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

May 13, 2015

The contradiction between your statements in # 45 and # 56 is also a cause for suspicion, Pantheory.

# 45.

No. Chemistry will not be affected by my theory.

# 56.

Yes. Chemistry will be affected by my theory.

.

Why the 180^o degree change?

.

Because the RogueScholar put you right in # 49...

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.

...and forced you to backpedal.

.

May 13, 2015

Answer to posting #150 BAA,

(Note that script in italics and parenthesis are my own addendums: Underlines have also been added for emphasis.)

Rene Descartes is considered the father of the modern scientific method. He proposed four original precepts for the Scientific Method.

Descartes and Scientific Method: Four Precepts

One wonders why modern research is still confounded by opinion, ambiguity, and deference to experts. French philosopher René Descartes (1596-1650) fought against such spurious investigative approaches. He rejected the notion that everything could be determined by pure logical analysis, without recourse to observation or experiment. Instead, he resolved to eliminate ambiguity, uncertainty and reliance on authority from his own methodology, as he says in his 1637 Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason and Seeking for Truth in the Sciences: (wherein he said:)

"Instead of the great number of precepts of which Logic is composed, I believed that I should find the four which I shall state quite sufficient, provided that I adhered to a firm and constant resolve never on any single occasion to fail in their observance.”

1. Doubt everything.

"The first of these was to accept nothing as true which I did not clearly recognize to be so: that is to say, carefully to avoid haste and prejudice in judgments, and to accept in them nothing more than what was presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly that I could have no occasion to doubt it.

2. Break every problem into smaller parts.

"The second was to divide up each of the difficulties which I examined into as many parts as possible, and as seemed requisite in order that it might be resolved in the best manner possible.

3. Solve the simplest problems first.

"The third was to carry on my reflections in due order, commencing with objects that were the most simple and easy to understand, in order to rise little by little, or by degrees, to knowledge of the most complex, assuming an order, even if a fictitious one, among those which do not follow a natural sequence relatively to one another.

4. Be thorough.

"The last was in all cases to make enumerations so complete and reviews so general that I should be certain of having omitted nothing."

Descartes codifies the methods by which useful investigations can proceed. Galileo's 1638 exposition of his own investigations provide a practical application and extension of such methods (of logical progression as Decartes earlier proposed).

http://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt72h.htm

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

In light of today's knowledge and existing theories, today's scientific method is directed toward forming new hypothesis which might become addendums to, or challenges of, existing theory and hypothesis.

Key Elements of the Scientific Method in Physics

The goal of the scientific method is to get results that accurately represent the physical processes taking place in the (a particular) phenomenon. To that end, it emphasizes a number of traits (methods to be used) to insure that the results it gets are valid to the natural world.

objective – the scientific method intends to remove personal and cultural biases by focusing on objective testing procedures.
consistent – the laws of reasoning should be used to make hypotheses that are consistent with broader, currently known scientific laws (where applicable): even in rare cases where the hypothesis is: that one of the broader laws is incorrect or incomplete, the (new) hypothesis should be composed to challenge only one such law at a time.
observable – the (newly formulated) hypothesis presented should allow for experiments with observable and measurable results.
pertinent – all steps of the process should be focused on describing and explaining observed phenomena.
parsimonious – only a limited number of assumptions and hypothetical entities should be proposed in a given (hypothesis or) theory, as stated in Occam’s Razor.
falsifiable – the hypothesis should be something which can be proven incorrect by observable data within the experiment, or else the experiment is not useful in supporting the hypothesis. (This aspect was most prominently illuminated by the philosopher of science Karl Popper.)
reproducible – the test (of the hypothesis) should be able to be reproduced by other observers (experimenters) with trials that extend indefinitely into the future.

It is useful to keep these traits in mind when developing a hypothesis and testing procedure.

Conclusion

Hopefully this introduction to the scientific method has provided you with an idea of the significant effort that scientists go to in order to make sure their work is free from bias, inconsistencies, and unnecessary complications, as well as the paramount feat of creating a theoretical structure that accurately describes the natural world. When doing your own work in physics, it is useful to reflect regularly on the ways in which that work exemplifies the principles of the scientific method.

http://physics.about.com/od/toolsofthetrade/a/scimethod.htm

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

The desired goal of the scientific method today is to form valuable scientific hypothesis and theory.

Characteristics of theories Essential criteria

The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a scientific theory at all. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is not applicable.

A central prediction from a current theory: the general theory of relativity predicts the bending of light in a gravitational field. This prediction (concerning the predicted extent of bending) was first tested during the solar eclipse of May 1919.

A body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory if it fulfills the following criteria:

It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.
It is consistent with pre-existing experimental results and at least as accurate in its predictions as are any pre-existing theories.
It can be subjected to minor adaptations to account for new data that do not fit it perfectly, as they are discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.
It is among the most parsimonious explanations, economical in the use of proposed entities or explanatory steps. (See Occam's razor. Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)

The first three criteria are the most important. Theories considered scientific meet at least most of the criteria, but ideally all of them. This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, the modern evolutionary synthesis, etc.

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

May 13, 2015

The contradiction between your statements in # 45 and # 56 is also a cause for suspicion, Pantheory.

# 45.

No. Chemistry will not be affected by my theory.

# 56.

Yes. Chemistry will be affected by my theory.

.

Why the 180^o degree change?

.

Because the RogueScholar put you right in # 49...

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.

...and forced you to backpedal.

.

Chemistry could be further elaborated on by my theory but it would take many more years to do so. I expect to add a little more chemical theory before the next publication of my book, but also expect there will be no new enlightening equations to it as I have in theoretical physics. So my theory could effect chemistry, but presently it contains little chemical theory because chemistry is only indirectly effected by it. So I concentrate on modern physics where I believe most of the theoretical problems lie.

May 13, 2015

Answer to posting #150 BAA,

(Note that script in italics and parenthesis are my own addendums: Underlines have also been added for emphasis.)

Rene Descartes is considered the father of the modern scientific method. He proposed four original precepts for the Scientific Method.

Descartes and Scientific Method: Four Precepts

One wonders why modern research is still confounded by opinion, ambiguity, and deference to experts. French philosopher René Descartes (1596-1650) fought against such spurious investigative approaches. He rejected the notion that everything could be determined by pure logical analysis, without recourse to observation or experiment. Instead, he resolved to eliminate ambiguity, uncertainty and reliance on authority from his own methodology, as he says in his 1637 Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason and Seeking for Truth in the Sciences: (wherein he said:)

"Instead of the great number of precepts of which Logic is composed, I believed that I should find the four which I shall state quite sufficient, provided that I adhered to a firm and constant resolve never on any single occasion to fail in their observance.”

1. Doubt everything.

"The first of these was to accept nothing as true which I did not clearly recognize to be so: that is to say, carefully to avoid haste and prejudice in judgments, and to accept in them nothing more than what was presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly that I could have no occasion to doubt it.

2. Break every problem into smaller parts.

"The second was to divide up each of the difficulties which I examined into as many parts as possible, and as seemed requisite in order that it might be resolved in the best manner possible.

3. Solve the simplest problems first.

"The third was to carry on my reflections in due order, commencing with objects that were the most simple and easy to understand, in order to rise little by little, or by degrees, to knowledge of the most complex, assuming an order, even if a fictitious one, among those which do not follow a natural sequence relatively to one another.

4. Be thorough.

"The last was in all cases to make enumerations so complete and reviews so general that I should be certain of having omitted nothing."

Descartes codifies the methods by which useful investigations can proceed. Galileo's 1638 exposition of his own investigations provide a practical application and extension of such methods (of logical progression as Decartes earlier proposed).

http://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt72h.htm

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

In light of today's knowledge and existing theories, today's scientific method is directed toward forming new hypothesis which might become addendums to, or challenges of, existing theory and hypothesis.

Key Elements of the Scientific Method in Physics

The goal of the scientific method is to get results that accurately represent the physical processes taking place in the (a particular) phenomenon. To that end, it emphasizes a number of traits (methods to be used) to insure that the results it gets are valid to the natural world.

objective – the scientific method intends to remove personal and cultural biases by focusing on objective testing procedures.

consistent – the laws of reasoning should be used to make hypotheses that are consistent with broader, currently known scientific laws (where applicable): even in rare cases where the hypothesis is: that one of the broader laws is incorrect or incomplete, the (new) hypothesis should be composed to challenge only one such law at a time.

observable – the (newly formulated) hypothesis presented should allow for experiments with observable and measurable results.

pertinent – all steps of the process should be focused on describing and explaining observed phenomena.

parsimonious – only a limited number of assumptions and hypothetical entities should be proposed in a given (hypothesis or) theory, as stated in Occam’s Razor.

falsifiable – the hypothesis should be something which can be proven incorrect by observable data within the experiment, or else the experiment is not useful in supporting the hypothesis. (This aspect was most prominently illuminated by the philosopher of science Karl Popper.)

reproducible – the test (of the hypothesis) should be able to be reproduced by other observers (experimenters) with trials that extend indefinitely into the future.

It is useful to keep these traits in mind when developing a hypothesis and testing procedure.

Conclusion

Hopefully this introduction to the scientific method has provided you with an idea of the significant effort that scientists go to in order to make sure their work is free from bias, inconsistencies, and unnecessary complications, as well as the paramount feat of creating a theoretical structure that accurately describes the natural world. When doing your own work in physics, it is useful to reflect regularly on the ways in which that work exemplifies the principles of the scientific method.

http://physics.about.com/od/toolsofthetrade/a/scimethod.htm

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

The desired goal of the scientific method today is to form valuable scientific hypothesis and theory.

Characteristics of theories Essential criteria

The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a scientific theory at all. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is not applicable.

A central prediction from a current theory: the general theory of relativity predicts the bending of light in a gravitational field. This prediction (concerning the predicted extent of bending) was first tested during the solar eclipse of May 1919.

A body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory if it fulfills the following criteria:

It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).

It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.

It is consistent with pre-existing experimental results and at least as accurate in its predictions as are any pre-existing theories.

It can be subjected to minor adaptations to account for new data that do not fit it perfectly, as they are discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.

It is among the most parsimonious explanations, economical in the use of proposed entities or explanatory steps. (See Occam's razor. Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)

The first three criteria are the most important. Theories considered scientific meet at least most of the criteria, but ideally all of them. This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, the modern evolutionary synthesis, etc.

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

So what's all of the above got to do with your discounting modern physics because you can't understand it?

May 13, 2015

The contradiction between your statements in # 45 and # 56 is also a cause for suspicion, Pantheory.

# 45.

No. Chemistry will not be affected by my theory.

# 56.

Yes. Chemistry will be affected by my theory.

.

Why the 180^o degree change?

.

Because the RogueScholar put you right in # 49...

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.

...and forced you to backpedal.

.

Chemistry could be further elaborated on by my theory but it would take many more years to do so. I expect to add a little more chemical theory before the next publication of my book, but also expect there will be no new enlightening equations to it as I have in theoretical physics. So my theory could effect chemistry, but presently it contains little chemical theory because chemistry is only indirectly effected by it. So I concentrate on modern physics where I believe most of the theoretical problems lie.

All very nice, Pantheory.

But we've seen backpedaling before in this forum and we recognize it for what it is.

May 13, 2015

BAA, answer to posting #154

"So what's all of the above got to do with your discounting modern physics because you can't understand it?"

I have a good understanding of all of modern physics, at least that part of it based upon logic and observations.

I fully understand the Big Bang model, I simply think it is almost totally wrong in that IMO the universe accordingly is not expanding, and have theorized what I believe to be a much better alternative theory.

If there is a background field, which we already know exists is the form of the Zero Point Field (a type of aether), then both Special and General Relativity would be theoretically wrong since both propose that there is no preferred reference frame for judging motion. This proposition is the main tenet of Special Relativity. General Relativity proposes the warping and bending of space, which has never been observed. At the farthest distances the universe appears to be totally flat.

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

As to the understanding of any of the many "theories" of Quantum Mechanics, Richard Feynman said:

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."

"We have always had a great deal of difficulty understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents. At least I do, because I'm an old enough man that I haven't got to the point that this stuff is obvious to me. Okay, I still get nervous with it...."

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

"I am a Quantum Engineer, but on Sundays I Have Principles."

"That which is proved by impossible proofs, is only because of lack of imagination"

John Stewart Bell

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

"For those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it."

Niels Bohr

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

"I can't accept quantum mechanics because I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."

Albert Einstein

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

"It is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this century (the 20th), the silliest is quantum theory. In fact, some say that the only thing that quantum theory has going for it is that it is unquestionably correct (concerning the results of the application of its equations and mathematics)."

Michio Kaku

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

"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." (Quantum Mechanics)

(his antipathy of the probability interpretation of wave functions, and its assertion of the indeterminacy of reality)

Erwin Schrödinger (of Schrödinger's Cat fame)

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

May 13, 2015

BAA, answer to posting #154

"So what's all of the above got to do with your discounting modern physics because you can't understand it?"

I have a good understanding of all of modern physics, at least that part of it based upon logic and observations.

I fully understand the Big Bang model, I simply think it is almost totally wrong in that IMO the universe accordingly is not expanding, and have theorized what I believe to be a much better alternative theory.

If there is a background field, which we already know exists is the form of the Zero Point Field (a type of aether), then both Special and General Relativity would be theoretically wrong since both propose that there is no preferred reference frame for judging motion. This proposition is the main tenet of Special Relativity. General Relativity proposes the warping and bending of space, which has never been observed. At the farthest distances the universe appears to be totally flat.

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

As to the understanding of any of the many "theories" of Quantum Mechanics, Richard Feynman said:

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."

"We have always had a great deal of difficulty understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents. At least I do, because I'm an old enough man that I haven't got to the point that this stuff is obvious to me. Okay, I still get nervous with it...."

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

"I am a Quantum Engineer, but on Sundays I Have Principles."

"That which is proved by impossible proofs, is only because of lack of imagination"

John Stewart Bell

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

"For those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it."

Niels Bohr

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

"I can't accept quantum mechanics because I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."

Albert Einstein

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

"It is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this century (the 20th), the silliest is quantum theory. In fact, some say that the only thing that quantum theory has going for it is that it is unquestionably correct (concerning the results of the application of its equations and mathematics)."

