In Physics, objective criteria are applied to determine whether a theory is rational. Irrational explanations include the following elements:
1. converting concepts into physical objects and then pretending to move them around, e.g.,
a. Pretending that consciousness is a standalone entity and using the word as a ghost or phantom to explain what caused the curtain to move.
b. Pretending that energy or information is a physical object and claiming to ‘transfer’ these concepts.
c. Converting singularity or mass into a physical object and theorizing that these reified concepts have the power to move stars around.
d. Calling a wave function or other equation a ‘particle’ and claiming to accelerate and smash them at the accelerator.
2. using key undefined words or using them inconsistently throughout a dissertation, e.g.,
a. Failing to establish whether the word ‘God’ refers to an object (anthropomorphic being) or to a concept (Love, Intelligence, Spirit).
b. Saying that space-time is an unimaginable, four-dimensional object and failing to define the word ‘object’, or using the definition of ordinary speech (e.g., see/touch criteria)
c. Using terms such as ‘black hole’ or field without clarifying whether the term refers to an object (e.g., black ball, corpuscle) or to a concept (region, values, magnitudes, units).
d. Claiming that dark matter or God exists, but failing to define the word ‘exist’ or using synonyms in lieu of definitions (e.g., real, being, actual, extant)
3. the theory (explanation) doesn’t follow from the assumptions (hypothesis), e.g.,
a. Presenting a knife as Exhibit A and explaining the murder with poison.
b. Pointing to a two-dimensional image of an object, describing it as a one-dimensional ‘string’, and theorizing that ‘particles’ are vibrations.
c. Assuming that there was nothing before Creation and explaining the manufacturing of matter from the abstract concept energy.
4. to describe (especially mathematically) and claim to have explained a phenomenon, e.g.,