Strange

Neutrinos were one of the first candidates for dark matter because they are numerous and, well, dark. Unfortunately, it was found that particles with the velocities of neutrinos (close to the speed of light) do not match what we observe. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/the-universe/108-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/dark-matter/661-what-is-hot-dark-matter-theory-intermediate

These are models, based on what we observe. As as been painfully explained to you dozens of times: science builds models of what we observe.

There may not be any rules. But nature behaves in predictable ways as if there were such rules. As I say, we can't know what nature is "really" like, only what we observe. And what we observe appears to follow rules we can model. If you find the models confusing, that is your problem. It doesn't stop them being useful. Then you are redefining what metaphysics means, which is not a useful way of carrying on a discussion. Especially from one who thinks words should have a single meaning - that should be the meaning everyone understands, not one you have invented. Oh no, not again. Take it to the other thread. Reality cannot be known. Science is about what we observe. Whether that is "reality" is a philosophical argument and therefore undecidable and meaningless. Real world referents of infinity exist if the universe is infinite. As you cannot prove it is not infinite, this is a baseless assertion. (Argument from incredulity/ignorance ignored.) It doesn't matter how often you repeat it, it is unsupported. It may be your belief, but that's all. However large a number is, it cannot "dwarf infinity". By definition. So there is a logic to nature? I thought there were no rules. Make your mind up. You are moving the goalposts. But it is another argument from ignorance. All fundamental articles (of a given type) are identical. Bosons can occupy the same location. Therefore you are wrong. They don't have to reflect reality. Just what we observe.

There is a 10 page thread where assorted scientists and engineers have been attempting to explain this point to some who has studied (or claims to have studied) philosophy. So I think the point is pretty well understood. The nature of reality is unknowable. Which is why metaphysics is pointless. You can just make up anything. Many people have tried to do this. Including one George Boole, hence boolean logic. It doesn't work. It can't be done. It is a ridiculous idea. (But this all seems terribly off topic.) Only if you don't know what infinity is. (In other words, are ignorant of mathematics.) Unsupported assertion. Unless you can prove that the universe is finite? You may not have noticed, but there are more than two things out there. (Apart from the fact that your claim is bogus.)

He has had an entire thread dedicated to that subject. He never did manage to make a convincing case, oddly.

How is this different from your other thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/91276-solar-neighborhood-enigma/ ?

This was explained in the very first response to you. These are just from the first page of this thread: And then the same point has been made repeatedly throughout the thread. Pretending that it is a new revelation doesn't look good.

You have been repeatedly told that science is about comparing the predictions of theory against observation (because, as you admit, it is impossible to compare it against truth). I am not going to go back and point out the many times this has been explained to you, only to be ignored or dismissed. You raised the question of how we can tell which of two theories is true, when they both match observations. When it was pointed out that this completely undermines your claim that science is about truth, you quickly changed the subject. Then produced some waffle about it being a matter of personal taste, completely abandoning the idea of science at that point. My position has not changed. Science is about what we can know (observations of the natural world). Truth is unknowable (as you would know if you had studied philosophy as you claim). Therefore, science is not about truth. It is about creating models that match, and predict, what we observe. Your childish argument that this means that all scientific theories are therefore false does not reflect well on you.

Note that "Trash" is not a subtitle, derogatory or otherwise. It is a separate section of the forum. It happens to be located under the Speculations section of the forum, but so what. Everything has to be somewhere. Then perhaps you need to explain yourself more clearly. It certainly sounds as if you are saying that we shouldn't criticise people's pet theories however wild and unsupported they are (as long as they are "sincere"). Instead, we should charitably tell them that it is very sweet that they have come up with their own clever idea, and ignore the fact that it is plainly contradicted by evidence. What happened to your support for scientific rigour, in the meantime?

So when faced with an argument that you can't respond to, you resort to this sort of immature comment (when you don't just ignore them or declare them insulting).

I think you mean, "there is no response". You seem to have moved to a position closer to that of science ("We might compare our theories against reality, but surely not against truth."). That is real progress. I am proud of you.

Ignoring the substantial counter-arguments again ... ? I suppose it must be tough when your position is unsupportable. Is the correspondence theory that "Truth" is a linguistic entity. I didn't know that. Er, hang on. Isn't that what we have been trying to tell you !?

How does that help, when that same argument can be applied equally to both theories? These are subjective judgements and will, of course, be applied equally by the supporters of each theory. Also, it isn't clear how arbitrary subjective judgements ("loveliness"?) can adjudicate on the accuracy or truth of a scientific theory. But at this point, you have abandoned science. This can only be because, as you have repeatedly been told, science cannot make decisions about the ultimate truth of reality. Your conclusion appears to be that if there are two scientifically indistinguishable theories, it is a mater of personal taste as to which is true. Moving the goalposts again? (For example, that is not the same defintion of truth you insisted on earlier.) It couldn't possibly be your fault that your definitions (when provided, after much pressing) are confused and variable? But that is the same as most of your arguments.

It does allow dissenting views. It would be very easy to not have a section to allow people to express novel ideas. Then you should appreciate the fact that the forum requires people to support their ideas. This is not true. So you are looking for a site that is scientifically rigorous but does not impose any requirements for rigour on its members? Good luck with that. Your copyright in the material you write does not require anyone to publish it. sorry, sincerity is no substitute for evidence. A great many people are sincere but wrong. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82164-the-quote-function-a-tutorial-in-several-parts/ http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=core&module=help Using the quote function does seem to cause some people a lot of trouble. (Oddly, that seems to be disproportionately high among people posting their own personal theories. Go figure.)

