Contrathetic Impass, Wittgenstein Error, Heteroduction

  • Here is few article, one spotted by Michael McCulloch (the physicis behind MiHsC Emdrive/NoDarkMatter theory).

    They focus on reasoning methods for very complex cases, and spot some tactic used by non rational actors, and problem with usual rational methods.

    There are probably toos to understand why LENr is so much rejected, why absurd excuses are so much accepted, why evidences are so much denied despite being there unstained...

    I don't have much time, not probably competences, to analyse all tha is said by this author, but I suspect it can be great.…inference-proves-unsound/


    Heteroduction in contrast, would coalesce all these same anomalous observations (see below) into a competing paradigm; observations which either are unlike anything we have ever seen, or even contradict our current prior art on the subject. Heteroduction in this instance serves to develop a grounded-but-novel explanatory schema for these into a new competing construct (hopefully later hypothesis, if it can survive fake skepticism). Quantized Inertia stands as a key example of heteroduction in action.

    Linear Induction

    Dark Matter – a hypothetical form of matter that is thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe, and about a quarter of its total energy density. Its presence is inductively implied in a variety of astrophysical observations, including gravitational effects that cannot be explained unless more matter is present than can be seen.1

    A person conducting heteroduction would sound warning on this line of reasoning – if enforced as a truth, rather than as the null hypothesis (note that I am not arguing against Dark Matter as a construct, simply using its deliberation as exemplary here).


    Quantized Inertia (QI) – previously known by the acronym MiHsC (Modified Inertia from a Hubble-scale Casimir effect), is the concept first proposed in 2007 by physicist Mike McCulloch, as an alternative to general relativity and the mainstream Lambda-CDM model. Quantized Inertia is posited to explain various anomalous effects such as the Pioneer and flyby anomalies, observations of galaxy rotation which forced Dark Matter’s introduction and propellantless propulsion experiments such as the EmDrive and the Woodward effect. It is a theory of inertia-like resistance arising from quantum effects, which serves to function in the place of dark matter – as the necessary conjecture explaining ‘missing matter/gravitation’ in our cosmological models.2

    True science challenges its null hypothesis, and this construct/hypothesis challenges the null hypothesis within a reasonable basis of soundness. This does not mean that QI therefore as an idea is correct, rather that it stands as a potential foundational stone inside a Kuhn-Planck Paradigm Shift. The mode of inference and the method of investigation remain valid, despite whether or not the QI alternative pans out to be true in the end. Is is indeed science.

    And finally, this one that reminds me something...…ts-faithful-participants/


    Wittgenstein Error and Its Faithful Participants

    I neither want to understand your observation or contention, nor do I regard it as acceptable for consideration unless I see solid conclusive empirical underpinning; much as I hold for all the things I regard as true. Until it is proved, I will allow no language of science to develop around the subject. Your terms and measures are all pseudo-science.
    Wittgenstein says bullshit to the supposed objectivity of those who game process in this manner, and identifies three types of error to which the social epistemologist falls prey.

  • And another paper on EmDrive... Carmine Cataldo et al ."Towards a New Concept of Closed System: From the Oscillating Universe to the EM-Drive". International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science(ISSN : 2349-6495(P) | 2456-1908(O)),vol 6, no. 2, 2019, pp.043-052 AI Publications, doi:10.22161/ijaers.6.2.7


    The EM-Drive, as long as it is considered a closed system, explicitly violates the conservation of momentum and Newton's well-known third law: however, it would appear, according to several tests to date, that the device may concretely deliver a certain thrust without a detectable exhaust. The question is: can the EM-Drive be actually regarded as a closed system? We have elsewhere tried to provide a qualitative answer by resorting to a theory based, amongst other hypotheses, upon the existence of a further spatial (hidden) dimension. In this paper, the whole revised theory is step-by-step expounded, avoiding, for the sake of brevity, some aspects that, notwithstanding their undeniable relevance, do not concretely contribute to the achievement of our main goal. We consider a Universe belonging to the so-called oscillatory class. Firstly, we formally show that, as it is well known, a simple-harmonically oscillating Universe is fully compatible with General Relativity. Then, we carry out an alternative deduction of the mass-energy equivalence formula as well as of the Friedmann–Lemaître equations. Finally, by resorting to an opportune writing of the conservation of energy (carried out by taking into account the alleged extra spatial dimension), we implicitly obtain a new definition of closed system, so providing an answer to the question previously posed.…universe-to-the-em-drive/

  • resorting to an opportune writing of the conservation of energy (carried out by taking into account the alleged extra spatial dimension

    Cataldo needs a better translator.. it looks like he is using maths as a fixit to justify the EM drive.

    The alleged extra spatial dimension (i.e 4D+T) is not ""fully compatible" with General Relativity which is formulated with 3D+T

  • Currently with recent failures to replicate with good instruments by Tajmar, the jury is out.

    Tajmar latest experiment is very solid for the measuremen (torsion balance...), but some say he toasted his cavity...

    We are far from the 153 peer reviewed papers on LENR for PdD electrolysis.

    The evidences with galaxy rotation seems more solid for MiHsC/QI.

    Future will say. The stakes are so great that rationality is to pursue replication, or explanation of what pretended to work. (not just proving you screwed your own experiences as everybody you claim have).