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

[mymistake]

Science also should not be immune to questioning. 

 

Scientists do not hold science as dogma.  You would already know that if you were what you pretend to be.

 

What you are in a habit of doing is not questioning but rather bashing science.  It annoys me when I see

 

people bashing science.

 

 

As you know I started out theorizing more than 55 years ago when I was still in high school, a year or so after studying religions for a few years.

 

High school students do not form scientific theories.  You mean you started with conspiracy theories back

 

in high school.

 

 

I first started studying Darwin's evolution and after some time decided it was on very solid grounds, maybe some errors and oversimplifications, but still totally logical and backed up by mountains of evidence, even at that time. I next turned to science theory when I entered college. I developed my own hypothesis of pushing gravity at that time not liking Newton's force at a distance, or Einstein's proposal of the bending or warping of space.

 

 

Isn't the world lucky to have you so that you can correct all the mistakes made by the giants of science?  

 

    Maybe if the Large Hadron Collider breaks down you can fix it with a rubber band, some chewing

 

gum and a paper clip.

 

 

 

Instead I developed what I believed to be a simpler explanation for redshifts which became the basis for my future model of cosmology.

 

 

It is fine to dream up a new idea.  However if an idea turns out to have no merit you shouldn't continue

 

peddling it to laypeople and looking for the scientifically illiterate.  You won't fool us here.

 

 

 

So why do I believe that nature can be simply described? Because I believe simpler answers are more likely to be true, all else being equal. So I always look for what I consider to be the simplest answers/ explanations that I believe are consistent with all related known observations. This has been the basis for my theories and hypothesis, a foundation Pillar for all being Occam's Razor.

 

That is a misapplication of Occam's Razor.  We need calculous and differential equations to model most

 

things found in nature.  Occam's Razor is about not introducing extra or unnecessary concepts.  In fact

 

"God did it" is the simplest way to answer anything.  But this doesn't make the answer the slightest bit

 

useful.  And "God did it" flies in the face of Occam.  Introducing God adds all kind of complexity and 

 

poses all kinds of questions.

[ContraBardus]

That is a misapplication of Occam's Razor.  We need calculous and differential equations to model most

 

things found in nature.  Occam's Razor is about not introducing extra or unnecessary concepts.  In fact

 

"God did it" is the simplest way to answer anything.  But this doesn't make the answer the slightest bit

 

useful.  And "God did it" flies in the face of Occam.  Introducing God adds all kind of complexity and 

 

poses all kinds of questions.

 

 

The way he's using it is the Law of Parsimony, not Occam's Razor. He's confused the two. It's a pretty common mistake, so I took the context to rebut how it was used.

 

Occam's Razor is "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily", he's using it in the way that it's often misquoted as "The simplest explanation is usually correct" which is in no way what Occam intended.

 

Part of the issue is that he doesn't know what Occam's Razor really is, and thus is trying to apply the incorrect, strengthened, and ironically oversimplified version to try and support his ideas.

 

"The research worker, in his effort to express the fundamental laws of Nature in mathematical form, should strive mainly for mathematical beauty.  It often happens that the requirements of simplicity and beauty are the same, but where they clash the latter must take precedence." - Paul Dirac

 

I think the fact that he suggests that he sought alternative theories based on "not liking them" is very telling. Not because of any error or fault in them, but simply because they didn't "sound right" which is an emotional plea and not a rational one. I don't like a lot of things about the natural world, but that doesn't make them wrong, nor does it mean that I can simply discard them and find an alternate solution that I simply like the sound of more and call it valid. The evidence should be what ultimately decides the best explanation, and in fields like physics, biology, and cosmology, a more complex explanation is usually what the evidence suggests.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

I'm asking you what evidence you can present outside of your alternative theories for the simplicity of nature. 

 

I'm doing this to try and find out if this belief of yours (in nature's simplicity) is based on evidence or faith.

 

 

 

Whether a facet of nature, evidence, observations, are simple or not is dependent upon perspectives and explanations of it called theories (or hypothesis) needed to interpret the data or observation. A different perspective means another way of looking at it based upon a different theory or hypothesis to interpret the observations differently. Information or evidence by itself is neither simple nor complex . Theory is needed to organize it to make a value judgement concerning what is being observed, as far as its simplicity. This organization of nature is the task of theory. You are asking for simplicity that would contradict the tenets of the standard model. For this organization process anyone would need an alternative method and theory that they are familiar with. The objective would be to show why this new interpretation of an observation should be preferable to the standard model interpretation,organization, method, and conclusions.

