Why is there so much crackpot physics?

W.D.Clinger said:
Quote:
In my experience, empirical physics always "wins out', but usually only after everyone's been kicking and screaming for a century or two. Look at evolutionary theory today. How many people *STILL* reject that concept?
Click to expand...

Evolution is a special case, as is the age of the earth, because the opposition is motivated by alleged divine authority and argued in the face of observational evidence. Can you give me some other examples - not making argument but rather interested in additional interesting examples. Wegner and continental drift is an interesting example I think.
Click to expand...
he aint talking about the earth with the usage. He was talking about life (i would bet).

ie... the current reductionary model dont work to define what is more important than dark crap and planets. We all know what time it is and perfections of describing life, aint coming from hardon or dark BS.


The woo woo's are crackpots that have forgot what science it for. It sure aint for funding and star gazing as the benefits to mankind. The best usage of science is 'for life',

So the cranks and crackpots should be defined as the idiots who dont know what they are, to the molecular level and are older than 15. ie... i was a crackpot once!

The reason the evolution of living species is not bound to ALL schooling and educations foundations is the math cant describe it, within today's paradigm.


That is a fact for the crackpots to think on.
 
At the very core of crackpot physics zealotry is the lack of mathematics training and ability of the adherents. How many times have we seen, "I will not bark math" when the real admission should be I do not know how to express myself with mathematics in this instance. Apparently they do not understand that it is totally bogus to reject a mainstream physics concept in favor of an alternate explanation if the mainstream one is not understood -- and without the necessary mathematics the mainstream idea cannot be understood. This is why the crackpots receive so much derision, which they find so offensive. The real physicists know that the crackpot does not understand the theory he is rejecting, so consequently his rejection is meaningless, like a child rejecting medication because it tastes bad.
 
You know you are all arguing with someone that thinks he has photographs that show the sun is made of Iron so everything else is wrong?

He has been trying to sell this same shtick for more than half a decade!
 
Perpetual Student said:
At the very core of crackpot physics zealotry is the lack of mathematics training and ability of the adherents. How many times have we seen, "I will not bark math" when the real admission should be I do not know how to express myself with mathematics in this instance. Apparently they do not understand that it is totally bogus to reject a mainstream physics concept in favor of an alternate explanation if the mainstream one is not understood -- and without the necessary mathematics the mainstream idea cannot be understood. This is why the crackpots receive so much derision, which they find so offensive. The real physicists know that the crackpot does not understand the theory he is rejecting, so consequently his rejection is meaningless, like a child rejecting medication because it tastes bad.
Click to expand...

Have you ever read up on the Ptolemaic scheme of how the roaming bodies (the planets before descriptions), criss crossed the nite sky and they had all the math to prove it? Could you imagine how whacked that them 'theories' were in comparison to newtonian.

I would bet the educated group of them days, had even wannabe's who would also rant with a comment just about like one you did.

The problem you have is, anyone can learn the math of today and yesterday, but the theorem and usage, in which appicability is involved is where few actually go. On the other hand mathematicians are far more capable in the use of theorem as applied to usable physics.

And let me assist you in a clear reality, for any student, there is a huge diversity from speculative cosmology and applied physics.

They dont and never have combined so there is a whole world of knowledge to evolve.

Be fair and anyone can experience it.
 
Bishadi said:
Have you ever read up on the Ptolemaic scheme of how the roaming bodies (the planets before descriptions), criss crossed the nite sky and they had all the math to prove it? Could you imagine how whacked that them 'theories' were in comparison to newtonian.

I would bet the educated group of them days, had even wannabe's who would also rant with a comment just about like one you did.

The problem you have is, anyone can learn the math of today and yesterday, but the theorem and usage, in which appicability is involved is where few actually go. On the other hand mathematicians are far more capable in the use of theorem as applied to usable physics.

And let me assist you in a clear reality, for any student, there is a huge diversity from speculative cosmology and applied physics.

They dont and never have combined so there is a whole world of knowledge to evolve.

Be fair and anyone can experience it.
Click to expand...

That's nice.

You see the thing is you need what is called evidence to support yout ideas beofre they will be considered.

If you want to overturn the current theories then you need to produce your own theory and support it with evidence. Your theory needs to account for all the things the current theory can account for as well as something new otherwise it's not going to replace anything.

Can any of your 'theories' do 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...

Wow :eek:

I will re-iterate what I said originally... I think the psychology of the crackpot is probably the most interesting thing about them.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The petition pretty much explains the common bond of skepticism of current theory that tends typify the average PC/EU proponent.
Click to expand...

Tubbythin said:
To me it illustrates the common bond of stupidity.
Click to expand...

What Tubbythin said - talk about a ship of fools :D

What I find interesting, again from a psychological standpoint, is that Michael Mozina would somehow think that such a list of signatories would actually impress us. Or maybe he's just trying to prop things up in his own mind? Who knows?
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
I will re-iterate what I said originally... I think the psychology of the crackpot is probably the most interesting thing about them.
Click to expand...

I concur. I think it is similar to the psychology of anti-intellectualism in the States. Both accuse scientists of being biased, dismiss the mainstream scientific process, don't know much about actual science, and then like to pretend that their kludgy theory/idea/position (whatever that may be) is somehow scientifically correct.

There's an odd dichotomy of both rejecting science on the one hand and then acknowledging that science is good on the other.
 
Perpetual Student said:
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!
Click to expand...

Perhaps because it's like watching a train wreck in slow motion? You know you shouldn't look but you just can't tear your eyes away... :)
 
Last edited:
Drachasor said:
I concur. I think it is similar to the psychology of anti-intellectualism in the States. Both accuse scientists of being biased, dismiss the mainstream scientific process, don't know much about actual science, and then like to pretend that their kludgy theory/idea/position (whatever that may be) is somehow scientifically correct.

There's an odd dichotomy of both rejecting science on the one hand and then acknowledging that science is good on the other.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's like a weird love/hate kind of thing... they revere science because of its obvious explanatory & practical power, yet when they cannot meet the standard of science, they claim it (or those in the scientific establishment) as their enemy.

When seeing such behavior, I'm reminded of a kid who trashes the locker room because he didn't make the cut for the football team :rolleyes:
 
Michael Mozina said:
Considering the previous paradigm failed to "predict" an accelerating universe...
Click to expand...

Actually, general relativity did predict it, in a haphazard sort of way back in the 1920s. It's called the cosmological constant.

As for what DE or the CC actually is and where it comes from... nobody knows... yet. If we already had all the answers it wouldn't be called science, now would it?

Michael Mozina said:
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?
Click to expand...

Pfft... get back to us when someone has built an entire star inside of their lab. Only then can your religion of solar plasma physics be considered science.

Wow, these word games & goalpost moving really are fun - anyone can play! :)
 
Last edited:
KingMerv00 said:
Michael Moniza,

What predictions does plasma cosmology make that are different from Big Bang cosmology? In what way have they been experimentally verified?
Click to expand...

And when has anyone recreated an entire star in the lab? Until that happens, it can't be science - your criteria, not mine.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The only place inflation and DE show up is somewhere 'out there' (in the sky), where humans can never hope to reach. Talk about "faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab)! Holy cow.
Click to expand...

Yup, like your "faith in the unseen" solar physics which cannot replicate an entire star in the lab. Sky gods indeed - you seem to be enamored with Apollo :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
dafydd said:
To answer the OP,not paying attention in school?
Click to expand...

More like thinking that you're too smart to have to pay attention in school because, due to your natural brilliance, you know way more than the teachers/professors.
 
MattusMaximus said:
More like thinking that you're too smart to have to pay attention in school because, due to your natural brilliance, you know way more than the teachers/professors.
Click to expand...

And then they go and make fools of themselves on the internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom