]

However physicists know when they are making stuff up [ proposing ideas that have yet to be shown as factual ].

So what's the difference between making up 'God energy" vs. "Dark energy" and his inflation sidekick?

Isn't the basic motive exactly the same? Comfort? Closure? Something they can wrap their head around? Most humans don't work well with ambiguity and or without a 'creation story' of some sort. Astronomers are simply motivated to find their surrogate "creation story", albeit not necessarily a 'theistic' one. It's still emotionally very conforting I'm sure, but it's no more EMPIRICALLY justifiable than "(dark)God did it".

 

[Olowkow]

Particle "physicists" treat everything as a particle. Is light composed of particles? What about electricity? Is "gravity" a particle?

They wouldn't be proper "particle physicists" if they didn't, now, would they?

 

[Arthur Mann]

So plate tectonics is also merely pseudo-religion since it cannot be shown to occur in a laboratory experiment?

Yes. The only thing we have "supporting" plate tectonics is cartoons. The process of subduction, for example, has never been observed or even demonstrated by experiment to be plausible. Hell, "subduction" isn't even in my computer's dictionary, I guess the dictionary knows what's up.

Weather & climate science

Can and is being modeled in the lab, see Peter Thomson's work with electric discharge simulation of tornadoes in a petri dish, this and other charged sheath vortex phenomena.

Comparative planetology

Physical and chemical processes involved readily demonstrated in the lab.

Solar physics

If you mean the "standard model", stellar fusion, you're right. It's a religion based on nothing but hero worship and wishful thinking. No experimental verification, routinely falsified, better model exists (electric star).

All forms of celestial mechanics

Firmly established over 99% of space is plasma, plasmas negligibly affected by gravity, all gravity models of celestial motion can therefore only be right by accident.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Plate tectonics cannot be shown in lab experiments [to be a viable hypothesis - AM], therefore it isn't science, it's religion...

Corrections in bold red by me.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Getting back to the OP, would any of you, who hold opinions that are not consistent with mainstream physics and cosmology, care to tell us a bit about your education -- specifically in the areas we are discussing here?

 

[Arthur Mann]

Earthquakes affect real people here on Earth.

While it's undeniable that earthquakes do occur, the likely cause is unlikely to be in agreement with "plate tectonics" models.

Interesting electromagnetic phenomena occur before, during and after earthquakes, suggesting an electrical relationship. Platies will tell you this is all down to piezoelectric effects, but offer nothing to support these claims except the operation of a quartz watch (that, in conflict with their suggestions, does not produce similar effects).

It's safe to say plate tectonics is a terminally ill model, and we have a competing explanation that's more reasonable, and also is falsifiable (but not yet falsified): electricity

 

[Drachasor]

So plate tectonics is also merely pseudo-religion since it cannot be shown to occur in a laboratory experiment? Those geologists are just pushing their religion!!!11!1

ETA: Applying Michael Mozina's standards, here are other "religions" posing as "science" because they cannot be replicated directly in the lab...

Weather & climate science
Comparative planetology
Solar physics
All forms of celestial mechanics

... anyone got any others? See how much fun semantic word games can be?

Of course, computer models are a kind of experiment and back up a lot of this stuff. It's certainly a way to test theories and, like all science, the simplest explanation/model that explains all related phenomenon is preferred. If something came along tomorrow that explained what we know about the Universe better than our current models, then it would be studied and accepted fairly quickly.

Sadly, some people who actually don't comprehend the science of a given field decide it must be wrong, and go with an explanation that doesn't fit the facts (but claims to) that is simpler or just go with something they also don't understand that claims to be simpler. In actuality, if there really were multiple competing theories that fit the facts as best we know them well, then they'd all be competing with each other. You see this plenty of times in the history of science, from various ways evolution could work over time (how important punctuated equilibrium is, for instance), to various proposed ways of approaching a Theory of Everything in physics.

This is, of course, how science is not a religion. Science Trolls ignore this, of course.

 

[D'rok]

Define "earlier" vs. "later" please.

