Fwd: Personal Wiki-List: What is Science and what is Pseudo-Science



Subject: Personal Wiki-List: What is Science and what is Pseudo-Science
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 15:40:19 EDT

There are well known philosophical rules governing what is science and what is pseudo-science. Notably the mediaeval Ockham Razor, which states that a theory must be as simple as possible, the idols of the cave philosophy of Francis Bacon, which states that a theory must be tested against experimental data, and thirdly that a theory must be mathematically correct. I would add that a theory of natural philosophy must produce observables that may be directly tested against data. The ECE theory is therefore scientific on all these well known grounds. The standard physics on the other hand is obsolete and incorrect. The so called “establishment” has been replaced spontaneously. If one wishes to draw up a wiki-list of pseudo-science then I would include the following.

1) The Einstein field equation is easily shown to be wildly incorrect. 2) So there was no big bang, no black holes, no Schwarzschild metric. 3) All metrics of the Einstein field equation are incorrect, with computer algebra this is easily shown to be the case now, whatever computer language one cares to implement. 4) There is no dark matter, this is an ad hoc unobservable. 5) There is no dark flow, and no dark universe. 6) The U(1) sector symmetry of electromagnetism is incorrect, as shown for example in notes 131, and on numerous other occasions. 6) The unobservables of physics include: any dimension higher than four, i.e. all string theory; teh Copenhagen indeterminacy, the Dirac sea; virtual particles; the internal spaces of gauge theory, dimensional regularization, spontaneous symmetry braking, the non-simply connected vacuum, the Higgs mechanism; confined quarks; supersymmetries; approximate symmetries and many other unobservables of the mathematical idol of the cave.

In addition the conduct of the pseudoscientifc establishment is such that it tries to cover up basic errors, and tries repeatedly to assert errors in new science when none exist. This intellectual dishonesty is widespread throughout the physics system and journal system and there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for it on _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) alone. This is pseudo-science and at its worst, criminal conduct. It has been rejected by entire professions, judging by the feedback to the ECE sites.

Civil List Scientist


%d bloggers like this: