0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Could this be one of the rare mysteries where philosophy could provide the answer?
I always like to have a look at something different, but after I brief followup of your links I have to say that I will probably not spend much of my very limited time reading a lot more. I found the verbiage off-putting, and wonder about the testability of a theory that has a large number of hyperspheres at its heart; given that, as far as I am aware, no one has shown that a hypersphere is anything other than a mathematical concept.
I'm open to conversion, though.
he scientific method is intrinsically flawed,
Quote from: Paradigmer on 20/05/2018 15:29:50he scientific method is intrinsically flawed, Would you like to summarise the evidence for that in a few sentences, for those of us who don't want to struggle through some ratehr unreadable text?
I will probably not spend much of my very limited time reading a lot more.
Quote from: silvaservice on 31/01/2015 23:34:50Could this be one of the rare mysteries where philosophy could provide the answer?If we compare scientific theories to organisms, mutations can happen by several reasons, and what we call philosophy are a source of them. But most of the mutations are failures. The role of natural selection is played by maths and experiments. Some mutations succeed and theories change.
This isn’t really a question on a science topic but a presentation of a new theory and an alternative to the current scientific method.As such it will get better coverage in New Theories section
The scientific method is intrinsically flawed, it is merely meant for pragmatic theory of truth.
Quote from: Paradigmer on 20/05/2018 15:29:50The scientific method is intrinsically flawed, it is merely meant for pragmatic theory of truth.Hello Paradigmer, I do not think the above quoted is true in any sense, if scientific method was meerly relating to philosophical or political pragmatism, then we would not have science such as nuclear power etc. Achievements like this showing us that science is not pragmatic theory of truth.
Is there anything In particular of science you are referring too and would like to ''touch'' on ?
Any one keen to explore a UVS topic on "The cognitive paradox fallacy in cosmic inflation on accelerated expansion of space"?And let me know why you think the scientific method is not intrinsically flawed?
Quote from: Paradigmer on 20/10/2018 14:16:24Any one keen to explore a UVS topic on "The cognitive paradox fallacy in cosmic inflation on accelerated expansion of space"?And let me know why you think the scientific method is not intrinsically flawed?The bottom line is that all science (talking about atom stuff & cosmic stuff here) is flawed because Einsteinians turn kids into Einsteinians whilst censoring anti-Einsteinians. If i were in charge of a big science project i would have a B-team whose job was to identify all of the shortcomings of the A-team's theory & experiment & data-crunching. The use of double-blind peer review is good, but u need peer review before & during as well as after, u need a B-team.
Re cosmic expansion, the science is rubbish. In the first instance it relies on there being a bigbang. No bigbang then no cosmic expansion. Below i mention four different science facts that each kill cosmic expansion on their own.(1) Crothers has an article showing that the bigbang is rubbish. (2) Cahill has an article showing that the latest (Nobel) results dont show expansion. (3) Ranzan has an article explaining the real cause of redshift. (4) Arp has pointed out severe inconsistencies in the measured redshift of certain stars & galaxies.
The scientific method is intrinsically flawed, it is merely meant for pragmatic theory of truth. With the flaw the theory of everything can never be found; the ToE would be dismissed even if it was found. Check this out: Critiques of the scientific methodAlso, the paradoxical effect of nature would subliminally negate from many aspects to prevent the ToE from being recognised.For those who are game enough to explore a propositional ToE, check this out: Universal Vortical Singularity
Universal Vortical Singularity.That can be a "lot" easier done using the Fibonacci sequence for an algorithm of time as a circle. Hit my website to find out how.
You did not provide the link to your website.Does it explain UVS?