Why is there so much crackpot physics?

Tubbythin said:
It is precisely because we understand the properties of plasmas so well that we can rule plasma effects out. What is so difficult to understand about that?
Click to expand...

Its difficult for me to then explain how you cannot explain solar wind if you 'understand' how it works locally. If you don't understand how the *E(emphasis on E)M field manifests itself locally, what confidence can I have that you properly understand how to apply it to cosmology as a whole?

Empirical data from controlled experiments has been analysed that shows that the Universe is expanding at an increasing rate. A subset of solutions to this controlled set of observations are referred to as "dark energy". These solutions are consistent with GR.
Click to expand...

You could call it magic energy, it would still be consistent with GR and it would still be as useless as "dark energy" in terms of empirical physics.

Nobody except you is stuffing metaphysics in to GR.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that's the mainstream doing that trick. That dark energy has nothing to do with GR because you've never shown that "magical dark or any other kind of energy" has any tangible effect on objects of mass. You might as well handwave God energy into the same equations.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I rest my case.
Click to expand...

So, just to verify what you're agreeing to here, your entire arugment against modern physics is because you don't like the name they selected to represent an unknown? Were you ever tempted to declare math as "nothing more than mysticism" because you didn't like using "X" in algebra (X isn't a number! <insert froth here>)?

If you had actually read my post, instead of trying to score cheap points, you would have seen that the entire point of it was that the name is immaterial, the substance behind it is what's important. There's ample evidence of something out there. It doesn't fit anything we know. So, slap a label on it and work to find out what it is and what it's properties are. What label you slap makes absolutely no difference.
 
rwguinn said:
derailed again by MM and his pet theory--and people responding to it, rather than getting back on topic.
Click to expand...

You're right. I apologize for my part in it. Can we redirect the dark-matter discussion to the aptly-named Michael Mozina's thread on Dark Matter, Inflation and Cosmology ?

Back to general crackpots. I like my general categorization:

  • "General crackpottery" is biased towards (a) "fundamental physics" (quantum, particle, gravity, cosmology) and (b) "recreational mathematics" because they present themselves as field where armchair-level cleverness is important. Its victims portray themselves as leaders.
  • "Cult" crackpottery, taking one particular old idea and forming an in-group around it, is not physics specific; thus we have EU/PC, Velikovsky, Intelligent Design on a continuum with non-science-related conspiracy theory, 9/11 truthers, aliens, etc. Its victims portray themselves as followers or students.

Are there other categories? Perhaps "new age" quantum-harmonic-wellness-vibrations are distinct from either of the above, but I think the "crackpot" label might be too harsh. (They probably don't know much physics, chem, or bio, but nor do they pretend to; they've just borrowed the language.)
 
It's quite revealing that we can have so much rhetoric from crackpots about GR, but when asked for a detailed explanation of
[latex]G_\mu_\nu +\Lambda g_\mu_\nu = \dfrac{8\pi G}{c^4} T_\mu_\nu [/latex] the crackpots lose their ability to communicate. As has been said here by many:
Clearly, ignorance of mathematics is a key ingredient in their ability to sustain their fanciful musings and inability to understand real physics.
 
Perpetual Student said:
It's quite revealing that we can have so much rhetoric from crackpots about GR, but when asked for a detailed explanation of
[latex]G_\mu_\nu +\Lambda g_\mu_\nu = \dfrac{8\pi G}{c^4} T_\mu_\nu [/latex] the crackpots lose their ability to communicate. As has been said here by many:
Clearly, ignorance of mathematics is a key ingredient in their ability to sustain their fanciful musings and inability to understand real physics.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations

Oh for crying out loud!

b3f14edb49fd763ec19df7dcf1ff087e.png
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
You and I might both observe something in the sky that we cannot explain. That doesn't mean that I am going to jump to the conclusion that whatever we saw was from another planet. Likewise, we both seem to agree that there is "missing matter" to account for. I've offered you some ways to account for that "missing mass" that is supported by other observational studies. *BEFORE* I go jumping to any conclusions about the *remaining* missing materials, I would expect to see *some progress* at integrating in this other information about the stellar underestimation problems. Is that really expecting too much?
Click to expand...

The problem here is you are quibbling over a few percent of mass when what really needs to be dealt with is something like 80%. You are literally saying you expect a bit of dust and some more SMALL stars to be 5 times bigger than everything we know that is out there, and yet unobservable even when the big stars are out of the way.

