Science is not a religion, but some scientists ARE religous about their science

[Michael Mozina]

Except for the FACT that Shuglin does not even have the physics of the BBt correct and his critiques are therefore strawmen.

Now you will note I did not criticize Shuglin as a crank, I criticized the ideas in the paper.

Your criticisms are "usually" directed at ideas rather than people. I simply noted that Thunderbolts commentary to point out that you have human faults too.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Not really. For every scientist you can name to support your hypothesis (e.g. Alfred Wegener^WP or Ilya Prigogine^WP) we can name several who don't (e.g. John Bardeen^WP or Michael O. Rabin^WP or Edward Mills Purcell^WP or Arno Penzias^WP or Walter Alvarez^WP).

As I understand it, Linus Pauling^WP was first labelled a crank for his political activism, which led eventually to his Nobel Peace Prize. He won a Nobel Prize in chemistry before his advocacy of megavitamin therapy and vitamin C became well known and controversial.

Among those who have won the Turing Award^WP, I see a couple of cranky personalities but none who were labelled a "crank" for their discoveries. Marvin Minsky^WP might come closest, but he won the fourth Turing Award in the same year one of his most controversial books (Perceptrons^WP) was published.

In my experience, scientists are far more likely to be labelled "crank" by non-scientists than by their fellow scientists.

So is Alfven a "crank" in your opinion?

 

[GeeMack]

This is another prefect example of your industry's strong emotional need to attack individuals rather than ideas being presented.

Attack? Hardly. I was holding you up as a shining example of what this thread is all about.

 

[paximperium]

What exactly have you "accomplished" in your life that's so damn important to you, let alone the whole world anyway?

Several papers on strokes, clinical treatments and I've trained many physicians but then I'm not trying to overturn the whole of reality.

FYI, I measure my accomplishments as a husband of over 20 years, a father for more than 18 years and the fact I've kept a roof over their head and kept them fed and provided them with a loving home. I measure my accomplishments in terms of being self employed for more than 17 years, and for being able to live in such a beautiful environment and raise my family here.

So that's zero accomplishments for your crank beliefs.

I don't really care what you think of me personally, but your emotional need to villianize me and anyone you disagree with on some particular topic (do we even disagree about the theory of evolution for instance?) is really a pathetic debate tactic. The fact you're turning your attentions to me personally just demonstrates that emotional need you all have to attack the individual rather than the issues themselves. It's really an intriguing study of the human psyche, and the need of the human psyche to see everything in terms of "black and white", and to viallinize the greatest "threat" to their current belief system with a passion.

Who are you again? Do you have any education I should consider or studies you've published that I should have heard about?

Just out of morbid curiosity, have you even read "Cosmic Plasma" by Alfven, or are you just winging this as you go?

Sorry. I'm not a physicists or pretend to be. The math would probably be beyond my education. Seems to be an accomplished person that nuts love to misquote.

Why, are you suppose to be a physicist? Are you claiming to be one? Do you understand the math? Are you claiming actual education on this topic?

 

[paximperium]

This is another prefect example of your industry's strong emotional need to attack individuals rather than ideas being presented. By this definition, Birkeland was a "crackpot". Alfven with his Nobel prize (do you have one of those by the way) was also a "crackpot" big time because that's all he ever wrote about. I guess I'll just have to live with the fact that I'm in good company. Since your whole belief system is driven by blind fear and blind rage, and blind ignorance, your opinions of me are utterly irrelevant.

Really? Would you care to actually present some evidence that any of these individuals was ever labeled a crackpot or cranks?

 

[quarky]

Well, as often, I had to skim. The speed reading course I bought ($99.99 plus hateful tax) just didn't work.

I have 2 points to make here.
1. Shulgin is a real chemist. You don't synthesize new drugs with woo. It requires some real science. Try to forget that he is a hippy. Old one too.
2. I have put chiggers and ticks on my ignore list. So far, they don't seem to notice.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Several papers on strokes, clinical treatments and I've trained many physicians but then I'm not trying to overturn the whole of reality.

So if you haven't really stuck your neck out on any particular topic, what right do you have to judge anyone that does?

So that's zero accomplishments for your crank beliefs.

Which beliefs? My belief in evolutionary theory? My belief in particle physics theory? My beliefs in PC theory? Do you consider Alven's views about the application of MHD theory to space to be "crank" beliefs? What did he ever accomplish in your mind?

Who are you again?

Is that scientifically relevant to the concept of "right or wrong" in your mind somehow?

Do you have any education I should consider or studies you've published that I should have heard about?

Why not consider the "ideas" rather than the people? Did Alfven have the "credentials" you're looking for? If not, why would you expect me to have better "credentials"?

