Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and fraud

Advances in the investigation of the physical universe we live in.
Post Reply
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Also my complaint with Einstein is almost identical to Tesla's complaint. They made up a physical phenomena to explain their equations. Space doesn't expand, curve, contort, etc.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Typhoon »

Mr. Perfect wrote:Also my complaint with Einstein is almost identical to Tesla's complaint. They made up a physical phenomena to explain their equations. Space doesn't expand, curve, contort, etc.
"I don't like it." may be a sufficient reason for rejecting breakfast cereals,
but it is not a sufficient reason in science to reject theories well-supported by experiment.

We we know is that
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.

~ J. A. Wheeler
In this particular case, Tesla, whose achievements I greatly admire, was not even wrong.

Complain all you want, however, no one in physics will or should care until you come up a credible alternative theory that

1/ passes all the experimental tests passed to date by GR; and
2/ makes novel predictions that can be experimental tested to distinguish between GR and your theory with the results supporting your new theory.

Should you do so, then the airline ticket to Stockholm is on me.

Until then you've earned your membership in another somewhat less distinguished group.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Space has never been observed to expand, contract, curve or distort. Just as dark matter has never been observed/detected, it's just a made up physical concept to explain what we don't understand.

Science is not determined by the "best explanation", but rather what can be observed and experimentally verified independently of any other theory. Before relativity and big bang, no scientist or human being ever observed space expanding or contracting, and no scientist ever observed space curving or distorting. They were made up phenomenon to fit math formulas.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Typhoon wrote: "I don't like it." may be a sufficient reason for rejecting breakfast cereals,
but it is not a sufficient reason in science to reject theories well-supported by experiment.
I didn't say I didn't like it. I don't have a feeling on it one way or another.

What I did say is nobody in history has seen space expand, contract, curve or distort. Simply no human being has ever seen it.

And I'm right.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Typhoon »

Mr. Perfect wrote:Space has never been observed to expand, contract, curve or distort. Just as dark matter has never been observed/detected, it's just a made up physical concept to explain what we don't understand.

Science is not determined by the "best explanation", but rather what can be observed and experimentally verified independently of any other theory. Before relativity and big bang, no scientist or human being ever observed space expanding or contracting, and no scientist ever observed space curving or distorting. They were made up phenomenon to fit math formulas.
This is a repeated pattern.
If it is something you can't be bothered to make an effort to understand
or perhaps cannot comprehend,
then it must be wrong.

Plenty of resources out there for you learn about physics in general and GR in particular.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Typhoon »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Typhoon wrote: "I don't like it." may be a sufficient reason for rejecting breakfast cereals,
but it is not a sufficient reason in science to reject theories well-supported by experiment.
I didn't say I didn't like it. I don't have a feeling on it one way or another.

What I did say is nobody in history has seen space expand, contract, curve or distort. Simply no human being has ever seen it.

And I'm right.
No, but you certainly are consistent.

Gravitational waves, waves of space itself curving, contracting and expanding, have now been directly observed.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Mr. Perfect »

In other words you've never seen space contract, expand, distort, or curve. Don't worry, neither has anyone else.

Next time read the articles before posting them.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Typhoon »

Mr. Perfect wrote:In other words you've never seen space contract, expand, distort, or curve. Don't worry, neither has anyone else.

Next time read the articles before posting them.
The first sentence of the Wikipedia article, "Gravitational waves are ripples in the curvature of spacetime . . ."

FlDtXIBrAYE

Once more, another assertion based on willful lack of any effort at understanding.

Anyways it doesn't matter, as regardless of your uninformed opinions, the field of GR and the rest of science continues to more forward.

Btw, better avoid using a GPS as the system has to take into account both SR and GR effects in order to operate.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Typhoon wrote: The first sentence of the Wikipedia article, "Gravitational waves are ripples in the curvature of spacetime . . ."
Yes, this is a claim, not a fact.
Once more, another assertion based on willful lack of any effort at understanding.
I don't know, I thought it was easy to understand

iphcyNWFD10

"Gravitation waves" are supposed to be detected by discrepancies in light behavior, which seems simple enough to detect. However making up a story about curving space nobody has ever seen doesn't make it science. To paraphrase Tesla, mathematical formula doesn't dictate physical reality.
Anyways it doesn't matter, as regardless of your uninformed opinions, the field of GR and the rest of science continues to more forward.
You've yet to demonstrate in any way how I am uninformed.
Poor strawman. The efficacy of GPS in no way determines if space expands, contracts, curves, distorts, etc.

So I will ask you again. Have you ever observed space expanding, contracting, curving distorting etc, and where can I go to observe this. I'm sitting here in space and it is not contracting, expanding, curving, etc where I am.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Typhoon wrote: Gravitational waves, waves of space itself curving, contracting and expanding, have now been directly observed.
Graviational waves were not observed. Light was observed, and they made up a story about space distorting to explain it.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Typhoon »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Typhoon wrote: The first sentence of the Wikipedia article, "Gravitational waves are ripples in the curvature of spacetime . . ."
Yes, this is a claim, not a fact.
Once more, another assertion based on willful lack of any effort at understanding.
I don't know, I thought it was easy to understand

iphcyNWFD10

"Gravitation waves" are supposed to be detected by discrepancies in light behavior, which seems simple enough to detect. However making up a story about curving space nobody has ever seen doesn't make it science. To paraphrase Tesla, mathematical formula doesn't dictate physical reality.
Tesla, who was the modern Prometheus, was right about some things and wrong about others.
Science and civilization has moved on.

Mathematics is a succinct way of describing the phenomena of the natural world.
We don't know why it works, but it does. It is the basis of our industrial society.

Measuring the phase of EM waves and their interference is a standard method of measuring the change in distance.

The method is known as interferometry and has wide, well established, scientific and engineering applications.

LIGO experiment consists of two such interferometers; the largest and most sensitive built to-date.
Mr. Perfect wrote:
Anyways it doesn't matter, as regardless of your uninformed opinions, the field of GR and the rest of science continues to more forward.
You've yet to demonstrate in any way how I am uninformed.
No need. You've done an outstanding job all on your own.
Mr. Perfect wrote:
Poor strawman. The efficacy of GPS in no way determines if space expands, contracts, curves, distorts, etc.
Nothing strawman about it. GPS simply does not work without taking GR effects into account due to the curvature of space-time near the earth.
Mr. Perfect wrote:So I will ask you again. Have you ever observed space expanding, contracting, curving distorting etc, and where can I go to observe this. I'm sitting here in space and it is not contracting, expanding, curving, etc where I am.
So your line of argument comes down to anything that you cannot directly observe/experience does not exist.
Atoms do not exist. Electrons do not exist. Radio waves do not exist. Microwaves from weather radar and in your oven do not exist.
X-rays in a CT scan do not exist. Hydrogen atom in an MRI scan don't have spin. VLSI transistors do not exist.

It's all a conspiracy by scientists and engineers with their fancy experiments, high falutin' mathematics, and fake technology.

Anyways, I've indulged you with, yet again, an explanation.
Any understanding is up to you.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Typhoon wrote: Tesla, who was the modern Prometheus, was right about some things and wrong about others.
Science and civilization has moved on.

Mathematics is a succinct way of describing the phenomena of the natural world.
We don't know why it works, but it does. It is the basis of our industrial society.

Measuring the phase of EM waves and their interference is a standard method of measuring the change in distance.

The method is known as interferometry and has wide, well established, scientific and engineering applications.

LIGO experiment consists of two such interferometers; the largest and most sensitive built to-date.
Cool stories. However, Tesla rejected Einstein's explanations just as Einstein rejected the big bang. People appeal to authority and reject authority rather predictably; when it fits their biases. In this case I am appealing to the scientific method. That which can be observed and tested repeatedly, so far space expansion, contraction and distortion don't meet the minimum thresholds.
No need. You've done an outstanding job all on your own.
So someone who can explain simple and general relativity in his own words and give demonstration of Einstein's 10 field equations is uninformed? How is that? How is asking questions being uninformed? When I was taught science I was taught asking questions was the heart of science.

If person A asks, "where can I observe the contraction expansion or distortion of space" and person B laughs and scoffs and ridicules, which one is the scientist? Reminds me of Galileo and the Catholic Church.
Nothing strawman about it. GPS simply does not work without taking GR effects into account due to the curvature of space-time near the earth.
Absolutely not. Since the physical phenomenon behind relativity is unknown, by definition it could be things we do not comprehend and therefore can't observe or identify. Just like dark matter.
So your line of argument comes down to anything that you cannot directly observe/experience does not exist.
Atoms do not exist. Electrons do not exist. Radio waves do not exist. Microwaves from weather radar and in your oven do not exist.
X-rays in a CT scan do not exist. Hydrogen atom in an MRI scan don't have spin. VLSI transistors do not exist.
Thank you for acknowledging that mankind has never observed space expanding contracting, and distorting. But before we answer your question, do you acknowledge that atheist scientists argue against the existence of God based on no direct evidence?
It's all a conspiracy by scientists and engineers with their fancy experiments, high falutin' mathematics, and fake technology.
Poor strawman.
Anyways, I've indulged you with, yet again, an explanation.
Any understanding is up to you.
Unfortunately you have not explained anything I haven't heard since US high school, public edition. You did go to great lengths to avoid my scientific inquiry, but ended up having to answer it, indirectly. No one has observed space expanding, contracting, or distorting. This concept was made up by people who needed to make their math work. No observation of this phenomena has ever occurred. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it, but professional scientists go to great lengths to conceal this and avoid it. So to an inquiring scientist, the question is why? Why does the industry no want to answer this question?
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Typhoon »

In 1905, physics left Tesla [unfortunate, given physicists admiration for and appreciation of his achievements] and you [immaterial and inconsequential] behind and has continued to rapidly progress ever since via the scientific method of theory and experiment.

Anyways, enjoy your 19th century understanding of the physical universe.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Typhoon wrote:In 1905, physics left Tesla [unfortunate, given physicists admiration for and appreciation of his achievements] and you [immaterial and inconsequential] behind and has continued to rapidly progress ever since via the scientific method of theory and experiment.
Great stories. Where can someone witness space expanding/contracting/warping/distorting, etc.

You already indicated that it's never happened but still seem to be arguing that it happens anyway.
Anyways, enjoy your 19th century understanding of the physical universe.
Lol it looks better than your fictional understanding. I prefer science to fiction. Pretty soon you'll be arguing multiverses and string theory.

Do you know what's wrong with string theory? Man this stuff never ends.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Typhoon »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Lol it looks better than your fictional understanding. I prefer science to fiction.
You're free to believe whatever you wish.

I'll go with the theory, GR, that describes the most physical phenomena with the least assumptions and has passed all experimental tests to date.

Anyways, always amuses and bemuses me how people argue against something that they have not bothered to first understand.
Mr. Perfect wrote: Pretty soon you'll be arguing multiverses and string theory.
Once again, you presume far too much.

Unlikely unless string theory and the multiverse make testable predictions that pass experimental tests.
Mr. Perfect wrote:Do you know what's wrong with string theory? Man this stuff never ends.
Well, I have used the Polyakov action in my own work due to it's mathematical properties: conformal and diffeomorphic
While my work is unrelated to string theory in the context of attempting to unify gravitation and elementary particle physics,
I do have some understanding of the issues.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Typhoon wrote: You're free to believe whatever you wish.

I'll go with the theory, GR, that describes the most physical phenomena with the least assumptions and has passed all experimental tests to date.

Anyways, always amuses and bemuses me how people argue against something that they have not bothered to first understand.
You keep making this false statement and I find it interesting. It's as if you need to believe it for some reason. I can explain special relativity and general relativity in my own words and I have a remedial handle on the field equations. I am in the top 1% of the human population in understanding and using all kinds of science including relativity.

But knowing how to plug numbers into equations doesn't force space to contract, expand, contort, distort or bend. None of those things have been witnessed or experimentally observed in nature. Tesla pointed this out very succinctly.

There is simply no observation of these things and as such should not be considered science. Much like dark matter.
Typhoon wrote: Well, I have used the Polyakov action in my own work due to it's mathematical properties: conformal and diffeomorphic
While my work is unrelated to string theory in the context of attempting to unify gravitation and elementary particle physics,
I do have some understanding of the issues.
I'm rusty on the terminology, but the problem with string theory is the problem with a lot of theory. String theory supposes a smallest particle, that there must be some smallest particle or element, or whatever word they use.

The problem is that it might not exist. Just as the universe can be infinitely large it can be infinitely small. We can zoom in to infinity. There may be infinitely smaller particles.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Typhoon »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Typhoon wrote: You're free to believe whatever you wish.

I'll go with the theory, GR, that describes the most physical phenomena with the least assumptions and has passed all experimental tests to date.

Anyways, always amuses and bemuses me how people argue against something that they have not bothered to first understand.
You keep making this false statement and I find it interesting. It's as if you need to believe it for some reason. I can explain special relativity and general relativity in my own words and I have a remedial handle on the field equations. I am in the top 1% of the human population in understanding and using all kinds of science including relativity.

But knowing how to plug numbers into equations doesn't force space to contract, expand, contort, distort or bend. None of those things have been witnessed or experimentally observed in nature. Tesla pointed this out very succinctly.