Michio Kaku

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

"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." (Quantum Mechanics)

(his antipathy of the probability interpretation of wave functions, and its assertion of the indeterminacy of reality)

Erwin Schrödinger (of Schrödinger's Cat fame)

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

Ok, so if you can understand the logic and the observations, then this comes down to an issue of trust.

Why should I trust your interpretation of the observations and confirmed predictions over those of mainstream scientists?

May 13, 2015

Somebody posted this link in another thread, but it seems more relevant here than it was there.

Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong

May 13, 2015

BAA, answer to posting #154

"So what's all of the above got to do with your discounting modern physics because you can't understand it?"

I have a good understanding of all of modern physics, at least that part of it based upon logic and observations.

I fully understand the Big Bang model, I simply think it is almost totally wrong in that IMO the universe accordingly is not expanding, and have theorized what I believe to be a much better alternative theory.

If there is a background field, which we already know exists is the form of the Zero Point Field (a type of aether), then both Special and General Relativity would be theoretically wrong since both propose that there is no preferred reference frame for judging motion. This proposition is the main tenet of Special Relativity. General Relativity proposes the warping and bending of space, which has never been observed. At the farthest distances the universe appears to be totally flat.

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

As to the understanding of any of the many "theories" of Quantum Mechanics, Richard Feynman said:

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."

"We have always had a great deal of difficulty understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents. At least I do, because I'm an old enough man that I haven't got to the point that this stuff is obvious to me. Okay, I still get nervous with it...."

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

"I am a Quantum Engineer, but on Sundays I Have Principles."

"That which is proved by impossible proofs, is only because of lack of imagination"

John Stewart Bell

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

"For those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it."

Niels Bohr

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

"I can't accept quantum mechanics because I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."

Albert Einstein

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

"It is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this century (the 20th), the silliest is quantum theory. In fact, some say that the only thing that quantum theory has going for it is that it is unquestionably correct (concerning the results of the application of its equations and mathematics)."

Michio Kaku

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

"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." (Quantum Mechanics)

(his antipathy of the probability interpretation of wave functions, and its assertion of the indeterminacy of reality)

Erwin Schrödinger (of Schrödinger's Cat fame)

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

Ok, so if you can understand the logic and the observations, then this comes down to an issue of trust.

Why should I trust your interpretation of the observations and confirmed predictions over those of mainstream scientists?

Of course you shouldn't trust my interpretations or theory or any other theory IMO. You should always be leery of theories in general IMO and only consider the possibility of those that make sense to you. But listening to a variety of possibilities, when they present themselves, may not be a bad idea IMO. The main theories that I think of that have the strongest foundations and evidence are "the theory of natural selection", and Plate Tectonics.

May 13, 2015

Of course you shouldn't trust my interpretations or theory or any other theory IMO. You should always be leery of all theories IMO and only consider the possibility of those that make sense to you. But listening to a variety of possibilities, when they present themselves, may not be a bad idea IMO. The main theories that I think have the strongest basis are "the theory of natural selection", and Plate Tectonics.

Wrong, dead wrong.

No Scientist only considers the possibilities of what makes sense to them. That is the antithesis of what Science is about. It's about making sense of what doesn't make sense to us, not taking the easy route and only considering that which we already understand.

This is the foundation of the issue everyone is having here with you and your pet theory.

You also don't seem to understand that Considering =/= accepting.

It's not that no one is listening to or that no one considered your ideas. The fact that we're here on this forum to begin with is evidence that we're willing to accept new ideas that conflict with our previous worldview. The fact that we're actually engaging in this discussion at all is evidence that we're willing to listen and consider what you're saying.

No one is accepting these theories of yours because the basis of your reasoning to begin with isn't sound.

Your methodology is faulty right from the start.

You don't like the theories as they exist. Yet you aren't providing any reasoning for why these new theories are needed to begin with or what is exactly wrong with the contemporary or 'mainstream' theories. You just don't accept current theories because you don't like or don't understand them, and neither is a fault on their end.

They just don't 'sound right' to you, and that's not really a reason, it's an excuse.

May 14, 2015

Of course you shouldn't trust my interpretations or theory or any other theory IMO. You should always be leery of theories in general IMO and only consider the possibility of those that make sense to you.

Terrible advise. Half the population is below average. Some people will never understand calculus. That doesn't mean any theory based on calculus is false. This is why we have specialized experts and we should pay attention when those experts (scientists) reach a consensus. (What conspiracy theorists would call "mainstream science".) Of course there will always be room for improvement and some time the consensus will be wrong. But they will work that out in time as new evidence becomes available. It is no reason to wander off into crackpotism or pseudoscience.

Are you going to refuse to get on an airplane until you had a doctorate in aerospace engineering? Are you going to refuse to ride in a car unless you have a doctorate in automotive engineering? You are going to miss out on a lot of life if you refuse to trust anything you can't figure out for yourself.

May 14, 2015

Of course you shouldn't trust my interpretations or theory or any other theory IMO. You should always be leery of all theories IMO and only consider the possibility of those that make sense to you. But listening to a variety of possibilities, when they present themselves, may not be a bad idea IMO. The main theories that I think have the strongest basis are "the theory of natural selection", and Plate Tectonics.

Wrong, dead wrong.

No Scientist only considers the possibilities of what makes sense to them. That is the antithesis of what Science is about. It's about making sense of what doesn't make sense to us, not taking the easy route and only considering that which we already understand.

This is the foundation of the issue everyone is having here with you and your pet theory.

You also don't seem to understand that Considering =/= accepting.

It's not that no one is listening to or that no one considered your ideas. The fact that we're here on this forum to begin with is evidence that we're willing to accept new ideas that conflict with our previous worldview. The fact that we're actually engaging in this discussion at all is evidence that we're willing to listen and consider what you're saying.

No one is accepting these theories of yours because the basis of your reasoning to begin with isn't sound.

Your methodology is faulty right from the start.

You don't like the theories as they exist. Yet you aren't providing any reasoning for why these new theories are needed to begin with or what is exactly wrong with the contemporary or 'mainstream' theories. You just don't accept current theories because you don't like or don't understand them, and neither is a fault on their end.

They just don't 'sound right' to you, and that's not really a reason, it's an excuse.

Scroll up to my posting #152. As to the scientific method, a prime criteria of it is to be skeptical. To me this implies that everyone should be skeptical of theory that doesn't make sense to them.

The same posting concerning the scientific method states that the laws of reasoning should be used to make hypotheses. Reasoning is logic. If it doesn't make sense to you you can choose to believe it based upon appeal to authority (take experts advice concerning what is true), but in my opinion no one should believe anything they do not understand. Like religion, if it doesn't make sense to you look elsewhere. This does mean you have to disbelieve it either, my suggestion is to simply be somewhat leery concerning theory you don't understand and which doesn't make sense to you.

you aren't providing any reasoning for why these new theories are needed to begin with or what is exactly wrong with the contemporary or 'mainstream' theories. You just don't accept current theories because you don't like or don't understand them, and neither is a fault on their end.

Of course I could fill a book full of threads explaining these questions you have asked as I have done in my book The Pan Theory, at pantheory.org, but this thread is not the place. If you would like to see such explanations in this religion vs. science category then start a thread about why mainstream theory might be wrong, and what alternatives are there. You can expect I would have a lot to say, but since this is not a science forum I would still limit my statements to the topic and not be too technical concerning my answers. I would give up on the thread, however, if posters were not civil.

May 14, 2015

Scroll up to my posting #152. As to the scientific method, a prime criteria of it is to be skeptical. To me this implies that everyone should be skeptical of theory that doesn't make sense to them.

Don't understand evolution? Then reject evolution.

Wrong. That skepticism is the default position for science doesn't mean that individuals should reject ideas they can't personally understand.

May 14, 2015

Ok, so if you can understand the logic and the observations, then this comes down to an issue of trust.

Why should I trust your interpretation of the observations and confirmed predictions over those of mainstream scientists?

Of course you shouldn't trust my interpretations or theory or any other theory IMO. You should always be leery of theories in general IMO and only consider the possibility of those that make sense to you. But listening to a variety of possibilities, when they present themselves, may not be a bad idea IMO. The main theories that I think of that have the strongest foundations and evidence are "the theory of natural selection", and Plate Tectonics.

Very well then Pantheory.

I'll do as you suggest and treat the theories and interpretations of all scientists with equal skepticism. The playing field is therefore absolutely level and there's now nothing to choose between any scientist. But guess what happens when I do that?

.

I still don't trust you.

I don't trust you on the basis of your displayed morality and ethics in this forum. When I treat you, the RogueScholar, the Redneck Professor and Bhim on an equally skeptical scientific basis I find that I still cannot trust you. So, the trust issue between us now is no longer about scientific skepticism. It's now shifted to the moral and ethical standards practiced by you in this forum.

.

So here's your chance to make your moral and ethical case to me.

If you can make a sound moral and ethical case as to why I should trust you in this forum, then please do so.

Thanks,

BAA.

May 14, 2015

Scroll up to my posting #152. As to the scientific method, a prime criteria of it is to be skeptical. To me this implies that everyone should be skeptical of theory that doesn't make sense to them.

The same posting concerning the scientific method states that the laws of reasoning should be used to make hypotheses. Reasoning is logic. If it doesn't make sense to you you can choose to believe it based upon appeal to authority (take experts advice concerning what is true), but in my opinion no one should believe anything they do not understand. Like religion, if it doesn't make sense to you look elsewhere. This does mean you have to disbelieve it either, my suggestion is to simply be somewhat leery concerning theory you don't understand and which doesn't make sense to you.

you aren't providing any reasoning for why these new theories are needed to begin with or what is exactly wrong with the contemporary or 'mainstream' theories. You just don't accept current theories because you don't like or don't understand them, and neither is a fault on their end.

