Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

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

You mean like solar physics?!!11!1

[Skwinty]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

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]

Speak of the devil and the preacher turns up.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

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

Those specific gods seem to show up in the lab actually.

[MattusMaximus]

deleted

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Skwinty

Speak of the devil and the preacher turns up.

At least I'm infamous.

I think the parallels between the "crackpot" comment and the term "evil" are pretty much synonymous. They are religious driven derogatory terms and certainly serve the same purpose: villianize the 'non believer' for not buying the invisible sky entity dogma.

[Arthur Mann]

Originally Posted by Drachasor

You're kidding yourself if you think there's a big difference between the two in terms of science -- I assume you're making some ridiculous jab at astrophysics.

The consensus view of what constitutes "astrophysics" leaves much to be desired. If astrophysicists are physicists, they are scientists, and they don't posit or build theories upon ideas that are unfalsifiable, like "big bang", "black hole", "dark energy", "dark matter" and so on. Falsifiability was established as the gold standard in science, decades ago.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

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!

Huh? Photons from the sun show up on Earth every day. When will photons from your "dark" entities show up on Earth?

[Arthur Mann]

Originally Posted by Drachasor

They explain observed phenomena and make predictions that are confirmed.

Ptolemy's epicycle model made predictions that were confirmed by observation. Confirmation of speculation by observation is not science, though. Science requires experiment. Ptolemy performed no experiments to exclude competing ideas, or to falsify his model, he engaged in wanton confirmation bias.

[Skwinty]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

At least I'm infamous.

I think the parallels between the "crackpot" comment and the term "evil" are pretty much synonymous. They are religious driven derogatory terms and certainly serve the same purpose: villianize the 'non believer' for not buying the invisible sky entity dogma.

Michael, you preach the same rhetoric with out ever offering salvation in the form of a reasonable alternative.

Why do you associate with the evil?

I thought the mainstream was evil?

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Huh? Photons from the sun show up on Earth every day. When will photons from your "dark" entities show up on Earth?

So someone has recreated an entire star inside of a laboratory?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

So someone has recreated an entire star inside of a laboratory?

Does hydrogen show up in the lab? Does fusion happen on Earth?

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

At least I'm infamous.

I think the parallels between the "crackpot" comment and the term "evil" are pretty much synonymous. They are religious driven derogatory terms and certainly serve the same purpose: villianize the 'non believer' for not buying the invisible sky entity dogma.

Do people really care about people with fringe narratives of this nature? Unlike religious claims to be doing science like young earth creationism, "crackpots" lack any threat to our education system and seemingly have little effect on society. Do any of your opponents here really see you as villains?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Skwinty

Michael, you preach the same rhetoric with out ever offering salvation in the form of a reasonable alternative.

Salvation begins by admitting: I don't know how we got here.

The rest comes from the realm of pure empirical physics.

Quote:

Why do you associate with the evil?

I tend to reject non empirical entities as a rule, irrespective of what I might be called as a result of that rejection of mythos and metaphysics.

Quote:

I thought the mainstream was evil?

Nah, just "misguided".

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Does hydrogen show up in the lab? Does fusion happen on Earth?

You didn't answer my question: has someone recreated an entire star inside of a laboratory?

I'm simply applying the same absurd standard that you are applying to astrophysics & cosmology. You maintain that until someone can "show inflation" (a phenomenon which applied to the entire universe) in the lab, it isn't science merely religion.

I'm applying your standard to something considerably smaller than the universe, merely a star in this case.

So if you cannot tell me that someone has recreated an entire star in the laboratory, then by your own argument solar physics must be religion, not science.

The same argument can be made for plate tectonics, because that involves only the Earth (much smaller than most stars). Has anyone replicated the actual tectonic plates in the lab?

Aren't word games fun?

ETA: And since you brought it up, hydrogen originated during the big bang.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

Do people really care about people with fringe narratives of this nature? Unlike religious claims to be doing science like young earth creationism, "crackpots" lack any threat to our education system and seemingly have little effect on society. Do any of your opponents here really see you as villains?

Some seem to have a very strong emotional need to use the term "crackpot" in virtually every post and they typically play the role of antagonist *WITHOUT* actually reading or commenting on any of the relevant scientific materials.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

You didn't answer my question: has someone recreated an entire star inside of a laboratory?

