[cm127]

You can't use a hypothetical to disprove a theory. Your entire comment is completely baseless: "These people don't follow my school of thought, so they must be wrong!"

No offense, but using your ego to make an argument is pathetic. I'm aware the theory sounds crazy; I'm not an idiot. But I'm also not going to let my hubris dictate what I can or can't research. That's just stupid.

[ajkjk]

No, you don't understand. I'm not trying to disprove a theory. I'm saying that the person who's writing what we're reading hasn't said anything even meaningful enough to dispute. The words they write don't have logical content as a theory. You can sort of squeeze them into statements that sound possible at a hand-waving level, but there's no scientific content. They're "not even wrong" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong).

I'm not rejecting the guy cause of hubris or because I'm obsessed with the orthodoxy or something. I'm rejecting him cause his words are meaningless garbage, according to my ability to critically analyze what he's writing. Of course it's possible that I'm too dumb to understand them, but, statistically speaking, when I can understand most of the good physics out there, I come to trust my intuition on this stuff and write off people who can't communicate an idea at even a basic level without become super vague and defending themselves by saying "no one's taking them seriously" and "everyone else missed this" instead of an actual argument.

I guess it boils down to this:

If you can't tell this guy is crazy, how would you tell that anyone is crazy? Is there anything that can be written down that you wouldn't take seriously? Maybe something like "what if the world is made of tiny lemons, in various configurations?" Well, I draw the line way higher than that, and considerably higher than where this guy is, and I can see that he's below the line with five seconds of reading, and it's no surprise at all when 5 more minutes of reading, or 30, or whatever, completely corroborates my initial instinct.

Edit: actually, it boils down to this: Your ability, cm127, to critically analyze theories and determine if they're scientifically meaningful is deficient. You don't have to believe me, of course, cause this is the internet, but I implore you to consider the possibility.

Edit 2: also, you're wrong that "you can't use a hypothetical to disprove a theory" - well, almost wrong. You can use a hypothetical to argue against a theory. It's not that it's disproving. It's that the hypothetical shows you "here are some things that would probably be true if this theory was legitimate", and because those things are not true, it raises the probability (via Bayes rule) that the theory is incorrect. You are supposed to consider this, think "ah, well, that makes the theory more likely to be incorrect". That's the point of the argument.

Also, it's really disingenuous to write off a whole post as baseless without responding to the points, each of which (I would argue) is a valid criticism.

[cm127]

Here's another form of crazy: trying to force Relativity into a unified field for over a hundred years and getting nowhere. Yeah, you'll "probably" get it one day...

What did Einstein use to say? "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

BTW, if you can't argue logically, -- which is essentially all I'm getting from your comments: you can't talk about "science" outside of your echo chamber; it's "beneath" you, -- who cares what you think?

Either drop the emotional act and think like a scientist, or quit wasting both our time.

Edit: the joke is all your arguments are just as rhetorical.

Edit2: you're also making an ironic comment that the theory needs more research while arguing that it shouldn't.

[danbruc]

Here's another form of crazy: trying to force Relativity into a unified field for over a hundred years and getting nowhere. Yeah, you'll "probably" get it one day...

I mean that statement is pure rhetorics, but anyway, you are surly aware that it took 358 years to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, a mathematical theorem where everyone was aware of the axioms and no experiments had to be done?

Either drop the emotional act and think like a scientist, or quit wasting both our time.

You are really not understanding what ajkjk is trying to say. I absolutely agree with him and don't think it can be stated much clearer than he did. But maybe you can realize it yourself. I found »Subquantum Kinetics: A Systems Approach to Physics and Cosmology« at Google Books [1], skimmed it a bit and now have a simple question. Which model describes our universe, Model G or Model G-2? And which experiment produced which outcome to make that decision for one and against the other model?

Maybe trying to answer this very simple question, which of the proposed equations describe our universe, will make you realize that this theory has no answers at all.

[1] https://books.google.de/books?id=8HQJAvA1EqkC

[cm127]

Jesus Christ, I'm not your professor. Do your own research.

You have the skills to read about this stuff. Why do you need me?

I'm not trying to convince you to believe in anything. I just wanted to have a conversation about how anti-gravity can or can't be possible, but you're just refusing the conversation altogether. That's just so lazy...

[danbruc]

You are either trolling or unwilling or unable to follow simple arguments, choose whatever seems appropriate.

[cm127]

Seriously? Bringing up a researched subject is trolling because I don't know all the answers you're postulating as if I've studied this extensively for years..?

Is this how "scientists" treat new theories? Unless they're bundled into a nice package the theory is completely untouchable?

Please don't tell me that's true because that would mean "science" is a joke. It literally means the community can't think for themselves: they need a leader to prove their understanding.

Pathetic. Call me a troll all you want, but I will never be that pathetic.

[ajkjk]

No, I did not say that it needs more research. I said that it's meaningless drivel. And I said that I am capable of discerning that, and that it is easy to discern. You seem not to be able to discern that, and that's unfortunate. All I can do is show you how to do it, which I have attempted.

The reason real physicists ignore this guy is because they do 'think like scientists', and they can tell -- easily -- that this stuff is, as I have said, meaningless drivel. The reasons they can easily tell this are the reasons I listed above.

[cm127]

What specifically makes the theory drivel? Exactly, what is scientifically not matching?

Take your time because I'm pretty sure you don't have the mental capacity to think for yourself. You depend on a government or an academy to think for you because you're so cognitively incompetent.

Let's take a step back and count the number of comments you're arguing without scientific explanation. You might as well be preaching about a religious deity because you're conjuring more faith than logic.

[ajkjk]

It's drivel because the individual sentences of the 'theory' are just .. meaningless. Here's an absolutely trivial exercise to demonstrate it: let's find a paper he wrote and see if it makes any sense. (Turns out these are hard to find, because most of his work is apparently creating websites about how great he is.)

Take a random paper I found: http://vixra.org/pdf/0910.0006v1.pdf

"It conceives subatomic particles to be Turing wave patterns that self-organize within a subquantum medium that functions as an open reaction-diffusion system."

This is meaningless. But maybe if I read on I'll find out that it's just extremely poorly written?

"Under the right conditions, the concentrations of the variable reactants of these reaction systems spontaneously self-organize into stationary reactiondiffusion wave patterns called Turing patterns, so named in recognition of Alan Turing who in 1952 was the first to point out their importance for biological morphogenesis. "

Also meaningless.

"In a three-dimensional volume we would expect that a supercritical Brusselator reaction-diffusion system would give rise to a periodic structure having a Gaussian central core surrounded by a pattern of concentric spherical shells of declining amplitude"

Gibberish.

"Etherons in this reaction system play a morphogenetic role similar to Turing's morphogens."

Gibberish

Etc.

This paper says nothing meaningful. It's not precise enough to be parsed into predictions about the universe. He'll tell you that it predicts stuff, but the words and equations don't. They don't say anything that can be unambiguously mapped to predictions, equations, or statements of any sort. I could throw all these words - etherons, Brusselators, Turing waves, etc into a random text generator, and the result would be as meaningful as his actual writing.

That or, it has content but it's so obfuscated under meaningless jargon with no meaningful explanations, no simple sentences, no ability to explain a single point lucidly, that it effectively says nothing.

Either way, there is no reason to take it seriously if it can't formulate meaningful and communicative English sentences.

Also, it's extremely weird to accuse me of depending on a government to think for me when I've generated like a dozen carefully argued rational thoughts here, including all sorts of scientific explanation. You're just.. ignoring them, and attacking me. You have to stop that.

[cm127]

Complaining about linguistic specifications is not arguing rational thoughts; it's arguing laziness.

Seriously, concede that you don't understand the theory and therefore can't make certain judgements (because you arguably can't think for yourself), or STFU. Why is this is so complicated?

Do you have a unified field theory? No? Then by definition you literally don't understand how the universe works. Ironically, you should use that fact to accept why you might be wrong about Subquantum Kinetics.