Talk:Bruce Cathie

Psuedo science

Isn't the reference to "discoveries' somewhat overstating Cathie's theorising? The ideas are at best pseudoscience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, simply making something up is not making a "discovery". Cathie himself used the word "speculations", that would seem to sum it up nicely. 121.72.122.155 (talk) 08:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

On second thoughts, that entire paragraph has been weasel worded and needing citation for years, it's almost certainly some crank's original research and unlikely to ever be brought up to wiki standards, given the amount of attention this article receives - about one edit a year. Deleted. 121.72.122.155 (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Just because he was cranky and it was original in the original meaning of that does not invalidate the theory. I.e. even if it does not have gone through the official paper mill does not invalidate it either. Remember that original research did not always / does not have to have, a negative meaning. We have enough negativity in the world..to not let a former professional flight engineer and flight captain, have a hobby and a captivated audience.

Further the citations missing are from his published book.

Further his research could have some positive implications such as pointing out the the German X-7 reactor is at two identical harmonics (which they are called in his theory) which if we are unlucky is not a good thing for a fission reactor.

And consider for instance that the placebo effect is not (irony) not considered according to high-profile American magazine the new dope in medicine which is what homeopathy was based on all along. (As long as they can find a doctor who can utilize the placebo effect properly). Christmass (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bruce Cathie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090123123456/http://www.astrosciences.info:80/Matrix3.htm to http://www.astrosciences.info/Matrix3.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)