Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[Arthur Mann]

Drive a fast car and watch the universe expand in the rear view mirror.

Actually I think from that perspective the universe would appear to contract, but in any case, this is a weak joke.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

Again, I utterly fail to comprehend the relevancy of that question, or the relevancy of whether anyone is now dead or alive. You're the one that called PC theory a "crackpot" theory and a "dead guy' was the one that happened to pretty much write the book on PC theory. He also happened to be *EXTREMELY* educated, won a Nobel Prize in MHD theory specifically, and was very well versed on other mainstream theories, most of which he rejected for his entire life. What exactly are YOUR (as a critic) qualifications in MHD theory that allow you to call the Nobel Prize winning scientist a 'crackpot"? What gives you personally the scientific right to compare his theories to creationism, especially considering how vehemently Alfven rejected "creation" events?

 

[Arthur Mann]

Got a car that runs on plate tectonics? Or climate change? Or solar physics? Or quark-gluon plasmas?

Didn't think so... those religions cannot produce anything tangible

Misguided metaphor, since the phenomena you mention are all fallacious, and have no practical applications, basically you're self-refuting. If you'd mention actual scientific notions that have produced tangible benefits and can be readily expressed in technological devices, I'd ask you where are the devices that exploit "inflation" to do work of any kind? Do you have any idea how much force it would take to "inflate" (even the observed) universe? What is responsible for that force, if we could harness it we could literally unmake the universe.

[ETA -

If you figure it out, publish, you'll win the nobel prize.

]

 

[Perpetual Student]

Again, I utterly fail to comprehend the relevancy of that question, or the relevancy of whether anyone is now dead or alive. You're the one that called PC theory a "crackpot" theory and a "dead guy' was the one that happened to pretty much write the book on PC theory. He also happened to be *EXTREMELY* educated, won a Nobel Prize in MHD theory specifically, and was very well versed on other mainstream theories, most of which he rejected for his entire life. What exactly are YOUR (as a critic) qualifications in MHD theory that allow you to call the Nobel Prize winning scientist a 'crackpot"? What give you the right to compare his theories to creationism, especially considering how vehemently Alfven rejected "creation" events?

That response is quite off topic, which was, "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]

Surely mathematical models that are falsifiable through observation and make novel predictions are of value in creating narratives about the cosmos?

That approximation of logic is what led to Ptolemy's epicycles.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That response is quite off topic, which was, "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?"

Again, I have pointed out to you that the messianic figure that you're picking on was highly educated, extremely versed in the realm of his expertise (plasma physics), and was awarded a Nobel Prize for that work. Since you are calling him a 'crackpot', and his body of work a 'crackpot' field of science, you should be willing to explain *YOUR* education, particularly in the areas of plasma physics.

 

[Arthur Mann]

This is a lie.

I don't think it's very helpful to go around calling each other liars, cool your jets, hot shot.

 

[Drachasor]

That approximation of logic is what led to Ptolemy's epicycles.

Which were rejected by science when a more sensible explanation emerged.

So what's your point here? Science will accept the simplest explanation available?

 

[Arthur Mann]

ETA: And since you brought it up, hydrogen originated during the big bang.

False.

 

[GeeMack]

Let's also treat everyone as an "individual" here. I have very different opinions about tusenfem and sol than I do for say GM. Some folks are honest "skeptics". Others are not.

Clearly if someone makes a claim as stupid and unsupportable as, say, the moon is made of cheese, there's no reason to get into a discussion about the cheese making process, how much rennet, aging for how long, and how to handle the whey. If the claim is so unsupportably stupid, and the claimant has nothing but bald assertions and lies to back it, I see no reason to entertain their apparently desperate desire to talk all sciency and indulge the fantasy they have about actually participating in real science. With crackpots the whole thing is so far below real science it never needs to go there. If the crackpots don't even understand grade school science, it's surely not going to do them any good to talk about college level science, the persistent and uncivil complaints of those very crackpots notwithstanding.

 

[Drachasor]

Again, I have pointed out to you that the messianic figure that you're picking on was highly educated, extremely versed in the realm of his expertise (plasma physics), and was awarded a Nobel Prize for that work. Since you are calling him a 'crackpot', and his body of work a 'crackpot' field of science, you should be willing to explain *YOUR* education, particularly in the areas of plasma physics.

Just because someone got a Nobel Prize or contributed a lot to science doesn't mean everything they did was gold. Newton, for instance, worked seriously in alchemy and theology. Not every thought Alfven had was correct, and it would be silly to think so.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Clearly if someone makes a claim as stupid and unsupportable as, say, the moon is made of cheese, there's no reason to get into a discussion about the cheese making process, how much rennet, aging for how long, and how to handle the whey. If the claim is so unsupportably stupid, and the claimant has nothing but bald assertions and lies to back it, I see no reason to entertain their apparently desperate desire to talk all sciency and indulge the fantasy they have about actually participating in real science. With crackpots the whole thing is so far below real science it never needs to go there. If the crackpots don't even understand grade school science, it's surely not going to do them any good to talk about college level science, the persistent and uncivil complaints of those very crackpots notwithstanding.

Care to discuss Alfven's use of the term "circuit" (in the other thread of course) or do you indent to keep running from that question indefinitely?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Again, I have pointed out to you that the messianic figure that you're picking on was highly educated, extremely versed in the realm of his expertise (plasma physics), and was awarded a Nobel Prize for that work. Since you are calling him a 'crackpot', and his body of work a 'crackpot' field of science, you should be willing to explain *YOUR* education, particularly in the areas of plasma physics.

