A New Physics Theory of Life
It's a little disappointing to see so many articles like this voted to the front page recently.  These articles aren't exactly pseudoscience per se (and indeed they are normally the work of someone at MIT, Stanford, Harvard, etc.), but at the same time they're still kind of outlandish.  The articles are all along the lines of "What if the universe is [random idea here]?" and then some kind of weird computer simulation or physical analogue (water drop experiment) is done that supposedly backs the idea up in a way that typically doesn't convince me very well.For instance, I feel like I could ask "What if the universe is really a network of time bundles?" and then I make up a definition of "time bundle", generate a bunch of fractals, and then loosely say "hey, that looks like a galaxy".  It just isn't very good science to me.  It reminds me of that history channel show "Ancient Aliens" where they keep asking "What if?"  Yeah, so maybe one of those 8,000 theories is actually true, but it's just not all that satisfying.I prefer traditional science articles: observation or hypothesis, followed by direct experiment, followed by conclusion.  This type of science makes up 99% of research today (read any scientific journal), and in my opinion is much more intellectually interesting.  It's like everybody in the media focuses on the one article on beer carbonation in Physical Review Letters and ignores the other stuff.  Why don't I see many articles on HN about cellular networks, or fuel cell polymers, or organic photovoltaics?  These topics are exciting too.