Why is there so much crackpot physics?

Arthur Mann said:
Are photons particles? Many experiments rule this out.

...

Are electrons particles? The bohr model has been almost universally rejected, and again, many experiments refute this.
Click to expand...

If you don't understand how the very small can behave like both a particle and a wave, then you really need to study more. Experiments prove the dual nature of particles.
 
Perpetual Student said:
would any of you, who hold opinions that are not consistent with mainstream physics and cosmology
Click to expand...

Consensus of opinion is not science. What you are characterizing as "physics and cosmology" is nothing more than a collection of fables based on wishful thinking and hero worship, so your challenge is nonsense.

Your challenge is unwarranted, but I feel confident in making the claim that my education in physics is unsurpassed by 98% of the population of this planet, or the population of this thread.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
It's rather sad really; just think how many wonderful things could be done if all that passion and energy had been devoted to something practical!
Click to expand...

Oh the irony, considering you worship dark invisible stuff that has *NO TANGIBLE EFFECT* on you and never will in your lifetime. Talk about sad....

Even most of your average theist religions provide more emotional comfort than your sad little dead and dark entity religion.
 
Michael Mozina said:
How do you know? Have you *TRIED* or are you just "assuming"?
Click to expand...

Scientists rejected it because it doesn't explain Comsic Background Radiation and other facts. The theory is simply wrong.

Michael Mozina said:
Sorry but you'll have to explain how that's even relevant considering the fact that 95+% of the universe is "plasma"?
Click to expand...

You really don't understand how describing the life cycle of the entire universe using plasma is a lot more difficult and error-prone than just describing the auroras? Seriously?
 
Drachasor said:
Of course, computer models are a kind of experiment and back up a lot of this stuff.
Click to expand...

Computer models are not experiments, any more than "thought experiments" (aka meandering speculation) are actually experiments. They are cartoons. Basing a belief system on cartoons is frivolous and profoundly stupid. That said, there are many people who do it.
 
Arthur Mann said:
Consensus of opinion is not science. What you are characterizing as "physics and cosmology" is nothing more than a collection of fables based on wishful thinking and hero worship, so your challenge is nonsense.

Your challenge is unwarranted, but I feel confident in making the claim that my education in physics is unsurpassed by 98% of the population of this planet, or the population of this thread.
Click to expand...

You don't even understand basic physics; you're hardly in a position to say Cosmology is a collection of fables.
 
Perpetual Student said:
I am quite willing to discuss my educational background and have done so when there has been a specific purpose -- in other threads. If you are not willing to do so -- OK -- I understand.;)
Click to expand...

My personal credentials are neither impressive nor relevant as far as I can tell. Alfven's credentials were *FAR* more impressive and *FAR* more relevant. Since he's pretty much the messianic figure of PC theory, and you're calling him a "crackpot", I think it might be useful for you to explain your personal credentials, particularly in the realm of MHD theory. I'd also to curious to know if you're actually read Cosmic Plasma? I'd give you personally a free pass either way since I know you've read at least *ONE* relevant cosmology paper that I recommended, but I have no idea how much of his whole works you've actually read for yourself. How many papers of his have you sat down and read?
 
Last edited:
Arthur Mann said:
Computer models are not experiments, any more than "thought experiments" (aka meandering speculation) are actually experiments. They are cartoons. Basing a belief system on cartoons is frivolous and profoundly stupid. That said, there are many people who do it.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Modeling events can show that a theory is good when it conforms with observation and makes accurate predictions. It's a handy way to test theories involving a lot of complex variables where it would be too difficult to do so by hand. Computational Science is an extremely useful and fruitful field.
 
Arthur Mann said:
I stand corrected, finally. What I should have said is an electron laser is a laser that uses a stream of electrons as the lasing medium. It's a minor error to call this kind of laser a "maser", and really one of convention in any case.
Click to expand...

What? Do you even know what you are saying? A laser uses photons, not electrons. And a maser is a laser which uses microwave photons specifically.

Is it possible this is what you're talking about? If so, you're doing a piss-poor job of communicating it.
 
Michael Mozina said:
My personal credential are neither impressive nor relevant as far as I can tell. Alfven's credentials were *FAR* more impressive and *FAR* more relevant. Since he's pretty much the messianic figure of PC theory, and you're calling him a "crackpot", I think it might be useful for you to explain your personal credentials, particularly in the realm of MHD theory. I'd also to be curious to know if you're actually read Cosmic Plasma? I'd give you personally a free pass either way since I know you've read at least *ONE* relevant cosmology paper that I recommended, but I have no idea how much of his whole works you've actually read for yourself.
Click to expand...

AGAIN, relevant to COSMOLOGY?

Show me where he had as much expertise in Cosmology and Astrophysics as he did in Plasma Physics, and then you might be on to something.

Hell, EINSTEIN was a goddamned crackpot in some areas, namely he gave some weight to Velikovsky's ******** about Earth catastrophes (I think so, though I'm not sure just how far he went with it) and some crap about Atlantis and "Pole Shift" catastrophism theories. Yet I accept relativity. That doesn't mean I have to accept all that other truffle. And as was mentioned before, Newton was involved with alchemy and other stuff. So if I accept Newtonian mechanics as useful, does that mean that I must also accept his work on alchemy as valid and relevant, too?
 
Last edited:
mike3 said:
Credentials are not so relevant. What's relevant is EVIDENCE -- and that's what I wan to see you and other "cranks" here address. The point you need to understand is this: if you can't explain the EVIDENCE for conventionally-accepted theory, then why should your theory be accepted? From what I can tell, your theory seems to be based on doing away with evidence -- ignoring all the evidence for plate tectonics, stellar fusion, Big Bang, and so on... Not trying to explain it, just flat out ignoring it. What you need is a theory that can a) consistently explain all this evidence and b) make new predictions that would enable its confirmation or negation. So far, I have not seen such theory.
Click to expand...
From what I can tell, your theory seems to be based on doing away with evidence -- ignoring all the evidence for plate tectonics, stellar fusion, Big Bang, and so on... Not trying to explain it, just flat out ignoring it.

Curiously, I think he's sincere when he protests that he doesn't ignore any of it.

What I think is happening is that the vast bulk of the evidence is quantitative, and he doesn't do quantitative. That means making up a complicated, highly idiosyncratic explanation that can't be explained to anyone. It must be terribly frustrating, honestly feeling that you've done your best to explain this tangled mess of stuff (as it seems to everyone else), yet no one understands you.

Worse, all the while they keep trying to get you to talk about 'numbers' and 'equations' and so on, things which never become clear to you, no matter how hard you try (anger is, perhaps, a quite rational response in these circumstances).
 
Arthur Mann said:
Are photons particles? Many experiments rule this out.

Are electrons particles? The bohr model has been almost universally rejected, and again, many experiments refute this.
Click to expand...

Yes, to both questions. Rather, both photons and electrons exhibit particle-like properties, and they also exhibit wave-like properties. This is known as wave-particle duality.

As for the rest of your post(s)...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom