Anyway, my route is more like Darwin's route. I use nature as my science, and I am on a new road of my own. A sort of Darwinian Space-time.
How to recognise pseudoscience
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
Don't be silly. Proofs are in discoveries, and most of my old proofs are lying around in locked threads. It is these corners that allow us to prove ourselves. I don't care where my threads are so long as Science News covers them in the future, and it nearly always does. Science benefits by allowing some leeway.
They were hoping that alternative science matched science for some reason. Like symmetry, and string theory, and M-theory. If Alternative science matches science they are happy. But they include the big bang you may notice... soo..... naaa
And then they weren't. Why? The accumulation of evidence. The presentation of convincing arguments. The application of the scientific method. That kind of thing.
Not pseudoscience. Just incorrect science, as it turned out. They had none of the features listed in my opening post.
There is only one honest method to distinguish a better theory from a worse one. ....
The honest method is as follows.
An accepted theory should start from some initial conditions and the calculations should lead to the experimental data. Some theory is better when starts from less parameters, describes more phenomena and leads to better theoretical results.[/QUOTE]
Theoretical results by themselves are useless. The ultimate arbiter of any theory is nature.
Why?
(Have you attended one? Do you know what you're talking about?)
Really?
Please support this claim with evidence.
Which parts? Where was it proven wrong? Who proved it wrong?
Link please.
I can't make any sense of what the challenge is supposed to be. Want to explain it again?
You don't even have a theory to prove.
I questioned you several times about elements of your theory. It turned out that there weren't any. No simulation. No results. Nothing to report. Just a bunch of grandiose claims. See the opening post.
I am currently posting using a mobile device. This makes it next to impossible for me to do my usual post disections and linking to other things. As such I am generally responding to posts I can reply to in one go without reference to other things. I'll respond to your post when i am using a normal computer.
As for wlminex you are either being extremely obtuse or deliberately trolling. I explained myself and you took from it exactly the opposite. I explicitly said I have no problems with new ideas but what I expect is some justification, evidence and rationality. Such requirements are to be found in thread guidelines for this forum, people should give derivations, predictions and compare with evidence even here in alternative theories. If you don't then it isn't an alternative theory, it is pseudoscience. Since you and Pincho don't provide any you are engaged in pseudoscience. Your claims don't really qualify as hypotheses as they would need the things I just listed. A theory is any hypothesis whose rigorously derived predictions are accurately born out by experiment. Hence neither you nor Pincho have hypotheses.
I don't wish to close down this forum and your repeated attempts to put words in my mouth directly opposite to what I have said is trolling. I get it, you have a problem with me. Probably in no small part due to my less than good evaluation of your claims. You need to find a more mature way to deal with that than constant whining. If you think something should be done them contact an admin directly. Your constant 'snipe and run' in many threads is tiresome. If you want to say something then say it properly or go through the proper channels. As James (an admin) says you and a few others have.been very defensive about this. You need to learn how to deal with that better, particularly given your age. And supposed PhD.
You are right. Each mathematical transformation/mapping should have physical meaning within one coherent description. Such description must follow from the initial conditions.
You are right. I wrote the same writing the other words: "better theoretical results". This means that the distances between the theoretical results and experimental data should be smaller.
james said:
is that not what peer review is all about?
james said:
hmm i am perplexed why an expert on woo is unaware of the claims.....
Astrologers for their part prefer not to attempt to explain astrology, and instead give it supernatural explanations such as divination or synchronicity. Others have proposed conventional causal agents such as electro-magnetism within an intricate web of planetary fields and resonances in the solar system. Scientists dismiss magnetism as an implausible explanation, since the magnetic field of a large but distant planet such as Jupiter is far smaller than that produced by ordinary household appliances. (wikishit)
Last edited:
If all is such simple then why decades go by and we still are unable to answer the fundamental questions? Why we observe the recession in physics?
Why there appeared the superluminal neutrinos? The superluminal neutrinos show how gagged is the underground physics. Is there an underground/hidden war concerning the initial conditions and applied methods?
Maybe today there dominate dogmas? Of course, in my opinion the GR and partially the QP are the correct theories. But why we have not a courage to write about the tremendous number of the weak points in the leading theories? We know almost nothing about the internal structure of the Einstein spacetime. All know that the GR cannot be the complete theory. But new theories concerning these things are blocked. Why? It is because the new theories show that many parts of the mainstream theories are the science fiction. The new theories partially ridicule the achievements of a few great physicists. For example, the theory of the weak interactions is in my opinion the worst theory, just pseudoscience. The Higgs mechanism is the most terrible idea.
We can see that the defenders of the terrible ideas will cry pseudoscience, pseudoscience, pseudoscience when there will appear papers showing that the tachyons and superluminal neutrinos must be in existence.
But physics is not an exception. We can see the hypocrisy in many areas of the human activity. We need a revolution to change our World. The mass of the hypocrisy is almost critical.
Why there appeared the superluminal neutrinos? The superluminal neutrinos show how gagged is the underground physics. Is there an underground/hidden war concerning the initial conditions and applied methods?
Maybe today there dominate dogmas? Of course, in my opinion the GR and partially the QP are the correct theories. But why we have not a courage to write about the tremendous number of the weak points in the leading theories? We know almost nothing about the internal structure of the Einstein spacetime. All know that the GR cannot be the complete theory. But new theories concerning these things are blocked. Why? It is because the new theories show that many parts of the mainstream theories are the science fiction. The new theories partially ridicule the achievements of a few great physicists. For example, the theory of the weak interactions is in my opinion the worst theory, just pseudoscience. The Higgs mechanism is the most terrible idea.
We can see that the defenders of the terrible ideas will cry pseudoscience, pseudoscience, pseudoscience when there will appear papers showing that the tachyons and superluminal neutrinos must be in existence.
But physics is not an exception. We can see the hypocrisy in many areas of the human activity. We need a revolution to change our World. The mass of the hypocrisy is almost critical.
Sylwester you are quite mistaken. Firstly the neutrino work isn't being suppressed, the very fact you know about it is a disproof of that. There are plenty of short comings with mainstream ideas which are well known. In fact I am certain I know more problems with mainstream ideas than you. The fact you have not familiarized yourself with what the mainstream knows doesn't mean the mainstream is deficient on such things. Your misrepresentation of the mainstream, repeated and consistent, is an example of pseudoscience right there.
As for the electro-weak theory being pseudoscience , that is demonstrably false given its predictions about W and Z bosons being many times vindicated by experiments. Even if it ultimately isn't right it is not pseudoscience, just as Newtonian mechanics or Maxwell electromagnetismall isn't pseudoscience despite not being perfectly accurate.
The day you learn to stop misrepresenting the mainstream and your own work you'll be knew step closer to being an actual scientist. Until then you will be a pseudoscientist.
As for the electro-weak theory being pseudoscience , that is demonstrably false given its predictions about W and Z bosons being many times vindicated by experiments. Even if it ultimately isn't right it is not pseudoscience, just as Newtonian mechanics or Maxwell electromagnetismall isn't pseudoscience despite not being perfectly accurate.
The day you learn to stop misrepresenting the mainstream and your own work you'll be knew step closer to being an actual scientist. Until then you will be a pseudoscientist.
Can you prove it? Do you see that it is nonsense? Just pseudoscience. If somebody can write such nonsense can write something sensible?
Of course the W and Z bosons SOMETIMES are responsible for the weak interactions as you can read in my theory of superluminal neutrinos. But my theory (less parameters, more described phenomena and better results) shows that for low energies electrons, protons and neutrinos do not interact weakly due to exchanges of the W and Z bosons. My theory shows also that the Higgs mechanism is incorrect. Just pseudoscience due to the initial conditions.
AN Post #28: "A theory is any hypothesis whose rigorously derived predictions are accurately born out by experiment."
AN: Have I . . . anywhere . . . anytime . . . stated that my EEMU "hypothesis" is "theory"? . . .the answer is NO! A hypothesis is just that . . . a hypothesis . . . and ANY hypothesis must undergo rigorous scientific methodology (i.e, Scientific Method) in order to become a theory!!!
AN: Have I . . . anywhere . . . anytime . . . stated that my EEMU "hypothesis" is "theory"? . . .the answer is NO! A hypothesis is just that . . . a hypothesis . . . and ANY hypothesis must undergo rigorous scientific methodology (i.e, Scientific Method) in order to become a theory!!!
I don't think either of you read and understood what I said.
I explained how the electroweak theory is not pseudoscience because it meets every criteria to be scientific. Not ultimately being exactly right doesn't make something pseudoscience else all previous science would be pseudoscience. Hence you are mistaken in your comment Sylwester.
Wlminex, I explained what hypothesis is and why your claims are not even an hypothesis. My comment about theories which you quoted were to highlight the rigorously derived predictions part of an hypothesis. Is this another case of you not reading what you quote or do you simply have poor comprehension skills?
I explained how the electroweak theory is not pseudoscience because it meets every criteria to be scientific. Not ultimately being exactly right doesn't make something pseudoscience else all previous science would be pseudoscience. Hence you are mistaken in your comment Sylwester.
Wlminex, I explained what hypothesis is and why your claims are not even an hypothesis. My comment about theories which you quoted were to highlight the rigorously derived predictions part of an hypothesis. Is this another case of you not reading what you quote or do you simply have poor comprehension skills?
I must write once more that the initial conditions applied in the theory of weak and strong interactions are the pseudoscience.
The particles responsible for interactions cannot have masses greater that the sum of the non-relativistic or relativistic masses of interacting particles. For example, the non-relativistic nucleons interact strongly due to the exchanges of the pions. For low energies, the mass of the pion is lower than the mass of two nucleons. The non-relativistic electrons interact electromagnetically due to the electron-positron pairs produced by photons. Mass of a pair is equal to the mass of two electrons. Carrier of gravitational interactions must have the mass smaller than the sum of the masses of the interacting bodies.
All nature shows that the above assumption is correct. The initial conditions applied in the theory of weak interactions violate this rule so it is the pseudoscience. It looks as, for example, the Earth could interact with the Venus due to the exchanges of stars! Just paranoia. The same is with the Higgs boson(s). The W and Z bosons can be responsible for the weak interactions when the sum of the relativistic masses of the interacting particles is the same or greater than the rest mass of the W or Z bosons. My theory of the weak interactions satisfies the above rule. For example, the nucleons, in the low-energy regime, interact weakly because they exchange the mass in the centre of the core of the baryons. Such mass is 424 MeV and is about 4 times greater than the mass of the muon (424 MeV = 4•106 MeV) and 4 times greater ALSO than the mass of the strange quark (its mass is about 106 MeV also!). We can see that for the weak interactions is obligatory the quadruple symmetry.
There is not in existence a confinement of the quarks and gluons. Outside the strong fields the strange quark-antiquark pairs (2•106 MeV) transform into the muon-antimuon pairs (2•106 MeV also) whereas gluons transform into photons. My theory shows that for the strong interactions there is obligatory the ternary symmetry but we must reformulate significantly the QCD.
The QCD is the theory without initial conditions because the exact masses of the up and down quarks are not defined. So can we claim that the QCD is at least partially the pseudoscience?
There are no evidences (not detected directly) that the exotic particles exist. Pseudoscience?
There are no evidences that the gravitons exist. Pseudoscience?
There are no evidences that the gravitational waves exist. Pseudoscience?
There are no evidences that the Higgs boson(s) exist. Pseudoscience?
And my Everlasting Theory shows that it will be forever. Just pseudoscience DUE TO THE INITIAL CONDITIONS, not due to the applied methods.
James, I thought your OP was right on the money. Good post.
I find the psychological aspects of the pseudo-scientist to be rather fascinating. They seem to be drawn to Einstein like moths to a flame. Many of the them point out where Einstein went wrong. There is this need for them to think of themselves as geniuses that will soon be as famous as Einstein.
The funny thing is to a person none of them are remotely educated (or intelligent) enough to even understand Einsteins theories, let alone disprove them.
I find the psychological aspects of the pseudo-scientist to be rather fascinating. They seem to be drawn to Einstein like moths to a flame. Many of the them point out where Einstein went wrong. There is this need for them to think of themselves as geniuses that will soon be as famous as Einstein.
The funny thing is to a person none of them are remotely educated (or intelligent) enough to even understand Einsteins theories, let alone disprove them.
I agree. Well done, JamesR. :bravo:
The internet is plagued with so-called wisdom. For those of us, who are interested in science, but wish to avoid the pseudo-junk altogether, can you tell us how to find trusted sources?
Wikipedia can be a good starting point, right? From there you can check all the references. You can also check to see if the authors are from a university, research facility, or published in a reputable journal. Peer reviewed is more reliable and clearly, arXiv is not peer reviewed. It contains some dubious e-prints but most of the authors care about what they write. If the website ends with .gov or .edu it’s probably a good source, right? Can you think of anything thing else to add?
List of Scientific Journals
How the Scientific Peer Review Process works
Misconceptions about science
What is Science?
The internet is plagued with so-called wisdom. For those of us, who are interested in science, but wish to avoid the pseudo-junk altogether, can you tell us how to find trusted sources?
Wikipedia can be a good starting point, right? From there you can check all the references. You can also check to see if the authors are from a university, research facility, or published in a reputable journal. Peer reviewed is more reliable and clearly, arXiv is not peer reviewed. It contains some dubious e-prints but most of the authors care about what they write. If the website ends with .gov or .edu it’s probably a good source, right? Can you think of anything thing else to add?
List of Scientific Journals
How the Scientific Peer Review Process works
Misconceptions about science
What is Science?
Last edited: