Why is there so much crackpot physics? - Page 5

Arthur Mann · 11th December 2010, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by Skwinty

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

Actually I think from that perspective the universe would appear to contract, but in any case, this is a weak joke.

Michael Mozina · 11th December 2010, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

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

Again, I utterly fail to comprehend the relevancy of that question, or the relevancy of whether anyone is now dead or alive. You're the one that called PC theory a "crackpot" theory and a "dead guy' was the one that happened to pretty much write the book on PC theory. He also happened to be *EXTREMELY* educated, won a Nobel Prize in MHD theory specifically, and was very well versed on other mainstream theories, most of which he rejected for his entire life. What exactly are YOUR (as a critic) qualifications in MHD theory that allow you to call the Nobel Prize winning scientist a 'crackpot"? What gives you personally the scientific right to compare his theories to creationism, especially considering how vehemently Alfven rejected "creation" events?

Arthur Mann · 11th December 2010, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

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

Misguided metaphor, since the phenomena you mention are all fallacious, and have no practical applications, basically you're self-refuting. If you'd mention actual scientific notions that have produced tangible benefits and can be readily expressed in technological devices, I'd ask you where are the devices that exploit "inflation" to do work of any kind? Do you have any idea how much force it would take to "inflate" (even the observed) universe? What is responsible for that force, if we could harness it we could literally unmake the universe.

[ETA -

If you figure it out, publish, you'll win the nobel prize.

]

Perpetual Student · 11th December 2010, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Again, I utterly fail to comprehend the relevancy of that question, or the relevancy of whether anyone is now dead or alive. You're the one that called PC theory a "crackpot" theory and a "dead guy' was the one that happened to pretty much write the book on PC theory. He also happened to be *EXTREMELY* educated, won a Nobel Prize in MHD theory specifically, and was very well versed on other mainstream theories, most of which he rejected for his entire life. What exactly are YOUR (as a critic) qualifications in MHD theory that allow you to call the Nobel Prize winning scientist a 'crackpot"? What give you the right to compare his theories to creationism, especially considering how vehemently Alfven rejected "creation" events?

That response is quite off topic, which was, "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, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

Surely mathematical models that are falsifiable through observation and make novel predictions are of value in creating narratives about the cosmos?

That approximation of logic is what led to Ptolemy's epicycles.

Michael Mozina · 11th December 2010, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

That response is quite off topic, which was, "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?"

Again, I have pointed out to you that the messianic figure that you're picking on was highly educated, extremely versed in the realm of his expertise (plasma physics), and was awarded a Nobel Prize for that work. Since you are calling him a 'crackpot', and his body of work a 'crackpot' field of science, you should be willing to explain *YOUR* education, particularly in the areas of plasma physics.

Arthur Mann · 11th December 2010, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by D'rok

This is a lie.

I don't think it's very helpful to go around calling each other liars, cool your jets, hot shot.

Drachasor · 11th December 2010, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Mann

That approximation of logic is what led to Ptolemy's epicycles.

Which were rejected by science when a more sensible explanation emerged.

So what's your point here? Science will accept the simplest explanation available?

Arthur Mann · 11th December 2010, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

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

False.

GeeMack · 11th December 2010, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

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.

Clearly if someone makes a claim as stupid and unsupportable as, say, the moon is made of cheese, there's no reason to get into a discussion about the cheese making process, how much rennet, aging for how long, and how to handle the whey. If the claim is so unsupportably stupid, and the claimant has nothing but bald assertions and lies to back it, I see no reason to entertain their apparently desperate desire to talk all sciency and indulge the fantasy they have about actually participating in real science. With crackpots the whole thing is so far below real science it never needs to go there. If the crackpots don't even understand grade school science, it's surely not going to do them any good to talk about college level science, the persistent and uncivil complaints of those very crackpots notwithstanding.

Drachasor · 11th December 2010, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Again, I have pointed out to you that the messianic figure that you're picking on was highly educated, extremely versed in the realm of his expertise (plasma physics), and was awarded a Nobel Prize for that work. Since you are calling him a 'crackpot', and his body of work a 'crackpot' field of science, you should be willing to explain *YOUR* education, particularly in the areas of plasma physics.

Just because someone got a Nobel Prize or contributed a lot to science doesn't mean everything they did was gold. Newton, for instance, worked seriously in alchemy and theology. Not every thought Alfven had was correct, and it would be silly to think so.

Michael Mozina · 11th December 2010, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Clearly if someone makes a claim as stupid and unsupportable as, say, the moon is made of cheese, there's no reason to get into a discussion about the cheese making process, how much rennet, aging for how long, and how to handle the whey. If the claim is so unsupportably stupid, and the claimant has nothing but bald assertions and lies to back it, I see no reason to entertain their apparently desperate desire to talk all sciency and indulge the fantasy they have about actually participating in real science. With crackpots the whole thing is so far below real science it never needs to go there. If the crackpots don't even understand grade school science, it's surely not going to do them any good to talk about college level science, the persistent and uncivil complaints of those very crackpots notwithstanding.

Care to discuss Alfven's use of the term "circuit" (in the other thread of course) or do you indent to keep running from that question indefinitely?

Perpetual Student · 11th December 2010, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Again, I have pointed out to you that the messianic figure that you're picking on was highly educated, extremely versed in the realm of his expertise (plasma physics), and was awarded a Nobel Prize for that work. Since you are calling him a 'crackpot', and his body of work a 'crackpot' field of science, you should be willing to explain *YOUR* education, particularly in the areas of plasma physics.

Your highly defensive response is revealing. I have never said one word about Alfven in this or any other thread. My question was addressed to any participants to this thread, who might be willing to respond with any information about their training and credentials in physics and cosmology. If you chose not to respond, so be it -- lack of response is a kind of answer.

Michael Mozina · 11th December 2010, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by Drachasor

Just because someone got a Nobel Prize or contributed a lot to science doesn't mean everything they did was gold. Newton, for instance, worked seriously in alchemy and theology. Not every thought Alfven had was correct, and it would be silly to think so.

So aren't you sort of proving my point that that educational background and/or one's credentials are pretty much irrelevant?

Michael Mozina · 11th December 2010, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

Your highly defensive response is revealing. I have never said one word about Alfven in this or any other thread. My question was addressed to any participants to this thread, who might be willing to respond with any information about their training and credentials in physics and cosmology. If you chose not to respond, so be it -- lack of response is a kind of answer.

Is your unwillingness to discuss your background in MDH theory any less 'defensive" in your mind somehow? Do you have a Nobel Prize in MHD theory sitting on a shelf somewhere that I should know about?

Arthur Mann · 11th December 2010, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

some who actually work on the Large Hadron Collider who can call you out on this b.s., right?

Really? Hmm...consider the following:

Quote:

Neutron-Driven Element Transmuter
A beam of protons from a particle accelerator used to produce neutrons which are fired in an appropriate lead assembly. Neutrons bounce around inside the lead, losing a little energy with each bounce, such that the neutron spectrum covers a broad range of energies. Lead being the most transparent element to high energy neutrons has the advantage that these are not absorbed by lead, but much more efficiently by atoms of the sample to be transmuted. This enhanced neutron exposure may be used to produce useful radio-isotopes for medical use or, when using an opposite procedure to the one used for isotopes production, to transmute long lived isotopes such as those recovered from spent nuclear fuel.

So who's right, CERN or you and your chat friends?

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

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

I stand corrected, finally. What I should have said is an electron laser is a laser that uses a stream of electrons as the lasing medium. It's a minor error to call this kind of laser a "maser", and really one of convention in any case.

mike3 · 11th December 2010, 03:50 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

Tectonics is not "terminally ill", it's backed up by craploads of evidence, which is why nobody with decent scientific expertise seriously disputes it.

First off, tectonics is based on relatively simple physics, namely the idea that a dense mass put atop a less-dense fluidlike/goo one can sink into the latter. Do you deny this? If so, then why do boats work? The dense stuff sinks down, and as it does so it melts and forms less-dense stuff again. The pot underneath has to bubble up somewhere to balance, and so it bursts up at the ridges, where it forms new dense stuff. In addition, there is also currents in the stuff underneath, which pushes and moves around the bits floating on top. The details of all this are what are really complex, but the basic ideas are not, and to deny them would involve denying some simple phenomena you can observe right here at home.

Now on to confirmatory evidence. For one, we can see the geographic features of the Earth's crust, like the ocean ridges and trenches. What are these features, according to you? On land, we can see things like the shape of the rock in mountains, which shows them (for non-volcanic ones, at least) to be folded-up rock. How do you explain this, other than due to plate effects? Plate effects provide the simple explanation: one plate pushes into the other, rumpling it up like crushing a dough pie from one side with your hand (though not exactly, since the rock can actually weld together, it's more like pushing two pies together and one can actually override the other a bit, among other things, but close...). And then there's the shapes of the continents themselves, which suggest the idea that they must have "drifted" apart.

In addition to that, we've got stuff like rock age and magnetic field data from the sea beds, showing how there are lines of magnetic reversals ("magnetic polar shifting") that "stripe" each side of the ocean ridges, and dating techniques show the age of rock as increasing the further we get, indicating that it originated at the ridges.

Moving on, we've got more direct evidence, including actual observation and measurement of the process itself. For example, one can send down a submarine to visit the ocean trenches, and there's a segment exposed at the surface at Iceland, and one can see the eruptions and the heat directly, proving that these regions are where matter from the deep earth comes up.

Now observing the sinking of matter in the trenches is more difficult, because it's happening below ground inside an opaque fluid. To do that, we need to use sound waves, instead of light waves, since they conduct through such materials. By doing that, we can image the bits of broken plate actually sinking down into the mantle.

Finally, there is observation of the actual motion. We can use highly sophisticated radar systems to track the tiny amount of "drift" between stations. And then, of course, the most direct observation possible at the very earthquake zones you mention. There are places in California where you can actually SEE, with your own EYES, the shear displacement due to sudden bursts of plate motion during an earthquake. Can't get any more obvious than that.

