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

[pantheory]

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.

 

Hi BC,

 

I hope this thread is dead unless I, or someone else, finds more info on EmDrive before this thread is locked. Few, if anyone here has read any of my papers or theories, or has any understandings of them excepting where questions were asked and answers given in the original thread here on the Pan Theory.

 

Many assume that anyone suggesting that there possibly could be anything wrong with existing theory, must be a crack-pot proposing pseudo-science, or worse, and that such non-believers are bashing science and are fair game for harassment. Few could understand such theories anyway if they don't have a background in science, so many of my explanations and links relating to science are often misunderstood.

 

I will be looking forward to your postings in other threads too. Best wishes, Forrest.

[ContraBardus]

 

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.

 

Hi BC,

 

I hope this thread is dead unless I, or someone else, finds more info on EmDrive before this thread is locked. Few, if anyone here has read any of my papers or theories, or has any understandings of them excepting where questions were asked and answers given in the original thread here on the Pan Theory.

 

Many assume that anyone suggesting that there possibly could be anything wrong with existing theory, must be a crack-pot proposing pseudo-science, or worse, and that such non-believers are bashing science and are fair game for harassment. Few could understand such theories anyway if they don't have a background in science, so many of my explanations and links relating to science are often misunderstood.

 

I will be looking forward to your postings in other threads too. Best wishes, Forrest.

 

 

Persecution complex much?

 

No one in this thread suggested or implied anything like this.

 

You are both delusional and a liar in this post, proving the point that was made about your character and tactics during the thread.

 

This is clearly an attempt to twist the contents of this thread into something it's clearly not to anyone who reads it in order to make yourself out to be a martyr. Your claims here are completely dishonest and self serving.

[TheOutsider]

 

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.

 

Hi BC,

 

I hope this thread is dead unless I, or someone else, finds more info on EmDrive before this thread is locked. Few, if anyone here has read any of my papers or theories, or has any understandings of them excepting where questions were asked and answers given in the original thread here on the Pan Theory.

 

Many assume that anyone suggesting that there possibly could be anything wrong with existing theory, must be a crack-pot proposing pseudo-science, or worse, and that such non-believers are bashing science and are fair game for harassment. Few could understand such theories anyway if they don't have a background in physics and cosmology, so many explanations would be misunderstood anyway, the same as many of my postings relating to science.

 

I will be looking forward to your postings in other threads too. Best wishes, Forrest.

 

 

Specifically:

Many assume that anyone suggesting that there possibly could be anything wrong with existing theory, must be a crack-pot proposing pseudo-science, or worse, and that such non-believers are bashing science and are fair game for harassment.

 

/le_sigh... I call bullshit. Is this what you really think? Or is this what you want everyone else to think?

 

Are you seriously suggesting that is the reason people don't buy into "alternative theories"?

 

WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING (bold underscored caps for emphasis). Of course there is something wrong with existing theory. We don't know everything. Of course we can improve our current understanding. We. Don't. Know. Every. Thing.  Yes. We don't know everything. What a god damn shock.

 

Do I have to keep going? Who or what exactly is it that gave you this idea? I think there is something critically flawed with it.

 

Go ahead, point out any flaws you find. Solve them. Win some Nobel prizes, advance the field of science, that's kinda the whole point.

 

Don't, however, try to convince people that aren't qualified to make any real judgements on the subject that you're the only one that can see the truth, because that's exactly what religious leaders do. I suspect that's one reason your claims are getting opposition here.

 

Science doesn't hold all the answers, why? Because, you may have guessed it, we don't know everything (Fun fact, I picked those words in that order because they accurately convey what I mean to communicate in the English language.). Getting kinda repetitive now, huh? There might be a point to that...

 

Why must everything we know and understand be thrown out in favor of your pet project?

Why can't flaws and problems be identified and corrected instead of being given up on?

In other words, why reinvent the wheel? Is it really so irreparably flawed that it can't be fixed?

 

You are trying way too hard to sell this idea, and it's setting off a ton of alarms, for me at least (hence why I'm making this post). I suspect I'm not the only one. That is why, I at the very least, am not receptive to your claims. It's has nothing to do with group think or malice, it's purely skepticism.

 

 

I was hesitant to post this. There is only so much you can do to convey tone in text. And most gets lost in translation, it's easy to forget that.

[mymistake]

So asking somebody to not make false statements about the nature of science is harassment?

[pantheory]

 

 

TheOutsider:

 

....WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING (bold underscored caps for emphasis). Of course there is something wrong with existing theory. We don't know everything. Of course we can improve our current understanding. We. Don't. Know. Every. Thing.  Yes. We don't know everything. What a god damn shock.

 

Do I have to keep going? Who or what exactly is it that gave you this idea? I think there is something critically flawed with it.

 

Go ahead, point out any flaws you find. Solve them. Win some Nobel prizes, advance the field of science, that's kinda the whole point.

 

Don't, however, try to convince people that aren't qualified to make any real judgements on the subject that you're the only one that can see the truth, because that's exactly what religious leaders do. I suspect that's one reason your claims are getting opposition here.

 

Science doesn't hold all the answers, why? Because, you may have guessed it, we don't know everything (Fun fact, I picked those words in that order because they accurately convey what I mean to communicate in the English language.). Getting kinda repetitive now, huh? There might be a point to that...

 

Why must everything we know and understand be thrown out in favor of your pet project?

Why can't flaws and problems be identified and corrected instead of being given up on?

In other words, why reinvent the wheel? Is it really so irreparably flawed that it can't be fixed?

 

You are trying way too hard to sell this idea, and it's setting off a ton of alarms, for me at least (hence why I'm making this post). I suspect I'm not the only one. That is why, I at the very least, am not receptive to your claims. It's has nothing to do with group think or malice, it's purely skepticism.

