Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[mike3]

False.

Demonstrably false by simple experiment that's routinely performed.

Utter tripe. What is the SUN made out?

Yeah, that's right: PLASMA.

What is holding it into a ball?

Yeah, that's right: GRAVITY.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Utter tripe. What is the SUN made out?

Yeah, that's right: PLASMA.

What is holding it into a ball?

Yeah, that's right: GRAVITY.

He could also confirm this by simply lighting a match and watching what happens to the flame (hint: it goes up )

 

[mike3]

Curiously, I think he's sincere when he protests that he doesn't ignore any of it.

What I think is happening is that the vast bulk of the evidence is quantitative, and he doesn't do quantitative. That means making up a complicated, highly idiosyncratic explanation that can't be explained to anyone. It must be terribly frustrating, honestly feeling that you've done your best to explain this tangled mess of stuff (as it seems to everyone else), yet no one understands you.

Worse, all the while they keep trying to get you to talk about 'numbers' and 'equations' and so on, things which never become clear to you, no matter how hard you try (anger is, perhaps, a quite rational response in these circumstances).

Ah, thanks. Michael Mozina & Arthur Mann, what do you make of that?

 

[Michael Mozina]

AGAIN, relevant to COSMOLOGY?

How much of the "cosmos" is currently in the form of "plasma" (percentage wise)?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ah, thanks. Michael Mozina & Arthur Mann, what do you make of that?

I think that is silly since most of Alfven's work is 'quantitative" and yet most of his critics have never even sat down and read his quantitative presentation in the first place. They tend to be like GM and argue from a place of pure ignorance and expect someone *ELSE* to be their PC math mommy in real time.

 

[Drachasor]

I think that is silly since most of Alfven's work is 'quantitative" and yet most of his critics have never even sat down and read his quantitative presentation in the first place. They tend to be like GM and argue from a place of pure ignorance and expect someone *ELSE* to be their PC math mommy in real time.

You don't understand his mathematics either, so you aren't one to talk about having a "math mommy".

Again, his work regarding Cosmology is BAD. It doesn't predict Cosmic Background Radiation.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You don't understand his mathematics either, so you aren't one to talk about having a "math mommy".

The point is that the Alfven *QUANTIFIED* his theories. So did Learner and Peratt and many others. If you don't read it, it's not my fault.

Again, his work regarding Cosmology is BAD. It doesn't predict Cosmic Background Radiation.

That's not true. It simply suggests that all suns emit lots of radiation, including those wavelengths and the universe is relatively homogeneous. So what?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Here's the problem Drac,

Since day one PC theory has been 'quantified'. Alfven's stuff is quantified. Peratt's stuff is quantified. Learners stuff is quantified. Birkeland's work is quantified. Bruce's work is quantified. Carlqvist's work is quantified. Dungey's work on solar discharge theory is quantified too. All of it is well quantified.

The basic problem is that your trying to compare that 'quantification' to "quantification" that are based upon and require MAGICAL invisible energies. What kind of "fair" comparison could there be if you get to use invisible magic stuff in your math formulas?

 

[Drachasor]

The point is that the Alfven *QUANTIFIED* his theories. So did Learner and Peratt and many others. If you don't read it, it's not my fault.

What exactly do you mean by "quantify"? In science that typically just means they had hard numbers that their theory predicts. That doesn't mean those numbers are right.

That's not true. It simply suggests that all suns emit lots of radiation, including those wavelengths and the universe is relative homogeneous. So what?

The Universe is kinda homogeneous. In actual fact there are huge open areas and small areas with lots of matter. The vast, vast, vast majority of radiation is not remotely homogeneous, nor would you expect it to be. Cosmic Background Radiation is extremely odd in this regard as it is homogenous (far, far, far more so than any other radiation), and it composes only a tiny part of the spectrum. Alfven's theory simply doesn't predict this at all.

 

[mike3]

That's not true. It simply suggests that all suns emit lots of radiation, including those wavelengths and the universe is relatively homogeneous. So what?

But the background radiation is mostly uniform from all directions, and has a vastly different pattern than the radiation pattern of stars at other wavelengths like visible light. This suggests it does not come from stars. What do you make of that?

 

[Michael Mozina]

But the background radiation is mostly uniform from all directions, and has a vastly different pattern than the radiation pattern of stars at other wavelengths like visible light.

"Different" in what specific way?

This suggests it does not come from stars. What do you make of that?

Well, I'm quite sure that Thompson scattering happens in space if that's what you mean, but I'd need to know more about how it's 'different" than other lower energy wavelengths of light from stars and plasmas in space.

 

[GeeMack]

The point is that the Alfven *QUANTIFIED* his theories. So did Learner and Peratt and many others. If you don't read it, it's not my fault.

