"demonstrably false"
I'm not as sophisticated in the terminology as some people--Davin certainly puts it better than I could--but my understanding of science is that if you want to claim that there are hordes of invisible and intangible leprechauns living under my bed, the ball's in your court to come up with the proof. I don't need "proof" to say they aren't there.
This, to a greater or lesser extent, is true of all science. As a rule of thumb, the amount of proof needed depends on how outlandish the claim is.
For example, if your "vortex" philosophy is as rooted in physics as it appears to be, you should be able to mess with it using instruments.