What is the difference between theories and pseudoscience?

[qijino1236]

After reading this go directly to the 3rd post before responding(It has to do with a "problem" with these forums)

 

What is the difference between theories and pseudo-science?

Is it just the reliability, fame, and respect we have for a person (a.k.a power) who created the theory or is there another thing involved in calling something a theory?

Is a theory a science or does it have to proven first?

 

Here is example for me try to explain to you what I am getting at - I watched an episode of Curiosity where Stephen Hawking was host, the episode was ..."Did God create the universe". He explains things to us in a way where can understand it...which I liked and his ideas were very convincing. But at least three times in the episode he said "trust me". I am sure he has valid reasons for just saying "trust me" instead of trying to explain the inner workings of his brain(probably because the episode would have been like 5 hours instead of 1 and not much would have the patience to watch it). But would you consider what he laid out in that episode(if you saw it) a theory or pseudo-science?

 

Here's a scale I extracted from my cerebral cortex...

 

 

1 50 75 100

pseudoscience<----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> science

crazy cults

earth is 5,000 years old

the earth is flat

2=2

the earth is a sphere

We are carbon lifeforms

atoms exist

water expands when frozen

Galileo in 1639

GALILEO in 2011

Einstein in 1945

Einstien in 2011

TTTTHHHHHEEEEEEE BBBBBIGGGGGG BANNNNGGG TTHEORY

TTTTTTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRYYYYSSS

RRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGIIIIIIIIIONNN... .creepinn touch

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLL

AAAAAAAAAAAFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTERRRRRRRRRRRRLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIFFFFFFFFFFFFFEEEEEE

CCCCCCCCCCOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNSCCCIOOOOOUUUSSSSSNNESSSSSSSS

DDEEEEEEMMMMMMMMARRRRRCCCCCCCCATTIIONNN PPPPPRRRROOOOBBBBBLLEEEEMMMMM

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^is this kind of how it is??^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

In other words is there anything that clearly seperates pseudo-science from theories or is it all just on a variable sliding scale effected by

the popularity of the theory/pseudoscience and the person, the education level of the person, the amount of math, research, time, etc. applied to the theory, etc....??

Edited September 27, 2011 by qijino1236

[Pincho Paxton]

What is the difference between theories and pseudo-science?

Is it just the reliability, fame, and respect we have for a person (a.k.a power) who created the theory or is there another thing involved in calling something a theories?

Is a theory a science or does it have to proven first?

 

Here is example for me try to explain to you what I am getting at - I watched an episode of Curiosity where Stephen Hawking was host, the episode was ..."Did God create the universe". He explains things to us in a way where can understand it...which I liked and his ideas were very convincing. But at least three times in the episode he said "trust me". I am sure he has valid reasons for just saying "trust me" instead of trying to explain the inner workings of his brain(probably because the episode would have been like 5 hours instead of 1 and not much would have the patience to watch it). But would you consider what he laid out in that episode(if you saw it) a theory or pseudo-science?

 

Here's a scale I extracted from my cerebral cortex...

 

 

1 50 75 100

pseudoscience<----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> science

crazy cults

earth is 5,000 years old

the earth is flat

2=2

the earth is a sphere

We are carbon lifeforms

atoms exist

water expands when frozen

Galileo in 1639

GALILEO in 2011

Einstein in 1945

Einstien in 2011

TTTTHHHHHEEEEEEE BBBBBIGGGGGG BANNNNGGG TTHEORY

TTTTTTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRYYYYSSS

RRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGIIIIIIIIIONNN... .creepinn touch

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLL

AAAAAAAAAAAFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTERRRRRRRRRRRRLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIFFFFFFFFFFFFFEEEEEE

CCCCCCCCCCOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNSCCCIOOOOOUUUSSSSSNNESSSSSSSS

DDEEEEEEMMMMMMMMARRRRRCCCCCCCCATTIIONNN PPPPPRRRROOOOBBBBBLLEEEEMMMMM

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^is this kind of how it is??^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

In other words is there anything that clearly seperates pseudo-science from theories or is it all just on a variable sliding scale effected by

the popularity of the theory/pseudoscience and the person, the education level of the person, the amount of math, research, time, etc. applied to the theory, etc....??

 

Science makes the rules for science forums. You could have a forum where Pseudo-science threw scientists into a separate forum, and told them that they are not allowed to use maths on the site. It all started with Isaac newton who had the idea that maths should always be used as proof. But ironically.. his maths proof does not stand up to his description of attraction. Gravity is a bump. So maths isn't proof. He should have said.. mathematicians should work together with artists. Then he would have made a friend instead of an enemy, and he would have been a better man for it. And we would be way more advanced than we are today.

Edited September 27, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[qijino1236]

Well that friggen great they don't allow spaces IN ORDER TO SHOW WHAT I AM THINKING, WTH!! Just ignore this whole topic, it is completely

lost due to the fact that you can't post spaces after entering.

 

I guess I'll try to explain it though.... It was SUPPOSED to be a scale ....1 2 3..through 100 with exteremely fake pseudoscience being 1 and direct observable provable science being 100.

 

"crazy cults" and "earth is 5,000 years old" were SUPPOSED to be shown at the bottom of the scale

"2=2". "the earth is a sphere", "We are carbon lifeforms", "atoms exist", "water expands when frozen" were all SUPPOSED to be shown at the top of the scale

 

"Galileo in 1639" was SUPPOSED to be in a range of about "1-20"

"Galileo in 2011" was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "90-100"

"Einstein in 1945" was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "95-100"

"Einstein in 2011" was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "94-100"

TTTTHHHHHEEEEEEE BBBBBIGGGGGG BANNNNGGG TTHEORY was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "77-99"

TTTTTTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRYYYYSSS was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "1-99"

RRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGIIIIIIIIIONNN... .creepinn touch... was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "1-99"

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLL was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "1-99"

AAAAAAAAAAAFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTERRRRRRRRRRRRLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIFFFFFFFFFFFFFEEEEEE &

CCCCCCCCCCOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNSCCCIOOOOOUUUSSSSSNNESSSSSSSS &

DDEEEEEEMMMMMMMMARRRRRCCCCCCCCATTIIONNN PPPPPRRRROOOOBBBBBLLEEEEMMMMM was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "1-99"

 

BUT SINCE AFTER I POSTED THERE WAS NO SPACES AFTER "ENTER"ing , that didn't happen

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You can enclose your text in

[/noparse] tags and it'll render in monospaced font, with all spaces retained. Example:

[noparse]

Penguin
    Walrus

 

 

Penguin
    Walrus

[Pincho Paxton]

Well that friggen great they don't allow spaces IN ORDER TO SHOW WHAT I AM THINKING, WTH!! Just ignore this whole topic, it is completely

lost due to the fact that you can't post spaces after entering.

 

I guess I'll try to explain it though.... It was SUPPOSED to be a scale ....1 2 3..through 100 with exteremely fake pseudoscience being 1 and direct observable provable science being 100.

 

"crazy cults" and "earth is 5,000 years old" were SUPPOSED to be shown at the bottom of the scale

"2=2". "the earth is a sphere", "We are carbon lifeforms", "atoms exist", "water expands when frozen" were all SUPPOSED to be shown at the top of the scale

 

"Galileo in 1639" was SUPPOSED to be in a range of about "1-20"

"Galileo in 2011" was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "90-100"

"Einstein in 1945" was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "95-100"

"Einstein in 2011" was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "94-100"

TTTTHHHHHEEEEEEE BBBBBIGGGGGG BANNNNGGG TTHEORY was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "77-99"

TTTTTTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRYYYYSSS was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "1-99"

RRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGIIIIIIIIIONNN... .creepinn touch... was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "1-99"

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLL was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "1-99"

AAAAAAAAAAAFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTERRRRRRRRRRRRLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIFFFFFFFFFFFFFEEEEEE &

CCCCCCCCCCOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNSCCCIOOOOOUUUSSSSSNNESSSSSSSS &

DDEEEEEEMMMMMMMMARRRRRCCCCCCCCATTIIONNN PPPPPRRRROOOOBBBBBLLEEEEMMMMM was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "1-99"

 

BUT SINCE AFTER I POSTED THERE WAS NO SPACES AFTER "ENTER"ing , that didn't happen

 

Well the big bang is 100% wrong, so basically science may as well be religion, because everyone just makes up their own mind in the end.

[qijino1236]

Well the big bang is 100% wrong, so basically science may as well be religion, because everyone just makes up their own mind in the end.

