Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[Michael Mozina]

A request for quantitative support for a claim is irrational?

When the problem isn't related to any maths, yes.

You're trying to *IGNORE* the basic problem with your theory by *EXPECTING* me (or anyone) to find a "math error" in a paper with a *PHYSICS* error. Your ERROR is not related to the maths, it's directly and specifically related to a lack of a cause/effect relationship demonstration between gravity around objects made of mass and "dark" stuff you made up in your collective head.

 

[ynot]

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

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

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

Found in particle colliders. Totally confirmed.

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

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

By listening to me.

So wormholes are nothing more than a crackpot theory promoted by Hawking and other “non-crackpots”? But everything else (with the possible exception of dark matter) is “totally correct, confirmed and understood” which means none of it will ever be ever proven wrong? If just one of these things is ever proven wrong will you classify yourself as a crackpot that shouldn’t be listened to?

Wasn’t Einstein and his Relativity theory once considered to be “crackpot” by many “non-crackpots”.

 

[Dinwar]

FYI, this is actually no different than a theist saying the same thing about their "clergy".

It is VASTLY different.

Scientists necessarily know their own limits. I know my field, and have a good idea about a few others. After that, we respect other fields enough to not pretend to be experts where we are not. I don't know physics. I KNOW I don't know physics. So I let my wife deal with those subjects. My wife doesn't know evolution, and lets me deal with those. We can critique one another's work, yes, but we understand that we don't have all of the training or information necessary to have a fully informed opinion on the others' field.

Why is it that crackpots always try to explain how science is done, and ALWAYS get it wrong? It's not that difficult; there are many very good books on the philosophy of science, as well as good discussions on the subject in every textbook.

 

[Drachasor]

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.

You can't demonstrate a phenomenon in a lab that is only currently noticable over extremely large distances or with extremely large structures. Dark Matter is something that has direct evidence confirming it must exist, since the majority of matter a galaxy would need to not fly apart given how fast they spin can't be detected and things like dead stars and the like are insufficient in number to explain the mass. Similarly, we can observe that the farther galaxies are away from us, the faster they are accelerating away in a manner directly related to the distance.

The hallmark of good science is changing theories when they no longer fit the evidence at hand. Plasma Cosmology didn't work well 30+ years ago and hasn't changed to fit new information that has been found. It instead merely authoritatively insists that it is right and all scientists are wrong. That's what makes it bad science.

 

[rwguinn]

You can't demonstrate a phenomenon in a lab that is only currently noticable over extremely large distances or with extremely large structures. Dark Matter is something that has direct evidence confirming it must exist, since the majority of matter a galaxy would need to not fly apart given how fast they spin can't be detected and things like dead stars and the like are insufficient in number to explain the mass. Similarly, we can observe that the farther galaxies are away from us, the faster they are accelerating away in a manner directly related to the distance.

The hallmark of good science is changing theories when they no longer fit the evidence at hand. Plasma Cosmology didn't work well 30+ years ago and hasn't changed to fit new information that has been found. It instead merely authoritatively insists that it is right and all scientists are wrong. That's what makes it bad science.

The universe IS a Laboratory.
It started with a cave, moved to a room, expanded to the (legendary) leaning tower, then to a whole building, a township (all those big colliders), a planet, a Solar System, and now, galaxies...

 

[Drachasor]

The universe IS a Laboratory.
It started with a cave, moved to a room, expanded to the (legendary) leaning tower, then to a whole building, a township (all those big colliders), a planet, a Solar System, and now, galaxies...

That's another way you could put it.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

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.

I have ZERO method for verifying the claims of clergy. They rely on circular logic, pointing back to the singular source document.

If I'm willing to do the work, I can personally verify the claims of scientists in any field. I could go get a doctorate and study the raw materials of reality myself, if I wanted to do it.

BIG difference.

 

[rwguinn]

That's another way you could put it.

Admittedly, controls are a bitch. But you can't argue that the raw data isn't real.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It is VASTLY different.

Scientists necessarily know their own limits.

No they don't, certainly not in this case. They are trying to tell everyone what happened tens of billions of years in the past based a FEW very PRIMITIVE observations of some redshifted photons. They made up a whole creation mythology just like any religious oriented creation event where all MATTER supposedly originates from. By definition they are "pushing the limits" of actual "science" from the very start.

I know my field, and have a good idea about a few others. After that, we respect other fields enough to not pretend to be experts where we are not. I don't know physics. I KNOW I don't know physics. So I let my wife deal with those subjects. My wife doesn't know evolution, and lets me deal with those. We can critique one another's work, yes, but we understand that we don't have all of the training or information necessary to have a fully informed opinion on the others' field.

Sure, that's fair. Then again, I'm not trying to judge the validity of any physics theory based on how YOU PERSONALLY present any of those maths from either subject in real time on this forum, am I? I mean I'm the first to admit that MY PERSONAL math skills are irrelevant to these conversations, but all the skeptics seem to be judging PC theory based on MY skill set or some "mythical PC proponent" without the necessary math skills. That's just bizarre behavior IMO. It's one thing to find fault in Alfven's work and therefore have a justification to ignore *THAT PART* of his PC theories. It's quite another thing entirely to call his scientific theories a "crackpot' field of physics without even having even bothered to read the materials for yourself.

Why is it that crackpots always try to explain how science is done, and ALWAYS get it wrong? It's not that difficult; there are many very good books on the philosophy of science, as well as good discussions on the subject in every textbook.

The problem is that there are good maths on this subject in many textbooks too, I just can't get them to read or comment on them. "Circuits? What circuits?" Sheesh.

 

[kmortis]

This thread is closed for cleaning
On second thought, this thread will be set to Moderated status for the forseeable future.

Posted By: kmortis

 

[Tubbythin]

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

In the sense that he has no qualifications he is not qualified. You said: "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". As far as I'm concerned, freedom to reject theories should be a right of anyone with a functioning brain. Much like freedom of speech and the like. He's not going to get arrested for practicing theory rejection without a license. I just think, and I would imagine others agree, if he can't support his rejection by showing he understands what he is rejecting then nobody (well not many people anyway) will take him seriously.

 

[KingMerv00]

So wormholes are nothing more than a crackpot theory promoted by Hawking and other “non-crackpots”?

Wormholes, as of yet, have no experimental evidence in their favor. As such, they are an unproven hypothesis. That is NOT the same as crackpottery because they are based on other theories (like General Relativity) which have solid backing. There is nothing wrong with speculation as long as you acknowledge that's all your doing.

One day they might be proven to exist. If they were, it would be awesome.

But everything else (with the possible exception of dark matter) is “totally correct, confirmed and understood” which means none of it will ever be ever proven wrong?

It is possible. Not likely in my opinion but still possible.

Even if they were, what of it? That's what science does.

If just one of these things is ever proven wrong will you classify yourself as a crackpot that shouldn’t be listened to?[/quote]

Nope. You can believe something for good reasons or you can believe something for bad reasons. If you do the former, you are normal. If you do the latter, you may be a crackpot.

Even if the electric universe hypothesis is proven to be true at some point in the future, the truth remains, there is no reason to believe it NOW.

Wasn’t Einstein and his Relativity theory once considered to be “crackpot” by many “non-crackpots”.

I think you misunderstand the term "crackpot". A "crackpot" is someone who postulates an idea that is at odds with decades of solid experimentation without good reasoning. Einstein was not a crackpot because he speculated on relativity, suggested ways of testing it, and was found to be right in short order. That's bad ass physics, not insanity.

I have no doubt that some experts thought Einstein was wrong. That is no sin. Without experiments to back it up, relativity was just a hypothesis. Unproven and disproven hypothesis (like the electric universe) become "crackpottery" when it is held despite all good evidence to the contrary.

On another note, remember this:

...the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.​

​

 

[Tubbythin]

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.

Which nicely underlines the critical point. He was a Nobel prize winning plasma physicist. He was not a Nobel prize winning cosmologist. As far as I'm aware, he had no more credentials for cosmology than I do and he appears to have been ignorant of some basic results of GR (as I probably am too).

Worse of all, most of you haven't even bothered to read his book on the topic.

I haven't bothered to do many things. There are only 24 hours in a day and they are filled with a mixture of working, sleeping, relaxing, eating and a few other minor functional things. I can't very well read his book when I'm sleeping or eating and his work isn't relevant enough to my own personal work to be read during work hours. So it would thus have to consume part of my relaxing time. And I personally think there are things I'd rather be doing with my free time than reading a book of disproved theories.

Why should I care what the mainstream thinks of me during my lifetime?

Well, you won't get much reward for it when you're dead.

You have a pattern of ignoring the science for *DECADES* and then suddenly doing an about face when the evidence becomes overwhelming.

Even if this were generally true (I don't personally believe it is), it is not evidence is support of your hypotheses.

 

[Hellbound]

So wormholes are nothing more than a crackpot theory promoted by Hawking and other “non-crackpots”? But everything else (with the possible exception of dark matter) is “totally correct, confirmed and understood” which means none of it will ever be ever proven wrong? If just one of these things is ever proven wrong will you classify yourself as a crackpot that shouldn’t be listened to?

Wasn’t Einstein and his Relativity theory once considered to be “crackpot” by many “non-crackpots”.

