When Science is Popularly Displaced by Falsity

[RascalPuff]

When Science is Popularly Displaced by Falsity

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The much applauded and controversial 'Big Bang Theory' is not a theory. It is an hypothesis.
The much applauded and controversial 'Super String Theory' is not a theory. It is an hypothesis.
(Please refer, Webster's dictionary, or, any dictionary of scientific terms.)

These importantly expansive misunderstandings negatively influence and handicap the entire world of contemplation at the foundations of objective thinking. These endlessly repeated misnomers sustain themselves. Calling hypotheses 'theories' is unscientific and misleading, digressive and harmful. Would I be banned - or omitted from posting - for tactfully pointing this out? (In some cases I already have been).
Is there no room for a cordial fireside chat about such - very important, fundamental, symptomatic - 'misunderstandings' (Resting comfortably in the center of 'Standard Theory'; expanding tolerance thresholds on the foundations of academia) ? Are they not plaintively germane to the influence of scientists on public acceptance, controversy, tolerance, perspective, science, art, fiction and culture?

[Epsilon=One]

The much applauded and controversial 'Big Bang Theory' is not a theory.The Big Bang is a scientific theory that was accepted as a Standard Model theory in 1963, about 34 years after it was first proposed.

The Big Bang is the only accepted cosmological structural force that is opposed to the mythical attraction-at-a-distance phenomenon of the inexplicable concept of gravity.

Most world cla ss scientists have been well aware since the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observed that galactic recession is accelerating that the Big Bang theory is flawed. Acceleration can not be imparted by a single “bang.”

Until theoretical astrophysicists can come up with a replacement force, such as described in Pulsoid Theory (www.CQthus.com/PT/OV), the ludicrous status quo of the Big Bang must be maintained by academia.

The much applauded and controversial 'Super String Theory' is not a theory.All string theories are correct in that all that exists can be heuristically described by complex oscillating “string-like” forces as described by Pulsoid Theory (www.CQthus.com/PT/PTis).

Conventional, academic string theories fail because they strive to explain metaphysical Standard Model forces.

(Please refer, Webster's dictionary, or, any dictionary of scientific terms.)Dictionaries are no place for definitive leading-edge scientific knowledge.

These importantly expansive misunderstandings negatively influence and handicap the entire world of contemplation at the foundations of objective thinking.I couldn’t agree more.

These endlessly repeated misnomers sustain themselves. Calling hypotheses 'theories' is unscientific and misleading, digressive and harmful. Would I be banned - or omitted from posting - for tactfully pointing this out? (In some cases I already have been).To paraphrase Dr. E.: "You won’t be banned for speaking the truth." It is not important to debate the labels; it is the concepts that are dangerous. All the fundamental forces of pomo, academic physics are metaphysical; and, scientists are unable to prove mathematics; I know of no world cla ss, theoretical scientist that will debate otherwise..

Is there no room for a cordial fireside chat about such - very important, fundamental, symptomatic - 'misunderstandings' (Resting comfortably in the center of 'Standard Theory'; expanding tolerance thresholds on the foundations of academia) ? Are they not plaintively germane to the influence of scientists on public acceptance, controversy, tolerance, perspective, science, art, fiction and culture?The stage is yours for such a “fireside chat.”

[RascalPuff]

Dear Sir:
The 'spam filter' inexplicably disallows any further communications.

[Epsilon=One]

Dear Sir:
The 'spam filter' inexplicably disallows any further communications.See the 2nd post in the first thread of the first topic for some help for getting around the SPAM filter.

See: Post #2 of said Thread (www.physicsmathforums.com/showpost.php?p=4152&postcount=2) and Post #5 of said Thread (www.physicsmathforums.com/showpost.php?p=5174&postcount=2).

Obviously, most members have little difficulty.

If your difficulty continues, e-mail your post to me with title and where you wish to post it; and, I will post for you.