There is simply no observation of these things and as such should not be considered science. Much like dark matter.
Typhoon wrote: Well, I have used the Polyakov action in my own work due to it's mathematical properties: conformal and diffeomorphic
While my work is unrelated to string theory in the context of attempting to unify gravitation and elementary particle physics,
I do have some understanding of the issues.
I'm rusty on the terminology, but the problem with string theory is the problem with a lot of theory. String theory supposes a smallest particle, that there must be some smallest particle or element, or whatever word they use.

The problem is that it might not exist. Just as the universe can be infinitely large it can be infinitely small. We can zoom in to infinity. There may be infinitely smaller particles.
Not even wrong.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Completely right all the way down to the dots.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Typhoon »

Mr. Perfect wrote:Completely right all the way down to the dots.
Nope. You've clearly and unequivocally demonstrated your current inability to understand any physics beyond classical Newtonian mechanics.

So you have a bit of catching up ahead of you. From 1687 to 2017.

Should you ever do so, will be happy to discuss again.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Mr. Perfect »

No, I stated all that in my own words. I understand that the claims are the space expands and distorts, and I know what they mean when they say that. I've known it for a very long time.

But like Tesla, I observed there is nothing observable at all to suggest that it's science, and you were unable to to provide anything to support your beliefs. Tesla and I are both right.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Lol, this theory isn't going to last much longer. This is from a "scientist"

dbm3M9Bz4RE
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Parodite wrote: The theory that organic life emerged naturally makes sense because eveything we observe and know thus emerges (and disappears) naturally.
Until you study it for 5 minutes. Then it becomes impossible. As everyone has capitulated to.

What you are proposing is a tautological fallacy.
Unless you see miracle in everything natural - which is what I tend to do. Can strongly recommend it :)

Bigbang also is a viable theory given the red shift etc.
Bigbang is not viable because space doesn't expand or contract or distort or whatever. It's not possible.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5638
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by Parodite »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Parodite wrote: The theory that organic life emerged naturally makes sense because eveything we observe and know thus emerges (and disappears) naturally.
Until you study it for 5 minutes. Then it becomes impossible. As everyone has capitulated to.

What you are proposing is a tautological fallacy.
Maybe we live in different paralel universes after all. Here it is quite normal new things emerge before they change and eventually disappear again. Miraculously natural.
Unless you see miracle in everything natural - which is what I tend to do. Can strongly recommend it :)

Bigbang also is a viable theory given the red shift etc.
Bigbang is not viable because space doesn't expand or contract or distort or whatever. It's not possible.
BB and expansion of space are two diffent (but related) theories. Typhoon posted something interesting about an expanding universe where human beings and other things don't expand with it. Where space and time cannot be considered separate dimensions, and where also combined as space-time they raise other questions.

Will remind that space and time, like the color of things out there in the world, are experiential and as such properties of conscious brain process, a representation of what is "out there" that however arise in the brain. A little caveat usually kept out of the equations.
Deep down I'm very superficial
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Parodite wrote: Maybe we live in different paralel universes after all. Here it is quite normal new things emerge before they change and eventually disappear again. Miraculously natural.
No we live in the same universe. But you are back to the earlier fallacy, that is if one thing happens anything can happen. If lightning causes forest fires then pigs can achieve lunar orbit. There are very hard limits on what is possible in the universe. Abiotic genesis doesn't have a chance. It isn't possible.
BB and expansion of space are two diffent (but related) theories. Typhoon posted something interesting about an expanding universe where human beings and other things don't expand with it. Where space and time cannot be considered separate dimensions, and where also combined as space-time they raise other questions.

Will remind that space and time, like the color of things out there in the world, are experiential and as such properties of conscious brain process, a representation of what is "out there" that however arise in the brain. A little caveat usually kept out of the equations.
All cool stories, but the issue is that none of it is science and they are passed off as science and enforced as science using fascist tactics.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Okay, so we've established that big bang and abiotic genesis of life are not science and in fact are impossible, well I found a guy who can do the same thing for evolution itself.

It's all over. The question is, what will evolutionists do when their worldview is demonstrated to be false? My guess is double down.

Bart Rask MD is a surgeon who does surgery on evolutionary theory and leaves it dead on the ground. This is a 3 hour video but the good Dr gets going about 18 minutes and his presentation is about 20 minutes. Brilliance.

2_kaVotvF48
Censorship isn't necessary
Post Reply