Why is there so much crackpot physics?

Perpetual Student said:
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 to have any meaningful opinion about dark energy. Get the point?
Click to expand...

The point that you do not seem to get is that the PROBLEM with mainstream theory is not related to "maths", it is directly related to that lack of empirical support you keep ignoring.

Suppose we were simply discussing the mass/energy percentages of the universe and you were claiming:

4%(normal matter) + 23%(invisible matter) + 73%(invisible energy) = 100 percent mass/energy of the universe. My basic "beef" is not with your formula:

4(nm)+23(im)+73(ie)=100(m/e)

My "beef" is you can't produce any IM or IE! "Complicating up the math" isn't going to change the basic *ISSUE* and it's not with the MATHS! You keep trying to skirt the basic *EMPIRICAL* FAILURE of your theory by insisting that complicated maths and pointing at the sky are your salvation. That won't cut it. Your problem isn't related to the maths, but the PHYSICS. You have no empirical physical support for the claim "dark energy did it", because you can't demonstrate that dark energy even exists, let alone that it *CAUSES* acceleration of plasma. One *OBVIOUS* force of nature is *KNOWN* to accelerate plasmas however.

I've also noticed another important "point" in these discussions. You like everyone else in this thread (save perhaps tusenfem) have NEVER READ Cosmic Plasma. I doubt any of you have read Peratt's book. I doubt any of you have read Birkeland's book cover to cover even though it is *FREE*. I doubt any of you have read Lerner's book. FYI, I will admit that Lerner's book is the only one of the four I listed earlier that I haven't read yet and I intend to rectify that oversight shortly.

It's quite clear that when you say "no maths" support PC/EU theory, you really mean that "no maths you've personal bothered to read for yourself" supports the concept. It's sort of an "ignorance is bliss" approach to science. Whatever you *REFUSE* to take any time to read *MUST NOT EXIST* in your mind somehow. Oy Vey.

Alfven represents the "father" of PC theory, a theory you are referring to as a "crackpot" theory. Nevermind the fact you haven't read his book yet. Never mind the fact you do not have a Nobel Prize in plasma physics sitting on your shelf. Never mind the fact you never bothered to read his student's book, another professional plasma physicist that studied with Alfven. You've never bothered to read Lerner's book either. In your mind, it is therefore "true" (at least to you) that PC theory is somehow lacking "maths' to support it.

The third clear fallacy in play here is that all empirical theories offered to refute your beliefs must "measure up" to the mathematical standards you created with "magic". In other words you took liberal doses of 'magic stuff', sprinkled them into some complicated math formulas, and now you want to claim that if I only understood math better, I would understand that "magic" exists and created everything we see in the universe. Baloney.

Your problem is that you can't demonstrate that magic has any effect on anything in a controlled experiment. No amount of "math tutoring' will fix that problem.
 
Last edited:
Tubbythin said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's probably true in terms of this crew at this time. Birkeland's work on auroras wasn't taken seriously until long after his death. You're still calling Alfven's PC theories "crackpot" theories, even though it was written by Nobel Prize winning plasma physicist. Worse of all, most of you haven't even bothered to read his book on the topic. Why should I care what the mainstream thinks of me during my lifetime? You have a pattern of ignoring the science for *DECADES* and then suddenly doing an about face when the evidence becomes overwhelming.
 
Perpetual Student said:
Really? Is your barber, who never studied medicine, qualified to give you medical advice?
Click to expand...

Have you read Cosmic Plasma yet PS? Yes or No? What exactly *DO* you do for a living? What specifically makes you 'qualified' to call the Nobel Prize winning physicists work a "crackpot" theory?
 
Tubbythin said:
Yet another failure to provide any quantitative evidence to support your claim.
Click to expand...

I have provided you references TB. I'm not obligated to bark that info on command anymore than I am obligate to bark QM math's on command to justify the validity of QM theory.

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

Which stuff? Be specific. Please point out the MATH error(s) in his work!

They have been shown to be inconsistent with huge amounts of data.
Click to expand...

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume there's a conflict with observation somewhere. Even if *SOME* ideas that Alfven presented must be discarded, why must *ALL* of them be discarded?

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.
Click to expand...

The basic problem in your theory is that you cannot demonstrate a cause effect relationship between 'acceleration' and 'dark energy'. No amount of pointing at uncontrolled observations in the sky is going to fix that problem. Do you understand that TRUTH?

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.
Click to expand...

When you can show me *IN THE LAB* that inflation and dark energy and "cold" dark matter aren't figments of your collective imagination, then and ONLY then will you have demonstrated that you understand what 'empirical' means. Electrical engineering produces TANGIBLE PHYSICAL GOODS. Your stuff does not. Do you understand that TRUTH?
 
FYI, finding *ONE* issue you don't like with *ONE* author does not justify tossing out *ALL* of the work! That's another of the fallacies in play around here.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The point that you do not seem to get is that the PROBLEM with mainstream theory is not related to "maths", [...]
Click to expand...


This has been addressed dozens of times. If the crackpots don't understand the math that describes a particular theory, they aren't qualified to criticize the theory. When someone asks the crackpot to explain the math and/or to demonstrate their qualifications to understand the math, and when the crackpot refuses to even show he/she understands grade school math, it is certain he/she doesn't understand the math involved in the theory he/she is criticizing. Therefore it is reasonable to dismiss his/her criticism as a pile of manure. And no lying, whining, ignoring, or trying to shift the burden of proof will make that manure into legitimate science.
 
rwguinn said:
Anybody see a set of goalposts? I swore they were right here a few minutes ago!
Click to expand...


The general strategy of dishonesty employed by the crackpots has been mentioned. The evidence for that propensity for dishonesty abounds.
 
GeeMack said:
The general strategy of dishonesty employed by the crackpots has been mentioned. The evidence for that propensity for dishonesty abounds.
Click to expand...

The only dishonest behavior is you pretending to be an expert when you've never actually read the materials in question.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Why don't you acknowledge that some of us have actually read many of the papers you've recommended?
Click to expand...

I would acknowledge that *YOU* have read some of them.

Why don't you acknowledge that, when we read those papers, we usually (though not always) discover that you have misunderstood/misrepresented their results?
Click to expand...

In what way did I "misrepresent" anyone?

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.
Click to expand...

Yes, and you'll find "mathematics' in Alfven's book. You'll find mathematics in his papers. I've yet to see you pick out a mathematical error in Alfven's work. Care to? If you believe it to be a "crackpot" theory, where's the error in his work?

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.
Click to expand...

Sure, and that's what I'm doing. Even still, I've yet to see you find any errors in Alfven's papers, books or anything else. The same is true of Peratt. What I hear are lots of handwaves and tons of comparisons of PC theory to "magic theory". Any *EMPIRICAL* theory will *NECESSARILY* be at a disadvantage to "magic" stuff that you can make up in a purely ad hoc manner.

Because you don't read math, you have misrepresented Dungey's paper, claiming it talks about electrical reconnection instead of magnetic reconnection.
Click to expand...

Where does Dungey use the term "magnetic reconnection"? Does he use the term "discharge"? What does that term mean to you?

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.
Click to expand...
That's called "induction", not "magnetic reconnection". There are still "current flows" doing the "Reconnecting".
 
Last edited:
Tubbythin said:
Yet another failure to provide any quantitative evidence to support your claim.
Click to expand...

IMO this is a totally and completely irrational request. I have already stipulated that GR theory is NOT the problem. The problem is that you never established any physical cause/effect relationships between "gravity" and "dark" stuff.

Show me that dark energy has any effect on objects with mass in a controlled science experiment. *THEN* I'll be happy to let you point at the sky and claim "dark" stuff did it.
 
Show me that dark energy has any effect on objects with mass in a controlled science experiment. *THEN* I'll be happy to let you point at the sky and claim "dark" stuff did it.
Click to expand...
Here's an example of why there's so much crackpottery in physics, specifically astronomy/relativity. It's the same with geology and paleontology--there is a misconception that science can only function with precise, controlled experiments. Unfortunately, these are not always possible--we cannot control galaxies, any more than we can re-run evolution here on Earth. However, this is not an insurmountabout problem for historical sciences; scientists make observations which cancel out the potential biases, as well as acknowledging those biases that remain. Given large enough datasets we can remove a large number of working hypotheses, and sometimes even eleminate all but one. Crackpots, with a very shallow understanding of science, do not accept that as a valid methodology.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Have you read Cosmic Plasma yet PS? Yes or No? What exactly *DO* you do for a living? What specifically makes you 'qualified' to call the Nobel Prize winning physicists work a "crackpot" theory?
Click to expand...

I have not read Einstein’s Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper nor have I not read Alfven’s papers. I am not a physicist. I rely on the opinions and commentary of professionals to understand the workings of the universe; however, my mathematics training (master’s degree) does come in handy at times.
Fed Hoyle made major contributions to cosmology but later advocated crackpot opinions, Linus Pauling won a Nobel prize but afterwards became an internationally infamous crackpot about vitamin C, Isaac Newton indulged in alchemy for decades after his great work in physics, Einstein never accepted quantum theory, so Alfven (who considered himself to be an electrical engineer) won a Nobel prize and later adopted crackpot opinions in an area (cosmology) outside of his specialty. Note that the accomplished scientists mentioned above did their great work when they were younger; an argument could be made that, when they indulged in their crackpottery, it was in their declining years (and perhaps for some -- their dotage).
But this has nothing to do with this thread, which deals with amateur crackpots who deluge the internet with their ignorant babble, whoever they may be. Such people do not have an understanding of the physics they claim to be criticizing. Without the mathematical tools required there can be no understanding of modern physics, consequently there can be no meaningful opinions. Put another way, mathematics is the language of physics; French is the language of Frenchmen. Without knowing French one cannot credibly critique an essay in French; without knowing mathematics one cannot critique an essay in physics.
 
Dinwar said:
Here's an example of why there's so much crackpottery in physics, specifically astronomy/relativity. It's the same with geology and paleontology--there is a misconception that science can only function with precise, controlled experiments. Unfortunately, these are not always possible--we cannot control galaxies, any more than we can re-run evolution here on Earth. However, this is not an insurmountabout problem for historical sciences; scientists make observations which cancel out the potential biases, as well as acknowledging those biases that remain. Given large enough datasets we can remove a large number of working hypotheses, and sometimes even eleminate all but one. Crackpots, with a very shallow understanding of science, do not accept that as a valid methodology.
Click to expand...

Actually, *IF* you were limiting your "theories" to *KNOWN* forces of nature (AKA forces that show up in a lab), then I'd have no problem with that methodology. Since you're trying to use that methodology to justify "magic energy" based on properties that you simply "made up" in a purely ad hoc manner to FIT your creation theory, based on those very same observations, it's a completely bogus argument.
 
Perpetual Student said:
I am not a physicist. I rely on the opinions and commentary of professionals to understand the workings of the universe;
Click to expand...

FYI, this is actually no different than a theist saying the same thing about their "clergy". No matter how much evidence and maths I put before creationists, they tend to "rely on the opinions" of others, not what they read for themselves.
 
Actually, *IF* you were limiting your "theories" to *KNOWN* forces of nature (AKA forces that show up in a lab), then I'd have no problem with that methodology. Since you're trying to use that methodology to justify "magic energy" based on properties that you simply "made up" in a purely ad hoc manner to FIT your creation theory, based on those very same observations, it's a completely bogus argument.
Click to expand...
No. When observations do not fit with known paradigms, you must discard the paradigms and endevor to uncover the laws of nature governing the observations. This is analogous to the discovery of mass extinctions (which, at the time, had no known cause).

In other words, "It doesn't fit the paradigm" is not a valid criticism (though, admitadly it is a common one) in science. If the data, even "mere" observational data, support a hypothesis the hypothesis may in fact be valid.

Einstein never accepted quantum theory,
Click to expand...
Slightly off topic, but I'm not sure this qualifies as an example of crackpottery. To me, this always seemed more akin to the debate we expect in science. Yes, Einstein was wrong, but that doesn't make one a crackpot, it merely means that you drew the wrong conclusion. Otherwise all geologists who rejected continental drift would be crackpots (which means, functionally, all of geology at one point).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom