Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 113 guests, and 1 robot.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 17 of 17 1 2 15 16 17
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Orac, you have said a lot. But sorry, I have to repeat the same thing because you are not prepared to care what I say. I have clearly stated that QM has no proof other than observational evidence. In the end, you are also saying that observational evidences are the only proof. You say that I am not providing any alternate explanation, but do not say in which particular case I have not provided alternate explanation. Naturally, the argument becomes cyclic.

Regarding the mass of neutron: Are you saying that the mass of neutron varies and remains within a range? Can you provide a link which exactly says that. I am under the impression that the masses of electron and neutron have been accurately determined, and that also to a very great degree of accuracy (and always the masses remain the same).

Regarding the single electron interference, I think you have gone wrong. The link that you have referred to says: "The electrons travel one-by-one through the system but still build up a well pronounced interference pattern with period 130 mT" (Page no:2549 2nd para 4th line). To me, it means that the interference pattern is formed by all the electrons together and not a single electron (the electrons build up the pattern). The term 'single electron interference' is used to indicate that 'electrons are sent one by one', and not to indicate that a 'single electron creates an interference pattern'.

.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: finiter
Orac, you have said a lot. But sorry, I have to repeat the same thing because you are not prepared to care what I say. I have clearly stated that QM has no proof other than observational evidence. In the end, you are also saying that observational evidences are the only proof. You say that I am not providing any alternate explanation, but do not say in which particular case I have not provided alternate explanation. Naturally, the argument becomes cyclic.


Google scientific proof please.

Proof as proved by science requires simple testing via standard scientific methods. QM makes predictions which are verified by results so is therefore scientifically proven.

You stating that it is not proven is a statement of stupidity.

If your saying it's not proven to you, so be it who cares, it's proven at science.


Originally Posted By: finiter

Regarding the mass of neutron: Are you saying that the mass of neutron varies and remains within a range? Can you provide a link which exactly says that. I am under the impression that the masses of electron and neutron have been accurately determined, and that also to a very great degree of accuracy (and always the masses remain the same).


Again wiki or any net link will provide you details I have been providing details of the renormalizing process in the other link.

Originally Posted By: finiter

Regarding the single electron interference, I think you have gone wrong. The link that you have referred to says: "The electrons travel one-by-one through the system but still build up a well pronounced interference pattern with period 130 mT" (Page no:2549 2nd para 4th line). To me, it means that the interference pattern is formed by all the electrons together and not a single electron (the electrons build up the pattern). The term 'single electron interference' is used to indicate that 'electrons are sent one by one', and not to indicate that a 'single electron creates an interference pattern'.


They are sent one by one and interfer with themselves, look at it as it's time resolved for you. You can even buy the equpment to test the same effect on light photons in the link above you yourself.

This is becoming an excercise in denial and delussion on your behalf, this stuff is all common and tested by many many labs and scientists.

At the end of the day believe what your will finiter if you want to say your don't believe QM that's fine but we are in a science section of a forum and you start telling me it's not proven and I will take you to task.

IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN END OF STORY ... YOU CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE SO BE IT ... SAY THAT I CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE.

I am consistant with this as I said to you I don't believe the classic big bang theory, that is it is proven at science but I choose to doubt it. The theory matches all observed results so it would be wrong of me to say Big bang is not proven and I do not do so.

I expect the same behaviour of you as I ask of myself on science section of a physics forum.

Last edited by Orac; 11/03/11 06:06 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Okay I am going to give you a topical view to show how consistant we are with rules Finiter.

The background to this is Sascha is a QM scientist and a very good scientist, that is he does not disagree with any of the fundemental observations or omit observations like yourself.

Sascha had a paper rejected from publication which is the background to this spray.

What Sascha is querying is the time effects of QM there are no past and future in the QM domain time stands still thats how QM works. Again you don't think QM is real I understand all that but just giving you the background.

What Sascha is attempting to ask is causality intractable can the future affect the past given QM is blind to time.

The problem from a science point is mute, science assumes casuality we have to anything else becomes religious or philosophical.

He is struggling with double slit experiment the same as you are and seeks to resolve it a different way

Quote:

That classical paths, say those of electrons traversing the double slit in Young’s double slit experiment, destructively interfere (destroy each other), is accepted knowledge. You will not be criticized for “The dark spot in the interference pattern comes from all the paths going there destructively interfering with each other so that nothing arrives.” You are allowed to assume there ‘first’ exist such paths actually traversed by virtual particles but ‘then’ they destroy each other (in a causal rather then temporal sense). You are allowed to talk this way, because at least this interpretation toes the classical Party-line concerning time: The past and cause (interference on the paths) creates the future (observed interference pattern). Such interpretations, much like the infinity of virtual particle loops, describe the way we mathematically calculate, and we use this way to calculate because it comes easy to our classical intuition.


What he is seeking to do is say the electron knows you are looking at it in the future and conspires backwards in time to change the past. You are blissfully unaware of the change.

QM does indeed leave open that door but if you walk through it becomes not science .. science is about causality.

Sascha is arguing we are terrible people imposing an arbitrary limit and yes to remain a science in QM we have to assume causality even though QM demands no such requirement.

To the rest of us establishment (as Sascha would say) QM has to merge with physical reality and even though what Sascha implies may be not excluded from the theory we have no observation of it and if he is right you can not make observation of it, ergo it is not science.

He can see the result he will have done it many times in the lab, so he has to trust what he himself sees but his mind can't accept it. He desperately wants his solid finite world so he is willing to bend time and science says NO!!!

See what get it from both extremes :-)

The spray =>
(http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/futu...doscience-84265)


Last edited by Orac; 11/04/11 08:40 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Orac, you say, "Google scientific proof please."

There is no disagreement regarding what 'scientific proof' means. What I said about 'proof' was contextual as a reply to your question what proof I have. The observational evidences can be explained in an alternate way, and I provide alternate explanations as a proof my theory. For example, I have explained how a neutron is formed from electron-positron pairs as a theoretical proof to show that electrons and neutrons are solid particles. Again, I have explained how an interference pattern can be formed by solid particles. However, you just maintained that I am not providing alternate explanations.

My alternate explanations may be wrong; but you have not pointed out where it has gone wrong. When it is an alternate theory, you cannot evaluate it based on existing theory. You say that electrons are not solid particles (based on QM), and hence my explanation of neutron formation is wrong (here is the actual disagreement).

Scientific proof is based on 'observational evidence' or right predictions. But therein lies the loop hole. It may be possible to explain the so-called observational evidences in many ways. You cannot say any explanation is better than any other, unless you are able to point out logical loop holes in the explanations. If you accept one explanation and evaluate 'the others' one the basis of the accepted one, naturally 'the others' will be wrong.

Again, you say "IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN END OF STORY ... YOU CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE SO BE IT ... SAY THAT I CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE."

I do not agree with the above statement. The term 'SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN END' is relative. Many 'scientifically proven ends' have later been disproved (sometimes, it may be proved again). At present, QM is the in-thing, ie, the present 'SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN END' supports QM. As we have not reached 'the real end', I choose to question QM by providing an alternate set of concepts.

You say that you doubt Big-bang theory though the theory agrees with all observational evidences. That means you do not agree with the 'conclusions that have been arrived at' though you do not question the observations. But the degree of disagreement is rather small, and so you only 'doubt'. If you are more convinced, then you will say that Big-bang theory may be wrong for certain reasons. If you are still more convinced and have an alternate set of explanations, then surely you will say that Big-bang theory is wrong. So when I say that QM is wrong, it implies only 'that much', and my stand is not 'scientifically wrong'.

Regarding the mass of Neutron and the interference, I will verify your comments and reply later.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Then this is not a science discussion open a new thread up in the "not for science section" please.

