To BS or not to BS

Let’s be honest there are a lot of weirdos out there touting bizarre theories and false news; my problem is that I may be one of them!

Since childhood I have been obsessed with the question as to what could give rise to the reality that is our perceived universe. In my view physics is not able to answer this question because it is based upon the interpretation of interactions that we term measurements and sensory inputs, and not of that which interacts. Physicists know this because it is the fundamental, but hidden paradigm that underpins quantum physics. My obsession has caused me to spend most of my spare time over the last thirty-five years trying to answer this question. This pursuit is not something that I enjoy. Sure it’s stimulating, but this is vastly outweighed by the frustrations and self-doubt that it has brought into my life. I wish someone could just show me a theory that satisfies me and gives me peace, but I haven’t found one. That is why I relentlessly work alone on my theory without peer review of my ideas or its scientific legitimacy, and this is why I often wonder if I am one of those weirdos.

In my defence I would say that I have enough integrity to continually test whether my ideas are worthy in whatever way I can and that is the reason for my website. My website is not about blowing my own trumpet or contributing to society’s knowledge about the universe. All I want is an opportunity for some professional scientists to come across my theory and give me feedback so that I can find out whether I really am a weirdo or whether I actually have something that may lead to some peace of mind.

Whilst I wait for that sort after feedback I recently found an article on flipboard that discussed ten questions that the late great Carl Sagan posited to identify, ‘baloney’. The article made me wonder how my theory of enigmatic stuff (TES) would stand up to this BS filter, so here are my answers to those questions regarding my theory of enigmatic stuff.

How reliable is the source of the claim?

Not very. I have an honours degree in physics from Queen Mary college University of London. I have an Htech Diploma and Polytechnic Diploma in computer technology from Middlesex Polytechnic. I spent twenty years in computer technology at leading edge in systems development. I am not a professional academic, but my research is not a transient whim. I have spent 35 years thinking about and researching into these issues. I have also spent many years studying the mathematics of complexity sciences.

Does the source make similar claims?

I am the source so question is not relevant.

Have the claims been verified by somebody else?

“Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much,” Sagan wrote in his book. “Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof?”

My theory must be able to explain why we have the physics that we have and hence it is falsifiable if it cannot explain, for example why we perceive quantum and classical measurement and also supply an origin of ideas that physics cannot, such as Dark Matter and Energy. The same argument can be used for String Theory and M-Theory, both of which continue to have no evidential proof and do not explain the origin of quantum measurements.

Does this fit with the way the world works?

I believe that the theory already can show consistency with current theories and observations and give answers to some questions that current physics cannot answer. I don’t want my theory to explain ghosts or extra sensory perception. What I want it to do is explain why our world looks the way it does and why it works the way it does and to explain why we have developed the Physics that we have.

Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?

No but I dearly want scientists far more gifted than me to try.

Where does the preponderance of evidence point?

There isn’t enough evidence yet.

Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?

I am trying to. I believe in the scientific approach and I am trained in science. I am trying to apply real complexity science in my thinking and correct physics in my comparative analysis.  I am sure I am making mistakes.

Is the claimant providing positive evidence?

Not enough of it. However I believe that TES can give sensible answers to question that have no current answers and that there is an arguable support of current theories.

Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?

Not currently. For example, I have not turned my mind to trying to explain how TES could give rise to our experimental observations of relativistic effects. However it can account for phenomena that current physics cannot.

Are personal beliefs driving the claim?

There are many personal beliefs within physics, for example different physicists have a preference for one of the many interpretations of quantum mechanics. This is a personal belief and nothing more. I would also argue that those who support M-theory have belief that it is a valid theory even though there is NO experimental evidence of such. TES attempts to throw away all of our scientific beliefs and prejudices and start with tenets that imbue the idea that there are things we can never know so let’s stop pretending that we can.

I will leave you to decide whether I’m a BSer. If you believe that my intention is well meant and my work has some merit and you know a talented physicist then please ask them to take a look at my work and give me their view.

Thank you

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: