Why is there so much crackpot physics? - Page 4

Perpetual Student · 11th December 2010, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

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

No:

Quote:

Today, 08:50 AM #906
Perpetual Student
Master Poster

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 2,018

Quote:

Arthur Mann:
I have been making a considerable effort to understand these EU theories of yours. Am I correct in concluding that, in your view, what we experience as gravity is an emergent property of electrical forces? The link you provided in post # 812 includes the following:

Quote:

Quote:

What is gravity?Gravity is due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons.[18] The force between any two aligned electrostatic dipoles varies inversely as the fourth power of the distance between them and the combined force of similarly aligned electrostatic dipoles over a given surface is squared. The result is that the dipole-dipole force, which varies inversely as the fourth power between co-linear dipoles, becomes the familiar inverse square force of gravity for extended bodies. The gravitational and inertial response of matter can be seen to be due to an identical cause. The puzzling extreme weakness of gravity (one thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion times less than the electrostatic force) is a measure of the minute distortion of subatomic particles in a gravitational field.

So, do I understand this correctly? You are not denying the existence of the force we call gravity. However, you do not view it as a fundamental force because, in your view, it is due to the electrical forces described above?

Arthur Mann · 11th December 2010, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by AnnoyingPony

Also, the Big Bang and the universe are not living things.

Big bang is an absurd creation myth, but it's arguable that the universe is alive. I'd say the universe would fit any reasonable definition of "life" that you can come up with.

Arthur Mann · 11th December 2010, 02:24 PM

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?

It's going to take more than the existence of atoms to verify "big bang" creation myths. They're not even consistent, there really is no coherent "big bang" myth, there are many stories that all suggest a similar (highly implausible) event that violates known, proven physics. There are as many creation stories as there are people who believe them, pretty much. Everybody has their own unique tale about it.

Arthur Mann · 11th December 2010, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

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

Most definitely so.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

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

Consensus of Google hits is not science. The WMAP data only "supports" universal inflation if you start with erroneous assumptions, such as that the universe started with "big bang" and thus the entire universe is inflating. When you assume something is a fact, everything seems to support that "fact".

Perpetual Student · 11th December 2010, 02:27 PM

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.

That is absolutely fascinating. Coincidentally, I have known a few engineers who cling to crackpot ideas. Many decades ago, I taught calculus and linear algebra to freshmen engineering students. I was appalled by the fact that so many seemed to have little interest (and ability) in mathematics -- it was something they had to endure to get their degree. I have never made that connection before!
In fairness, before I am lambasted by engineers, I know there are many who do not fit within this category.

Arthur Mann · 11th December 2010, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

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

Particle "physicists" treat everything as a particle. Is light composed of particles? What about electricity? Is "gravity" a particle?

rwguinn · 11th December 2010, 02:30 PM

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.

Well, excuse the hell out of me.
There is nothing interesting, or even true about that article, but since YOU find it so, I will refrain from using any of my knowledge and practice here, since I am merely an engineer.
What ******** that entire article is.

Michael Mozina · 11th December 2010, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by D'rok

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.

I wasn't thinking of any of them actually, mostly GM came to mind.

Quote:

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.

Actually, I'm looking forward to his input in the discharge/reconnection discussion. I know for a fact that he personally has in fact read the relevant materials.

Quote:

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.

Let's not intermix threads, but please *PERSONALLY* show me the error in Dungey's work, and how it does *NOT* support "discharge" theory, but please do so in the solar thread, not this one.

Quote:

Please at least try to be honest here.

Let's also treat everyone as an "individual" here. I have very different opinions about tusenfem and sol than I do for say GM. Some folks are honest "skeptics". Others are not.

John Jones · 11th December 2010, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Mann

Particle "physicists" treat everything as a particle. Is light composed of particles? What about electricity? Is "gravity" a particle?

This should be fun.

Arthur Mann -- just for giggles, have you studied physics at the college level?

Michael Mozina · 11th December 2010, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by D'rok

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.

Well, from the standpoint of psychology I find it absolutely fascinating that the guy that worked down the hall from Alfven ultimately rejects Alfven's view, and clings to something Alfven himself called "pseudoscience". I don't know how to explain that, nor do I see any evidence that Alfven was incorrect in his assessment of MR theory.

The other psychologically fascinating aspect is that Alfven himself would necessarily be the 'crackpot Messiah' in terms of PC/EU theory, yet astronomers will forever attempt to use his MHD theories to support their "pseudoscientific" beliefs. Fascinating.

D'rok · 11th December 2010, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

I wasn't thinking of any of them actually, mostly GM came to mind.

And I have seen him systematically dismantle your material when it touches on his expertise. Probably I am the only person who semi-regularly participates in your threads who doesn't do so. But I openly admit that I have no relevant expertise.

D'rok · 11th December 2010, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Well, from the standpoint of psychology I find it absolutely fascinating that the guy that worked down the hall from Alfven ultimately rejects Alfven's view, and clings to something Alfven himself called "pseudoscience". I don't know how to explain that, nor do I see any evidence that Alfven was incorrect in his assessment of MR theory.

The other psychologically fascinating aspect is that Alfven himself would necessarily be the 'crackpot Messiah' in terms of PC/EU theory, yet astronomers will forever attempt to use his MHD theories to support their "pseudoscientific" beliefs. Fascinating.

Again with the boggling. You know better than he, despite his impeccable credentials and your non-existent credentials. All you have is an argument from incredulity. You base your disbelief on your own incapacity and incompetence.

Sad.

Michael Mozina · 11th December 2010, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by D'rok

And I have seen him systematically dismantle your material when it touches on his expertise.

What is his "field of expertise"? Personal attack?

Quote:

Probably I am the only person who semi-regularly participates in your threads who doesn't do so. But I openly admit that I have no relevant expertise.

In that sense you are an "honest skeptic'. Wherever you feel you can add to the discussions you have done so. You haven't spent virtually every day of your life calling me personally a crackpot. You've made your opinions known and you've moved on. I respect that. Others however are *JUST* as lacking the relevant expertise (like Alfven's circuit theories) yet are much more vocal, much more 'personal', and rely on the personal attack in absence of a scientific argument. When asked relevant questions they RUN from them yet vocally and aggressively assert their personal insults into the discussions. It's pointless nonsense.

Michael Mozina · 11th December 2010, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by D'rok

Again with the boggling. You know better than he, despite his impeccable credentials and your non-existent credentials. All you have is an argument from incredulity. You base your disbelief on your own incapacity and incompetence.

Sad.

Not at all. I expect that conversation to continue to unfold for quite some time. We'll see how his beliefs hold up over time. Your fixation on my credentials is irrelevant. If we're going to play that game, Alfven wins by virtue of his Nobel Prize and my opinions are simply congruent with Alfven's opinions. Period.

In terms of my competence, I think I've picked very specific and very relevant works to discuss, starting with Dungey. We'll do that conversation in the APPROPRIATE thread if you don't mind.

KingMerv00 · 11th December 2010, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Mann

Is light composed of particles? What about electricity?

Seriously?

Photons?

Electrons?

Arthur Mann · 11th December 2010, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by AnnoyingPony

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

False.

None of the fundamental assumptions of typical "big bang" models (singularity, "planck scale" breakdown of physical laws, universal expansion and so on) have never been verified experimentally, and remain to this day in the realm of the hypothetical and the unobservable.

The claim is often made by Big Bang Believers (B³) that big bang relies on the laws of physics being the same on every scale and everywhere in space and time, but then they rely on unverified notions and novel physical principles they imagine, that have no empirical referent. They build a house of sand then they are continually mystified when the universe flatly refuses to obey their elegant models.

Originally Posted by AnnoyingPony

Academia doesn't work that way. They aren't a coherent group with an orthodoxy.

Academia isn't a coherent group? Then why should anyone pay attention to them, if they have no objective standards of scientific investigation to which they subscribe? The scientific method isn't "orthodoxy" as you suggest, though your suggestion that most researchers (and all B³) in academia ignore the scientific method is of course valid.

Originally Posted by AnnoyingPony

For instance, Charles Darwin.

Charles Darwin was no pioneer, he suggested nothing that hadn't already been suggested numerous times by other scientists. He did compile quite a substantial collection of anecdotal evidence supporting evolutionary models, but of course his predecessors (including his own father) also did the same, and his antecedents have done arguably much more work (and actual experiments) to further illustrate that evolutionary models are not falsified by controlled experiment, and therefore should be "believed".

Originally Posted by AnnoyingPony

Creation myths are just symbolic stories, narratives designed to explain how things are without any evidence to support them.

The "big bang" story fits your definition precisely.

Originally Posted by AnnoyingPony

The Big Bang is not a story.

You're right, there is no one coherent "big bang" story, but instead there is a collection of related stories all suggesting a similar (implausible) event, and a strangely finite universe. Hubble would be turning over in his grave if he knew what was going on in his name. He already got a taste of it while he was alive, and didn't particularly care for it. In this way he was treated much like Galileo, who was tortured until he recanted his very valid ideas, then after his death was installed as the mascot for competing models.

Originally Posted by AnnoyingPony

It is a scientific theory with evidence to support it.

False.

Originally Posted by AnnoyingPony

Is a murder case also a "myth"?

In the case of a murder, we have a body. A dead body is evidence that there was once a living person. We can look around in the world and see that, yes, living people do in fact exist. We can gather some living people and perform experiments on them to see if they produce a dead body when we kill them by various means. I'm confident in almost every case, a body will remain. The exceptions will be along the lines of explosions or disintegrations in every case. Even in these cases there is going to be a mess laying there that is still a human body, and can be verified as such.

What would this look like if we applied forensic science to "big bang" myths? B³ would have us believe this has already been done, but of course that's a joke. So we start with the "dead body". That dead body is the universe. If "big bang" killed the universe before it, what did it look like when it was alive? Can we look as still-living universes and determine this? Can we experiment with other universes to figure out how to kill them and see if killing them changes them into a universe like ours? Clearly we've hit a dead end here in this "forensic" investigation of "big bang".

B³ rely on many assumptions to protect their houses of cards. I've outlined some of those assumptions. One assumption I didn't mention, but that all B³ assume and set as the preconditions for all their explanations, is that "big bang" actually took place. Every observation is "calibrated" through this filter. Any data that contradicts it is "corrected" by various means until it accords with the favored model. That's not science, it's jerking off. These people can't even see that what they're dong is not science, it's very similar to the way Micro$haaft employees choose to ignore their salary pyramid scam, so when the company is actually bankrupt, carrying billions in wage debt, on paper they all look "rich".

If "big bang" Anyway, I don't feel like wasting my time explaining simple logic and science to Arthur Mann's sock puppet.[/quote]

I'm not sure you're capable of explaining science. This isn't a classroom full of second graders, you know, and this is not Sunday school, some of us out here actually know what we're talking about and won't accept extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence.

D'rok · 11th December 2010, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

If we're going to play that game, Alfven wins by virtue of his Nobel Prize and my opinions are simply congruent with Alfven's opinions. Period.

Nope. They are not. You have your own idiosyncratic interpretations of Alfven's later, erroneous, work that are not even consistent with Alfven's speculations. You would know this if you had read any of tusenfem's extensive analysis of Alfven that he has been kind enough to take the time to present on this forum.

Steve001 · 11th December 2010, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

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.

However physicists know when they are making stuff up [ proposing ideas that have yet to be shown as factual ]. Such as this
Physicists propose mechanism that explains the origins of both dark matter and 'normal' matter. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-...nism-dark.html . Whereas theologians don't acknowledge they pluck non factual explanations out of nothingness. They state God did it all. The End.

Michael Mozina · 11th December 2010, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by D'rok

Nope. They are not. You have your own idiosyncratic interpretations of Alfven's later,

Define "earlier" vs. "later" please.

Quote:

erroneous,

How so? Other thread please. In fact please repost the rest to the solar thread if you really want me to respond.

Arthur Mann · 11th December 2010, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

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

You can not, with observations alone, confirm a speculation about the physical nature of the universe. Suggesting "universal expansion" creates the requirement that you demonstrate how such "expansion" can take place. Where are the controlled experiments demonstrating these principles?

Arthur Mann · 11th December 2010, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

But the good ideas won out in the end though, didn't they?

Did they?

Michael Mozina · 11th December 2010, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Steve001

[color=Navy]However physicists know when they are making stuff up [ proposing ideas that have yet to be shown as factual ].

So what's the difference between making up 'God energy" vs. "Dark energy" and his inflation sidekick?

Isn't the basic motive exactly the same? Comfort? Closure? Something they can wrap their head around? Most humans don't work well with ambiguity and or without a 'creation story' of some sort. Astronomers are simply motivated to find their surrogate "creation story", albeit not necessarily a 'theistic' one. It's still emotionally very conforting I'm sure, but it's no more EMPIRICALLY justifiable than "(dark)God did it".

Olowkow · 11th December 2010, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Mann

Particle "physicists" treat everything as a particle. Is light composed of particles? What about electricity? Is "gravity" a particle?

They wouldn't be proper "particle physicists" if they didn't, now, would they?

Arthur Mann · 11th December 2010, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

So plate tectonics is also merely pseudo-religion since it cannot be shown to occur in a laboratory experiment?

Yes. The only thing we have "supporting" plate tectonics is cartoons. The process of subduction, for example, has never been observed or even demonstrated by experiment to be plausible. Hell, "subduction" isn't even in my computer's dictionary, I guess the dictionary knows what's up.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Weather & climate science

Can and is being modeled in the lab, see Peter Thomson's work with electric discharge simulation of tornadoes in a petri dish, this and other charged sheath vortex phenomena.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Comparative planetology

Physical and chemical processes involved readily demonstrated in the lab.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Solar physics

If you mean the "standard model", stellar fusion, you're right. It's a religion based on nothing but hero worship and wishful thinking. No experimental verification, routinely falsified, better model exists (electric star).

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

All forms of celestial mechanics

Firmly established over 99% of space is plasma, plasmas negligibly affected by gravity, all gravity models of celestial motion can therefore only be right by accident.

Arthur Mann · 11th December 2010, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Plate tectonics cannot be shown in lab experiments [to be a viable hypothesis - AM], therefore it isn't science, it's religion...

Corrections in bold red by me.

Perpetual Student · 11th December 2010, 03:09 PM

Getting back to the OP, would any of you, who hold opinions that are not consistent with mainstream physics and cosmology, care to tell us a bit about your education -- specifically in the areas we are discussing here?

Arthur Mann · 11th December 2010, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Earthquakes affect real people here on Earth.

While it's undeniable that earthquakes do occur, the likely cause is unlikely to be in agreement with "plate tectonics" models.

Interesting electromagnetic phenomena occur before, during and after earthquakes, suggesting an electrical relationship. Platies will tell you this is all down to piezoelectric effects, but offer nothing to support these claims except the operation of a quartz watch (that, in conflict with their suggestions, does not produce similar effects).

It's safe to say plate tectonics is a terminally ill model, and we have a competing explanation that's more reasonable, and also is falsifiable (but not yet falsified): electricity

Drachasor · 11th December 2010, 03:14 PM

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?

Of course, computer models are a kind of experiment and back up a lot of this stuff. It's certainly a way to test theories and, like all science, the simplest explanation/model that explains all related phenomenon is preferred. If something came along tomorrow that explained what we know about the Universe better than our current models, then it would be studied and accepted fairly quickly.

Sadly, some people who actually don't comprehend the science of a given field decide it must be wrong, and go with an explanation that doesn't fit the facts (but claims to) that is simpler or just go with something they also don't understand that claims to be simpler. In actuality, if there really were multiple competing theories that fit the facts as best we know them well, then they'd all be competing with each other. You see this plenty of times in the history of science, from various ways evolution could work over time (how important punctuated equilibrium is, for instance), to various proposed ways of approaching a Theory of Everything in physics.

This is, of course, how science is not a religion. Science Trolls ignore this, of course.

D'rok · 11th December 2010, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Define "earlier" vs. "later" please.

Earlier: Cosmic Electrodynamics. Later: Cosmic Plasma.

Quote:

How so? Other thread please. In fact please repost the rest to the solar thread if you really want me to respond.

I am confident that you will continue to ignore the science in that thread.

D'rok · 11th December 2010, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Mann

While it's undeniable that earthquakes do occur, the likely cause is unlikely to be in agreement with "plate tectonics" models.

Interesting electromagnetic phenomena occur before, during and after earthquakes, suggesting an electrical relationship. Platies will tell you this is all down to piezoelectric effects, but offer nothing to support these claims except the operation of a quartz watch (that, in conflict with their suggestions, does not produce similar effects).

It's safe to say plate tectonics is a terminally ill model, and we have a competing explanation that's more reasonable, and also is falsifiable (but not yet falsified): electricity

[Homer voice]Mmmm...Electricity. Is there anything it can't do?

Arthur Mann · 11th December 2010, 03:21 PM

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.

Hope against fear, a brilliant tactic when you're trying to set somebody up.

I can answer the loaded question of the thread subject pretty succinctly. The reason there is so much "crackpot physics" is because the consensus view of what physics entails is demonstrably wrong, and there are so very few people like Michael and myself presenting actual physics.

If crackpots weren't in the majority of the population as a whole, and consistently holding majority opinions, there wouldn't be so much "crackpot physics".

Drachasor · 11th December 2010, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Mann

Firmly established over 99% of space is plasma, plasmas negligibly affected by gravity, all gravity models of celestial motion can therefore only be right by accident.

Plasmas are just affected by gravity as any other form of normal matter.

AlBell · 11th December 2010, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Mann

While it's undeniable that earthquakes do occur, the likely cause is unlikely to be in agreement with "plate tectonics" models.

Interesting electromagnetic phenomena occur before, during and after earthquakes, suggesting an electrical relationship. Platies will tell you this is all down to piezoelectric effects, but offer nothing to support these claims except the operation of a quartz watch (that, in conflict with their suggestions, does not produce similar effects).

It's safe to say plate tectonics is a terminally ill model, and we have a competing explanation that's more reasonable, and also is falsifiable (but not yet falsified): electricity

You, sir, give every indication of being a blithering idiot. Assuming, hopefully, that you are not a blithering idiot, where in the world of fantasy did you get those ideas?

Michael Mozina · 11th December 2010, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

Getting back to the OP, would any of you, who hold opinions that are not consistent with mainstream physics and cosmology, care to tell us a bit about your education -- specifically in the areas we are discussing here?

Can you explain how that is relevant considering the fact that Aflven was the "crackpot Messianic" figure you're talking about, and the mainstream handed him a Nobel Prize?

Drachasor · 11th December 2010, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Seriously?

Photons?

Electrons?

It's all wavicles! In any case, it's pretty clear he doesn't understand any aspect of physics that well.

Michael Mozina · 11th December 2010, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by D'rok

Earlier: Cosmic Electrodynamics. Later: Cosmic Plasma.

The "grey area" will be between the two printing dates I suppose.

Quote:

I am confident that you will continue to ignore the science in that thread.

We'll see. I've already presented peer reviewed "science" to support my views.

Arthur Mann · 11th December 2010, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

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

Yes, Birkeland, terrella experiments. 1913. Birkeland's face on the norwegian 200-kroner bill. Verified forty years later by Meredith, Gottlieb and Van Allen.

Perpetual Student · 11th December 2010, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student
Getting back to the OP, would any of you, who hold opinions that are not consistent with mainstream physics and cosmology, care to tell us a bit about your education -- specifically in the areas we are discussing here?

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Can you explain how that is relevant considering the fact that Aflven was the "crackpot Messianic" figure you're talking about, and the mainstream handed him a Nobel Prize?

I was addressing people responding here and now to this thread, not dead people, who obviously are no longer capable of thought.

Arthur Mann · 11th December 2010, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

Do any of your opponents here really see you as villains?

Opponents? This kind of confrontational attitude isn't helpful.

Drachasor · 11th December 2010, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

We'll see. I've already presented peer reviewed "science" to support my views.

No you haven't. You've any no way demonstrated how your views on Cosmology or Astrophysics in general make any sense.

Might as well doubt Evolution, quite frankly, or any number of other sciences.

11th December 2010, 02:17 PM	#121
Perpetual Student Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 3,707	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Wow... you're kidding me, right? No: Quote: Today, 08:50 AM #906 Perpetual Student Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 2,018 Quote: Arthur Mann: I have been making a considerable effort to understand these EU theories of yours. Am I correct in concluding that, in your view, what we experience as gravity is an emergent property of electrical forces? The link you provided in post # 812 includes the following: Quote: Quote: What is gravity?Gravity is due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons.[18] The force between any two aligned electrostatic dipoles varies inversely as the fourth power of the distance between them and the combined force of similarly aligned electrostatic dipoles over a given surface is squared. The result is that the dipole-dipole force, which varies inversely as the fourth power between co-linear dipoles, becomes the familiar inverse square force of gravity for extended bodies. The gravitational and inertial response of matter can be seen to be due to an identical cause. The puzzling extreme weakness of gravity (one thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion times less than the electrostatic force) is a measure of the minute distortion of subatomic particles in a gravitational field. So, do I understand this correctly? You are not denying the existence of the force we call gravity. However, you do not view it as a fundamental force because, in your view, it is due to the electrical forces described above?
	__________________ _{It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman} ξ

11th December 2010, 02:20 PM	#122
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406	Originally Posted by AnnoyingPony Also, the Big Bang and the universe are not living things. Big bang is an absurd creation myth, but it's arguable that the universe is alive. I'd say the universe would fit any reasonable definition of "life" that you can come up with.
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406

11th December 2010, 02:24 PM	#123
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406	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? It's going to take more than the existence of atoms to verify "big bang" creation myths. They're not even consistent, there really is no coherent "big bang" myth, there are many stories that all suggest a similar (highly implausible) event that violates known, proven physics. There are as many creation stories as there are people who believe them, pretty much. Everybody has their own unique tale about it.
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406

11th December 2010, 02:26 PM	#124
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus What about quarks? Gluons? More "faith in the unseen"? Most definitely so. Originally Posted by MattusMaximus ETA: Since you asked... it's called the WMAP data... Consensus of Google hits is not science. The WMAP data only "supports" universal inflation if you start with erroneous assumptions, such as that the universe started with "big bang" and thus the entire universe is inflating. When you assume something is a fact, everything seems to support that "fact".
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406

11th December 2010, 02:27 PM	#125
Perpetual Student Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 3,707	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. That is absolutely fascinating. Coincidentally, I have known a few engineers who cling to crackpot ideas. Many decades ago, I taught calculus and linear algebra to freshmen engineering students. I was appalled by the fact that so many seemed to have little interest (and ability) in mathematics -- it was something they had to endure to get their degree. I have never made that connection before! In fairness, before I am lambasted by engineers, I know there are many who do not fit within this category.
	__________________ _{It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman} ξ

11th December 2010, 02:29 PM	#126
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Pffftt... so particle physics is just nothing more than religious mumbo-jumbo Particle "physicists" treat everything as a particle. Is light composed of particles? What about electricity? Is "gravity" a particle?
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406

11th December 2010, 02:30 PM	#127
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,455	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. Well, excuse the hell out of me. There is nothing interesting, or even true about that article, but since YOU find it so, I will refrain from using any of my knowledge and practice here, since I am merely an engineer. What ******** that entire article is.
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

11th December 2010, 02:30 PM	#128
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Originally Posted by D'rok 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. I wasn't thinking of any of them actually, mostly GM came to mind. Quote: 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. Actually, I'm looking forward to his input in the discharge/reconnection discussion. I know for a fact that he personally has in fact read the relevant materials. Quote: 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. Let's not intermix threads, but please PERSONALLY show me the error in Dungey's work, and how it does NOT support "discharge" theory, but please do so in the solar thread, not this one. Quote: Please at least try to be honest here. Let's also treat everyone as an "individual" here. I have very different opinions about tusenfem and sol than I do for say GM. Some folks are honest "skeptics". Others are not.
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362

11th December 2010, 02:33 PM	#129
John Jones Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3,721	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann Particle "physicists" treat everything as a particle. Is light composed of particles? What about electricity? Is "gravity" a particle? This should be fun. Arthur Mann -- just for giggles, have you studied physics at the college level?
John Jones Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3,721

11th December 2010, 02:35 PM	#130
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Originally Posted by D'rok 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. Well, from the standpoint of psychology I find it absolutely fascinating that the guy that worked down the hall from Alfven ultimately rejects Alfven's view, and clings to something Alfven himself called "pseudoscience". I don't know how to explain that, nor do I see any evidence that Alfven was incorrect in his assessment of MR theory. The other psychologically fascinating aspect is that Alfven himself would necessarily be the 'crackpot Messiah' in terms of PC/EU theory, yet astronomers will forever attempt to use his MHD theories to support their "pseudoscientific" beliefs. Fascinating.
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362

11th December 2010, 02:35 PM	#131
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,237	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina I wasn't thinking of any of them actually, mostly GM came to mind. And I have seen him systematically dismantle your material when it touches on his expertise. Probably I am the only person who semi-regularly participates in your threads who doesn't do so. But I openly admit that I have no relevant expertise.
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