 

If you accept this I could give you many examples of nature that are presently thought to be complicated, but in light of alternative theory and explanations, can be shown to be simple or simpler. It would be a way of explaining why one theory may be better than another.

 

 

Before I commit myself to responding to the above message Pantheory, please be so good as to reply to my prior post, # 67.  

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

 

So on what basis should we choose between your interpretations and the interpretations of mainstream science?

 

Unless you can come up with a better reason, I'd say...a convincing body evidence.

 

But if you can cite a better reason, please tell us.

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

Since you appear to value simplicity, this should be no problem at all for you.

 

All you have to do is describe something better than the candidate I've put forward as the best criterion for us to decide between your interpretations and the interpretations of mainstream science.

 

That should be simple enough. 

 

 

Where's the simple answer to this simple question, Pantheory?

 

Where's your better candidate than a convincing body of evidence?

 

(Which mainstream science possesses and which you don't.)

 

What do you bring to the table that's better than a convincing body of evidence?

 

Which are you asking us to trust?

 

Your unpersuasive, evidence-poor alternative interpretation of science or the convincing body of mainstream science?

.

.

.

Please don't just answer Contrabardus and Mymistake and skip over me again, Pantheory!

 

I will keep on asking until you answer.

[bornagainathiest]

And when you've answered me, you've unfinished business with the RogueScholar, Pantheory.

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

 

Posted 03 May 2015 - 07:11 AM

I believe the solar system orbits at around 800,000 km/hr. This is pretty slow when compared to C. 

Regarding this physics issue:
Chemistry is a direct extension of "modern" physics and as such, I would expect any latest and greatest model to explain concepts such as chemical bonding. We've already discussed this and I have not seen anything that explains contemporary chemical problems better than what we already have in our tool box. Hartree-Fock, Density Functional and others are examples I've discussed a couple times already. Please feel free to enlighten the field of chemistry with this spinning vortex theory. Be sure to predict the effects that happen at relativistic velocities, or sub-relativistic velocities as you claim. You could rewrite your own inorganic chemistry textbook. 

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

But please clear your 'In' tray of my questions first!

[bornagainathiest]

 

That is a misapplication of Occam's Razor.  We need calculous and differential equations to model most

 

things found in nature.  Occam's Razor is about not introducing extra or unnecessary concepts.  In fact

 

"God did it" is the simplest way to answer anything.  But this doesn't make the answer the slightest bit

 

useful.  And "God did it" flies in the face of Occam.  Introducing God adds all kind of complexity and 

 

poses all kinds of questions.

 

 

The way he's using it is the Law of Parsimony, not Occam's Razor. He's confused the two. It's a pretty common mistake, so I took the context to rebut how it was used.

 

Occam's Razor is "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily", he's using it in the way that it's often misquoted as "The simplest explanation is usually correct" which is in no way what Occam intended.

 

Part of the issue is that he doesn't know what Occam's Razor really is, and thus is trying to apply the incorrect, strengthened, and ironically oversimplified version to try and support his ideas.

 

"The research worker, in his effort to express the fundamental laws of Nature in mathematical form, should strive mainly for mathematical beauty.  It often happens that the requirements of simplicity and beauty are the same, but where they clash the latter must take precedence." - Paul Dirac

 

I think the fact that he suggests that he sought alternative theories based on "not liking them" is very telling. Not because of any error or fault in them, but simply because they didn't "sound right" which is an emotional plea and not a rational one. I don't like a lot of things about the natural world, but that doesn't make them wrong, nor does it mean that I can simply discard them and find an alternate solution that I simply like the sound of more and call it valid. The evidence should be what ultimately decides the best explanation, and in fields like physics, biology, and cosmology, a more complex explanation is usually what the evidence suggests.

 

 

CB, 

 

I've highlighted your last paragraph because in it you get to the very heart of the issue - on what basis did Pantheory decide to accept some parts of the science of physics, but to reject others?

 

When it comes to answering this question one thing Pantheory cannot do is to appeal to his own alternative theory. 

That's because his alternative theory is a result of his rejection - not the cause of it.  His rejection came first and he worked out his alternative theory later.  So he cannot claim the evidence from his alternative theory was the deciding factor.  That's putting the cart before the horse.  That's putting the effect before the cause.

 

No. What Pantheory must to do is explain why he selectively rejected some aspects of physics, but not others.

His reason for this rejection must also be reasoned and reasonable, rational and evidence-based.  Anything other than this is unacceptable, unscientific and unprofessional.  Anything other than this must necessarily be dismissed as pseudo-science.

 

Thanks again for drawing attention to this vital point.

Please keep Pantheory's attention squarely focused on it and please continue to press him for an answer to it. 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Thurisaz]

Just found this on Slate... dropping without further comment, well other than saying, sounds like I supposed the right thing

 

Linky

[Wizened Sage]

Note that the article said, "...the EmDrive’s resonance chamber sent beams traveling faster than the speed of light."

The beam was likely a beam of massless particles, such as photons. It will always be impossible to accelerate a mass to light speed since the mass would become infinite at the speed of light, according to the special theory of relativity, a clear impossibility.

[Thought2Much]

The quote about playing chess with a pigeon seems relevant to every thread that pantheory participates in.

[ContraBardus]

Note that the article said, "...the EmDrive’s resonance chamber sent beams traveling faster than the speed of light."

The beam was likely a beam of massless particles, such as photons. It will always be impossible to accelerate a mass to light speed since the mass would become infinite at the speed of light, according to the special theory of relativity, a clear impossibility.

 

The idea is to create a warp bubble though. Not to actually move mass at those speeds. The mass is standing still within the space inside the bubble, while the bubble itself travels at relativistic speeds. Whatever is inside the bubble is actually not moving at all.

 

You'll have to find someone smarter than me to explain exactly how that works, but this is what I've read about how Warp is supposed to work. The bubble moves through space at speeds at or above that of light, while what is inside behaves as if it is stationary while remaining inside of the bubble and being carried by it.

[Thought2Much]

 

Note that the article said, "...the EmDrive’s resonance chamber sent beams traveling faster than the speed of light."

The beam was likely a beam of massless particles, such as photons. It will always be impossible to accelerate a mass to light speed since the mass would become infinite at the speed of light, according to the special theory of relativity, a clear impossibility.

 

The idea is to create a warp bubble though. Not to actually move mass at those speeds. The mass is standing still within the space inside the bubble, while the bubble itself travels at relativistic speeds. Whatever is inside the bubble is actually not moving at all.

 

You'll have to find someone smarter than me to explain exactly how that works, but this is what I've read about how Warp is supposed to work. The bubble moves through space at speeds at or above that of light, while what is inside behaves as if it is stationary while remaining inside of the bubble and being carried by it.

 

 

Think of it like riding a wave on surfboard. You're not moving relative to the water beneath you, so your local speed relative to the water in the wave is zero. You and the wave you're on are both moving across the sea at the same speed.

 

The thought is that if you can create a distortion in spacetime that expands space behind you while contracting it in front of you, then the ship just rides the wave in the middle. We're pretty sure that spacetime can expand faster than the speed of light, since this is what we think happened during the inflationary period when the universe started.

 

If you do an image search for "Alcubierre Drive" you should get some helpful pictures that show how this might work. The biggest problem is that we haven't the foggiest clue of how to actually build something that could create the desired distortion in spacetime. It's sort of like having a mathematical model of how a wing would work on a jet aircraft, without having any knowledge of what material you could build a wing out of, how to build a jet engine, or how to make jet fuel.

[pantheory]

“On what basis did Pantheory decide to accept some parts of the science of physics, but to reject others?”

 

 

My first test for an assertion in science, a theory or hypothesis, is whether it makes sense to other theorists, and ultimately whether it makes sense to me.  Next I look to see whether it is consistent with mainstream science or does mainstream science need to change to accommodate this proposal. Is this new proposal consistent with classical physics or are new physics needed to explain it?

 

There are many things (theories and hypothesis) in modern physics which in my opinion fail one or many of these tests.

 

If it fails the above criteria, I look to see if it can be explained by the Pan Theory. If not can the related observations be otherwise explained by the Pan Theory.

 

I believe many of today’s theories and hypothesis fail these tests. I will not be specific which ones since I think this thread should be generally concerned with EmDrive as is being done with the postings on this page.

 

Anyone interested in pursuing my theories, my reasoning and/or answers, should start a thread somehow related to formulating theories/ hypothesis and related reasoning. I will be happy to answer all related questions in such a thread. I think it would be inappropriate for me to start such a thread in this forum or for us to continue non-related discussions in this one.