Overall, I'd say a pretty solid case is available for plate tectonics. Can you refute any of these points?

D'rok · 11th December 2010, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Mann

I don't think it's very helpful to go around calling each other liars, cool your jets, hot shot.

Grammar lesson for you:

"This is a lie" - identifies a plainly false statement
"You are a liar" - calls someone a liar

See?

Arthur Mann · 11th December 2010, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Can you?

No, I can not. Can you describe the process by which "neutrinos" are detected?

Drachasor · 11th December 2010, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

So aren't you sort of proving my point that that educational background and/or one's credentials are pretty much irrelevant?

The fact that someone who has studied a lot can still be wrong on the edges of science, is all the more reason to be suspicious of someone who hasn't studied at all or just studied very little. That said, the guy who has studied a lot and done a lot of professional work is very, very likely to know what they are talking about for the vast majority of topics in their field. The edges of science are always a treacherous area in this way; that's the nature of discovery.

mike3 · 11th December 2010, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

So aren't you sort of proving my point that that educational background and/or one's credentials are pretty much irrelevant?

Credentials are not so relevant. What's relevant is EVIDENCE -- and that's what I wan to see you and other "cranks" here address. The point you need to understand is this: if you can't explain the EVIDENCE for conventionally-accepted theory, then why should your theory be accepted? From what I can tell, your theory seems to be based on doing away with evidence -- ignoring all the evidence for plate tectonics, stellar fusion, Big Bang, and so on... Not trying to explain it, just flat out ignoring it. What you need is a theory that can a) consistently explain all this evidence and b) make new predictions that would enable its confirmation or negation. So far, I have not seen such theory.

Arthur Mann · 11th December 2010, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Arthur and Michael you will notice hang out in places like JREF. If that had anything they would Publish.

You mean like you've published? And what makes you think I haven't been published?

Arthur Mann · 11th December 2010, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

That is one of the most inaccurate and naive descriptions of the supercollider I have ever heard or seen!

False.

The most inaccurate and naive description of a supercollider you've ever seen is that they're "winding back the clock to big bang".

Drachasor · 11th December 2010, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Mann

No, I can not. Can you describe the process by which "neutrinos" are detected?

Roughly. You have vast, underground detectors that are capable of picking up the light that would be emitted if a neutrino hit an electron. You fill these caverns with pure water, line them with detectors. They have to be huge since neutrinos interact very weakly. They have to be underground so that noise from cosmic rays can be reduced to a tolerable level.

Michael Mozina · 11th December 2010, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Drachasor

The fact that someone who has studied a lot can still be wrong on the edges of science, is all the more reason to be suspicious of someone who hasn't studied at all or just studied very little.

Ok, I 've read Alven's book Cosmic Plasma and *AT LEAST* three dozen papers on his application of MHD theory to objects in space. Which of the *CRITICS* of PC theory can make that same claim? Alfven himself won a Nobel Prize in MHD theory. Which of his critics can make that same claim? I will have a lot less "suspicion" of anyone that can say say yes to the first part, and less toward anyone with a Nobel Prize that actually criticizes his work.

Quote:

That said, the guy who has studied a lot and done a lot of professional work is very, very likely to know what they are talking about for the vast majority of topics in their field. The edges of science are always a treacherous area in this way; that's the nature of discovery.

That's why I personally have a lot of confidence in Alfven's abilities as it relates to plasma physics. I know he understood *THAT PARTICULAR* topic very well. I don't even know how many of his "critics" have even bothered to read his whole book!

Arthur Mann · 11th December 2010, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

Coincidentally, I have known a few engineers who cling to crackpot ideas.

Crackpot ideas like "big bang", "black hole", "dark matter", "dark energy" and so on? These are the consensus views, it's not a coincidence that people you've met share them.

mike3 · 11th December 2010, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Mann

No, I can not. Can you describe the process by which "neutrinos" are detected?

Here's some stuff on that:

http://www.ps.uci.edu/physics/news/nuexpt.html

Can you refute?

Arthur Mann · 11th December 2010, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by rwguinn

What ******** that entire article is.

No actual attempt at refuting the article, just flat dismissal.

mike3 · 11th December 2010, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

That's why I personally have a lot of confidence in Alfven's abilities as it relates to plasma physics. I know he understood *THAT PARTICULAR* topic very well. I don't even know how many of his "critics" have even bothered to read his whole book!

Perhaps, but what about his abilities as it relates to COSMOLOGY?

GeeMack · 11th December 2010, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Care to discuss Alfven's use of the term "circuit" (in the other thread of course) or do you indent to keep running from that question indefinitely?

My previous comment, in full, applies to this complaint.

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Clearly if someone makes a claim as stupid and unsupportable as, say, the moon is made of cheese, there's no reason to get into a discussion about the cheese making process, how much rennet, aging for how long, and how to handle the whey. If the claim is so unsupportably stupid, and the claimant has nothing but bald assertions and lies to back it, I see no reason to entertain their apparently desperate desire to talk all sciency and indulge the fantasy they have about actually participating in real science. With crackpots the whole thing is so far below real science it never needs to go there. If the crackpots don't even understand grade school science, it's surely not going to do them any good to talk about college level science, the persistent and uncivil complaints of those very crackpots notwithstanding.

Michael Mozina · 11th December 2010, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Mann

You mean like you've published? And what makes you think I haven't been published?

It's obviously an "assumption."

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1

Michael Mozina · 11th December 2010, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by mike3

Perhaps, but what about his abilities as it relates to COSMOLOGY?

Well, Cosmic Plasma pretty much lays out the whole theory, bottom to top, from the small to the large. How many of the critics of his work can even claim to have read his book on the topic of Cosmology?

Arthur Mann · 11th December 2010, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by John Jones

have you studied physics at the college level?

What does that even mean? There are no "levels" of physics, it's not a secret society, or a Dungeons and Dragons game.

On a related note, I'll quote Al Gore, from Futurama:

"I'm a tenth level Vice President!"

Drachasor · 11th December 2010, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Ok, I 've read Alven's book Cosmic Plasma and *AT LEAST* three dozen papers on his application of MHD theory to objects in space. Which of the *CRITICS* of PC theory can make that same claim? Alfven himself won a Nobel Prize in MHD theory. Which of his critics can make that same claim? I will have a lot less "suspicion" of anyone that can say say yes to the first part, and less toward anyone with a Nobel Prize that actually criticizes his work.

Frankly, I doubt you understood the math behind the work based on what you've said in this thread.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

That's why I personally have a lot of confidence in Alfven's abilities as it relates to plasma physics. I know he understood *THAT PARTICULAR* topic very well. I don't even know how many of his "critics" have even bothered to read his whole book!

Do people today need to read books on the Liminiferous Ether? No. Old, disproven theories don't have to be studied in detail to discount them. His work can't explain Cosmic Background Radiation and other things that have been observed. Yes, he understood Plasma Physics, but that doesn't mean he understood Astrophysics very well or every possible application of Plasma Physics. Again, the edges of science are prone to error.

mike3 · 11th December 2010, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Well, Cosmic Plasma pretty much lays out the whole theory, bottom to top, from the small to the large. How many of the critics of his work can even claim to have read his book on the topic of Cosmology?

You said that his extensive studies and professional work in the area of plasma physics was good reason to trust him in that area. But if he hadn't done similarly extensive studies and work in the area of cosmology, then the argument does not carry over.

See?

DeiRenDopa · 11th December 2010, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

I am curious: What do you suppose drives crackpot physics and cosmology? They do not seem to be very knowledgeable about physics and cosmology, other than having mastered a lot of jargon. They seem to be quite ignorant of mathematics. Yet they seem to be passionate to an extreme about their views -- to the point of behaving like religious zealots. How can they possibly believe tens of thousands of specialists (many quite brilliant) are all wrong, but somehow (although they lack the education) they have stumbled on the truth?
What do they gain out of this avocation? Appearing wise to their friends and relatives and the uninformed at cocktail parties? Are they delusional narcissists? Do they hold myriad other unorthodox opinions about he world (like, say, political conspiracy theories and Internet driven puffery)?
Any opinions?

In addition to physics and cosmology being about The Rules (as was pointed out very early in this thread), there's another fundamental attitude that is in play.

Physics has been quantitative since at least the time of Galileo, certainly Newton. One thing that follows from this is that if you, personally, don't have a good handle on quantitative, then you will not ever be able to understand physics very well. But if you find that you cannot quiet the inner voices which keep on insisting that knowing The Rules is crucial to your happiness, you will be driven to work out what The Rules are for yourself ... and as you cannot understand physics, you will have no choice but to denounce it (and you will never be able to stop yourself devoting most of your waking hours to this impossible task).

(Of course, there are people who are crackpot about physics who do do quantitative, but they will likely fairly quickly get tired of this section of JREF, will write up their ideas, and find somewhere to publish them).

One interesting thing: the 'don't do quantitative' physics crackpots get extremely touchy when there's mention of similarities between the way they present their ideas and with religion ... and yet notice how often 'belief' ('believe', etc) features in their writing; notice the huge use of what looks like 'what the Lord God {X} wrote is the Truth, every word of it' (where X might be Birkeland, for example, or Alfven) - the search for quotes, the twisting of words to suit the belief, etc. Too, much of the criticism of 'the mainstream' (or whatever) is couched in religious terms ('deities', 'dogma', and so on) - and to many a crackpot no doubt it does seem just like this (try making sense of a university physics textbook if all the equations were replaced by random text strings!).

It's rather sad really; just think how many wonderful things could be done if all that passion and energy had been devoted to something practical!

Arthur Mann · 11th December 2010, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Photons?

Are photons particles? Many experiments rule this out.

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Electrons?

Are electrons particles? The bohr model has been almost universally rejected, and again, many experiments refute this.

Arthur Mann · 11th December 2010, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by D'rok

Alfven's later, erroneous, work

Which of Alfven's work was erroneous? Be more specific than "all of it", please.

Michael Mozina · 11th December 2010, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by Drachasor

Frankly, I doubt you understood the math behind the work based on what you've said in this thread.

