• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Why is there so much crackpot physics?

Yes, Wegener did not have a mechanism -- which made continental drift a difficult concept to accept. However, the statement, "Wegener was not correct. Continental Drift is an invalid theory" is a stretch.

Alfred Wegener first thought of this idea by noticing that the different large landmasses of the Earth almost fit together like a jigsaw. The Continental shelf of the Americas fit closely to Africa and Europe, and Antarctica, Australia, India and Madagascar fit next to the tip of Southern Africa. But Wegener only took action after reading a paper in Autumn 1911 and seeing that a flooded land-bridge contradicts isostasy.[5] Wegener's main interest was meteorology, and he wanted to join the Denmark-Greenland expedition scheduled for mid 1912. So he hurried up to present his Continental Drift hypothesis on 6 January 1912. But it wasn't considered to be sufficient evidence in itself. He analyzed either side of the Atlantic Ocean for rock type, geological structures and fossils. He noticed that there was a significant similarity.

From 1912, Wegener publicly advocated the theory of "continental drift", arguing that all the continents were once joined together in a single landmass and have drifted apart. He supposed the cause might be the centrifugal force of the Earth's rotation ("Polflucht") or the astronomical precession. Wegener also speculated on sea-floor spreading and the role of the mid-ocean ridges, stating: the Mid-Atlantic Ridge ... zone in which the floor of the Atlantic, as it keeps spreading, is continuously tearing open and making space for fresh, relatively fluid and hot sima [rising] from depth.[6]
Click to expand...
LINK
The continents certainly do "drift" on their respective plates.
 
Last edited:
No, it's not a stretch. Continental drift is a specific theory, one which Wikipedia isn't doing justice to. Plate tectonics is a completely different theory. They deal with the same subject matter, but one is correct and the other incorrect. And no, continents do NOT drift on their respective plates--that's the whole problem with continental drift as a theory. The oceanic crust moves over the plastic mantel, and the continental crust (usually) goes along for the ride. The "usually" in there is because when you get a chunk of continental crust in a subduction zone things tend to go a bit weird. Either way, continents do not (and cannot) move through oceanic crust. It would take less energy to pulverize the felsic material in continental crust than it would take to move it through oceanic crust.
 
Your quibble with the word "drift" is not convincing. We do not say that "Darwin was wrong" because he had no knowledge of DNA and genes. Science often moves along with imperfect concepts that are ultimately ironed out.
 
Your quibble with the word "drift" is not convincing. We do not say that "Darwin was wrong" because he had no knowledge of DNA and genes. Science often moves along with imperfect concepts that are ultimately ironed out.
Click to expand...
It's not a quibble about the word "drift". A large number of Wegener's ideas are WRONG. Continents do NOT move through oceanic crust--they CANNOT move through oceanic crust. It's impossible; whatever force was proposed to move them would crush the rock before it could move an inch. Which means they don't drift through their respective plates (plates are made primarily of oceanic crust). All of that was well known when Wegener proposed continental drift, and his failure to deal with that in a reasonable manner is why I call him a crackpot. I'm not saying that everything Wegener said was wrong (though much of what he said that turned out to be correct were previously noted). I'm saying that his theory of continental drift was wrong, and the reasons why it was wrong are pure crackpottery.

The correct view is that oceanic crust moves, and continental crust floats along with it. The oceanic crust was thought to be driven by convection, but it's now thought that the driving force is ridge push/slab pull. These are, despite the vernacular interchangebility of the terms, three separate theories.

That's prat of the problem right there--people who know a little about a field think they know more than they do. Honestly, if you ask random people what continental drift is as a theory they'd give the same answers Perpetual Student does--it's what Wikipedia says, after all (and honestly the professors teaching introductory geology don't do much better). It's only once you get into the subject matter far more deeply that you realize what Wegener did wrong, and that he really did have some crackpot ideas. Velikovski is another person who appears to be completely reasonable on the surface, but once you study the subject you realize he's out of his mind. I can only imagine physics has similar issues.
 
