Strange

The abstract: Is there anything particular about this theory you want to discuss? (I won't have much to say, it is over my head!) There is an interesting editorial on the paper. No doubt some will see the reactions of some reviewers as typical of the "closed mind" of scientists. On the other hand, the paper did get published so there is no great conspiracy of silence. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/aa93a9 The comments from a reviewer that they include are pretty insightful (ie echo my own thoughts!)

You miss the point. California gets (almost) no hurricanes and this thread is about ... guess what, hurricanes. So rainfall in California is off topic.

! Moderator Note This is (a) off topic and (b) nonsense

How many hurricanes does California have? And don't confuse weather and climate. Yep. Climate is complicated

Oy, no!

! Moderator Note You do far too much of this preaching. Stop it.

So, in the same way that we have pseudoscience where people start with a belief and then manipulate evidence and theory to fit, this could perhaps be defined as pseudo-philosophy.

And how did that work out? Or is "invented" in quotes because you never really did it.

Uh, what? No. Don't drag me into your arguments.

Aren't you supposed to turn the other cheek? (I am going to suggest this thread is closed)

Are they? And how do you know this? And what do you mean by "false"? Hardly relevant. The fact is that quantum theory (and various other aspects of material science and chemistry) is used in the design of semiconducting materials and the devices constructed from them. How would you, for example, calculate the altitude of a geostationary satellite based on "everything is as it is because that's what God wants"? So that doesn't seem to be a theory of anything (ignoring the fact that there is no reason to think that gods exist). It is. (And, as you are so fond of nitpicking little errors, I assume you mean "why")

Perhaps you could say what these problems are, because it seems to be working reasonably well. We don't want to get sidetracked into linguistics but (in English) if there is no quantifier, then the usual implication is that it refers to some, not all. But, whatever. Not really relevant. You think that field-effect transistors, flash memories and, in fact, semiconductors themselves are not based on science? Perhaps they were created by luck or by invoking the god of thunder? You must live in a very strange world. No point looking at the weather forecast because it is no better than guesswork. Tomorrow could be wet, dry, hot, cold, snow or heatwave. Yesterdays or last years weather gives us no clue as to what might happen. No point going to the doctor if you are ill, because he will just guess. Just because other people have had the same symptoms doesn't mean that you have the same disease. And even if you do let him prescribe something, no point taking the medicine because it could make you better or kill you; how could we ever know. And what do you eat? There is all this stuff in the shop labelled "food". Some people eat it and they seem to be OK. But that doesn't mean anything. And, I thought I was making up ridiculous scenarios but then you say: Oh well. And sunscreen, in case it is exceedingly sunny (but I guess you can always use you umbrella as a parasol). And diving gear in case of a flash flood. Do you tow a small trailer with equipment for any possible weather and natural disaster? Theories are not true or false. Maybe this basic misunderstanding is where you have gone wrong with your attempt to analyse science. This is a very good point: we have two completely different explanations. We don't say that one is true and one is false. That is not how science works. (And GR does explain where the force arises from; it is a pseudo-force which arises from analysing things in a particular frame of reference. Rather as people will tell you that there is no such thing as centripetal force, but of course there is in the rotating frame of reference). A theory is considered "better" if it either explains things that the the previous one couldn't or provides more accurate results. (Or, because you are being pedantic about logic, possibly both.) Edit: Or because the new theory has fewer free variables or doesn't invoke unnecessary entities (I assume you have heard of Occam's Razor). For example, there is an alternative to Special Relativity (SR) called Lorentz Ether Theory (LET). Now LET is indistinguishable from SR: it uses the same mathematics and produces exactly the same results. But it uses an undetectable "ether" as the mechanism to explain why theses things happen. (The theory itself makes this ether undetectable, by definition.) Most people prefer SR to LET because it doesn't use an undetectable mechanism that makes no difference to anything. Clearly some people (Lorentz, as a minimum) prefer LET because they want to have a mechanical explanation. )I'm not sure that every change is always "better".) We don't know if it will be or not. This is a discussion forum. Sometimes discussion will refer to the published work which does include those sort of details. Otherwise the caveats associated with sic are assumed. If every sentence X had to be replaced with "According to the current best evidence it appears possible that X but this requires further work and is subject to change in future" I think conversations would get quite cumbersome. It is. So is rap music. But perhaps you prefer religion and opera. It takes all sorts. Not by scientists. This is a straw man. As an aside, as you are so opposed to science, why join a science forum?

That is, not surprisingly, a misrepresentation of how science works. Science uses the best theory (or theories) available. That may be flawed but it will be used (perhaps with caveats) be used until a better theory is found. Even Newton was unhappy with his theory of gravitation because it couldn't say why the force existed. GR answers that question but raises others. In some cases yes. But you say that as if it is a bad thing rather than the strength that allows science to progress (But then I guess (*) you don't think science does make any progress). However many theories don't get replaced. (*) still having to guess what your point is As this is well understood to be the way science works I'm not sure whose noses you want to rub. I have seen several paradigm shifts in my lifetime so the scientists involved have seen the old theories replaced as well. So you can consider their noses rubbed, if that makes you happy

I don't think Germany or Greece have ever invaded. Nor India or Japan or Spain or the Aztecs or ...

! Moderator Note I have split this (potentially interesting) discussion of black holes off from the original thread. I have given it the benefit of the doubt and put it in Astronomy and Cosmology. If it looks like coffeesippin is arguing that black holes don't exist, then it may be moved to Speculations where stronger rules for supporting arguments with evidence apply. (Sorry it looks like beecee started it!) It is not pseudoscience, but it is purely hypothetical (until we have a full theory of quantum gravity). Science doesn't really prove anything. However, there are several lines of evidence that are consistent with there existence.

! Moderator Note Discussion of black holes split off to here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117061-black-holes-split-from-so-youve-got-a-new-theory/

Did you miss the class where they said you should have a conclusion? If your argument were sustainable then what? Science is wrong? It doesn't work? It's a futile exercise? It needs a new way of working? What? No it isn't. The "assumption" (not really an assumption) is that some technology is based on science. And, specifically, the technology behind the computer you are using. You need to brush-up on your fallacies before your next exam (you wrongly identified something as "begging the question" earlier, as well) and not make fallacies when pointing them out. That appears to be a non-sequitur. It wasn't a formal logical argument, therefore this is irrelevant. *shakes head sadly* "They are of course wrong" is statement we can make with confidence because we have seen it happen. So misplaced confidence (unsupported by evidence) is no proof of "rightness". But because we have seen (we have evidence) that shares can go down as well as up, we know their confidence is misplaced. Thanks for a good counter-example to your argument. That might be a good example if the only reason for not running red lights is because of the police; but, as you say, for most people it is an issue of safety. (Amusingly, I used to live in a country where it is routine for people to run red lights. And most drivers will slow at a green light in case there is a car coming the other way. You've lost me. You seem to have gone completely off the rails here. People have smoke detectors because experience (evidence) shows that they can save lives. But I thought your argument (*) was that however many times people's lives have been saved by a smoke detector, we cannot form a valid theory about their effectiveness so there is no point having one. If the weather forecast say it is likely to rain, then it may be sensible to carry an umbrella. But, again, I was assuming your argument (*) was that there is no point carrying an umbrella because we cannot have a reliable evidence-based theory of weather. I have lived in countries with earthquake drills (and where we had to keep a supply of water) because the repeated occurrence of earthquakes told us this was a good idea. But again, I thought you were saying (*) there was no point doing that because the repeated evidence of being in an earthquake zone did not allow us to formulate a theory that they would continue to be common in future. (*) As noted, you haven't made an argument, so I am having to guess from your general anti-science rantiness what your point is. Feel free to interject, at any time, to let us know what your point is. Depending what you mean by "wrong" that may be uncontroversial. But as you seem to think that Newtonian gravity has been discarded, I don't think I can trust your concept of "wrong". It is well defined in those fields but not in the real world. It is something that philosophers have been arguing about for millennia. As you haven't said what your point is, it is impossible to know.

Or possibly because it is not economically viable.

So it seems that, once again, we have a couple of first year philosophy students trying to prove that science is ... well, I'm not sure: Wrong? Not finding The Truth? Not working? I'm really not sure what the point is (as studiot said: the OP hasn't made a clear point, just thrown some philosophical buzzwords at the wall). Which is all rather odd, as we can see that science works because they are using tools developed using some of the most advanced science we have in order to communicate their ideas to the forum. The fact that we have useful products and services based on applied science (technology) but not applied philosophy (or applied theology) says about all we need to know about whether science works or not. Your amusement implies you see those as contradictory statements. Which is odd, because if theories were proven then they would have 100% certainty. The fact that they can't be proven shows that they have less than 100% certainty. Which means that the certainty can change (increase or decrease) based on what we learn. And our confidence in many things does grow over time as we accumulate more experience or evidence. We are pretty certain that the Sun will rise tomorrow, that our commuter train will be late and that evolution can be explained by natural selection. And that confidence has grown with experience (*). There are other things we have less confidence about. I'm fairly sure that new guy at work is going to be late again tomorrow, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for anther week or so. Maybe after more evidence I will confirm my hypothesis or refute it. Importantly, we also know that our expectations can be confounded at any time (eg the discovery of black swans). (*) Actually, I wonder if we are born with an innate expectation that things will repeat (the sun rose today so it will do the same tomorrow) or that we have to learn it (the sun came up the last couple of days, but I wonder about tomorrow). So you really are saying that we cannot learn from experience? If something happens repeatedly (banging your head on a low beam, the sun rising each morning) we can't say anything about how likely it is to happen again?

Or soapboxing Neither can you assert that they are all wrong. After all, only some (very few) past theories have been found to be wrong. I can only think of two in the last 400 years, off the top of my head. Science doesn't deal in "truth"; it is not a well-defined or testable concept. The fact that it is successful (in certain circumstances) is all science requires of a theory. That is pretty much what "correct" means. Within its domain of applicability, Newtonian gravity is correct. The same is true of GR and every other theory. Perhaps you need to define what you mean by "correct" and "wrong" because nothing you have said seems very relevant to science.

Some companies just don't let people work remotely, even if there is no practical reason why not. I worked for one like that - we also had to track the time spent working on different tasks, produce daily summaries of what we had done, attend weekly meetings reporting what we had done, ...

Generally, the only people who talk about science proving things are people who know littler nothing about science. How do you know that? Some may have been and some may remain. The fact that everything is open to challenge and change does not mean that everything will be replaced. There have been very few theories (so far) that have been shown to be completely wrong. For example: Newton's theory has not been consigned to the dustbin. It is still valid and in use every day. It is, in some ways, a better theory than GR for most purposes. Similarly, there may one day be a "better" theory than GR, but that won't make GR wrong; it won't suddenly start producing results that don't match reality. Whether it continues to be a useful part of science depends, partly, on the nature of the new theory.

Don't ask me. I never understood any of it!

Yes. (Well, variable income. Don't know about "significant"). Was never a problem for me.

Yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_degeneracy_pressure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star