Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[Drachasor]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

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.

These things weren't made up for no reason. They explain observed phenomena and make predictions that are confirmed. So, no, it isn't the same thing at all.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Drachasor

Inflation isn't an energy source.

It isn't anything except a "made up' thing that has *NO USEFUL PURPOSE* outside of BB mythos. "In the beginning inflation separated the heavens and the Earth".....

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by Arthur Mann

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.

Don't forget gravity. Those gravitists are everywhere, you know.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

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.

Except that there is empirical evidence which supports the existence of the latter three, at least to a certain degree. I will agree that there are issues with things like dark matter (which I'll focus on), but the astrophysics community is already well aware of those issues. For example, why is it that you think so many physicists are attempting to directly detect dark matter particles in laboratory experiments? They are trying to detect these things (be they WIMPS or whatever) because they know there are a lot of people, like me, who think the dark matter hypothesis is probably the best thing we have going now, but it cannot be considered truly solid until we detect the stuff directly. The history of how neutrons & neutrinos were proposed theoretically and subsequently detected by direct experimentation is, I think, an excellent analogy.

And, btw, despite your desire to confuse the issue of the science of cosmology with religion/philosophy via making false dichotomies, there are plenty of people who have varying philosophical/religious backgrounds who agree on the big bang cosmology as it is currently understood. On that point, the evidence is clearly against you, for the simple fact that people like me (atheists who accept the BBC) exist.

[Drachasor]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

"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.

Again, you could have said the same thing about early nuclear research, electromagnetism, and many, many other things.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

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.

There's plenty of matter we know of and have detected that doesn't appear on the periodic table. Do you know nothing of particle physics? Jeebus. We can create some of this is labs and the new supercollider should be able to make more.

[Drachasor]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

It isn't anything except a "made up' thing that has *NO USEFUL PURPOSE* outside of BB mythos. "In the beginning inflation separated the heavens and the Earth".....

It explains observed phenomenon, that serves a useful purpose. It makes predictions about how the Universe will continue to change, that serves a useful purpose. It might lead to other things that have other useful purposes.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Drachasor

These things weren't made up for no reason.

One could make the same argument about God. How do you know the "reason" is anything more than "because it makes us feel good"?

Quote:

They explain observed phenomena and make predictions that are confirmed.

Oh bull. All those "predictions" were "postdictictions" that were made to fit. Dark energy was the latest installment of "Ooops, our actual "predictions' failed, so add a liberal dose of ad hoc acceleration entities.

Quote:

So, no, it isn't the same thing at all.

It's exactly the same thing. It gives astronomers a good warm fuzzy feeling to believe they understand how we got here. Their BB theory becomes a God like (created from) surrogate, and it requires "faith in the unseen", just like any other ordinary religion.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Except that there is empirical evidence which supports the existence of the latter three, at least to a certain degree. I will agree that there are issues with things like dark matter (which I'll focus on), but the astrophysics community is already well aware of those issues. For example, why is it that you think so many physicists are attempting to directly detect dark matter particles in laboratory experiments? They are trying to detect these things (be they WIMPS or whatever) because they know there are a lot of people, like me, who think the dark matter hypothesis is probably the best thing we have going now, but it cannot be considered truly solid until we detect the stuff directly. The history of how neutrons & neutrinos were proposed theoretically and subsequently detected by direct experimentation is, I think, an excellent analogy.

Reasonable answers like this will get you nowhere here.

[Drachasor]

Anyhow, OP, I think you can see how crackpot physics involved a tremendous amount of ignorance of actual physics. (And with that, I have to dash).

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by D'rok

Reasonable answers like this will get you nowhere here.

It will with the lurkers

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Drachasor

Again, you could have said the same thing about early nuclear research, electromagnetism, and many, many other things.

Not at all. Those things were all EXPECTED to product tangible products here on Earth. Who here expects to see a tangible good come from a dead inflation entity?

Quote:

There's plenty of matter we know of and have detected that doesn't appear on the periodic table. Do you know nothing of particle physics?

You must have missed that rider I put in there about 'inside of elements on the periodic table?

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

It will with the lurkers

I get most of my science edumacation by lurking, so carry on sir!

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

It's exactly the same thing. It gives astronomers a good warm fuzzy feeling to believe they understand how we got here. Their BB theory becomes a God like (created from) surrogate, and it requires "faith in the unseen", just like any other ordinary religion.

Do you think atoms are real, or is that more pseudo-religious "faith in the unseen", as you like to say?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Except that there is empirical evidence which supports the existence of the latter three ,at least to a certain degree.

No. Very *LIMITED* evidence supports the fact that we can't figure out how the universe works. We can "guess" at how it might work by simply making up stuff, or we can admit our ignorance and live with ambiguity. The later option seems to drive theists towards God, and mathematicians toward BB theory. Same basic motive. They want to understand how we got here and they are willing to "make up stuff" if they need to in an effort to have "completion" somehow.

Quote:

I will agree that there are issues with things like dark matter (which I'll focus on), but the astrophysics community is already well aware of those issues. For example, why is it that you think so many physicists are attempting to directly detect dark matter particles in laboratory experiments? They are trying to detect these things (be they WIMPS or whatever) because they know there are a lot of people, like me, who think the dark matter hypothesis is probably the best thing we have going now, but it cannot be considered truly solid until we detect the stuff directly. The history of how neutrons & neutrinos were proposed theoretically and subsequently detected by direct experimentation is, I think, an excellent analogy.

I'll be the first to grant you that "dark matter" theory is the least objectionable of the three metaphysical amigos because it *MIGHT* someday enjoy some real physical support.

Quote:

And, btw, despite your desire to confuse the issue of the science of cosmology with religion/philosophy via making false dichotomies, there are plenty of people who have varying philosophical/religious backgrounds who agree on the big bang cosmology as it is currently understood. On that point, the evidence is clearly against you, for the simple fact that people like me (atheists who accept the BBC) exist.

It is not a false dichotomy in terms of explaining *WHY* skeptics of mainstream theory tend to reject it. The rejection process is directly related to that "no show in the lab" part, and the "lack of belief" that is related to that "invisible" stuff.

[Arthur Mann]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

I guess they see themselves as...up against a dogmatic scientific establishment.

I think you're a little confused, it's the dogmatic establishment where the crackpots find a home, not among its critics. Where else can you suggest "unobservable" stuff like "black hole" or "dark matter" and still get away with calling yourself a "scientist". These people aren't scientists, they're clowns.

"Organized" science is just as fruitless and misguided as "organized religion", once you set up an established structure, that structure will perpetuate itself, even in the absence of conflicting evidence. Look how long the "flat earth" model persisted in the gestalt hive mind, look at ptolemic epicycles, look at spontaneous generation, or any of the uncountable myths that were held as the consensus for ages. Consensus is not the way to do science, that's why there are so many crackpot "physicists" suggesting ridiculous fables like "big bang" or "black hole". They're just going with the flow.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Do you think atoms are real, or is that more pseudo-religious "faith in the unseen", as you like to say?

Atoms have "been seen" in the lab now, even things as small as electrons have "been seen" in the lab now.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0222095358.htm

Got an image of "inflation" for me?

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Atoms have "been seen" in the lab now, even things as small as electrons have "been seen" in the lab now.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0222095358.htm

What about quarks? Gluons? More "faith in the unseen"?

Quote:

Got an image of "inflation" for me?

Do you mean an image that can be seen or an "image" that can be "seen"?

ETA: Since you asked... it's called the WMAP data...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflati...ational_status

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

What about quarks? Gluons? More "faith in the unseen"?

To my "knowledge" only the Higgs remains "unseen" as in has not been seen to have a direct effect on real things. In that sense, yes even particle physics is in fact based on "faith in the unseen". It however has some hope of "seeing" a Higgs here on Earth, if not now, some day. When can I expect to see inflation here on Earth?

Quote:

Do you mean an image that can be seen or an "image" that can be "seen"?

I'm saying "show me a tangible effect" in a real "experiment' with real "control mechanisms".

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

To my "knowledge" only the Higgs remains "unseen" as in has not been seen to have a direct effect on real things. In that sense, yes even particle physics is in fact based on "faith in the unseen". It however has some hope of "seeing" a Higgs here on Earth, if not now, some day. When can I expect to see inflation here on Earth?

Pffftt... so particle physics is just nothing more than religious mumbo-jumbo

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

What about quarks? Gluons? More "faith in the unseen"?



Do you mean an image that can be seen or an "image" that can be "seen"?

ETA: Since you asked... it's called the WMAP data...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflati...ational_status

Er, no. That isn't an image of inflation, it's an image of the physical universe and a handwave: "Inflation did it". Of course you can't demonstrate *ANY* of those "properties' assigned to inflation in a real lab. They are all "made up" properties, like a theist might "make up" attributes of a deity and then handwave at the sky.