 

I was hesitant to post this. There is only so much you can do to convey tone in text. And most gets lost in translation, it's easy to forget that.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

pantheory, on 22 May 2015 - 12:18 PM, said:

 

Many assume that anyone suggesting that there possibly could be anything wrong with existing theory, must be a crack-pot proposing pseudo-science, or worse, and that such non-believers are bashing science and are fair game for harassment.

 

TheOutsider:

 

..................Are you seriously suggesting that is the reason people don't buy into "alternative theories"?

 

This is not what I believe. I believe that many assume this so that they make no effort to try to understand postings that seem to disagree with their own opinions.

 

You have made Good points , not only that, I believe they are the same points I have been trying to make concerning theories in modern physics.  I could not have said it better myself, because if I would have said it myself the posting would likely have been misunderstood, at least by some. 

 

Misunderstands of a poster's motives are also very common IMO. I have not tried to sell any alternative theory in this or other threads. Look back through this thread, if you like, to find postings where I am trying to sell or even explain any part of my theories or hypotheses.  Instead I say things like "there may be problems with current theory" for this or that reason, but only in response to someone's posting or questions. I am not confrontational so I do not argue since I believe the reader has a right to his own opinion. Only when questions are asked do I try to explain the posters questions. When it is my opinion rather than fact I say "IMO."

 

 

There is only so much you can do to convey tone in text. And most gets lost in translation, it's easy to forget that.

 

This statement I also agree with since I believe this is one of the sources of negative comments and confrontational postings.

 

Cheers

[TheOutsider]

I'll admit I'm not plugged into the main line of internet science forum politics, but I am familiar with typical attitudes on the internet, more or less. I won't say that dissenting opinion is well received everywhere, and the internet is great at amplifying polarity on any subject.
 

Many assume that anyone suggesting that there possibly could be anything wrong with existing theory, must be a crack-pot proposing pseudo-science, or worse, and that such non-believers are bashing science and are fair game for harassment.

 

But pointing that out as an actual issue just seems misleading, no one that actually holds that sentiment with a straight face should be taken seriously. It's a problem that solves itself as long as you employ some basic reasoning, though I'm aware reasoning and the internet are like oil and water sometimes.

 

Maybe my problem with that statement is that it sounds a lot like a straw man fallacy.

 

I'd go on, but I'm more interested in playing some Call of Pripyat right now. Do svidaniya... I wish I knew Russian...

[ContraBardus]

I'll admit I'm not plugged into the main line of internet science forum politics, but I am familiar with typical attitudes on the internet, more or less. I won't say that dissenting opinion is well received everywhere, and the internet is great at amplifying polarity on any subject.

 

Many assume that anyone suggesting that there possibly could be anything wrong with existing theory, must be a crack-pot proposing pseudo-science, or worse, and that such non-believers are bashing science and are fair game for harassment.

 

But pointing that out as an actual issue just seems misleading, no one that actually holds that sentiment with a straight face should be taken seriously. It's a problem that solves itself as long as you employ some basic reasoning, though I'm aware reasoning and the internet are like oil and water sometimes.

 

Maybe my problem with that statement is that it sounds a lot like a straw man fallacy.

 

I'd go on, but I'm more interested in playing some Call of Pripyat right now. Do svidaniya... I wish I knew Russian...

 

The biggest issue is that he's saying that there is something wrong with existing theory, but he's never explained why. He just "doesn't like it". That's not an explanation or reason to discard it. Instead of bothering with pointing out an error, he goes right into his pet theory, which as far as we can tell is completely psuedoscience. It has no actual basis for replacing anything because it simply assumes that accepted theory is wrong based on a gut feeling.

 

He simply goes "This is what I think happened because my gut tells me that the current theory is wrong because I don't understand it." He has admitted to this several times in the course of this thread. That really is his line of thinking and he believes it to be scientific.

 

He's not saying "This part of existing theory is wrong, here is my evidence, and I believe this explanation is better, here is my evidence to support it," which would be the proper way to present the issue.

 

Again, this is something he has admitted at several points in the thread, and yet he still doesn't seem to understand why we call this psuedoscientific out as the psuedoscience it is. What he is posting is not science and does not follow the scientific method. Even if his conclusion is correct, he didn't reach the conclusion by using the correct methodology, therefore there is no good reason for anyone to believe or accept it.

 

Rather than blaming his own methods, he goes the route of a conspiracy theorist and puts blame on "Mainstream Science not accepting different ideas" which is bunk. He's just a poor scientist who employs incorrect methodology to reach his conclusions. This isn't a fifth grade Science class where you just have to write down the correct answer that the book gave you and get a check mark that says it's correct. This is grown up Science where you have to explain why you came to your conclusion and exactly how you got there. You've got to show your work and explain why it is correct. If your work goes against an existing theory you've got to be able to explain exactly how and why it is wrong and also be able to explain exactly how your existing theory corrects it. "It's too complicated, so I don't like it" explains nothing and provides no reason why this new theory is needed.

 

Pantheory doesn't seem to understand that, and his stubborn refusal to accept it is what got him in this position in the first place. He's acting more like a salesman than a scientist, pushing his brand rather than providing relevant data or explanation. He's not following the methodology of science at all. The Science minded side of this forum doesn't put up with that shit. It's harmful to actual science to spread such foolishness and can derail or delay the development of someone who is taken in by it because it's pretending to wear a lab coat and sounds authentic enough to fool a layman.

 

If he was actually following the proper methodology to reach his conclusions and was explaining them properly, and he's openly admitted that he is not whether he realizes it or not, then he wouldn't be catching all this crap. This has nothing to do with Mainstream not accepting his theory, it has to do with him not actually bothering with following scientific methodology and acting more like he's on an infomercial trying to sell it to us than a legitimate scientist explaining his work. There are too many people who know how science actually works for us to buy it here and it's ending up a source of frustration on both ends.

 

I can't say the flack he's getting isn't deserved. He either has no idea what he's doing, or he's deliberately lying. Possibly a mixture of the two.

[bornagainathiest]

Well, I'd like Pantheory to help me and 5,252 other members of Ex-C, so that we can do what he insists upon.

 

To be skeptical of everything in science AND to form our own opinions about everything in science.

 

Bhim, the RogueScholar and the RedNeckProf can do these things and Pantheory has claimed that he can too.

 

But what about the rest of us ordinary joe's?

.

.

.

How do we form our own opinions about everything in science?

.

.

.

Please help us, Pantheory!

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

I'll admit I'm not plugged into the main line of internet science forum politics, but I am familiar with typical attitudes on the internet, more or less. I won't say that dissenting opinion is well received everywhere, and the internet is great at amplifying polarity on any subject.

 

Many assume that anyone suggesting that there possibly could be anything wrong with existing theory, must be a crack-pot proposing pseudo-science, or worse, and that such non-believers are bashing science and are fair game for harassment.

 

But pointing that out as an actual issue just seems misleading, no one that actually holds that sentiment with a straight face should be taken seriously. It's a problem that solves itself as long as you employ some basic reasoning, though I'm aware reasoning and the internet are like oil and water sometimes.

 

Maybe my problem with that statement is that it sounds a lot like a straw man fallacy.

 

I'd go on, but I'm more interested in playing some Call of Pripyat right now. Do svidaniya... I wish I knew Russian...

 

 Russian: "do svidaniya,"  cool, meaning "till seeing each other again."  In French, A plus tard, "see you later, Spanish: hasta la vista, "see you later." German:  bis später, see you later --  "Pripyat?" (from your posting), what is it?

[pantheory]

 

.....Instead of bothering with pointing out an error (of theory), he goes right into his pet theory.  (parenthesis added)

 

This is what I never do. Check out this thread and other past postings of mine and see if you can find such a posting.

[pantheory]

Well, I'd like Pantheory to help me and 5,252 other members of Ex-C, so that we can do what he insists upon.

 

To be skeptical of everything in science AND to form our own opinions about everything in science.

 

Bhim, the RogueScholar and the RedNeckProf can do these things and Pantheory has claimed that he can too.

 

But what about the rest of us ordinary joe's?

.

.

.

How do we form our own opinions about everything in science?

.

.

.

Please help us, Pantheory!

 

I suggest to believe the theory that makes the most sense to you, whether it be mainstream or not, but consider other possibilities if you can. If not then most anybody can believe that mainstream answers, explanations, and theory are the most likely to be valid (which is a good thing) with little or no understanding of them, but not be too surprised if any of them, or many of them,  turn out to be wrong or require substantial changes. (healthy skepticism)

[ContraBardus]

 

I'll admit I'm not plugged into the main line of internet science forum politics, but I am familiar with typical attitudes on the internet, more or less. I won't say that dissenting opinion is well received everywhere, and the internet is great at amplifying polarity on any subject.

 

Many assume that anyone suggesting that there possibly could be anything wrong with existing theory, must be a crack-pot proposing pseudo-science, or worse, and that such non-believers are bashing science and are fair game for harassment.

 

But pointing that out as an actual issue just seems misleading, no one that actually holds that sentiment with a straight face should be taken seriously. It's a problem that solves itself as long as you employ some basic reasoning, though I'm aware reasoning and the internet are like oil and water sometimes.

 

Maybe my problem with that statement is that it sounds a lot like a straw man fallacy.

 

I'd go on, but I'm more interested in playing some Call of Pripyat right now. Do svidaniya... I wish I knew Russian...

 

 Russian: "do svidaniya,"  cool, meaning "till seeing each other again."  In French, A plus tard, "see you later, Spanish: hasta la vista, "see you later." German:  bis später, see you later --  "Pripyat?" (from your posting), what is it?

 

 

It's a survival game set in Chernobyl in Russia. It's kind of like Fallout 3, but much more difficult.

[pantheory]

 

It's a survival game set in Chernobyl in Russia. It's kind of like Fallout 3, but much more difficult.

 

 

Thanks, I looked it up but couldn't find anything

[ContraBardus]

 

 

.....Instead of bothering with pointing out an error (of theory), he goes right into his pet theory.  (parenthesis added)

 

This is what I never do. Check out this and other past postings of mine and see if you can find such a posting.

 

 

This was a point of contention in this thread earlier. Several others asked you to provide evidence of fault or explanation for why established theory didn't make sense to you, and you provided no evidence and merely suggested that 'it didn't make sense to you'. Just like you do in your reply to BAA above.

 

Choosing the "Theory that makes the most sense to you" is a poor criteria and is not scientific. It's an emotional plea and has no valid scientific reasoning behind it.

 

If I chose which scientific theories to accept by "What made sense to me" I'd throw out anything more complex than high school biology and chemistry. Choosing what theories to accept based on what makes the most sense to me personally is, to put it quite bluntly, an incredibly idiotic thing to say and about the worst advice you can give in regard to how to accept scientific theory.

 

I don't think anyone who can't understand and make sense of a theory is qualified to disregard it. If you can't make sense of it or understand it, how can you possibly say it's wrong? It's over your head if that's the case and any input is input from ignorance. Even if a theory is wrong, a scientist must first understand why it is wrong in order to create a valid basis for a counter theory.

 

You've not done that by your own admission. I see no reason not to be skeptical of any of your reasoning because of that.

[ContraBardus]

 

 

It's a survival game set in Chernobyl in Russia. It's kind of like Fallout 3, but much more difficult.

 

 

Thanks, I looked it up but couldn't find anything

 

 

I was thinking of the first game in the series. Pirpyat takes place in the Ukrane, it's the sequel to a game called Shadow of Chernobyl. They are part of the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series.

 

They are fun games, but for hardcore gamers. Everything wants to kill you and resources are scarce. It's the kind of game that will grind up and spit out someone just wanting to casually play.

 

It's based on a real place. It's an abandoned city in the Ukrane. They actually recreated the area in the games from maps of Chernobyl for the first game and Pirpyat for the second and it's a geographically accurate representation of the real places.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pripyat

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.T.A.L.K.E.R.:_Call_of_Pripyat

[pantheory]

 

 

 

.....Instead of bothering with pointing out an error (of theory), he goes right into his pet theory.  (parenthesis added)

 

This is what I never do. Check out this and other past postings of mine and see if you can find such a posting.

 

 

This was a point of contention in this thread earlier. Several others asked you to provide evidence of fault or explanation for why established theory didn't make sense to you, and you provided no evidence and merely suggested that 'it didn't make sense to you'. Just like you do in your reply to BAA above.

 

Choosing the "Theory that makes the most sense to you" is a poor criteria and is not scientific. It's an emotional plea and has no valid scientific reasoning behind it.

 

If I chose which scientific theories to accept by "What made sense to me" I'd throw out anything more complex than high school biology and chemistry. Choosing what theories to accept based on what makes the most sense to me personally is, to put it quite bluntly, an incredibly idiotic thing to say and about the worst advice you can give in regard to how to accept scientific theory.

 

I don't think anyone who can't understand and make sense of a theory is qualified to accept or disregard it. If you can't make sense of it or understand it, how can you possibly say it's wrong? It's over your head if that's the case and any input is input from ignorance. Even if a theory is wrong, a scientist must first understand why it is wrong in order to create a valid basis for a counter theory.

 

You've not done that by your own admission. I see no reason not to be skeptical of any of your reasoning because of that.

 

 

This was a point of contention in this thread earlier. Several others asked you to provide evidence of fault or explanation for why established theory didn't make sense to you.....

.

What is the evidence concerning why I think most mainstream theories in modern physics could be wrong?

 

Of course this could be a good question(s) for me but it depends if the questioner really wants to hear my answers. If so then the topic of the thread should be related to the questions and answers. I could explain my answers to this question(s) in great detail, but believe that postings should be on topic, excepting for generally brief ones.  If you or anyone really wants to know my answers to this or other questions I will be glad to answer in great detail if the thread topic is appropriate. I will not start such a thread because I believe from experience that few if anyone here would be interested in my answers. But if you or anyone else were really interested in my answers to "What could be wrong with present theories in Modern physics," then start a thread with this title in this section and I will be glad to answer all questions in detail according to my own perspectives, related opinions, and present what I consider to be evidence and/ or supporting observations for my statements. This would not require me going into my own theories in any detail. If not, I don't believe that generally unknown perspectives and  opinions are appropriate concerning off-topic postings and discussions.

[pantheory]

 

I was thinking of the first game in the series. Pirpyat takes place in the Ukrane, it's the sequel to a game called Shadow of Chernobyl. They are part of the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series.

 

They are fun games, but for hardcore gamers. Everything wants to kill you and resources are scarce. It's the kind of game that will grind up and spit out someone just wanting to casually play.

 

It's based on a real place. It's an abandoned city in the Ukrane. They actually recreated the area in the games from maps of Chernobyl for the first game and Pirpyat for the second and it's a geographically accurate representation of the real places.

 

 

I guess my search wasn't very good.   Thanks again, interesting

[TheOutsider]

 

I'll admit I'm not plugged into the main line of internet science forum politics, but I am familiar with typical attitudes on the internet, more or less. I won't say that dissenting opinion is well received everywhere, and the internet is great at amplifying polarity on any subject.

 

Many assume that anyone suggesting that there possibly could be anything wrong with existing theory, must be a crack-pot proposing pseudo-science, or worse, and that such non-believers are bashing science and are fair game for harassment.

 

But pointing that out as an actual issue just seems misleading, no one that actually holds that sentiment with a straight face should be taken seriously. It's a problem that solves itself as long as you employ some basic reasoning, though I'm aware reasoning and the internet are like oil and water sometimes.

 

Maybe my problem with that statement is that it sounds a lot like a straw man fallacy.

 

I'd go on, but I'm more interested in playing some Call of Pripyat right now. Do svidaniya... I wish I knew Russian...

 

 

The biggest issue is that he's saying that there is something wrong with existing theory, but he's never explained why. He just "doesn't like it". That's not an explanation or reason to discard it. Instead of bothering with pointing out an error, he goes right into his pet theory, which as far as we can tell is completely psuedoscience. It has no actual basis for replacing anything because it simply assumes that accepted theory is wrong based on a gut feeling.

 

He simply goes "This is what I think happened because my gut tells me that the current theory is wrong because I don't understand it." He has admitted to this several times in the course of this thread. That really is his line of thinking and he believes it to be scientific.

 

 

Yeah, I get that and I think it's a really inappropriate position to take. Science is full of stuff that I cannot say I actually understand, but I do understand that jumping to the conclusion that it's a problem with science is wrong. I know from what I've read in this thread at least, he pretty much tossed aside everything science has figured out in favor of starting his own pet project, because as he said, he didn't like what we already knew.

 

He's not saying "This part of existing theory is wrong, here is my evidence, and I believe this explanation is better, here is my evidence to support it," which would be the proper way to present the issue.

 

Again, this is something he has admitted at several points in the thread, and yet he still doesn't seem to understand why we call this psuedoscientific out as the psuedoscience it is. What he is posting is not science and does not follow the scientific method. Even if his conclusion is correct, he didn't reach the conclusion by using the correct methodology, therefore there is no good reason for anyone to believe or accept it.

 

Rather than blaming his own methods, he goes the route of a conspiracy theorist and puts blame on "Mainstream Science not accepting different ideas" which is bunk. He's just a poor scientist who employs incorrect methodology to reach his conclusions. This isn't a fifth grade Science class where you just have to write down the correct answer that the book gave you and get a check mark that says it's correct. This is grown up Science where you have to explain why you came to your conclusion and exactly how you got there. You've got to show your work and explain why it is correct. If your work goes against an existing theory you've got to be able to explain exactly how and why it is wrong and also be able to explain exactly how your existing theory corrects it. "It's too complicated, so I don't like it" explains nothing and provides no reason why this new theory is needed.

 

Pantheory doesn't seem to understand that, and his stubborn refusal to accept it is what got him in this position in the first place. He's acting more like a salesman than a scientist, pushing his brand rather than providing relevant data or explanation. He's not following the methodology of science at all. The Science minded side of this forum doesn't put up with that shit. It's harmful to actual science to spread such foolishness and can derail or delay the development of someone who is taken in by it because it's pretending to wear a lab coat and sounds authentic enough to fool a layman.

 

If he was actually following the proper methodology to reach his conclusions and was explaining them properly, and he's openly admitted that he is not whether he realizes it or not, then he wouldn't be catching all this crap. This has nothing to do with Mainstream not accepting his theory, it has to do with him not actually bothering with following scientific methodology and acting more like he's on an infomercial trying to sell it to us than a legitimate scientist explaining his work. There are too many people who know how science actually works for us to buy it here and it's ending up a source of frustration on both ends.

 

I can't say the flack he's getting isn't deserved. He either has no idea what he's doing, or he's deliberately lying. Possibly a mixture of the two.

 

I'm in agreement, I don't particularly like the attitude he displays towards the scientific method, and I don't think this is the greatest place to introduce whatever you want to call his pet project, according to his posts it's at the very least bordering on the wrong side of pseudoscience, and that might be me being generous.

 

I guess I should make this clear, I have no opinion of the person behind the username "pantheory", I don't know him enough to have developed one. My problems begin and end with his ideas, and with his seemingly manipulative tactics, and for the latter, I don't know if that's just me being misanthropic, his personality quirks, or if it's intentional, as of right now it doesn't really matter to me.

 

I don't think the flack his ideas are getting is undeserved either, I just might not be the best at contributing to it at this point.

 

What got me was that specific statement I quoted. It came across as highly misleading or possibly manipulative to me, and I felt the need to point that out as best I could so maybe someone else reading it would think twice about it's validity. The rest of his position is troubling (for lack of a better word) to me as well, but I'll let the heavier hitters tear into that, at least until I get better at this participating thing.

 

Maybe my own communication skills aren't doing me any favors? Still trying to figure out the being assertive with my own thoughts thing...

Eh, I'll get used to not caring so much about how I come across eventually.

 

But for now, I feel like I should be wearing an armored environmental protection suit with a bottle of cheap vodka in one hand and a Dragunov SVU in the other... SGM 2.2 Lost Soul is !!FUN!!, had to merge two different translations (did that last week, I'm fucking dedicated.) and make some AI accuracy tweaks so they weren't all aimbot-ey, was worth it.

Still can't wait for Wormwood, hopefully it doesn't turn out like Misery. Well, I'm off to read some Lovecraft and go to sleep.

[ContraBardus]

 

 

I'll admit I'm not plugged into the main line of internet science forum politics, but I am familiar with typical attitudes on the internet, more or less. I won't say that dissenting opinion is well received everywhere, and the internet is great at amplifying polarity on any subject.

 

Many assume that anyone suggesting that there possibly could be anything wrong with existing theory, must be a crack-pot proposing pseudo-science, or worse, and that such non-believers are bashing science and are fair game for harassment.

 

But pointing that out as an actual issue just seems misleading, no one that actually holds that sentiment with a straight face should be taken seriously. It's a problem that solves itself as long as you employ some basic reasoning, though I'm aware reasoning and the internet are like oil and water sometimes.

 

Maybe my problem with that statement is that it sounds a lot like a straw man fallacy.

 

I'd go on, but I'm more interested in playing some Call of Pripyat right now. Do svidaniya... I wish I knew Russian...

 

 

The biggest issue is that he's saying that there is something wrong with existing theory, but he's never explained why. He just "doesn't like it". That's not an explanation or reason to discard it. Instead of bothering with pointing out an error, he goes right into his pet theory, which as far as we can tell is completely psuedoscience. It has no actual basis for replacing anything because it simply assumes that accepted theory is wrong based on a gut feeling.

 

He simply goes "This is what I think happened because my gut tells me that the current theory is wrong because I don't understand it." He has admitted to this several times in the course of this thread. That really is his line of thinking and he believes it to be scientific.

 

 

Yeah, I get that and I think it's a really inappropriate position to take. Science is full of stuff that I cannot say I actually understand, but I do understand that jumping to the conclusion that it's a problem with science is wrong. I know from what I've read in this thread at least, he pretty much tossed aside everything science has figured out in favor of starting his own pet project, because as he said, he didn't like what we already knew.

 

He's not saying "This part of existing theory is wrong, here is my evidence, and I believe this explanation is better, here is my evidence to support it," which would be the proper way to present the issue.

 

Again, this is something he has admitted at several points in the thread, and yet he still doesn't seem to understand why we call this psuedoscientific out as the psuedoscience it is. What he is posting is not science and does not follow the scientific method. Even if his conclusion is correct, he didn't reach the conclusion by using the correct methodology, therefore there is no good reason for anyone to believe or accept it.

 

Rather than blaming his own methods, he goes the route of a conspiracy theorist and puts blame on "Mainstream Science not accepting different ideas" which is bunk. He's just a poor scientist who employs incorrect methodology to reach his conclusions. This isn't a fifth grade Science class where you just have to write down the correct answer that the book gave you and get a check mark that says it's correct. This is grown up Science where you have to explain why you came to your conclusion and exactly how you got there. You've got to show your work and explain why it is correct. If your work goes against an existing theory you've got to be able to explain exactly how and why it is wrong and also be able to explain exactly how your existing theory corrects it. "It's too complicated, so I don't like it" explains nothing and provides no reason why this new theory is needed.

 

Pantheory doesn't seem to understand that, and his stubborn refusal to accept it is what got him in this position in the first place. He's acting more like a salesman than a scientist, pushing his brand rather than providing relevant data or explanation. He's not following the methodology of science at all. The Science minded side of this forum doesn't put up with that shit. It's harmful to actual science to spread such foolishness and can derail or delay the development of someone who is taken in by it because it's pretending to wear a lab coat and sounds authentic enough to fool a layman.

 

If he was actually following the proper methodology to reach his conclusions and was explaining them properly, and he's openly admitted that he is not whether he realizes it or not, then he wouldn't be catching all this crap. This has nothing to do with Mainstream not accepting his theory, it has to do with him not actually bothering with following scientific methodology and acting more like he's on an infomercial trying to sell it to us than a legitimate scientist explaining his work. There are too many people who know how science actually works for us to buy it here and it's ending up a source of frustration on both ends.

 

I can't say the flack he's getting isn't deserved. He either has no idea what he's doing, or he's deliberately lying. Possibly a mixture of the two.

 

I'm in agreement, I don't particularly like the attitude he displays towards the scientific method, and I don't think this is the greatest place to introduce whatever you want to call his pet project, according to his posts it's at the very least bordering on the wrong side of pseudoscience, and that might be me being generous.

 

I guess I should make this clear, I have no opinion of the person behind the username "pantheory", I don't know him enough to have developed one. My problems begin and end with his ideas, and with his seemingly manipulative tactics, and for the latter, I don't know if that's just me being misanthropic, his personality quirks, or if it's intentional, as of right now it doesn't really matter to me.

 

I don't think the flack his ideas are getting is undeserved either, I just might not be the best at contributing to it at this point.

 

What got me was that specific statement I quoted. It came across as highly misleading or possibly manipulative to me, and I felt the need to point that out as best I could so maybe someone else reading it would think twice about it's validity. The rest of his position is troubling (for lack of a better word) to me as well, but I'll let the heavier hitters tear into that, at least until I get better at this participating thing.

 

Maybe my own communication skills aren't doing me any favors? Still trying to figure out the being assertive with my own thoughts thing...

Eh, I'll get used to not caring so much about how I come across eventually.

 

But for now, I feel like I should be wearing an armored environmental protection suit with a bottle of cheap vodka in one hand and a Dragunov SVU in the other... SGM 2.2 Lost Soul is !!FUN!!, had to merge two different translations (did that last week, I'm fucking dedicated.) and make some AI accuracy tweaks so they weren't all aimbot-ey, was worth it.

Still can't wait for Wormwood, hopefully it doesn't turn out like Misery. Well, I'm off to read some Lovecraft and go to sleep.

 

 

If I was mad at him, I wouldn't have shared that info about the game.

 

I'm not sure how dishonest he's been exactly, but there is some level of dishonestly at least. I also don't think he knows what he's doing scientifically speaking.

 

I just don't trust him in regard to science matters. I'm not in the least bit upset with him and I've no reason to dislike him. He's not damaged me in any way, psychologically or otherwise. I'm over getting upset or annoyed about stuff like that anymore. Have been for a while.

 

I do think BAA has a point and that some people here are understandably touchy about philosophies and thinking that reminds them of the faith they got rid of. Some of us are a bit sensitive and don't like it when we think we can't trust someone or that a line of thinking is a bit too entrenched in faith.

 

I no longer give a shit and don't give much thought to it unless it's being obnoxious and harmful directly. That's not very often. I still think it's stupid mind you, it just doesn't bother me like it used to that people are dumb, and as a society we're kind of getting over it according to most numbers.

 

I don't trust his theories and I think it might railroad someone impressionable into the land of psuedoscience bunk, but I also don't think it's as bad as Young Earth Creationism, anti-vaccers, or UFOlogy either. This ranks pretty low on my list of harmful crackpot science.

 

To paraphrase Douglas Adams, it's mostly harmless. The flawed methodology might be a problem for a young person interested in this sort of thing and be a bit of a bump in the road of their development, but a proper education would quickly set them straight, or at least give them the proper resources to figure it out for themselves.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Well, I'd like Pantheory to help me and 5,252 other members of Ex-C, so that we can do what he insists upon.

 

To be skeptical of everything in science AND to form our own opinions about everything in science.

 

Bhim, the RogueScholar and the RedNeckProf can do these things and Pantheory has claimed that he can too.

 

But what about the rest of us ordinary joe's?

.

.

.

How do we form our own opinions about everything in science?

.

.

.

Please help us, Pantheory!