Of course I could fill a book full of threads explaining these questions you have asked as I have done in my book The Pan Theory, at pantheory.org, but this thread is not the place. If you would like to see such explanations in this religion vs. science category then start a thread about why mainstream theory might be wrong, and what alternatives are there. You can expect I would have a lot to say, but since this is not a science forum I would still limit my statements to the topic and not be too technical concerning my answers. I would give up on the thread, however, if posters were not civil.

Taking skepticism to an extreme is a fallacy too.

Appealing to authority is a fallacy if that is all a belief is based on. However, simply not understanding something is not a good enough reason to discount an expert's opinion on it's own. You should have a reason to cast it aside beyond not understanding it. Some error or problem needs to be apparent. A lack of understanding is a problem on your end, not the expert's. This is a case where the expert has already justified and backed up their claim, so the burden of proof is on you to show they are in error and that your 'theory' is correct. They have already given their proof, had it peer reviewed, and accepted. You really do need to do both and simply spouting off your alternative isn't really enough here. You need to show where the problem is, explain why it's a problem, and then explain how your solution addresses that problem. You've done nothing of the kind.

It's starting to sound like you're projecting your own fault onto others. You don't understand something, so the source of the lack of understanding is the problem, not your own inability to understand something.

You need to be skeptical, but rejecting ideas simply because they aren't understood by you is paranoia, not skepticism. It's not healthy or a valid reason to reject an expert's statements about a subject they are knowledgeable in.

I posted this earlier in the thread, but this is relevant to your attitude about theory. It outlines something you seem to be having trouble grasping. Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong Theories are almost never proven wrong, 99.9% of the time they are only slightly modified. That slight change from a better measurement or new information can often have huge ramifications, but at the end of the day, the idea that theories are wholly incorrect or totally replaced frequently is a vastly errant assumption. Even most superseded theories are largely intact when revised, with a better measurement, new discovery, or better calculation improving and modifying it rather than wholly throwing the original theory out. Flat Earth is a good example, it's only off by a curvature of 0.000126 per mile, that's reasonably close to flat and flat Earth as a theory is only off by a miniscule amount.

I don't hate or dislike you and I'm not really trying to be mean here, but that is an unfortunate side effect of what I think I need to say on the matter. I don't trust you as a scientist, and it's because of your methodology, not because I don't understand what you're talking about or how you went about it. I do understand how you came to your conclusion, and that's the problem. The worst part is, it has nothing to do with any calculations or evidence you've presented, but the issue is with the basic foundation of your reasoning and the point you started with to reach your conclusions. No matter how correct or factual your evidence might be, I can't trust the conclusion because the basis of your reasoning is faulty and unscientific. You started wrong and used incorrect reasoning and methodology, and that threw a wrench in the whole hypothesis you've presented. Without a sound foundation to start with nothing that is built on it can be trusted, no matter how solid it appears overall.

I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that you are not a scientist. You may have written papers, but you clearly do not understand or follow the scientific method. You are using emotional pleas to further your opinions and are discarding valid theories without any actual cause. "I don't understand it, and therefore don't trust it" is an excuse, not a reason.

The basic foundation of how you're doing things is wrong and unscientific. No amount of paper writing or submissions is going to change that. You have no idea what you are doing, you are blaming others for your own lack of knowledge, and are brushing aside experts for no clear reason beyond your own personal limitations and inability to comprehend. You've shown an increasing paranoia and conspiracist attitude over the course of this thread.

This is not you being edgy and outside of the mainstream. You've provided no clear reasoning for your beliefs, no solid foundation for your rejections, and are simply replacing established theories with simpler to understand replacements because you can't comprehend them, not because of any error or fault in them.

As far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with any Mainstream vs Alternative science debate. I would get that if it was the case, but that isn't really the issue here.That's just an excuse. It's about wishing something was simpler so it's easier to understand, whether that is really the case or not.

I could get behind you and accept your idea at least enough to consider if there was some sort of reasoning behind it. Some error you could explain and address, but there isn't. All you're saying is "It's hard to understand, therefore it must be too complex and incorrect, and my way is easier to understand, therefore it's correct." There is more to it than that, but anything else you said builds upon that foundation, which is at the least a clear false dilemma fallacy. It also contains a red herring. At it's core, it's wishful thinking. It's probably fallacious on several levels beyond that as well.

Your Pantheory Science theory may be right for all I know. It may well be the correct answer.

That's not the crux of the issue here. The problem is that you didn't get to that answer properly.

In science, showing your work and explaining how you reached your conclusion is just as important as the answer. This is where you fail. Your rationality is poor, your conclusions are suspect because of your methods and reasoning. No matter how correct your answer might be, how you're getting there, or at least how you are apparently getting there based on the context of this thread and your own words, is completely faulty. This is poisoning the well so to speak and making me, and probably several others in this thread, skeptical of you and your claims, and rightly so I might add. It's got nothing at all to do with the fact that we don't understand it. It's simply the fact that you suck at presenting it, and according to your own admission, you've reached the conclusion without properly following the scientific method and did so by following your own unscientific and irrational methodology.

I'm afraid I must stand by the image in this post. You are a poor scientist at best, and I see no reason to trust your conclusions because they were not formed by following the scientific method. You've diluted your research with paranoia and an irrational starting position by claiming that simply not understanding something is reason enough to reject it. That is not a logical position, and it's certainly not scientific. It's actually a bit arrogant to be honest. It simply assumes that any explanation beyond your comprehension must be wrong by default. That's a pretty egotistical way of looking at things, and it's destructive to proper reasoning.

May 14, 2015

Going back thru this thread I noticed that in post # 137, Pantheory wrote...

.

"I have other ways [than the future data from the JWST] of showing by experiment that other theories in modern physics are contradicted."

Then please cite the peer-reviewed and independently verified results of these experiments, Pantheory.

Otherwise we will have no legitimate reason to believe this claim.

.

I would also remind you that the RogueScholar has asked you three times (in posts # 49, 104 and 109) to show him how your alternative theory better explains reality than mainstream theories. Posts # 56, 107 and 110 are your responses to 49, 104 and 109, respectively.

In none of them do you actually do show RS how your alternative theory does what you claim.

You don't give him anything that he can use to test or check the validity of your claims. Instead you just continue to make further claims, like... "My equations that make different predictions relate to gravity and another proposes to replace [the] Hubble redshift distance formula." (See # 107)

.

Please honor RS's requests ONLY with the hard data from the experiments that you've run, Pantheory.

The experiments that you refer to in # 137.

Thanks,

BAA.

May 14, 2015

In post # 137, Pantheory wrote...

"The only way theories become known is by their predictions and promotion."

This is a signal example of why I do not trust you, Pantheory.

You make blatantly false assertions to us.

The only proper way theories should become accepted in science is by the confirmation of their predictions.

May 14, 2015

Pantheory lied to us from the moment he joined this forum when he said: "I'm new to this forum. Saw this last week being discussed whereby you were talking about my comments from a previous online discussion in another forum. Also you were discussing my theory related to "the Big Bang Never Happened, called the Pan Theory."

This sounded rather fishy, and it seemed like wildly unlikely timing to me that he would accidentally "discover" us talking about his theory within a few days of the topic being started. When I pressed him about how he discovered us discussing his theory, he said, "When I read the comments on this website some mentioned my theories and I thought would become available for those interested, concerning the thread topic "The Big Bang Never Happened.""

It wasn't until later that we found out from another member of this forum that he had been specifically invited by that member to discuss his "theory" here. So, he lied. And he didn't admit to lying until someone else outed him. In fact, he never did apologize for lying to us from the get-go. He just merrily proceeded to preach to us about his "theory."

Then, he changed his story to: "No, my interest was based upon an internet search to find online comments concerning my theories, which I do roughly once a month."

Pantheory has been dishonest with us since his very first post, and he continues to be dishonest with us (like with his backpedaling about whether or not his "theory" affects chemistry). It's obvious that truth is not something that matters to pantheory. The only thing that matters to pantheory is that he gets pats on the back and acceptance for his "theory."

May 14, 2015

Ok, so if you can understand the logic and the observations, then this comes down to an issue of trust.

Why should I trust your interpretation of the observations and confirmed predictions over those of mainstream scientists?

Of course you shouldn't trust my interpretations or theory or any other theory IMO. You should always be leery of theories in general IMO and only consider the possibility of those that make sense to you. But listening to a variety of possibilities, when they present themselves, may not be a bad idea IMO. The main theories that I think of that have the strongest foundations and evidence are "the theory of natural selection", and Plate Tectonics.

Very well then Pantheory.

I'll do as you suggest and treat the theories and interpretations of all scientists with equal skepticism. The playing field is therefore absolutely level and there's now nothing to choose between any scientist. But guess what happens when I do that?

.

.

.

I still don't trust you.

I don't trust you on the basis of your displayed morality and ethics in this forum. When I treat you, the RogueScholar, the Redneck Professor and Bhim on an equally skeptical scientific basis I find that I still cannot trust you. So, the trust issue between us now is no longer about scientific skepticism. It's now shifted to the moral and ethical standards practiced by you in this forum.

.

.

.

So here's your chance to make your moral and ethical case to me.

If you can make a sound moral and ethical case as to why I should trust you in this forum, then please do so.

Thanks,

BAA.