Why would anyone (myself included) expect that? SOME fusion happens here on Earth. It's therefore no great "leap of faith" for me to believe that "fusion happens in and around other objects in the sky".

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by Arthur Mann

Ptolemy's epicycle model made predictions that were confirmed by observation. Confirmation of speculation by observation is not science, though. Science requires experiment. Ptolemy performed no experiments to exclude competing ideas, or to falsify his model, he engaged in wanton confirmation bias.

Ptolemy had a model that (within the capabilities of the time) worked very well. We now have better models, but we do not have nor will we ever have anything but "models" -- ultimate reality is not within our grasp. In any case, that has no bearing on this discussion.

[Michael Mozina]

Mattus, you seem to be completely ignoring that "tangible effect here and now" aspect I've mentioned. The sun shines on me every single day. I can "feel" it's effect on my skin. I know that it exists. I may or may not know HOW it's powered, but I can *SEE* it, and FEEL it, and KNOW that it therefore exists in nature. How might I SEE or FEEL inflation?

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Why would anyone (myself included) expect that? SOME fusion happens here on Earth. It's therefore no great "leap of faith" for me to believe that "fusion happens in and around other objects in the sky".

Moving goalposts...

[Skwinty]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

How might I SEE or FEEL inflation?

Drive a fast car and watch the universe expand in the rear view mirror.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Moving goalposts...

No, you are the one moving the goalposts. I have no aversion to letting you scale any *OBSERVED (here on Earth) force of nature to size. You're confusing scaling issues with *TANGIBILITY/Existence* issues.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Mattus, you seem to be completely ignoring that "tangible effect here and now" aspect I've mentioned. The sun shines on me every single day. I can "feel" it's effect on my skin. I know that it exists. I may or may not know HOW it's powered, but I can *SEE* it, and FEEL it, and KNOW that it therefore exists in nature. How might I SEE or FEEL inflation?

How might you SEE or FEEL quarks directly? Because you cannot, they must not be real, right? Because you cannot name a tangible "here and now" effect of how quarks directly benefit you or society, they must be part of a religious structure, not science.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Skwinty

Drive a fast car and watch the universe expand in the rear view mirror.

No, that's just a great example of "gasoline engines produce acceleration". Got a car that runs on inflation?

[Arthur Mann]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Except that there is empirical evidence which supports the existence of the latter three

Empirical evidence supporting the idea of universal inflation of the universe? I can falsify that right now. My keyboard isn't inflating away from my hands at the moment. There you have it, thesis falsified by direct observation. One observation rules out the possibility of universal inflation models.

You think there's empirical evidence of "dark matter" and "dark energy"? Present this evidence, or even a hint of it so I can find it myself.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

but the astrophysics community is already well aware of those issues.

Which is why the actual astrophysics community (not the pretenders floating these absurd myths) has roundly rejected these ideas as unscientific and false.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

For example, why is it that you think so many physicists are attempting to directly detect dark matter particles in laboratory experiments?

The reason physicists perform experiments is to falsify a hypothesis, or show that it is not yet falsified. Science assumes everything is wrong, until shown otherwise. Claims made, not only in the absence of evidence but the absence of the POSSIBILITY of evidence, may be safely rejected as rubbish.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

there are a lot of people, like me, who think the dark matter hypothesis is probably the best thing we have going now

Consensus of opinion is not science.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

it cannot be considered truly solid until we detect the stuff directly.

Can't be considered "truly solid", or even truly real, therefore may be abandoned without regard.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

The history of how neutrons & neutrinos were proposed theoretically and subsequently detected

Cite some sources? Who first proposed the idea of a neutrino, of a neutron, and on what basis?

The idea of a "neutron" is a consequence of the rutherford model, which shared similarities to the bohr model, both of which have been roundly rejected as unscientific and specious. How can any consequences of these models be valid except by accident? Can you demonstrate an atomic model that isn't contradicted by known science and that requires a "neutron"?

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

by direct experimentation is

Can you describe the process by which neutrinos are detected by "direct experimentation"?

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

And, btw, despite your desire to confuse the issue of the science of cosmology

I'm trying to illuminate the issue, not muddle it.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

with religion/philosophy via making false dichotomies

Those weren't false dichotomies, they were analogies. There is a difference, you know. Go here to satisfy your curiosity on that.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

there are plenty of people who have varying philosophical/religious backgrounds who agree on the big bang cosmology as it is currently understood.

That's true, there are many deluded religionists who also believe quite strongly in "big bang", and will go to great lengths to argue with people who point out it's not science and likely wrong.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

On that point, the evidence is clearly against you, for the simple fact that people like me (atheists who accept the BBC) exist.

Yes, it is true that also many atheists believe in "big bang". This suggests to me that some atheism is not driven by reason, but by reflexive rejection of a specific religion for emotional reasons. This is the only explanation I can come up with for why somebody could hold a rational belief and think it's comparable to one of their demonstrably irrational beliefs. A fully sane person boggles at the concept, it's just so alien to us.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Skwinty

Drive a fast car and watch the universe expand in the rear view mirror.

Heretic!!! More religious propaganda from the general relativist cult!!!11!

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

How might you SEE or FEEL quarks directly?

LHC experiments?

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

No, that's just a great example of "gasoline engines produce acceleration". Got a car that runs on inflation?

Got a car that runs on plate tectonics? Or climate change? Or solar physics? Or quark-gluon plasmas?

Didn't think so... those religions cannot produce anything tangible

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

LHC experiments?

Oh, you mean the machine which is working to replicate the big bang in the lab?!!...

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/lhc/lhc-en.html

Quote:

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is a gigantic scientific instrument near Geneva, where it spans the border between Switzerland and France about 100 m underground. It is a particle accelerator used by physicists to study the smallest known particles – the fundamental building blocks of all things. It will revolutionise our understanding, from the minuscule world deep within atoms to the vastness of the Universe.

Two beams of subatomic particles called 'hadrons' – either protons or lead ions – will travel in opposite directions inside the circular accelerator, gaining energy with every lap. Physicists will use the LHC to recreate the conditions just after the Big Bang, by colliding the two beams head-on at very high energy. Teams of physicists from around the world will analyse the particles created in the collisions using special detectors in a number of experiments dedicated to the LHC. ...

Pfft... religious fanatics

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by Arthur Mann

Ptolemy's epicycle model made predictions that were confirmed by observation. Confirmation of speculation by observation is not science, though. Science requires experiment. Ptolemy performed no experiments to exclude competing ideas, or to falsify his model, he engaged in wanton confirmation bias.

Why should we define science by the need to do experiments? Surely mathematical models that are falsifiable through observation and make novel predictions are of value in creating narratives about the cosmos?

[Arthur Mann]

Originally Posted by Drachasor

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

Support this with logic, demonstrate how you arrived at this conclusion?

Originally Posted by Drachasor

There's plenty of matter we know of and have detected that doesn't appear on the periodic table.

Examples? Cite sources?

Originally Posted by Drachasor

We can create some of this is labs and the new supercollider should be able to make more.

The "supercolliders" were built to transmute elements. That's why they fire particles at a target made of a matrix of lead blocks packed with sensors. When an atom of lead is transmuted, it gives off a characteristic signature. it's not alchemy, but the end result is the same, lead into gold, lead into plutonium, and other pathways.

On top of that they are great platforms for studying beamed energy weapons. These particle accelerators are basically a charged particle beam in one direction and an electron beam (maser) in the other direction.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Some seem to have a very strong emotional need to use the term "crackpot" in virtually every post and they typically play the role of antagonist *WITHOUT* actually reading or commenting on any of the relevant scientific materials.

This is a lie. I've been lurking in your threads for years, and I've seen Tim, tusenfem, Ben, Clinger and many others read and systematically analyze the material you present. In fact, tusenfem in particular has gone to extraordinary lengths to engage you on this material including creating a separate thread devoted to his analysis of Birkeland. You have never even made an appearance in that thread despite repeated invitations.

This is merely an example. Your interlocutors have read the motley, cherry-picked mess that you present as your evidence; they simply reject it for reasons they clearly state after having carefully read it.

Please at least try to be honest here.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Arthur Mann

The "supercolliders" were built to transmute elements. That's why they fire particles at a target made of a matrix of lead blocks packed with sensors. When an atom of lead is transmuted, it gives off a characteristic signature. it's not alchemy, but the end result is the same, lead into gold, lead into plutonium, and other pathways.

On top of that they are great platforms for studying beamed energy weapons. These particle accelerators are basically a charged particle beam in one direction and an electron beam (maser) in the other direction.

Wow... You do realize that there are people on this Forum who are physicists and some who actually work on the Large Hadron Collider who can call you out on this b.s., right?

ETA: For example, a maser is not an electron beam, it is a beam of coherent, amplified & focused microwaves. Link.

So much for your credibility.

[Captain_Swoop]

Quote:

Can you describe the process by which neutrinos are detected by "direct experimentation"?

Can you?

They were detecting Neutrinos underneath my house. Now they are looking for Dark Matter.

Good solid science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Dark..._Collaboration

[Captain_Swoop]

Arthur and Michael you will notice hang out in places like JREF. If that had anything they would Publish.
They know they have n othing so they just whine in the dark.

D'rok, you mention Tusenfem, a genuine Plasma Physicist. He has done good work in this field against Michael over on BAUT going back years. Michael got himself banned as he was unable to support any of his 'ideas' with any kind of maths or evidence and didn't answer direct and pertinent questions as demanded by the rules. Plus he transgressed the 'decorum and civility' rules one too many times.

Here we are more than 5 years later and he is banging the same drum. ALl these posts in this thread could be lifted from 5 and 6 year old threads on BAUT.

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by Arthur Mann

The "supercolliders" were built to transmute elements. That's why they fire particles at a target made of a matrix of lead blocks packed with sensors. When an atom of lead is transmuted, it gives off a characteristic signature. it's not alchemy, but the end result is the same, lead into gold, lead into plutonium, and other pathways.

On top of that they are great platforms for studying beamed energy weapons. These particle accelerators are basically a charged particle beam in one direction and an electron beam (maser) in the other direction.

That is one of the most inaccurate and naive descriptions of the supercollider I have ever heard or seen! I hope your vision of gravity as an emergent property of electric phenomena (remaining unanswered on another thread) makes more sense.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

That is one of the most inaccurate and naive descriptions of the supercollider I have ever heard or seen! I hope your vision of gravity as an emergent property of electric phenomena (remaining unanswered on another thread) makes more sense.

Wow... you're kidding me, right?

[catsmate1]

If I might get back to the original topic for a moment.....
Physics is difficult; it's a big and complicated field of study and those who've studied it realise how little we, individually and as a whole, know. People who haven't studied physics in depth suffer from Dunning-Krueger type blindness as to their ignorance, 'a little learning is a dangerous thing'
There an interesting article over at RationalWiki about engineers and wooish beliefs, something that seems relevant to crackpot physics.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Arthur and Michael you will notice hang out in places like JREF. If that had anything they would Publish.
They know they have n othing so they just whine in the dark.

D'rok, you mention Tusenfem, a genuine Plasma Physicist. He has done good work in this field against Michael over on BAUT going back years. Michael got himself banned as he was unable to support any of his 'ideas' with any kind of maths or evidence and didn't answer direct and pertinent questions as demanded by the rules. Plus he transgressed the 'decorum and civility' rules one too many times.

Here we are more than 5 years later and he is banging the same drum. ALl these posts in this thread could be lifted from 5 and 6 year old threads on BAUT.

I know. I've read some of those old threads. It boggles my mind that Michael thinks he somehow has more expertise or insight than a plasma physicist who worked down the hall from Alfven.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

If I might get back to the original topic for a moment.....
Physics is difficult; it's a big and complicated field of study and those who've studied it realise how little we, individually and as a whole, know. People who haven't studied physics in depth suffer from Dunning-Krueger type blindness as to their ignorance, 'a little learning is a dangerous thing'
There an interesting article over at RationalWiki about engineers and wooish beliefs, something that seems relevant to crackpot physics.

Interesting article, thanks. I like how it points out that there is a big difference in doing science versus applying the knowledge acquired through science. It kind of reminds me of how someone who knows how to do plumbing felt that they could criticize the BP scientists & engineers for not plugging the Gulf of Mexico oil leak more quickly & effectively.

[Arthur Mann]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Well, so much for that hope.

Yeah, unfortunately the crackpot view is the prevailing consensus view, so of course most people who weigh in on this issue are going to be the crackpots who believe in things like "big bang" and "black hole" and so on.