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

[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 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.

 

 

What seems logical to one person may seem illogical to another. Religion is a good example. Intuition might be the beginning of doubt concerning a theory, but a lack of logical explanations is a better reason for questioning validity. But the ultimate test should be a lack of solid evidence to support a theory,  which again can involve a difference of opinions between scientists.

[pantheory]

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.

 

I see in your postings and tutorials that you have spent some time studying the related subjects.  I'm sure some theories/ hypothesis seem to make more sense to you than others. I'm also sure that you have read that some of these theories have been questioned by mainstream scientists. Upon reading some of this you form a general opinion. That opinion will not always be in line with mainstream science.  The more you learn and study the more you will form independent opinions. As you also know there are also differences of opinion in mainstream science,

 

I have formulated a number of equations in theoretical physicist. These equations have been evaluated by peer review. IMO theoretical physics seldom has any value if the theory from which it was derived turns out to be wrong. Classical physics is relatively easy to understand when you study it. It is often very logical, mathematics aside. Modern physics, on the other hand, can be very obtuse and difficult to understand. Because of the difficulty most students and theorists simply accept it, but once a person has an understanding of it they are less obliged to accept it without question.

[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.

 

 

What seems logical to one person may seem illogical to another. Religion is a good example. Intuition might be the beginning of doubt concerning a theory, but a lack of logical explanations is a better reason for questioning validity. But the ultimate test should be a lack of solid evidence to support a theory,  which again can involve a difference of opinions between scientists.

 

My point was that I think you might be confusing logic with intuition, faulty/good logic is faulty/good logic regardless of who analyzes it, same with empirical evidence. Sure, good logic can be confused with bad logic sometimes, but that's not a problem with the logic, that's a problem with the person that made the mistake.

 

From what I understand, science doesn't tolerate personal bias. The evidence doesn't (or shouldn't) rely on anyone's subjective interpretation of it, that's the whole point of the field, and why peer review is necessary. There is no room for subjective interpretations in science, the evidence is either good or bad, if it's good then it should be more or less consistent with everything else already known in relevant fields, or bring new information to correct faulty understandings. If it's bad, it should be disregarded and flagged as bad. Difference in opinion shouldn't matter, it's raw data that describes a phenomena that has been observed, and tested, and repeated by multiple people using the same processes.

 

Of course, this may be unnecessary because most people reading this should probably know all that already, unless I'm wrong about something?

[RogueScholar]

I wanted to steer back toward relativistic motion and contemporary quantum theory. This is what theory that makes real predictions and goes through robust peer review does. It clearly makes a prediction and said prediction can be examined.

 

A fairly recent paper can be referenced here:

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.201304862/abstract

 

As I stated earlier, it has long been suspected that relativistic effects account for interesting phenomena that account for the interesting behaviour of certain atoms. Unfortunately, a highly robust explanation has been lacking. This has been mainly due to a well known problem in quantum mechanics known as the many body problem. Basically, the number of terms rapidly approach numbers that approach infinity and cannot be solved exactly. This is not to be confused with the large object many body problem in modeling solar systems and such. [i would also note that this is a fundamental computational problem in quantum mechanics that I have asked pantheory to resolve with his theory as a better framework would be "easier" to use and produce better results. An answer has not been given.] In any event, powerful methods that allow approximate solutions have been developed since the 1930's after Dirac worked on relativistic quantum mechanics. A large group of computational methods or so called ab initio (basically build solutions from the ground up) methods are known as quantum Monte Carlo approaches. Until recently, we didn't have the computing power to look at large groups of atoms. However, these methods have been refined and can yield results using newer supercomputers.

 

This paper shows that looking at groups of Mercury atoms without relativistic effects due to the large velocities of electrons (I believe exceeding 0.5 C in the 6s orbitals) yields a solid at room temperature with a density of just over 16 g/cm-3. Accounting for relativity, the prediction using these powerful methods is a prediction of a liquid at room temperature and a density of about 14 g/cm-3. The theory puts it's balls on the chopping block and makes a solid prediction that can be tested and potentially falsified. So, what does testing show? Mercury is in fact a liquid at room temperature and has a density of 13.6 g/cm-3. The prediction is remarkably close to observed reality that we all can check and agree upon.

 

Pantheory, if your model of electronic structure is better, put it out there. If it is easier and dispels with quantum theory, it's truly going to take the world you storm. Otherwise, the power of our current methods speak for themselves. However, we desperately need computational models that are easier and make better predictions.

 

If some maverick hypothesis is really more powerful and makes better predictions, why did it take this group nearly two decades to come up with an answer using complex computational methods? Wouldn't some up and coming theorist be jumping all over these complex problems to solve them and show the world how effective their models are? Why the need to come to forums with ideas that have yet to pan out and push them onto folks who have spent years if not decades struggling with bad ideas?

[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 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.

 

 

What seems logical to one person may seem illogical to another. Religion is a good example. Intuition might be the beginning of doubt concerning a theory, but a lack of logical explanations is a better reason for questioning validity. But the ultimate test should be a lack of solid evidence to support a theory,  which again can involve a difference of opinions between scientists.

 

My point was that I think you might be confusing logic with intuition, faulty/good logic is faulty/good logic regardless of who analyzes it, same with empirical evidence. Sure, good logic can be confused with bad logic sometimes, but that's not a problem with the logic, that's a problem with the person that made the mistake.

 

From what I understand, science doesn't tolerate personal bias. The evidence doesn't (or shouldn't) rely on anyone's subjective interpretation of it, that's the whole point of the field, and why peer review is necessary. There is no room for subjective interpretations in science, the evidence is either good or bad, if it's good then it should be more or less consistent with everything else already known in relevant fields, or bring new information to correct faulty understandings. If it's bad, it should be disregarded and flagged as bad. Difference in opinion shouldn't matter, it's raw data that describes a phenomena that has been observed, and tested, and repeated by multiple people using the same processes.

 

Of course, this may be unnecessary because most people reading this should probably know all that already, unless I'm wrong about something?

 

 

Yes, science does not readily tolerate independent points of view. Scientists who have different opinions often have to suck it up if they want to keep their jobs.  And science groups have to tow the line producing mainstream science if they want to keep their funding and get new grants. There are few exceptions.

 

In my view evidence is neither good or bad. All observations and evidence is subject to interpretation. From a mainsteam point of view a particular observation may seem to be good support for a particular theory, but from a different point of view the same evidence may be considered contradictory to that same theory. IMO there is more uncertainty in science than most people will ever realize.

[mymistake]

 

Yes, science does not readily tolerate independent points of view. Scientists who have different opinions often have to suck it up if they want to keep their jobs.  And science groups have to tow the line producing mainstream science if they want to keep their funding and get new grants. There are few exceptions.

 

In my view evidence is neither good or bad. All observations and evidence is subject to interpretation. From a mainsteam point of view a particular observation may seem to be good support for a particular theory, but from a different point of view the same evidence may be considered contradictory to that same theory. IMO there is more uncertainty in science than most people will ever realize.

 

 

 

Wrong.  Science is inherently skeptical.  So any idea is expected to either withstand rigorous testing or is not to be taken seriously.  It has nothing to do with "independent".  There is no towing the line.  However there is no tolerance for pseudo science, quackery, religion, magical thinking, poppycock and so on because those methods are in opposition to the scientific method.  There also is not "mainstream".  There is just science.  When evidence for a new idea reaches a sufficient level the skepticism is satisfied and scientists will reach a consensus but it isn't the way you paint it.  Your misguided opinions aside, the uncertainty in science is calculated to the proper decimal and included in every answer for all to see.

 

Now would you kindly quit bashing science.

[pantheory]

Pantheory, if your model of electronic structure is better, put it out there. If it is easier and dispels with quantum theory, it's truly going to take the world you storm. Otherwise, the power of our current methods speak for themselves. However, we desperately need computational models that are easier and make better predictions.

 

 

My model of the atom is not a better electronic structure, it is a vortex model of the atom where the nucleus spins on an axis, as well as all the nucleons and electrons. Each particle accordingly has an exact position at any given time. The supposed electron cloud is simply the atomic vortex comprised and the ZPF in a vortex, the spin created by the fermions which make up the atom. Molecular bonding would be based upon merging vortices.

 

Each atomic particle would also create its own vortex as it spins, regardless of whether it is a free particle or an atomic particle. None of this should impress you since there are no equations in the atomic/molecular part of the model, so no better predictions can be made. I am unaware of any big ways that valence theory totally fails although I know that in some cases it cannot be applied.

 

Yes, I think that quantum theory is wrong in almost every way.  But this does not mean that through phenomenology that they have not developed a good computational, statistical system. This also should not impress you because In the same way I offer no new or better equations. I simply say that the underlying theory is wrong because they have no realization of hidden variables, the primary hidden variable being the ZPF according to my model.  With this understanding most everything in quantum theory becomes simple with little or no remaining puzzles IMO.

 

My equations that make different predictions relate to gravity and another proposes to replace the Hubble redshift distance formula.

[mymistake]

 

Pantheory, if your model of electronic structure is better, put it out there. If it is easier and dispels with quantum theory, it's truly going to take the world you storm. Otherwise, the power of our current methods speak for themselves. However, we desperately need computational models that are easier and make better predictions.

 

 

My model of the atom is not a better electronic structure, it is a vortex model of the atom where the nucleus spins on an axis, as well as all the nucleons and electrons. Each particle accordingly has an exact position at any given time. The supposed electron cloud is simply the atomic vortex comprised and the ZPF in a vortex, the spin created by the fermions which make up the atom. Molecular bonding would be based upon merging vortices.

 

Each atomic particle would also create its own vortex as it spins, regardless of whether it is a free particle or an atomic particle. None of this should impress you since there are no equations in the atomic/molecular part of the model, so no better predictions can be made. I am unaware of any big ways that valence theory totally fails although I know that in some cases it cannot be applied.

 

Yes, I think that quantum theory is wrong in almost every way.  But this does not mean that through phenomenology that they have not developed a good computational, statistical system. This also should not impress you because In the same way I offer no new or better equations. I simply say that the underlying theory is wrong because they have no realization of hidden variables, the primary hidden variable being the ZPF according to my model.  With this understanding most everything in quantum theory becomes simple with no remaining puzzles IMO.

 

My equations that make different predictions relate to gravity and another proposes to replace the Hubble redshift distance formula.

 

 

 

How many times have you submitted your Pan hypothesis to peer-reviewed journals and what was the result on each of those occasions?

[RogueScholar]

So, your model cannot be applied to the many chemical problems that are waiting to be worked out? Macromolecules and protein folding would completely change the world. Even the computationally impressive work in the paper I referenced basically looks at ground state conditions. Imagine if we could exactly predict protein folding? Dealing with cellular receptors and targets would be child's play. We could develop novel drugs that would be incredibly effective and have limited side effects. As I've stated in other discussions, better solutions would markedly improve the lives of billions. If things are so simple, why not solve these problems simply? Why continue to say you have a better way and dangle the answers in front of us but not solve these problems? Why can you not offer any new solutions or predictions, even though you tell me you know better? I just cannot understand?

[pantheory]

So, your model cannot be applied to the many chemical problems that are waiting to be worked out? Macromolecules and protein folding would completely change the world. Even the computationally impressive work in the paper I referenced basically looks at ground state conditions. Imagine if we could exactly predict protein folding? Dealing with cellular receptors and targets would be child's play. We could develop novel drugs that would be incredibly effective and have limited side effects. As I've stated in other discussions, better solutions would markedly improve the lives of billions. If things are so simple, why not solve these problems simply? Why continue to say you have a better way and dangle the answers in front of us but not solve these problems? Why can you not offer any new solutions or predictions, even though you tell me you know better? I just cannot understand?

 

As a starter I would have to learn much of what you know on this subject. I expect that would take me some time, and in the meantime I have my regular scientific work. I would have to understand the problems involved and develop an idea of why current theory does not work as well as needed. I took 4 semesters of College chemistry more than 50 years ago and have studied it little since that time. My numerical predictions are in gravity and cosmology involving theoretical physics.

[TheOutsider]

 

[snip]

 

Yes, science does not readily tolerate independent points of view. Scientists who have different opinions often have to suck it up if they want to keep their jobs.  And science groups have to tow the line producing mainstream science if they want to keep their funding and get new grants. There are few exceptions.

 

You make that sound like a bad thing, If a scientist doesn't agree with the "mainstream" point of view, they have to prove that it's wrong and unusable before they can substitute a different idea, and they have to explain why it can't be corrected.They don't just get to claim modern scientific theories aren't good enough and throw them out. There is no line to tow, there is no mainstream science, it's either science, or it's not.

 

In my view evidence is neither good or bad. All observations and evidence is subject to interpretation. From a mainsteam point of view a particular observation may seem to be good support for a particular theory, but from a different point of view the same evidence may be considered contradictory to that same theory. IMO there is more uncertainty in science than most people will ever realize.

Bad evidence would be information obtained from a botched or contaminated experiment, something that wouldn't give good information, or something that would give information that looks good, but isn't, or information fabricated by fraudulent "scientists". And of course there is uncertainty in science, we don't know everything. What defines a good theory is it's ability to make consistently accurate predictions of natural phenomena, if it's unable to do so reliably, it's not a good theory. But if it's still useful, and unless you have a better solution, you can't just throw it out either. It's simplicity has nothing to do with it's validity, no matter how that might make anyone feel.

 

I feel like I've seen this sort of sentiment before...

[pantheory]

 

 

[snip]

 

Yes, science does not readily tolerate independent points of view. Scientists who have different opinions often have to suck it up if they want to keep their jobs.  And science groups have to tow the line producing mainstream science if they want to keep their funding and get new grants. There are few exceptions.

 

You make that sound like a bad thing, If a scientist doesn't agree with the "mainstream" point of view, they have to prove that it's wrong and unusable before they can substitute a different idea, and they have to explain why it can't be corrected.They don't just get to claim modern scientific theories aren't good enough and throw them out. There is no line to tow, there is no mainstream science, it's either science, or it's not.

 

In my view evidence is neither good or bad. All observations and evidence is subject to interpretation. From a mainsteam point of view a particular observation may seem to be good support for a particular theory, but from a different point of view the same evidence may be considered contradictory to that same theory. IMO there is more uncertainty in science than most people will ever realize.

Bad evidence would be information obtained from a botched or contaminated experiment, something that wouldn't give good information, or something that would give information that looks good, but isn't, or information fabricated by fraudulent "scientists". And of course there is uncertainty in science, we don't know everything. What defines a good theory is it's ability to make consistently accurate predictions of natural phenomena, if it's unable to do so reliably, it's not a good theory. But if it's still useful, and unless you have a better solution, you can't just throw it out either. It's simplicity has nothing to do with it's validity, no matter how that might make anyone feel.

 

I feel like I've seen this sort of sentiment before...

 

You make lots of good points

[TheOutsider]

 

 

 

[snip]

 

Yes, science does not readily tolerate independent points of view. Scientists who have different opinions often have to suck it up if they want to keep their jobs.  And science groups have to tow the line producing mainstream science if they want to keep their funding and get new grants. There are few exceptions.

 

You make that sound like a bad thing, If a scientist doesn't agree with the "mainstream" point of view, they have to prove that it's wrong and unusable before they can substitute a different idea, and they have to explain why it can't be corrected.They don't just get to claim modern scientific theories aren't good enough and throw them out. There is no line to tow, there is no mainstream science, it's either science, or it's not.

 

In my view evidence is neither good or bad. All observations and evidence is subject to interpretation. From a mainsteam point of view a particular observation may seem to be good support for a particular theory, but from a different point of view the same evidence may be considered contradictory to that same theory. IMO there is more uncertainty in science than most people will ever realize.

Bad evidence would be information obtained from a botched or contaminated experiment, something that wouldn't give good information, or something that would give information that looks good, but isn't, or information fabricated by fraudulent "scientists". And of course there is uncertainty in science, we don't know everything. What defines a good theory is it's ability to make consistently accurate predictions of natural phenomena, if it's unable to do so reliably, it's not a good theory. But if it's still useful, and unless you have a better solution, you can't just throw it out either. It's simplicity has nothing to do with it's validity, no matter how that might make anyone feel.

 

I feel like I've seen this sort of sentiment before...

 

You make lots of good points

 

Thanks, I try, hopefully more successful than not. I love this whole free thinking thing, it's fun.

[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.

 

I see in your postings and tutorials that you have spent some time studying the related subjects.  I'm sure some theories/ hypothesis seem to make more sense to you than others. I'm also sure that you have read that some of these theories have been questioned by mainstream scientists. Upon reading some of this you form a general opinion. That opinion will not always be in line with mainstream science.  The more you learn and study the more you will form independent opinions. As you also know there are also differences of opinion in mainstream science,

 

My independent opinions, as you call them Pantheory, are worthless when compared to a body of convincing evidence.

As are yours.  If independent opinion was the benchmark by which science operated, then there would as many opinion-driven versions of science as there are scientists.  

 

I see that you've cited my worked example ...so here is another, to reinforce the point I was making.  

The point being that if you find something in science to be illogical, that finding is not the correct criterion for considering it to be flawed and for rejecting it.   Back in 2013 I asked Bhim (the Ex-christian member who's an astrophysicist) a question about this science paper.    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf  

 

Bhim obliged me but worded his reply in a tentative way and in very cautious terms.

He told me this was because the theoretical physics involved in this paper wasn't his field (which is galactic astrophysics) and therefore he didn't want to over-commit himself and give me what could be a misleading or false information.  In a nutshell, he couldn't see the logic involved and didn't understand the math properly.

 

Now, by your standards Pantheory, he should have rejected that paper as false.  Correct?  (Please answer.)

 

And he should also have rejected every other science paper he couldn't see logic of.  Correct?  (Please answer.)

 

And every other scientist should also reject every aspect of science they can't see the logic of?  Correct?  (Please answer.)

 

And that geologists should reject theories about genetics, because they can't see the logic involved?  Correct?  (Please answer.)

 

And I should attach a disclaimer to the tutorials that I've written, stating that since I cannot understand the science  and cannot see the logic involved, I therefore have no confidence in the science of cosmology?  Correct?  (Please answer.)

 

I have formulated a number of equations in theoretical physicist. These equations have been evaluated by peer review. IMO theoretical physics seldom has any value if the theory from which it was derived turns out to be wrong.

 

Your opinion is not the correct criterion for judging the value of a theory.  The evidence is.

 

Classical physics is relatively easy to understand when you study it. It is often very logical, mathematics aside. Modern physics, on the other hand, can be very obtuse and difficult to understand.

 

False criterion for rejecting it!

The only acceptable criterion is the evidence.  Not your ability or inability to understand it.

 

Because of the difficulty most students and theorists simply accept it, but once a person has an understanding of it they are less obliged to accept it without question.

 

Once again, false.

A person's ability to understand something is not the correct scientific criterion for accepting or rejecting the science in question.

 

 

Also, let me put you straight on another matter, Pantheory.  Something pertaining to me.

I do not accept what I read about cosmology, astrophysics and astronomy without question.  The questions that I would make (if I could do the math) have already been put to the authors of the relevant papers and articles by their peers.  That's what peer review is all about.

 

Peer review is the only correct and acceptable test of science's validity.

Not personal opinion or a person's ability to understand the concepts involved.  Since you have had some of your equations peer-reviewed, then by definition, you must have some confidence in the process.

 

The fact that you selectively cease to have confidence about certain theories is your problem.

That fact is not a problem for or a problem with the process itself.  The problem lies within you and stems from your refusal to accept that which you cannot understand as being bona fide science.

 

As I explained about myself, your failure to personally understand a theory has been compensated for by those scientists who peer-reviewed that theory.  The existing checks and balances within the scientific establishment are in place for this very reason.  So that those who cannot understand the theory (like you and me) can have confidence that it has passed the necessary tests.  This, together with a theory's confirmed predictions and body of corroborating evidence should be all that you need to have confidence in a theory's validity.

 

If you cannot find it within yourself to have this confidence, then don't blame the system!

 

 

BAA

[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!

 

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.

 

 

What seems logical to one person may seem illogical to another. Religion is a good example. Intuition might be the beginning of doubt concerning a theory, but a lack of logical explanations is a better reason for questioning validity. But the ultimate test should be a lack of solid evidence to support a theory,  which again can involve a difference of opinions between scientists.

 

My point was that I think you might be confusing logic with intuition, faulty/good logic is faulty/good logic regardless of who analyzes it, same with empirical evidence. Sure, good logic can be confused with bad logic sometimes, but that's not a problem with the logic, that's a problem with the person that made the mistake.

 

From what I understand, science doesn't tolerate personal bias. The evidence doesn't (or shouldn't) rely on anyone's subjective interpretation of it, that's the whole point of the field, and why peer review is necessary. There is no room for subjective interpretations in science, the evidence is either good or bad, if it's good then it should be more or less consistent with everything else already known in relevant fields, or bring new information to correct faulty understandings. If it's bad, it should be disregarded and flagged as bad. Difference in opinion shouldn't matter, it's raw data that describes a phenomena that has been observed, and tested, and repeated by multiple people using the same processes.

 

Of course, this may be unnecessary because most people reading this should probably know all that already, unless I'm wrong about something?

 

 

Yes, science does not readily tolerate independent points of view. Scientists who have different opinions often have to suck it up if they want to keep their jobs.  And science groups have to tow the line producing mainstream science if they want to keep their funding and get new grants. There are few exceptions.

 

In my view evidence is neither good or bad. All observations and evidence is subject to interpretation. From a mainsteam point of view a particular observation may seem to be good support for a particular theory, but from a different point of view the same evidence may be considered contradictory to that same theory. IMO there is more uncertainty in science than most people will ever realize.

 

 

That's misuse of the word interpretation, Pantheory.

By your own admission, you cannot understand certain theories, cannot do their math and cannot see the logic involved in them.  So then, how can you possibly interpret the meaning of the observations and the evidence relating to that theory?  The best people to do that are those scientists who can understand the theory, can do the math and can see the logic involved.

 

Who are these scientists?

They are the ones who peer-reviewed the relevant papers.  They have done the necessary interpretation for you and on your behalf.  If you cannot accept this, then that is your problem.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Pantheory, if your model of electronic structure is better, put it out there. If it is easier and dispels with quantum theory, it's truly going to take the world you storm. Otherwise, the power of our current methods speak for themselves. However, we desperately need computational models that are easier and make better predictions.

 

 

My model of the atom is not a better electronic structure, it is a vortex model of the atom where the nucleus spins on an axis, as well as all the nucleons and electrons. Each particle accordingly has an exact position at any given time. The supposed electron cloud is simply the atomic vortex comprised and the ZPF in a vortex, the spin created by the fermions which make up the atom. Molecular bonding would be based upon merging vortices.

 

Each atomic particle would also create its own vortex as it spins, regardless of whether it is a free particle or an atomic particle. None of this should impress you since there are no equations in the atomic/molecular part of the model, so no better predictions can be made. I am unaware of any big ways that valence theory totally fails although I know that in some cases it cannot be applied.

 

Yes, I think that quantum theory is wrong in almost every way.  But this does not mean that through phenomenology that they have not developed a good computational, statistical system. This also should not impress you because In the same way I offer no new or better equations. I simply say that the underlying theory is wrong because they have no realization of hidden variables, the primary hidden variable being the ZPF according to my model.  With this understanding most everything in quantum theory becomes simple with little or no remaining puzzles IMO.

 

Your opinion is not the acid test of your theory's validity.  The evidence supporting or ruling it out is.

 

My equations that make different predictions relate to gravity and another proposes to replace the Hubble redshift distance formula.

 

 

And have you submitted your model for peer-review?

[pantheory]

 

 

Pantheory, if your model of electronic structure is better, put it out there. If it is easier and dispels with quantum theory, it's truly going to take the world you storm. Otherwise, the power of our current methods speak for themselves. However, we desperately need computational models that are easier and make better predictions.

 

 

My model of the atom is not a better electronic structure, it is a vortex model of the atom where the nucleus spins on an axis, as well as all the nucleons and electrons. Each particle accordingly has an exact position at any given time. The supposed electron cloud is simply the atomic vortex comprised and the ZPF in a vortex, the spin created by the fermions which make up the atom. Molecular bonding would be based upon merging vortices.

 

Each atomic particle would also create its own vortex as it spins, regardless of whether it is a free particle or an atomic particle. None of this should impress you since there are no equations in the atomic/molecular part of the model, so no better predictions can be made. I am unaware of any big ways that valence theory totally fails although I know that in some cases it cannot be applied.

 

Yes, I think that quantum theory is wrong in almost every way.  But this does not mean that through phenomenology that they have not developed a good computational, statistical system. This also should not impress you because In the same way I offer no new or better equations. I simply say that the underlying theory is wrong because they have no realization of hidden variables, the primary hidden variable being the ZPF according to my model.  With this understanding most everything in quantum theory becomes simple with little or no remaining puzzles IMO.

 

Your opinion is not the acid test of your theory's validity.  The evidence supporting or ruling it out is.

 

My equations that make different predictions relate to gravity and another proposes to replace the Hubble redshift distance formula.

 

 

And have you submitted your model for peer-review?

 

 

These were my last two published papers 2014, one related to astronomy/ cosmology, and the other cosmology: Chemistry is not my area of expertise so I do not write papers about it.

 

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/32603/19463

 

http://www.aijcrnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_9_September_2014/2.pdf

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ccsenet.org%2Fjournal%2Findex.php%2Fapr%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F32603%2F19463&ei=ipvIU6aYO8bhoATHooGwBQ&usg=AFQjCNH8aHtYYpdcuFPDwnUJycY9QeUtLg&sig2=P2E7Dg7KaSo7my8jD66f2w&bvm=bv.71198958,d.cGU

[RogueScholar]

We've discussed these papers in other threads. The fact that Wikipedia is used numberous times as a primary reference in these papers remains a significant concern. Anybody can go and edit Wikipedia articles. Said articles are often revised as well. Therefore, when referencing Wikipedia, you may not even see the original article that the author initially used. It's very inconsistent and considered poor form. This is the case for even undergraduate students writing expository essays, let alone publishing papers on theories that are alternatives to well estsblished concepts.

[bornagainathiest]

Then what's the problem, Pantheory?

 

You clearly do have confidence in peer-review, so your beef with modern physics originates from where?

Your inability to understand it?  If so, then I must refer you back to the questions I specifically asked you to reply to, which I now repeat here.

.

.

.

Now, by your standards Pantheory, he should have rejected that paper as false.  Correct?  (Please answer.)

 

And he should also have rejected every other science paper he couldn't see logic of.  Correct?  (Please answer.)

 

And every other scientist should also reject every aspect of science they can't see the logic of?  Correct?  (Please answer.)

 

And that geologists should reject theories about genetics, because they can't see the logic involved?  Correct?  (Please answer.)

 

And I should attach a disclaimer to the tutorials that I've written, stating that since I cannot understand the science  and cannot see the logic involved, I therefore have no confidence in the science of cosmology?  Correct?  (Please answer.)

.

.

.

By answering these questions honestly it's my hope that you will come to understand that the subjective opinions and abilities of individuals cannot possibly be the measure by which scientific theories are accepted or rejected. There is only one objective measure and that is the evidence.  Now, please answer the above questions in good faith and see for yourself how science is supposed to work.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

[pantheory]

We've discussed these papers in other threads. The fact that Wikipedia is used numberous times as a primary reference in these papers remains a significant concern. Anybody can go and edit Wikipedia articles. Said articles are often revised as well. Therefore, when referencing Wikipedia, you may not even see the original article that the author initially used. It's very inconsistent and considered poor form. This is the case for even undergraduate students writing expository essays, let alone publishing papers on theories that are alternatives to well established concepts.

 

 

Wiki references are only given where normally no references would be given at all concerning a well-known subject. For technical papers such as those for an astronomy journal much trade information and vocabulary is known by all readers in that field. Once in awhile editors might ask for additional references concerning well-known material, so that a wider readership can understand the paper. When Wiki references are given concerning this well-known material, the trade reader will bypass these references since they know and understand all the material, and less experienced readers may need to read these references to understand the paper. Editors have never complained concerning such Wiki references since no one but inexperienced readers would read these Wiki references anyway since no new knowledge would be gained by knowledgeable readers. 

[pantheory]

Then what's the problem, Pantheory?

 

You clearly do have confidence in peer-review, so your beef with modern physics originates from where?

Your inability to understand it?  If so, then I must refer you back to the questions I specifically asked you to reply to, which I now re

.

Now, by your standards Pantheory, he should have rejected that paper as false.  Correct?  (Please answer.)

 

And he should also have rejected every other science paper he couldn't see logic of.  Correct?  (Please answer.)

 

And every other scientist should also reject every aspect of science they can't see the logic of?  Correct?  (Please answer.)

 

And that geologists should reject theories about genetics, because they can't see the logic involved?  Correct?  (Please answer.)

 

And I should attach a disclaimer to the tutorials that I've written, stating that since I cannot understand the science  and cannot see the logic involved, I therefore have no confidence in the science of cosmology?  Correct?  (Please answer.)

 

By answering these questions honestly it's my hope that you will come to understand that the subjective opinions and abilities of individuals cannot possibly be the measure by which scientific theories are accepted or rejected. There is only one objective measure and that is the evidence.  Now, please answer the above questions in good faith and see for yourself how science is supposed to work.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

You clearly do have confidence in peer-review, so your beef with modern physics originates from where?

