All Of Science Is A Lie

All of Science, as you should know, is based on theory, not fact

there is no way to prove that black holes exist, earth slides on plates etc
its just what we believe based on what we see.
Mabye you should consider these things before you post your thread

Science.

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.

In the modern world, scientific research is a major activity in all developed nations, and scientists are expected to publish their discoveries in refereed journals, scientific periodicals where referees check the facts in an article before it is published. Even after publication, new scientific ideas are not generally accepted until the work has been replicated.

Wiki link ( science )

Originally posted by unitedwestand123
All of Science, as you should know, is based on theory, not fact

there is no way to prove that black holes exist, earth slides on plates etc
its just what we believe based on what we see.
Mabye you should consider these things before you post your thread

Scientific theory is not the same as the layman definition.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I admit that from reading this thread (and another of yours) I thought you were a bit out there. But...

Discovery That Quasars Don't Show Time Dilation Mystifies Astronomers

(PhysOrg.com) -- The phenomenon of time dilation is a strange yet experimentally confirmed effect of relativity theory. One of its implications is that events occurring in distant parts of the universe should appear to occur more slowly than events located closer to us. For example, when observing supernovae, scientists have found that distant explosions seem to fade more slowly than the quickly-fading nearby supernovae.

The effect can be explained because (1) the speed of light is a constant (independent of how fast a light source is moving toward or away from an observer) and (2) the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, which causes light from distant objects to redshift (i.e. the wavelengths to become longer) in relation to how far away the objects are from observers on Earth. In other words, as space expands, the interval between light pulses also lengthens. Since expansion occurs throughout the universe, it seems that time dilation should be a property of the universe that holds true everywhere, regardless of the specific object or event being observed. However, a new study has found that this doesn’t seem to be the case - quasars, it seems, give off light pulses at the same rate no matter their distance from the Earth, without a hint of time dilation.

Astronomer Mike Hawkins from the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh came to this conclusion after looking at nearly 900 quasars over periods of up to 28 years. When comparing the light patterns of quasars located about 6 billion light years from us and those located 10 billion light years away, he was surprised to find that the light signatures of the two samples were exactly the same. If these quasars were like the previously observed supernovae, an observer would expect to see longer, “stretched” timescales for the distant, “stretched” high-redshift quasars. But even though the distant quasars were more strongly redshifted than the closer quasars, there was no difference in the time it took the light to reach Earth.

I really don't want to pour fuel on this fire but I don't know what to make of this.

T.

reply to post by muzzleflash


They don't get it yet.

It's like telling someone who believes in alchemy that modern chemistry is more correct.

Despite alchemy describing the same phenomena in a more mystical way compared to the modern train of thought, they believe in that magic, whilst we believe in reality. There is no true reasoning with the bunch. Tomorrow I plan on picking apart their arguments (even though they aren't true arguments) and showing them the fallacy of hanging onto a hundred year old belief of how thing's work as if they were the alchemists of the old days themselves.

They just need a reality check, that's all.

[EDIT]

Don't forget, it took the church 400 years to apologize for their mistake in the way they viewed thing's as well. It just might take another 400 years for our new way of viewing thing's to sink in to these fine folks of old.

[edit on 10-4-2010 by sirnex]

reply to post by Triangulum


I'll tell you what to make of it:

1. Time dilation has never been "experimentally confirmed." This is a bold faced lie. It has been theorized to exist due to the observations of "super novas."

2. Since our understanding of exactly what a "super nova" is - is wrong; it stands to reason time dilation signatures from such objects could be simple misinterpretation.

3. The lack of time dilation signatures in quasars confirms everything I have been saying in this thread and then some.

This is yet another FALSIFYING observation of SR/GR.

They are wrong and must be discarded.




[edit on 10-4-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Would you recommend this book?

Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science

I was thinking about picking it up based on the story I posted above and a recommendation from a friend.

T.

reply to post by Triangulum


I read that book last summer -- well speed read it. Definitely a fascinating read. But a bit dated.

Originally posted by Triangulum
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Would you recommend this book?

Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science

I was thinking about picking it up based on the story I posted above and a recommendation from a friend.

T.

dude

one of the all time epic works of alternative cosmology.

Halton Arp is a visionary.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Available as an audiobook anywhere? Gotta long drive tomorrow.

T.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by constantwonder

I guess I'll just concede the argument. The standard model and all modern science is a sham. Let's stop research because a few naysayers have to buck everything they've ever heard. Let's say that the discovery of neutrinos, positrons, quarks are all lies.

You are MISSING the point.

KEEP Researching Please!

But lets get our priorities straight as a species first.

These problems must be addressed first before anymore wasteful science is done.

1) Hunger
2) Poverty
3) Disease
4) Homelessness

When our billions of $$$ have solved these problems, then we can invest in Educating all of these former poor people to becoming scientists.

Then when this next generation of scientists has matured, they can be set out on 1000x the amount of research projects possible at current slow progress (with poverty slowing our progress down so drastically due to lowering the amount of potential scientists available to conduct research since they cannot afford degrees or college).

Than we can conduct SERIOUS research on MANY theories. Alternative theories can get the attention the deserve.

Alternative models need to be addressed too. Not just the "standard" one.

That is why this entire system is so backwards and messed up from the top to the bottom.

Only the "Official Line" is accepted. And this hurts our creative growth and scientific potential as a species drastically.

I appreciate the sentiment here, but is it really the pursuit of expensive science that keeps the world in poverty and hunger?

Often this argument of 'one or the other' is used in complete contradiction to the relative abundance of resources we humans have access to.

If you're going to do a 'choose between' scenario, how about dumping a tiny part of military expenditure in favor of ending global poverty and hunger.

Then there'd be no real need to deny the 'scientists' all their toys in their pursuit of trying to intellectually understanding the mysteries of the universe, whilst the engineers just get on with applying themselves to developing the technologies

Each to his own you know: some people like to create, some people like to destroy and others like to understand. We need all of them, but it would be preferable to find a bit more of a balance IMO.

Hi Triangulum,

Originally posted by Triangulum
I admit that from reading this thread (and another of yours) I thought you were a bit out there. But...

I really don't want to pour fuel on this fire but I don't know what to make of this.

He IS 'out there' but as Lasheic has explained that doesn't necessarily invalidate all or even most of the ideas he is in fact borrowing from people far better educated than he is. The fact is that despite his condemnation of a media created artificial non scientific consensus you will find published material that fundamentally undermines some widely held beliefs. The difference between him and most of these authors is that they merely and mostly calmly make these observations without screaming abuse and worse at anyone who managed to make different observations or reached different conclusions. If your willing to wade trough the relevant material you will find that many of the issues he raised are in fact not as well understood as often suggested in the media ( mostly by lay people/uninformed journalist ) and that despite observed contradictions the understated but significant discussions underway are not getting the attention that i can agree they deserve.

Either way the method he is employing to raise these issues are ensuring that those who are actually intelligent&knowledgeable enough to contribute will like avoid this 'discussion' ( and i am being generous) like the plague.

Regards,

Stellar

Observational evidence DOES refute the standard model.

Its a joke.

Its a lie.

It is a fallacy.

It has no relationship to reality what-so-ever.

A summary of proof here.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

I've done that on many different boards, web sites, and even in here many many times.

The evidence against the standard model is so overwhelming that I could write an encyclopedia of articles refuting it.

Given the epic amount of science refuting the standard model, it comes down to Occam's razor.

The simpler explanation tends to be the correct one.

All of the following are entirely hypothetical and have no basis in laboratory proven physics what-so-ever:

black holes
dark matter
dark energy
dark flows
wimps
machos
neutronium
strange matter
multiple dimensions
the hydrogen fusion model of stars
gravitational waves
the "god" particle
frame dragging
the big bang
the big crunch
gravitational lenses
pulsars
magnetars
etc.. etc.. etc...

