January 5, 2021

A large part of physics is theorizing. Most of it is in error; but some, such as Newton's laws, is not. It's not error alone that determines the validity of theorizing.

The unhinged claims of election fraud show that theorizing is not always the same thing. Sometimes it's an evaluation process; and then sometimes is an absurd promotion of motives.

If someone was carrying a box of votes, why would it be a Democrat and why would subverting the election be the purpose? Boxes of votes are always being carried around, but it's only an attempt to overthrow an election when the motives say it is.

Plugging in claims in an inconsistent manner with no evidence for them is a different type of theorizing; so much so that it might not qualify as theorizing; but then what would it be? It would probably be a mimicry of theorizing without the usual process of looking for evidence.

What then is theorizing without evidence? Is it rationalizing? There is a heavy element of fraud involved, when a pretense of knowledge is thrown in and no ability to explain the basis. It may be the fraud element that makes irrational theorizing different.

Fraud is too much of a secondary generalization to pick it apart; but it is easy to recognize when you see it. It carries a lot of force with no logic that can be pinned down. The ability to trace something to its origins is a large part of validity. The total absence of traceable substance is what characterizes the imposed motives for claiming election fraud.

The number one fact that the frauds are missing is that there needs to be a connection between starting point and end point. The frauds seem to assume they can just pick realities out of the air with no identifiable origins. What makes someone carrying a box a Democrat instead of a Republican? Imagined realities.

Frauds cannot differentiate between garbage in their heads and realities that have objectively identifiable sources that can be located, observed and evaluated. They live by nonsense in their heads that shouldn't be there and expect everyone else to accept the resulting assumptions.

That's not how theorizing is supposed to work. It's supposed to start with a foundation of accepted realities that serve as common understanding. That starting point doesn't exist for the type of corruption that is assaulting government now days.