Sorry. I'm not a physicists or pretend to be. The math would probably be beyond my education. Seems to be an accomplished person that nuts love to misquote.

That works both ways actually.

Why, are you suppose to be a physicist? Are you claiming to be one? Do you understand the math? Are you claiming actual education on this topic?

Did Alfven "understand the math"? If my views are more similar to his than your beliefs, does that make you the one with "crank beliefs"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Really? Would you care to actually present some evidence that any of these individuals was ever labeled a crackpot or cranks?

Do you consider Alfven's cosmology views to be "crackpot' beliefs? Define "crackpot"' in some empirically quantifiable manner.

 

[paximperium]

So if you haven't really stuck your neck out on any particular topic, what right do you have to judge anyone that does?

I've stuck my neck out for several things and have accomplished some change with my minor research. What have you done again?

Which beliefs? My belief in evolutionary theory? My belief in particle physics theory? My beliefs in PC theory? Do you consider Alven's views about the application of MHD theory to space to be "crank" beliefs? What did he ever accomplish in your mind?

So that's a continued zero accomplishments.

Is that scientifically relevant to the concept of "right or wrong" in your mind somehow?

It is relevant when irrelevant nobodies with no education or accomplishments to talk of keep attempting to sound relevant or important. So what's your education or studies that you've published again?

Why not consider the "ideas" rather than the people?

What ideas? The ideas that are respected or the ones that cranks love to use?

Did Alfven have the "credentials" you're looking for? If not, why would you expect me to have better "credentials"?

So you have none. Who are you again?

Did Alfven "understand the math"? If my views are more similar to his than your beliefs, does that make you the one with "crank beliefs"?

Ah, the very lame argument from authority. So you lack any accomplishment or education and are now hiding behind Alfven? What did some fella say again...oh yes, "Is that scientifically relevant to the concept of "right or wrong" in your mind somehow?"

 

[paximperium]

Do you consider Alfven's cosmology views to be "crackpot' beliefs? Define "crackpot"' in some empirically quantifiable manner.

I'm sorry. Would you care to actually present some evidence that any of these individuals was ever labeled a crackpot or cranks?

I enjoy your moving goalpost and stuff but if you unable to back up your whining martyrdom game perhaps you should stop making unsupportable claims or have the balls to back it up.

 

[quarky]

I'm sorry. Would you care to actually present some evidence that any of these individuals was ever labeled a crackpot or cranks?

I enjoy your moving goalpost and stuff but if you unable to back up your whining martyrdom game perhaps you should stop making unsupportable claims or have the balls to back it up.

I have back up balls. Sometimes I miss being picked on by the resident geniuses
Even Complexity would have a beer with me these days.

Pax,

Are we OK?

 

[paximperium]

I have back up balls. Sometimes I miss being picked on by the resident geniuses
Even Complexity would have a beer with me these days.

Pax,

Are we OK?

I have no problems with people who don't make idiotic claims. I'd have a beer with you.

I'm no genius. I've gotten where I am in my career by hardwork and by not being an idiot. I have a problem with cranks who love their self importance without the balls to actually do the hard work. These lazy morons who refuse to work towards an education or do the hard work of actual research annoy me more than anything.

They don't do anything except pretend to be important and insult the work of others.

 

[paximperium]

I already told you what I value in life and what I've "accomplished". Again, what do *I* have to do with anything? What do "accomplishments" have to do with anything?
<Snipped garbage?
No, I'm promoting a world view (universal view) that Alfven also proposed to show you that your "accomplishments" pale in comparison, and your "righteousness" in terms of "accomplishments" is meaningless and scientifically bankrupt.

So you are out to "promote" your interpretation of the work of someone who actually accomplished many things in his life? I don't have a problem with that at all. If you believe in someone's work, I'd say go ahead and promote his or her work.

So by "promote", I'm assuming you've done some hard work.
You know like get an education? Research?
...you know actual work, actual accomplishments that actually do things such as "prove" your or your "hypothesis" correct.

You have done things like that. Haven't you?

 

[Toke]

MM,
I wonder why criticism of ones/your maths skills can be a personal attack when the subject is physics?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

So is Alfven a "crank" in your opinion?

Hannes Alfvén^WP was no more a crank than Isaac Newton^WP. That means, of course, that we needn't take Alfvén's cosmological beliefs any more seriously than Newton's alchemy.

Did Alfven "understand the math"?

Not entirely. To connect this discussion to the topic of the thread, I will cite two examples of Alfvén's misunderstanding of the mathematics of relativity, both taken from his polemical "Cosmology: Myth or Science", J. Astrophys. Astr. (1984) 5, 79-98.

From section 2.5 (Special Relativity):

It was claimed that "Einstein has discovered that space is four-dimensional", a statement which is incorrect....

However, the fourth coordinate which Einstein introduced was not time, but time multiplied by √-1. From a mathematical point of view this is elegant, because it meant that the Lorentz transformation can be depicted as a turning of a coordinate system in four-dimensional space. However, from a physical point of view it does not give any new information.

Einstein really did introduce time as a fourth dimension, of a manifold that's pseudo-Riemannian^WP rather than Riemannian. Alfvén's explanation of the fourth coordinate as time multiplied by √-1 works for special relativity but not for general relativity.

From section 3.3 (Big-Bang Hypothesis):

But the main stem of general relativity carries several other branches...the most popular one is the Big-Bang cosmology. It is based on Friedman's solution of Einstein's equations. This solution has a singular point.

Alexander Friedmann^WP discovered an entire family of solutions for Einstein's equations. Not all of Friedmann's solutions imply singularities (although most do). For example, Einstein's static universe^WP is one of Friedmann solutions. As Wikipedia notes:

This dynamic cosmological model of general relativity would come to form the standard for the Big Bang and steady state theories. Friedman's work supports both theories equally, so it was not until the detection of the cosmic microwave background radiation that the steady state theory was abandoned in favor of the current favorite Big Bang paradigm.

In other words, Alfvén is simply incorrect when he claims that the Big Bang is based on mathematics alone. The modern preference for solutions compatible with the Big Bang was driven by empirical observation of those solutions' predictions (including but not limited to the cosmic microwave background radiation).

Do you consider Alfven's cosmology views to be "crackpot' beliefs? Define "crackpot"' in some empirically quantifiable manner.

The crackpot index developed by John Baez defines "crackpot" in an empirically quantifiable manner. Applying Baez's crackpot index to Alfvén's "Cosmology: Myth or Science" polemic, I get a negative score: not crackpot.

That doesn't mean Alfvén's right. It doesn't even mean his publications are free of mistakes or misleading rhetoric.

 

[Toke]

Because the ideas you're getting all huffy and puffy about were first proposed by Birkeland and Alfven and they both clearly laid out their maths for you to inspect. What do my personal math skills have to do with the validity of *THEIR* proposals? What's the point of villianizing the messenger?

Your maths skills are quite relevant to whether you understand what you are reading, and whether you can relate it to new data.
If you don't understand their maths there is a serious risk of misrepresenting their ideas.

 

[technoextreme]

*Whistles* You who.... Religious nutcase who help create plasma cosmology.

 

[Dancing David]

Thunderbolts as a whole, or a few members? Define "violate the physics of plasma"

In that they claim effects over scales that they by definition and the behavior of plasma, could not happen.

That is fairly simple is it not.

in contrast to what Alfven said about "magnetic reconnection'? IMO you have scientific history standing on it's head.

No plasma effects can not go the distance that many Thunderbolt proposals would have, thus they are talking about behavior that would not happen.

You obviously have mistaken me for someone else.

I guess it's all a matter of perspective, wouldn't you say? What's with the emotional need to go on crusade against *ONE* specific website anyway? I could rail on more than a few, but I fail to see the point of painting with such a large paintbrush.

I guess you did not read my post did you, maybe you should remove the paint roller out of your eye Michael.

From my perspective, one of the single most common debate tactics you folks use is the personal attack, starting with questioning of one's math skills (which you always "dis"), and really ending with "name calling".

Sorry the debye length is real and a real effect in plasmas, therefore certain aspects of plasma can not go past a certain distance.

So many of Thunderbolts statement comment and surmises are wrong.

I did not call them names, except for the one attempt at humor.

They just say they are all about plasma when they ignore it.

The whole thing reeks of a "Christian" calling an atheist "evil" for not believing exactly as they do.

You are full of your own ego Michael, that is not what I said at all.

i said that there are people who complain that there ideas are not accepted because of 'close-minded' and the like. When in fact they are wrong about physics.

So are you a crazy fanatic, I mean now really Michael, that is the second bogus statement you have made about me.

I'm seeing so many parallels in these debates in terms of the villianization process, it's not funny. It's actually quite sad IMO, because it's basically a witch hunt.

Keep your ego out of my statements Michael, you personal battles are not mine, I treat you well, so back off the paranoia man. the irony of the over broad paintbrush is amazing.

You are mistaking me for someone else, quite rude of you.

You should hear a half dozen astronomers explain "inflation" or "dark energy" sometime. You guys use magic words too.

