All Of Science Is A Lie

reply to post by ogbert

There's no doubt Tesla was a great engineer and inventor. But his science was lacking in some regards. Here's what he said about radio (Hertzian waves).

As regards signaling without wires, the application of these radiations for the purpose was quite obvious. When Dr. Hertz was asked whether such a system would be of practical value, he did not think so, and he was correct in his forecast. The best that might have been expected was a method of communication similar to the heliographic and subject to the same or even greater limitations.

www.tfcbooks.com...

reply to post by Phage


Yeah,

He was a strange bird, indeed. I guess that's why he let his patents slide at times. In 1956 the supreme court ruled that Marconi had infringed on Tesla patents with the radio.


I read " Tesla, Man out of Time", by Margaret Cheney back in the late eighties. He was a good friend with Samuel Clemens, the guy you quote.

Originally posted by ogbert
reply to post by JWtruth123

 

It makes me wonder why Tesla was stricken from all textbooks. There may be a far reaching conspiracy here to keep certain technologies suppressed.

Funny you say that, I don't think you ever sat down and read a general physics nor an electronic's book in you life. Science textbooks are very fond in giving proper credit to whoever deserves it. However we can't expect that a wooping 700 page textbook will add 100 more to explain failed theories and obsolete technologies.

reply to post by daniel_g


I attended the University of Miami as an honor student in Electrical Engineering. I certainly had my fill of University Physics with Calculus. I did not complete the program; however, I have a variety of different interests. Rigor Rigor Mortis. Ain't Physics is Phun.


Edison got plenty of attention for a lightbulb. Tesla invented alternating current and the dynamo, yet, before the internet, you had to dig to find anything on him. There is also a measurement unit devoted to the guy, the Tesla.

Why so critical? What i stated are merely facts.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by ogbert]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

The fact is, scientists admit there are holes in our current theories, and would LOVE to find better explanations than we currently have.

They have a lot more than some "holes."

So, where would you like me to start?

I already owned the standard theory of red shift and dark energy in the last thread. Occam's razor lies heavily on my side given the epic quantity of data refuting Doppler red shift.

How about I tear into the M87 crock of flying crap explanation for the observed "super-luminal" speeds?

How about those models of dust gravitating into planets?

The standard theory is a crock of crap.

The theory is constructed in such a way as to be impossible to refute.

Name one test that would disprove the theory of SR.

Name one.

How about I start with the lack of gravitational waves from the LIGO?

Shouldn't that alone disprove SR?

How about the fact that Gravity Probe B didn't find any frame dragging in its initial data as expected? - (of course, a hypothetical model was eventually laid over the data 7 years later claiming it shows frame dragging, a total load of flying crap yet again)

How about the CDMS project not finding dark matter?

I mean where should I start here?

reply to post by mnemeth1


bravo

really i mean it - honestly

you managed to contradict your thread title by the within 200 words , when you claim that newtonian physics can supply the basis of a cosomological model

absolutely priceless

Originally posted by ogbert
Edison got plenty of attention for a lightbulb. Tesla invented alternating current and the dynamo, yet, before the internet, you had to dig to find anything on him. There is also a measurement unit devoted to the guy, the Tesla.

Had you completed what you started you would have heard Tesla's name in at least 2 different courses (and perhaps 3 if physics department stretches some background on those topics), but nothing on Edison appart that he opposed Tesla in making AC the standard for long range distribution. I'm thinking that if any engineering major covers anything else on Edison it's perhaps Chemical Engineering, but I dunno.

Science is a continuing effort to increase human knowledge and understanding through observation

Understanding through observation.

We don't observe lightning bolts flinging out from the Sun so we discount the theory of an electric universe.

We observe rocky planets and wonder how they came to be while seeing asteroids and meteoroids and comets flying through the solar system.

We hypothesize on the existence of singularities in the universe and witness clusters of super massive stars hurtling around invisible objects at terrifying speeds.

The LHC will either prove existing theories or force us to create new ones.

If you're so concerned with money and advocate your own desire to expand knowledge why not do away with currency altogether, a la Star Trek?

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Phage
That's nice.
We now return to our regularly scheduled broadcast.

Dang. My computer just stopped working. Stupid science!

Engineers tell the truth.

Theoretical scientists are the liars.

Engineering is about application of scientific knowledge to real-world problems. The theoretician and the engineer are not contradictory, they are complementary.

Originally posted by IncrementEthicalAnarchy
Lets be honest here guys. it is all bull****. one person thinks up a nice wee pile of fresh steamy and then when someone offers them money to top up the pile? The whole science community is suddenly ****ting all over the 'new science'.

Gosh, it seems that if we dont know anything about how something happens, it must have... 'formed over billions of years... just by chance

'

and note, im not a creationist or any of your wee labels. i have my own views about things and i like pointing out holes in both sides of an argument.

Have a nice day chaps

-namaste-

No, if we don't know how something happens, we don't know how it happens. The claims about, say, the Earth and life forming over billions of years is something for which we DO know "how it happens", at least quite a heck of a lot, even if not everything. As for "chance", well, that's an issue of metaphysics. Is the universe truly random, or actually not so and only looks that way? Is there a "destiny" to everything, or is it all a big fluke? Well, that one isn't really in the realm of empirical science.

Interesting thread

To be honest with you, with all the "facts" we know about the government and mainstream science. I wouldn't be to surprised if most of the mainstream science they teach us are in fact "lies" or knowledge that is further from the truth. Imagine what the scientists who are involved with top secret projects really know, honestly as the general populace, we really know nothing of what is everything! Star+Flag

If all of science is a lie, then explain technology. Technology is built using the explanations that science provides. Every time you turn on your TV you are reproducing an experiment on electricity, radiation, particle physics, neuroscience, and countless other fields of science. If you understand the explanations and how they describe the interactions of the components in the television, you can use that understanding to repair or modify it's function. You could also use it to build a new and better television based on previous explanations combined with new scientific explanations.

If you can fix your car, then Science is not a lie.

Also, explain why Science continually specializes along strong lines of concordance while other areas of human endeavor (such as religion and politics) continually differentiate and shard apart. Judaism split into Christianity and Islam... and they all try to ignore or kill each other. Psychology split into behavioral psyche and cognitive psyche... and both fields are still valid and applicable, though the limits of their application are now better known. While neither is totally right in their explanation, both fields at some level functionally explain a part of how mind works. Despite some quabblings over the limits of the functionality of the explanations (Skinner vs. Chomsky, for instance), neither field conflicts or negates the other. Freud's ideas are largely outdated, but even his work had explanatory value at the time, of which much is still viable.. though better explained.

And psychology is the softest and most vague of all the sciences... yet, commercial grade Brain Computer Interface technologies are already on the market which are either based upon or do not contractict the various fields of psychology. And it's only possible thanks to EEG technology that can be described in part by quantum mechanical properties. The same science which defined those properties of QM which EEG operates in part by, and had it's functionality improved by, are the same QM explanations which a deeper and more accurate understanding of allowed for the creation of MRI/fMRI brain scanning technology which was built upon a particular scientific understanding of QM for it's routine operation. There is nothing about EEG's operation or discoveries that contradict fMRI, or vice versa... regardless of whether on the level of brain operation or Quantum Mechanics.

The LHC and it's long line of successor particle accelerators are also based upon an understanding of Quantum Mechanics. If Quantum Mechanics was wrong, then the LHC wouldn't work. fMRI wouldn't work. EEG wouldn't work. And consequentially, what those devices told us about the brain wouldn't be accurate as a consequence the consumer level BCI technology that anybody can buy and use would not work. Manufacturers defects aside, nobody would buy such a device if it didn't work properly on at least some level. About 76 million PCs (laptops, ultra mobile computers) have been sold worldwide so far, and they're not being used as paperweights. They work, and provide a desirable function which is based upon functional and verifiable understandings of the natural world and how it works.

Science works. Whether it's the LHC or a vinyl LP, both are functionally useful.. and nothing about the operation of one is in contraction to the operation of the other. Dismissing the science behind one as false, must also have implications on the understanding of the other... and cannot contradict that understanding in a manner which would cause it to lose functionality.

Apologies if I missed an obvious satire or troll... it's late. Point being, you can't just make up Science as you go along. You can only come up with ideas and possible explanations, and these are checked against reality via experimentation, reproduction, observation, and such to gauge it's functionality and accuracy. Science is merely a collection of the best explanations, and the processes of discovery which uncovers more evidence to refine them to an even greater level of accuracy.

Originally posted by muzzleflash


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.

Who is saying that the laptop maker/inventor has a theory on the universe?

You say ALL of science is a lie.... I am saying the fact that I am typing on my laptop proves it is not.... for if it were a lie, My laptop would never have been built and I would not be typing on it.

Then you start saying that the Inventor of my laptop has a view on the universe and his view is wrong?

And you talk about logical Fallacy..... Okaaaaayyyyy

Originally posted by mnemeth1


The physicists are milking us like cattle for our tax dollars...

The provable physics of dust in space absolutely prevent dust from forming into planets. This is most obvious in the rings of Saturn...

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.



Everything you are being told is one gigantic fat lie.

And yet to "prove" that's a lie, you are referring to the same physics, laws and explanations that offers. Kinda contradictory, isn't it?

Originally posted by tektek2012
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

science is the only field that isn't lying to you boy, go take a cold shower and have a fag

Cholesterol in eggs is bad, global warming, flat earth, earth is centre of universe to mention just a few of the millions of things that science has 'lied' about - albeit not intentionally always.

Of course a project like the LHC is a gravy train, as is Carbon Tax, and we probably do not need to know the things they are trying to find out at the LHC. After all, I for one don't actually care what happened in the first second after the alleged Big Bang, neither do I actually care if there 'n' dimensions. It is not something that will have an impact on my life.

I do however think that the vast sums spent on projects like the LHC could be better spent developing alternative power technologies, for whilst I do not subscribe to AGW, I do thing we should be doing everything possible to remove our dependence on fossil fuels, and taxing us is not the answer.

reply to post by Lasheic

Also, explain why Science continually specializes along strong lines of concordance while other areas of human endeavor (such as religion and politics) continually differentiate and shard apart. Judaism split into Christianity and Islam... and they all try to ignore or kill each other.

Sounds a bit like Warmists and Climate Realists!

[edit on 8/4/2010 by PuterMan]

Originally posted by daniel_g

Originally posted by ogbert
Edison got plenty of attention for a lightbulb. Tesla invented alternating current and the dynamo, yet, before the internet, you had to dig to find anything on him. There is also a measurement unit devoted to the guy, the Tesla.

Had you completed what you started you would have heard Tesla's name in at least 2 different courses (and perhaps 3 if physics department stretches some background on those topics), but nothing on Edison appart that he opposed Tesla in making AC the standard for long range distribution. I'm thinking that if any engineering major covers anything else on Edison it's perhaps Chemical Engineering, but I dunno.

I read ( Don't no if it's true ) Edison invented DC but faced big problems distributing it and Tesla who worked for Edison at the time was responsible for AC. Where Edison fired Tesla and took all the credits. (correct me if I'm wrong ? )

This is like a scientist walking into a cult trying to convince the worshipers they are all wrong.

If any of you with more than two brain cells out there can tell me why the LIGO hasn't detected gravitational waves yet, I'm all ears.

This is blatant falsifying data.

Lorentz aether theory was rejected because the MM experiment failed to show aether drift.

The entire theory thrown out on the basis of one set of tests.

Here we have SR and GR failing test after test after test after test.







[edit on 8-4-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mike3

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Phage
That's nice.
We now return to our regularly scheduled broadcast.

Dang. My computer just stopped working. Stupid science!

Engineers tell the truth.

Theoretical scientists are the liars.

Engineering is about application of scientific knowledge to real-world problems. The theoretician and the engineer are not contradictory, they are complementary.

I would argue that today one provides us with real tangible goods that improve humanity while the other loots us of our money at the point of a government gun and feeds us piles of lies in return.

Climategate definitively proved that.

You think the physicists are somehow less corrupt than the government climate scientists?

I'm here to tell you they are not. They are a bunch of lying thieves.

You know how I learned about all this bogus science coming out of government? It was ENGINEERS complaining that the theories were total rubbish and useless to them.




[edit on 8-4-2010 by mnemeth1]

Out of interest OP are you formally educated in these fields and if so to what level and from where did you recieve your qualifications?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
No, what is insane is believing that there is a wave particle duality. That somehow light is at the same time a particle and a wave.

Light, like any other electromagnetic function is a wave - purely a wave.

Standing waves well explain ALL functions of light and do not devolve into pure nonsensical theory by claiming to be both.

I understand that in the heat of debate it's easy to overlook questions posed to you, so I if I may ask again:
a) how do Maxwell's equations explain electron-positron pairs?
b) and add: how do Maxwell's equations explain photoeffect?

How do you explain the results of the Pound-Rebka experiment (done in a physics lab)"?
en.wikipedia.org...

How do you explain laser operation?