Tetryonics

"ABRAHAM" presenting his Pseudo-science as god's (his own) gift to mankind....

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Tetryonics

#221  Postby The_Metatron » Jun 09, 2016 8:01 pm

Yet someone else who is confused. It isn't our mandate to prove anything wrong.

Mr. Abraham has the onus to prove his ideas right.


Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk.
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 20927
Age: 57
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Tetryonics

#222  Postby tuco » Jun 09, 2016 8:39 pm

I was not following this thread but topping made me click. Then I also checked the links in OP, saw some triangles, was confused and that was it. Anyway, I am willing to volunteer. If there is an experiment I can perform that would verify Terytronics. Also 6 months study? That's lots of study, for triangles or?
tuco
 
Posts: 15516

Print view this post

Re: Tetryonics

#223  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jun 09, 2016 8:56 pm

Guill wrote:I have been studying Tetryonics for about 6 months. Early on, I was as skeptical as some of the people that have posted here. My first goal was to find inconsistencies and so far I have found only one. It deals with how gravity is created/the result of the null/empty space inside the Tetryons.
I don't know if this theory is "good/valid," but I see it as a model that tries to answer some of the questions science has no answer for. To me, it is no different than prior models (billiard ball, central nucleus with orbiting electrons, quarks, etc.). Time will tell if it is useful or not.
I agree that Mr. Abraham should have been a bit more humble and just presented his model, and let the model "speak for itself" instead of presenting it as the "greatest" discovery in human history.

Mr. Abraham does make testable claims, so it should be easy for somebody to prove him wrong.
I remember reading Einstein also had credibility problems, until astronomers were able to verify some of his claims (bending of light, Mercury's perihelion). So look for this guy's claims, and prove them wrong.

That's not how science or rational discourse works.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30906
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Tetryonics

#224  Postby Boyle » Jun 09, 2016 10:55 pm

Whoever does his graphics is decent, I do like those. I didn't read them because the words are rather pointless, but they were pretty.
Boyle
 
Posts: 1632

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Tetryonics

#225  Postby scott1328 » Jun 09, 2016 11:34 pm

Ooh! Is the puppet show back on?
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8671
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Tetryonics

#226  Postby Guill » Jun 11, 2016 12:17 am

The_Metatron wrote:Yet someone else who is confused. It isn't our mandate to prove anything wrong.

Mr. Abraham has the onus to prove his ideas right.


Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk.


You are right, Mr. Abraham has the burden of proof. However, since it only takes one instance to falsify any theory, it should be very easy for someone to prove it wrong. That is what I am working on, in response to the OP's request.
Guill
 
Name: Guillermo
Posts: 2

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Tetryonics

#227  Postby Boyle » Jun 11, 2016 12:34 am

Are there any testable claims? Or, like, actual math? Can Tetryonics tell me how much momentum a moving object has? If you want a real cool thing to claim you can say Tetryonics predicts spin instead of us discovering it through experiment. That'd be pretty nifty.
Boyle
 
Posts: 1632

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Tetryonics

#228  Postby SkullSoup » Oct 15, 2017 2:11 am

Boyle wrote:Are there any testable claims? Or, like, actual math? Can Tetryonics tell me how much momentum a moving object has? If you want a real cool thing to claim you can say Tetryonics predicts spin instead of us discovering it through experiment. That'd be pretty nifty.


Just nature. All we can do is see if it matches up with nature better than the current accepted method and outlook. That one is full of phenomenons and often doesn't match up with what nature is actually doing. If Tetryonics matches up with nature and can predict the outcomes of things that the current outlook can not , then it probably should not be shrugged off.
SkullSoup
 
Name: Bill Murphy
Posts: 13

Country: Christmas Island
Christmas Island (cx)
Print view this post

Re: Tetryonics

#229  Postby Cito di Pense » Oct 15, 2017 6:19 am

SkullSoup wrote:
Boyle wrote:Are there any testable claims? Or, like, actual math? Can Tetryonics tell me how much momentum a moving object has? If you want a real cool thing to claim you can say Tetryonics predicts spin instead of us discovering it through experiment. That'd be pretty nifty.


Just nature. All we can do is see if it matches up with nature better than the current accepted method and outlook. That one is full of phenomenons and often doesn't match up with what nature is actually doing. If Tetryonics matches up with nature and can predict the outcomes of things that the current outlook can not , then it probably should not be shrugged off.


That's not how it works. Not only does a new theory have to predict the outcomes other theories cannot, it has to recover the same results that currently-accepted theories adequately handle. The question was, does it do that? If it doesn't, it's not a description of anything, because the second bit is really a lot more work than waving your hands at weird phenomena. Or, as you would put it, phenomenons, which (I suspect) aren't anything like phonons. Can Tetryonics handle phonons? If Tetryonics doesn't handle solid state physics, fuck it. We can't use it to build better computers, which are what you are using to publish your stupid pet theories on the internet.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29349
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Tetryonics

#230  Postby theropod » Oct 15, 2017 3:28 pm



Triangle solo anyone?

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 66
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Tetryonics

#231  Postby Cito di Pense » Oct 15, 2017 4:31 pm

theropod wrote:
Triangle solo anyone?


"That was ... interesting ... Calvin, er, Marty..."
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29349
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Tetryonics

#232  Postby Morreux » Oct 15, 2019 1:59 am

Good day,

I've stumbled upon this page after finding the uncannily obscure theory of tetryonics which I then endeavored to investigate.

I have to say I was in awe, generally there is quite a few pages laying out a theories detail or in opposite paraded as some nonsense that only a fool could believe. Not tetryonics, not at all. It doesnt even have a wikipedia page.

So, I watched some of the videos by Abraham, and I also read alot of this thread hoping to find some credible opposition.

What I found instead was abunch of people who ironically on a page called "rational skepticism" cried burn the witch and took to their torches and pitch forks. I mean "rational skepticism" is a pretty nauseatingly self serving oxymoron in my view yet none the less I found myself very skeptical of tetryonics at first with the new age spiritual side, all that jazz and expected to find something of value here. I was disappointed in regard to the latter, well thats not true i did find value in what the people speaking on behalf tetryonics had to say atleast.

The proponents of tetryonics laid out an interesting framework of physics, I would as one person mentioned, like to see how they deal with the uncertainty principle. Which is why I for one will actually begin delving into tetryonics which is what a scientist should do.

Was a bit mortified to see the use of "burden of proof" though not surprised it is after all the skeptics bible.

However within the realm of science a testable theory should be falsified, if able, by scientists thats what science is.

going off topic a bit the "burden of proof" idea is abit like bells theorem in that it hinges locality.

If I say a red tea pot of microscopic size orbits the sun the burden of proof would fall to me.

However if i convince enough people it orbits the sun, and a state is instituted and laws are made which affect your life in regards to this red teapot it is acting on you as it essentially does exist, a superposition infact. Then the burden of proof would fall on you.

Just a little tidbit i like to throw at people

(also im pretty sure on a thread aimed at debunking something the would be debunker voluntarily assumes burden of proof)

thanks!
Morreux
 
Posts: 2

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Tetryonics

#233  Postby Morreux » Oct 15, 2019 2:04 am

Ah, I had also forgot to mention so far I have not seen anything in tetryonics so far that claims to predict something new, rather, only to fill some gaps of what is understood in how somethings are observed currently. Which is really the only thing that makes sense.
Morreux
 
Posts: 2

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Tetryonics

#234  Postby aban57 » Oct 15, 2019 5:54 pm

Morreux wrote:

So, I watched some of the videos by Abraham


Wow. They had Youtube at that time ??? Who would have thought ???
aban57
 
Name: Cindy
Posts: 7353
Age: 41
Female

Country: France
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest