Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[Sideroxylon]

Martin Gardner's "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science" has plenty to say on the subject and is a good read.

 

[Michael Mozina]

ah you mean like "big bang"

That's the part the actually fascinates me from the standpoint of psychology. Mainstream theory *IS* a "creation" theory where all matter is "created" at a specific date that they cannot actually physical justify without invisible friends. Oy Vey.

 

[AnnoyingPony]

It's easier than real physics.

This. Also, because most people don't have any grasp of physics past high school, it's easy to mislead them with nonsense about quantum physics, etc. (*coughWhatTheBleepDoWeKnow!?cough*

 

[AnnoyingPony]

That's the part the actually fascinates me from the standpoint of psychology. Mainstream theory *IS* a "creation" theory where all matter is "created" at a specific date that they cannot actually physical justify without invisible friends. Oy Vey.

You don't need to insert God into the Big Bang equation. Also, the Big Bang and the universe are not living things. And they are certainly not our friends.

 

[Sideroxylon]

That's the part the actually fascinates me from the standpoint of psychology. Mainstream theory *IS* a "creation" theory where all matter is "created" at a specific date that they cannot actually physical justify without invisible friends. Oy Vey.

Its another narrative but its the one that best explains our observations of the cosmos and was supported by at least one novel prediction along the way.

 

[Drachasor]

That's the part the actually fascinates me from the standpoint of psychology. Mainstream theory *IS* a "creation" theory where all matter is "created" at a specific date that they cannot actually physical justify without invisible friends. Oy Vey.

You could make similar ridiculous statements about the implications of evolution and biology, btw, but that doesn't invalidate the science one bit.

Denying a well-supported theory because you don't like how it looks or what it states is actually what is at issue here.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You're kidding yourself if you think there's a big difference between the two in terms of science -- I assume you're making some ridiculous jab at astrophysics.

You're kidding yourself if you think there *ISN'T* a big difference between the two. TANGIBLE physics produces *TANGIBLE* goods. Physics like electrical engineering physics brought me this computer I'm working on today. It created a cell phone I use on a daily basis. It created the washing machine in my house, the dryer, the electrical lighting, etc, etc, etc. These have a TANGIBLE and REAL effect on my life.

The "invisible sky entity physics" produces *NO* tangible goods here on Earth, no useful products based on inflation, dark energy, dark matter, etc. They have created a nice "creation mythos' that is entirely dependent on invisible sky entities that are *IMPOTENT* on Earth and produce nothing TANGIBLE in the real world.

Big difference.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Denying a well-supported theory because you don't like how it looks or what it states is actually what is at issue here.

What is actually at "issue" here is the same "issue" that applies to "atheism". A lack of a belief in "invisible sky entities" does not make one a "narcissist".

 

[D'rok]

That's the part the actually fascinates me from the standpoint of psychology. Mainstream theory *IS* a "creation" theory where all matter is "created" at a specific date that they cannot actually physical justify without invisible friends. Oy Vey.

EU crackpots don't seem to have a problem talking about intergalactic electric currents strong enough to power stars even though such things have never been observed. Why the double standard?

 

[AnnoyingPony]

ah you mean like "big bang"

Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being. The Big Bang is not creationism because it is not a supernatural entity, and physicists don't worship it as such. Also, to my understanding, the Big Bang only caused the beginning of the universe. It did not create the world as we know it all at once.

Mainly it's about conformity. If 98% of the population believes in deities, there is pressure on the 2% to conform. If 98% believe in "black hole" or "big bang", there is pressure on the 2% to conform. We can't even really say for sure that 98% does believe in these ridiculous fables, but if it isn't the full 98%, it's just more evidence for the power of conformity.

You're not making any sense. Black holes and the Big Bang have much more evidence than the existence of deities.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You don't need to insert God into the Big Bang equation.

No, you need three *OTHER* invisible sky entities to do your mythical dirty work instead. You have your own trilogy of invisible sky entities, all of which are impotent on Earth.

Also, the Big Bang and the universe are not living things. And they are certainly not our friends.

Well, you certainly rely on them for everything, now don't you?

 

[Drachasor]

You're kidding yourself if you think there *ISN'T* a big difference between the two. TANGIBLE physics produces *TANGIBLE* goods. Physics like electrical engineering physics brought me this computer I'm working on today. It created a cell phone I use on a daily basis. It created the washing machine in my house, the dryer, the electrical lighting, etc, etc, etc. These have a TANGIBLE and REAL effect on my life.

The "invisible sky entity physics" produces *NO* tangible goods here on Earth, no useful products based on inflation, dark energy, dark matter, etc. They have created a nice "creation mythos' that is entirely dependent on invisible sky entities that are *IMPOTENT* on Earth and produce nothing TANGIBLE in the real world.

Big difference.

Astrophysics will come in very handy when we have the means to move around planets. Just because we aren't there yet, doesn't mean the science isn't sound.

You might as well complain about most of the science that led to those "tangible" goods. Frankly, a lot of this stuff starts out as "useless" without any applications. It is only by continuing the exploration of nature that we eventually reach a point where we can apply what we know to make stuff.

Btw, Dark Matter is perfectly potent on Earth. If it wasn't, then we'd fly off into the void since our galaxy wouldn't hold itself together.

 

[Drachasor]

What is actually at "issue" here is the same "issue" that applies to "atheism". A lack of a belief in "invisible sky entities" does not make one a "narcissist".

Eh? I don't really see how what you said there makes any sense.

And all you are doing is denying sound science because it doesn't give you a cool toy. That's childish.

 

[MattusMaximus]

What is actually at "issue" here is the same "issue" that applies to "atheism". A lack of a belief in "invisible sky entities" does not make one a "narcissist".

What about those scientists who are both atheists and accept the science behind the big bang cosmology, like me? You seem to be playing with false dichotomies here.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.

The only difference is that the mainstream has "supernatural dead entities', and some currently existing yet physically impotent on Earth entities. So what?

The Big Bang is not creationism because it is not a supernatural entity,

Sure it is. Inflation is certainly just as "supernatural" of an energy source as any "living being" ever proposed.

and physicists don't worship it as such.

Sure they do. They depend on it for their daily bread. If you rock the boat too much you lose your job.

Also, to my understanding, the Big Bang only caused the beginning of the universe. It did not create the world as we know it all at once.

They claim that all observable matter was "created" in a singular event. That's a "creation myth". Were they there and saw it, or is like Genesis where we go "in the beginning the invisible sky entity inflation say "let their be light"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

What about those scientists who are both atheists and accept the science behind the big bang cosmology, like me? You seem to be playing with false dichotomies here.

No, I'm making HONEST comparisons that they should be able to relate to. If they reject an "invisible creator" on empirical grounds, they should understand my rejection of inflation, dark energy and dark matter mythologies.

 

[Arthur Mann]

In addition, a number of crackpots buy into what I call the "Einstein fallacy", in that they think it's a David vs. Goliath sort of thing: they have "the truth" and they're going up against the big, bad, close-minded, dogmatic physics establishment.

I think you're a little confused, the crackpots are the ones with the consensus view, as is typical. Theism is a good example, the consensus view is that deities exist. Which group is the crackpots? The popular myth is that bumblebees have been "proven" unable to fly for aerodynamic reasons. This is not the case. It's not even what scientists have suggested, which is that bumblebees don't appear to intake enough calories to keep their bodies in the air. Subsequently it was discovered these animals have a springy muscle between their wings that captures and re-uses energy from wing flaps. We have good science that shows their flight is possible, and not only do most people still perpetuate the myth that it's "proven" they can not, they also get the reason why they "can not" wrong. So which group there is the crackpots, the consensus view or the scientists? I could give endless examples, but I'm sure you can think of many others where "the majority is always wrong". Is the majority typically on the cutting edge of physics and cosmology, or is it always a tiny minority of people? Suffice it to say, most of what most people think they know is wrong. A full demonstration of this lies outside the scope of this thread, but perhaps that tangent can proceed in another thread. I'd love to see it.

 

[Drachasor]

Sure it is. Inflation is certainly just as "supernatural" of an energy source as any "living being" ever proposed.

Inflation isn't an energy source.

They claim that all observable matter was "created" in a singular event. That's a "creation myth". Were they there and saw it, or is like Genesis where we go "in the beginning the invisible sky entity inflation say "let their be light"?

Big Bang Theory doesn't state where matter/energy came from anymore than Evolution states where life came from.


Honestly, it doesn't seem like you understand what your are criticizing (big surprise).

 

[Arthur Mann]

But I think that specifically physics draws a specific kind of crackpot.

Yeah, the kind of crackpots that believe in "big bang", "black hole", "dark matter", "dark energy", pulsars that rotate as fast as a dentist's drill, unproven physics like "neutron star", and so on.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Astrophysics will come in very handy when we have the means to move around planets. Just because we aren't there yet, doesn't mean the science isn't sound.

"Tangible Physics" already comes in handy to GET US to planets. Mythical sky being physics will NEVER produce a tangible good, let alone anything useful to move planets around with.

You might as well complain about most of the science that led to those "tangible" goods. Frankly, a lot of this stuff starts out as "useless" without any applications. It is only by continuing the exploration of nature that we eventually reach a point where we can apply what we know to make stuff.

So how do I make stuff from "dark matter"? Where does it come from? Where do I get a measured quantity of the stuff?

Btw, Dark Matter is perfectly potent on Earth. If it wasn't, then we'd fly off into the void since our galaxy wouldn't hold itself together.

But of course you cannot demonstrate that claim in a lab, or demonstrate than any of the 'dark matter' you describe is composed of mythical forms of matter that are not on the periodic table or come from inside elements on that periodic table.