Video Transcription: Death to Einstein! The Pseudoscience Flaw

This is a transcription of my video Death to Einstein! The Pseudoscience Flaw
Also on Archive.org: https://archive.org/details/DeathToEinsteinThePseudoscienceFlaw

According to Wikipedia, “scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. Further, the overall process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions…The hypothesis might be very specific or it might be broad.”

As a sidenote, I’ve found that if you even refer to Wikipedia or use any of their diagrams, which are exact duplicates of diagrams that are used elsewhere in what are taken to be more “reputable” sources -- the moment you talk or write about a scientific topic and then refer to Wikipedia in the same breath, the attitude is, “Nothing you say can possibly be correct, because you’re referring to Wikipedia. You’ve gotten your education on relativity from Wikipedia. Anyone can put anything on Wikipedia. It’s not a valid source of information, so the very fact that you’re referring to it calls into question everything you say. Your knowledge is suspect.”

My response to that attitude is, “Whatever.” Wikipedia is a good source. I know enough to know whether what I’m reading is actually valid or not. I know when I’m being BS’d on Wikipedia. And I learned relativity long before Wikipedia was even the barest seed of an idea in the minds of Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. So if you disregard what I say or write because I happen to refer to Wikipedia -- not my problem. Wikipedia is fine, in this case.

Returning to the Wikipedia quote regarding scientific theories:

Based on the above, relativity (both the special and the general theories) makes the broad hypothesis that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, or alternately, that there are no privileged reference frames. This is the basic, core hypothesis upon which all other facets of relativity are based.

Is this a testable, falsifiable hypothesis? Yes, it is.

"Sure it's wrong, but we knew it all along."

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0619/New-findings-could-rewrite-scientists-model-of-how-universe-hangs-together


     "The reigning theory of particle physics may be flawed, according to new evidence that a subatomic particle decays in a certain way more often than it should, scientists announced."
     The hell you say. Color me all kinds of surprised that the Standard Model may be flawed. And yes, I know the operative words are "may be." 
     "But many physicists suspect the Standard Model has some holes in it..."
     In other words, "We knew it was wrong all along." BS!
     Time to get out the spackle and start filling in those holes, eh, boys? Dark matter, dark energy...what are you going to pull out of your butts this time?
     The thing that really irritates me about stuff like this is, people like me get ridiculed for saying that currently accepted theories are wrong. Mainstream people call us crackpots. They say we don't really understand the theories, because if we did, we would agree with them. You can't challenge the accepted theories, because you can't argue with the evidence.
     But...is it that I and other crackpots don't really understand the theories, or is it quite possible that we do understand them, better than those who adhere to the theories? Maybe we understand them so thoroughly that we see what bunk the theories are. 
     It doesn't matter that I don't understand the math behind the theories and couldn't perform one of the sort required by theory if my life depended on it. I understand the concepts behind the theories, and if the concepts are bullshit, then no matter how correct the math is, the theory is still bullshit. If the theory is wrong, you can doodle all sorts of equations onto a blackboard and insist that your theory is correct, but wrong is wrong, no matter what sort of mathematical acrobatics you perform.
     Mainstream people also say, "Well, you don't have an alternative to the standard theories. At least we've got something." So what? I don't believe in things simply because there is no viable alternative out there. I don't know what the correct theories are, but I know what they aren't. They aren't the Standard Model, and they aren't Relativity, and they aren't quantum mechanics.

Another rant on dark matter

In regard to dark matter, you could say, “Well, astronomers were able to predict the existence of planets in our solar system that had not yet been directly observed, because the unseen planets perturbed the orbits of already-observed planets. It’s the same situation with dark matter. We know its there because it’s perturbing the motion of visible matter in distant space.”

But it’s not the same situation. Where unseen planets are concerned, astronomers weren’t positing the existence of a new form of matter with very unusual properties. They were merely saying, “There should be a planet in this orbit, because the orbit of this other planet doesn’t quite fit theory.” There’s nothing wrong with that type of prediction. But with dark matter, scientists aren’t doing that. They’re saying, “There should be a completely new form of matter with very unusual properties all around us, because the motion of distant matter isn’t behaving according to theory.”

Now, if the planet-hunting astronomers had said, “There should be a completely new form of matter with very unusual properties in this orbit, because the orbit of this other planet doesn’t quite fit theory,” it would be a different story. THAT would be an absurd, unwarranted leap of logic, and it’s precisely the leap scientists are making when they concoct dark matter to patch the hole in their Big Bang theory. 

The reason scientists aren't resorting to everyday, familiar objects to explain the motion of distant matter is because the discrepancies between observed and predicted motions aren't the only problems faced by cosmologists. Dark matter is being invented to explain other discrepancies as well. Ordinary matter won't fit the bill. 

Arsenic-eating life: peer review vs. blogging

There's an interesting debate going on, centered around the "arsenic-eating" life that was recently discovered by a team of NASA-based researchers. What's interesting to me is the issue of peer review versus blogging. To me, "peer review" means, not only that the science in the article has been checked out by "those in the know," but also that the article in question has been scrutinized to make sure it doesn't contain any heresy against the Currently Accepted Dogma of the church of Science. It's funny how in the comments to the above referenced article, a lot of commentators equate non-peer-reviewed blog posts with the so-called "religious right." One commentator, echoing the general sentiment, says, "Considering blog comments aren't peer reviewed, why don't these blogging scientists just adopt a flippin' religion and base their critique on that?" 

It's funny how scientists regard anyone who dares to question peer-reviewed studies as unworthy of the public's attention. Anyone who questions the accepted "truth" is automatically a crackpot, or a religious nut, or a dimwit. Mainstream science, for all its purported interest in discovery and advancement, only allows certain questions to be asked, and only certain theoretical avenues to be explored, only by people who have been deemed to be "knowledgeable," which really means people who adhere to accepted dogma. Anything and anyone else is heretical, and needs to be censored or censured.