User talk:96.255.71.164

Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

June 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment&#32;with the page Manjul Bhargava. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. --EdwardZhao (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

September 2011
Hello and welcome! I edit Wikipedia too, under the username Trusilver. Wikipedia is written by people like you and me, so thank you for taking the time to participate. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Talk:String theory with this edit, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions about editing, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Trusilver 05:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How is it not constructive? What you're obviously an anti-science fan and want the string theory to be protected from criticism and scrutiny, just like all the other wikipedia editors. "The string theory is scientific and if someone says otherwise delete their comment" what a joke--96.255.71.164 (talk) 05:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

String theory not scientific
The low-life Wikipedia editors for some reason don't want anyone to question the string theory, they insist it is scientific based off nothing, and instead of refuting even one statement I made all they have done is disallowed criticism of the string theory.

Here's what I wrote:

Well here's a summary of my arguments. It's quite obvious that Wikipedia editors have virtually no understanding of science so I'll try to make it easier for the stupid idiotic disgusting low-life anti-science Wikipedia authors. They are so unusually dumb and gullible and obviously lack any basic understanding of what science is. The definition of pseudoscience is anything that does not adhere to the scientific method. Since the string theory does not adhere to the scientific method it is by definition pseudoscience. In order for something to adhere to the scientific method it must have testable predictions. There has never existed any testable predictions of the string theory in any peer-reviewed journals. Authors here have claimed that gravity and general relativity are testable predictions of the string theory, but this claim is obviously wrong and false. It's possible that the string theory is false and gravity still exists. It's possible that the string theory is true and gravity still exists. So knowing that gravity exists doesn't tell us if the string theory is true or false. Similarly: It's possible that the string theory is false and GR is still true. It's possible that the string theory is true and GR is still true. So knowing that general relativity is true doesn't tell us if the string theory is true or false. Since neither gravity or general relativity tell us if the string theory is true or false they are not actual testable predictions. Gravity and general relativity can be true even if the string theory is completely wrong, therefore knowing that gravity exists or general relativity isn't a valid testable prediction of the string theory. Another argument made by Wikipedia authors here is that if something is falsifiable then it must be scientific. But this again is wrong because it's possible for something to be falsifiable yet have no testable predictions. If a hypothesis cannot be tested then it does not adhere to the scientific method, and is therefore pseudoscientific.

I can claim that basically anything relies upon the truth of gravity. So according to Wikipedia authors any hypothesis that relies upon the truth of gravity, even if it has no testable predictions should be considered scientific!

So according to Wikipedia authors if I believe that there is another dimension that exists where unicorns exist, and I have mathematics for it and it relies upon the truth of gravity it is therefore falsifiable and therefore scientific! It doesn't matter if I have no way to test out if the actual dimension where unicorns exist is true or if I have no way to test out if my mathematics are valid, because it relies upon the truth of gravity! If someone falsifies gravity they would therefore prove my hypothesis false, so my hypothesis is scientifically sound even though it has no testable predictions!

I can think of many ways to falsify forms of Intelligent Design. Some forms of ID claim that DNA cannot arise by natural undirected processes. In order to falsify this hypothesis all someone would have to do is prove a natural process by which DNA arises. If someone shows a natural undirected process causing DNA to exist they would've entirely falsified ID. This is a testable prediction. So Intelligent Design should be considered as scientific or even more scientific than the string theory.

I hope I made it easy enough for the Wikipedia authors to understand.

So by what reasoning is that criticism not constructive? It is perfectly constructive. The main reason Wikipedia editors want the string theory to be protected from criticism and scrutiny is because they are staunch anti-science fanatics and very very very strongly oppose the idea of free and open criticism. They want Wikipedia to become like a string theory fan site where no one is allowed to claim that the string theory is unscientific, untestable, etc...

We can see that my statements and arguments here are entirely flawless, faultless, without error, and none of the anti-science Wikipedia editors can refute even one statement made.

For all those concerned with science, let them speak out against the string theory and Wikipedia.

--96.255.71.164 (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)