Need help debunking idiot physics

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2007-09-14 10:25pm

So, I've been arguing with Neal Adams on YouTube (yes, of Marvel comics). He's an outspoken proponent of the 'Expanding Earth' hypothesis, which is exactly what it sounds like.

To sum up: The universe is increasing in mass over time, and the earth is filled with a ball of plasma. Now, he refuses to argue with me further (he put me on 'probation' after I pointed out he only has a highschool education) until I read his site.

Here is his site. I'm an educated man, and I've even studied advanced physics, but I havn't got a fucking CLUE what this is supposed to mean. It reads like bad creationism.

I know it violates thermodynamics and a bunch of other things, but I want to figure out what the hell he's saying so I can know WHY its wrong.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-09-14 10:33pm

Some moron wrote:It has to be….simple, doesn’t it? And first….the math works.

What math? I see no real math on his website. Just a lot of nonsense.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-14 10:37pm

What's there to explain? He gives no evidence whatsoever for his wild-eyed claims. He just states them as fact. He even makes the preposterous claim that a proton is just a positron, and that scientists are flat wrong about the proton being much more massive than the electron.

His entire idiot argument is that his model is simpler because in his model, everything in the universe is made up electrons and positrons. But it's an enormous misrepresentation of logical parsimony to argue that a simpler theory is always better regardless of whether it fits observation, which is what he's doing.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2007-09-15 12:38am

The force of gravity is the gravitation constant times the product of the two masses divided by the distance between them squared. As r increases, as would be consistent with an expanding Earth, then the force of gravity decreases on an object on its surface. Since that has not been detected, he's full of crap.

Freshman physics shoots him down.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2007-09-15 01:06am

Didn't you know, Gil? According to Mr. Moron, the earth's mass is increasing over time, as is the total mass of the universe, because every large body (stars & planets) expands.

Coriolis · Post by **Coriolis** » 2007-09-15 01:54am

What a loony. None of his shit makes any sense at all

Does he mention his definition of a "large body"? If he doesn't have a straight answer, break out the paradox of the heap (how do we define the cut off point of a "large body").

darthbob88 · Post by **darthbob88** » 2007-09-15 02:25am

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Didn't you know, Gil? According to Mr. Moron, the earth's mass is increasing over time, as is the total mass of the universe, because every large body (stars & planets) expands.

In which case, sense mass increases faster than radius does, the effect of gravity on objects on the Earth's surface would increase, would it not?

Mass is proportional to radius^3, while gravity is inversely proportional to radius^2. Therefore, gravity increases directly proportional to radius. Is this correct, or am I in error?

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2007-09-15 05:15am

What a dumbass, and he writes it so it is exactly like every other site of New Age drug-inspired babble out there. And why the fuck is it that all of them have to look like they were written in 1996, with the crappiest of HTML markup and no real paragraphs and REALLY IMPORTANT stuff in capital letters. Jesus...

Listen to this, please. EVERYONE in science concedes that, though ENERGY IS EQUAL, plus to minus…MASS IS NOT! Because the proton is so much bigger than the Electron.

This...of course, can't be acceptable!

I say, the truth is, mass is also equal! It must be exactly the same.

"Energy is equal, plus to minus"? So charge is energy now? If he wants it simple, why doesn't he just go back to the classical elements. That way he can get rid of those pesky atoms, too!

Post by **Surlethe** » 2007-09-15 07:30am

I can't believe I just wasted six minutes of my life reading that drivel. He simply states his claims as fact, and then claims that science has been ignoring the simple and elegant truth for decades. It's in essence no different from creationism: brashly assume you're right, and then attack the credibility of science.

Vehrec · Post by **Vehrec** » 2007-09-15 09:10am

His claims need to deal with one major snag, the Earth-moon system. If both these elements are getting more massive over time, that would mean that the gravitational attraction between them is increasing relative to the constant inertia of the moon that keeps it orbiting. Since this mass is just magically added, as the moon orbits it keeps a constant inertia despite its increasing mass. So eventually, unless I miss my guess, the moons orbit would decay, and it would spiral into the earth.

Junghalli · Post by **Junghalli** » 2007-09-15 01:57pm

It looks like what we've got here is a very arrogant high school kid at the "knows just enough to be deluded into thinking he has a clue" phase.

une · Post by **une** » 2007-09-15 02:13pm

Junghalli wrote:It looks like what we've got here is a very arrogant high school kid at the "knows just enough to be deluded into thinking he has a clue" phase.

No, this is much more pathetic than that. Really, what we have here is a 66 year old man who thinks that the ability to draw Batman comics makes him qualified to talk about science.

SpacedTeddyBear · Post by **SpacedTeddyBear** » 2007-09-15 09:02pm

Hmmm... I think my brain would have received a more satisfying mental exercise by reading more Britney Spears tabloids than that drivel. He's simply coming up with arbitrary numbers and assumes it's the truth without providing any real calculations, but because science doesn't agree with his "observations" than obviously science is false.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-15 09:08pm

SpacedTeddyBear wrote:Hmmm... I think my brain would have received a more satisfying mental exercise by reading more Britney Spears tabloids than that drivel. He's simply coming up with arbitrary numbers and assumes it's the truth without providing any real calculations, but because science doesn't agree with his "observations" than obviously science is false.

The crux of his argument seems to be his completely groundless assumption that charge must be proportional to mass. Ergo, he concludes that there is a gaping hole in science because it assigns a much higher mass to the proton than the electron, even though they both have the same charge.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2007-09-15 09:37pm

Darth Wong wrote:What's there to explain? He gives no evidence whatsoever for his wild-eyed claims. He just states them as fact. He even makes the preposterous claim that a proton is just a positron, and that scientists are flat wrong about the proton being much more massive than the electron.

Even if he is given that, and I don't, his simpler model gets in trouble after Hydrogen. Hell, if his rantings carry over to a neutron, his 'simpler model' gets in trouble with hydrogen.

Junghalli · Post by **Junghalli** » 2007-09-15 09:38pm

une wrote:No, this is much more pathetic than that. Really, what we have here is a 66 year old man who thinks that the ability to draw Batman comics makes him qualified to talk about science.

Damn, that is pathetic. His arguments read exactly like the sort of thing an arrogant high school kid who thinks skimming a few textbooks puts him on the same intellectual level as real scientists would come up with. Guess sometimes they don't grow out of it.

SpacedTeddyBear · Post by **SpacedTeddyBear** » 2007-09-15 10:48pm

Electron capture: I win. QED. Now where is my Nobel Prize for disproving the expanding earth hypothesis? Sure I don't have the calculations, but I'm sure that the math works.

kc8tbe · Post by **kc8tbe** » 2007-09-16 11:20am

[sarcasm]If this man is right then humans must be expanding too. This explains the obesity epidemic![/sarcasm]

I like that the title of his site is "Untitled Document". And incomplete sentences like "With your permission and indulgence?" And how he says electrons and positrons are the only two types of particles in the universe but then goes on to describe photons, which are particles.

I think I'm going to be sick.

Darth Quorthon · Post by **Darth Quorthon** » 2007-09-16 02:38pm

Did you hear that loud noise? That was my head exploding after I read that.

First of all, what the hell is a prime matter particle? He seems to just have invented it out of thin air (or should I say out of his ass). Also, and I'm not a doctor of physics or anything, but I thought the Standard Model that he seems to think he has debunked had more than two types of quarks. He cites the "up" and "down" quarks and mixes them with electrons and electron-neutrinos(what the heck are those, by the way), but leaves out the other types like "charm" and "strange". Maybe they just don't exist after all. I know that his "untitled document" is all about introducing a "New Model of the Universe" and all that, but usually people who are trying to debunk a competing theory(I use that term very loosely) usually can be bothered to get the particulars of that theory correct.

But here is my favorite part:

Gives us a headache to think of it. If someone tells you they understand it…they’re certainly exagerating.