QM is scientifically proven they even have nobel prizes for it, it's not open for discussion within science that we have to prove to it "finiter". We have entertained this enough and we now reached a position where no new detail is being introduced and you view is not science.

Nuetron interferometery is what you need to google.

End of this discussion please ... start a new thread.

Last edited by Orac; 11/05/11 09:06 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Obviously, I do not agree with the evaluation of Orac. QM is a partial theory that can explain things at the quantum level. When it comes to the ordinary level or the cosmic level, QM is of no use. However, QM is accepted by the scientific community. In the QM itself, there are different shades of opinion that if one idea fails, we can depend on the other, and claim that QM is the right theory. Hence, there is nothing unscientific in saying that 'QM is wrong and we require an alternate theory'. This forum does not restrict the discussion to 'accepted theories only'. So I think there is nothing wrong in discussing an alternate theory in this 'physics forum'.

'The Finiteness Theory', the new theory proposed by me, is based on the concept that the physical world is real. It rejects the instant-duality of QM and the space-time of SR/GR. The new theory attempts to explain things at all the levels on the basis of a single theory. Through this thread I tried to discuss the concept of reality. The other aspects of my theory will be posted in separate threads in this forum.

The current discussion may be treated as closed.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Finiter I am not trying to kill the discussion I encourage discussion I am just saying we need to move the thread.

I have asked Rev a couple of times to start a new thread in "not quite science" and have done so myself as has Bill S.

The reason is quite simple stuff that is accepted by science is in the science thread stuff that isn't goes to the not quite science.

You can't just say you reject instant-duality that is a science fact. The only way to overturn a science fact is to scientifically challenge the fact with a new observation. There are no other ways ... an alternate theory does not overturn science facts and that is a science fact.

If you want to overturn a science fact then your alternate theory must have some new observation that your theory predicts and the old theory wont ... find it and test it.

If you can do that you can overturn the science fact.

If you can't do that then move the discussion to another area because what you are doing is not science.

If you start a new thread call it your theories name I am happy to discuss stuff there.

Last edited by Orac; 11/15/11 03:08 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac

The reason is quite simple stuff that is accepted by science is in the science thread stuff that isn't goes to the not quite science.
If you start a new thread call it your theories name I am happy to discuss stuff there.


There is logic in what you are saying: "stuff that is accepted by science is in the science thread". However that is only an opinion. In my opinion, an alternate theory can also be included in the science forum if the arguments are scientific. Thus opinions can vary. So under such conditions, the forum regulations will help. Please go through the forum guidelines for 'Physics Forum'. It clearly states:

"It's ok to express opinions and speculate wildly, but acknowledge they are opinions or speculation."

I have made it clear (wherever required)that the views expressed are either my opinion or based on my theory so that those who read (especially students) are not confused.
So, when I am allowed to post my theory in the physics forum of 'Science a GoGo'(which I also think is a right decision, but not followed by some other science forums)why should I change the thread to 'not quite science'?

I will be posting some other concepts that are parts of my theory. Excuse me, it will be posted in this forum itself, and I will be looking forward for your opinions regarding that so that we may have a lively discussion.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
And hence why you have been banned like Preearth from many physics forums I would guess.

As I said I have a theory as well but in the science section I tow the science line.

You obviously think you are better than the rest of us a bit like Preearth and your pet theory is so much better than everyone elses the rules don't apply to you.

I will leave it to the moderator but don't expect any discussion from me on unscientific stuff in a science section .... not going to happen I am not going to encourage you.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac
And hence why you have been banned like Preearth from many physics forums I would guess.

NO. Wherever the discussion is open to all ideas, I will post my theory. If the discussion is limited to approved science, I will stick to it. Sometimes they have separate forum for speculations; in that case, I will post it there. Here the guidelines are clear; if the administrator says that I have crossed the limit, I will stop immediately.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
I sometimes wonder if some of my views on the infinite would be better placed in NQS, but I tend to use the sentence quoted by Finiter to justify posting these views wherever they seem to fit in.

Orac, I'm not really qualified to pass judgement on scientific content, but on the basis of questions answered, I think your comparison with Preearth is a bit harsh.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
I sometimes wonder if some of my views on the infinite would be better placed in NQS, but I tend to use the sentence quoted by Finiter to justify posting these views wherever they seem to fit in.

Any subject can have different aspects. The 'science part' of infinity should come under science section. Not only that, the classification of subjects is not water tight. A forum discussing approved science, I think, is intended mainly for the students of science.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I agree the infinity discussion should be under not quite science the difference between it and this discussion is the infinity discussion doesn't deny science facts.

As I said if Finiter can overturn a science fact fair enough but he can't and doesn't try and thats why I think it has to move.

The infinity discussion is half mumbo jumbo but you don't deny any scientific facts.

Some of Rev's discussion rumble around the edges as well and we have successfully moved several discussions.

The end decission is up to Bill and I will comment at this level but I have no intention of encouraging finiter by discussing this any further.

The only reason he wants to discuss it here is because it gives it a sense of legitamcy, look at his own reasoning this is some sort of science.

Its pseudoscience by every definition of actual science because he refuses to adhere to the standards, there is no polite other way to put it.

"Intelligent Design" was taken to court because religious groups wanted to teach it as science and the court upheld it isn't science by any definition. Look carefully at the reasons for the decision in that case and it's the same here Finiter's theory is pseudoscience by every definition.

Intelligent design wanted to overturn "Big bang" install creation at the start, remove "evolution" and install intelligent design and still call itself science. It would leave thousands of observations with no logical explaination and just wave its hand at them and say there must be alternative explainations. Science said no you can't do that or it's not science and took it all the way to the court where that was upheld.

Preearth does the same thing with earth formation he wants to explain some things leave observations unanswered wave his hand at them and say there must be alternative explainations.

All 3 Intelligent Design, PreEarths earth creation theory and finiters theory are therfore not science under the same findings, and no you cant just wave you hands at it and make it science.

Finiter is more courteous than preearth but he wants discussion in a science section for the exact same reasons.

You open this door next we get Intelligent design and every other loon and fruitcake under the sun wanting to discuss things here.

So then people have to wade thru miles of pseudoscience junk to discuss actual science.

So I accept finiter is courteous and nice but to allow this to continue on sets a very bad example.

Finiter last comment is we make an "approved science section" because see then you accept that his stuff is scientific.

Sorry I will never believe that ... you and I can not decide what is and is not scientific that requires agreements of bodies and authorities.

Finiter can make all the arguments he likes here it cuts absolutely no weight .. the decision of the definition of science is not yours and mine to make.

If he dislikes the definition of science go argue it with the various science unions and organisations around the world.

Last edited by Orac; 11/17/11 10:37 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: finiter

Any subject can have different aspects. The 'science part' of infinity should come under science section. Not only that, the classification of subjects is not water tight. A forum discussing approved science, I think, is intended mainly for the students of science.


And as per the above finiter if they do that we cease to become a science forum ... there is only one form of science and its the approved type.

Not the moderator or forum owner, no-one on here can make your theory science they do not have that juristiction thats what you need to understand. I am not sure if other science forum people have explained that to you.

Science is defined by a set of rules that are defined by science organizations and your theory is quit simply not science. As I said end of discussion in it's current form your theory can't be made science by anyone here.

Prearth's theory suffers the same problem and he doesn't get it because he is so obnoxious he usually gets banned before people explain it ... so he plays the conspiracy and censorship theory like fruitloops do.

If I am a forum owner and I make a christian forum and start telling people it's okay to commit some sins do you think anyone would believe my forum is christian ... ask Rev. No your forum simply ceases to become christian that authority does not rest with the forum owner.

So for the final absolute time your theory is not and can not become science as defined by the rules of science organizations.

