So now we are to include sophistry in your set of sins against logic, science and reason. Okay, so be it. I think I once called you Euthyphro, I remember now why.

" In other words it should defy the scientific method or be demonstrably false."

No, you don't get it. Proving something false has nothing to do with it being pseudoscience.

NEARLY NOTHING IN THE WAY OF CLAIMS OF FACT CAN BE PROVEN FLASE

I can't believe this has to be explained.

"Pseudo-science is "false, fake Science" not just "fake science"--there's a very subtle but distinct difference."

In otherwords, you want to niggle over semantic details. Okay....

" 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."

No, the claim of a primordial explosion is testable and based on evidence (look at the CBR readings! Look at the observations Dr. Hubble made, regarding the redshift ). It draws predictions (doppler shift), it depends on causal models (classical dynamics, etc). Its mathematically rigorous in that many theorists have tried to explain, with logical mathematically rigorous models, what sort of 'stuff' or 'process' may have existed before the Big Bang and how the Big Bang happened. etc etc etc. The claim is NOT PSEUDOSCIENCE. It may OR MAY NOT be true, but its not pseudoscience.

"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"

You can call them 'white papers' or 'pre-prints' or 'pending publications', but that has nothing to do with them being bullshit or not. Your theories happen to be the very essence of pseudoscience, and bullshit to boot.

"Containing or derived from error; mistaken"

This is crap. The point is: pseudoscience does not submit itself to scientific methodology Thats what makes it pseudoscience- not that it is falsifiable, wrong etc. The VERY LIMITS OF METHODOLOGY, BOTH DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE, PROSCRIBE A VERY STRICT LIMIT ON WHAT CAN BE PROVEN FALSE.

"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.""

It was inconsistent with scientific methodolgy, could not make testable predictions, did not give a model, etc- IE IT WAS INCONSISTENT WITH SCIENCE. Falsifiability has NOTHING to do with pseudoscience. By your definition, almost nothing is pseudoscience, you understand that, right, and it implications for your position on the matter, don't you? I guess not...

"Just type the words atomic vortex into Google and you're there."

Maybe we need to coin a new logical fallacy. Argumentum ab Google.

IOf I type in "Alien abduction" and "Anal Probe" into google, does that make the claim that aliens abduct people and probe their asses scientific, not pseudoscience, and somehow of a different chartacter than run-of-the-mill pseudoscience?

"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."

Deliver forth the paper and cite where it was presented. otherwise- bullshit again. Lindy, according to her estimation, just proved the 'Jupiter cause earthquakes' claim, BTW (or at least in her estimation)... Lets see how your prognostication holds up to even her laughable standards of veracity.

"Habitablezone is not a suitable forum to present new scientific theories. "

In otherwords: 'I WOULD tell you why I am so right and you are wrong, but this is just not the time and the place' AKA bullshit.

"My pseudonym isn't hidden and its very easy to avoid.
"

Except that you inject your shitte into every thread you can, and even co-opt other peoples tragedies to push yuor small minded pseudoscience garbage.

DL