 

I suggest to believe the theory that makes the most sense to you, whether it be mainstream or not, but consider other possibilities if you can. If not then most anybody can believe that mainstream answers, explanations, and theory are the most likely to be valid (which is a good thing) with little or no understanding of them, but not be too surprised if any of them, or many of them,  turn out to be wrong or require substantial changes. (healthy skepticism)

 

 

If there are two different explanations of the same thing, neither of which I can understand, I should opt to believe the one that makes most sense to me?

 

How can one of these explanations make more sense to me than another - if I understand neither?

 

Please explain.

[TheOutsider]

<Oversnip, eh whatever.>

 

If I was mad at him, I wouldn't have shared that info about the game.

 

I'm not sure how dishonest he's been exactly, but there is some level of dishonestly at least. I also don't think he knows what he's doing scientifically speaking.

 

I just don't trust him in regard to science matters. I'm not in the least bit upset with him and I've no reason to dislike him. He's not damaged me in any way, psychologically or otherwise. I'm over getting upset or annoyed about stuff like that anymore. Have been for a while.

 

I don't mean to imply you, or anyone was actually mad at him,  just meant to clarify that for anyone that might think otherwise, while trying not to speak for others.

 

I do think BAA has a point and that some people here are understandably touchy about philosophies and thinking that reminds them of the faith they got rid of. Some of us are a bit sensitive and don't like it when we think we can't trust someone or that a line of thinking is a bit too entrenched in faith.

 

And I'm one too, though I try to keep a level head about it. I'm not always sure I succeed, but that's what taking a break and coming back later is for.

 

I no longer give a shit and don't give much thought to it unless it's being obnoxious and harmful directly. That's not very often. I still think it's stupid mind you, it just doesn't bother me like it used to that people are dumb, and as a society we're kind of getting over it according to most numbers.

 

Heh, stupidity I've gotten used to, this is the internet after all. Sometimes it's still a bit perplexing, but that comes with the territory.

 

I don't trust his theories and I think it might railroad someone impressionable into the land of psuedoscience bunk, but I also don't think it's as bad as Young Earth Creationism, anti-vaccers, or UFOlogy either. This ranks pretty low on my list of harmful crackpot science.

 

I agree, I think his position on science is bad, even if it turns out he's right. I've been down the conspiracy rabbit hole, and I've learned I'd rather be wrong for the right reasons than right for the wrong ones. Not that there is anything credible down that path anyway. It's not pseudoscience, but it's in the wheel house.

 

To paraphrase Douglas Adams, it's mostly harmless. The flawed methodology might be a problem for a young person interested in this sort of thing and be a bit of a bump in the road of their development, but a proper education would quickly set them straight, or at least give them the proper resources to figure it out for themselves.

 

Ah, Douglas Adams, I still find his instructions on unassisted flight highly amusing. And if it wasn't for the Total Perspective Vortex bit, I probably wouldn't have realized how small minded human gods really are, or at least it would have taken longer. I mean, the entire universe, and all you care about is a planet called earth? Not very ambitious are we... But I digress...

[pantheory]

 

 

Well, I'd like Pantheory to help me and 5,252 other members of Ex-C, so that we can do what he insists upon.

 

To be skeptical of everything in science AND to form our own opinions about everything in science.

 

Bhim, the RogueScholar and the RedNeckProf can do these things and Pantheory has claimed that he can too.

 

But what about the rest of us ordinary joe's?

.

.

.

How do we form our own opinions about everything in science?

.

.

.

Please help us, Pantheory!

 

I suggest to believe the theory that makes the most sense to you, whether it be mainstream or not, but consider other possibilities if you can. If not then most anybody can believe that mainstream answers, explanations, and theory are the most likely to be valid (which is a good thing) with little or no understanding of them, but not be too surprised if any of them, or many of them,  turn out to be wrong or require substantial changes. (healthy skepticism)

 

 

If there are two different explanations of the same thing, neither of which I can understand, I should opt to believe the one that makes most sense to me?

 

How can one of these explanations make more sense to me than another - if I understand neither?

 

Please explain.

 

 

I suggest not to be very concerned about any theory unless one is really interested in learning about it. Here I am generally talking about cosmology because other theories in modern physics require even more knowledge. I would suggest to start by studying the mainsteam position first,  and to consider its explanations are probably the most likely unless one has educated himself enough to have a different opinion. Consider as many possibilities as you can understand, concerning what is being discussed.

 

I suggest, however, not to be too attached to mainstream or any other theory in cosmology because there are new observational instruments on the horizon that could dispel many current beliefs and related theory, whether mainsteam or alternative theory (healthy skepticism).

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

Well, I'd like Pantheory to help me and 5,252 other members of Ex-C, so that we can do what he insists upon.

To be skeptical of everything in science AND to form our own opinions about everything in science.

Bhim, the RogueScholar and the RedNeckProf can do these things and Pantheory has claimed that he can too.

But what about the rest of us ordinary joe's?

How do we form our own opinions about everything in science?

Please help us, Pantheory!

 

I suggest to believe the theory that makes the most sense to you, whether it be mainstream or not, but consider other possibilities if you can. If not then most anybody can believe that mainstream answers, explanations, and theory are the most likely to be valid (which is a good thing) with little or no understanding of them, but not be too surprised if any of them, or many of them,  turn out to be wrong or require substantial changes. (healthy skepticism)

 

If there are two different explanations of the same thing, neither of which I can understand, I should opt to believe the one that makes most sense to me?

How can one of these explanations make more sense to me than another - if I understand neither?

Please explain.

 

I suggest not to bother with any of it unless one is really interested in learning about it. Here I am generally talking about cosmology, because other theories in modern physics involve even more knowledge. I would suggest to start by believing that mainsteam explanations are correct unless one has educated himself enough to have a different opinion. Consider as many possibilities as you can understand concerning what is being discussed. Like many have said here, to seriously consider anything else one should first understand the mainstream position pretty well since it is the only one where billions of dollars have been spent in its development.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Now I'm confused, Pantheory.  

 

Back in post # 152 you quoted Descartes 4-step methodology to me, the first step of which instructs me to doubt everything.  But now you're suggesting something different.   That I should not doubt everything, but believe that mainstream explanations are correct unless I've educated myself sufficiently to hold a different opinion.

 

But for me there is no 'unless'.

I don't have the smarts to educate myself enough to hold a different opinion.  My opinion is obliged to remain one of total and equal skepticism to everything.  So I cannot take the option you've just suggested.  In fact, I cannot ever hold any different opinion about anything in science.   All other options are closed to me.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suggest, however, not to be too attached to mainstream or any other theory in cosmology because there are new observational instruments on the horizon that could dispel many current beliefs and related theory, whether mainsteam or alternative theory (healthy skepticism).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no choice but to be totally skeptical about everything, Pantheory.

In taking yours and Descartes advice, I begin by believing nothing, doubting everything and being totally skeptical.  But I can go no further than this.  I remain stuck in a limbo of skeptical disbelief about everything.

 

Pantheory,

 

Your suggestions lead me and leave me... nowhere.   All science is forever closed off from me if I follow your suggestions - because I have no practical means of establishing for myself which theories are valid and which aren't.  

 

Apart from giving up and simply not bothering, is there no other option I can take? 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[pantheory]

 

 

 

 

Well, I'd like Pantheory to help me and 5,252 other members of Ex-C, so that we can do what he insists upon.

To be skeptical of everything in science AND to form our own opinions about everything in science.

Bhim, the RogueScholar and the RedNeckProf can do these things and Pantheory has claimed that he can too.

But what about the rest of us ordinary joe's?

How do we form our own opinions about everything in science?

Please help us, Pantheory!

 

I suggest to believe the theory that makes the most sense to you, whether it be mainstream or not, but consider other possibilities if you can. If not then most anybody can believe that mainstream answers, explanations, and theory are the most likely to be valid (which is a good thing) with little or no understanding of them, but not be too surprised if any of them, or many of them,  turn out to be wrong or require substantial changes. (healthy skepticism)

 

If there are two different explanations of the same thing, neither of which I can understand, I should opt to believe the one that makes most sense to me?

How can one of these explanations make more sense to me than another - if I understand neither?

Please explain.

 

I suggest not to bother with any of it unless one is really interested in learning about it. Here I am generally talking about cosmology, because other theories in modern physics involve even more knowledge. I would suggest to start by believing that mainsteam explanations are correct unless one has educated himself enough to have a different opinion. Consider as many possibilities as you can understand concerning what is being discussed. Like many have said here, to seriously consider anything else one should first understand the mainstream position pretty well since it is the only one where billions of dollars have been spent in its development.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Now I'm confused, Pantheory.  

 

Back in post # 152 you quoted Descartes 4-step methodology to me, the first step of which instructs me to doubt everything.  But now you're suggesting something different.   That I should not doubt everything, but believe that mainstream explanations are correct unless I've educated myself sufficiently to hold a different opinion.

 

But for me there is no 'unless'.

I don't have the smarts to educate myself enough to hold a different opinion.  My opinion is obliged to remain one of total and equal skepticism to everything.  So I cannot take the option you've just suggested.  In fact, I cannot ever hold any different opinion about anything in science.   All other options are closed to me.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suggest, however, not to be too attached to mainstream or any other theory in cosmology because there are new observational instruments on the horizon that could dispel many current beliefs and related theory, whether mainsteam or alternative theory (healthy skepticism).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no choice but to be totally skeptical about everything, Pantheory.

In taking yours and Descartes advice, I begin by believing nothing, doubting everything and being totally skeptical.  But I can go no further than this.  I remain stuck in a limbo of skeptical disbelief about everything.

 

Pantheory,

 

Your suggestions lead me and leave me... nowhere.   All science is forever closed off from me if I follow your suggestions - because I have no practical means of establishing for myself which theories are valid and which aren't.  

 

Apart from giving up and simply not bothering, is there no other option I can take? 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Decartes was following his own version of the scientific method. He did avid research concerning observations available to him. Most people do not have the time or interest to pursue the work required to apply the scientific method, in one form or another, to come to their own unique conclusions.

 

Most do not have the inclination, education, or time to come to their own separate conclusions, that may or may not be inline with present theory. So the starting point is a strong interest and inclination. After that comes education. 

 

As I said above, I suggest you continue to study the BB model as you already have done, as well as the many criticisms of it that are available from a simple online search. Continue to believe that the mainstream BB model, explanations and interpretations are the most likely, unless by your studies of mainstream theory, or otherwise, you might consider other possibilities. Always maintain a healthy skepticism of all possibilities concerning cosmology.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Decartes was following his own version of the scientific method. He did avid research concerning observations available to him. Most people do not have the time or interest to pursue the work required to apply the scientific method, in one form or another, to come to their own unique conclusions.

 

Most do not have the inclination, education, or time to come to their own separate conclusions, that may or may not be inline with present theory. So the starting point is a strong interest and inclination. After that comes education. 

 

As I said above, I suggest you continue to study the BB model as you already have done, as well as the many criticisms of it that are available from a simple online search. Continue to believe that the mainstream BB model, explanations and interpretations are the most likely, unless by your studies of mainstream theory, or otherwise, you might consider other possibilities. Always maintain a healthy skepticism of all possibilities concerning cosmology.

 

 

So the act of deciding which of two competing theories is valid must always be mine and nobody else's?

 

And I must not delegate the responsibility for that decision to anyone else?

 

Even if they are scientist I personally trust?