Last edited:
Many of us have known a great deal about Wegener and plate tectonics for many years without having looked at Wikipedia and many of us do actually understand the many things that Wegener got wrong; after all -- he was not a professional geologist. Einstein and Darwin got many things wrong also. You are indeed quibbling with the word "drift."
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Ya, and may the couch potato critics of empirical physics do a little reading in 2011. ;)
Click to expand...
I'm not certain what the term "couch potato" signifies in this context since reading is not exactly an aerobic activity. In any case, yes, many of us have done a great deal of reading about physics and cosmology. However, some of us have decided to focus on genuine science since life is too short to waste on crackpot drivel.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Ya, and may the couch potato critics of empirical physics do a little reading in 2011. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes. Maybe you could read up on 20th century cosmology. I'd recommend neutrino physics for Haig. For the banned Arthur Mann I'd recommend a book on the fundamentals of electromagnetism.
 
It has become clear to me that an unfortunate merging of narcissism, paranoia and ignorance are at the root of crack-pottery!
 
Last edited:
Perpetual Student said:
I'm not certain what the term "couch potato" signifies in this context since reading is not exactly an aerobic activity. In any case, yes, many of us have done a great deal of reading about physics and cosmology. However, some of us have decided to focus on genuine science since life is too short to waste on crackpot drivel.
Click to expand...

I agree. I am an interested layman and I read as many science books as I can. The head librarian of Antwerp city library told me that I had borrowed the most books over the last ten years. No fiction. I can tell crackpottery from the real tabasco.
 
Tubbythin said:
Yes. Maybe you could read up on 20th century cosmology. I'd recommend neutrino physics for Haig. For the banned Arthur Mann I'd recommend a book on the fundamentals of electromagnetism.
Click to expand...

Yes,MM seems to know very little about these subjects.
 
Perpetual Student said:
As an addendum:
Before I discovered this forum, I had no idea that so much crackpot physics existed. I had never heard of electric universe, plasma cosmology, etc. Previously, my only familiarity with crackpot science was creationism. I have come to be fascinated by these people and I have been struggling to understand them, what drives them, why and how they can adhere to their patently false ideas.
I have no intention of insulting anyone; so I hope to hear mainly from non-crackpots.
Click to expand...

from http://www.scribd.com/doc/36568510/A-Novel-and-Efficient-Synthesis-of-Cadaverine

Edited by jhunter1163: 
Do not copy and paste large blocks of text in their entirety. Links are OK. The quoted passage runs from page 64 to 68 at the above link.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay I am able to comprehend the most complicated physics theories in science but for pseudo science, no idea.
 
Frying Dutchmen said:
Okay I am able to comprehend the most complicated physics theories in science but for pseudo science, no idea.
Click to expand...

If someone were to seriously claim that 2 + 2 = 5, we reasonably hope to help such a person.
If you were then to contrive a variety of demonstrations with coins put in sets of 2 and show that the result is 4, but if that someone still insisted that the result is 5, there is no comprehending that person.
That's what I have observed at times in these threads. Observational, experimental and mathematical evidence is shown again and again but there is no comprehension for the crackpot, whose pet beliefs remain firm in spite of overwhelming evidence. For the crackpot 2 + 2 = 5! There is no demonstration, evidence, logic or discussion that can change that and there is no comprehending such a person, other than knowing that there exists some confluence of narcissism, paranoia, inability to understand mathematical concepts and ignorance behind the problem.
So we live with flat earth people, moon landing hoaxers, EU groupies, creationists, anti-vaccine people, anti-Einstein people etc., etc. They really do believe 2 + 2 = 5 -- passionately!
 
Emet said:
I believe you can find many MDs who are crackpots, sometimes educated at prestigious medical schools.
Click to expand...

I was dismayed last week, while having a small growth on my forearm removed and biopsied (benign, was just a rare kind of wart) by my family doctor, when the subject of autism came up... very dismayed.
"Well, something is causing it. There weren't any children like that when I was growing up. These days I see them everywhere." :covereyes
 
Yes, indeed! Recently, I was advised by an ophthalmologist to use some eye-drops he had on hand that would help my heart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom