From Webster:

Main Entry: pseu·do·sci·ence Pronunciation: "sü-dO-'sI-&n(t)s Function: noun : a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific

The key is on that word erroneously:

Erroneously:

Containing or derived from error; mistaken

Pseudo-science is "false, fake Science" not just "fake science"--there's a very subtle but distinct difference. In other words it should defy the scientific method or be demonstrably false. If I say the universe was created in a flash of exploding primordial matter but that we cannot know how or why that happened because it was not knowable or falsifiable--that would be pseudo-science. If I say there are glass hotels on the moon because I see weird artifacts in photos and yet we can point our telsecopes and see that these hotels are not there-- that would also be pseudo-science.

Lindy's page presented inconclusive photographs as "scientific" evidence. It offered no control group of water in the same temperature to compare with and no description of the process of "positive thinking." Lindy was the one who stated that the link proved thoughts are things. The site itself really didn't seem like it was trying to present a "scientific" case at all. Rather it was a "feel good" site that is interpreted by the viewer and designed to sell books. (The page linked to the author's website & subsequently a book)

I didn't peruse it closely enough to see if the author had actually written scientific papers on the supposed phenomenon. Those papers, if they exist, would be the final criterion to determine whether the entire effort was pseudo-science despite its extremely poor web-impression.

As for my posts being my theories--ha! They are not posted here, only various references to principles contained in them. The basis of my theories is presented in various white papers and a good while back I posted a link. Just type the words atomic vortex into Google and you're there. There is plenty of mathematical backing and numerous equations for my postulations and principles. Several of my cosmological predictions have been verified independently, namely prediction/observation 2.0, the cluster of galaxies identified in what seems like a long arm passing through the universe, and the continual appearance of "old" fully-formed galaxies beyond that which were expected to be found if the big-bang theories presented were valid or accurate. My paper was presented in May of 1998 and the "Galaxy Arms" discovery was presented in February of 2004. I got it right - nearly six years before it was identified & verified.

Habitablezone is not a suitable forum to present new scientific theories. My posts are my own understandings and observations as they pertain to topics and so-called "unsolved mysteries" and are not presented as "scientific" evidence whatsoever. everyone is free not to click on my posts if they are offended by them. My pseudonym isn't hidden and its very easy to avoid.