[pantheory]

Just found this on Slate... dropping without further comment, well other than saying, sounds like I supposed the right thing

 

Linky

 

This article emphasizes warp drive. But the work that NASA and others are presently working on is a continuous low power EmDrive acceleration device that would be better than ion drive since it would not run out of fuel since solar power could be used to produce the needed microwaves.

 

Remember this device has also been built by the Chinese using Shawyer's design, and tested showing even better results than was reported by Shawyer or NASA. Three different independent entities have tested this device and have seen continuous acceleration as long as the power was on.

 

If this device is what I think it is, and the U.S. lags on its research, China (or some other country or group) might fund the research and jump ahead of everyone else in conventional space travel. The device has the potential for a craft from ground to orbit in a single spacecraft the size of a 747. Then the same craft would have the potential to fly to Mars and back. It could land the astronauts on Mars, they could spend a couple of weeks of exploration, take off easily with stored solar power or nuclear generated electrical power, and fly back all within maybe 6 months time, instead of 18-24 months using present technology, at a far lower cost.

 

Whoever has this technology first with operating spacecraft, could jump way ahead in space technology, could start mining operations in the asteroid belt, colonization inside moons and asteroids, and go anywhere in the solar system with relative ease. They would probably be able to out compete financially all entities involved with lift and space technology.

[Thurisaz]

This article emphasizes warp drive. [...]

 

Umm... sorry no. Quoting part of that article:

 

...The physicists hadn’t run the tests in a vacuum—essential for measuring a subtle thrust signal. And while they had tested the drive under multiple conditions, one of them was intentionally set up wrong. That setup produced the same thrust signatures as the other conditions, suggesting that the signals the physicists were seeing were all artifacts...

The doubt expressed here is doubt of exactly the amazing thing about the EmDrive (if true)... namely its ability to generate thrust without reaction mass.

 

As much as I hate to admit it... it does sound like the article was as nonsensical as it was cool.

[mymistake]

You spelled Pan hypothesis wrong.  Something doesn't become a scientific theory simply because you wish it did.

[bornagainathiest]

 

“On what basis did Pantheory decide to accept some parts of the science of physics, but to reject others?”

 

 

My first test for an assertion in science, a theory or hypothesis, is whether it makes sense to other theorists, and ultimately whether it makes sense to me.  Next I look to see whether it is consistent with mainstream science or does mainstream science need to change to accommodate this proposal. Is this new proposal consistent with classical physics or are new physics needed to explain it?

 

There are many things (theories and hypothesis) in modern physics which in my opinion fail one or many of these tests.

 

If it fails the above criteria, I look to see if it can be explained by the Pan Theory. If not can the related observations be otherwise explained by the Pan Theory.

 

I believe many of today’s theories and hypothesis fail these tests. I will not be specific which ones since I think this thread should be generally concerned with EmDrive as is being done with the postings on this page.

 

Anyone interested in pursuing my theories, my reasoning and/or answers, should start a thread somehow related to formulating theories/ hypothesis and related reasoning. I will be happy to answer all related questions in such a thread. I think it would be inappropriate for me to start such a thread in this forum or for us to continue non-related discussions in this one.

 

 

You are referring to the current state of affairs, Pantheory.

Your alternative theory currently exists.  But I was asking you about a time before that.

Since you've selectively quoted me, I must now put what I said into it's proper context and restate the question for you.

 

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

 

CB, 

 

I've highlighted your last paragraph because in it you get to the very heart of the issue - on what basis did Pantheory decide to accept some parts of the science of physics, but to reject others?

 

When it comes to answering this question one thing Pantheory cannot do is to appeal to his own alternative theory. 

That's because his alternative theory is a result of his rejection - not the cause of it.  His rejection came first and he worked out his alternative theory later.  So he cannot claim the evidence from his alternative theory was the deciding factor.  That's putting the cart before the horse.  That's putting the effect before the cause.

 

No. What Pantheory must to do is explain why he selectively rejected some aspects of physics, but not others.

His reason for this rejection must also be reasoned and reasonable, rational and evidence-based.  Anything other than this is unacceptable, unscientific and unprofessional.  Anything other than this must necessarily be dismissed as pseudo-science.

 

Thanks again for drawing attention to this vital point.

Please keep Pantheory's attention squarely focused on it and please continue to press him for an answer to it. 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

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

 

I'm asking you about a time before you formulated your alternative ideas.  

You know that and you're tap-dancing like crazy to avoid answering my question properly.