I know you don't like general relativity, you are just ranting.

Again, you seem to be painting with a very broad brush, you're unwilling to even entertain "electrical" anything in terms of solar physics,

******** and why people call you a liar Michael and I have never done any such thing and you are rude.

and your whole industry has an aversion to electricity in space,

My industry?

WT Fred?

You are full of ****, quite offensive too.

that is almost identical to that of a religious zealot who's harping on the evils of "satan".

You are the only one displaying zealotry, making false accusations and apparently not even knowing who I am or what I post.
Sheesh.

You guys seem to utterly ignore all of Birkeland's work on solar physics, all of Alfven's work on solar physics, and fixate on simply the "magnetic" aspects of what's going on out there.

Not me *******.

It's really like an ostrich hiding it's head in the sand pretending the whole universe is going to change just because they continue to hide their head in the sand.

"I'm shocked".

You are really quite rude, I never did.

The problem here David is that the same was said by Alfven of what you're calling "magnetic reconnection".

Michael, pull you head out of your ***********************.

Or back to ignore with you. I have always been very polite to you.
Figures that it is wasted on you, because of YOUR dogma.

If you continue to berate Alfven's whole approach to the application of MHD theory to objects in space, and you continue to cling to something Alfven rejected his entire life, how can you ever be sure that you were actually "right" about any of it?

It seems to me that the only way for science to remain "healthy" is for all sides to adopt a "live and let live" approach and let things progress without all the hostility. The problem in my experience however is that as long as you continue to paint everyone with such a broad brush, we all continue to talk past one another and nothing really changes.

Keep your personal problems on the grade school playground. You are off IGNORE, but one more idiotic , straw filled , lack of truthfulness post from you and back you go.

I mean really MM, I just zeros out my IGNORE file, quite an accomplishment to be such a rude person in your second post to me in a while.

L8TOR

 

[GeeMack]

Again, my personal math skills are irrelevant since no scientific theory rises or falls on my personal math skills.

Again, yes, your personal math skills are relevant to your argument for or against other people's work when proper interpretation of that work is strictly dependent on understanding the math involved. And since your qualifications to understand math at the level of a grade school kid have been challenged, and you have been unable to demonstrate that you possess those skills at that level, your attempts to properly understand and present anyone's work in physics, astrophysics, cosmology, or related fields in a reasonable, rational way is likely to end in failure. You have personally demonstrated this to be true innumerable times over the past half a decade.

 

[paximperium]

Yep.

You have? Great then you wouldn't mind presenting your education qualifications and research that you've actually put the hard work towards accomplishing.

*MY* hypothesis? It thought we just agreed that it was *THEIR* idea? Why do I personally have to "prove" anything again?

So you're not trying to "prove" or "promote" anything?

Do I need to have "accomplishments" to promote and agree with other theories too, like the theory of evolution, or the theory of general relativity? I'm still not clear on why you feel it's so important for the messenger/general promotor to have "accomplishments" in order to present another persons ideas. Is it necessary for *ME* to be "accomplished' or was it important that Darwin was educated and had accomplishments? I'm still unclear why you believe that each individual that promotes any idea has to be "accomplished".

Actually YES. You see, if you are trying to promote something, failing consistently by accomplishing nothing and making yourself and your beliefs look nothing more than the beliefs of a uneducated crank with no education, no math skills and basically no accomplishments in his/her life does not promote anything. In fact your consistent failures would be considered detrimental to whatever you're trying to promote.

So yes, Charles Darwin actually needed to be educated enough to understand what he was seeing; educated enough to create a hypothesis; educated enough to understand the other hypotheses out there; educated enough to communicate this information; educated enough to write it down. In the end he accomplished something. He was a success and he promoted his hypothesis and become one of the most important scientific figures in history.

You seems to have no education to understand what you are seeing, no education to understand the math, no education to understand the research, no education to be able to present these claims coherently. In the end you have accomplished nothing. You have failed to promote your hypothesis and become one of the multitude of forgotten cranks in scientific history.

You see MM. You may be right. Your beliefs may be 100% correct. But your failure to promote it in an intelligent or educated way is YOUR failure. You are too lazy to work towards your goal. You are too lazy to actually get that silly pHD in physics or work for years before getting your lab and telescope time. You are too lazy to do the math. You are too lazy to actually work towards this thing that you enjoy just failing to do anything with. Instead you enjoy whining about how others don't understand your hypothesis or how the "establishment" is biased against you.

Maybe one day someone with more education, math skills and actual balls to do the research may come forth and actually successfully show the world the reality of your pet hypothesis. This fella will be infamous and well known. Who are you again?