Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[Michael Mozina]

In the end, I generally rely on expert opinions (perhaps retaining a bit of skepticism) because I am aware of my own limitations and respect the intelligence and years of dedication of specialists.

And therein lies the rub IMO. I have heard many theists claim that they 'trust the experts' in terms of the clergy that taught them their beliefs and they 'trust" them more than they trust (evil/crackpot) old me and/or my beliefs. That's a very *DIFFICULT* thing to overcome. You can logically explain over and over again why creationism has no empirical support over and over and over again, yet the scientific arguments become meaningless to them. Their belief in the 'experts' supersedes anything I might ever say to them, no matter how logically thought out my response might be. I will forever remain an "evil/crackpot" in their mind.

In the end your position comes down to ''faith", faith that a PHYSICAL FAILURE can be overcome with some 'better mathematical understanding" of why the impotent sky god won't show up in a lab. Sorry, I don't buy that nonsense. No amount of mathematical understanding is going to fix that gaping empirical hole in your beliefs.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Indeed. There is no conspiracy among all legitimate scientists and all the educators, grad students, and post grad students who study physics intensively every singe day.

Yet none of them can tell me where dark energy comes from, let alone how to control it. Your sky god entities are just as impotent on Earth as any religious entity, in fact more so. Who claims to have an emotionally fulfilling relationship with inflation or dark energy?

 

[Bishadi]

I became very interested in this question (OP), as a result of the many threads started by and populated by crackpot physics and cosmology advocates.

you like to see but still not sure

It is easy and (I think quite natural) to prefer intuitive explanations for complex phenomena.

because to understand a phenomena, it is best comprehended with practical application.

In the end, I generally rely on expert opinions (perhaps retaining a bit of skepticism) because I am aware of my own limitations and respect the intelligence and years of dedication of specialists.

but like any previous change in logic, the cracks have to overcome the complacent intellectuals of the period.

ie... einstein, waiting 15 yrs beyond the 'miracle year' to be given cudos and darwin was dead almost 100yrs before the WORLD had given his interpretation credibility.

Why is that? Well, I have a BA and MS in mathematics and I did a minor in physics (47 years ago), so I do have some notion about the rigors of academic specialization. Consequently, I have a sense of my own limitations – which seems to be the lacking ingredient among these crackpots.

most of physics dont do experiments unless just the basics for class work.

The new technological observations often expose strange phenomenon. So in EACH FIELD of science, often diverse tangents are exposed that offer evidence of existing failures within the existing paradigm. To combine a whole bunch of these annomalies within the disciplines, then it is not so tough to realize, by anyone, that much of the items believed within the current models are wrong.

what is so unique is the majority of the cranks are just like you and i but capable of putting themselves on the block to be heard, while the conformist will not.

the difference is the value to honesty over belief (the same argument that occurred within the religious divides)

– I don’t know what else might account for the amazing tenacity shown by some crackpots here.

most are human beings with more love for reality, than just protecting themselves from the cranks of accepted beliefs.

Science needs more of the seekers than believers.

 

[KingMerv00]

Michael Moniza,

What predictions does plasma cosmology make that are different from Big Bang cosmology? In what way have they been experimentally verified?

 

[Tubbythin]

Considering the previous paradigm failed to "predict" an accelerating universe, and you're about to *STUFF* it with 75% of metaphysical energy, how exactly are you defining "best available"? It seems to me that you're sort of winging this as you go and doing 'whatever it takes" to keep that otherwise dead "creation" theory alive. Why?

1) Its not a creation theory.
2) It gives an excellent quantitative explanation of many of the observed cosmological phenomena in the Universe. No other cosmological theory comes close. In that sense it quite clearly is the best available.

We now know the "properties" of plasma from *REAL* lab experiment with *REAL* control mechanisms.

You have demonstrated repeatedly that you do not know what a control mechanism is, let alone a "*REAL*" one, whatever that may be.

We KNOW FOR A FACT that electrical current through plasma will in fact do all the "necessary' things we observe in our local solar system.

No, we know for a fact that it can't. It won't, for example make the Moon orbit the Earth or the Earth orbit the Sun. And it won't produce 10²⁶ J of energy every second for ~10¹⁰ years.

Don't you think that maybe, just maybe it's time to "start over", and begin with a 'NON PROPHETIC' approach?

Pardon?