Stop running away from the difficult questions. You sticking to your beliefs about the nature of science (while throwing in jibes about the religious nature of science) despite the fact that your own examples contradict your view. (And, as you are so sensitive about what other say, perhaps you could drop the sarcastic comments and insults.) Then please explain how, in your example of two different theories which produce identical results, we decide which is closer to the truth? You won't because your position is untenable. Also, please explain which if the many explanations of the world produced by philosophers over the centuries is closer to the truth. And how you know that.

That isn't true. See post #10. The vast majority are treated the same, because they exhibit the same lack of knowledge of existing science and lack of support for their ideas. I don't think you can blame other members of the forum for that.

Using expert opinion in place of evidence is the fallacy of argument from authority. Anyone trying that is likely to be called on it. Science doesn't maintain the status quo. Ideally, those challenging established science would understand the theories they are challenging. And, of course, for scientists it is the case. Unfortunately, it seems that the vast majority of people who post on science forums have no real understanding of the theories they challenge. They might have read a few news stories and watched some youtoob, but that's about it.

You (still) don't seem to understand that consensus in science (when it exists) is a result of the science, not what drives the science. I think you have made this claim repeatedly. You never provide any evidence to support it so, based on your posting history, I can safely assume it is untrue.

It is very unclear what you are trying to say here. But it may be worth pointing out that you cannot copyright (or patent, or trademark) an intellectual idea. However, the rules of the forum specifically confirm the fact that you retain copyright on your posts here. I don't know any science forum that is opposed to ideas against the status quo. What the best ones are against is ideas that are contradicted by existing evidence or have no evidence to support them. Making stuff up is not science. The best way to remain credible is provide support for your ideas. If you can come up with a better way of validating ideas, other than testing them against reality then I will be impressed. How do you know they did that without reading? To refer back to the previous points: what evidence do you have? It is to keep unsupported ideas that contradict reality away from the real science, so that people won't be distracted and confused by it. There is no problem with questioning authority as long as you have evidence. (In fact, using authority to support an idea is considered a logical fallacy.)

You do like to pretend you are being attacked, don't you. Does this make you feel you are saying something important or controversial? No, I explained why. Because you keep changing your position, contradict yourself, ask the same questions repeatedly, ignore answers, etc. Or maybe you are unclear in what you say. Or pretend you didn't mean what you wrote. Or constantly change your position. But when asked how we can know how things really are, you refuse to answer, change the subject or are otherwise evasive. It is interesting that you have chosen to run away now, immediately after being confronted by the reality of science; i.e. that multiple theories can explain the same observations. This directly contradicts your belief that science is about "truth" and so you decide to pretend that people are too hostile for you.

There has been a lot of theoretical work recently on how quantum theory might affect our description of the event horizon. You could try googling "firewall paradox" to get you started.

Then you should have no problem telling us how we determine if electric fields, for example, are really "out there" or not. And this is back to your silly attempts to polarise things. The fact that we cannot know if a particular scientific model is true or not, does not mean that we cannot know the truth of any statement. That is not the point you have been making. I hope you didn't hurt yourself moving those goal posts so far. I just realised that this may be the crux of your failure to understand. Can you tell us how we find "the right answer" or "the true value"? Can you tell us how to find out what this "target" is? I assume you can't. And the point is: neither can science. (And neither can your much vaunted philosophy.) And can you tell us how to find out what The One True Mechanism is? Can philosophy do that? You say yo know more of philosophy than science, so why don't we turn this around. Philosophers are, according to you, concerned with truth. There have been many different explanations of reality by different philosophers over the centuries. Now, as you correctly point out, only one of them can be correct or true. So which one was it? And for bonus points, how do you know that?

That is why I have always put the word "truth" in quotes when using it with regard to science. To highlight that if people (usually outside of science) use the word they do not mean truth in your sense. Remember I started out by saying that science does not deal with truth (in your sense of the word)? Perhaps you can now understand what that means> I am not familiar with the terms, but it sounds like a plausible description. (Note that I only called it "scientific truth" because you kept banging on about truth even when told it was irrelevant.) You were given examples of this before you asked the question the first time. You have been given examples after asking the question previously. Now you have asked the same question again. Are you hoping that if you ask it often enough you will get the answer you want? Or are you just trolling? I imagine most scientists (if they think about it all) would conclude that neither theory is true. As we have many examples where this situation holds, most people have come to the conclusion that science doesn't, in general, deal in truth but only in descriptive models. But as you cannot accept this, I assume this thread will just keep going round in circles. No. The observed value. Which is, of course, only an approximation to the "true value" (if such an ideal thing exists).

Something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module ? Nowadays it is flash memory. And it is not very secure; there is quite a lot of malware that will reprogram the BIOS.

You can't claim copyright on a hypothesis, only on a specific representation of it. As well as explaining what a "five dimensional star" is (and providing evidence that such a thing exists) you need to do the same for a "five dimensional black hole". How can a star have the same mass as the entire universe? Also, "Universal time minus universal time {without passage of time} equals a three dimensional black hole" appears to be meaningless. "Ut-Ut" is zero. What does "=BH3" mean? Are you saying that black holes are zero (do not exist)? The whole thing seems pretty incoherent.