Earlier: Cosmic Electrodynamics. Later: Cosmic Plasma.

How so? Other thread please. In fact please repost the rest to the solar thread if you really want me to respond.

I am confident that you will continue to ignore the science in that thread.

 

[D'rok]

While it's undeniable that earthquakes do occur, the likely cause is unlikely to be in agreement with "plate tectonics" models.

Interesting electromagnetic phenomena occur before, during and after earthquakes, suggesting an electrical relationship. Platies will tell you this is all down to piezoelectric effects, but offer nothing to support these claims except the operation of a quartz watch (that, in conflict with their suggestions, does not produce similar effects).

It's safe to say plate tectonics is a terminally ill model, and we have a competing explanation that's more reasonable, and also is falsifiable (but not yet falsified): electricity

[Homer voice]Mmmm...Electricity. Is there anything it can't do?

 

[Arthur Mann]

Yes, I had hoped for a different kind of discussion, but the thread has been hijacked -- as I had feared it might be.

Hope against fear, a brilliant tactic when you're trying to set somebody up.

I can answer the loaded question of the thread subject pretty succinctly. The reason there is so much "crackpot physics" is because the consensus view of what physics entails is demonstrably wrong, and there are so very few people like Michael and myself presenting actual physics.

If crackpots weren't in the majority of the population as a whole, and consistently holding majority opinions, there wouldn't be so much "crackpot physics".

 

[Drachasor]

Firmly established over 99% of space is plasma, plasmas negligibly affected by gravity, all gravity models of celestial motion can therefore only be right by accident.

Plasmas are just affected by gravity as any other form of normal matter.

 

[AlBell]

While it's undeniable that earthquakes do occur, the likely cause is unlikely to be in agreement with "plate tectonics" models.

Interesting electromagnetic phenomena occur before, during and after earthquakes, suggesting an electrical relationship. Platies will tell you this is all down to piezoelectric effects, but offer nothing to support these claims except the operation of a quartz watch (that, in conflict with their suggestions, does not produce similar effects).

It's safe to say plate tectonics is a terminally ill model, and we have a competing explanation that's more reasonable, and also is falsifiable (but not yet falsified): electricity

You, sir, give every indication of being a blithering idiot. Assuming, hopefully, that you are not a blithering idiot, where in the world of fantasy did you get those ideas?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Getting back to the OP, would any of you, who hold opinions that are not consistent with mainstream physics and cosmology, care to tell us a bit about your education -- specifically in the areas we are discussing here?

Can you explain how that is relevant considering the fact that Aflven was the "crackpot Messianic" figure you're talking about, and the mainstream handed him a Nobel Prize?

 

[Drachasor]

Seriously?

Photons?

Electrons?

It's all wavicles! In any case, it's pretty clear he doesn't understand any aspect of physics that well.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Earlier: Cosmic Electrodynamics. Later: Cosmic Plasma.

The "grey area" will be between the two printing dates I suppose.

I am confident that you will continue to ignore the science in that thread.

We'll see. I've already presented peer reviewed "science" to support my views.

 

[Arthur Mann]

So someone has recreated an entire star inside of a laboratory?

Yes, Birkeland, terrella experiments. 1913. Birkeland's face on the norwegian 200-kroner bill. Verified forty years later by Meredith, Gottlieb and Van Allen.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student
Getting back to the OP, would any of you, who hold opinions that are not consistent with mainstream physics and cosmology, care to tell us a bit about your education -- specifically in the areas we are discussing here?

Can you explain how that is relevant considering the fact that Aflven was the "crackpot Messianic" figure you're talking about, and the mainstream handed him a Nobel Prize?

I was addressing people responding here and now to this thread, not dead people, who obviously are no longer capable of thought.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Do any of your opponents here really see you as villains?

Opponents? This kind of confrontational attitude isn't helpful.

 

[Drachasor]

We'll see. I've already presented peer reviewed "science" to support my views.

No you haven't. You've any no way demonstrated how your views on Cosmology or Astrophysics in general make any sense.

Might as well doubt Evolution, quite frankly, or any number of other sciences.