All Of Science Is A Lie

reply to post by mnemeth1


Thanks for those links , I look forward to giving them a read .

Does this idea come in some way from " The Electrical Universe " theory ?

Again , thanks in advance .

Originally posted by muzzleflash
How does Relativity explain the UFO i saw fly straight up into the sky at what looked to be OVER MACH 40 (Warp speed if you will) leaving a tracer of light that only lasted a brief second???

I'm not buying your UFO story but anyways if it was moving at the speed of light it would have moved 300000 km in a second. To your eyes it would look like the ship just seized existing at one location and simultaneously started existing at another. It wouldn't have looked like "OVER MACH 40" which is just 12 km a second. A petty speed in comparison to the speed of light.

Originally posted by constantwonder


The transistor makes your world possible my friend.

This is a perfect example of the backwards thinking we are trying to combat here.

"The transistor makes your world possible my friend."

Nope, Incorrect. 100% WRONG.

The World makes the Transistor Possible my friend. = TRUTH REALITY

This is why the "Standard Model" you love, will be DESTROYED by a NEW MODEL.

Such is the FATE of ALL Scientific Theories!

Why does the Institution of Science look just like the Institution of Religion when it comes to stubbornness???

I apologize for being a pompous jerk towards you It is a real Shame on my part I admit,but it is the only thing people seem to understand anymore these days. It's incredibly frustrating.

I'll let it go when these issues are addressed or I'm killed. Whichever comes first.

All of science is a lie....

So how is it that I'm on the internet right now... typing?
Did science make my laptop possible... or just "The world"


I may have missed something but this seems like a bit of a silly argument.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by muzzleflash
How does Relativity explain the UFO i saw fly straight up into the sky at what looked to be OVER MACH 40 (Warp speed if you will) leaving a tracer of light that only lasted a brief second???

I'm not buying your UFO story but anyways if it was moving at the speed of light it would have moved 300000 km in a second. To your eyes it would look like the ship just seized existing at one location and simultaneously started existing at another. It wouldn't have looked like "OVER MACH 40" which is just 12 km a second. A petty speed in comparison to the speed of light.

Thats all beside the point, your clearly refusing to consider a possibility. What if it was true ?

And FTL is Over Mach 40. Or is it UNDER? Right your point is?

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Thanks for those links , I look forward to giving them a read .

Does this idea come in some way from " The Electrical Universe " theory ?

Again , thanks in advance .

The electric universe theory declares the universe is static and not expanding.

Given the overwhelming proof that this is so, it follows that only theories that are based on a static universe are possible.

So I started researching theories that were compatible with a static universe and Maxwell's equations - which we know to be correct.

Out of that research, I found that Lorentz relativity had in fact never been falsified. It was simply discarded in favor of Einstein's which basically removed the aether and replaced it with warping properties of space.

Einstein's theory of relativity is actually very similar to Lorentz's model, which Einstein based his work off of.

The failure of the MM experiment to detect the aether was what did Lorentz's theory in.

BUT - I knew Lorentz was on to something given that his relativity could not be falsified. Standing electron waves perfectly accommodate Lorentz's version of relativity and explain why the MM experiment failed to detect the aether.

They also agree with plasma cosmology because all of the theories assume a static infinite universe and all comply with Maxwell's equations.

Also, the standing wave model of electrons is simple - hence it also complies with Occam's razor.

So to answer the question the two are not directly related, they are indirectly related based on what science tells us must be true about the nature of the universe.

Plasma cosmology, Maxwell's equations, Lorentz relativity, and standing wave electrons all add up to give a complete picture of the universe.




[edit on 7-4-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by blupblup
All of science is a lie....

So how is it that I'm on the internet right now... typing?
Did science make my laptop possible... or just "The world"


I may have missed something but this seems like a bit of a silly argument.

Because the scientific theories of tomorrow will better address the failures we currently have at understanding some of the more bizarre aspects of reality.

That future better model will explain perfectly how your comp works.

Just as Classical Physics explained how a Bow and Arrow works.

But doesn't modern physics models explain Bow and Arrows too?

How odd because the modern physics models and classical models disagree. But they both somehow explain bow and arrow physics.

How can you not see the logical fallacy in your reasoning?

Your argument must not be constructed correctly.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by muzzleflash
How does Relativity explain the UFO i saw fly straight up into the sky at what looked to be OVER MACH 40 (Warp speed if you will) leaving a tracer of light that only lasted a brief second???

I'm not buying your UFO story but anyways if it was moving at the speed of light it would have moved 300000 km in a second. To your eyes it would look like the ship just seized existing at one location and simultaneously started existing at another. It wouldn't have looked like "OVER MACH 40" which is just 12 km a second. A petty speed in comparison to the speed of light.

Thats all beside the point, your clearly refusing to consider a possibility. What if it was true ?

And FTL is Over Mach 40. Or is it UNDER? Right your point is?

My point is that your hypothetical observation didn't in any way contradict general relativity as your description of its speed is just 0,00001 of light speed. It's a speed man has already travelled at.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by muzzleflash
The bow and arrow was built by a physicist.

Does that mean his theories on the Universal laws were correct?

No.

Your argument fails massively.

Let's move on please.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by muzzleflash]

Seriously?

That's your counter argument? The bow and arrow was built by a physicist? That's news to me. Some one engineered the bow and arrow based on what they understood about motion kinetics and flight.

The computer was built from tranistors. The principle on which they operate is physical theory that has been tested over and over again.

It's not the invention that is being discussed Muzzleflash, it's the theory and principles behind them.

And just on a side note ballistics is physics. The same principles that ancient man used bows and arrows still apply today because they work. In 100 years tranistors will still work. They'll be out dated the theory will have been refined but I guarentee that does not make modern science all a lie.

If you can find a cheaper more effective way of studying particle physics than building accelerators then by all means please revolutionize the industry.

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.

People volunteer to waste their entire lives and careers in mines, and laboratories and accelerators and telescopes chasing a lie. They spend large sums of money to get doctrate degrees in sham science. They willingly make no contribution to true science because they are just so damn comitted to the lie.

instead of sayin garbage like "massive fail" or your just wrong why not try using the grey matter between your ears to argue rationaly without one liners and veiled insults?






[edit on 7-4-2010 by constantwonder]

Originally posted by mnemeth1


The electric universe theory declares the universe is static and not expanding.

I think this basic idea would make a "Infinite" Universe a inevitable possibility.

If it does not expand that what keeps it from collapsing? It's a paradox, which I believe a Infinite sized universe would actually explain very well, due to magnetism.

The same way all of the atoms in our bodies do not touch, but are part of a seemingly infinite "larger reality" composing of virtually countless atoms.

None of the atoms touch though. Because of what I consider a electromagnetic effect.

It's the same thing when I put two opposite sides of a magnet togeather. There is this repusilve effect.

Anti-gravity.

Therefore Gravity = Magnetism attraction.

and Anti-Gravity = Polar Opposite Repulsion

OP am I anywhere close with this??? In your Opinion?

Originally posted by muzzleflash
That future better model will explain perfectly how your comp works.

Well It's been built and it works... and both things can be explained, by current scientific understanding.

We don't need to wait for the future.

How can you not see the logical fallacy in your reasoning?

How is it a logical fallacy...?

My computer works... and science made it!
How is that statement fallacious in any way?

Your argument must not be constructed correctly.

I don't have an argument... i just stated a fact, that's all.

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.

Originally posted by blupblup
We don't need to wait for the future.

Yeah you do.

We wanted spaceships now.

We need a new model to make sweet spaceships.

That's the point.

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

Could you possibly get any more ad hom here?

Your saying science is a lie because we do it instead of feed the poor? Sounds like some liberal clap trap ideology. That is no bases for calling all of science a sham.

You should note that the OP only posts crap like this because he's an electric model fan. He doesn't care about feeding the poor or solving disease (which physics based chemistry is doing quite well at).

He's hiney hurt because his precious theory doesn't get the funding that other physics endeavors get. Mnemeth is a shill for electric models. His refutations have nothing to do with the spending of money on accelerators verses philanthropy. And everything to do with his view of cosmology verses the standard view.

Your entitled to your opinion and I'm much more apt to take you serioulsy muzzle because that has been your argument the entire time. It has not and never will be anything more than a strawman for the OP.

Originally posted by constantwonder

Your entitled to your opinion and I'm much more apt to take you serioulsy muzzle because that has been your argument the entire time. It has not and never will be anything more than a strawman for the OP.

Thanks. I understand you now.

I can not speak for the OP, I only speak for me.

It is not a straw man for me, I only want human advancement on a whole.

Others may use such a argument as their straw man, But not I.

I want to see real progress. Spaceships, arcologies, hotels on mars you name it.

If we end poverty and all that crap, we can speed up our scientific progress by thousands fold.

I will be dead by then, so I don't care about what I gain from it.

I only care what our children get from it. True freedom to explore the universe and find happiness anywhere they want.

Call me a sucker for idealism.

reply to post by muzzleflash




I see you avoided my laptop point.

Anyway, You're just rambling now... enjoy the thread man.

I'm off to bed.

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

I see you avoided my laptop point.

Anyway, You're just rambling now... enjoy the thread man.

I'm off to bed.

I addressed that point like 5 times.

That just because Technology (X) was created by Physicist (Y) does NOT mean that Physicists Y's theory of the universe (Z) was correct.

You can place ANY TECHNOLOGY ever made in this and it is TRUE.

Go AHEAD fill IN the variables.

eg.
Galileo invented the telescope.
Therefore, Galileo's theories of the Universe were correct.

X invents Laptop.
Therefore X's theory of the universe is correct.


Get It?
It's a logical fallacy.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by muzzleflash]

[edit on 7-4-2010 by muzzleflash]

This is a fascinating thread -- the link given about de Broglie and the wave theory of matter is excellent.

The issue about science as a lie has to do with the concept of symmetry and the commutative property. To say the universe is static and infinite implies a symmetric measurement -- Western math relies on a "one to one correspondence" of geometry and number or letter and space. This is first described as the commutative property -- A x B = B x A. But even in noncommutative matrices -- after the 4th dimension -- there is a conversion back into classical physics using symmetric based math. This is detailed in quantum chaos mathematician Ian Stewart's recent book "Why Beauty is Truth: A history of mathematics" -- 2007 or so.

Anyway if you consider the wave theory of matter from the perspective of asymmetric energy -- which is what that de Broglie link recommends in terms of technology, i.e. asymmetric capacitors. -- then you are resonating energy from the zero point field itself. That website is quick to point out this is not free energy but it does rely on Tesla's concept that the aether is inherently kinetic. Quantum chaos science also relies on this property -- the inherent resonance of quantum into classical physics through a nonlinear feedback as synchronization.

The important thing to realize though is that it takes super computers to do the mathematical logic -- the "theory" -- for quantum chaos science which is the most cutting edge science for the military -- i.e. at Sandia, Los Alamos and the Santa Fe Institute. As quantum chaos mathematician Steve Strogatz points out recently in one of John Brockman's "The Edge" interviews -- the math is now controlled by the computers. If the logic of the math -- the theory -- is created by the computers then the same is and will be true for the rest of society.

My argument is that this has always been the case -- because even quantum chaos relies on symmetric-based math. The effect of symmetric-based math is the mass conversion on Earth of left-handed asymmetric carbon based molecules (ecology, including humans) into right-handed asymmetric silica-based molecules. Left-brain dominant humans using right-handed technology rely on symmetric math with a one-to-one correspondence of the geometric technology as left-brain dominant language and right-hand technology. This math as theory then inherently creates an imbalance of both social justice and ecological crisis -- increasing as the math expands.

I focused on this concept in my masters thesis -- how logarithmic-based math -- including quantum chaos -- relies on the same nonlinear resonance feedback found in nonwestern systems of science, like energy healing using music.

Then I discovered that this concept was already made explicit by a unified field theorist highly praised by Einstein and this theorist had many elite connections with global planners. I exposed this as the Actual Matrix Plan relying on the "music logarithmic spiral."

nonduality.com... gives a summary of this expose behind science.

The Liar is the Lyre -- when right-brain dominant music lyrics used to be the basis for vast memory storage in humans -- but then the Liar took over as left-brain dominance (called Metis by Plato).

So I agree that science is a lie -- but my argument is a bit more radical then just promoting a plasma-based cosmology as the alternative.

I told myself I wasn't going to post in here but I feel I must add some clarity.


A theory will always be a theory.
A law will always be a law.
A theory will never become a law.
A law was never a theory.
A theory is not the opposite of a fact.
A theory can be a fact.


A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. For example, Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion describe the motion of the planets. However, they do not explain why they move the way they do. If scientists only formulated scientific laws the universe would be described very well but still unexplained.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an observed phenomenon. Theories actually explain why things are the way they are. This is where a lot of confusion can happen. In normal everyday usage the word "theory" can be used to describe a guess or a hunch, but that is not what it means when used in scientific terms. A scientific theory has been built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Theories are what science is for.

The word fact is most often used to describe an observation. But it can also be used to describe something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is really no reason to keep testing it or looking for more examples. There is nothing that prevents a theory from being a fact.

Lets work with an example. There is a natural phenomenon of gravity. You can observe it, bodies caught in a gravitational field will fall towards the centre. Then there is the theory of gravity, it explains the phenomenon of gravity based on observation, physical evidence and experiment.

Laws, theories, and facts can change with better data. Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity replaced the less accurate gravity theory of Sir Isaac Newton. However the accumulation of more evidence will not cause a theory to develop into a law. Theories are the goal of science.

If you wish to develop a new theory you must also take into account the Correspondence Principal. The Correspondence Principal states that any new theory must give the same answers as the old theory where the old theory has been confirmed by experiment. For example, Newton's laws and Einstein's Relativity give the same answers in ordinary conditions, they only give different answers in extreme conditions such as near the speed of light, refining the accuracy of the GPS system, or calculating the orbit of Mercury (none of which Newton could confirm by experiment). Therefore, if you wish to develop a new theory of gravity, one that allows for faster than light lets say, it must still give the same answers that the relativity theory did for all those experiments it confirmed. Experiments that are accurate to quite a few decimal points.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by deadboi]

Originally posted by drew hempel

So I agree that science is a lie -- but my argument is a bit more radical then just promoting a plasma-based cosmology as the alternative.

I read your very well done post and I think that is exactly what Science needs is people just like you holding this attitude of curiosity.

You are willing to explore uncharted territory and ask questions that fly in the face of "common sense", but that is exactly what Science started as and always has been.

Common sense usually turns out to be wrong in many cases, so that is why questions must be asked and the theories tested and researched.

I really think you understand how to improve Science. So thanks.

I would love to read your thesis btw.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by muzzleflash]