He's got a revelation on how the Universe really works and he can't even run a spell-check on it? It's "exaggerate" you dumbass.

It's really aggravating to know that their are generations of scientists who have dedicated their entire careers to exploring and studying the makeup of matter and the universe, and some guy who probably scribbled this drivel on a cocktail napkin comes along and says thinks they're wrong and the best reason he can give boils down to "because I say so".

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2007-09-16 03:22pm

Darth Quorthon wrote:electrons and electron-neutrinos(what the heck are those, by the way)

An electron-neutrino is the "partner neutrino" of the electron. It is produced in (for example) β+ decay. Anti-electron-neutrinos are produced in β decay.

Starglider · Post by **Starglider** » 2007-09-17 07:26am

I've seen several GoogleAds banners for 'The Final Theory' recently, which is another crank 'the universe can't really be as complex as the physicists claim' book/site. It's a bit more developed/coherent/proofread than the average scrawl but that just makes it even funnier. Their science flaws page is hilarious. Of course it has the obligatory ranting about how an evil conspiracy of 'traditionalist scientists' is surpressing all new ideas from people 'outside the establishment'.

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2007-09-17 08:02am

Oh, I love those loons.

The scientists are all wrong! They are telling you lies! Don't believe them! I know more than thousands of people who spent their lives studying this shit!

Conspiracy theories about "orthodox scientists putting young mavericks down" are also hilarious. Don't these guys realize that forming a new theory that goes against (or, more likely, supplements it) and is correct actually gets you famous in science? Like, Einstein-famous? You know, immortal?

The Spartan · Post by **The Spartan** » 2007-09-17 08:07am

Starglider wrote:*snip*

That wasn't hilarious; that was sad. It was stacks of lies and strawmen. I couldn't even read it all, it was so irritating. Not infuritating like you might think, it just annoyed the hell out of me to see all that nonsense concentrated into it's pure form.

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2007-09-17 08:12am

The Spartan wrote: That wasn't hilarious; that was sad. It was stacks of lies and strawmen. I couldn't even read it all, it was so irritating. Not infuritating like you might think, it just annoyed the hell out of me to see all that nonsense concentrated into it's pure form.

I'm just reading it and disagree ; It's hilarious.

Loony website wrote:Gravity may not be working as advertised. Spacecraft
hurtling through the Solar System have been behaving
so bizarrely that some scientists wonder whether our
theories of gravity are wrong. -- Charles Seife,
New Scientist Magazine, September 1998

I wonder how out of context this quote has to be. We can hit things like Mars with out probes and spacecraft, so our models are obviously good enough for that ; I'd guess they took some guy talking about some erratic behavior and spindoctoring it into "OMG scientists think everything they know is wrong!!!"

And people seriously don't see right through this shit? Come on!

Starglider · Post by **Starglider** » 2007-09-17 08:23am

PeZook wrote:I wonder how out of context this quote has to be.

Extremely, of course. Even more amusing are the 'selected reviews' on the front page;

My favorite science theory of the year!"
--- Chris Benfield, Science Writer, Yorkshire Post

"The Final Theory replaces much of what we
think is absolute with a simple unifying principle
that eliminates many idiosyncrasies and
contradictions of our current theories. It makes one
think about that which is taken for granted as
absolute in physics and realize there is alot that is
truly unknown."
--- Steve Maillet, Microsoft Most Valuable
Professional recipient, 2006

Those were presumably the very best and most convincing endorsements he could find.

PeZook wrote:And people seriously don't see right through this shit? Come on!

Sadly, no. I just bought a copy of Quantum: A Guide for the Perplexed for my father, which is IMHO an excellent popular science level introduction to the field. But many people have the bizarre conceit that the universe should be simple and easy to comprehend, and that the physicists with their counterintuitive notions and known flaws/gaps in their theories must be wrong, and cranks like this plug right into that. It's the same psychology that makes people buy into religion - and of course the very worst cranks (Tipler...) combine bad physics and religion into a perfect storm of bullshit.