Gravitational lenes have been proved WE have photographic evidence and so have pulsars we have radio and photographic evidence for those.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by SiKFury

 

An infinite universe has IMO nothing to do with any individual. It just goes on and on forever.

Kind of like 'timeless' means 'outside of time' or 'without time' rather than 'forever' (a common misunderstanding in metaphysical and religious circles)

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Triangulum

 

I'll tell you what to make of it:

1. Time dilation has never been "experimentally confirmed." This is a bold faced lie. It has been theorized to exist due to the observations of "super novas."

[edit on 10-4-2010 by mnemeth1]

as far as i know, time dilation has never been experimentally disproven in a laboratoy either. your claims of something not being true because it cant be duplicated in a lab are double edged swords.

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

Plasma cosmology is the correct cosmology.

Lorentz relativity is the correct relativity.

Are you saying this because you believe mainstream modes of cosmology are wrong? if so, have you ever stopped to consider that both models are wrong? or that some of both models are correct?

Gravitational lenes have been proved WE have photographic evidence and so have pulsars we have radio and photographic evidence for those.

yes, we've seen stars directly behind the sun during a total solar eclipse iirc

[edit on 11/4/2010 by Paladin327]

reply to post by mnemeth1



S&F

It was constructed to waste money. It was constructed to bloat the paychecks of the scientific elite. It was constructed to bloat the bottom lines of government contract workers. It is a sham. It is a rip off. It is a joke.

I have to agree, it is a sham. The standard model doesn't even predict the actual mass of the Higgs Boson, which is the main purpose behind the LHC. Without known a specific mass of this mysterious particle, how can they be sure that the billions spent to search for it at the energy levels of the LHC are enough? What if the LHC can't observe it, then what? We spend a trillion dollars to build a bigger one as world population increases and food production decreases?

Cosmology is a joke. The same scientific suppression we saw in the Climategate scandal is alive and well in the field of theoretical physics. The physicists are milking us like cattle for our tax dollars. Scientists can replicate the formation of galaxies and stars using standard Newtonian physics by simply adding the electric force into the models.

It's a shame that the majority of the naysayers don't know about hoe we can reproduce what we see in space in labs, right down from the filamentary web like structure of the large scale universe right down to the formation of solar systems. All under electrical phenomena. Instead they whine about sources rather than taking the intellectual initiative to research and fact check.

We are insulted and belittled as if we are simple minded children whilst they hang onto a hundred year old dying model of the universe. We point out the greedy faults of science today, while they forget the greedy faults of old sciences yesterday now proven wrong. We are liken to Galileo and they to the church, and like the church, they will fight that comparison to the death.

Space does not expand, bend, warp, twist, or in anyway do anything other than exist as a place that matter occupies. Matter itself does not bend space, warp space, or cause holes in space. Matter is stable and obeys coherent laws of provable physics that range from the level of the electron all the way up to the level of galaxies. There are no multiple dimensions, multiple realities, or time traveling particles.

The only reason we have the notion of an expanding and warping quality to space is due to the current standard model of the universe, many people don't realize that either. We can't observe space itself expanding and to me, the concept is counter-intuitive with what we observe. Scientists are also now realizing something I've though for a very long time now, that time doesn't exist. This scifi notion of time travel is impossible, there is no fourth dimension nor will we ever produce enough energy to reverse entropy.

Gravity is an electromagnetic function of matter. It arises from matter. It varies and is not constant. When scientists try to measure it they find gravity changes and varies from place to place. There are no consistent measurements of gravity. All methods of measuring gravity produce the same inconsistent results.

Yep, if we change how we think about gravity and how it works as some newer recent theories and modifications do, then we solve quiet a few problems with the need to invent new magical invisible forms of matter. To bring that point to light, the so called missing mass is now finally no longer missing. This hurts the current model as it is now built around magic mass.

The Earth was not formed out of dust circling the Sun. The provable physics of dust in space absolutely prevent dust from forming into planets. This is most obvious in the rings of Saturn. Planets don't form from dust circling bodies. Even the standard theory’s own models fail to show how this is possible. Also, all other planets discovered to-date around other stars have turned out to be closely orbiting gas giants. This is impossible to explain if gravity formed the planets around the stars.

I actually LMAO at the person who provided that cold welding link. The inability of some to read an article being used as a counter argument astounds me. In that same link, it actually says cold welding in the vacuum of space *DOES NOT* happen. I have to repeat this one.... Cold dust in space does *NOT* nor *CANNOT* coalesce into planets, stars or galaxies. This is what the standard model predicts happens and what the actual physics behind cold dust says cannot happen.

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.

Red shift has already been proven to be a faulty measure. We can see highly red-shifted objects in space that are connected by bridges of matter and yet we're told that EVERY SINGLE ONE is just a mere coincidence? That's a complete crock given that redshift is inaccurate. We don't even know how far away objects in space are, so how can they say for a fact that redshift is accurate? It's complete bull crap in order to hang onto a hundred year old model rather than conceding that we don't have the answer to that particular question yet.

The oceans of earth didn’t arrive here from comets slamming into the earth. This is a joke of a theory. All observations of comets show them to be made almost entirely of rock.

Hell, anyone who disagrees with that can just look up the comet Hale-Bopp. It was too far away for the sun to melt ice, well past the orbit of Uranus and yet still remained active. This doesn't make any sense for a dirty snowball view of comets, but is explainable under electrical phenomena.

Scientists are finally no longer believing that comets gave rise to the oceans after discovering that the water in comets is too 'heavy' compared to normal water on earth. Now they are saying the oceans arose the water molecules in the cloud of dust that gave rise to our solar system, which as we've already learned.... cold dust does not and cannot coalesce into stars and planets. This yet again validates the electric model of the universe.

Theories of tectonic plates sliding around producing mountains are a joke. In order for this to be true, the plates must be sliding into rock that is more dense than granite. Core samples of the ocean floors show them to be relatively new. All fossils are found on dry land, not ocean floors. This means the floors are being ADDED to the earth by matter rising out of the earth. This makes logical sense since the earth is rotating and centripetal force is pushing deep matter outwards while gravity is pushing outer matter inwards.

I used to think this was rubbish till I researched it more and gave it serious thought. Given that our universe is electric, I do support an expanding Earth and it does make sense. I urge people to look into it as they put aside their 'the church is right, we're special' mentalities. I mean, just try and learn something different for once.

The history of the Earth as it has been told to you is a lie. Theoretical particle physics is a lie. The big bang is a lie. Comets made of water is a lie. The formation of planets is a lie. Climate science is a lie.

And it's a costly needless lie continued by greed of money and pride of wanting to be right about a dying hundred year old model.




[edit on 12-4-2010 by sirnex]

reply to post by Paladin327

as far as i know, time dilation has never been experimentally disproven in a laboratoy either. your claims of something not being true because it cant be duplicated in a lab are double edged swords.

A smidgen of critical thought can disprove it right away.

You take one clock and leave it on the surface of a gravitationally dense object and place another clock on the outskirts of that objects gravitational influence... Gee... I can't imagine what could possibly be making the clock in space 'younger' than the clock on Earth.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
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.

I like to think about the reality as a system of facts I find through experiments. That's all there is to is. Wave nature of light is evident in some experiments while others will reveal characteristics of it as consisting of particles. Same applies to other entities like electrons etc, there is no reason to single out light from the rest of physics.

There are things in physics that are difficult to accept to human brain, like the fact that all things in and around us consist mostly of vacuum (including out bodies), in terms of relative volume. The Universe is a strange place indeed, but that's not a reason to dumb it down.

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

Well, that way of thinking is both primitive and archaic -- somewhat akin to Phlogiston theory. By there way there are more fields in nature than just electromagnetic: there is weak interaction and strong interaction, and you have repeatedly failed to answer how those tie into your "theory".