Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[ferd burfle]

Or, more charitably, someone with potential was deprived by circumstance of the educational resources they needed at a critical juncture in their development, and succumbed to woo.

But lazy or deprived may be the only benign explanations for crackpottery. The rest IMO involve some element of pathology, ranging from narcissism to "permanently adrift".


ferd

 

[Uncayimmy]

Wow

I will re-iterate what I said originally... I think the psychology of the crackpot is probably the most interesting thing about them.

The second most interesting thing is the psychology of those who respond. It's like two dogs on either side of the fence barking and growling at one another over a bone even though the "smart" dog already has the bone on his side of the fence.

 

[ferd burfle]

Wow

I will re-iterate what I said originally... I think the psychology of the crackpot is probably the most interesting thing about them.

Agreed. I find their delusions and their supporting arguments quite tiresome after a few pages. I appreciate the patience of those who hold their feet to the fire page after page and month after month.

One thing I find interesting is that both the physics crackpots and creation "scientists" use the same last-ditch coping mechanism. Faced with the cognitive dissonance created when every real scientist they meet tells them they're wrong, both groups resort to claiming scientists are conspiring against them rather than admit they're wrong. I see the accusation of "religious dogma" as just a variant on the conspiracy accusation.

ferd

 

[ynot]

Haven’t read the thread so not sure if this has already been asked.

Worm holes, black holes, dark matter, anti-matter time dilation, curved space-time, etc all seem pretty crackpot to a layperson. By what yardstick do we measure what is and isn’t crackpot?

 

[KingMerv00]

Worm holes

Hypothetical and undetected. Currently unlikely. If they exist, they probably exist for impossibly short times and then collapse.

black holes

Predicted by physics. Detected by their indirect gravitational effects. Confirmed.

dark matter

A stand in for an unknown. Detected by measuring the precise movements of certain large bodies. Confirmed but not fully understood.

anti-matter

Found in particle colliders. Totally confirmed.

time dilation

Predicted by Einstein and detected by NUMEROUS experiments. Totally confirmed.

curved space-time

Predicted by Einstein. Detected in the precession of Mercury, gravitational redshifting, and gravitational lensing. Totally confirmed.

By what yardstick do we measure what is and isn’t crackpot?

By listening to me.

 

[Perpetual Student]

The second most interesting thing is the psychology of those who respond. It's like two dogs on either side of the fence barking and growling at one another over a bone even though the "smart" dog already has the bone on his side of the fence.

Is that how you think of yourself when you engage in one of these JREF threads?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Haven’t read the thread so not sure if this has already been asked.

Worm holes, black holes, dark matter, anti-matter time dilation, curved space-time, etc all seem pretty crackpot to a layperson. By what yardstick do we measure what is and isn’t crackpot?

Excellent point! The concepts mentioned above have such a mysterious aura and are so remote from our everyday reality, so (for the crackpot) why not propose any other wild theory that can't be disproved in one's living room?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Haven’t read the thread so not sure if this has already been asked.

Worm holes, black holes, dark matter, anti-matter time dilation, curved space-time, etc all seem pretty crackpot to a layperson. By what yardstick do we measure what is and isn’t crackpot?

I find it it difficult when someone is making a technical argument beyond my means to analyse but things get clearer when a debate with experts starts. I think that the type of criticism that an idea attracts and whether its proponents deal with it in an honest way is particularly telling.

I like what Richard Feynman had to say about pseudoscience, which he spoke of as cargo cult science in this instance:

But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying
science in school--we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

But of course Birkeland, Alfven, Peratt and Lerner did that in actual books for you to read. Which one's have you actually read for yourself?

Who cares about "me" or my math skills? Does GR theory rise or fall on my personal math skills? Does QM bite the dust if can't express it mathematically for you on command? Does Darwin's work become less valuable because I can't personally generate macroevolution in a petri dish on command in real time?

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

I understand that your mythical sky entities are impotent on Earth. All the math in the universe isn't going to fix it's critical empirical flaws. Your logic is like a astrologer claiming "if only you understood the theory better, yada, yada, yada." What you refuse to acknowledge is that your impotent sky entities have no empirical clothes.

-- and without the necessary mathematics the mainstream idea cannot be understood.

You can't "understand" Carlqvist's maths because you haven't bothered to even read them even though I've posted the links for you. Ditto on Alfven's "circuit" orientation on solar flares.

This is why the crackpots receive so much derision, which they find so offensive.

The "offensive" part is the pointless villianization. Alfven already mathematically expressed these ideas for you. Have you even bothered to read them for yourself *IN FULL*? How about Peratt? I don't suppose you've read his book for yourself?

If as you look in the mirror and answer that question, ask yourself what business you have calling Alfven's PC theories "crackpot" theories?

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.

Ditto for you folks and empirical physics. You refuse to embrace it, even though it works in the lab because it has the bad electric taste to it.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I guess it depends on your personal beliefs as to how ironic some peoples posts in this thread are.

 

[ferd burfle]

Even if the crackpots were masters of the mathematics, I think they would still avoid stating their case using math. Their errors would be laid bare if presented mathematically. Math does not offer nearly as much opportunity for obfuscation as does prose and they know this very well.

ferd

 

[Michael Mozina]

I guess it depends on your personal beliefs as to how ironic some peoples posts in this thread are.

Yep.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Yep.

The point you seem to be missing is that unless you demonstrate that you do understand the theories you reject, you are unqualified to do so. Not having the mathematical skills to express your rationale is a dead givaway that you are merely flailing away in the dark!

 

[Tubbythin]

I understand that your mythical sky entities are impotent on Earth. All the math in the universe isn't going to fix it's critical empirical flaws. Your logic is like a astrologer claiming "if only you understood the theory better, yada, yada, yada." What you refuse to acknowledge is that your impotent sky entities have no empirical clothes.

Yet another failure to provide any quantitative evidence to support your claim. And yet another attempt to cover this up by talking about sky entities etc. You do realise this just makes it clear to everybody that you don't have any scientific arguments.

The "offensive" part is the pointless villianization. Alfven already mathematically expressed these ideas for you. Have you even bothered to read them for yourself *IN FULL*? How about Peratt? I don't suppose you've read his book for yourself?

And Alfven was wrong about some stuff. Have you ever bothered to consider this possibility?

If as you look in the mirror and answer that question, ask yourself what business you have calling Alfven's PC theories "crackpot" theories?

They have been shown to be inconsistent with huge amounts of data. For it to be consistent would require a whole knew theory of gravity amongst other things.Those who like to endorse "alternative" theories hypotheses that are inconsistent with reams of data and require re-writing of successful theories they don't understand, who's evidence comes in the form of signatories on a nonsense list with a high crackpot density and resort to attacking mainstream theories via the medium of casting allusions to Gods sky entities and such like provide an excellent example of what I think constitutes a crackpot.

Ditto for you folks and empirical physics. You refuse to embrace it, even though it works in the lab because it has the bad electric taste to it.

I do it every week day as my job thank you. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly failed to show you even understand what empirical means.

 

[Tubbythin]

The point you seem to be missing is that unless you demonstrate that you do understand the theories you reject, you are unqualified to do so. Not having the mathematical skills to express your rationale is a dead givaway that you are merely flailing away in the dark!

I disagree. He's perfectly qualified to do so (all you really need is a functioning brain). He is, however, never going to be taken seriously.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

But of course Birkeland, Alfven, Peratt and Lerner did that in actual books for you to read. Which one's have you actually read for yourself?....

You can't "understand" Carlqvist's maths because you haven't bothered to even read them even though I've posted the links for you. Ditto on Alfven's "circuit" orientation on solar flares....

Alfven already mathematically expressed these ideas for you. Have you even bothered to read them for yourself *IN FULL*? How about Peratt? I don't suppose you've read his book for yourself?

Why don't you acknowledge that some of us have actually read many of the papers you've recommended? Why don't you acknowledge that, when we read those papers, we usually (though not always) discover that you have misunderstood/misrepresented their results?

Who cares about "me" or my math skills?

You should. You do seem to care about the scientific literature, but most of it is written in a language you don't understand: mathematics. If you'd make an effort to learn the rudiments of that language, you'd soon acquire a better understanding of the books and papers you've been urging us to read.

Consider, for example, the Dungey paper you wanted us to read. That's a relatively minor conference paper: Dungey wrote at least 30 other papers that have been more widely cited. It's highly mathematical, but refers to Dungey's 1953 paper to justify most of its claims. (It also contains several typos, which make it even harder to read. I don't blame Dungey for those typos. The paper was published in 1958, long before LaTeX. They'd have mailed galley proofs back and forth, and it looks like an editor gave up on that process before all the typos were fixed.)

Because you don't read math, you have misrepresented Dungey's paper, claiming it talks about electrical reconnection instead of magnetic reconnection. That's not true. The main point of that paper is that magnetic reconnection acts to increase (not to reconnect, as you would have it) current at the neutral point.

 

[GeeMack]

Why don't you acknowledge that some of us have actually read many of the papers you've recommended? Why don't you acknowledge that, when we read those papers, we usually (though not always) discover that you have misunderstood/misrepresented their results?

I'll have a go at that one. Crackpots don't acknowledge that their references have been analyzed and found to be lacking in the support they claim because if they did they'd have to give up their fantasy. All the lying they do is to convince themselves that their nutty notions have some validity as anything else. Surely nobody else is buying it.

I've been watching crackpots engage in this sort of blatant lying for many years now, and it baffles me. A claim they make or a source they mention gets thoroughly addressed... thoroughly. And they flat out lie and say nobody has addressed it. Experts in contemporary physics are consulted directly, the very people who put up the solar research satellites for example, straight from the horse's mouth the crackpot claims are shown to be wrong, yet the crackpot lies again and clings to his/her delusion.

The flagrant dishonesty seems much like descriptions of the symptoms of compulsive liars, and I'd venture a guess that there's more than a tangent connection. Point out the lies to the crackpot and you get more lies and some whining about being persecuted. Interestingly, rather than type all those words complaining about being busted in a lie, the crackpot could be studying, researching, learning English well enough to explain his/her conjecture, picking up some math and physics skills, a whole lot of things that would help him/her present their claims in an understandable way (or actually learn that they're wrong). The reason they don't? They don't have the courage to find out the truth. It would wreck their fantasies. Plus they'd have to get a new hobby.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I disagree. He's perfectly qualified to do so (all you really need is a functioning brain). He is, however, never going to be taken seriously.

Really? Is your barber, who never studied medicine, qualified to give you medical advice?

 

[Perpetual Student]

The point you seem to be missing is that unless you demonstrate that you do understand the theories you reject, you are unqualified to do so. Not having the mathematical skills to express your rationale is a dead givaway that you are merely flailing away in the dark!

Mr. Mozina:
I recall many months ago, on another thread we were discussing dark energy, which you labeled something like "fairies in the sky." When I attempted to have a discussion with regarding the Λ term of the GR equation, you refused to respond. I admitted to you that as a non-physicist, I had only a general understanding of the equation, but was willing to entertain your comments. You vanished! You had absolutely nothing to say because you do not understand that equation. Others in this forum may see that in some other light, but for me, that disqualified you from having any meaningful opinion about dark energy. Get the point?

 

[Limbo]

Could you provide a little more than that?

Sure.

000404 Religious ideas in alchemy: an historical survey of alchemical ideas. 2. The psychic nature of the alchemical work. 1. The projection of psychic contents. In: Jung, C., Collected Works of C. G. Jung, Vol. 12. 2nd ed., Princeton University Press, 1968. 571 p. (p, 242-254).

It is asserted that the alchemical opus deals less with chemical experiments as such than with what is described as 1. something resembling psychic processes expressed in pseudochemical language." It is proposed that the real root of alchemy lies not in philosophical doctrine but in the projections of the individual investigator. By this is meant that the investigator, while working on his chemical experiments, had certain psychic experiences that appeared to him as part of the actual chemical process. As this is a matter of psychological projection, and therefore unconscious, the alchemist would experience his projection as a property of matter. Thus, he was in reality experiencing his own unconscious. Excerpts from several alchemic manuscripts are presented in support of the notion that psychic projection of unconscious material onto chemical substances is the key to understanding the alchemic opus. 19 references.

http://iaap.org/academic-resources/.../abstracts-vol-12-psychology-and-alchemy.html