Would it matter? Is there a problem in it somewhere that you'd like to point out for us? I certainly understand the work *THEORETICALLY* and that is at least equally important in this case, perhaps even more so.

Quote:

Do people today need to read books on the Liminiferous Ether? No. Old, disproven theories don't have to be studied in detail to discount them.

Yet "dark energy" theory *SMACKS* of aether theory.

Quote:

His work can't explain Cosmic Background Radiation and other things that have been observed.

How do you know? Have you *TRIED* or are you just "assuming"?

Quote:

Yes, he understood Plasma Physics, but that doesn't mean he understood Astrophysics very well or every possible application of Plasma Physics. Again, the edges of science are prone to error.

Sorry but you'll have to explain how that's even relevant considering the fact that 95+% of the universe is "plasma"?

Perpetual Student · 11th December 2010, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Is your unwillingness to discuss your background in MDH theory any less 'defensive" in your mind somehow? Do you have a Nobel Prize in MHD theory sitting on a shelf somewhere that I should know about?

I am quite willing to discuss my educational background and have done so when there has been a specific purpose -- in other threads. If you are not willing to do so -- OK -- I understand.

11th December 2010, 03:30 PM	#161
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406	Originally Posted by Skwinty Drive a fast car and watch the universe expand in the rear view mirror. Actually I think from that perspective the universe would appear to contract, but in any case, this is a weak joke.
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406

11th December 2010, 03:33 PM	#162
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Originally Posted by Perpetual Student I was addressing people responding here and now to this thread, not dead people, who obviously are no longer capable of thought. Again, I utterly fail to comprehend the relevancy of that question, or the relevancy of whether anyone is now dead or alive. You're the one that called PC theory a "crackpot" theory and a "dead guy' was the one that happened to pretty much write the book on PC theory. He also happened to be EXTREMELY educated, won a Nobel Prize in MHD theory specifically, and was very well versed on other mainstream theories, most of which he rejected for his entire life. What exactly are YOUR (as a critic) qualifications in MHD theory that allow you to call the Nobel Prize winning scientist a 'crackpot"? What gives you personally the scientific right to compare his theories to creationism, especially considering how vehemently Alfven rejected "creation" events?
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Last edited by Michael Mozina; 11th December 2010 at 03:35 PM.

11th December 2010, 03:35 PM	#163
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus 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 Misguided metaphor, since the phenomena you mention are all fallacious, and have no practical applications, basically you're self-refuting. If you'd mention actual scientific notions that have produced tangible benefits and can be readily expressed in technological devices, I'd ask you where are the devices that exploit "inflation" to do work of any kind? Do you have any idea how much force it would take to "inflate" (even the observed) universe? What is responsible for that force, if we could harness it we could literally unmake the universe. [ETA - If you figure it out, publish, you'll win the nobel prize. ]
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406	Last edited by Arthur Mann; 11th December 2010 at 03:35 PM. Reason: ETA

11th December 2010, 03:36 PM	#164
Perpetual Student Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 3,710	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Again, I utterly fail to comprehend the relevancy of that question, or the relevancy of whether anyone is now dead or alive. You're the one that called PC theory a "crackpot" theory and a "dead guy' was the one that happened to pretty much write the book on PC theory. He also happened to be EXTREMELY educated, won a Nobel Prize in MHD theory specifically, and was very well versed on other mainstream theories, most of which he rejected for his entire life. What exactly are YOUR (as a critic) qualifications in MHD theory that allow you to call the Nobel Prize winning scientist a 'crackpot"? What give you the right to compare his theories to creationism, especially considering how vehemently Alfven rejected "creation" events? That response is quite off topic, which was, "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, 03:37 PM	#165
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406	Originally Posted by Sideroxylon Surely mathematical models that are falsifiable through observation and make novel predictions are of value in creating narratives about the cosmos? That approximation of logic is what led to Ptolemy's epicycles.
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406

11th December 2010, 03:38 PM	#166
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Originally Posted by Perpetual Student That response is quite off topic, which was, "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?" Again, I have pointed out to you that the messianic figure that you're picking on was highly educated, extremely versed in the realm of his expertise (plasma physics), and was awarded a Nobel Prize for that work. Since you are calling him a 'crackpot', and his body of work a 'crackpot' field of science, you should be willing to explain YOUR education, particularly in the areas of plasma physics.
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362

11th December 2010, 03:39 PM	#167
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406	Originally Posted by D'rok This is a lie. I don't think it's very helpful to go around calling each other liars, cool your jets, hot shot.
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406

11th December 2010, 03:40 PM	#168
Drachasor Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,718	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann That approximation of logic is what led to Ptolemy's epicycles. Which were rejected by science when a more sensible explanation emerged. So what's your point here? Science will accept the simplest explanation available?

11th December 2010, 03:42 PM	#169
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus ETA: And since you brought it up, hydrogen originated during the big bang. False.
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406

11th December 2010, 03:44 PM	#170
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,175	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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. Clearly if someone makes a claim as stupid and unsupportable as, say, the moon is made of cheese, there's no reason to get into a discussion about the cheese making process, how much rennet, aging for how long, and how to handle the whey. If the claim is so unsupportably stupid, and the claimant has nothing but bald assertions and lies to back it, I see no reason to entertain their apparently desperate desire to talk all sciency and indulge the fantasy they have about actually participating in real science. With crackpots the whole thing is so far below real science it never needs to go there. If the crackpots don't even understand grade school science, it's surely not going to do them any good to talk about college level science, the persistent and uncivil complaints of those very crackpots notwithstanding.

11th December 2010, 03:46 PM	#171
Drachasor Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,718	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Again, I have pointed out to you that the messianic figure that you're picking on was highly educated, extremely versed in the realm of his expertise (plasma physics), and was awarded a Nobel Prize for that work. Since you are calling him a 'crackpot', and his body of work a 'crackpot' field of science, you should be willing to explain YOUR education, particularly in the areas of plasma physics. Just because someone got a Nobel Prize or contributed a lot to science doesn't mean everything they did was gold. Newton, for instance, worked seriously in alchemy and theology. Not every thought Alfven had was correct, and it would be silly to think so.

11th December 2010, 03:47 PM	#172
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Originally Posted by GeeMack Clearly if someone makes a claim as stupid and unsupportable as, say, the moon is made of cheese, there's no reason to get into a discussion about the cheese making process, how much rennet, aging for how long, and how to handle the whey. If the claim is so unsupportably stupid, and the claimant has nothing but bald assertions and lies to back it, I see no reason to entertain their apparently desperate desire to talk all sciency and indulge the fantasy they have about actually participating in real science. With crackpots the whole thing is so far below real science it never needs to go there. If the crackpots don't even understand grade school science, it's surely not going to do them any good to talk about college level science, the persistent and uncivil complaints of those very crackpots notwithstanding. Care to discuss Alfven's use of the term "circuit" (in the other thread of course) or do you indent to keep running from that question indefinitely?
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362

11th December 2010, 03:48 PM	#173
Perpetual Student Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 3,710	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Again, I have pointed out to you that the messianic figure that you're picking on was highly educated, extremely versed in the realm of his expertise (plasma physics), and was awarded a Nobel Prize for that work. Since you are calling him a 'crackpot', and his body of work a 'crackpot' field of science, you should be willing to explain YOUR education, particularly in the areas of plasma physics. Your highly defensive response is revealing. I have never said one word about Alfven in this or any other thread. My question was addressed to any participants to this thread, who might be willing to respond with any information about their training and credentials in physics and cosmology. If you chose not to respond, so be it -- lack of response is a kind of answer.
	__________________ _{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, 03:48 PM	#174
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Originally Posted by Drachasor Just because someone got a Nobel Prize or contributed a lot to science doesn't mean everything they did was gold. Newton, for instance, worked seriously in alchemy and theology. Not every thought Alfven had was correct, and it would be silly to think so. So aren't you sort of proving my point that that educational background and/or one's credentials are pretty much irrelevant?
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362

11th December 2010, 03:49 PM	#175
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Originally Posted by Perpetual Student Your highly defensive response is revealing. I have never said one word about Alfven in this or any other thread. My question was addressed to any participants to this thread, who might be willing to respond with any information about their training and credentials in physics and cosmology. If you chose not to respond, so be it -- lack of response is a kind of answer. Is your unwillingness to discuss your background in MDH theory any less 'defensive" in your mind somehow? Do you have a Nobel Prize in MHD theory sitting on a shelf somewhere that I should know about?
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362

11th December 2010, 03:49 PM	#176
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus some who actually work on the Large Hadron Collider who can call you out on this b.s., right? Really? Hmm...consider the following: Quote: Neutron-Driven Element Transmuter A beam of protons from a particle accelerator used to produce neutrons which are fired in an appropriate lead assembly. Neutrons bounce around inside the lead, losing a little energy with each bounce, such that the neutron spectrum covers a broad range of energies. Lead being the most transparent element to high energy neutrons has the advantage that these are not absorbed by lead, but much more efficiently by atoms of the sample to be transmuted. This enhanced neutron exposure may be used to produce useful radio-isotopes for medical use or, when using an opposite procedure to the one used for isotopes production, to transmute long lived isotopes such as those recovered from spent nuclear fuel. So who's right, CERN or you and your chat friends? Originally Posted by MattusMaximus ETA: For example, a maser is not an electron beam, it is a beam of coherent, amplified & focused microwaves. Link. I stand corrected, finally. What I should have said is an electron laser is a laser that uses a stream of electrons as the lasing medium. It's a minor error to call this kind of laser a "maser", and really one of convention in any case.
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406

11th December 2010, 03:50 PM	#177
mike3 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,942	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 Tectonics is not "terminally ill", it's backed up by craploads of evidence, which is why nobody with decent scientific expertise seriously disputes it. First off, tectonics is based on relatively simple physics, namely the idea that a dense mass put atop a less-dense fluidlike/goo one can sink into the latter. Do you deny this? If so, then why do boats work? The dense stuff sinks down, and as it does so it melts and forms less-dense stuff again. The pot underneath has to bubble up somewhere to balance, and so it bursts up at the ridges, where it forms new dense stuff. In addition, there is also currents in the stuff underneath, which pushes and moves around the bits floating on top. The details of all this are what are really complex, but the basic ideas are not, and to deny them would involve denying some simple phenomena you can observe right here at home. Now on to confirmatory evidence. For one, we can see the geographic features of the Earth's crust, like the ocean ridges and trenches. What are these features, according to you? On land, we can see things like the shape of the rock in mountains, which shows them (for non-volcanic ones, at least) to be folded-up rock. How do you explain this, other than due to plate effects? Plate effects provide the simple explanation: one plate pushes into the other, rumpling it up like crushing a dough pie from one side with your hand (though not exactly, since the rock can actually weld together, it's more like pushing two pies together and one can actually override the other a bit, among other things, but close...). And then there's the shapes of the continents themselves, which suggest the idea that they must have "drifted" apart. In addition to that, we've got stuff like rock age and magnetic field data from the sea beds, showing how there are lines of magnetic reversals ("magnetic polar shifting") that "stripe" each side of the ocean ridges, and dating techniques show the age of rock as increasing the further we get, indicating that it originated at the ridges. Moving on, we've got more direct evidence, including actual observation and measurement of the process itself. For example, one can send down a submarine to visit the ocean trenches, and there's a segment exposed at the surface at Iceland, and one can see the eruptions and the heat directly, proving that these regions are where matter from the deep earth comes up. Now observing the sinking of matter in the trenches is more difficult, because it's happening below ground inside an opaque fluid. To do that, we need to use sound waves, instead of light waves, since they conduct through such materials. By doing that, we can image the bits of broken plate actually sinking down into the mantle. Finally, there is observation of the actual motion. We can use highly sophisticated radar systems to track the tiny amount of "drift" between stations. And then, of course, the most direct observation possible at the very earthquake zones you mention. There are places in California where you can actually SEE, with your own EYES, the shear displacement due to sudden bursts of plate motion during an earthquake. Can't get any more obvious than that. Overall, I'd say a pretty solid case is available for plate tectonics. Can you refute any of these points?
mike3 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,942	Last edited by mike3; 11th December 2010 at 03:52 PM.

11th December 2010, 03:51 PM	#178
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,235	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann I don't think it's very helpful to go around calling each other liars, cool your jets, hot shot. Grammar lesson for you: "This is a lie" - identifies a plainly false statement "You are a liar" - calls someone a liar See?
	__________________ "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, 03:52 PM	#179
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Can you? No, I can not. Can you describe the process by which "neutrinos" are detected?
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406

11th December 2010, 03:53 PM	#180
Drachasor Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,718	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina So aren't you sort of proving my point that that educational background and/or one's credentials are pretty much irrelevant? The fact that someone who has studied a lot can still be wrong on the edges of science, is all the more reason to be suspicious of someone who hasn't studied at all or just studied very little. That said, the guy who has studied a lot and done a lot of professional work is very, very likely to know what they are talking about for the vast majority of topics in their field. The edges of science are always a treacherous area in this way; that's the nature of discovery.

11th December 2010, 03:53 PM	#181
mike3 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,942	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina So aren't you sort of proving my point that that educational background and/or one's credentials are pretty much irrelevant? Credentials are not so relevant. What's relevant is EVIDENCE -- and that's what I wan to see you and other "cranks" here address. The point you need to understand is this: if you can't explain the EVIDENCE for conventionally-accepted theory, then why should your theory be accepted? From what I can tell, your theory seems to be based on doing away with evidence -- ignoring all the evidence for plate tectonics, stellar fusion, Big Bang, and so on... Not trying to explain it, just flat out ignoring it. What you need is a theory that can a) consistently explain all this evidence and b) make new predictions that would enable its confirmation or negation. So far, I have not seen such theory.
mike3 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,942	Last edited by mike3; 11th December 2010 at 03:56 PM.

11th December 2010, 03:54 PM	#182
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Arthur and Michael you will notice hang out in places like JREF. If that had anything they would Publish. You mean like you've published? And what makes you think I haven't been published?
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406

11th December 2010, 03:56 PM	#183
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406	Originally Posted by Perpetual Student That is one of the most inaccurate and naive descriptions of the supercollider I have ever heard or seen! False. The most inaccurate and naive description of a supercollider you've ever seen is that they're "winding back the clock to big bang".
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406

11th December 2010, 03:57 PM	#184
Drachasor Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,718	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann No, I can not. Can you describe the process by which "neutrinos" are detected? Roughly. You have vast, underground detectors that are capable of picking up the light that would be emitted if a neutrino hit an electron. You fill these caverns with pure water, line them with detectors. They have to be huge since neutrinos interact very weakly. They have to be underground so that noise from cosmic rays can be reduced to a tolerable level.

