[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.

[ajkjk]

Nah. I am confident in my ability to identify a coherent theory if I see one, and I am sure that that ability would hold up under scrutiny (say, if a physicist prepared a test of some coherent and incoherent theories and tested me to see if I could tell them apart). So I'm concluding this theory is incoherent according to my fairly well-informed ability to analyze theories.

It's not that "I don't understand it". It's just that it's meaningless. If it's meaningless as English language, it's definitely meaningless as physics. And there is nothing "lazy" about that argument.

Also, clearly I am thinking for myself since I am writing all my thoughts out for you. So that's a pretty pointless attack.

There is absolutely no requirement for a person to have a UFT in order to be able to criticize other people's writing. This is obvious.

[cm127]

Look: I'll just state what is bothering me about your comments: you're trying to assert your opinion as scientific fact / proof without a scientific explanation; you're trying to force me to blindly believe whatever you say.

It bothers me when people can't explain their views; it tells me they're more comfortable to listening than talking, and that they should only listen to select sources because they're too lazy (or possibly scared) to form a dissenting opinion on their own.

You could absolutely be right that Dr. LaViolette is completely wrong, -- but we're not going to know for sure unless we challenge our selves by challenging different theories. Deciding the outcome without any inquiry is practically psychotic: you're denying reality under the delusion that your pride knows everything.

The lecture is interesting because there is a history in electrogravitics from the early 20th century that suddenly became classified in the 1950s. The decade's obsession in flying saucers and UFOs actually derived from real prototypes these aerospace companies were making.

The implication that these companies have possibly suppressed research in this field is daunting, but seeing the universe as a continuous expansion from a higher energy that everything derives from is also transcending.

Again, the theory could be completely wrong, -- but if it somehow is miraculously correct it'd be a shame to not see it all because of some silly pride.

LOL! If you'd ask me if I would be having conversations about anti-gravity a month ago, I'd probably laugh, too. Ugh! It feels hilariously ironic because I've laughed at these people, too. It's almost like we're conditioned to think this way.

Anyways, cheers! Good luck; God bless!

[ajkjk]

I'm not rejecting his theory because of pride or blindness. I'm rejecting it because I evaluated it with my brain and determined it to be bad. I'm saying that it is possible to 'know for sure' in some cases, insofar as my brain is working correctly. This is 2+2=5 stuff. I'm as sure he is wrong from reading his writing as I am sure that 2+2=4, because it's dead simple reading comprehension to be able to tell, if you have a bit of physics background.

I'm telling you that it seems like you don't have the background to evaluate theories correctly, and so you should take note that this is a bad theory and if you think it sounds reasonable, you need to figure out why and correct that in your intuition.

The level of expertise required to realize this guy is a moron is around first year undergraduate physics. That's all. I'm totally serious.

Yes, I'm speaking with unearned authority, having no credentials to share or anything like that. All I can tell you is that I think I know my stuff and I am absolutely confident in my judgment here.

There are theories that I would take seriously in the world. This is not one of them.

This is an example of a recent paper that proposes a theory that is not part of mainstream acceptance, but is not obviously wrong and deserves consideration: https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269 .

Note how different it looks. How it has math, arguments, and rigor. How it knows the current state of research in the field. How it isn't posted on a series of fringe websites that seem to all be owned by the same few people. How it doesn't have to tell you there's a conspiracy to suppress it, because its merits stand on their own.

Also, you have to stop accusing me of 'not explaining my views' and 'thinking what academics or governments tell me to". I've written you several thousand words of my views, so those attacks are clearly baseless.

[cm127]

How do you know you're not being taught 2+2=5. No one is close to figuring out a unifying field theory based on "The Standard Model" and Relativity, so in many ways it doesn't really make sense to obsess over these old models. Fermat's Last Theorem didn't take hundreds of years to postulate -- only to prove.

So... properties of the models you obsess over are kinda baseless: it hides the fact that the theories are still incomplete.

Seriously, what's the point in obsessing over incomplete theorems? Just to get the same grant money to write the same dribble over and over, so all new theories look the same: "promising" yet still missing the ultimate goal: a unifying field theorem.

The formulas are presented and coherently explained in both the lecture and the book. Yes, I have a BSEE, and yes I've always had issues with our current model, -- especially with dielectric materials; it's literally filled with holes.

So, yeah... quit the pretentious talk. I use to believe everything you're selling: institutions know everything; agree with authority and get your degree or grant money. Subquantum Kinetics might not be the answer, but it has an interesting approach that finally unifies fields.

There are plenty of videos on YouTube of people creating their own T.T. Brown experiments. The Model G is just a theory just like the Standard Model only it is literally more unified. Already it's a better theorem because both aren't quite proven -- they're still just theories; (again, properties of each theories are proven, but that doesn't ultimately prove the model is 100% correct or not), -- but the difference between the two models is Model G has a unified field theorem.

Again, I wish you luck; God bless!