Your inability to understand it?  If so, then I must refer you back to the questions I specifically asked you to reply to, which I now repeat here.

.

There is a problem of semantics in some of our discussions. For instance do you have a beef with a group that professes something that you think is wrong? No, you just disagree with them unless you know them personally and are having an argument.

 

Now, by your standards Pantheory, he should have rejected that paper as false.  Correct?  (Please answer.)

 

And he should also have rejected every other science paper he couldn't see logic of.  Correct?  (Please answer.)

 

In scientific papers there is no truth or falsity to them.  There could be a research or other kind of paper making assertions based upon supposed evidence of some kind, and then conclusions are drawn. A scientific publisher may reject some papers out of hand by saying "we do not publish papers proposing things outside of mainstream theory" without even reading it, or the reviewer might just briefly perusr it. If they consider your paper the question will be: what is the evidence that supports your assertions. If an editor thinks your evidence is inadequate or some aspect of your paper does not make sense to him, or that your paper does not meet the outlined criteria of the journal,  he well tell you so and give you a chance to improve it before he rejects the paper. If you can satisfy the main editor there are also peer reviewers that have to agree that what is being stated makes sense to them, is well written, and not easily contradicted. Once most reviewers are satisfied, the paper may be accepted by the editor. None have to necessarily agree with your paper in general or its conclusions, but most should agree that the paper is logical and has the possibility of presenting something valuable.

 

 

And every other scientist should also reject every aspect of science they can't see the logic of?  Correct?  (Please answer.)

 

 

Science journals involve specialists. Nobody would be invited to peer review a paper outside their own field of expertise.  Most scientists are usually involved with a single field.  If you are a scientist that can't see logic in a field outside your own, you're in the same position as most novices and might decide to study the field and/or to learn more  to understand it., or decide to join groups that study it or see errors in one theory or another and try to do something about moves to revise the theory.

 

And that geologists should reject theories about genetics, because they can't see the logic involved?  Correct?  (Please answer.)

And every other scientist should also reject every aspect of science they can't see the logic of?  Correct?  (Please answer.)

 

 

If you do not know a field of science then you are a novice in that field and are in the same position as any other novice.

 

And I should attach a disclaimer to the tutorials that I've written, stating that since I cannot understand the science  and cannot see the logic involved, I therefore have no confidence in the science of cosmology?  Correct?  (Please answer)

 

If one makes an effort to study, learn and teach something new, you are sometimes in a better position to teach the subject  than an educated teacher on that subject because you would known first hand which questions and explanations might be most important to a novice. A disclaimer when teaching or explaining modern theory might say something like  "the present scientific consensus in this field proposes that : "  (then the tutorial). This is the kind of disclaimer that I have used when teaching modern theory whether I agree with it or not.

[bornagainathiest]

Goodbye Pantheory.

 

I've tried to be patient and accommodating to you in this thread.

I've gone to considerable effort to explain, to illuminate, to cite examples and to use my own experiences to help you see and comprehend what the rest of us readily understand and accept.  But you've shown yourself to be unwilling to accept any definitions or criteria other than those that are acceptable to you.  You've selectively quoted me to put your own spin on my words.  You've failed to honestly respond to many of my questions and in other cases have simply ignored them. The pivotal points of the issues between us, which if you had dealt with them would have lead to some progress, have been consistently left untouched and unanswered by you.

 

On the basis of your conduct in this thread I am therefore forced to conclude that any further such efforts on my part will be pointless. The only way you seem to want proceed is your way.  So be it.  From now on I will not seek to help, advise or counsel you in any matter whatsoever.  You have proven yourself totally resistant to my overtures and they are now at an end.

 

From now on I will simply point out your errors, your misunderstandings and your mistakes - for the benefit of others.

 

BAA.

 

 

 

[ContraBardus]

I'll just leave this here...

 

[pantheory]

NASA downplays any link of EmDrive to warp drive, but confirmed that EmDrive passed the test of acceleration within a vacuum.

 

http://www.space.com/29363-impossible-em-drive-space-engine-nasa.html

[Thurisaz]

Dude I'm about halfway through that article you linked, and while it's not a boring read all it says is what's known already - tests have been run, there seem to be some results, but it's well possible that it's really just been measurement errors. Also, there's a comment that - if true - that legendary drive seems to violate conservation of energy.