In this case the word "believers" refers to the so called "scientists" posting on these boards.
As an example, DL says that he understands the "scientific principles".
Then he states that:

"pseudoscience does not submit itself to scientific methodology"

DL calls the "vortex theory" pseudoscience, which then would mean that a vortex can not be studied scientifically, yet there are mathematical analysis done by various people showing how a "vortex" works. Vortex of rotating mass can certainly be studied and understood in the terms of physics.

SDAI-Tech1 said:
" 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."
To which DL answered:

"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.

But it is very difficult to explain, especially with mathematics alone, it needs a "model" that encompasses the basic and fundamental behavior of matter and space.
Mass is supposed to have a "field" called "gravity" associated with it, or perhaps the mass simply "warps" the space-time continuum so that mass falls into it. In any case, if there is enough mass gathered together so that the mass becomes a singularity, it will have such a strong "gravitational field" that even photons can not escape. At least that is what I have heard.
It is obvious that there is an extreme quantity of mass in the universe, therefore the "gravitational field" must have been really extreme in the beginning of the universe, now, if that was the case, then how could the "mass" fly out of that field?

I have a "model" that is supported by mathematics, it explains much more than "why" the big bang could have occurred, it also explains other physics phenomenon too numerous to explain here.
Not only that, it describes the hypothesies in terms of logic and mathematics that:
1) Depends upon other accepted mathematical truths and
2) can have predictions derived from it and
3) Can be subjected to formal logical analysis.

Unfortunately, that theorem also has been declared as "pseudo-science" by the "scientific" minds that post on these boards.

The question then is: How can "new" ideas be presented to the close minded "scientific" community?

Johannes

PS. Real good reading material
The incredibly shrinking curiosity. Posted by Raoul on space board