Now, answer my question in it's proper chronological context!

 

BEFORE YOU FORMULATED YOUR ALTERNATIVE THEORIES, ON WHAT BASIS DID YOU DECIDE TO ACCEPT SOME PARTS OF PHYSICS, BUT TO REJECT OTHERS? 

 

When answering you cannot refer to your alternative theory because the time I'm referring to is before you first formulated it!

 

Please answer the question!

[pantheory]

 

 

“On what basis did Pantheory decide to accept some parts of the science of physics, but to reject others?”

 

 

My first test for an assertion in science, a theory or hypothesis, is whether it makes sense to other theorists, and ultimately whether it makes sense to me.  Next I look to see whether it is consistent with mainstream science or does mainstream science need to change to accommodate this proposal. Is this new proposal consistent with classical physics or are new physics needed to explain it?

 

There are many things (theories and hypothesis) in modern physics which in my opinion fail one or many of these tests.

 

If it fails the above criteria, I look to see if it can be explained by the Pan Theory. If not can the related observations be otherwise explained by the Pan Theory.

 

I believe many of today’s theories and hypothesis fail these tests. I will not be specific which ones since I think this thread should be generally concerned with EmDrive as is being done with the postings on this page.

 

Anyone interested in pursuing my theories, my reasoning and/or answers, should start a thread somehow related to formulating theories/ hypothesis and related reasoning. I will be happy to answer all related questions in such a thread. I think it would be inappropriate for me to start such a thread in this forum or for us to continue non-related discussions in this one.

 

 

You are referring to the current state of affairs, Pantheory.

Your alternative theory currently exists.  But I was asking you about a time before that.

Since you've selectively quoted me, I must now put what I said into it's proper context and restate the question for you.

 

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

 

CB, 

 

I've highlighted your last paragraph because in it you get to the very heart of the issue - on what basis did Pantheory decide to accept some parts of the science of physics, but to reject others?

 

When it comes to answering this question one thing Pantheory cannot do is to appeal to his own alternative theory. 

That's because his alternative theory is a result of his rejection - not the cause of it.  His rejection came first and he worked out his alternative theory later.  So he cannot claim the evidence from his alternative theory was the deciding factor.  That's putting the cart before the horse.  That's putting the effect before the cause.

 

No. What Pantheory must to do is explain why he selectively rejected some aspects of physics, but not others.

His reason for this rejection must also be reasoned and reasonable, rational and evidence-based.  Anything other than this is unacceptable, unscientific and unprofessional.  Anything other than this must necessarily be dismissed as pseudo-science.

 

Thanks again for drawing attention to this vital point.

Please keep Pantheory's attention squarely focused on it and please continue to press him for an answer to it. 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

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

 

I'm asking you about a time before you formulated your alternative ideas.  

You know that and you're tap-dancing like crazy to avoid answering my question properly.

Now, answer my question in it's proper chronological context!

 

BEFORE YOU FORMULATED YOUR ALTERNATIVE THEORIES, ON WHAT BASIS DID YOU DECIDE TO ACCEPT SOME PARTS OF PHYSICS, BUT TO REJECT OTHERS? 

 

When answering you cannot refer to your alternative theory because the time I'm referring to is before you first formulated it!

 

Please answer the question!

 

 

Originally if the theory did not make sense to me I began studying it to find out the basis for the theory in the first place. I did the same thing when I began studying religions. Generally if the theory was not logical when explained, most often I concluded that the theory was flawed in some way and then explained how it was flawed based upon my studies and conclusions. I believe these conclusions became better as my related understandings improved. My next step would be to see what alternative theories were available or how the theory might otherwise be explained. If the mainstream theory was suspect alternative theories that made the most sense explaining observations best, were preferred.

 

Please start another thread for these type of questions. I'm sure you realize that I don't mind answering any questions that are properly asked in an appropriate thread, without an attitude or sarcasm. You have been doing better in this respect, in my opinion. Thanks 

[mymistake]

 

Please start another thread for these type of questions. 

 

 

 

Please stop bashing science in threads where that is off topic.  Please stop trying to drum up support for your Pan hypothesis in threads where that is off topic.

[bornagainathiest]

I'm really not at all interested in your opinion of me, Pantheory.

Nor am I at all interested in what you consider to be proper or improper questions.

And if you're so thin-skinned as to not to be able to weather a little sarcasm, then please be my guest and quit this forum forever!

 

The door is wide open.  Please leave!