I think nearly everyone knows themselves better than others. I know my motives have always been to impart information to others here, often with the hope that others will think. If you question my ethics look back again at my postings and re-interpret them from the point of view of someone who is trying to help. If my postings seem only self serving to you then at least consider a kinder perspective. You seem to look at me as someone trying to sell his religion. If you change your mind about me we might talk more interesting commonalities such as microbreweries for instance

May 14, 2015

Pantheory lied to us from the moment he joined this forum when he said: "I'm new to this forum. Saw this last week being discussed whereby you were talking about my comments from a previous online discussion in another forum. Also you were discussing my theory related to "the Big Bang Never Happened, called the Pan Theory."

This sounded rather fishy, and it seemed like wildly unlikely timing to me that he would accidentally "discover" us talking about his theory within a few days of the topic being started. When I pressed him about how he discovered us discussing his theory, he said, "When I read the comments on this website some mentioned my theories and I thought would become available for those interested, concerning the thread topic "The Big Bang Never Happened.""

It wasn't until later that we found out from another member of this forum that he had been specifically invited by that member to discuss his "theory" here. So, he lied. And he didn't admit to lying until someone else outed him. In fact, he never did apologize for lying to us from the get-go. He just merrily proceeded to preach to us about his "theory."

Then, he changed his story to: "No, my interest was based upon an internet search to find online comments concerning my theories, which I do roughly once a month."

Pantheory has been dishonest with us since his very first post, and he continues to be dishonest with us (like with his backpedaling about whether or not his "theory" affects chemistry). It's obvious that truth is not something that matters to pantheory. The only thing that matters to pantheory is that he gets pats on the back and acceptance for his "theory."

Consider you might be wrong concerning your opinion of me. Considering that he may be wrong is something a theorist should realize from the beginning. Looking at the same thing from different perspectives and considering alternative possibilities can lead to more advanced thinking IMO

May 14, 2015

Considering that he may be wrong is something a theorist should realize from the beginning.

Have you considered the possibility that Pan (conspiracy) "Theory" might be completely wrong?

May 14, 2015

In post # 137, Pantheory wrote...

"The only way theories become known is by their predictions and promotion."

This is a signal example of why I do not trust you, Pantheory.

You make blatantly false assertions to us.

The only proper way theories should become accepted in science is by the confirmation of their predictions.

First you must know of a theories predictions before observations are made. If you become familiar with those predictions that are contrary to mainstream theory, then if such predictions are observed you might want to study the underlying alternative theory in greater detail and consider other predictions of the theory that are contrary to mainstream predictions. Predictions contrary to mainstream theory, if known and confirmed, would attract proponents to the new theory.

May 14, 2015

Pantheory,

Thought2Much doesn't need to change his opinion of you because what he's written isn't his opinion - it's a verifiable historical fact.

You were invited here by BlackCat. That's a matter of record.

So he's right. You have lied to us and you are still lying to us.

May 14, 2015

Pantheory,

You have failed to make any kind of convincing moral and ethical case to me. I still don't trust you at all.

The reason why you cannot make a successful case is because Bhim, the RogueScholar and the RedNeck Professor all possess what you lack.

They were once born-again evangelical/fundamentalist Christians - you aren't and never were.

They know exactly how this brand of Christianity screws with the mind and the emotions - you don't.

They know precisely what it means to go thru the painful transition of deconversion from Christianity - you don't.

They therefore have all the necessary experience to help others deconvert - you don't.

You have no role to play in the function and purpose of this forum and nothing to offer those who are planning to deconvert. Unlike you, Bhim, RS and TRP are perfectly placed and perfectly up to the task. You aren't. They meet the spec on every level. You fail on every level. They have what it takes it spades. You have nothing.

.

Now I've done as you advised and treated all scientists and their theories with equal skepticism.

And guess what? I still don't trust you.

That's because Bhim, RS and TRP are morally and ethically superior to you in every way.

They have the perfect right to be here - you don't. They know exactly why they should be here - you don't. They know exactly what to do in this forum and how to do it - you don't know either of those things. They are correctly and properly fulfilling the function and purpose of this forum - you aren't.

.

So let's have no more bs from you about you being fit to be here!

May 14, 2015

Bumping post # 166 for Pantheory's benefit!

Please honor the RogueScholar's three, long-overdue requests by furnishing him with the hard data from the experiments you've run.

The experiments that you refer to in post # 137.

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

Recommended Posts

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

RogueScholar

RogueScholar

bornagainathiest

pantheory

Link to comment

Share on other sites

pantheory

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

pantheory

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

ContraBardus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

pantheory

Link to comment

Share on other sites

ContraBardus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mymistake

Link to comment

Share on other sites

pantheory

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mymistake

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

ContraBardus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Thought2Much

Link to comment

Share on other sites

pantheory

Link to comment

Share on other sites

pantheory

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mymistake

Link to comment

Share on other sites

pantheory

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest