I am a physicist. This is HS but as a scientist I cannot call someone else’s theory BS even if it is without an experimental or theoretical refutation. Therefore cold fusion and climate change stand because you can’t prove them wrong even though they are BS.
I am a physicist. This is HS but as a scientist I cannot call someone else’s theory BS even if it is without an experimental or theoretical refutation. Therefore cold fusion and climate change stand because you can’t prove them wrong even though they are BS.
+++++
Well said AJ, well said. Easily worth repeating.
“Therefore cold fusion and climate change stand because you can’t prove them wrong even though they are BS.”
With climate change they keep changing the model. Hardly what would be called settled science.
Is there such a thing as dark matter? Or is it only equations on a white board to make up for what is believe missing mass between celestial bodies?
Is there such a thing as dark energy? What is it?
Is the known universe still expanding or retracting to go back to another big bang from a super-heated and super-condensed basketball? Does Red Shift still apply?
Is there any empirical evidence of multi universes?
Can the event horizon at a black hole actually distort time? I believe time is a human construct.
Are we sure the speed of photons in light is the absolute speed of everything in the cosmos?
My biggest question always, what is gravity? Recently, some have tried to categorize gravity as an energy source. Could be, but they didn't explain how that energy came to be.
Seems to me that those with brilliant minds include many un-proven answers/theories into a generic "energy" category.
How about “catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming” is BS, while climate change has been and always will be. It’s just not our fault.
And while cold fusion as first discussed might be BS, LENR (low energy nuclear reactions) is now a field with some significant investment and effort.
https://asiatimes.com/2019/11/cold-fusion-1-a-potential-energy-gamechanger/
And the proposal that the universe is “energy”?
When 80% of the matter is (currently) undetectable dark matter, and the Casimir effect is proven and measured, and engineers are making computers that may use quantum entanglement in their operation... who knows?
The more we know, the more we find that we know less than we thought we did when we knew less than we do now.
To quote the Wicked Witch of the West...
“Oh, what a world, what a world!”
btt
“I am a physicist. This is HS but as a scientist I cannot call someone else’s theory BS even if it is without an experimental or theoretical refutation. Therefore cold fusion and climate change stand because you can’t prove them wrong even though they are BS.”
So we come to one physicist’s rule: “When I can’t understand something or refute it, call it BS.”
“you can’t prove them wrong even though they are BS”
The hallmark of a good scientific theory is specifying a way it can be disproved, preferably when the normally expected results would disprove the theory. In other words, if they can’t be proven wrong they are BS as far as science is concerned.