thinkoutsidethe

Sorry this needs some major fixing. I think the emphasis should be on logical structure which has a predictable, measurable and observable outcome in reality which can be replicated with unified results. To explain my point we should look at the original post and how it is by its own admission actually is pseudoscience: Real science will not changed whether it is pitched to the media or not. It will stand regardless. This article was written for the media, was found in the media and the poster regurgitated it to a new media (this forum) lol. By this admission all Galileo's work is defunct and in turn Newtons and the whole structure of scientific thought. Real scientific fact will be real regardless of whether a "powerful establishment" goes against it or not. If someone presents the idea that their idea is being repressed then scrutiny of the idea will be what is needed. Scientific effect is always observable and repeatable. If someone claims science they had better have these things otherwise they do not know science. However if they have a theory, then the theory may or may not be truly scientific until it has become observable. It will generally be up to them to test their own idea, although if their theory is tight and based on logical reasoning others may test the theory if they feel it has value(Einstein) Again, whether evidence is anecdotal has very little to do whether a scientific truth has been presented. Here it is whether the evidence was scientifically collected and is repeatable. A scientific fact will be true whether or not it has been a belief held for centuries. Astronomy has been around for centuries and the theory of atoms was presented in vedas 5000bc. Scientists often go back in time for inspiration. In fact all of science has been a build up for centuries so to hold the above as true destroys science's foundations. As Einstein showed us, the imagination is the precursor for scientific theories so time does not limit theories. However to become science the theory needs to be observable and that often includes technology which can be included in the observation. All great scientists and theorists work in isolation. Then they come out of isolation. However, unless their theory can be observed and is repeatable then they cannot claim to be science. Galileo, Newton, Einstein ??? A new way of looking at the laws and how they work is the advancement of science.