11th December 2010, 02:38 PM	#132
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,237	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Well, from the standpoint of psychology I find it absolutely fascinating that the guy that worked down the hall from Alfven ultimately rejects Alfven's view, and clings to something Alfven himself called "pseudoscience". I don't know how to explain that, nor do I see any evidence that Alfven was incorrect in his assessment of MR theory. The other psychologically fascinating aspect is that Alfven himself would necessarily be the 'crackpot Messiah' in terms of PC/EU theory, yet astronomers will forever attempt to use his MHD theories to support their "pseudoscientific" beliefs. Fascinating. Again with the boggling. You know better than he, despite his impeccable credentials and your non-existent credentials. All you have is an argument from incredulity. You base your disbelief on your own incapacity and incompetence. Sad.
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

11th December 2010, 02:47 PM	#133
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Originally Posted by D'rok And I have seen him systematically dismantle your material when it touches on his expertise. What is his "field of expertise"? Personal attack? Quote: Probably I am the only person who semi-regularly participates in your threads who doesn't do so. But I openly admit that I have no relevant expertise. In that sense you are an "honest skeptic'. Wherever you feel you can add to the discussions you have done so. You haven't spent virtually every day of your life calling me personally a crackpot. You've made your opinions known and you've moved on. I respect that. Others however are JUST as lacking the relevant expertise (like Alfven's circuit theories) yet are much more vocal, much more 'personal', and rely on the personal attack in absence of a scientific argument. When asked relevant questions they RUN from them yet vocally and aggressively assert their personal insults into the discussions. It's pointless nonsense.
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362

11th December 2010, 02:50 PM	#134
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Originally Posted by D'rok Again with the boggling. You know better than he, despite his impeccable credentials and your non-existent credentials. All you have is an argument from incredulity. You base your disbelief on your own incapacity and incompetence. Sad. Not at all. I expect that conversation to continue to unfold for quite some time. We'll see how his beliefs hold up over time. Your fixation on my credentials is irrelevant. If we're going to play that game, Alfven wins by virtue of his Nobel Prize and my opinions are simply congruent with Alfven's opinions. Period. In terms of my competence, I think I've picked very specific and very relevant works to discuss, starting with Dungey. We'll do that conversation in the APPROPRIATE thread if you don't mind.
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362

11th December 2010, 02:53 PM	#135
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann Is light composed of particles? What about electricity? Seriously? Photons? Electrons?
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

11th December 2010, 02:54 PM	#136
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406	Originally Posted by AnnoyingPony Everything used to explain the Big Bang is consistent with what we already know about the universe. False. None of the fundamental assumptions of typical "big bang" models (singularity, "planck scale" breakdown of physical laws, universal expansion and so on) have never been verified experimentally, and remain to this day in the realm of the hypothetical and the unobservable. The claim is often made by Big Bang Believers (B³) that big bang relies on the laws of physics being the same on every scale and everywhere in space and time, but then they rely on unverified notions and novel physical principles they imagine, that have no empirical referent. They build a house of sand then they are continually mystified when the universe flatly refuses to obey their elegant models. Originally Posted by AnnoyingPony Academia doesn't work that way. They aren't a coherent group with an orthodoxy. Academia isn't a coherent group? Then why should anyone pay attention to them, if they have no objective standards of scientific investigation to which they subscribe? The scientific method isn't "orthodoxy" as you suggest, though your suggestion that most researchers (and all B³) in academia ignore the scientific method is of course valid. Originally Posted by AnnoyingPony For instance, Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin was no pioneer, he suggested nothing that hadn't already been suggested numerous times by other scientists. He did compile quite a substantial collection of anecdotal evidence supporting evolutionary models, but of course his predecessors (including his own father) also did the same, and his antecedents have done arguably much more work (and actual experiments) to further illustrate that evolutionary models are not falsified by controlled experiment, and therefore should be "believed". Originally Posted by AnnoyingPony Creation myths are just symbolic stories, narratives designed to explain how things are without any evidence to support them. The "big bang" story fits your definition precisely. Originally Posted by AnnoyingPony The Big Bang is not a story. You're right, there is no one coherent "big bang" story, but instead there is a collection of related stories all suggesting a similar (implausible) event, and a strangely finite universe. Hubble would be turning over in his grave if he knew what was going on in his name. He already got a taste of it while he was alive, and didn't particularly care for it. In this way he was treated much like Galileo, who was tortured until he recanted his very valid ideas, then after his death was installed as the mascot for competing models. Originally Posted by AnnoyingPony It is a scientific theory with evidence to support it. False. Originally Posted by AnnoyingPony Is a murder case also a "myth"? In the case of a murder, we have a body. A dead body is evidence that there was once a living person. We can look around in the world and see that, yes, living people do in fact exist. We can gather some living people and perform experiments on them to see if they produce a dead body when we kill them by various means. I'm confident in almost every case, a body will remain. The exceptions will be along the lines of explosions or disintegrations in every case. Even in these cases there is going to be a mess laying there that is still a human body, and can be verified as such. What would this look like if we applied forensic science to "big bang" myths? B³ would have us believe this has already been done, but of course that's a joke. So we start with the "dead body". That dead body is the universe. If "big bang" killed the universe before it, what did it look like when it was alive? Can we look as still-living universes and determine this? Can we experiment with other universes to figure out how to kill them and see if killing them changes them into a universe like ours? Clearly we've hit a dead end here in this "forensic" investigation of "big bang". B³ rely on many assumptions to protect their houses of cards. I've outlined some of those assumptions. One assumption I didn't mention, but that all B³ assume and set as the preconditions for all their explanations, is that "big bang" actually took place. Every observation is "calibrated" through this filter. Any data that contradicts it is "corrected" by various means until it accords with the favored model. That's not science, it's jerking off. These people can't even see that what they're dong is not science, it's very similar to the way Micro$haaft employees choose to ignore their salary pyramid scam, so when the company is actually bankrupt, carrying billions in wage debt, on paper they all look "rich". If "big bang" Anyway, I don't feel like wasting my time explaining simple logic and science to Arthur Mann's sock puppet.[/quote] I'm not sure you're capable of explaining science. This isn't a classroom full of second graders, you know, and this is not Sunday school, some of us out here actually know what we're talking about and won't accept extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence.
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406	Last edited by Arthur Mann; 11th December 2010 at 02:55 PM.

11th December 2010, 02:55 PM	#137
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,237	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina If we're going to play that game, Alfven wins by virtue of his Nobel Prize and my opinions are simply congruent with Alfven's opinions. Period. Nope. They are not. You have your own idiosyncratic interpretations of Alfven's later, erroneous, work that are not even consistent with Alfven's speculations. You would know this if you had read any of tusenfem's extensive analysis of Alfven that he has been kind enough to take the time to present on this forum.
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

11th December 2010, 02:56 PM	#138
Steve001 Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 536	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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. However physicists know when they are making stuff up [ proposing ideas that have yet to be shown as factual ]. Such as this Physicists propose mechanism that explains the origins of both dark matter and 'normal' matter. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-...nism-dark.html . Whereas theologians don't acknowledge they pluck non factual explanations out of nothingness. They state God did it all. The End.
Steve001 Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 536

11th December 2010, 02:56 PM	#139
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Originally Posted by D'rok Nope. They are not. You have your own idiosyncratic interpretations of Alfven's later, Define "earlier" vs. "later" please. Quote: erroneous, How so? Other thread please. In fact please repost the rest to the solar thread if you really want me to respond.
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362

11th December 2010, 02:57 PM	#140
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Actually, an analysis of the WMAP data did confirm numerous predictions of Guth's inflationary theory. You can not, with observations alone, confirm a speculation about the physical nature of the universe. Suggesting "universal expansion" creates the requirement that you demonstrate how such "expansion" can take place. Where are the controlled experiments demonstrating these principles?
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406

11th December 2010, 02:58 PM	#141
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406	Originally Posted by Sideroxylon But the good ideas won out in the end though, didn't they? Did they?
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406

11th December 2010, 03:00 PM	#142
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Originally Posted by Steve001 [color=Navy]However physicists know when they are making stuff up [ proposing ideas that have yet to be shown as factual ]. So what's the difference between making up 'God energy" vs. "Dark energy" and his inflation sidekick? Isn't the basic motive exactly the same? Comfort? Closure? Something they can wrap their head around? Most humans don't work well with ambiguity and or without a 'creation story' of some sort. Astronomers are simply motivated to find their surrogate "creation story", albeit not necessarily a 'theistic' one. It's still emotionally very conforting I'm sure, but it's no more EMPIRICALLY justifiable than "(dark)God did it".
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Last edited by Michael Mozina; 11th December 2010 at 03:05 PM.

11th December 2010, 03:01 PM	#143
Olowkow Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,828	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann Particle "physicists" treat everything as a particle. Is light composed of particles? What about electricity? Is "gravity" a particle? They wouldn't be proper "particle physicists" if they didn't, now, would they?
Olowkow Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,828	__________________ Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie, which we ascribe to heaven. --Shakespeare

11th December 2010, 03:05 PM	#144
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus So plate tectonics is also merely pseudo-religion since it cannot be shown to occur in a laboratory experiment? Yes. The only thing we have "supporting" plate tectonics is cartoons. The process of subduction, for example, has never been observed or even demonstrated by experiment to be plausible. Hell, "subduction" isn't even in my computer's dictionary, I guess the dictionary knows what's up. Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Weather & climate science Can and is being modeled in the lab, see Peter Thomson's work with electric discharge simulation of tornadoes in a petri dish, this and other charged sheath vortex phenomena. Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Comparative planetology Physical and chemical processes involved readily demonstrated in the lab. Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Solar physics If you mean the "standard model", stellar fusion, you're right. It's a religion based on nothing but hero worship and wishful thinking. No experimental verification, routinely falsified, better model exists (electric star). Originally Posted by MattusMaximus All forms of celestial mechanics Firmly established over 99% of space is plasma, plasmas negligibly affected by gravity, all gravity models of celestial motion can therefore only be right by accident.
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406

