All Of Science Is A Lie

Originally posted by keepureye2thesky
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

So are we to assume that your post is a lie?
Where does the rabbit hole end?
Why should anyone believe you?

His post has no validty, it is unfounded and based on the ignorance of his opinions.

But don't call him a liar, but certainly prove him wrong (very easy to do)

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Amagnon
The atomic model is incorrect

It's not? How so? What other model you propose that explain the phenomena we explain with the atomic model, and quite well?

Vacuum is not empty - it is a fluid.

Sure, and the Earth is hollow.

In the first instance I am not proposing an alternative - I am stating the atomic model is not correct. This cannot be proved either way - so just as the atomic model is a theory, my counter theory is that it is incomplete - or completely wrong.

It is not correct (in my view) because it relies on the inventions of strong and weak nuclear forces - forces whose existence has been brought into serious question (read - disproved) by experimental evidence. That they do not exist is completely contrary to accepted and mainstream science - so my sources would be 'kooks' - however, for myself I find I trust their empirical evidence above theory.

That vacuum is filled with a fluid has a huge amount of empirical data to support it. Mainly 3 decades of empirical evidence accumulated by Dayton Millers ether drift experiments. Additionally, a fluid filled vacuum of high density satisfies the calculated energy density of the vacuum without requiring 'normalization'. It also explains red shift, variations in its density explain the inconsistency of gravity and obviate the need for inventing dark matter, energy and flow.

Science has forgotten it is supposed to be based on experimentation and observation.

[edit on 9-4-2010 by Amagnon]

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by buddhasystem

B) The photoelectric effect is related to wave-particle duality. I previously explained that the wave-particle duality is solved when one uses LR in conjunction with standing wave electrons.

How so? What does relativity have to do with photoelectric effect? I think this pile of gibberish is catching up with you.

To understand the photoelectric effect, one must first have a correct understanding of exactly what light is.

Wait, you dragged relativity (in the form of LR) into the discussion of photoeffect and now you dodge it?


I wonder what that quack science you are referring to has to say about weak and strong interaction and symmetries we observe in the realm of elementary particles. I can't wait to see how Maxwell's equations tie into this!

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Wait, you dragged relativity (in the form of LR) into the discussion of photoeffect and now you dodge it?


I wonder what that quack science you are referring to has to say about weak and strong interaction and symmetries we observe in the realm of elementary particles. I can't wait to see how Maxwell's equations tie into this!

I gave you a proper response. How about you quote the rest of what I said instead of cherry picking.

How about you respond to why gravity hasn't been proven to be constant yet and why the LIGO hasn't detected any gravitational waves and the CDMS hasn't detected any dark matter.



[edit on 9-4-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I gave you a proper response. How about you quote the rest of what I said instead of cherry picking.

You gave me a response which was surprising, because it involved relativity (whereas it's reasonable to treat a common photoeffect as a classical quantum phenomenon). So I demanded an explanation (I admit I knew you didn't have any). You call it "cherry picking"? Oh well. That's seriously pot calling kettle black. Cherry picking is all you did in this thread to begin with.

How about you respond to why gravity hasn't been proven to be constant yet and why the LIGO hasn't detected any gravitational waves

I wrote on the LIGO subject twice in this thread, and if you don't bother to read this thread, why do you bother to post in it?


[edit on 9-4-2010 by buddhasystem]

reply to post by buddhasystem



To understand the photoelectric effect, one must first have a correct understanding of exactly what light is.

The current understanding of light is wrong.

Physicist Caroline Thompson discusses the photoelectric effect and its lack of proof for quantization here:
freespace.virgin.net...

LaFreniere models light here:
www.glafreniere.com...
atoms here:
www.glafreniere.com...
on quarks here:
www.glafreniere.com...

some quotes:

Moreover, the proton radiates several parallel hyperboloid zones. Their addition produces true hyperbolas on the junction points. Finally, it becomes obvious that the constant and periodic spectral lines, especially the Balmer series, are linked to those junction points.

Hyperbolic interferences between two gluonic beams, from two orthogonal points of view.

Any of those hyperbolas can capture one electron in accordance with constant periodic distances.

This is the well known Fresnel-Fraunhofer diffraction pattern, which is especially present in the laser beam.

The proton is not a laser, but similar zero-energy zones should be present on privileged axes.

Each of those "black holes" are capable of capturing one electron, but the energy level differs.

The electron ability to oscillate inside one of those zones depends on the zone position.

The oxygen atom.

Here, two shade cones are empty.

However, four cones may be empty as well because two electrons may be positioned inside the inner shell.

The empty cones can capture two or four electrons from other atoms such as hydrogen or carbon.