Your highly defensive response is revealing. I have never said one word about Alfven in this or any other thread. My question was addressed to any participants to this thread, who might be willing to respond with any information about their training and credentials in physics and cosmology. If you chose not to respond, so be it -- lack of response is a kind of answer.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Just because someone got a Nobel Prize or contributed a lot to science doesn't mean everything they did was gold. Newton, for instance, worked seriously in alchemy and theology. Not every thought Alfven had was correct, and it would be silly to think so.

So aren't you sort of proving my point that that educational background and/or one's credentials are pretty much irrelevant?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Your highly defensive response is revealing. I have never said one word about Alfven in this or any other thread. My question was addressed to any participants to this thread, who might be willing to respond with any information about their training and credentials in physics and cosmology. If you chose not to respond, so be it -- lack of response is a kind of answer.

Is your unwillingness to discuss your background in MDH theory any less 'defensive" in your mind somehow? Do you have a Nobel Prize in MHD theory sitting on a shelf somewhere that I should know about?

 

[Arthur Mann]

some who actually work on the Large Hadron Collider who can call you out on this b.s., right?

Really? Hmm...consider the following:

Neutron-Driven Element Transmuter
A beam of protons from a particle accelerator used to produce neutrons which are fired in an appropriate lead assembly. Neutrons bounce around inside the lead, losing a little energy with each bounce, such that the neutron spectrum covers a broad range of energies. Lead being the most transparent element to high energy neutrons has the advantage that these are not absorbed by lead, but much more efficiently by atoms of the sample to be transmuted. This enhanced neutron exposure may be used to produce useful radio-isotopes for medical use or, when using an opposite procedure to the one used for isotopes production, to transmute long lived isotopes such as those recovered from spent nuclear fuel.

So who's right, CERN or you and your chat friends?

ETA: For example, a maser is not an electron beam, it is a beam of coherent, amplified & focused microwaves. Link.

I stand corrected, finally. What I should have said is an electron laser is a laser that uses a stream of electrons as the lasing medium. It's a minor error to call this kind of laser a "maser", and really one of convention in any case.

 

[mike3]

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

Tectonics is not "terminally ill", it's backed up by craploads of evidence, which is why nobody with decent scientific expertise seriously disputes it.

First off, tectonics is based on relatively simple physics, namely the idea that a dense mass put atop a less-dense fluidlike/goo one can sink into the latter. Do you deny this? If so, then why do boats work? The dense stuff sinks down, and as it does so it melts and forms less-dense stuff again. The pot underneath has to bubble up somewhere to balance, and so it bursts up at the ridges, where it forms new dense stuff. In addition, there is also currents in the stuff underneath, which pushes and moves around the bits floating on top. The details of all this are what are really complex, but the basic ideas are not, and to deny them would involve denying some simple phenomena you can observe right here at home.

Now on to confirmatory evidence. For one, we can see the geographic features of the Earth's crust, like the ocean ridges and trenches. What are these features, according to you? On land, we can see things like the shape of the rock in mountains, which shows them (for non-volcanic ones, at least) to be folded-up rock. How do you explain this, other than due to plate effects? Plate effects provide the simple explanation: one plate pushes into the other, rumpling it up like crushing a dough pie from one side with your hand (though not exactly, since the rock can actually weld together, it's more like pushing two pies together and one can actually override the other a bit, among other things, but close...). And then there's the shapes of the continents themselves, which suggest the idea that they must have "drifted" apart.

In addition to that, we've got stuff like rock age and magnetic field data from the sea beds, showing how there are lines of magnetic reversals ("magnetic polar shifting") that "stripe" each side of the ocean ridges, and dating techniques show the age of rock as increasing the further we get, indicating that it originated at the ridges.

Moving on, we've got more direct evidence, including actual observation and measurement of the process itself. For example, one can send down a submarine to visit the ocean trenches, and there's a segment exposed at the surface at Iceland, and one can see the eruptions and the heat directly, proving that these regions are where matter from the deep earth comes up.

Now observing the sinking of matter in the trenches is more difficult, because it's happening below ground inside an opaque fluid. To do that, we need to use sound waves, instead of light waves, since they conduct through such materials. By doing that, we can image the bits of broken plate actually sinking down into the mantle.

Finally, there is observation of the actual motion. We can use highly sophisticated radar systems to track the tiny amount of "drift" between stations. And then, of course, the most direct observation possible at the very earthquake zones you mention. There are places in California where you can actually SEE, with your own EYES, the shear displacement due to sudden bursts of plate motion during an earthquake. Can't get any more obvious than that.

Overall, I'd say a pretty solid case is available for plate tectonics. Can you refute any of these points?

 

[D'rok]

I don't think it's very helpful to go around calling each other liars, cool your jets, hot shot.

Grammar lesson for you:

"This is a lie" - identifies a plainly false statement
"You are a liar" - calls someone a liar

See?

 

[Arthur Mann]

Can you?

No, I can not. Can you describe the process by which "neutrinos" are detected?

 

[Drachasor]

So aren't you sort of proving my point that that educational background and/or one's credentials are pretty much irrelevant?

The fact that someone who has studied a lot can still be wrong on the edges of science, is all the more reason to be suspicious of someone who hasn't studied at all or just studied very little. That said, the guy who has studied a lot and done a lot of professional work is very, very likely to know what they are talking about for the vast majority of topics in their field. The edges of science are always a treacherous area in this way; that's the nature of discovery.