All Of Science Is A Lie

Occam's Razor is what led to Lorentz's "ether" theory (this is talked about in Fabric of the Cosmos by the way) to be rejected in lieu of Einstein's.

So which do you prefer? Occam's Razor or Lorentz?

And when do we get to see some number crunching?

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
People please can we stop playing the yes and no game ?

I followed this thread from the beginning. IMO the OP does not say all science is wrong.

Here, in case you missed the thread title:

All of science is a lie

Edit: I'm sorry I didn't see who I was replying to. But to be fair he didn't leave a lot of room for interpretation when he said all of science is a lie!

[edit on 8-4-2010 by ImaNutter]

Originally posted by ImaNutter
Occam's Razor is what led to Lorentz's "ether" theory (this is talked about in Fabric of the Cosmos by the way) to be rejected in lieu of Einstein's.

So which do you prefer? Occam's Razor or Lorentz?

And when do we get to see some number crunching?

Yeah it sure did.

However if you remove a necessary part of the equation, such as reality, it tends to screw up the results.

The statement forbids removing the necessary.

A medium in which light waves can travel through is necessary.

mnemeth1 i just wanna know how you got here from the dark ages?
But thanks for a funny post, gave me a good laugh..

Originally posted by Theomi
mnemeth1 i just wanna know how you got here from the dark ages?
But thanks for a funny post, gave me a good laugh..

Thanks for not reading the thread before commenting.

The OP?
I read every bit of it...

Thanks for that quick response.

When do we get to see some number crunching? If we're going to talk science then we should at least speak the language, eh?

reply to post by mnemeth1


you sir have an issue with selective response, making it very difficult to carry on an argument.

Originally posted by ImaNutter
Thanks for that quick response.

When do we get to see some number crunching? If we're going to talk science then we should at least speak the language, eh?

Yeah, lets turn this into a math contest and alienate 99.9999999% of the readers in here while we duke it out over obscure algebra and calculus.

To save you the trouble, the mathematical models of the aether have been posted by Gabriel LaFreniere on his site, along with modeling software and source code for you to play with.

If you'd like to see mathematical models on the physics of plasma, I got an entire catalog of IEEE papers you can peruse till your heart is content.

If you find any major flaws in the math, let me know.

reply to post by mnemeth1


as far as i know for every Action there is a Reaction

light dark, good evil , vibration sound , cold hot ! < perfect example ,

ying yang , etc... ohh wait matter anti matter en.wikipedia.org... or dark matter en.wikipedia.org...

anti particle en.wikipedia.org...

it can go on and on and on

reply to post by ImaNutter


It's not that I can't read.

I do believe I can tell the difference between what is written and what is meant. Besides that the OP has explained what he meant in his replies.

Of course I could be way of but only the OP can tell me if I'm right on this one.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by ImaNutter

 

It's not that I can't read.

I do believe I can tell the difference between what is written and what is meant. Besides that the OP has explained what he meant in his replies.

Of course I could be way of but only the OP can tell me if I'm right on this one.

He's just trolling me.

Just to post this as a reminder; since ATS tends to attract sensationalists - and sensationalists tend to punctuate their views by framing them in absolutes and false dichotomies.

Keep in mind that just because someone is wrong, doesn't mean they are completely and utterly wrong in all aspects of their position. Just because someone is right, doesn't prevent them from being wrong. There are innumerable relative magnitudes to which one can be right or wrong about a subject. It's relative.



Issac Asimov's Original Essay: The Relativity of Wrong.


Science can claim 100% confidence in any explanation, no matter how functional, solid, and reproducible it proves to be. Science is a process of falsification, and so must remain falsifiable. So right from the word go, Science never claimed to be correct in absolute terms. However, for a theory to gain mainstream acceptance within science, it must be functional and at least partially correct and provide some measure functionality. Currently accepted theories will only be challenged or replaced by new explanations if they prove to be more functional and can provide a better understanding of the phenomena it's describing. This is an ongoing process which ensures that old theories are replaced by more accurate theories.

The OP's pet theories may be accurate on some level, but regardless of how wrong one thinks the standard model is, the weight of evidence and utility are still well in favor of the Standard Model. The OP's proposed theories will not gain mainstream scientific support until they can demonstrably be shown to surpass the Standard Model in explanatory capability and predictive functionality.

Those theories proposed by the OP are not wrong or right in their entirety, but are significantly more incorrect than the Standard Model, even if could explain some particular related phenomena better. It cannot explain as much as well, on the whole.


Just to note: Quantum Mechanics, were it not for it's functionality, should have been scrapped long ago for the inconsistencies and problems it appears to cause superficially. It is still notorious for being obtuse, counter-intuitive, and downright weird. However, it's utility and accuracy in predicting results verifiable by multiple independent reproductions has verified that QM is correct on at least some level of current understanding. The precision by which QM experiments have shown to be capable of is often compared to accurately predicting the width of North America to within the distance of a human hair.

No matter how difficult it turns out to be to reconcile the various understandings of current models physics - or to verify the existence of phenomena they imply should exist.... on some level, they are all correct to some degrees as evidenced by their functionality.

Our understanding is incomplete, and inaccurate, but they are by no means wrong in their totality... and the OP has consistently failed or ignored the obligation to provide demonstrable evidence to substantiate his claim that they are deliberate and intentional falsehoods constructed with the intent to deceive.

Errors, whether acknowledged or unrecognized, are not synonymous with deception and lies. Inaccuracies are not lies. Mistakes are not lies. Misunderstandings are not lies. The function of the methodological framework that is the Scientific Method can occasionally produce artifacts of known error if correcting that error breaks the functionality of an otherwise accurate and useful description. These artifacts are not ignored or hidden, and tend to become the subject of fierce debate and research.

Example: Language was one such artifact of error in regards to Behavioral Psychology. It was a "known problem" that was tackled unsuccessfully during Behavioral Psych's dominance as the major field driving psychological discovery. Chomsky's viscous rebuttal to B. F. Skinners theory on language marked the last significant (to my knowledge) attempt at reconciling the error. Cognitive Psychology's ability to provide a much more useful explanation to language, as well as it's utility in other fields such as jump starting basic A.I. research, kicked off what was known as the Cognitive Revolution. By the end, real-time imaging technologies established the validity of Cognitive Psychology definitively, and it has become one of the primary drivers of psychological discovery (partially due to it's comparability with neuroscience).

Neither Cognitive or Behavioral Psych is right. Neither is wrong. Both are accurate within the boundaries of their functional application. Most scientific debates are not slate-wiping, ground shaking, paradigm shifts that turn our understandings on their head. They're "border disputes" of a sort, and fought with overlooked details and anal retention.




Parody/Meme, but does convey certain kernel of truth to the stress, frustration, and backbiting which can flourish in academia.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Lasheic

 

A page long diatribe doesn't change the fact that LIGO hasn't detected gravitational waves

User "Lasheic" was kind enough to provide a very educational post that thinking people who try to learn, would find useful. You prefer to call it a "diatribe", and that starts revealing a pattern ("only Sith deal in absolute").

which is in direct contradiction to what was predicted.

...if one accepts assumptions about density of events like merging of galaxies and such... You all too conveniently ignore elements of what goes into research, if they don't fit into your narrow agenda.


[edit on 8-4-2010 by buddhasystem]

The OP's pet theories may be accurate on some level, but regardless of how wrong one thinks the standard model is, the weight of evidence and utility are still well in favor of the Standard Model. The OP's proposed theories will not gain mainstream scientific support until they can demonstrably be shown to surpass the Standard Model in explanatory capability and predictive functionality.

This is an unsubstantiated claim guilty of the very thing you accuse me of.

Through out the course of this thread I have systemically shown that alternative theories can account for observation in a much simpler fashion that Einstein's relativity.

Not only can they account for observation, but they can do so in an entirely unified way that scales from the electron all the way up to galactic scales.

On top of this, I have pointed out the vast number of failures in tests and the complete lack of predictive powers of SR and GR.

One thing SR and GR are not is falsifiable.

You'll never - ever - see a failed test of SR or GR held up as falsifying Einstein's bogus version of relativity. The reason for this is simple. Since the theories have absolutely no basis in reality, they can be reworked to meet any observation ever encountered.


To me:

Scientists having to invoke "dark energy" = automatic falsification

Scientists having to violate the island of stability = automatic falsification

Failure of LIGO = automatic falsification

Failure of CDMS = automatic falsification

WMAP showing nonhomogeneity = automatic falsification

and so forth.


These are primary falsifying observations of SR and GR.








[edit on 8-4-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Yeah, lets turn this into a math contest and alienate 99.9999999% of the readers in here while we duke it out over obscure algebra and calculus.

All I want is for you to prove your original claim to me...

.... actually if you would stop cherry picking and respond to what I've already given you that would be fantastic... it's horribly unfair to expect me to respond in full to you when I've got all kinds of counter arguments backed up by now waiting for your response. Instead of responding to these you keep saying I'm trolling.

If I stand on my head while typing the counter-points would that make you any more likely to respond? Apparently you're impervious to the double dog dare...

To save you the trouble, the mathematical models of the aether have been posted by Gabriel LaFreniere on his site, along with modeling software and source code for you to play with.

Could you please just post those links here? so everyone is working off the same sheet? Better yet, can you demonstrate what you're talking about? I don't want to alienate anyone....

If you were going to save me the trouble, you'd just explain it here (or at the very least provide a link). But that's really what I was asking for... was for you to give us some shred of hope that you MIGHT know what you're talking about.

All I know is youre a code junky and an armchair theoretical physicist... oh, and you like to call people a troll when they make a counter point you don't like (and ignore).... yup, this is the guy I'm gonna get all the latest scientific breakthroughs from heh Okay I've really got to let this thread go... too much time on this non-science box talking across this dark magickz interwebs heheh

Oh, one more dozy from my OP which is never talked about:

Gravity has never been proven to be constant.

Something that is absolutely required of GR.

You'd think by now they would have figured out a way of testing gravity to prove once and for all its constant.

Surprise surprise, no matter how much tax payer money is spent on testing gravity, ALL of the tests show that it varies over time.

Atom interferometry (which is a joke, why in the hell would one use individual atoms to measure gravity? Einstein's own theories split atomic level structures into a totally different relativity!) shows an inordinate amount of variation when tests are conducted at yearly intervals.

Of course, when one uses a large scale beam balance, the variances are massive!

I've never seen a proper explanation given for why a beam balance measurement of gravity should vary so widely.

Bottom line:

The gravity of macro scale objects can vary over time by as much as 1%!



[edit on 8-4-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by muzzleflash

Explain how the UFO goes faster than light with Relativity. Sorry it didn't open a wormhole so that's out of the equation. (UNless you claim it is a invisible wormhole or something lol).

some how bending time and space ? dimensions cross over weaving ? my guess .. using some element that is stable that defies law of psychics as we know it then again the ufo's i have seen move in a zig zag that must go at the speed of light hitting g forces that would crush a human being

unless inside that ufo there is some type of anti gravity field ?



from the late jkrog08 s thread ( the g force )

The 1952 Tremonton, Utah UFO Fleet
www.abovetopsecret.com...

as this is probably best first few filmed known to the public
as also the film said' that it has eliminated balloons and birds as it says this in the film at 5.00 min mark








[edit on 8-4-2010 by Wolfenz]

reply to post by mnemeth1


I'm still a bit perplexed by this link to cosmology and basic geology. I have a bachelors in geochemistry, and I never ran into anyone who was completely sure of Earth's very early history. I think I understand where you're coming from with some of it, but not all by any means. The accretionary formation of the planet, coming together from bits of rotating matter, has never been a sure thing in geology. No professor I've ever had taught this as an absolute, so I've always considered it a gray area. Formation of oceans, sure; it seems unlikely to me all that water came from comets as well, but the time scales of geology are not comprehensible to human life-span. Therefore, I don't know. However, you talk about "the ancient history of the Earth" as if this is all there is in the geological sciences. It is a discipline which has been around for far longer than any cosmological theories that would even be recognizable today. There were rock classifications, glacial studies, metallurgy, meteorological observations, oceanic current observations, you name it, before there was even alchemy, let alone chemistry as we perceive it. I don't quite see what this has to do with cosmology, which begs the question: do you consider geology a science, or some bastardization through the prism of human consciousness? I just don't get it. Not attacking you, but curious about your explanation. Theories are theories. You've got yours, I've got mine.

reply to post by Wolfenz


hahah I must have missed that one.

Under LaFreniere's version of Lorentz's relativity (which is the correct version of relativity) faster than light travel is possible; however electromagnetic functions would cease, but because there are no limits to forces such as gravity which work well beyond the speed of light, faster than light travel is entirely possible.

Thus, if you could create an anti-gravity field (which seems plausible under this version of relativity), you could propel a spacecraft at nearly any speed you want.

So there's a hat tip to the UFO lovers out there.

If you believe in UFOs, you should support Lorentz