[AnnoyingPony]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

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

They're not dead because they were never alive to begin with. And what "entities" are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

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

Supernatural means that it's above nature, that it doesn't occur in compliance with the laws of the natural universe. Everything used to explain the Big Bang is consistent with what we already know about the universe.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

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

Academia doesn't work that way. They aren't a coherent group with an orthodoxy. If you find enough consistent evidence to back up a claim for a new theory, your name is basically guaranteed to go down in history as a pioneer. For instance, Charles Darwin.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

They claim that all observable matter was "created" in a singular event. That's a "creation myth".

Creation myths are just symbolic stories, narratives designed to explain how things are without any evidence to support them. The Big Bang is not a story. It is a scientific theory with evidence to support it.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

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"?

The assertion that they had to be there to know how it happened is insane troll logic. How do investigators solve murders? Are they actually present at every murder, or do they see the aftermath and come to a conclusion from analyzing the data around them? Is a murder case also a "myth"?

Anyway, I don't feel like wasting my time explaining simple logic and science to Arthur Mann's sock puppet.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Pffftt... so particle physics is just nothing more than religious mumbo-jumbo

Not at all. You skipped that part about particle physics theory having *HOPE* of directly seeing the Higgs here on Earth. When can I expect to see inflation show up in a lab experiment?

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Er, no. That isn't an image of inflation, it's an image of the physical universe and a handwave: "Inflation did it". Of course you can't demonstrate *ANY* of those "properties' assigned to inflation in a real lab. They are all "made up" properties, like a theist make "make up" attributes of a deity and then handwave at the sky.

Actually, an analysis of the WMAP data did confirm numerous predictions of Guth's inflationary theory. Try reading the link first.

Btw, I hope you have fun continuing to worship your priestly class of particle physicists and their made up "Quark-gluon gods"

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by Arthur Mann

I think you're a little confused, it's the dogmatic establishment where the crackpots find a home, not among its critics. Where else can you suggest "unobservable" stuff like "black hole" or "dark matter" and still get away with calling yourself a "scientist". These people aren't scientists, they're clowns.

"Organized" science is just as fruitless and misguided as "organized religion", once you set up an established structure, that structure will perpetuate itself, even in the absence of conflicting evidence. Look how long the "flat earth" model persisted in the gestalt hive mind, look at ptolemic epicycles, look at spontaneous generation, or any of the uncountable myths that were held as the consensus for ages. Consensus is not the way to do science, that's why there are so many crackpot "physicists" suggesting ridiculous fables like "big bang" or "black hole". They're just going with the flow.

But the good ideas won out in the end though, didn't they? Do you think that conservatism in science can play a valuable role by keeping efforts and resources focused long enough to make new discoveries through the existing paradigm?

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Not at all. You skipped that part about particle physics theory having *HOPE* of directly seeing the Higgs here on Earth. When can I expect to see inflation show up in a lab experiment?

So plate tectonics is also merely pseudo-religion since it cannot be shown to occur in a laboratory experiment? Those geologists are just pushing their religion!!!11!1

ETA: Applying Michael Mozina's standards, here are other "religions" posing as "science" because they cannot be replicated directly in the lab...

Weather & climate science
Comparative planetology
Solar physics
All forms of celestial mechanics

... anyone got any others? See how much fun semantic word games can be?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by AnnoyingPony

They're not dead because they were never alive to begin with. And what "entities" are you talking about?

Where do I get some "inflation" to put into a real experiment to demonstrate any of it's "assumed" "properties"?

Quote:

Supernatural means that it's above nature,

What other vector or scalar field in nature experience multiple exponential increases in volume with little or no change in density. It's as "supernatural" an entity as they come.

Quote:

that it doesn't occur in compliance with the laws of the natural universe.

Where can I go to get 'inflation"?

Quote:

Everything used to explain the Big Bang is consistent with what we already know about the universe.

No. Only 4% is "known universe". The rest they simply "made up" in a purely ad hoc manner, most recently their dark energy entity that nobody had ever heard of, one magic day suddenly makes up 75% of the universe. They're making this up as they go.

Quote:

Academia doesn't work that way. They aren't a coherent group with an orthodoxy. If you find enough consistent evidence to back up a claim for a new theory, your name is basically guaranteed to go down in history as a pioneer. For instance, Charles Darwin.

Charles Darwin talked about things that exist on Earth. Where might I go to get inflation to put it under a microscope?

Quote:

Creation myths are just symbolic stories, narratives designed to explain how things are without any evidence to support them. The Big Bang is not a story. It is a scientific theory with evidence to support it.

It's still a "creation myth" that makes them feel good. It gives them comfort to think they know *WHEN* all matter came to exist, down to the last 100,000k years or so. Great. Were they there? Did they see the inflation genie do all this?

Quote:

The assertion that they had to be there to know how it happened is insane troll logic. How do investigators solve murders? Are they actually present at every murder, or do they see the aftermath and come to a conclusion from analyzing the data around them? Is a murder case also a "myth"?

Ya, but when you claim the murderer was an invisible ghost, I think it becomes "fantasy", not CSI "physics".

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

So plate tectonics is also merely pseudo-religion since it cannot be shown to occur in a laboratory experiment? Those geologists are just pushing their religion!!!11!1

Oh no, those those occur *HERE ON EARTH* and since I live in California I've personally experienced many land shift.

[rwguinn]

This could have been such an interesting discussion...

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

So plate tectonics is also merely pseudo-religion since it cannot be shown to occur in a laboratory experiment? Those geologists are just pushing their religion!!!11!1

ETA: Applying Michael Mozina's standards, here are other "religions" posing as "science" because they cannot be replicated directly in the lab...

Weather & climate science
Comparative planetology
Solar physics
All forms of celestial mechanics

... anyone got any others? See how much fun semantic word games can be?

You sort of missed a few issues there didn't you? Each of those branches of science can and might directly effect me personally on Earth here today. When might the angry inflation entity have any direct tangible effect on me today?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

This could have been such an interesting discussion...

You mean if you met no opposition to calling those who "lack belief" in mainstream theory "crackpots"? Would that have actually been 'interesting'?

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Oh no, those those occur *HERE ON EARTH* and since I live in California I've personally experienced many land shift.

I think meant to say that you are an unthinking robot going along with the dogmatic religious belief called plate tectonics. Plate tectonics cannot be shown in lab experiments, therefore it isn't science, it's religion...

... because Michael Mozina said so!

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

You sort of missed a few issues there didn't you? Each of those branches of science can and might directly effect me personally on Earth here today. When might the angry inflation entity have any direct tangible effect on me today?

But your argument was that inflation wasn't science because it couldn't be shown in the lab. Neither can plate tectonics or any of the stuff I mentioned in that list, therefore - by your own argument - those things are not science, they are religion.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

I think meant to say that you are an unthinking robot going along with the dogmatic religious belief called plate tectonics. Plate tectonics cannot be shown in lab experiments, therefore it isn't science, it's religion...

... because Michael Mozina said so!

Earthquakes affect real people here on Earth. When was the last time inflation made the Earth move (or anything move) *OUTSIDE* of your creation mythos?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

But your argument was that inflation wasn't science because it couldn't be shown in the lab. Neither can plate tectonics or any of the stuff I mentioned in that list, therefore - by your own argument - those things are not science, they are religion.

Did you miss my whole "Tangible physics", vs. "point at the sky and make up a creation mythos physics"?

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

This could have been such an interesting discussion...

Yes, I had hoped for a different kind of discussion, but the thread has been hijacked -- as I had feared it might be.

[Arthur Mann]

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

Combine that with a simple understanding that makes sense to them, and there's your recipe.

Yeah, I think this is what happened in the case of "big bang", a belgian priest invented this "let there be light" story, and many scientists were fooled into thinking it made sense.

The same thing probably happened with "black hole", it's an absurd and unscientific notion on its face, yet it has gained wide support among the crackpots.

A similar pattern is seen in the "dark matter" philosophy. This philosophy states that most of the matter in the universe is unobservable. Clearly crackpottery, and yet it remains the consensus view. Combined with "dark energy", these crackpots suggest that about 80% of the universe is utterly unobservable, clearly an untenable position, yet this remains the consensus view among both established, paid researchers and the population as a whole.

[Skwinty]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Earthquakes affect real people here on Earth. When was the last time inflation made the Earth move (or anything move) *OUTSIDE* of your creation mythos?

The problem is that not everything is actually here on earth.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

Yes, I had hoped for a different kind of discussion, but the thread has been hijacked -- as I had feared it might be.

Sorry if I contributed to that, PS. I just want the lurkers to see how silly the arguments of Michael Mozina really can be.

[/derail]

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Skwinty

The problem is that not everything is actually here on earth.

Interested in buying another invisible sky god mythos by any chance?

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Skwinty

The problem is that not everything is actually here on earth.

Yeah, like solar physics and most celestial mechanics doesn't take place on the Earth, and neither of those can be shown in the lab; therefore they aren't science, according to Michael Mozina, so they must be religions!