This wave structure explains a lot of phenomena, such as photoelectric effects, chemical bonding, electric current, semiconductors, etc. It shows that a proton radiates most of its energy along the 15 gluonic fields axes. This leaves 8 axes free from any radiation between them, producing 8 "shade cones" which look like this:

The shade cones are capable of capturing up to 8 electrons on the external atomic layer.

One or more electron can join two such systems while at least two cones coincide.

This explains chemical bonding.

[edit on 9-4-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

To understand the photoelectric effect, one must first have a correct understanding of exactly what light is.

The current understanding of light is wrong.

You dodge my question once again. You said that LR is involved and refuse to say why it is. The source you like to quote says "Lorentz gave no solution." Regardless of how you slice it, you don't seem to have a clue.

Physicist Caroline Thompson discusses the photoelectric effect and its lack of proof for quantization here:
freespace.virgin.net...

Yeah, yeah, yeah... I read it. The following paragraph of this oeuvre seems to have come from the pen of a six-grader... all the while contradicting the observations:

Personally, I have never felt the photoelectric effect to be evidence of quantisation at all. I have always thought it was just the way our instruments (or photosensitive substances) worked, producing effects that we could measure only when circumstances were right and some threshold happened to be exceeded. ( Now that I know more, I am even more convinced. See later.) Mind you, I am aware of the fact that high-energy light does seem sometimes to come in strong pulses, each reliably able to cause a "detection". These strong pulses were presumably one of the reasons for the initial acceptance of the photon idea, but I propose to concentrate on low-energy light, as this is what is used in the EPR experiments, the area I have studied most intensely. (Incidentally, the same kind of qualitative difference is seen with sound: high energy "ultra-sound" has different properties to ordinary sound, for example being able to form narrow pencil-like beams.)

What "strong pulses" have to do with photoeffect? Photoeffect can and does happen with extremely low intensities of light, down to a single photon. Gee.

LaFreniere models light here:
www.glafreniere.com...
atoms here:
www.glafreniere.com...
on quarks here:
www.glafreniere.com...

Oh boy, it's been a long time since I saw such a pile of BS! No relation to reality. However, it might create an illusion of knowledge in people incapable of comprehension of physics.

reply to post by buddhasystem


What has no relation to reality is believing light acts as a particle and a wave at the same time.

That waves can travel through space without a medium to transport them.

I've presented my views to you on the subject, if you choose to reject them out of hand, there's nothing more I can provide that will change your opinion.





[edit on 9-4-2010 by mnemeth1]

I deleted the personal attack that I found in my inbox only because I was distracted. Next time it will be forwarded to the ATS Admin.

reply to post by mnemeth1

I take it you didn't bother to read the advanced physics thread I linked.

I did, actually. I just don't see it's relevant to the point though. Further, I don't know why you think that thread is in any fashion supportive of your position. The correspondence actually lasted much longer than I expected it to, and they were very professional and courteous. They explained their decision to reject the paper, engaged him in discussion, suggested publication in a speculative journal geared more towards his paper's current state, and even offered advice on ways to improve his paper in in both general terms and in regards to their journal's criteria.

Beyond that, the thread was four pages of him borking the interpretation of the Sagnac Effect despite repeated corrections and many a face-palm.

Obviously not a very welcome finding.

Well, for poor Xinwei anyhow. Maybe he can get some tips from Casey Luskin on how to cope with having his papers continually rejected. Just goes to show... if you build a hypothesis for the purpose of being an academic bludgeon, it will fail at both.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Could you clarify 'all of science is a lie', which I take to mean ALL empirical knowledge gleaned of ALL subjects known to man is a lie? How can that be?

Isn't it more about the issue of scientists sometimes attempting to convey their theories as unquestionable fact, when in fact they ought to make it clear that they are always subject to re-evaluation in light of further data, or analysis?

I just wonder whether a more accurate title may be 'the following scientific theories have been challenged or as yet failed to fully explain our observations/data'

I was just re-acquainting myself with what 'science' means/is (see quote from Wikipedia:

"Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is comprehensive information on any subject, but the word is especially used for information about the physical universe.[1] As knowledge has increased, some methods have proved more reliable than others, and today the scientific method is the standard for science. It includes the use of careful observation, experiment, measurement, mathematics, and replication -- to be considered a science, a body of knowledge must stand up to repeated testing by independent observers. The use of the scientific method to make new discoveries is called scientific research, and the people who carry out this research are called scientists.[2][3] This article focuses on science in the more restricted sense, what is sometimes called experimental science. Applied science, or engineering, is the practical application of scientific knowledge.

A scientific hypothesis is an educated guess about the nature of the universe, a scientific theory is a hypothesis which has been confirmed by repeated observation and measurement. Scientific theories are usually given mathematical form, and are always subject to refutation if future experiments contradict them."

If the word 'science' means knowledge, and you say all of our knowledge is a lie, then where does that take us? Where do we draw the line? Do we believe even our own eyes/ears/senses/experience? If we can't trust anything how will we function/make any decisions? I just don't get it?

Is it that certain strains of theoretical scientific research appear difficult to audit/verify?

I call farce.
At least I hope so.

reply to post by Threadfall

Poe's Law:

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

Now you know how Schrodinger's Cat felt, stuck in a state of superposition. Both simultaneously being trolled for lols and steamrolled by sincere ignorance - until a smiley face or a mod pops up and the waveform collapses.

Trolling... the one profession where the worse you are at the task, the more convincing the ruse becomes.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


this is in the wrong place obviously, this is in science and technology, yet at best should be in philosophy, as only political madness is an area.

reply to post by curioustype


he's a backwards thinker, not forward. trying to halt our progression and make us discuss nonsense and not come to any conclusion.

Please stop wasting our time with illogical statements, poorly sourced data to backup your half-baked claims; it's clear that you are a ineducated mess.

Please waste someone elses time. Because your posts are just laughable.

Are you being weird?

Is this really a legitimate thread?

Nice to see you posting your opinion using the World Wide Web, developed in CERN, the same place as the LHC.

The accelerator is a rip-off? it costed $16bn to build. less than one percent of Britain's GDP, and keep in mind that MULTIPLE countries are contributing. That's roughly the same amount that a medium University like Manchester University brings in a year.

It may continue to break down, because it's an EXPERIMENT. Why didn't anyone just tell the Wright brothers to give up after their first fail?

I would continue to pull apart your post, but I just want to laugh. Show me your degree in science, and I will value your opinion.

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.

Lots of Love,
Future particle physicist.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

I gave you a proper response. How about you quote the rest of what I said instead of cherry picking.

[edit on 9-4-2010 by mnemeth1]

Perhaps he saw that you didn't afford other members the same courtesy so you were worthy of receiving the same treatment?

Annoying as all get out isn't it?

Hi Mnemeth,

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I'm definitely no stranger to it.

Being familiar, no strangers to it, with a very complex subject matter is precisely what most physicist are and yet you dismiss even those who have managed to provide you all the observations and alternative explanations from which you have constructed you beliefs? How do you reconcile this contradiction?

I've spent years studying all manner of cosmological theory.

And that may just make you a slow learner; it's not proof of anything and if you wish to impress us tell us where you gained your Bachelor's Degree in the relevant fields. Failing that it matters not one iota how familiar you believe yourself to be when you do not provide us with truly vast tracts of sources.

Occam's razor has been my guide while navigating the mine field of alternative theories.

Occcam's razar has in your view not worked for the science community so i would like to ask why you think it's any guide when it comes to the alternative 'community'?

Plasma cosmology is the correct cosmology.

There is field of active comprehensive research worthy of the name. The assemblage of information you call Plasma cosmology is not coherent and certainly nowhere near as systematically explored as SR. To dismiss SR in it's entirety sadly shows that you your dealing in the type of absolutes best left to religious fundamentalist.

Lorentz relativity is the correct relativity.

And it's for the overwhelming part identical to GR/SR. At least you are aware of it and i agree that it seems, in my lay opinion, to make greater allowances for the observations of the last century even if Lorentz didn't have the benefit of them.

Standing waves account for all quantum strangeness AND the failure of the Michelson Morley experiment to detect the aether.

Very interesting claim and i would appreciate your sources on this matter as i have spent a bit of time over the course of the last five years trying to discover why the failed to the detect the aether which is still fundamentally presumed in classical electrodynamics

All matter is made of waves.

All light is made of waves.

Photons are mythical? I would rather go with the particle view myself ( as espoused by a 'significant minority' including David Bohm ) presuming the fundamental error that led to the wave particle-duality notion to have been due to experimental restrictions. But since i am absolutely unqualified to have a opinion on the matter.....

The universe is infinite with a universal speed - Maxwell's equations are correct.

Maxwell >>> Einstein ( by miles) but frankly i don't see how you derive these conclusions from either Maxwell's original equations however correct we both think they are and however much we believe that Heaviside's simplification and 'balancing' of it wrote out of existence that 96% of mass now presumed to be dark energy. Dark /energy/matter indeed in as much as they seem to be in the dark about where it went missing.

Quantum field theory, special and general relativity are incorrect. They are bogus shams of science that have no grounding in physical reality. They are obtuse. They are a fraud. They are peddled by scientists acting as priests.

I have tried absolutes myself and it got me nowhere. I do suggest you save yourself the time&embarrassment it has cost me over the years. Since you are already dependent on exactly the people you are condemning the contradiction itself can and will continue to destroy what little credibility you as lay persons may have gained here or elsewhere.

Regards,

Stellar

Its a big jump from "the LHC based science is a lie" to "Everything you know is a lie (scientifically)" Please, when ration and logic are involved, there is usually little room for such extremes.

reply to post by tektek2012


Skunk works maybe ?