That's not what he said.

Wormholes are possible mathematically, according to certain theories and certain interpretations of those theories. Whether they exist in reality or not, and or useable or not, is still something of an open question, but generally the idea is they don't exist in any useable form (although might exist for minute durations in minute sizes as part of the quantum foam). They aren't crackpot ideas, but they are generally unsupported and VERY theoretical (which even Hawking agrees with).

Being wrong does not mean being a crackpot, nor is that what KingMerv00 stated. And by the way, not everythign was listed as totally confirmed. Warped space, time dilation, black holes, and anitmatter are, however, very well confirmed. Whiel not 100% understood, the chance of them being "proven wrong" (as in, they don't exist) is somewhere along the chances of gravity being proven wrong (as in, it's not really there).

 

[Perpetual Student]

Then you personally are not qualified to discuss them. PERIOD.

Have you read Einstein's papers on GR?

 

[Tubbythin]

I have provided you references TB.

You have provided little evidence that you understand them.

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.

Nobody is asking that you bark. In this particularly instance I was suggesting that you stop with the constant references to deities and argue science.

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

IIRC, he apparently thought there was only 1 solution to the Friedmann equation!

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?

If they fit in to the Big Bang cosmology then fine. If they don't then "you" need to come up with another theory to fit them into that matches the same set of observations (and hopefully more).

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.

They are controlled observations, not uncontrolled ones.

Do you understand that TRUTH?

Well it wasn't true so no.

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.

Empirical just means something that is derived from experiment/observation and not from theory. So you have just demonstrated that you do not know what empirical means.

Electrical engineering produces TANGIBLE PHYSICAL GOODS.

I know.

Your stuff does not.

And? By the way, what is my stuff?

Do you understand that TRUTH?

Do you understand that writing in capital letters doesn't help you in the convincing people you are not a crackpot stakes? Also, do you understand that the Universe wasn't designed so that all scientific discoveries could provide useful goods for inhabitants of the planet Earth circa the year they call 2010?

 

[Drachasor]

No they don't, certainly not in this case. They are trying to tell everyone what happened tens of billions of years in the past based a FEW very PRIMITIVE observations of some redshifted photons. They made up a whole creation mythology just like any religious oriented creation event where all MATTER supposedly originates from. By definition they are "pushing the limits" of actual "science" from the very start.

There's a lot more evidence than that, such as gravitation lensing indicating the amount of mass in galaxies (e.g. revealing huge quantities of dark matter which Plasma Cosmology can't account for), the rotation of galaxies also being much faster than the visible matter could possibly account for, comparison of local stars to distant stars of the same time based on the spectrum of light emitted, observations of galactic collisions which includes how the gas and plasma reacts, etc, etc.

 

[Tubbythin]

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.

GR most certainly is the (well a) problem with PC.

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.

I'm not claiming ""dark" stuff did it".

 

[MattusMaximus]

Once again, I shall employ Michael Mozina's strategy against him...

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?

When you can show me *IN THE LAB* that an entire star, and the associated solar plasma physics, isn't a figment of your imagination, then and ONLY then will you have demonstrated that you understand what 'empirical' means.

Until then, I predict Mr. Mozina shall continue to worship Apollo and call it "science".

Now, watch those goalposts move!

 

[Bishadi]

When the problem isn't related to any maths, yes.

the theorem in use is off and why so much speculation.

Math is the easy part but representing evidence to math, is what the current models have a tough time with.

You're trying to *IGNORE* the basic problem with your theory by *EXPECTING* me (or anyone) to find a "math error" in a paper with a *PHYSICS* error. Your ERROR is not related to the maths, it's directly and specifically related to a lack of a cause/effect relationship demonstration between gravity around objects made of mass and "dark" stuff you made up in your collective head.

He didnt make it up. Many rendered the idea. Some consider 'dark matter' like a black hole of stuff, that dont give light. The orig idea was that the universe is full of mass, that aint within stars (lit up to see).

I agree with the orig reference, but when goofs start creating computer models and then publish 'this is it', then anyone can see, it aint the evidence that is exhibiting the dark model but the creation of a model that is combining the evidence (observational) with the physics, (predictions) as neither has EVER conformed to the other (observational evidence versus predictions of mathematical theorem)

If folks actually realized that "evidence and the math has NEVER been reconciled and matched" within the whole of the universe, then folks will begin to realize the honest approach is far more valid than complacent acceptances.


The reason you WILL NOT be able to have a decent conversation within anyone on this site with 'fringee ideas', is because so far, i haven't bumped into anyone with enough material information between their ears to maintain a coherant conversation.

That is my opinion!