You don't think they tried dang hard to avoid coming to the conclusion that there was mysterious matter out there? They most certainly did. That's why there were MACHOs and the like being proposed first. The problem is that these sources can't account for over 80% of the matter in the universe and they don't fit observations from things like the Bullet Cluster.

But yeah, I'm sure it's all some big conspiracy by astrophysicists because ALL OF THEM don't like your pet theory for irrational reasons. Yeah...THAT makes sense.
 
Michael Mozina said:
That's not true. As far back as Birkeland, EU/PC proponents have "predicted" (real experimental predictions) that the mass in the materials (ions) between stars was likely to be MUCH more massive than the stars themselves. They would form "current streams" of pinched filaments, cosmic rays, (today we would add neutrinos), all sorts of objects with 'mass". At no time has an EU/PC proponent believed that all mass was concentrated inside the stars themselves.
Click to expand...

Plasma is NOT invisible. It is seen and accounted for.

The invisible bits would be stuff like dust, and tiny stars near big stars, not vast stretches of plasma that would emit light.

Beyond that, again, PC doesn't fit with actual observed data, and tossing in neutrinos like that doesn't make any sense (and makes it seem like you don't know much about them at all).
 
dasmiller said:
this thread may (and several others) may be a bit slower for the next week:GeeMack and Michael Mozina suspended
Click to expand...


Oh rats, now we might be left with nothing to do but discuss the actual topic! :rolleyes:

At the risk of being Captain Obvious, one of the biggest motivations for crackpottery has to be of the "I've show Einstein was wrong, ergo I'm smarter than Einstein!" variety.

Does anyone know of books or essays on this subject? I'm thinking of something on the specific topic of the whys of science crankology, not more general works like Why People Believe Weird Things.

ferd
 
ferd burfle said:
At the risk of being Captain Obvious, one of the biggest motivations for crackpottery has to be of the "I've show Einstein was wrong, ergo I'm smarter than Einstein!" variety.
Click to expand...

In my, admittedly anecdotal experience, Einstein is usually held to be correct on all or almost all things by crackpots (though usually they aren't aware of all that much). I think this stems from the fact that Einstein is a very powerful figure to invoke in whatever you are trying to sell, and certainly a bad name to rebuke.
 
ferd burfle said:
Does anyone know of books or essays on this subject? I'm thinking of something on the specific topic of the whys of science crankology, not more general works like Why People Believe Weird Things.
Click to expand...

Underwood Dudley has written several books on math crackpots: "Mathematical Cranks" (one of the featured subjects sued him), "The Trisectors", and "Numerology". I haven't read any of them (yet!) but the appellate court decision in Dilworth vs. Dudley is a classic.
 
ben m said:
Underwood Dudley has written several books on math crackpots: "Mathematical Cranks" (one of the featured subjects sued him), "The Trisectors", and "Numerology". I haven't read any of them (yet!) but the appellate court decision in Dilworth vs. Dudley is a classic.
Click to expand...


Many thanks, ben. My iPad needs feeding so I will see if I can download some of these.

ferd
 
Drachasor said:
In my, admittedly anecdotal experience, Einstein is usually held to be correct on all or almost all things by crackpots (though usually they aren't aware of all that much). I think this stems from the fact that Einstein is a very powerful figure to invoke in whatever you are trying to sell, and certainly a bad name to rebuke.
Click to expand...


Yeah, they're probably a minority in the physics crackpot community but check out http://www.crank.net/einstein.html if you're interested in "Einstein Was Wrong"-types. I find I can only follow so many links at a sitting without starting to wonder if black really is white.

ferd
 
D'rok said:
Richard Posner. Awesome.

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/75/75.F3d.307.95-2282.html
Click to expand...
I love it!
Among the terms or epithets that have been held (all in the cases we've cited) to be incapable of defaming because they are mere hyperbole rather than falsifiable assertions of discreditable fact are "scab," "traitor," "amoral," "scam," "fake," "phony," "a snake-oil job," "he's dealing with half a deck," and "lazy, stupid, crap-shooting, chicken-stealing idiot."
Click to expand...
Caution: these terms may be considered "uncivil", however, if directed at an individual, rather than a group or ideas...
 
Someone earlier mentioned engineers with respect to crackpot physics. Here is an interesting discussion about that:

Most physics crackpots are engineers. More than 95% of my sample boast engineering degrees, or combine an undergraduate maths/physics degree followed by an engineering PhD or equivalent. This is not too surprising, as this may be the only kind of cursus that provides one with enough math background to understand the equations and formulae in the textbooks without actually studying maths and physics - which would show the crackpot why he’s misguided.
Click to expand...

LINK
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom