Why is there so much crackpot physics?

Michael Mozina said:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Cosmology - Myth or Science.pdf

For anyone actually interested, the link above is pretty much Alfven's take on cosmology. It hasn't really gotten any better since he wrote this, in fact "dark energy" is recent ad hoc add on.
Click to expand...
For anyone actually interested, there's already a thread devoted to that paper:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6219538#post6219538

Tubbythin's executive summary:
Tubbythin said:
Wow. I knew Alfven was by no means a cosmologist and was totally out of his depth when talking about the Big Bang. I hadn't realised he probably knows less about it than me.
Click to expand...
 
dasmiller said:
In addition to what Ben M and rwguinn said, the tendency of popular media to report every mildly interesting observation as "Overturning everything we thought we knew about X" or "Challenging the very foundations of X" or "Scientists baffled by X" makes it seem like our scientific knowledge really is on very shakey ground, just waiting for a clever insight from someone who's able to think outside the box.
Click to expand...

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

Considering how many ad hoc assertions now prop up current theory, and considering that only 4% of the actual physical universe has been accounted for, it's easy to understand why it appears to be on "shakey ground". :)

The petition pretty much explains the common bond of skepticism of current theory that tends typify the average PC/EU proponent.
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

....

The petition pretty much explains the common bond of skepticism of current theory that tends typify the average PC/EU proponent.
Click to expand...
That petition and those who have signed it have already provided copious entertainment in other threads. For example...

W.D.Clinger said:
Yet another blatant falsehood:
Michael Mozina said:
From the perspective of psychology, the parallels between religion and your beliefs are absolutely fascinating. Like all 'true believers" you have a strong emotional need to ridicule anyone and everyone that doesn't buy your particular dogma. You haven't personally talked to any of these individuals, so you really don't "understand" any of their thinking, their reasoning or their opinions. You don't really know what they do for a living, their families, or anything about them. All you really know is that they all signed a petition that disagrees with *ONE* scientific opinion that you happen to "hold dear to your heart".
Click to expand...
In the cases cited, that's just not true. We know that Peter J Carroll identified himself as Chancellor of Arcanorium College, the "Worlds Premier Cyberspace Facility for the Magical Arts". We know Tom Van Flandern believed he had found compelling evidence for the presence of artificial structures on Mars, even human faces. We know Eugene Sittampalam and S.N. Arteha believe special relativity is wrong. We know Berend de Boer believes he is defending the authority of the Bible against the skepticism of science. We know Gene Gordon identifies the Big Bang with intelligent design and creationism; we can only imagine how he found common cause with Berend de Boer. We know David Calder Hardy and Vincent Sauvé and Michael Mozina are arguing from ignorant incredulity, portraying empirical science as religious belief and themselves as innocent victims of religious persecution.

Like this:
Michael Mozina said:
The emotional need to villianize the opposition at a personal level is exactly like the religious person's emotional need to villianize others who don't share their faith. The "others" must be "going to hell". Your "religion" doesn't have a hell, so the next best thing you can do is ridicule them personally, without so much as a single conversation with those individuals. You're judge, jury and (public persona) executioner, all in one. :)

I'm telling you, all religions, including your "faith in the unseen" operate almost identically at the level of politics. It's actually quite fascinating.
Click to expand...
I assume the quotation marks and smiley face are intended to tell us you're only kidding, and don't really believe the garbage you spew.
Click to expand...
 
"Worlds Premier Cyberspace Facility for the Magical Arts" That is hilarious. You would need more than a touch of PT Barnum about you to be involved in that.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
That petition and those who have signed it have already provided copious entertainment in other threads. For example...
Click to expand...

Not to mention Mike Rotch.

The content of the statement is also particularly amusing. Especially:

CS said:
What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation.
Click to expand...

being shortly followed by:

CS said:
These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements... the cosmic background radiation,
Click to expand...

which were specific predictions of the Big Bang model. Quite a stunning piece of stupidity on the author's part.


ETA: Maybe we should have thread on the Humor bit for this. Then we can catalogue all the silly things claimed by the signatories and just link to that the next time (and there will obviously be a next time, these people never seem to learn) someone links to this.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

Considering how many ad hoc assertions now prop up current theory, and considering that only 4% of the actual physical universe has been accounted for, it's easy to understand why it appears to be on "shakey ground". :)

The petition pretty much explains the common bond of skepticism of current theory that tends typify the average PC/EU proponent.
Click to expand...

Only someone who really doesn't understand cosmology and physics could possibly say this. Naturally you have to invent some kind of imagined conspiracy among scientists, which is really quite laughable. There's little an average scientist finds more fascinating than a new way to look at old facts or a new, simpler theory that explains everything an old theory did and more.

The simple truth of the matter is that if there was anything to what you advocate, then it would be part of mainstream scientific opinion and research (just like the parts of what Alfven did that were good are part of mainstream science).
 
Captain_Swoop said:
It seems you discount anything after a certain date.

Is it all 'Ad Hoc' from that point onwards?
Click to expand...

It's kind of sad he thinks Alfven's wrong take on cosmology was perfect 30-odd years ago and yet somehow is perfect today after we've discovered a number of things we didn't think were going on back then. There are good reasons why our theoretical framework has changed.
 
Drachasor said:
Only someone who really doesn't understand cosmology and physics could possibly say this.
Click to expand...

I read my first book on cosmology about 30 years ago. Over that time I've watched the theories change *DRAMATICALLY*. First inflation was introduced, then dark energy. DM morphed from referring mostly to MACHO forms of mass to some form of non-baryonic matter. Only someone who's got that kind of history with "standard" (morphing) theory could possibly say this.

The simple truth of the matter is that if there was anything to what you advocate, then it would be part of mainstream scientific opinion and research (just like the parts of what Alfven did that were good are part of mainstream science).
Click to expand...

IMO that's a naive viewpoint, albeit an understandable one. The mainstream uses Alfven's MHD theories on a daily basic, but they do so in a "pseudoscientific" manner according to the guy that invented the theory.
 
Drachasor said:
It's kind of sad he thinks Alfven's wrong take on cosmology was perfect 30-odd years ago and yet somehow is perfect today after we've discovered a number of things we didn't think were going on back then. There are good reasons why our theoretical framework has changed.
Click to expand...

Not really. Alfven's circuit orientation to solar flares and interplanetary events is just as valid today as it was when it was first written. What we've learned recently does not change that fact in any way.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
It seems you discount anything after a certain date.

Is it all 'Ad Hoc' from that point onwards?
Click to expand...

No, the "ad hoc" part comes in when you fail to let an otherwise falsified theory die a natural death, and instead you *INVENT* a mythical form of energy to "prop it up" again. Where does "dark energy" even come from?
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, the "ad hoc" part comes in when you fail to let an otherwise falsified theory die a natural death, and instead you *INVENT* a mythical form of energy to "prop it up" again. Where does "dark energy" even come from?
Click to expand...

And why not do such a thing if the existing paradigm is the best available in terms of explanatory power. Such explanatory power can give us justified confidence that the model is close to reality.

Such a strategy worked for Pauli when he proposed the existence of the neutrino.
 
Last edited:
Sideroxylon said:
And why not do such a thing if the existing paradigm is the best available in terms of explanatory power. Such explanatory power can give us justified confidence that the model is close to reality.

Such a strategy worked for Pauli when he proposed the existence of the neutrino.
Click to expand...

Adapting an old, successful theory to explain new data has been a pretty successful strategy in the 20th century, eg:

Newtonian mechanics->Special relativity
Newtonian gravity->General relativity
Classical mechanics->Quantum mechanics
 
Tubbythin said:
Adapting an old, successful theory to explain new data has been a pretty successful strategy in the 20th century, eg:

Newtonian mechanics->Special relativity
Newtonian gravity->General relativity
Classical mechanics->Quantum mechanics
Click to expand...

The Lorentz–Fitzgerald contraction was another success, though with a twist.
 
Drachasor said:
Only someone who really doesn't understand cosmology and physics could possibly say this. Naturally you have to invent some kind of imagined conspiracy among scientists, which is really quite laughable. There's little an average scientist finds more fascinating than a new way to look at old facts or a new, simpler theory that explains everything an old theory did and more.
Click to expand...


Indeed. There is no conspiracy among all legitimate scientists and all the educators, grad students, and post grad students who study physics intensively every singe day. The ludicrous suggestion that these thousands of people keep their mouths shut because they're scared of losing their precious funding is beyond laughable. A breakthrough in science that virtually overturns electrical, nuclear, or solar physics, or the subject of any other crackpot claim would be the stuff legends are made of. Not only would the Nobel prize provide a tidy little sum, everything like lab time, telescope time, satellite time, access to facilities, equipment, personnel, it would all be free. Grant money would flow like tap water.

Also, it's not like the world of real science just hasn't heard about these whacked-out conjectures yet. It's not like a few years (decades... centuries...) of ranting about them on Internet forums will eventually get the attention of the proper scientific minds. Those minds already know. It's not like all the people who actually understand physics and are qualified to objectively assess the crackpot claims just haven't been informed. They have. In most cases the science behind the claims is so totally lacking it doesn't merit a response. In many cases the crackpots are compulsive liars, treat people like crap, and refuse to even listen to reasoned refutations of their bogus conjectures. Genuine scientists know of the claims; they just choose, as I do, to not indulge the fantasies of the nutty scientists wannabes.

On a personal fulfillment level, there is nothing a genuine scientist would find more rewarding than to be involved in a revolutionary physics discovery, something that shows virtually everything we think we know about physics is wrong. Real scientists aren't shunning the crackpot stuff out of a simple lack of interest. Many of them live for just this kind of opportunity. But... they look over the claims, make honest objective scientific assessments that show some (or many) glaring errors or contradictions with reality, and they discard the claims. But it does make me wonder if the crackpots' delusional beliefs that they're in on some such amazing discovery is part of what drives their compulsion.

The simple truth of the matter is that if there was anything to what you advocate, then it would be part of mainstream scientific opinion and research (just like the parts of what Alfven did that were good are part of mainstream science).
Click to expand...


True, for many of the reasons I've mentioned above.
 
I became very interested in this question (OP), as a result of the many threads started by and populated by crackpot physics and cosmology advocates. I originally discovered the JREF by searching for information concerning one Terence Witt, who was advertising a book about his crackpot cosmology. I’ve been hooked ever since because I do have a strong interest in real physics and cosmology as a layman, but I must admit I continue to follow the crackpot threads – but I’m not sure why!
In any case, I do have an opinion about the genesis of crackpot ideas, because I have entertained them myself. I have been an avid reader of popular cosmology books by people like George Gamow, Brian Greene, Lee Smolin, Stephen Hawking, etc. for many decades. Of course, I often stumble on counter-intuitive stuff and I have participated in a number of discussions here about these ideas. It is easy and (I think quite natural) to prefer intuitive explanations for complex phenomena. In the end, I generally rely on expert opinions (perhaps retaining a bit of skepticism) because I am aware of my own limitations and respect the intelligence and years of dedication of specialists.
Why is that? Well, I have a BA and MS in mathematics and I did a minor in physics (47 years ago), so I do have some notion about the rigors of academic specialization. Consequently, I have a sense of my own limitations – which seems to be the lacking ingredient among these crackpots. They do not understand their own limitations and they have a natural preference for intuitive explanations. Their lack of mathematics training and comprehension makes the more intuitive explanations the only ones they can be comfortable with. Those who become dedicated and compulsive crackpots (we have seen some here) must also have some sort of narcissistic need to be constantly seen and heard – I don’t know what else might account for the amazing tenacity shown by some crackpots here.
 
Sideroxylon said:
And why not do such a thing if the existing paradigm is the best available in terms of explanatory power.
Click to expand...

Considering the previous paradigm failed to "predict" an accelerating universe, and you're about to *STUFF* it with 75% of metaphysical energy, how exactly are you defining "best available"? It seems to me that you're sort of winging this as you go and doing 'whatever it takes" to keep that otherwise dead "creation" theory alive. Why?

We now know the "properties" of plasma from *REAL* lab experiment with *REAL* control mechanisms. We KNOW FOR A FACT that electrical current through plasma will in fact do all the "necessary' things we observe in our local solar system. Don't you think that maybe, just maybe it's time to "start over", and begin with a 'NON PROPHETIC' approach? Shouldn't we maybe start by putting together the pieces of how things work INSIDE OUR SOLAR SYSTEM and then work ourselves outward?

What's the point of clinging to a creation event story that has consistently failed to correctly *PREDICT* major aspects of our universe? Suddenly from nowhere you want me believe that 75% of the universe is made of mythical energy you can't produce here on Earth? I see no evidence yet that the mainstream is even *INTERESTED* in exploring any other EMPIRICAL options, certainly not *INSIDE* of this solar system, let alone outside of it. They seem to have no understanding of what a 'discharge' might be ,or how currents manifest themselves in plasmas.

Such explanatory power can give us justified confidence that the model is close to reality.
Click to expand...

But it *WASN'T* close to reality! That's why is was recently (last 15-20 years or so) stuffed with a new form of mythical "ad hoc" energy that now supposedly makes up more than 70% of the universe. Evidently however is a completely impotent on Earth.

Such a strategy worked for Pauli when he proposed the existence of the neutrino.
Click to expand...

That came from *CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTATION*. We knew from CONTROLLED experiments that either a law of physics was being violated or their was a small piece of energy/matter not accounted for in some nuclear decay reactions. We knew *EXACTLY* where they came from, how to reproduce them, how we might empirically detect them, etc.

Where does 'dark energy' come from?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom