Nasa May Have Accidentally Figured Out How To Make A Warp Drive.

[EyesOpened]

Doesn't trust come from proof of truth? Or is it a "gut feeling"?

 

I would think that if someone was consistently proving the truth through backed up evidence over and over again, i would consider that a trustable source.

 

I don't know, PanTheory. From reading post #249 from you it seems to say you are coming out and telling us you shouldn't be trusted.

 

"Trust should have nothing to do with it. As I said many times in my posting, this is my opinion. You should trust no ones opinion."

 

I don't think this all started over opinion, it started over trust but it seems like you are focusing on the opinion angle now.

[pantheory]

Ridiculous.  All of it.

 

If you have a problem with current scientific theories then why the hell are you here, rather than at the blackboard, or the lab…. doing the WORK needed to support your hypothesis?

 

I don't buy it… and the time wasted by you arguing (here of all places) for your pet ideas is ample evidence that you really are just a dilettante with a narcisstic issue and a persecution complex rather than a serious scientist with valid concerns.

 

Go away, but… come back when you actually have some science to show us.

 

"Ridiculous.  All of it."   I do not argue theory here.

 

"...time wasted by you arguing (here of all places) for your pet ideas is ample evidence that you really are just a dilettante with a narcisstic issue and a persecution complex rather than a serious scientist with valid concerns."

 

I prefer only to talk about the threads topic, and not any diversions. I do not argue theory here or have any of the characteristics mentioned above. These are just someone's mistaken opinion.  I have had discussions in the same threads as you have and commented on your postings from time to time, if you recall.

 

I first saw my theories being discussed here, more than 2 years ago, and joined this forum as a silver patron at that time. Since then I continue my patronage and pop into this science vs. religion section where I comment on topics I have knowledge of. I expect I joined for the same reasons anyone joins forums. I am also an ex-christian. 

 

This thread is somewhat typical. I did not start this thread and commented only on the threads topic and when asked questions. Look back please, if you like. 

 

I have a book, mostly my own theories, 380 pages long  (online free). I could present a mountain of theory and answer questions almost without limit.  I am not trying to sell anything here, and start no threads. I have also written journal-published peer reviewed science papers in cosmology, posted here only when asked to do so.  I have been a theorist for more than 50 years. See my theories and website here: pantheory.org.

 

If you look at this thread and elsewhere concerning my postings,  you will see that I only make relevant comments concerning the thread topic, or answer questions when asked.

 

I agree that science forums in general, including here, are not the best place to promote anything generally unknown, such as my own theories.

[mymistake]

 

Ridiculous.  All of it.

 

If you have a problem with current scientific theories then why the hell are you here, rather than at the blackboard, or the lab…. doing the WORK needed to support your hypothesis?

 

I don't buy it… and the time wasted by you arguing (here of all places) for your pet ideas is ample evidence that you really are just a dilettante with a narcisstic issue and a persecution complex rather than a serious scientist with valid concerns.

 

Go away, but… come back when you actually have some science to show us.

 

"Ridiculous.  All of it."   I think you misunderstood my posting.

 

I first saw my theories being discussed here, more than 2 years ago, and joined this forum as a silver patron. Since then I continue my patronage and pop into this science vs. religion section where I comment on topics I have knowledge of from time to time. I expect I joined for the same reasons anyone joins forums. I am also an ex-christian. 

 

This thread is somewhat typical. I did not start this thread and commented only when asked questions.

 

I have a book of 380 pages long  (online free). I could present a mountain of theory and answer questions almost without limit.  But I am not trying to sell anything here, and start no threads. I have also written journal-published peer reviewed science papers in cosmology, posted here only when asked to do so.  If you look at this thread and elsewhere concerning my postings,  you will see that I only make relevant comments concerning the thread topic, or answer questions when asked.

 

I believe that science forums in general, including here, are not the best place to promote anything generally unknown, such as my own theories.

 

 

 

In that case why do you periodically make anti-science comments that are misleading?  Why do you portray yourself as persecuted by "mainstream" science?

[pantheory]

Doesn't trust come from proof of truth? Or is it a "gut feeling"?

 

I would think that if someone was consistently proving the truth through backed up evidence over and over again, i would consider that a trustable source.

 

I don't know, PanTheory. From reading post #249 from you it seems to say you are coming out and telling us you shouldn't be trusted.

 

"Trust should have nothing to do with it. As I said many times in my posting, this is my opinion. You should trust no ones opinion."

 

I don't think this all started over opinion, it started over trust but it seems like you are focusing on the opinion angle now.

 

Trust should have nothing to do with science. This is not the same as knowing somebody and learning to trust in their word.  But their opinions may not be the same as yours, so I think one should learn to form their own opinions, IMO

 

I think all discussions should get back on topic, EmDrive. Direct other comments as a PM

[bornagainathiest]

 

Ah now this illustrates why I cannot trust you Pantheory and why I consider you to be a harmful influence in this forum.

 

In my view a consensus is required for a theory to be generally accepted. As you remember from history, in the 1960's there were about an equal amount of scientists that believed the BB theory was valid (mostly in U.S), and about the same amount of astronomers and theorists that believed the Steady State theory was valid (mostly in England and Europe). After some time and interpretations of new observations were accepted by a consensus, the tide turned and the majority of astronomers and theorists began to favor the BB model. Today maybe 98 of 100 theorists favor the BB model over all other models combined. Majority rules is not related to science but it does involve what projects scientists work on.

 

I happen to know something of astronomical history of this period, particularly that pertaining to cosmology.

What you've given me here is the alternative cosmology spin on the events of that period.  What you haven't given me is the accepted historical account of these events.  The above is your take on what the history is - not what the history actually is.

 

If I were to ask the same question of Bhim or the RogueScholar, they would give me a very different account of these events.  An account that would show that the issue of which theory was correct (Big Bang or Steady State) was resolved by the evidence and not by such unscientific things as belief and consensus of opinion. 

 

It seems that I cannot trust you to give me any kind of explanation or account of anything in science that isn't filtered thru your personal belief system.

 

And if a member without my knowledge had asked you this question, they would have been totally mislead by you.

 

I just cannot trust you!

 

Trust should have nothing to do with it. As I said many times in my posting, this is my opinion. You should trust no ones opinion. Once one thinks he has enough information he develops his own opinion, as I have done and you have done. Ask someone else about their opinion and you probably will get a different opinion for each person asked. Look up the consensus opinion if there is such a thing concerning history. As has been explained by many historians,  history is written by the victors (the victor's perspective). Those that think otherwise, I believe, are naive. I lived through this entire period so I don't have to read history or read anyone's opinion to have knowledge concerning what happened.

 

If someone says this is their opinion, that is exactly what it is. Anyone can believe whatever source they like concerning any subject, but trust should have nothing to do with it  IMO. 

 

 

Very well then Pantheory.

 

I will do exactly as you say and trust no ones opinion.

 

Instead I will place my trust in the system of checks and balances that exists within peer-reviewed science to filter out such undesirable things as personal opinion.  

 

Thank you for your sound advice.

 

BAA.

 

 

p.s.

I must also try to remember that every time I see you write IMO, I should not trust it or you - because you've told me not to.

[bornagainathiest]

So what are your opinions about the Emdrive, Pantheory?

[ContraBardus]

[EyesOpened]

lol, i see what you did there.

 

 

Doesn't trust come from proof of truth? Or is it a "gut feeling"?

I would think that if someone was consistently proving the truth through backed up evidence over and over again, i would consider that a trustable source.

I don't know, PanTheory. From reading post #249 from you it seems to say you are coming out and telling us you shouldn't be trusted.

"Trust should have nothing to do with it. As I said many times in my posting, this is my opinion. You should trust no ones opinion."

I don't think this all started over opinion, it started over trust but it seems like you are focusing on the opinion angle now.

 

Trust should have nothing to do with science. This is not the same as knowing somebody and learning to trust in their word. But their opinions may not be the same as yours, so I think one should learn to form their own opinions, IMO

 

I think all discussions should get back on topic, EmDrive. Direct other comments as a PM

That must be where we think differently. Trust is a major factor for me. If I can't trust my sources, then i don't have very reliable data, do I?

 

So if we can't trust you as a source how does that make any of your 380 page book relevant at all? How can we take any of your mounds of data serious? I would say trust is a major factor and should be important when analyzing data. Trust must be earned through Truth.

[pantheory]

 

lol, i see what you did there.

 

 

Doesn't trust come from proof of truth? Or is it a "gut feeling"?

I would think that if someone was consistently proving the truth through backed up evidence over and over again, i would consider that a trustable source.

I don't know, PanTheory. From reading post #249 from you it seems to say you are coming out and telling us you shouldn't be trusted.

"Trust should have nothing to do with it. As I said many times in my posting, this is my opinion. You should trust no ones opinion."

I don't think this all started over opinion, it started over trust but it seems like you are focusing on the opinion angle now.

Trust should have nothing to do with science. This is not the same as knowing somebody and learning to trust in their word. But their opinions may not be the same as yours, so I think one should learn to form their own opinions, IMO

 

I think all discussions should get back on topic, EmDrive. Direct other comments as a PM

That must be where we think differently. Trust is a major factor for me. If I can't trust my sources, then i don't have very reliable data, do I?

 

So if we can't trust you as a source how does that make any of your 380 page book relevant at all? How can we take any of your mounds of data serious? I would say trust is a major factor and should be important when analyzing data. Trust must be earned through Truth.

 

 

The logic of theories must make sense to the reader and stand alone. No assertions are made, concerning theory, so no trust is needed. It is either logical or it isn't; it either makes sense or it doesn't . As the humorous saying goes: "In god we trust, all others must bring data" (to support their assertions).  Trusting your sources is important when you're reading information, then you are talking about assertions and facts. Theories do not require trust, only to learn and understand them, then to see how the theory interprets observations -- then the decision whether it makes sense.

 

For instance, "the universe is expanding" is a statement not theory, so it requires trust. Why the universe might be expanding, is theory. You might like the theory once you understand it, or prefer another explanation and theory.

 

Hopefully now let's get back to EmDrive.

[EyesOpened]

Has the EmDrive been put through repeted tests and peer review yet and how did it do if it has been? I am curious how much of this is twisted for hype and funding.

 

Where are they at with developement of the EmDrive in reality? What can they prove it does so far? These questions are as of today and not when this thread originally began.

[EyesOpened]

This was an interesting article.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-warp-drive-are-two-different-things-nasas-still-working-emdrive-1501268

[pantheory]

Has the EmDrive been put through repeted tests and peer review yet and how did it do if it has been? I am curious how much of this is twisted for hype and funding.

 

Where are they at with developement of the EmDrive in reality? What can they prove it does so far? These questions are as of today and not when this thread originally began.

 

Yes, EmDrive has been tested by multiple entities in England, the U.S., and in China. It has been tested in multiple ways, concerning different but similar designs. When talking about hardware you're talking witnessed testing by independent sources. Peer review relates to scientific papers that have been written about EmDrive. As far as I have read no journals have so far accepted any paper for publication, or peer review, because such journals do not accept the theory behind how it works. It has been hyped by many sources but there is no indication, at least in the U.S, that this has effected official funding. But the designer is in England and he says there are a great many sources now working on the technology.

 

EmDrive has been tested and witnessed by numerous sources. It can be shown that acceleration is produced, and also it has been tested in a vacuum. Although presently the acceleration shown is small, continuous acceleration still can produce great speeds in relatively short periods of time.  This thread started not that long ago so that there has been little new news, but since then EmDrive has been successfully tested in a vacuum. Here is a good link on it.

 

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/

 

Yes, your link above is interesting. It was posted earlier in this thread.

[EyesOpened]

Here is a really good article also. The more i read about the EmDrive, the more doubt i am gaining about it. This sounded incredible when it was brought up but the more i am reading the less likely this is possible. This next article compares it to the N-rays experiment in the past. It makes more sense to me now.

 

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-to-fool-the-world-with-bad-science-7a9318dd1ae6

[mymistake]

Has the EmDrive been put through repeted tests and peer review yet and how did it do if it has been? I am curious how much of this is twisted for hype and funding.

 

Where are they at with developement of the EmDrive in reality? What can they prove it does so far? These questions are as of today and not when this thread originally began.

 

 

 

Some time in the coming years scientists involved will make an announcement one way or another.  

[pantheory]

Here is a really good article also. The more i read about the EmDrive, the more doubt i am gaining about it. This sounded incredible when it was brought up but the more i am reading the less likely this is possible. This next article compares it to the N-rays experiment in the past. It makes more sense to me now.

 

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-to-fool-the-world-with-bad-science-7a9318dd1ae6

 

This was a skeptics point of view in 2012. Ethan Segal, the author of this link, is a mainstream educated astrophysicist who has his own blog. He has many interesting writings, postings, and graphics, but he rarely ever says anything contrary to mainstream theory. EmDrive is considered by most to be contrary to mainstream theory, particularly the conservation of momentum. I like some of his blogs and postings but this is one where I think he is all wet and someday will have to retract his negative writings concerning this technology.

[ContraBardus]

 

Here is a really good article also. The more i read about the EmDrive, the more doubt i am gaining about it. This sounded incredible when it was brought up but the more i am reading the less likely this is possible. This next article compares it to the N-rays experiment in the past. It makes more sense to me now.

 

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-to-fool-the-world-with-bad-science-7a9318dd1ae6

 

This was a skeptics point of view in 2012. Ethan Segal, the author of this link, is a mainstream educated astrophysicist who has his own blog. He has many interesting writings, postings, and graphics, but he rarely ever says anything contrary to mainstream theory. EmDrive is considered by most to be contrary to mainstream theory, particularly the conservation of momentum. I like some of his blogs and postings but this is one where I think he is all wet and someday will have to retract such negativism against this technology.

 

 

It's a bit weird that you say skepticism is 'negativity' considering your position on what you call "mainstream science".

 

The article in question does raise some good points about the experiment. It does suggest that the device is bunk, and that's a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence that was available when the article was written. It's really an essay about healthy skepticism in the face of such evidence anyway.

 

Even now the EmDrive research involves a lot of unknowns, preemptive results, speculation, and assertions from journalists that may or may not be backed up by the actual researchers.

 

That's why I was so careful to not go claiming it was a new scientific breakthrough that would forever change the world when I first posted. I intentionally used language that left room for doubt and suggested what I was posting was speculative.

 

It may well work, however it is far too soon to get all flowery about the results and claim that it's an amazing breakthrough just yet. We don't really know, tests haven't been reviewed completely, the nature of the results is unknown, even the researchers sound a bit skeptical about their results. They are right to suggest that they need more rigorous testing to prove this thing works.

 

Even if it does work, no one is quite sure how yet. It could be a new piece of information that changes physics forever, or it could just be a little footnote creating an exception under very specific circumstances. That is of course assuming it works at all.

 

I think the idea is very cool and that it's interesting, but I'm skeptical that this is what it's being portrayed as, even without the warp drive angle. It's an early positive result that hasn't been substantially peer reviewed. No one knows exactly what is going on. Initial results are promising, but the nature of the device leaves plenty of room for skepticism.

 

I wouldn't put any money into this technology just yet. Maybe in the future once things show more promising results, but at the moment it's too speculative and results are pending. Who knows what the end result will be? It could be an exciting and amazing new technology, it could just be an interesting anomaly that doesn't pan out for any number of possible reasons.

 

Skeptical interest is the best position to take here. It will be interesting to see what happens, but I'm not holding my breath that this thing will be everything it seems like it might at this point. It's too soon to get super excited about this as a world changing phenomenon. We don't know what the future might hold for this and only further research will show whether or not it's valid. That's going to take time, and until the peer reviewed results are released anything else is pure speculation, hopeful or not.

[mymistake]

. . . but he rarely ever says anything contrary to mainstream theory. 

 

Pantheory, if you don't want to talk about your habit of bashing science would you kindly stop doing it?

 

You say you want to stop talking about it but you go strait back to it.  "Mainstream" science isn't a religion

 

and it isn't hunting you and it doesn't need to be opposed and  . . . come one.

 

 

 

And now you will make some snarky comment about how responding to your off topic behavior is off topic.

 

 

 

 EmDrive is considered by most to be contrary to mainstream theory, particularly the conservation of momentum.

 

So when you say "mainstream theory" you really meant to say "reality".  EmDrive is contrary to reality.  Well

 

that clears things up.  Now we can safely dismiss this as rubbish and stop worrying about quackery.

[bornagainathiest]

 

lol, i see what you did there.

 

 

Doesn't trust come from proof of truth? Or is it a "gut feeling"?

I would think that if someone was consistently proving the truth through backed up evidence over and over again, i would consider that a trustable source.

I don't know, PanTheory. From reading post #249 from you it seems to say you are coming out and telling us you shouldn't be trusted.

"Trust should have nothing to do with it. As I said many times in my posting, this is my opinion. You should trust no ones opinion."

I don't think this all started over opinion, it started over trust but it seems like you are focusing on the opinion angle now.

Trust should have nothing to do with science. This is not the same as knowing somebody and learning to trust in their word. But their opinions may not be the same as yours, so I think one should learn to form their own opinions, IMO

 

I think all discussions should get back on topic, EmDrive. Direct other comments as a PM

That must be where we think differently. Trust is a major factor for me. If I can't trust my sources, then i don't have very reliable data, do I?

 

So if we can't trust you as a source how does that make any of your 380 page book relevant at all? How can we take any of your mounds of data serious? I would say trust is a major factor and should be important when analyzing data. Trust must be earned through Truth.

 

 

If trust is important to you EyesOpened, then I recommend that you follow Pantheory's advice to me and trust nobody's opinion.

 

Instead, I recommend that you trust the existing system of peer-reviewed science, rather than any one person's opinion.

 

This would, of course, include any Pantheory that is unsupported by confirmations of it's predictions.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[BlackCat]

Am I the only one who cannot understand the level of hostility towards Forrest?  Indeed 'hostility' is probably too weak a word.  Maybe Forrest is speaking a load of bull.  Maybe he is the worst debater in the world.  Maybe he ducks questions.  I don't know.  But as someone following this discussion, I truly don't understand the hostility which is very personal.  I have experienced similar hostility on this forum (in a very small isolated instance) but more so on Christian and atheist forums when I was still a Christian.  When  I was a Christian and discussed heterodox ideas on Christian forums, the hostility and unkindness was horrible.  When I was a Christian and ventured onto Dawkin's atheist site, I was a lamb to the slaughter.  They gladly destroyed me along with my admittedly bullshit beliefs. 

 

Forrest, my heart is churned up for you.  You've stated (if I remember rightly)  that your theory will be tested once and for all in the near future. I wish you well in your life and studies.   

[ContraBardus]

Am I the only one who cannot understand the level of hostility towards Forrest?  Indeed 'hostility' is probably too weak a word.  Maybe Forrest is speaking a load of bull.  Maybe he is the worst debater in the world.  Maybe he ducks questions.  I don't know.  But as someone following this discussion, I truly don't understand the hostility which is very personal.  I have experienced similar hostility on this forum (in a very small isolated instance) but more so on Christian and atheist forums when I was still a Christian.  When  I was a Christian and discussed heterodox ideas on Christian forums, the hostility and unkindness was horrible.  When I was a Christian and ventured onto Dawkin's atheist site, I was a lamb to the slaughter.  They gladly destroyed me along with my admittedly bullshit beliefs. 

 

Forrest, my heart is churned up for you.  You've stated (if I remember rightly)  that your theory will be tested once and for all in the near future. I wish you well in your life and studies.   

 

Don't feel bad for anyone. I seriously doubt there is any need to be so sensitive. Staying with thread like this for this long is tantamount to this:

 

 

No one has nailed anyone's feet to the floor here and we're not having a discussion that will decide anyone's fate. I don't foresee this resulting in any bans, anyone abandoning the forums, or any significant discovery, agreement, or result.

[pantheory]

Am I the only one who cannot understand the level of hostility towards Forrest?  Indeed 'hostility' is probably too weak a word.  Maybe Forrest is speaking a load of bull.  Maybe he is the worst debater in the world.  Maybe he ducks questions.  I don't know.  But as someone following this discussion, I truly don't understand the hostility which is very personal.  I have experienced similar hostility on this forum (in a very small isolated instance) but more so on Christian and atheist forums when I was still a Christian.  When  I was a Christian and discussed heterodox ideas on Christian forums, the hostility and unkindness was horrible.  When I was a Christian and ventured onto Dawkin's atheist site, I was a lamb to the slaughter.  They gladly destroyed me along with my admittedly bullshit beliefs. 

 

Forrest, my heart is churned up for you.  You've stated (if I remember rightly)  that your theory will be tested once and for all in the near future. I wish you well in your life and studies.   

 

HI BC

 

I am going out today but look forward to talking to you again soon, maybe this evening or tomorrow.

 

best regards, your friend Forrest

[mymistake]

Am I the only one who cannot understand the level of hostility towards Forrest?  Indeed 'hostility' is probably too weak a word.  Maybe Forrest is speaking a load of bull.  Maybe he is the worst debater in the world.  Maybe he ducks questions.  I don't know.  But as someone following this discussion, I truly don't understand the hostility which is very personal. 

 

 

That is odd.  I can't think of anybody who is hostile toward Forest.  I only see people asking him to do things.  

 

I don't think it is personal at all.  Of course Forest has the freedom to ignore all requests and be the guy who

 

never cooperates with anybody.  He can do anything he wants.  But even that isn't personal.  If somebody

 

knew that a certain behavior annoyed you and they constantly did it around you would it be hostility if you

 

asked them to stop?

 

 

 

Edit:

 

How about this.  I will put Forest on Ignore.  Then he can bash science to his heart's content, warning anybody

 

else who will listen that "mainstream" is a dangerous thing that is out to get them.  I'm just not going to care

 

about how many ex-Christians, who have been raised in an anti-science environment, might be affected by

 

Forest's warnings or his encouragement to reject the consensus view.  Then nobody will think I have anything

 

personal against Forest.  Fair enough?

[pantheory]

Am I the only one who cannot understand the level of hostility towards Forrest?  Indeed 'hostility' is probably too weak a word.......................................................................................................

 

Hi again BC,

 

Why the hostility toward me? is a good question.

 

Only a very few in this forum have shown any hostility toward me in the more than two years that I've been a member.  But most that have shown hostility in the past, also have posted in this thread. I don’t believe the hostility has anything to do with any assertions that I have made since links nearly always accompany my statements. It shouldn’t be related to any theories that I have proposed, since I don’t believe I have proposed any theories since I have been a member here. Instead I have explained personal theory only in response to questions asked about these theories.

 

I have expressed opinions by saying "IMO," but since it is identified as opinion, it should not result in hostility.

 

But after a period of time reading my postings, some realize that I think there are problems with some mainstream theories in modern physics. This, I think, is where the hostility comes from. For this reason some members believe I am bashing science which I think is totally a wrong opinion, since I have spent my adult life in science concerning study and writing theory. What they don’t realize IMO is that science is primarily the process of creating hypothesis and theories, then testing them. This is done while analyzing observations and other evidence.  Unlike religion, science is based upon analysis of data, not belief in theory or any other belief.

 

Since many members here were once taught via religion that science is often wrong and untrustworthy, some members believe that science should not be questioned as it would decrease confidence in it, so that other members might slide back into religion.

 

My perspective is that people who once believed in religion should not substitute a belief in religion for a belief in science theories. What would happen if one or more of these science theories were shown to be wrong in the future? If the only groups that had been questioning this theory were religious groups, confidence in science would certainly drop amongst religious believers who were aware of this theoretical problem

 

For instance, I am very fond of natural selection theory, but don’t suggest that anyone should blindly believe in it. Instead, what natural selection proposes, I believe should first be studied attempting to understand it, then one could form his own opinion if he thought this theory was good or not. Study, I believe, is the best way to transfer science knowledge to the individual, not the belief in this or that theory.

[BlackCat]

Hi Forrest, thank you for responding. 

 

I have been reading through past threads to try to understand the hostile responses.  One thing I'm beginning to understand is that when discussing subjects that arouse a passion for truth, emotions are going to play a part.  So, I think my very sensitive nature was over-reacting to the hostility. I'm not saying it's ok to be horrible to someone, but when you think someone is talking rubbish or is not being honest, then you might even do what I did once to my shame and tell them to 'f' off.  But I'm seeing that hostility needn't be bad in itself and serves a necessary purpose. 

 

I am however still reviewing this situation in order to further understand this matter.

[mymistake]

 

 

I am however still reviewing this situation in order to further understand this matter.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

 

 

Pseudoscience describes any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that are the marks of true science.   

 

Promoters of pseudoscience often adopt the vocabulary of science, describing conjectures as hypotheses, theories, or laws, providing "evidence" from observation and "expert" testimonies, or even developing what appear to be mathematical models of their ideas. However, in pseudoscience there is no honest attempt to follow the scientific method, provide falsifiable predictions, or develop double blind experiments.

Although pseudoscience is designed to appearance scientific, it lacks any of the substance of science.