Shouldn't we maybe start by putting together the pieces of how things work INSIDE OUR SOLAR SYSTEM and then work ourselves outward?

We know how things work in the solar system. Fusion of hydrogen to helium powers the Sun while Newtonian gravity gives a pretty good description of how planets orbit the Sun and moons orbit their planets. And if you want to be really precise you can use GR.

What's the point of clinging to a creation event story that has consistently failed to correctly *PREDICT* major aspects of our universe?

This is the SMT forum. If you want to discuss the book of Genesis please to the religion and philosophy forum.

Suddenly from nowhere you want me believe that 75% of the universe is made of mythical energy you can't produce here on Earth?

I couldn't care less what you believe. But given that you think the Sun has a solid surface I won't even attempt to predict what you would or wouldn't think should be deemed believable. By the way, do you even know what myth is?

I see no evidence yet that the mainstream is even *INTERESTED* in exploring any other EMPIRICAL options, certainly not *INSIDE* of this solar system, let alone outside of it.

How would you know? You do not know what empirical means.

They seem to have no understanding of what a 'discharge' might be ,or how currents manifest themselves in plasmas.

They have a lot better idea than you!

But it *WASN'T* close to reality! That's why is was recently (last 15-20 years or so) stuffed with a new form of mythical "ad hoc" energy that now supposedly makes up more than 70% of the universe.

It was extremely close.

Evidently however is a completely impotent on Earth.

Negligible perhaps. Not impotent. Not that this is the slightest problem to any right thinking scientist. We should not have expected the Universe to have been designed for our convenience. Unless of course you believe the Universe was designed for our convenience. In which case I would again suggest heading the way of the religion and philosophy forum.

That came from *CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTATION*. We knew from CONTROLLED experiments that either a law of physics was being violated or their was a small piece of energy/matter not accounted for in some nuclear decay reactions. We knew *EXACTLY* where they came from, how to reproduce them, how we might empirically detect them, etc.

And the supernova observations were from controlled experimentation too (without or without capitalisation).

Where does 'dark energy' come from?

Depends on the theory. And how philosophical you want to be.

 

[Tubbythin]

]In the end your position comes down to ''faith", faith that a PHYSICAL FAILURE can be overcome with some 'better mathematical understanding" of why the impotent sky god won't show up in a lab. Sorry, I don't buy that nonsense. No amount of mathematical understanding is going to fix that gaping empirical hole in your beliefs.

The only one talking about impotent sky gods is you. You alone. And I can only assume this is due to your inability to make a scientific argument.

 

[Tubbythin]

Yet none of them can tell me where dark energy comes from, let alone how to control it. Your sky god entities are just as impotent on Earth as any religious entity, in fact more so. Who claims to have an emotionally fulfilling relationship with inflation or dark energy?

Nobody claims them to be sky God entities except you. You are arguing with your own imagination. Until you stop doing this I can't see anybody taking you seriously.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Considering the previous paradigm failed to "predict" an accelerating universe, and you're about to *STUFF* it with 75% of metaphysical energy, how exactly are you defining "best available"? It seems to me that you're sort of winging this as you go and doing 'whatever it takes" to keep that otherwise dead "creation" theory alive. Why?

The previous paradigm (dynamics and general relativity) for a start explains our observations of bodies within our solar system and on earth. I cant see why they might predict an accelerating universe. I was defining best available in terms of explanatory power. i.e. the idea allows us to make sense of a number of observations and give us the ability to make accurate predictions. These narratives are tools and while there is not a better one, why wouldn't we stick with it. The other point that I tried to make was that past success gives us confidence that there may well be some truth in it.

We now know the "properties" of plasma from *REAL* lab experiment with *REAL* control mechanisms. We KNOW FOR A FACT that electrical current through plasma will in fact do all the "necessary' things we observe in our local solar system. Don't you think that maybe, just maybe it's time to "start over", and begin with a 'NON PROPHETIC' approach? Shouldn't we maybe start by putting together the pieces of how things work INSIDE OUR SOLAR SYSTEM and then work ourselves outward?

I don't have the knowledge to wade into that debate, but the history of science gives me confidence that if this idea has better utility than our existing narratives it will win out.

What's the point of clinging to a creation event story that has consistently failed to correctly *PREDICT* major aspects of our universe? Suddenly from nowhere you want me believe that 75% of the universe is made of mythical energy you can't produce here on Earth? I see no evidence yet that the mainstream is even *INTERESTED* in exploring any other EMPIRICAL options, certainly not *INSIDE* of this solar system, let alone outside of it. They seem to have no understanding of what a 'discharge' might be ,or how currents manifest themselves in plasmas.

