The 5 criteria of pseudoscience

1. The pseudo-scientist has a profound intellectual superiority complex.
2. The pseudo-scientist regards other researchers as idiotic, and always operates outside the peer review system (hence the title of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").
3. The pseudo-scientist believes there is a campaign against their ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.
4. Instead of side-stepping the mainstream the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked. He writes: "A perpetual motion machine cannot be built. He builds one".
5. He coins neologisms.

Since the description above involves the person who does pseudoscience rather than pseudoscience per se, I will comment each item using the pronoun "I".

1. I have an average, even though excellent, quality of life; well educated, I never lost my job; well paid, well fed, happily married I have been modestly successful; as such I always considered myself as an average person neither inferior nor superior. In my retirement, when I discovered the gravimotion mechanism I did not felt superior at all for that matter; I did feel an immense satisfaction though the same that one feels when having accomplished a well-done job! I must be an average human being, fortunate to be living in a developed, modern country.
2. I greatly respect researchers and physicists, even those who I disagree with. I always refer to myself as a layperson, implicitly admitting I do not measure up to scientists' knowledge ^Footnote (the opposite of the pseudo-scientist).
   As far as the peer-review system is concerned, to be frank I do operate outside the peer-review system, but I do it involuntarily!
   I've contacted over one hundred physicists across the world and got no valuable feedback.
   When the book I wrote was first published I sent over 300 copies to reviewers, scientists writers etc., I did not get a single feedback!
   And scientific journals systematically close their doors to people like me with no credentials!
   The peer-review system is obviously not interested in the gravimotion idea!
   Should not the side from which incurs such a segregation be implicated too?
3. As far as I know there is no campaign against gravimotion simply because scientists ignore it! To tell the truth I wish there would be some kind of campaign that would propel the concept of gravimotion up front!
   On the other hand I do feel what Galileo had to go through. The Church rejected Galileo�s idea; the establishment of physics rejects gravimotion. I highly respect physics, just as Galileo respected the church. Not being recognized by what I consider being an ideal human endeavor (the science of physics) puts me in an awkward position. But how would that matter to me? America's early 21st century is not Italy's late 1500's.
   Nowadays any one worldwide through the internet may read about this new interpretation of Nature that is gravimotion. Those who are thrilled learn more about it. The others drop the matter! It's as simple as that!
4. Gravimotion frankly side-steps mainstream physics. Gravimotion is based on "motion" an entity that doesn't even exists in physics! But gravimotion once established had to be compared to mainstream physics. And I had to recognize that the idea that popped out of nowhere in this mind of mine dissented greatly from the conventional interpretation made of physics' mathematics.
   I find it ironic to read: Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked... when physicists themselves do attack Einstein's very EPR mathematics! For your information I demonstrate that Einstein, while denied by main stream physics, was right after all!
   
5. I do not know whether that 5th criterion is supposed to be positive or negative. Yes the word gravimotion is a neologism in the sense that it is a new invention. Yet gravimotion is not a neologism in the sense that the idea of gravimotion would be based on old ideas! Gravimotion is based on the phenomenon of motion a phenomenon, which doesn�t even exist in physics! FYI the concept of "motion" is not a basic quantity of physics; only particles and particles force are (basic quantities) in physics. Motion has not even been assigned a measuring unit in physics!

All in all Gravimotion is simply an interpretation of Nature that makes sense.
Gravimotion does not compete with physics. Gravimotion does not deny the accomplishments of physics.
Gravimotion mirrors the fact that Nature is consistent.
And think about it, the essence of consistency is to make sense.

Return to top of page