All Of Science Is A Lie

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Let us take the statement "God is responsible for the movement of galaxies and stars" - This argument is simpler than saying black holes are responsible, thus Occam's razor says God is the correct answer.

Actually a natural phenomenon (a black hole) is infinitely more simple than a being that can move galaxies. God represents ultimate complexity and thus loses every time when Occam's razor is applied.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by rhinoceros]

To me....you gave the expression 'to open up a can of worms' a new meaning.

What I consider stupid about some sciences is that scientific communities can hold on to a certain theory for decades while back in their head they know it is wrong.

Good luck with this thread...

reply to post by buddhasystem


Indeed. It's like the blind man, when told about the huge fireball seen in the sky every day, who upon hearing it, immediately screaming ou: "No, I don't believe you, I can't see it, nor touch it therefore you are joking with me, it cannot exist! Don't you think I know that the heat in the summer comes from when the damned landlord turns up the heat in order to drain the people of money?!? That's why when in winter it gets cold, there is no money left so the electrical company turns it off, until they save some more and then he turns it back up! A star you say? What the heck is a star? They cannot exist, I already gave you the reason why! Foolish people, and that damned landlord should really get a whooping!"

[edit on 7/4/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]

Originally posted by buddhasystem

You realize, I hope, that most of the list can not be studied in a lab, as your statement seem to imply... but some can. Here's a recent study at RHIC:

We report the observation of antihypertritons—comprised of an antiproton, antineutron, and antilambda hyperon—produced by colliding gold nuclei at high energy. Our analysis yields 70 ± 17 antihypertritons (Formula) and 157 ± 30 hypertritons (Formula).

That's strange matter for you right there.

There is ample evidence for gravitational lensing etc. I totally understand that you never had a proper physics education and feel intimidated by the subject (as many people are), and try to gain security by denouncing the whole field... Oh well, others spoke amply on that thread.

Based on a hypothetical model.

Again, anything can be proven when the models in question are not constrained by the known laws of physics.

Indeed, the research paper in question "proving" the existence of "strange matter" even acknowledges this to some degree by noting the several hypothetical models that meet observations.

The 3H lifetime measurements to date (25–31) are not sufficiently accurate to distinguish between models, as depicted by Fig. 4B. The present measurement is consistent with a calculation using a phenomenological 3H wave function (14), and is also consistent with a more recent three-body calculation (15) using a more modern description of the baryon-baryon force. The present result is also comparable to the lifetime of free  particles within the uncertainties, and is statistically competitive with the earlier experimental measurements. Coalescence calculations: The coalescence model makes specific predictions

Reading the paper, there are also lots of assumptions within the models they are comparing the results to.

They aren't producing anything useful. It is nothing more than slamming a 747 into the ground and then trying to deduce what makes it work by looking at the pieces.

You can't tell anything useful about the 747 after its been blown up.

Also, the "strange matter" in question existed for all of a few nano-seconds.

Again, the island of stability has not been broken. When scientists can create "strange matter" and keep it around long enough to do something useful with it, I'll change my tune.

In the paper they make the claim that in a neutron star, the strange matter would not instantly disappear because of local "energy constraints" - again, a totally baseless assumption based on hypothetical theory that has no grounding in any laboratory proven physics.






[edit on 7-4-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Indeed, the research paper in question "proving" the existence of "strange matter" even acknowledges this to some degree by noting the several hypothetical models that meet observations.

The 3H lifetime measurements to date (25–31) are not sufficiently accurate to distinguish between models, as depicted by Fig. 4B. The present measurement is consistent with a calculation using a phenomenological 3H wave function (14), and is also consistent with a more recent three-body calculation (15) using a more modern description of the baryon-baryon force. The present result is also comparable to the lifetime of free  particles within the uncertainties, and is statistically competitive with the earlier experimental measurements. Coalescence calculations: The coalescence model makes specific predictions

Reading the paper, there are also lots of assumptions within the models they are comparing the results to.

Oh please, any study is based on certain assumptions (such as what you see is not a hologram projected into your brain by aliens from Zeta Reticuli, for example). Any study is based on assumptions and when those are seen as consistent and linked in a logical chain, they become a theory. Such as one that can produce working things, like a nuke or a computer you typing on.

They aren't producing anything useful. It is nothing more than slamming a 747 into the ground and then trying to deduce what makes it work by looking at the pieces.

In that case, we don't have my choice. Radioactivity was discovered in a similar manner, really. It doesn't make it a less significant phenomenon.

Also, the "strange matter" in question existed for all of a few nano-seconds.

Yes it did. Your point?

According to you, anything that is not palpable to you personally, like a warm hamburger, is fiction. You really seem to be living in a very, very poor and boring Universe. Principles of laser operation are also fictitious, right? I suggest you dump your computer because it's construction is based on shameless lies.

reply to post by buddhasystem


You can throw ad homs all day long, but at the end of the day, the fact is the island of stability still stands.

There is no proof, only conjecture.

Hypothetical theories twisted to meet observation do not constitute proof of anything.

"All science begins as a theory"

WRONG...this is central to the problem with science. Postulation and hypothesis both precede an idea even becoming a theory. Once it's a theory, you can justify more research money since it's "valid." This is how it used to be.

Now someone says a 0.0001% increase in a gas that makes up 0.037% of our atmosphere will cause cataclysmic global change or even global temperature change. Now it has been postulated. Global Warming should have been stopped before the hypothesis became a theory. But so few people understand science anymore.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

You can throw ad homs all day long

these aren't ad homs because -- read further:

Hypothetical theories twisted to meet observation do not constitute proof of anything.

... according to you we should have rejected theories like existence of neutrino. And geocentric model is just dandy. This is not a comment on you character (which would be an ad hom) but on nature of your (rather startling) logic.

Originally posted by ibiubu
"All science begins as a theory"

WRONG...this is central to the problem with science. Postulation and hypothesis both precede an idea even becoming a theory. Once it's a theory, you can justify more research money since it's "valid." This is how it used to be.

True, but your splitting hairs now...and besides, theory is easier to type out that hypothesis. Laymans terms of the bit before someone spending money is theory..a hypothesis is a speculative theory to begin with...the moment you start speculating on something and form it into anything beyond "stonertalk" becomes a theory, just not a traditional scientific definition of process.

Postulation and casual theory are verbally interchangable so long as your not getting a paycheck to state the difference.

Seriously dude, stick to topic and dont get caught up in semantics..."winning" a irrelevant point on the internet is pointless.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Indeed. There is a great difference between a scientificly valid theory and a theory in it's original and general sense. A general theory means simply an idea with some basic explanation to i to substanciate this idea. Also a general hypathesis is not the same as a scientifically valid hypothesis. These words excede the advent of empirical scientific method in age, etymology and semantic meaning.

Originally posted by mnemeth1 All fossils are found on dry land, not ocean floors.

I could reply to many of your fallacious contestations but chose this one to focus on.

Fossils can be found on the sea floor as well, in sediments (naturally). They may not be the 'sexy' macrofossils (generally) but they are fossils.....fossils of plankton that can be brought to the surface by 'grabs' , cores, dredging etc.

If that one comment of yours was wrong, how many others are?

Try this for starters.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by aorAki]

I'm going to have to side with OP on a few points. Science is supposed to deal in facts and results. In other words, proof. It is convienent when a scientist completely disregards God, however, is okay with all of these "theories". I'm just using God as an example. There are many ideas, or, "theories" that scientist won't touch. Yet, most modern science is based on just that, "theories". They talk out both sides of their mouth. What really pisses me off, is when science doesn't have an explanation for something, they throw out some random BS. BS that they can't back up. Just a bunch of arrogance. Science has gotten way ahead of itself, trying to move too far too fast. Big bang, is Big BS. Another example of scientist not understand how something came to be, and coming up with a ridiculous "theory".

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

You can throw ad homs all day long

these aren't ad homs because -- read further:

Hypothetical theories twisted to meet observation do not constitute proof of anything.

... according to you we should have rejected theories like existence of neutrino. And geocentric model is just dandy. This is not a comment on you character (which would be an ad hom) but on nature of your (rather startling) logic.

Theories that revolve around Maxwell's equations which presume a preferred time and universal speed in an infinite static universe are correct.

Theories that presume this obey all physical laws which we can measure.

Einstein's insanity does not obey these simple rules.

Einstein's insanity leads us to crazy theories of warping space, black holes, and all other manner of nonsense physicists can dream up on paper.

I'll believe it when you post a source and you change your thread title.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Ok if science is wrong, what is our universe?? Was there a big bang? I not then how did out universe start? Do you have proof? Tell me Mr. Wise guy, what is life?

Originally posted by Maddogkull
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Ok if science is wrong, what is our universe?? Was there a big bang? I not then how did out universe start? Do you have proof? Tell me Mr. Wise guy, what is life?

There was no big bang.

There was space and from the vacuum of space electrons come into existence.

From electrons existing, all matter and life eventually follow.

Electromagnetic fields are infinite and extend across the entire universe which is infinite.

Two electrons on opposite sides of the universe would eventually attract to each other given enough time. This is what Maxwell's equations tell us. Maxwell's equations are correct.

From this, electrons that come into existence within the depths of space are drawn together into streams of charged plasma.

From these streams, galaxies are born.

Within galaxies, these streams give birth to stars

From stars, gas giants are born.

From gas giants, solid body planets are born.

From solid body planets, life evolves.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Space is not expanding, there was no big bang. The red shift of light coming from distant sources arrives in discrete steps meaning the Earth must be the center of the universe if the big bang theory is true, thus its not. We see high and low red shifted objects interacting with each other in space, impossible if red shift is a function of velocity. We have laboratory proven effects of light acting in a vacuum that can account for all observations in space without the need for a big bang or expanding space.

Redshift clustering around discrete steps is explained simply by large-scale structure of galaxy clusters being filamentary, web like. They are not evenly spread through space.
Any info on why this explanation should not be sufficient?

High and low redshifted objects seemingly interacting with each other are explained conventionaly by just being one over the other. With so many of galaxies, there are bound to be some peculiar ones.
Any info on why this explanation should not be sufficient?

I'm slightly surprised no one has commented on the OP's criticism of plate tectonics. There is a lot to chew on in this thread, but this part I really don't understand. The OP states that for plate tectonic theory to hold up, the plates must be sliding into something more dense than granite. Yes, that is exactly the idea behind plate tectonics. Ocean floor is created at mid-ocean ridges, producing very dense iron/magnesium silicates directly from the mantle (4-6 g/cm^3). These rocks cool and move outward from the rift, eventually hitting the continental granitic rocks (density about 2.5 g/cm^3) near the shore, colliding, and being pushed back into the mantle at subduction zones, producing prodigious forces of rock smashing into rock. So, yes, the ocean floors are being added to the Earth from within, then swallowed at continental margins, preserving the size and mass balance of the planet. That IS plate tectonic theory, so do you agree or not? It does not have anything to do with centripetal force really. It's simple density differences. I think the question is what causes the mid-ocean ridges to open up in the first place.

And for the fossils, they are found mostly in low density anoxic marine sediments that have been plastered against the continental crust when the dense basalts of the ocean floor sunk back down. That's the ocean floor, not the sediments sitting on top of it. There aren't fossils in the true ocean floor for the same reason there aren't fossils in fresh lava flows. So, is plate tectonics a lie or did the OP just support it by being critical of it?

reply to post by mnemeth1


How did the electrons just pop into existence then?

Originally posted by Maddogkull
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

How did the electrons just pop into existence then?

They are standing waves of energy that come into existence within the aether of space.

The aether is space.

Lorentz version of relativity is the correct version of relativity.

The very fabric of the universe gives rise to the standing waves of electrons. From electrons, all else follows.