11th December 2010, 03:08 PM	#145
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Plate tectonics cannot be shown in lab experiments [to be a viable hypothesis - AM], therefore it isn't science, it's religion... Corrections in bold red by me.
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406

11th December 2010, 03:09 PM	#146
Perpetual Student Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 3,707	Getting back to the OP, would any of you, who hold opinions that are not consistent with mainstream physics and cosmology, care to tell us a bit about your education -- specifically in the areas we are discussing here?
	__________________ _{It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman} ξ

11th December 2010, 03:13 PM	#147
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Earthquakes affect real people here on Earth. While it's undeniable that earthquakes do occur, the likely cause is unlikely to be in agreement with "plate tectonics" models. Interesting electromagnetic phenomena occur before, during and after earthquakes, suggesting an electrical relationship. Platies will tell you this is all down to piezoelectric effects, but offer nothing to support these claims except the operation of a quartz watch (that, in conflict with their suggestions, does not produce similar effects). It's safe to say plate tectonics is a terminally ill model, and we have a competing explanation that's more reasonable, and also is falsifiable (but not yet falsified): electricity
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406

11th December 2010, 03:14 PM	#148
Drachasor Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,718	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? Of course, computer models are a kind of experiment and back up a lot of this stuff. It's certainly a way to test theories and, like all science, the simplest explanation/model that explains all related phenomenon is preferred. If something came along tomorrow that explained what we know about the Universe better than our current models, then it would be studied and accepted fairly quickly. Sadly, some people who actually don't comprehend the science of a given field decide it must be wrong, and go with an explanation that doesn't fit the facts (but claims to) that is simpler or just go with something they also don't understand that claims to be simpler. In actuality, if there really were multiple competing theories that fit the facts as best we know them well, then they'd all be competing with each other. You see this plenty of times in the history of science, from various ways evolution could work over time (how important punctuated equilibrium is, for instance), to various proposed ways of approaching a Theory of Everything in physics. This is, of course, how science is not a religion. Science Trolls ignore this, of course.
	Last edited by Drachasor; 11th December 2010 at 03:18 PM.

11th December 2010, 03:15 PM	#149
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,237	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Define "earlier" vs. "later" please. Earlier: Cosmic Electrodynamics. Later: Cosmic Plasma. Quote: How so? Other thread please. In fact please repost the rest to the solar thread if you really want me to respond. I am confident that you will continue to ignore the science in that thread.
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

11th December 2010, 03:17 PM	#150
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,237	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann While it's undeniable that earthquakes do occur, the likely cause is unlikely to be in agreement with "plate tectonics" models. Interesting electromagnetic phenomena occur before, during and after earthquakes, suggesting an electrical relationship. Platies will tell you this is all down to piezoelectric effects, but offer nothing to support these claims except the operation of a quartz watch (that, in conflict with their suggestions, does not produce similar effects). It's safe to say plate tectonics is a terminally ill model, and we have a competing explanation that's more reasonable, and also is falsifiable (but not yet falsified): electricity [Homer voice]Mmmm...Electricity. Is there anything it can't do?
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

11th December 2010, 03:21 PM	#151
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406	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. Hope against fear, a brilliant tactic when you're trying to set somebody up. I can answer the loaded question of the thread subject pretty succinctly. The reason there is so much "crackpot physics" is because the consensus view of what physics entails is demonstrably wrong, and there are so very few people like Michael and myself presenting actual physics. If crackpots weren't in the majority of the population as a whole, and consistently holding majority opinions, there wouldn't be so much "crackpot physics".
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406

11th December 2010, 03:21 PM	#152
Drachasor Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,718	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann Firmly established over 99% of space is plasma, plasmas negligibly affected by gravity, all gravity models of celestial motion can therefore only be right by accident. Plasmas are just affected by gravity as any other form of normal matter.

11th December 2010, 03:21 PM	#153
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,508	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann While it's undeniable that earthquakes do occur, the likely cause is unlikely to be in agreement with "plate tectonics" models. Interesting electromagnetic phenomena occur before, during and after earthquakes, suggesting an electrical relationship. Platies will tell you this is all down to piezoelectric effects, but offer nothing to support these claims except the operation of a quartz watch (that, in conflict with their suggestions, does not produce similar effects). It's safe to say plate tectonics is a terminally ill model, and we have a competing explanation that's more reasonable, and also is falsifiable (but not yet falsified): electricity You, sir, give every indication of being a blithering idiot. Assuming, hopefully, that you are not a blithering idiot, where in the world of fantasy did you get those ideas?
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,508

11th December 2010, 03:22 PM	#154
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Originally Posted by Perpetual Student Getting back to the OP, would any of you, who hold opinions that are not consistent with mainstream physics and cosmology, care to tell us a bit about your education -- specifically in the areas we are discussing here? Can you explain how that is relevant considering the fact that Aflven was the "crackpot Messianic" figure you're talking about, and the mainstream handed him a Nobel Prize?
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362

11th December 2010, 03:23 PM	#155
Drachasor Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,718	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 Seriously? Photons? Electrons? It's all wavicles! In any case, it's pretty clear he doesn't understand any aspect of physics that well.