Drachasor's point seemed pretty clear. If the crackpots don't understand the math, regardless of whether their dead heroes, Einstein, or anyone else quantified anything, the crackpots' agreement with and/or criticism of those "theories" is nothing more than unqualified opinion. In other words, it's guessing. And guessing isn't science.

 

[AlBell]

You, sir, give every indication of being a blithering idiot.

I think we can all do without comments like this in the thread, it'd behoove you to just delete it.

Your inability to to provide all of my comments, to wit:

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?

or attempt to answer the part I've bolded above, makes me conclude the first sentence is correct.

<plonk>

 

[Michael Mozina]

The Universe is kinda homogeneous. In actual fact there are huge open areas and small areas with lots of matter. The vast, vast, vast majority of radiation is not remotely homogeneous, nor would you expect it to be. Cosmic Background Radiation is extremely odd in this regard as it is homogenous (far, far, far more so than any other radiation), and it composes only a tiny part of the spectrum. Alfven's theory simply doesn't predict this at all.

Try this link:

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/index.htm

 

[Perpetual Student]

Here's the problem Drac,

Since day one PC theory has been 'quantified'. Alfven's stuff is quantified. Peratt's stuff is quantified. Learners stuff is quantified. Birkeland's work is quantified. Bruce's work is quantified. Carlqvist's work is quantified. Dungey's work on solar discharge theory is quantified too. All of it is well quantified.

The basic problem is that your trying to compare that 'quantification' to "quantification" that are based upon and require MAGICAL invisible energies. What kind of "fair" comparison could there be if you get to use invisible magic stuff in your math formulas?

Michael Mozina:

Have you noticed that the proponents of mainstream physics and cosmology who visit these threads can and do include specific mathematical expressions in support of there positions from time to time. You are invited to correct me with an example, if I am wrong, but I cannot recall a single EU/PC proponent ever including a mathematical expression in support of an opinion. Why is that?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Drachasor's point seemed pretty clear. If the crackpots don't understand the math,

Crackpots that never read the math could *NEVER* understand the math or the theory, like Alfven's circuit theories. That's why they run from them like the plague every time they are asked about it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael Mozina:

Have you noticed that the proponents of mainstream physics and cosmology who visit these threads can and do include specific mathematical expressions in support of there positions from time to time. You are invited to correct me with an example, if I am wrong, but I cannot recall a single EU/PC proponent ever including a mathematical expression in support of an opinion. Why is that?

If you actually believe that no math to support PC has been provided then you have *NEVER* read a single link I that I provided you with! Am I obligated to duplicate the math for you personally in your mind somehow?

If you believe that *ANY* theory rises and/or falls on my personal math skills you are also sadly mistaken. I'm sure that one of the main reasons that PC proponents don't bother barking math on command in these forums is because:

A) typically the opponents of PC theory have never read the maths already provided to them by the likes of Alfven and Peratt and other "professional" plasma physicists...

B) Alfven's work is not dependent on anyone other than Alfven.

 

[Drachasor]

Try this link:

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/index.htm

I see a bunch of bad points and no explanation for the uniformity of CBR, nor an explanation for the fact that the distance to far objects seems to be accelerating in a manner consistent with the basic principle of inflation. There are a large number of patently wrong statements there, such as the idea that dwarf stars can account for Dark Matter; this simply isn't the case.

 

[Perpetual Student]

If you actually believe that no math to support PC has been provided then you have *NEVER* read a single link I that I provided you with! Am I obligated to duplicate the math for you personally in your mind somehow?

If you believe that *ANY* theory rises and/or falls on my personal math skills you are also sadly mistaken. I'm sure that one of the main reasons that PC proponents don't bother barking math on command in these forums is because:

A) typically the opponents of PC theory have never read the maths already provided to them by the likes of Alfven and Peratt and other "professional" plasma physicists...

B) Alfven's work is not dependent on anyone other than Alfven.

The above does not answer my question, which was:
"Have you noticed that the proponents of mainstream physics and cosmology who visit these threads can and do include specific mathematical expressions in support of there positions from time to time. You are invited to correct me with an example, if I am wrong, but I cannot recall a single EU/PC proponent ever including a mathematical expression in support of an opinion. Why is that?"

 

[Michael Mozina]

The above does not answer my question, which was:
"Have you noticed that the proponents of mainstream physics and cosmology who visit these threads can and do include specific mathematical expressions in support of there positions from time to time.

Sure. I envy sols "real time" math skills with GR for instance.

You are invited to correct me with an example, if I am wrong, but I cannot recall a single EU/PC proponent ever including a mathematical expression in support of an opinion. Why is that?"

Do you mean PERSONALLY do it for you in real time? Why is that necessary? If I could not adequately answer your mathematical GR question *PERSONALLY ON COMMAND*, would that falsify GR somehow? QM?