It logically follows from our best theories, which served us well, that dark matter exists.

But it *WASN'T* close to reality! That's why is was recently (last 15-20 years or so) stuffed with a new form of mythical "ad hoc" energy that now supposedly makes up more than 70% of the universe. Evidently however is a completely impotent on Earth.

That our current ideas are not close to reality has yet to be demonstrated.

That came from *CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTATION*. We knew from CONTROLLED experiments that either a law of physics was being violated or their was a small piece of energy/matter not accounted for in some nuclear decay reactions. We knew *EXACTLY* where they came from, how to reproduce them, how we might empirically detect them, etc.

The neutrino was eventually demonstrated to exist by controlled experimentation but prior to that some were even contemplating giving thermodynamics the heave ho. We may well have dark matter demonstrated to exist in a future experiment.

Where does 'dark energy' come from?

Don't know - I am the wrong person to speculate. Newton couldn't tell us anything about the nature of gravity at the time but he gave us model with great utility through explanatory and predictive power.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael Moniza,

What predictions does plasma cosmology make that are different from Big Bang cosmology? In what way have they been experimentally verified?

I guess that depends on how you define "cosmology" and where you wish to begin. The sig line I use from Birkeland is the first successful "prediction" (true lab prediction) of PC/EU theory. The second one was the aurora (produced by the first). The third example are 'discharge loops' in the solar atmosphere, etc.

If we want to expand outward, we should expect this same sort of electrical pattern to play itself out in the form of high speed "current flows" from galaxies (jets). There are actual "predictions" (real lab predictions too) of EU theory.

Peratt lists may similarities between his software simulations and the universe around us. I suggest you start there.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The previous paradigm (dynamics and general relativity) for a start explains our observations of bodies within our solar system and on earth. I cant see why they might predict an accelerating universe.

Well, GR is in no way dependent upon "inflation" or "dark energy". Let's start there. Secondly, I have no problem with your stuffing a KNOWN FORCE OF NATURE into a GR theory say MHD THEORY FOR INSTANCE to create some sort of "accelerating universe". If however you stuff magic into those GR formulas, I frankly don't care it you can "make it fit". It's still "make believe".

I was defining best available in terms of explanatory power. i.e. the idea allows us to make sense of a number of observations and give us the ability to make accurate predictions.

But now we're actually talking about "postdictions" aren't we?

These narratives are tools and while there is not a better one, why wouldn't we stick with it. The other point that I tried to make was that past success gives us confidence that there may well be some truth in it.

Sure, just as there will be "some truth' to GR theory, even if you personally stuff it full of "dark" thingies that don't actually exist in nature. The same would be true if I stuffed GR formulas full of magic.

I don't have the knowledge to wade into that debate, but the history of science gives me confidence that if this idea has better utility than our existing narratives it will win out.

In my experience, empirical physics always "wins out', but usually only after everyone's been kicking and screaming for a century or two. Look at evolutionary theory today. How many people *STILL* reject that concept?

It logically follows from our best theories, which served us well, that dark matter exists.

"Missing Matter" probably exists. The term "dark' seems to relate more to our ignorance than anything else.

The neutrino was eventually demonstrated to exist by controlled experimentation but prior to that some were even contemplating giving thermodynamics the heave ho. We may well have dark matter demonstrated to exist(?)

IMO "dark matter' theory is the *LEAST* objectionably part of the metaphysical trio. There's at least a *SLIM* hope of finding some empirical support of *SOME KIND* of new form of matter in the LHC experiments. Whether any of those new forms might 'fit the bill" in terms of longevity, "coldness", etc, remains to be seen. Even still, there is hope of physical confirmation here on Earth. That's WAY more than can be said for inflation and DE.

Don't know - I am the wrong person to speculate. Newton couldn't tell us anything about the nature of gravity at the time but he gave us model with great utility through explanatory and predictive power.

True but both of us experience gravity here on Earth right now. When was the last time 'dark energy' had any effect on your daily life?

 

[GeeMack]

Yet none of them can tell me where dark energy comes from, let alone how to control it.

I'm sure we'd all agree that a lack of ability on the part of crackpots to understand legitimate science does not invalidate the science.

Your sky god entities are just as impotent on Earth as any religious entity, in fact more so.

It is, of course, a lie to suggest that I have any sky god entities when in fact I don't.

Who claims to have an emotionally fulfilling relationship with inflation or dark energy?

Nobody as far as I know. I'd venture a guess that only a dyed-in-the-wool idiot crackpot would suggest anyone does.

Now if you want to preach about various inane conjectures, take them to the appropriate threads. The crackpot strategy of attempting to derail every thread into a discussion about their pet nutty notions is more than worn out. Oh, and it's against the rules of the JREF forums, too. This thread is to explore the possible reasons crackpots are drawn to subjects, particularly physics, when it seems to be radically outside most of their qualifications, understanding, or intellectual capabilities.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nobody claims them to be sky God entities except you. You are arguing with your own imagination. Until you stop doing this I can't see anybody taking you seriously.

The only place inflation and DE show up is somewhere 'out there' (in the sky), where humans can never hope to reach. Talk about "faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab)! Holy cow.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm sure we'd all agree that a lack of ability on the part of crackpots to understand legitimate science does not invalidate the science.

In other words, you can't answer my question either, so I'm just the "evil/crackpot' because your dark sky emperor has no empirical clothes.

No amount of villianizing me personally is going to change that *EMPIRICAL* fact.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nobody claims them to be sky God entities except you. You are arguing with your own imagination. Until you stop doing this I can't see anybody taking you seriously.

You're probably right that I'm resorting to melodramatic language and shock value commentary to get your attention. I do however think it's important that you understand the real reason people reject standard theory and what beliefs bind the EU/PC community. Thus far you still seem pretty clueless. You seem to think it's somehow related to one's math skills, when in fact Alfven was the one that started PC theory (formally at least) and he rejected all types of what he called "prophetic' forms of cosmology.

It really doesn't matter if you ever take me seriously. It only matters that you take Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven, Peratt, Lerner, Dungey and many others "seriously'. Their work deserves "serious' consideration, not some handwave that amounts to pure denial.

PC theory works in the lab and works in nature. Your stuff *NEVER* works in lab *WITHOUT* electricity, and most of it doesn't work at all in the lab.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nobody as far as I know.

Then clearly your impotent sky entity is more impotent on Earth than your average religious entity.

 

[Tubbythin]

The only place inflation and DE show up is somewhere 'out there' (in the sky), where humans can never hope to reach.

Evidence for DE and inflation show up in the photons detected by our detectors on Earth and in space.

Talk about "faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab)!

Nothing to do with "faith". Everything to do with quantitative measurement.

Holy cow.

Enough with the religion. This is the science forum.

 

[R.A.F.]

In other words, you can't answer my question either, so I'm just the "evil/crackpot' because your dark sky emperor has no empirical clothes.

I wouldn't say "evil". More like stubborn in the face of evidence.

...and you've a "crackpot" because of your iron Sun "theory"...certainly no ones "fault" but your own.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I wouldn't say "evil". More like stubborn in the face of evidence.

What evidence? You can't even tell me where dark energy comes from let alone how to control it. That alone is all the "evidence" I need to reject your theory and to justify my of "lack belief" in dark stuff.

...and you've a "crackpot" because of your iron Sun "theory"...certainly no ones "fault" but your own.

Oh well. I've seen you folks call Penrose a crackpot and Alfven and Birkeland would be the king and prince of all crackpots since they wrote PC theory. I guess I'm in good company at least.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Evidence for DE and inflation show up in the photons detected by our detectors on Earth and in space.

Nope. I haven't even heard a single one of you deal with Lerners note about the CMB and it's relationship to the local superclusters.

Nothing to do with "faith". Everything to do with quantitative measurement.

You can 'measure" something like "acceleration". You can only "verify' that acceleration is 'caused by' something in the lab. Your stuff is an epic fail in the lab.

Enough with the religion. This is the science forum.

That epic fail in the lab is what your theory and many religions share in common.

 

[R.A.F.]

What evidence?

Well, observationally we can look at the Sun and see that it isn't coated by an iron shell.

You can't even tell me where dark energy comes from let alone how to control it.

So what? I'm certainly not going to rely on any information provided by someone who has a questionable, observational "skill set".

That alone is all the "evidence" I need to reject your theory and to justify my of "lack belief" in dark stuff.

"My" theory?? Where did I propose a theory??