New Categories / Forums

Comments

• Distinti Posts: 38

  August 2014 edited April 2020

  I keep getting these links to competing theories (see below). At first I thought that maybe we should start a new section for review of competing theories. That way I can just refer people to the review section and be done with it.
  
  But after some though I realized that it does not benefit the cause to waste time explaining why these competing theories are gibberish (which could potentially bring a lawsuit )
  
  I think the best approach is Just to make an second installment on how to identify junk science. The first video had tell tales with regard to mainstream science. The second installment will be telltales with regard to alternative theories. This way I can show people how to spot gibberish without pointing anyone in particular, and without having to spend anymore time on it.
  
  
  Here is what I got the other day.
  
  Hi mate. check this out and tell me what you think
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  I looked at a little bit of these, you guys should be able to spot all of the failings (like using the model of light that engineers abandoned over 50 years ago (see emv000 in case you need a refresher))
  
  Here is one of the new rile of identifying junk science (I have not assigned a number yet)
  
  New Junk Science Tell: When someone states that mother nature does not do math OR that their theory is too complicated to be described mathematically, then what they are really saying is they don't know math.
  
  A theory that can not be described mathematically can not be modeled by computer and is therefore of no use.
  
  In my videos I show that mathematics can describe universes of infinite dimensions and even fractional dimensions and that the real universe is only a subset of that. So anyone who states that their theory is beyond math is a fool; because any good theory require both logical text discussion supported by math as an alternate expression in case the Text isn't quite clear. Math without out logic and reason is gibberish and logic and reason without math is philosophy. Neither gibberish nor philosophy will break the light barrier.
  
  finally, the mere fact that humans exist in nature and can do math, means that nature in fact does math.
  
  Perhaps we should start a section of the rules of identifying junk science that you guys generate -- its up to you
• Menaus Posts: 21

  August 2014 edited April 2020

  That Theoria Apophasis guy is a huge ball of 'fun'. I say this because I've spoken with him on another forum featuring bad science, and had to deal with him. He's super arrogant, ignores constructive criticism, spouts ad hominem, and is very, very close minded. He insists on calling everything magneto-dielectricity, rather than electromagnetism, among a bunch of other garbage.
  
  It should be super easy to see what bad science is. The biggest indicator is the rejection of mathematics, the next is an incomplete, and/or illogical argument, or one from an uninformed, ignorant, or knowledgeable standpoint. For instance, it is easy to see that Miles Mathis' work is bad science, since he thinks that force equals mass times velocity. His argument is that if we take two object going a constant speed, and smash them together, then there still is a force between those object. Anyone slightly familiar with Newton's laws of motion will understand how fallacious that thought-experiment is. Although the two objects are indeed moving at a constant velocity before their collision, after they collide they experience acceleration in the form of slowing down, and that is when the force happens between these two objects.