[paul cotter (OP)]

The quantity of absolute nonsense associated with physics theory on this forum is, to me, almost beyond belief. Posters without any real understanding but plenty of buzzwords decide accepted theory and principles are wrong and they know better. I am baffled as to why this happens and almost invariably it is impossible to direct these posters to a better understanding.

[Petrochemicals]

Because people can achieve fame and money by making their careers out of unprovable nonsense. Parallel worlds are nothing new, science fiction writers have long written of them, now careers are made trying to scientifically espouse them. I personally am trying to prove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, being the pastafarian I am.

[Halc]

I am baffled as to why this happens and almost invariably it is impossible to direct these posters to a better understanding.

The site simply has far lower standards than most of the science sites. Most will kick off these clowns in short order, but they're allowed here as long as they stay in the playpen. Some sites allow speculations, but only when backed by evidence. No such requirement here.

Because people can achieve fame and money by making their careers out of unprovable nonsense.

That they can, but not by posting their nonsense in a place like this site. Nobody has ever achieved anything but ridicule here, and the occasional approval of other cranks. Knowing how to sell crap to a paying audience is an old artform.

Parallel worlds are nothing new

Parallel worlds are not nonsense, despite the nonsense sci-fi depictions of them. But the views that suggest them make no empirical predictions either, so they're not really science either. Useful, but just philosophy of sorts, which is why say graduate level quantum mechanics courses barely touch on such views.

now careers are made trying to scientifically espouse them.

Again, not by posting on forums like this one.

I personally am trying to prove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, being the pastafarian I am.

Just like last-Tuesdayism, the point is the attempt to falsify the view, not to prove it. If you don't get that, you probably don't get the FSM.

[Petrochemicals]

.

I personally am trying to prove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, being the pastafarian I am.

Just like last-Tuesdayism, the point is the attempt to falsify the view, not to prove it. If you don't get that, you probably don't get the FSM.

bingo! Now if you would explain precisely how to even start proving multiple realities are false, that will go along way to explaining how to rid this universe of alleged science rubbish the op asks about. Other than that he's up a creek without a paddle.

[evan_au]

One aspect of the Naked Scientists podcast is to educate.
- When I was young (probably primary school?), I couldn't understand why a perpetual motion machine was impossible
- So I have some sympathy with others who have trouble grasping entropy

Some people really want to understand if/why their theory has problems - and they will get advice here (sometimes harshly, if they don't pay attention the first time).
- Abusive participants get booted quickly
- As do advertisers

If you don't like looking after children in the playpen, don't read the New Theories.

[alancalverd]

how to even start proving multiple realities are false,

I think the answer is in the question. Reality is what we observe, and we only observe one thing.

"Many worlds" is simply a generalisation of the "principle of least action". You can describe an infinite number of hypothetical paths between two states of a system but in practice only one path is followed, and it is the one predicted by the principle. You can describe a complex system as a "world" with several identifiable elements, so its gamut of hypothetical evolutions consists of many "worlds", but only one actually evolves. 

[syhprum]

It is not difficult to build what appears to be a perpetual motion machine and sell to ignorant speculators it has been done many times

[Deecart]

It is not difficult to build what appears to be a perpetual motion machine and sell to ignorant speculators it has been done many times

Nobody sell perpetual motion machines.
They sell (or not) superunit machines (machines that ADD some energy).
There is great confusion between those two type of machines.

The first : The perpetual motion machine is known to be impossible because of the thermodynamic principle (it is only a principle but very strong established).

The second : The superunit machine could be any machine using some NEW energy source that could be available.
If we dident known the existence of the photelectric effect, some "cranck" could have invented some "solar panel" without knowing how it work : It would be some "superunit machine".
The "crank" that first created the windmill dident really know how the air flow could be used to extract "free" energy.
Etc.

Actually a lot of poeple try and experiment, but nobody found any new energy source (the so named "free energy").
But perhaps someone could find something new.
Per example, if we could create some "solar panel" that use neutrinos instead of photons (by accident), we would be able to use some new energy flux available (even available in closed buildings because neutrinos can go trought matter easily).

[Bored chemist]

superunit

You seem to have invented this word, but not really told us what it means.

The perpetual motion machine is known to be impossible because of the thermodynamic principle (it is only a principle but very strong established).

No
It is mathematically proven.

[Colin2B]

The "crank" that first created the windmill …

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but cranks and windmills don’t go together, it’s all done with gears. 

The "crank" that first created the windmill dident really know how the air flow could be used to extract "free" energy.

I fear you are tilting at windmills. 
In English the word for the ‘arms’ of the windmill is sails (les voiles) and if you look at drawings of early windmills, that’s what they look like. This suggests that the inventor did know that air flow could extract “free” energy. The clever bit was working out how to change a translational motion into a rotary one.
Bet they burnt him at the stake. 

[alancalverd]

I think by "superunit" friend Deecart means "over unity" - a machine with efficiency greater than 1.

It only exists in the minds of politicians and economists. For example:

1. Privatise the supply of water, gas and electricity. This obviously increases efficiency and relieves the taxpayer of a burden.

2. Allow the market to collapse so there is no real competition

3. When prices rise to the point of unaffordability, give taxpayers' money to the consumers so they can give it to the shareholders of the private companies.

This guarantees the gratitude of both customer and supplier, hence keeps the current administration in power and everyone is happier, at no cost. The alternative is common sense socialism, which is bad.

[Petrochemicals]

I think by "superunit" friend Deecart means "over unity" - a machine with efficiency greater than 1.

It only exists in the minds of politicians and economists. For example:

1. Privatise the supply of water, gas and electricity. This obviously increases efficiency and relieves the taxpayer of a burden.

2. Allow the market to collapse so there is no real competition

3. When prices rise to the point of unaffordability, give taxpayers' money to the consumers so they can give it to the shareholders of the private companies.

This guarantees the gratitude of both customer and supplier, hence keeps the current administration in power and everyone is happier, at no cost. The alternative is common sense socialism, which is bad.

You forgot the technical 'market forces' bit, giving us an unadulterated price, such as is seen in gas and oil. By limiting supply the law of demand states the brice escalates, so producers can charge us a fortune for something that costs very little to produce. It is much different to unionism and public ownership, the private sector can literally have us over a barrel ( of oil).

[alancalverd]

In a free market the price of anything is not related to the cost of making it but how much the customer is prepared to pay for it.

A friend working in an art gallery sold a new painting for $50,000. The artist happened to be on the premises, out of sight. When the customer  departed, he said "not bad for four hours' work, eh?"

At least one electricity customer has now publicly complained that her contract is for "100% renewable energy" but is being charged according to the alleged impact of gas prices on electricity generation. Any sign of prosecution for false advertising, or false accounting? I think not.

[Deecart]

No
It is mathematically proven.

No, it is principle. You can cry or shout louder, it remain... a principle.
Sorry to talk science.

I think by "superunit" friend Deecart means "over unity" - a machine with efficiency greater than 1.

Yes this is what i mean.

It only exists in the minds of politicians and economists. For example:

No, it would (and was, because before we understand that coal was cointaining energy, every vapor machine was a over unity machine) be some machine that "produce" energy from an actually unknown energy source.

If we would rely actually on your scientificaly advise, we would never have used coal, wood or turbines.
Because you would say : It is impossible !

To be exact, i say "produce", because of course nobody has never produced energy.

[Kryptid]

No, it is principle. You can cry or shout louder, it remain... a principle.
Sorry to talk science.

You're both technically correct: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/principle

a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived

[Deecart]

You're both technically correct: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/principle

You use some simple dictionary as a proof ?!!
Shame on you.

[Kryptid]

You use some simple dictionary as a proof ?!!
Shame on you.

Words have definitions. If you're not using a word in accordance with its definition, then you are using it improperly.

[Deecart]

Words have definitions. If you're not using a word in accordance with its definition, then you are using it improperly.

Words need at least understanding and this is not what you do.

Here is the understanding of Richard Feynman about principle used within science.
Your disctionary not only talk only about principle in science.

The Principle of Science
The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: the test of all knowledge is experiment.
Experiment is thesole judge of scientific "truth". But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints.
But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations—to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess.
From Feynman Lectures on Physics

https://web.cs.ucla.edu/~lixia/Feynman.pdf

[Kryptid]

Words have definitions. If you're not using a word in accordance with its definition, then you are using it improperly.

Words need at least understanding and this is not what you do.

Here is the understanding of Richard Feynman about principle used within science.
Your disctionary not only talk only about principle in science.

The Principle of Science
The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: the test of all knowledge is experiment.
Experiment is thesole judge of scientific "truth". But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints.
But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations—to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess.
From Feynman Lectures on Physics

https://web.cs.ucla.edu/~lixia/Feynman.pdf

"Principal" can have more than one definition. The one I provided also works in science.

[Deecart]

"Principal" can have more than one definition. The one I provided also works in science.

Principle in science is the analog to the postulate in mathematic.
It is something that dont need to be prooved.because... you cant proove it.
You can only proove it is false, not that it is true.

It is used because it is usefull, but one principle can be discarded if you find some counterfact against it.
If you say ; It is a principle so we can not do this thing. And you never do this thing that could contradict this principle, you of course will live forever with your principle.
But you will never attain the truth and you act like dogmatic religious people.
Actually around 3 generations of scientists act like religious peoples, and they like fairytales coming from their imagination (they dont need experimentation because they already know all).
They observe and explain the observation, like in cosmology.