[bornagainathiest]

Assuming you haven't left Pantheory, let's get back to business!

 

Which is the correct criterion a scientist should use for rejecting a scientific theory?

 

A.  Because it doesn't make sense to them.

B.  Because it is not supported by a convincing body of evidence.

 

Please answer!

[pantheory]

Assuming you haven't left Pantheory, let's get back to business!

 

Which is the correct criterion a scientist should use for rejecting a scientific theory?

 

A.  Because it doesn't make sense to them.

B.  Because it is not supported by a convincing body of evidence.

 

Please answer!

 

It is a matter of the opinion whether any particular scientist believes that a particular theory was supported by a convincing body of evidence. Mainstream theory is believed by most mainstream scientists to be supported by a sufficient body of evidence. Any scientist can begin to doubt any theory if they believe some key elements of support for the theory begins to seem doubtful. Doubt can begin if explanations of the theory or observations seem illogical to the scientist. He might from there continue his search to see if his suspicions can be overcome by other evidence. If not he might consider consulting with others, then if not satisfied he may consider alternative explanations or alternative theory, or formulate his own hypothesis to better explain observations.

[ContraBardus]

 

Assuming you haven't left Pantheory, let's get back to business!

 

Which is the correct criterion a scientist should use for rejecting a scientific theory?

 

A.  Because it doesn't make sense to them.

B.  Because it is not supported by a convincing body of evidence.

 

Please answer!

 

It is a matter of opinion whether a  particular scientist believes a theory is supported by a convincing body of evidence. Mainstream theory, is believed by mainstream scientists to be supported by substantial evidence. Any scientist can begin to doubt any theory if they believe some key elements of support for the theory seem doubtful. Doubt can begin if explanations of the theory seem illogical to the scientist. He might from there continue his search to see if his suspicions can be overcome by other evidence. If not he might consider alternative explanations or alternative theory, or formulate his own hypothesis to better explain observations.

 

 

Sorry, but no. Only one of those two answers is correct, and it's not a matter of opinion. Science has no place for opinions in theories.

 

If something relies on an opinion it's not science to begin with. Science is empirical, it's data and the results of observation and testing. Not opinion and preference.

 

You're quite clearly dodging the question here. It's an A or B answer and should have been simple to respond too. There are no buts or ifs involved.

 

If we're talking about opinion and preference, then we're talking about philosophy, not science.

[bornagainathiest]

Thank you, Contrabardus!  

[TheOutsider]

 

Assuming you haven't left Pantheory, let's get back to business!

 

Which is the correct criterion a scientist should use for rejecting a scientific theory?

 

A.  Because it doesn't make sense to them.

B.  Because it is not supported by a convincing body of evidence.

 

Please answer!

 

It is a matter of opinion whether a  particular scientist believes a theory is supported by a convincing body of evidence. Mainstream theory, is believed by mainstream scientists to be supported by substantial evidence. Any scientist can begin to doubt any theory if they believe some key elements of support for the theory begin to seem doubtful. Doubt can begin if explanations of the theory or observations seem illogical to the scientist. He might from there continue his search to see if his suspicions can be overcome by other evidence. If not he might consider consulting with others, then if not satisfied he may consider alternative explanations or alternative theory, or formulate his own hypothesis to better explain observations.

 

Apologies if I'm misunderstanding, but could you possibly mean unintuitive instead of illogical? Because that seems like a possibility. And something being unintuitive is hardly grounds to reject it, especially in the field of science.

[bornagainathiest]

Ironically enough, this isn't rocket science, Pantheory.

 

The only reason a scientist should reject a theory is because it fails the test of having a convincing body of evidence to support it.

 

If a scientist makes their own understanding the criterion for rejection, then they open themselves up to the possibility that it is their understanding that is failing - not that of the evidence or even an interpretation of the evidence.  Doing that is not science.

 

No scientist worth his or her salt ever sets themselves up as the arbiter of the standard by which a theory is accepted or rejected.

 

But we now know that this is what you do and have done - so thank you for that information about your unscientific misconduct.

[bornagainathiest]

As a worked example of how wrong you are Pantheory, consider me...BAA.

 

I'm an amateur astronomer who understands NO higher math at all and who understands next to nothing about theoretical physics.

 

If I applied your standard, I'd have to reject 99.9% of physics as flawed - because I don't understand it.

.

.

.

But, of course, I don't do that.

 

I leave that kind of nonsense to you.