Last edited by Orac; 11/17/11 02:47 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: O
The infinity discussion is half mumbo jumbo


Only half??? I'm flattered. laugh


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac
If I am a forum owner and I make a christian forum and start telling people it's okay to commit some sins do you think anyone would believe my forum is christian ... ask Rev. No your forum simply ceases to become christian that authority does not rest with the forum owner.

So for the final absolute time your theory is not and can not become science as defined by the rules of science organizations.

Orac, you seem to forget that science is an open subject. Had it been regarded as a closed subject, we would still have remained at 'flat earth'. The guardians of science at that time would not have allowed any body to think against the established or approved science. Again, the 'organised science' would not have allowed Einstein to put forth his theories.

Regarding a christian forum or for that matter any other religious forum, you will not be allowed to think against the establishment. However, the establishment will go on exhorting the members to 'think free and arrive at the truth'. To them to 'think free' means to think within the scriptures, ie. the truth should remain within that, however free you think. What can we call that? 'Glib', I think. The establishment thinks that they are thus 'protecting the God' (it is not God protecting them!).

Science, like God, do not require protectors. Science organizations sometimes tend to be protectors of science. It is just a camouflage. They want to protect themselves. Funds, grants, etc. are so luring that it is no wonder that established organizations resist change. They will just become rhetoric, and say: "We have proved it thousand times", "We will not give the pseudo scientists any stage to air their view", etc. The rhetoric implies that they are not sure about themselves, and they indeed want to avoid any criticism. But that is only part of the story. Research always go in the right direction; otherwise we will not have reached here.

So what I have to say is Orac, you should have a more open mind. Even if somebody comes with a pseudo scientific theory, with a handful of right questions, he will have to leave. To remain further, he will have to resort to rhetoric or abusive language, because it will not be easy to logically answer a right question. However, for that, the person who asks the questions should have a thorough knowledge of the existing science, its strengths and weaknesses. I hope you understand my view.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Again it is not up to you and I to decide these things at all ... you nor anyone can talk or convince this change of science.

Science has exactly two rules or essential critera

Here is the reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)

Look at Essential criteria there are two rules:

1.) It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.

2.) It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.


You defy critera 1 therefore your theory is not science and can never become science.

You and I and noone on here can change that ... Sorry that is how it is ... noone will accept what you are discussing is science while you defy those two rules.

It's not a matter of opening my mind what you are asking is like trying to believe in christianity without a god.

Can I ask has noone ever explained this to you before? Has our teaching of science got so bad.

You start sounding like a lunatic when you start carrying on about protectors and establishment. We have two rules, christians have 10 that are not up for discussion by any man here on earth is my understanding.

It's not exactly a big ask that you adhere to two rules is it ... Those 2 rules ensure expansion and consistancy of science thats what they are there for nothing else they certainly do not censure or control things.

Last edited by Orac; 11/18/11 07:11 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac
Look at Essential criteria there are two rules:

1.) It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.

2.) It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.


You defy critera 1 therefore your theory is not science and can never become science.

The Wikipedia article gives very good description about scientific theory. Please go through the first criterion. It says that a new theory need be consistent with the existing one '(only) to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified'. A very nice and logical requirement. It means that the new theory should agree with all the existing observations (but need not agree with the existing explanations of those observations).

For example, consider the case of atomic fusion. Here, the observation is as follows: Hydrogen atoms fuse together to form helium. There is a small loss in mass, and electromagnetic radiations are released.

The phenomenon is at present explained as follows: Matter/mass changes into energy during fusion; radiations are just electromagnetic waves which carry energy. The explanation is thus logical and we regard it as a proof of Einsteins theory.

Based on my theory I would explain it like this: Radiations are streams of fundamental particles (having a negligible mass and volume) moving at the speed 'c' (it is their helical motion that creates electromagnetic fields). Their energy is kinetic energy. So what happens during fusion is some matter is radiated as streams of particles. So matter energy conversion is impossible.

Here my theory does not violate the most essential criterion that you have pointed out. This is just one example. Similarly, my theory agrees with all the existing observations (to the extent verified by me). However, in this thread I have not given all the essential parts of my theory; this thread was started to discuss an important aspect of my theory, the concept of reality.

The subject of my theory is 'how the fundamental particles of matter (having kinetic energy as quality) integrate into e-m radiations, neutrinos, and step by step into heavier particles and finally a pulsating universe. Thus it explains all basic things. The theory can explain why electron and neutron have the respective masses (which none of the existing theories can). The value of G and the Earth-moon distance can be theoretically deduced from my theory (it is impossible to do so with the existing theories). Thus my theory is supported by many strands of evidence, and thus is a very good approximation of the physical world (if not accurate), and so is the ultimate theory in physics (just my claim).

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
You fail criteria 1 because there is already a much bigger thoery in place. You lose to that theory based on criteria 1 which is about chosing the biggest consistant theory it's to ensure science expands out. By your own admission your theory is smaller so it fails criteria 1.

You are trying to turn criteria 1 around with word games, we call criteria 1 the expansionary clause all theories should expand knowledge outwards and add in new observations and experimental facts.

Basically science gains nothing by believing you so they don't, that is what the effect of criteria 1 does. Given two theories criteria 1 tells us which we pick the one with the most observations if we have two that cover the same observations. We simply don't care about your theory it does not add any new observations not covered by the other so why would we care.

Lets assume you were right with your theory when we expand out our observations a bit futher we should relaize one of our current findings need modification and and we would come back and install your theory. We lost nothing by ignoring you in the meantime because we had use of a bigger theory in the meantime and yours was incomplete or didnt mesh with others properly.

In effect I view your actual universe theory as sort of a possible sub theory. I actually have no problem with your universe theory to that point but it pointless worrying about your theory because it leads nowhere.

You become pseudoscience garbage because next you say deny QM which is supported by thousands of observations. You don't try and explain where those are wrong you just don't want to believe them and that turns your objection to pseudoscience and your whole theory to pseudoscience.

The QM part of your theory is a definite violation of criteria 1 explain how it isn't please?

No amount of arguing is ever going to change that. That is why no matter what science forum or board you have been on they will tell you the same thing. I am sure you have found that no board or forum has ever accepted your theory as science am I right? There is a reason for that because it defies the most fundemental science basics and you look like a pseudoscience lunatic which you are by definition.

Personally I am done arguing this with you, your theory is not science by any definition, and noone in science is ever going to believe it is science. I will bet you have never convinced a single science person and there is a reason because what you are doing is not science.

I realize you can't accept this and you are going to die a sad, bitter and twisted because no scientist is ever going to acept your theory in it's present form.

Stop wasting peoples time move your discussion to "Not quite science" because thats what it is and discuss it there.

Bill G can we please get this thread locked this is going nowhere and of no value to people.

I do not want to censure him and have asked him to move to NQS where I would be more than happy to discuss it but finiter is never going to accept his theory not science and we can never accept it is.

Last edited by Orac; 11/20/11 03:31 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Orac said: "Bill G can we please get this thread locked this is going nowhere and of no value to people.

I do not want to censure him and have asked him to move to NQS where I would be more than happy to discuss it but finiter is never going to accept his theory not science and we can never accept it is."

Orac, even in the above post, you have asked me a question. If I give an answer to it, the discussion will continue (however, I am not replying as you are not interested). If no body responds, the discussion automatically stops(whether any discussion in any forum is of any use to any body is another matter; why should we worry about that?).

I have said only that my theory is to be discussed in the science forum. Whether it is science or pseudoscience, it is for the others to decide (however I will claim it is genuine science; it is just a claim). You have given your opinion; to that extent I appreciate your stand. However, I do not know why you are so adamant that I should completely agree with your opinion. Such an attitude is a little bit unscientific.

Page 17 of 17 1 2 15 16 17

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokĀž»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5