11th December 2010, 03:58 PM	#185
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Originally Posted by Drachasor The fact that someone who has studied a lot can still be wrong on the edges of science, is all the more reason to be suspicious of someone who hasn't studied at all or just studied very little. Ok, I 've read Alven's book Cosmic Plasma and AT LEAST three dozen papers on his application of MHD theory to objects in space. Which of the CRITICS of PC theory can make that same claim? Alfven himself won a Nobel Prize in MHD theory. Which of his critics can make that same claim? I will have a lot less "suspicion" of anyone that can say say yes to the first part, and less toward anyone with a Nobel Prize that actually criticizes his work. Quote: That said, the guy who has studied a lot and done a lot of professional work is very, very likely to know what they are talking about for the vast majority of topics in their field. The edges of science are always a treacherous area in this way; that's the nature of discovery. That's why I personally have a lot of confidence in Alfven's abilities as it relates to plasma physics. I know he understood THAT PARTICULAR topic very well. I don't even know how many of his "critics" have even bothered to read his whole book!
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362

11th December 2010, 03:59 PM	#186
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406	Originally Posted by Perpetual Student Coincidentally, I have known a few engineers who cling to crackpot ideas. Crackpot ideas like "big bang", "black hole", "dark matter", "dark energy" and so on? These are the consensus views, it's not a coincidence that people you've met share them.
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406

11th December 2010, 03:59 PM	#187
mike3 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,942	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann No, I can not. Can you describe the process by which "neutrinos" are detected? Here's some stuff on that: http://www.ps.uci.edu/physics/news/nuexpt.html Can you refute?
mike3 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,942

11th December 2010, 04:00 PM	#188
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406	Originally Posted by rwguinn What ******** that entire article is. No actual attempt at refuting the article, just flat dismissal.
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406

11th December 2010, 04:00 PM	#189
mike3 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,942	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina That's why I personally have a lot of confidence in Alfven's abilities as it relates to plasma physics. I know he understood THAT PARTICULAR topic very well. I don't even know how many of his "critics" have even bothered to read his whole book! Perhaps, but what about his abilities as it relates to COSMOLOGY?
mike3 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,942

11th December 2010, 04:00 PM	#190
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,175	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Care to discuss Alfven's use of the term "circuit" (in the other thread of course) or do you indent to keep running from that question indefinitely? My previous comment, in full, applies to this complaint. Originally Posted by GeeMack Clearly if someone makes a claim as stupid and unsupportable as, say, the moon is made of cheese, there's no reason to get into a discussion about the cheese making process, how much rennet, aging for how long, and how to handle the whey. If the claim is so unsupportably stupid, and the claimant has nothing but bald assertions and lies to back it, I see no reason to entertain their apparently desperate desire to talk all sciency and indulge the fantasy they have about actually participating in real science. With crackpots the whole thing is so far below real science it never needs to go there. If the crackpots don't even understand grade school science, it's surely not going to do them any good to talk about college level science, the persistent and uncivil complaints of those very crackpots notwithstanding.

11th December 2010, 04:00 PM	#191
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann You mean like you've published? And what makes you think I haven't been published? It's obviously an "assumption." http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362

11th December 2010, 04:02 PM	#192
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Originally Posted by mike3 Perhaps, but what about his abilities as it relates to COSMOLOGY? Well, Cosmic Plasma pretty much lays out the whole theory, bottom to top, from the small to the large. How many of the critics of his work can even claim to have read his book on the topic of Cosmology?
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362

11th December 2010, 04:03 PM	#193
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406	Originally Posted by John Jones have you studied physics at the college level? What does that even mean? There are no "levels" of physics, it's not a secret society, or a Dungeons and Dragons game. On a related note, I'll quote Al Gore, from Futurama: "I'm a tenth level Vice President!"
Arthur Mann Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 406

11th December 2010, 04:03 PM	#194
Drachasor Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,718	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Ok, I 've read Alven's book Cosmic Plasma and AT LEAST three dozen papers on his application of MHD theory to objects in space. Which of the CRITICS of PC theory can make that same claim? Alfven himself won a Nobel Prize in MHD theory. Which of his critics can make that same claim? I will have a lot less "suspicion" of anyone that can say say yes to the first part, and less toward anyone with a Nobel Prize that actually criticizes his work. Frankly, I doubt you understood the math behind the work based on what you've said in this thread. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina That's why I personally have a lot of confidence in Alfven's abilities as it relates to plasma physics. I know he understood THAT PARTICULAR topic very well. I don't even know how many of his "critics" have even bothered to read his whole book! Do people today need to read books on the Liminiferous Ether? No. Old, disproven theories don't have to be studied in detail to discount them. His work can't explain Cosmic Background Radiation and other things that have been observed. Yes, he understood Plasma Physics, but that doesn't mean he understood Astrophysics very well or every possible application of Plasma Physics. Again, the edges of science are prone to error.

11th December 2010, 04:04 PM	#195
mike3 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,942	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Well, Cosmic Plasma pretty much lays out the whole theory, bottom to top, from the small to the large. How many of the critics of his work can even claim to have read his book on the topic of Cosmology? You said that his extensive studies and professional work in the area of plasma physics was good reason to trust him in that area. But if he hadn't done similarly extensive studies and work in the area of cosmology, then the argument does not carry over. See?
mike3 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,942