All Of Science Is A Lie

reply to post by Gorman91


You say that electricity loses energy as it travels through a wire. That's no surprise, if it did not there would be no big deal with superconductors.

Does it also lose energy as it travels through vacuum? I would think that ,(barring the effects of other electromagnetic fields) it would not. It loses energy in the wire due to interactions with the fields associated with the matter in the wire.

To discount the ether absolutely is to assert that your knowledge is absolute and irrefutable.

Not long ago, learned and respected people made bold stements like; heavier than air flight is impossible; noone will ever travel faster than 60 miles per hour etc..
They soon were proven fools!

Remember Gorman91 the greatest barrier to learning is certain knowledge.

I feel that so called dark matter is an unneeded concept. I have an idea about quantized space that can explain dark energy , and dark matter.
I'll admit my idea is unfinished, and I do not have the mathematics to describe it. Nevertheless if I can see alternatives to DM/DE then I am sure others can too.... perhaps I am the millionth monkey, and my typewriter contains the truth....

May we all gain wisdom and peace!

[edit on 24-6-2010 by FileZero]

reply to post by Gorman91

Dark matter does exist. It is clear. This electronic universe movement has stonewalled when asked about the light that smears due to gravity that is not there. An entire galaxy of dark matter has been discovered. Sorry, you lose.

Your not too bright are you? Either that your your wholly uneducated as to what DARK MATTER is.

I assume your talking about this little gem:

www.universetoday.com...

A British-led team of astronomers have discovered an object that appears to be an invisible galaxy made almost entirely of dark matter – the first ever detected. A dark galaxy is an area in the universe containing a large amount of mass that rotates like a galaxy, but contains no stars. Without any stars to give light, it could only be found using radio telescopes. It was first seen with the University of Manchester's Lovell Telescope in Cheshire, and the sighting was confirmed with the Arecibo telescope in Puerto Rico. The unknown material that is thought to hold these galaxies together is known as 'dark matter', but scientists still know very little about what that is.

Well, right off the bat it says APPEARS. Further down it says detected by RADIO TELESCOPES. I don't mean to nitpick, but DARK MATTER can only interact gravitationally with baryonic matter. It is NOT detectable by radio telescopes at all.

The fact remains that an ether does not exist because sound waves do not permeate through space. To say anything about it not being observed places you in the same boat of that which you criticize. What different is your invisible ether to invisible dark matter?

The ether could be anything from a rarefied gas to the vacuum fluctuations. In either case, sound still would not permeate through space. I personally am banking on the rarefied gas myself as space is 99% plasma.

Ether does not exist. If it does no affect matter, than it is indifferent to dark matter, thus making you no different, just calling it a different name.

The two have entirely different phsycial aspects. Ether being detectable and falsifiable and dark matter being undetectable physically and thus unfalsifiable.

Here are the facts. Zero point energy is a lie. Pretty much the only means to get it would be a device which uses gravity and is in a vacuum. When a perfect vacuum occurs, odd affects DO occur, such as phantom molecules. But they cannot be used for energy. It is very possible that Tesla discovered a means of making waves so small that they affect the frequency of items smaller than mass. There is nothing against the possibility that he may have created antimatter by means of affecting the frequency of regular matter and simply changing its spin.

You don't know the difference between a fact and your own garbage uneducated opinions.

en.wikipedia.org...

Zero-point energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have and is the energy of the ground state.

What your probably talking about is vacuum energy. That being the case, I might agree that *we* might find it difficult to extract usable energy from it.

You can be the smartest man in the universe. That does not change a damn thing that in the early 1900s, you would not be able to observe anything smaller than an atom nor affect anything to an observable amount.

And yet people still defend Einstein and his nearly hundred year old model derived from what was known nearly a hundred years ago. Christ, even your defending an inaccurate model. If the model were correct then it would not have made such a gross miscalculation in mass to begin with. Nothing in science would be a surprise either, like the ...Oh, every single god damned quasar observed thus far showing no signs of time dilation or redshift/apparent brightness not following the way it should. If the model were correct, it would account for all of that.

Instead, you sit there like a damned hypocrite.

Tesla was epic wins for sure. But don't turn him into some God of the universe that could observe some make believe ether that he cold tap into.

You can thank Tesla for modern life. You can thank Einstein for .... Well, nothing really.

BTW, if he could observe it, it means that it can affect matter and photons, and therefore carry sound waves. You can't hear the sun, therefore don't make crap up.

Are you for real?

en.wikipedia.org...

In the late 19th century, "luminiferous aether" (or "ether"), meaning light-bearing aether, was the term used to describe a medium for the propagation of light.

Currently, there is no medium for electromagnetic waves (that includes radio waves, but we'll get to that in a sec.) to propagate through. Every wave known thus far to man requires a medium to 'wave' through. The Aether is postulated as the medium allowing electromagnetic waves to exist.
Not one Aether theory postulates that the Aether is a medium for sound. Don't be an uneducated buffoon.

We would already have free energy and personal space travel if it wasn't for Einstein and his corrupt criminal band of thieving followers.

Whilst I agree with you that many scientific theories will be shown to be false or incomplete, stating all Science is a lie is going way to far, and also shows little cognitive ability in recognizing the reasons as to why this is.

I doubt there are any scientists involved in a conspiracy to prevent true advancement, but there are many invested heavily in the current system, and their entire world view is formed by the current system.

Anyone who has read anything Einstein had to say, would know he was not an absolutist in any sense you imply.

Lastly, I doubt we would be much further.

Many of the problems stem from a lack of data (my own field of interest is archeology and anthropology). You just can't be sure which finds are in situ, the carbon dates are relentlessly recalibrated etc. It is all guesswork at best, as many of the scientists are often ready to admit.

But in regards to Physics and Cosmology, I would wager that our little mammalian brains are insufficient to truly understand reality. We currently do not even understand the brain. Not really, not in detail. Even what sleep is for is hotly debated and not well understood. Hence I laugh and scoff at the idea of Strong AI. You can't build what you don't understand.

And of course, the current paradigm is for a Universal Law, one that everything can be reduced to. But that too is just a human intellectual fancy, that the Universe is inherently "elegant", as though that were already an established law.

People trying to make reality fit Dogma will sooner or later always lose. You just seem to represent a different dogma.

reply to post by ReluctantShaman

Whilst I agree with you that many scientific theories will be shown to be false or incomplete, stating all Science is a lie is going way to far, and also shows little cognitive ability in recognizing the reasons as to why this is.

I'm not picking on you specifically, but much of what you have said has been previously said by others in the thread.

I doubt there are any scientists involved in a conspiracy to prevent true advancement, but there are many invested heavily in the current system, and their entire world view is formed by the current system.

I think many of the 'naysayers' have missed to main topic of discussion in the OP. He is clearly talking about the current standard science of cosmology. He simply made the erroneous usage of the phrase "all of science" when trying to make his point about current cosmology.

Anyone who has read anything Einstein had to say, would know he was not an absolutist in any sense you imply.

If anyone has followed the OP's threads, they would be well aware that the OP is well aware of this fact.

Lastly, I doubt we would be much further.

There are many technologies that would provide simple, clean energy and other advancements.

Many of the problems stem from a lack of data (my own field of interest is archeology and anthropology). You just can't be sure which finds are in situ, the carbon dates are relentlessly recalibrated etc. It is all guesswork at best, as many of the scientists are often ready to admit.

I agree, many scientists are ready to admit they are wrong, to a point. The OP is also well aware of this point as well. The problem is, not all scientists are ready to admit they are wrong in face of evidence that they are wrong, hence why we still hang on to Einsteins model despite numerous observational evidences that it is wholly inaccurate.

But in regards to Physics and Cosmology, I would wager that our little mammalian brains are insufficient to truly understand reality. We currently do not even understand the brain. Not really, not in detail. Even what sleep is for is hotly debated and not well understood. Hence I laugh and scoff at the idea of Strong AI. You can't build what you don't understand.

Yet through experimentation and observation we can garner a better understanding. Current cosmology is mostly resting upon assumptions of truth and invented constructs created to explain an observation that doesn't fit in the current model. The science of cosmology today is less science and more the writings of a great sci-fi novel.

And of course, the current paradigm is for a Universal Law, one that everything can be reduced to. But that too is just a human intellectual fancy, that the Universe is inherently "elegant", as though that were already an established law.

I personally doubt there is a GUT to be discovered. There is no reason to my knowledge that there should be.

People trying to make reality fit Dogma will sooner or later always lose. You just seem to represent a different dogma.

Well, it depends really. Are we talking about invented made-up dogma or are we talking about tried and true known physics? There is a remarkable distinct difference between the two.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by rhinoceros
I'm no physicist, but I know that you can't see a black hole. You can however observe them indirectly. That was the case with the picture I provided a link to. You failed to explain what was going on there. Them physicists say it's a super massive black hole and I see no reason to doubt them.

You believe in what you can not see and what can not be proven.

That is what you believe.

Black holes can not be proven to exist.

I would argue it is easier to prove that god exists than prove a black hole exists.

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.

The scientific probability of God moving the galaxies and stars is no more or less provable than saying a black hole is doing it.

Black holes can not be created or destroyed. They can not be replicated in a lab. They violate all known laws of physics. They can not be directly seen or detected by any means. They are more powerful than any force created by man. They are perfect.

Swapping the word black holes with the word God in the previous statement is perfectly valid. There is no scientific difference between black holes and God as an explanation.

Black holes are proven and observed. They are not infact "holes" in the fabric of space but stars which collapse and react in such a way to cause a large amounts of gravitational pull. When a star is still main sequence we observe the effect of gravity by the elliptical motion planets follow. This helps to prove the black hole (which is in fact a super dense black sphere) by allowing us to continue pathing anomalies.

The only reason its so difficult to directly observe is due to the fact that your trying to see a black object on a black border that consumes light. If position were to be perfect and a nearby star were to be directly behind it you would see something similar to a solar eclipse.

Due to the size variations of stars and other astral bodies this can not occur within human convenience; such being the need to be away from research and life time.

As for the other things your spouting off, I am not even going to go there, its completely laughable how you can stand by such silly theories. I can however agree that science do use their research funds in a manner that is not completely honest.. but in a world like ours I can not blame them

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by Threadfall

 

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

I can see that. My core temperature seems to stay around 45-50 degrees C. All looks well within specification.

The LHC trying to find the Higgs Boson in an effort to explain dark matter and dark energy is a risky
and perhaps fruitless endeavor.

Cosmologists have love underestimated the effects of the electrical nature of the Universe and instead have tried to explain all observable motions by the force of gravity alone.

Redshift is not purely an indication of velocity, The "Wolf Effect" is one alternate cause and there are others.

Some galaxies are thought to be older than the estimated time of the Big Bang.

When someone invents something like dark matter or dark energy, it is a red flag in my opinion, so instead of digging the hole deeper, they should step back and dig in a different spot.

The more we know, the more we realize how much we don't know.

Genome scans have turned up single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with different responses to treatment, but efforts to uncover the mechanism have drawn a blank

Genome scans have turned up single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with different responses to treatment, but efforts to uncover the mechanism have drawn a blank

Originally posted by Hendrix92TheUniverse
The LHC trying to find the Higgs Boson in an effort to explain dark matter and dark energy is a risky
and perhaps fruitless endeavor.

I don't believe Higgs Boson does anything to help the dark matter problem. It might help the dark matter problem if they found evidence of particles beyond Standard Model at LHC. Or they didn't find the Higgs. Or they found two.

Cosmologists have love underestimated the effects of the electrical nature of the Universe and instead have tried to explain all observable motions by the force of gravity alone.

This is also false, however, because there are both positive and negative charges (in distinction to gravity) over long distances you will have neutarlity.

Redshift is not purely an indication of velocity, The "Wolf Effect" is one alternate cause and there are others.

Some galaxies are thought to be older than the estimated time of the Big Bang.

When someone invents something like dark matter or dark energy, it is a red flag in my opinion, so instead of digging the hole deeper, they should step back and dig in a different spot.

The more we know, the more we realize how much we don't know.

The effect of "dark matter" or "dark energy" is a fact; there are sufficient clear astrophysical obseravations to show that something is there and it behaves graviationally, not electromagnetically.

It is conceivably possible that our understanding of gravitation is incorrect at large scales and is responsible for the observations. However a significant class of alternate theories have been proposed, tested and falsified by later observational evidence, so the best explanation of the observations which are attributed to dark matter remains dark matter.

I'm personally more concerned about dark energy.

I'd prefer an elegant solution which involves new physics.

reply to post by Hendrix92TheUniverse


Dark matter is the new Aether. But it patches holes in a obvious broken model because that models predictions does not get verified by observation in any real way minus more patches and theoretical objects spun out of whole cloth without a shred of real justification.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Hendrix92TheUniverse

 

Dark matter is the new Aether. But it patches holes in a obvious broken model because that models predictions does not get verified by observation in any real way minus more patches and theoretical objects spun out of whole cloth without a shred of real justification.

There is plenty of real justification, and the scientists are 100% aware that the current understanding is not satisfactory until a more precise and predictive physical theory emerges.

reply to post by mbkennel


Right. There is none except a bunch of pointing at random phenoms and saying "See! This is caused by Dark Matter!!!". A substance I might add, which is by definition unobservable.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Correction: true, science of today may be a lie. But only in my book is Orthodox Science a big fat lie. Unorthodox science is something I trust because I can do it in my very own backyard with no one hovering over me and demanding me to do it by what some guys says that is right.

I appreciate your concern.

You typed all of science is a lie while typing on a computer built by proven physics-science....wow..

All of science is a lie? even the electric universe?