User talk:Tim Starling/List of crackpot theories

Cold fusion isn't crackpot. It is, however, useless for any practical purpose. Also, you forgot N-rays --James S. 09:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Note

Steady State Theory was formerly a Standard Cosmological Model, and therefore it does not fall into the catagory of "Crackpottery", which should only include pseudoscientific theories and research promoted by amateurs, the majority of whome typically base their claims on strawman arguments.

Plasma Cosmology also does not fall into this catagory, as it was developed by a Professional Scientist, Plasma Physicist and Nobel Laureate, and has a substantial and growing support within the scientific community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.87.94 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As described on the page, this list also contains "some historical scientific theories which were discredited and abandoned, then adopted by crackpots and mangled beyond recognition". Steady State Theory is in this category.

Plasma Cosmology was always a little off, even as proposed by Alfven, who was certainly an outstanding scientist and independent thinker. He remains an important and original contributor for plasma physics; but actual plasma cosmology, on the other hand, certainly belongs in this list. The growing support is not in the scientific community, but in a rather odd side branch of the scientific community which could indeed be considered rather crankish.

The "dynamic theory of gravity" which was apparently considered by Tesla and never published no longer has its own wikipedia page, and hence is a reasonable candidate to be deleted. But I am restoring the other two. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 09:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"As described on the page, this list also contains "some historical scientific theories which were discredited and abandoned, then adopted by crackpots and mangled beyond recognition". Steady State Theory is in this category."

Regarding Steady State Theory

Yes I understand your point, and absolutely agree with you that Steady State has been seized upon and corrupted by armchair pseudoscientists, however the original theory has been discredited by its own incompleteness in comparison to Expansion Theory, primarily in explaining Hubble's discovery of cosmological redshift, as well as Olber's paradox.

In my opinion, and in all fairness it should not be degraded to the level of crackpottery simply on the basis of being an incomplete, superceded theory. I think it would be preferable to make a more specific reference to crank revisions of Steady State, rather than the original theory itself.

Regarding Plasma Cosmology, I believe this debate should be kept open until every detail has been either refuted or verified. It should be regarded at least as viable an alternative to Expansion Theory as is String cosmology, which is not considered to be crackpottery. Standard Theory, in spite of supporting evidence is not an unquestionable axiom, and should always be open to new evidence. In my opinion String Cosmology and Plasma Cosmology are, at present, the only two viable alternatives, and both are also, as yet, incomplete theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.87.94 (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO: Plasma cosmology is crank cosmology; string theory isn't. They are as different as night and day. They are also apples and oranges with respect to cosmology. String theory is a possible underlying physics for dealing with areas where existing physics break down. It's not an alternative cosmology at all; it is a possible way of answering questions where cosmology currently doesn't have answers. Plasma cosmology, on the other hand, really is a new cosmology; a distinctly crankish one. It does not offer anything comparable to string theory as a way of addressing limitations of particle physics; it just proposes a new way for looking at what forces are at work in the universe now; but one that is mostly laughed at or ignored by cosmologists. It doesn't actually explain anything that needs explaining, so much as tries to force fit plasma physics to large scale feature of the universe better explained by conventional physics. Many aspects of cosmology it simply does not address. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma cosmology is based on the direct observation that 99.999% of all matter in the universe is in the plasma state.

It is an elegantly simple theory in that it requires no imaginary entities (Dark Matter, Dark Energy, et al), nor does it require any hypothetical processes to explain phenomena in the cosmos. It is based entirely on plasma physics, and is essentially an electric model of cosmology, where most answers can be derived from Maxwell and Lorentz equations. It is a very logical model, and absolutely not a crank cosmology.

The basis of String Theory on the other hand is completely mathematical, it requires 10 dimensions, at least 6 of which have never been proven to exist, so if one must choose between Plasma Cosmology and String Cosmology, then the latter is the most crankish of the two.

In my opinion, any theory which is not based on direct observation and experimental proof, and requires imaginary entities to account for 99% of the so called "missing mass" of the universe, and unreasonably complex processes in order to make it's mathematical argument work, is a crank theory.

I see that editing the list is futile, since it is automatically reverted, so I repectively suggest that the Steady State and Plasma entries be deleted on the grounds that they are not crackpot theories, but simply incomplete theories.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.87.94 (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SIDE NOTE

Crackpot theories by definition are contrived and promoted by Crackpots. It is completely unacceptable and contemptable to disrespect such notable scientists as Sir Fred Hoyle, Hannes Alfvén, and Nikola Tesla by accusing them of crackpottery, or comparing them with common amateur crackpots. These men are Giants of Science, and Nikola Tesla in particular was a genius of the first order, who's discoveries and inventions created the modern world. By comparison, those who wave the Crackpot flag are ALL insignificant nobodies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.87.94 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, on every point. I think excellent scientists are perfectly capable of promoting crackpottery. Sometimes they do it very well. A really superb scientist often has a powerful streak of individualism, creative thought, and sheer bloody minded determination to push an idea to the limit; characteristics which can help give new breakthroughs, or crackpottery. Hoyle, for example, was a crackpot with respect to evolution, despite being a genius with respect to astronomy. Alfven was a genius with respect to plasma physics, but his ideas on cosmology were rather potty. Nikola Tesla was a prolific genius, but also subject to a number of... oddities.

You are making a mistake here of one dimensional thinking. The giants of science are rarely perfect; and frequently display characteristics that are ... odd. A much better lesson to draw would be not to be too dismissive of crackpots; and yet also not to be too naive in accepting the claims of a genius. People are much more complex than the simple binary perspective you are implicitly endorsing.

I disagree with many of your recent modifications to this list. The following changes have been made so far this month:

Removal of Tesla's dynamical gravity. I don't think you have any good reason for this; other than a simple minded refusal to let Tesla's name be sullied; and in doing so you miss the real complexity of the man.
Removal of Plasma cosmology. I don't you you have appreciated the difference between legitimate plasma physics in deep space and the crackpot notions of how it applies in cosmology.
Some rather POV qualifications with steady state. In particular you say that the only crackpottery is by amateurs. That just isn't so.

I have applied some fixes, as I consider appropriate. This is not "automatic reversion". —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holla!

Thanks for making this page! I think it's a very interesting resource. Mrtea (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]