 

Can you prove the big bang is 100% wrong though?...answer me if you can:). 10 second pause. That's what i am trying to get at though ... none of them had a 100 on my "trying to explain what's in my head" scale except for the directly provable items such as "2=2". "the earth is a sphere", "We are carbon lifeforms", "atoms exist", "water expands when frozen". Theory's don't get a 100 unless they are changed from theories to facts.... theories can't be 100% fact...so is there anything that separates the definition of theories from the definition of pseudoscience? Is there anything that separates theories from pseudoscience?

[swansont]

After reading this go directly to the 3rd post before responding(It has to do with a "problem" with these forums)

 

What is the difference between theories and pseudo-science?

Is it just the reliability, fame, and respect we have for a person (a.k.a power) who created the theory or is there another thing involved in calling something a theory?

Is a theory a science or does it have to proven first?

 

A theory has a (mathematical) model and a whole bunch of evidence to support it. The model has to be predictive so that tests can be done to falsify it, i.e. you have to be able to compare it with data that hasn't been used before. A model by itself is insufficient — it has to be applied to data, and that data should span the breadth of the applicability of the model. Not just one or two cases.

 

Pseudoscience fails as science in some way (usually massive failures), but continues to be advanced as science, so it's more than a discarded theory, and often never really was a theory. e.g. phlogiston is not pseudoscience, because once the evidence accumulated that contradicted it, it was discarded. Astrology is, because there is no evidence to support it and plenty to contradict it, and yet people still offer it up as being true.

[Pincho Paxton]

Can you prove the big bang is 100% wrong though?...answer me if you can:). 10 second pause. That's what i am trying to get at though ... none of them had a 100 on my "trying to explain what's in my head" scale except for the directly provable items such as "2=2". "the earth is a sphere", "We are carbon lifeforms", "atoms exist", "water expands when frozen". Theory's don't get a 100 unless they are changed from theories to facts.... theories can't be 100% fact...so is there anything that separates the definition of theories from the definition of pseudoscience? Is there anything that separates theories from pseudoscience?

 

It's funny, I can prove it yes. But it's really odd, but 2 = 2 is based on what? Two apples are billions of particles. I mean once you get your head around it, it is really difficult to make 2 out of 2 objects, all you end up doing is making 2 out of the English language. The Earth is an oblate spheroid. Being exact is so difficult.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[LawfulBlade]

Hi. I'm changing your question to "What is the difference between science and pseudoscience?", as it makes more sense.

 

So one of the key bad conceptualizations of science is that it's a body of data. It isn't. Science is actually a way of approaching a question using falsifiable ideas, a preponderance of data (replicated and confirmed independently), and recognition of the limits of current findings. It's systematic and rigorous, and frequently relies upon math/statistical analyses.

 

One of the plot twists in how science proceeds comes in peer-reviewed articles. The ones best equipped to review your findings are actually your competitors...in other words, the ones least motivated to allow your findings to be published. Because your competitors are highly critical of your work, this acts as something of a balance-of-powers check that's in place, to prevent bad findings and sloppy work from getting known. The second inherent limit within science was already mentioned: it needs to be replicable. Given enough trials and that your protocol is followed exactly, anyone, regardless of ethnicity, age, political persuasion etc. should be able to replicate your findings. Should a discovery fail to be replicated, it's noted publicly. Findings are sometimes retracted.

 

On the other hand, pseudoscience relies on emotional persuasion rather than facts to convey its ideas. Intuition and magic, rather than logic, often play a critical role in the "discoveries" of pseudoscience. The central beliefs are not often testable (falsifiable). Among those pseudosciences with testable beliefs, many will continue existing in spite of being shown to be false. In response to findings falsifying pseudoscience claims, practitioners will often argue to followers that grand conspiracies exist to destroy them, and that's the explanation for the findings. Cult mentalities are often established. Ironically, some of the claims within pseudoscience borrow vocabulary from and facets of scientific/medical data to gain credibility among their believers.

 

With a set up like this, the area of pseudoscience is rife with scammers, although not all practitioners are attempting to scam at all. For example, many psychics genuinely believe in "their gift" of psychic powers. Many acupuncturists genuinely believe that chi explains people getting better after treatment.

 

Of interesting side note, science can be (and has been) used to demonstrate efficacy of some practices considered to be pseudoscience, like acupuncture. Piercing the skin with needles, even in mice, releases endorphins, and helps to relieve pain, which in turn can reduce stress, speed wound healing, etc. What was falsified was that chi works as an explanation. If you're extremely interested, I'll be more than happy to pop in Pubmed articles to back anything I say, but if you don't have a strong science background, they'll probably both bore and overwhelm you.

 

This has nothing to do with popularity (i.e., pseudoscientists are simply the uncool among the scientists), although, even within science, popularity of an idea will play a role in how quickly findings will be published.

 

Aside from the show with Hawking being a pulpy t.v. episode, I've no idea why he would use the term "trust me". He certainly doesn't use that term in his publications.

[Pincho Paxton]

Hi. I'm changing your question to "What is the difference between science and pseudoscience?", as it makes more sense.

 

So one of the key bad conceptualizations of science is that it's a body of data. It isn't. Science is actually a way of approaching a question using falsifiable ideas, a preponderance of data (replicated and confirmed independently), and recognition of the limits of current findings. It's systematic and rigorous, and frequently relies upon math/statistical analyses.

 

One of the plot twists in how science proceeds comes in peer-reviewed articles. The ones best equipped to review your findings are actually your competitors...in other words, the ones least motivated to allow your findings to be published. Because your competitors are highly critical of your work, this acts as something of a balance-of-powers check that's in place, to prevent bad findings and sloppy work from getting known. The second inherent limit within science was already mentioned: it needs to be replicable. Given enough trials and that your protocol is followed exactly, anyone, regardless of ethnicity, age, political persuasion etc. should be able to replicate your findings. Should a discovery fail to be replicated, it's noted publicly. Findings are sometimes retracted.

 

On the other hand, pseudoscience relies on emotional persuasion rather than facts to convey its ideas. Intuition and magic, rather than logic, often play a critical role in the "discoveries" of pseudoscience. The central beliefs are not often testable (falsifiable). Among those pseudosciences with testable beliefs, many will continue existing in spite of being shown to be false. In response to findings falsifying pseudoscience claims, practitioners will often argue to followers that grand conspiracies exist to destroy them, and that's the explanation for the findings. Cult mentalities are often established. Ironically, some of the claims within pseudoscience borrow vocabulary from and facets of scientific/medical data to gain credibility among their believers.

 

With a set up like this, the area of pseudoscience is rife with scammers, although not all practitioners are attempting to scam at all. For example, many psychics genuinely believe in "their gift" of psychic powers. Many acupuncturists genuinely believe that chi explains people getting better after treatment.

 

Of interesting side note, science can be (and has been) used to demonstrate efficacy of some practices considered to be pseudoscience, like acupuncture. Piercing the skin with needles, even in mice, releases endorphins, and helps to relieve pain, which in turn can reduce stress, speed wound healing, etc. What was falsified was that chi works as an explanation. If you're extremely interested, I'll be more than happy to pop in Pubmed articles to back anything I say, but if you don't have a strong science background, they'll probably both bore and overwhelm you.

 

This has nothing to do with popularity (i.e., pseudoscientists are simply the uncool among the scientists), although, even within science, popularity of an idea will play a role in how quickly findings will be published.

 

Aside from the show with Hawking being a pulpy t.v. episode, I've no idea why he would use the term "trust me". He certainly doesn't use that term in his publications.

 

What you just wrote, based on about 3 replies, or whatever, that's pseudo-science. You made a few conclusions, where did they come from? The probability of the greatest theory ever known ending up in here is high. Because science makes mistakes, and the Theory Of Everything will need to eliminate those mistakes. But take a look at the fuss over Neutrinos in the press. Science is fully against change. That is just one change, and measured 15000 times. The Theory Of Everything would need to make say... 20 changes at least. No way would anyone be happy about that. It would end up in here, and your last reply would be the thing to expect. The person who comes up with that theory will struggle to make it stick.

[LawfulBlade]

I have absolutely no idea what you're referring to in your reply, due to your lack of specificity. You copied my entire 1000 word response and are essentially saying "you're wrong", without referring me back to the portions you're having trouble with.

 

You said I made a few conclusions...what conclusions are you talking about? I'm providing you with definitions that you seem to lack, which is neither scientific nor pseudoscientific. Are you just being argumentative for the sake of argument here? Your response is almost incoherent, and has absolutely nothing to do with what you first asked.

 

Again, you seem to lack a basic understanding, so I'm going to repeat myself: science isn't a set of data, it's a way to approach a question. Data that have accumulated using that methodology is referred to as being scientific. Part of the methodology is the act of replication, and it's reliant upon statistics. Please reread my response and tell me what you're not getting.

[ajb]

A theory has a (mathematical) model and a whole bunch of evidence to support it. The model has to be predictive so that tests can be done to falsify it, i.e. you have to be able to compare it with data that hasn't been used before. A model by itself is insufficient — it has to be applied to data, and that data should span the breadth of the applicability of the model. Not just one or two cases.

 

We can probably be a little more generous here and say that "a physical theory is a mathematical model of nature that can produce predictions that can at least in principle be tested against nature". You may have the situation that the technology does not allow falsification at present.

 

Sometimes one also calls mathematical frameworks theories, like quantum theory, or the theory of relativity, or string theory, or gauge theory etc. These are really quite general mathematical set-ups in which one can or al least try to build realistic theories of nature. Here there is no direct burden of proof, rather one constructs models within these frameworks. Also one may build toy or simple models to explore mathematical and physical phenomena which may be present in more realistic, but far more complicated models.

 

In mathematics theory can mean a body of knowledge. This is similar to the idea of a mathematical framework above.

 

Pseudoscience is very different. Usually there is little or no mathematics, very few concrete predictions or these predictions are already falsified and the ideas are often built on misunderstandings of established science. Lack of any tangible evidence and wild claims seem the norm here.

 

The practitioners of pseudoscience tend not to be very flexible in their approach and do not take criticism or advice well.

 

But would you consider what he laid out in that episode(if you saw it) a theory or pseudo-science?

 

What Hawking was talking about is science, but his talking is not science. He would have deliberately missed out lots of mathematics and physics reasoning trying to give an overview that most people could get a feel for.

 

Hawking if asked could produce the mathematics and papers to "fill up" his claims. This is the "trust me" bit.

 

 

In other words is there anything that clearly seperates pseudo-science from theories or is it all just on a variable sliding scale effected by

the popularity of the theory/pseudoscience and the person, the education level of the person, the amount of math, research, time, etc. applied to the theory, etc....??

 

Really it comes down to following the general methodology of science. One should be working in line with the philosophy of other scientists. Generically this is the scientific method, or maybe some weakened or modified form that is accepted by practitioners of that specific branch of science. For example people working in mathematics or more frontier aspects of theoretical physics may seem far from scientists, but they will be working to a standard that is accepted by their peers.

 

For a theory, at least in physics one is talking about a mathematical model. This is where a lot of pseudoscience fails from the start.

[Ophiolite]

Something that scientists have done a rather poor job of, is explaining to the public what science is. Lawful Blade, in an elegant post, and ajb have both made clear that science is a process rather than a body of knowledge. This is not how the public sees it. To them, I believe, science is what has been discovered. They therefore confuse exposition of those discoveries in documentaries and popular science books as being science itself. If the distinction were clear and understood then quinjo would not have been confused by Hawking's request to "trust me". For me, this is where science education has to begin with emphasising process over results.

[Pincho Paxton]

The scientific process is flawed quite badly though. Because maths comes with words to describe the maths. Gravity is a good example of flawed experiments, and flawed explanation leading to a completely flawed big bang theory.

 

You measure the speed of a falling object. Fine. You give it parameters of acceleration, velocity, and mass, distance to object. You write all of the maths. Then you describe it...

 

The Earth pulls the object towards it. The object is attracted to the Earth. Spacetime folds under mass creating a curvature that the object follows.

 

The explanation is not bonded to the maths. They are separate. Gravity is invisible, and the explanation has just the same amount of validity as pink flying pixies. The explanation is pseudo-science.

 

Gravity is a bump, and it isn't from the Earth, it's from outside of the Earth. It is Aether. The maths are the same. But people use maths as proof, they aren't proving their explanation, they are only proving what speed an object falls. This mistake then leads to...

 

The Big Bang.

 

With attraction, the Big Bang works, but nobody has proved attraction. They have proved the speed that an object falls.

 

With a bump, the Big Bang fails. Particles bumping outwards will never bump inwards. But gravity is a bump. So based just on G which is a made up explanation for speed, and velocity you have pseudo-science. Science is pseudo-science using maths as an excuse to be right.

 

If G has an incorrect explanation what other calculations use G and its explanation? Nearly all formulas have a reference to G, and they are taking the explanation to go with it. This is a domino effect. Now you end up with worm holes, infinite black holes, time travel, strange Quantum Physics.

 

Science has not been very careful in its approach to nature. It threw G into the big bang, it bent space time, and created a singularity. It also did a lot of other things. It added all sorts of waves, and got magnetism backwards. All because of the explanation for G being backwards. And science threw out the Aether.. because G was backwards. Science didn't realise that it needed a pushing force, so Aether went far too quickly. If G was a push, then science would know that it needed something there. It would try harder to find it.

 

Maths does not prove explanation, and explanation is just as important. That is why mathematicians should work with artists. Artists study nature by sight alone. Artists build up a logical description of nature in words. Once you get the words to match the maths you are doing well.

 

G is an quantum overlap of Aether particles. The overlap creates changes in the state of Entropy. The particles of Aether travel into the Earth where they begin to fold inside out. When the Aether folds inside out it becomes anti-matter. the anti-matter can then leave the Earth as magnetism. Doesn't create a Big Bang, it creates an implosion to create a Galaxy. Each Galaxy forms separately. All of the particles for the Galaxies were already in position. No need for them to be blown out of a hole, they are infinite.

 

My version reads as pseudo-science, because science has gone off the scale wrong.

[Ophiolite]

If we deconstruct your post we seem to arrive at a semantic content of zero. Your version not only reads as pseudo science (because it is), but as very poor pseudoscience at that. It doesn't even carry a hint of authenticity or plausibility.

 

Let us take a single example. You say:

With attraction, the Big Bang works, but nobody has proved attraction. They have proved the speed that an object falls.

Attraction between objects has been observed and demonstrated on countless occassions. The theories of gravity currently in use explain these observations and demonstrations more effectively than any other extant theories. You offer no refutation of these theories other than word salad and emotional remonstrations. If your ideas do have value then you are utterly failing to communicate that value because of your singular inability to express a single coherent thought.

[Pincho Paxton]

If we deconstruct your post we seem to arrive at a semantic content of zero. Your version not only reads as pseudo science (because it is), but as very poor pseudoscience at that. It doesn't even carry a hint of authenticity or plausibility.

 

Let us take a single example. You say:

 

Attraction between objects has been observed and demonstrated on countless occassions. The theories of gravity currently in use explain these observations and demonstrations more effectively than any other extant theories. You offer no refutation of these theories other than word salad and emotional remonstrations. If your ideas do have value then you are utterly failing to communicate that value because of your singular inability to express a single coherent thought.

 

What? Tell me an example where attraction has ever been observed or demonstrated. Is water attracted to a plughole?

Edited September 28, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[Ophiolite]

Nevil Maskelyne, 1774 and Schiehallion.

 

Aside on grammar: If English is not your native language you may wish to note that I cannot "tell you an example". I can "give you an example". If English is your native language then shame on you.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Ophiolite

[Pincho Paxton]

Nevil Maskelyne, 1774 and Schiehallion.

 

They don't prove attraction. If I put water in a sink, and a paper boat, and put iron filings in the paper boat, and pull the plug out what happens?

[Ophiolite]

The Schiehallion experiment demonstrated attraction. Do you deny this? If so, on what grounds?

[Pincho Paxton]

The Schiehallion experiment demonstrated attraction. Do you deny this? If so, on what grounds?

 

No it doesn't as I have explained it can easily prove flow just the same. I deny attraction on the grounds that particles reduce to a spherical structure. Sphere bump, not pull, or attract. You kick a football, not suck it with your feet. You have water as a natural example.. NATURE.. the artist sees nature. he explains in the terms of nature. Mathematicians use numbers. Numbers can make anything happen, you go with observation. The plughole does not attract the iron filings. The stage is a set of bumps. The first particle is bumped into a hole by pressure from behind the hole. The boat is sitting on a flow of particles. The Aether travels into holes in the Earth, the holes are the nucleus of atoms. Mass is a vector of flow towards those holes. The Aether then turns inside out under pressure, and escapes.

 

Gravity, and mass are now a bump force from outside the Earth. Magnetism is the out flow of negative mass. Negative mass is like a hole. Mass flows towards negative mass.

 

Of course it again reads like pseudo-science. I haven't however changed the maths. All of the maths is the same, I have changed the description. My description is backed up by the same maths. Maths doesn't prove attraction.

[ajb]

Gravity is a bump, and it isn't from the Earth, it's from outside of the Earth. It is Aether. The maths are the same. But people use maths as proof, they aren't proving their explanation, they are only proving what speed an object falls.

 

This mistake then leads to...

 

The Big Bang.

 

I don't think this is the thread to bring up your own ideas, unless you are giving us an example of pesudoscience.

 

Science is pseudo-science using maths as an excuse to be right.

 

???

 

 

If G has an incorrect explanation what other calculations use G and its explanation? Nearly all formulas have a reference to G, and they are taking the explanation to go with it. This is a domino effect. Now you end up with worm holes, infinite black holes, time travel, strange Quantum Physics.

 

G is Newton's constant? If so it will naturally appear in expressions related to gravity.

 

 

Science has not been very careful in its approach to nature. It threw G into the big bang, it bent space time, and created a singularity.

 

Because the big bang has a lot to do with gravity.

 

 

G is an quantum overlap of Aether particles. The overlap creates changes in the state of Entropy.

 

Again, this is not the tread to push your own ideas.

 

Something that scientists have done a rather poor job of, is explaining to the public what science is.

 

 

Very true.

 

To me science is more of a philosophy, a way to thinking and approaching the understanding of our world. Almost any subject can be approached scientifically, and thus what is science and what is not is more to do with how it is done rather than the actual objects of study.

[Ophiolite]

I don't think this is the thread to bring up your own ideas, unless you are giving us an example of pesudoscience.

 

Good point. I have contributed to the derailment by rising to the bait of Pincho's ludicrous ideas. That is easily dealt with.

 

@ Pincho: it is cruel to mock the afflicted, its just that you make such a tempting target. However, for the moment and certainly in this thread, I am done with your self indulgent nonsense.

[Pincho Paxton]

Good point. I have contributed to the derailment by rising to the bait of Pincho's ludicrous ideas. That is easily dealt with.

 

@ Pincho: it is cruel to mock the afflicted, its just that you make such a tempting target. However, for the moment and certainly in this thread, I am done with your self indulgent nonsense.

 

Exactly! And this is the difference between science, and Pseudo science. Science has become a religion that has to be defended. The big bang is a religion. Neutrinos travelling faster than light create murmurs that are religions. Science is a religion based on the explanations which are incorrect.

[ajb]

Exactly! And this is the difference between science, and Pseudo science. Science has become a religion that has to be defended. The big bang is a religion. Neutrinos travelling faster than light create murmurs that are religions. Science is a religion based on the explanations which are incorrect.

 

The difference with science and religion is that science is a "fact based believe" as where religion is just "dogma".

 

Opinions, ideas and points of view can change quickly in science as they should do as new evidence comes to light.

 

At the risk of going off topic, the recent results that neutrinos can travel faster than light is from one experiment. An experiment that is in all likelihood flawed somehow. It is an interesting result, but it is far too soon to get excited. People need time to examine the work and hopefully conduct their own independent experiments to verify or falsify the idea of superluminal neutrinos. The ideas of Einstein have so far stood the test of time, thus just about everyone thinks that the superluminal neutrinos will not be verified. However, they could be and this would represent a turning point in physics. I will say it again, it is too soon to get excited.

[Pincho Paxton]

The difference with science and religion is that science is a "fact based believe" as where religion is just "dogma".

 

Opinions, ideas and points of view can change quickly in science as they should do as new evidence comes to light.

 

At the risk of going off topic, the recent results that neutrinos can travel faster than light is from one experiment. An experiment that is in all likelihood flawed somehow. It is an interesting result, but it is far too soon to get excited. People need time to examine the work and hopefully conduct their own independent experiments to verify or falsify the idea of superluminal neutrinos. The ideas of Einstein have so far stood the test of time, thus just about everyone thinks that the superluminal neutrinos will not be verified. However, they could be and this would represent a turning point in physics. I will say it again, it is too soon to get excited.

 

Science isn't fact based. I have explained how flow works just like attraction. Nobody want to hear it, but its a fact. People get angry about it, but its a fact. I'm not allowed to talk about it in a science thread, but its a fact. I got banned from many sites in 2004 for talking about a bubble around our Galaxy. It was a fact. It has been found. In 2005 I talked about our Universe having a flow towards one end, and more bubbles in our galaxy. More arguments. In 2006 I explained how snowflakes are created from gravity, and the kissing problem, and how nature results in a hexagonal transformation so that humans have the snowflake shape etc. Another locked thread. Man makes his first cellular life-form, and calls it the Snowflake.

 

Facts are not allowed in science, unless you religiously obey current science.Yet I am stricter than science, I don't allow sci-fi explanations in my theories.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Pincho Paxton