It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Someone posted this in another thread and it seemed to fit, and maybe a good laugh is what we need once in a while:
Originally posted by beebs
Buddhasystem -
Why are you here?
Massively false assumption!
I read it. I understood it. And it's bollocks.
Now you read a proper nuclear physics book, understand it, come back and let's talk. Deal?
As I said before, if someone doesn't agree with you, that doesn't mean they don't understand what you're saying. It might mean that you're wrong. (No, really, that can happen.)
I think it follows good logic and supports critical thinking, so I disagree with your conclusion. Science is usually inductive, but Physics in particular is deductive in most cases. Neither can we test out the conclusions you deduce from a non-particle view of nature--whatever they may be--, nor can we verify continuity as a valid premise, unless we make up more unverifiable premises to explain it away. Tell me, good sir, how we may know this theory of yours is nothing more than this type of reasoning?
Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Bobathon
I hope you aren't referring to the nuclear physics that is based upon Rutherford's logic... which was an example of either affirming the consequent or cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
Oh, I see. You think the whole of nuclear physics rests upon the initial speculative assumptions of some guy a hundred years ago, and they never bothered to check them since.
Right. Nobody bothered to check them since. They just took it at face value from Rutherford, and didn't use any logic or any creativity. That's what nuclear physicists are like
Still waiting on detecting fractions of a particle here. But of course you cannot because you accept a premise that you cannot, a premise which cannot be validated. Since your premise is not known to be true your argument is unsound. How is it any "more logical" when you cannot validate the premises? You rely on assumption of things that can't be known nor whose signs can be observed by experiment.
Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Bobathon
Oh, I see. You think the whole of nuclear physics rests upon the initial speculative assumptions of some guy a hundred years ago, and they never bothered to check them since.
Right. Nobody bothered to check them since. They just took it at face value from Rutherford, and didn't use any logic or any creativity. That's what nuclear physicists are like
Of course they checked his experiments and repeated with increased accuracy etc... what they didn't do is consider alternative explanations.
What you fail to realize, is that nuclear physics is a house of theoretical cards presupposing certain beliefs. Read Chapter II, I linked to it above.
And again, this is not a question of capable math, it is a question of physical interpretation of reality.edit on 15-4-2011 by beebs because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by beebs
WTF?! quarks
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by beebs
WTF?! quarks
That's deflection, on two levels:
a) a molecule can be considered a "particle" in a range of problems (molecular beams, light scattering etc). You can't have "half a molecule" when you describe how it scatters IR, for example. That doesn't mean that you cannot deconstruct the molecule into atoms etc, but it's still a discrete entity.
Your appeal to quarks have nothing to do with "wave nature" of the proton, for example, and is a cheap attempt at demagoguery.
b) OK, let's look at particle that we simply don't know how to deconstruct at ANY level, such as
uct
dsb
e mu tau (and their neutrinos)
Half a neutrino cannot be absorbed.
Continuity, dude, implies arbitrary fractions. You say that it's not possible because of cymatics. Continuity is not observed in practice, and so discontinuity is justified inductively.
Still waiting on detecting fractions of a particle here.
Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem
547000 said:
Still waiting on detecting fractions of a particle here.
To which I responded with quarks... I guess I don't understand the problem at issue here. I thought quarks were 'fractions of a particle' in the most basic sense.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm reading a biography of Walter Russell by Glenn Clark entitled The Man Who Tapped the Secrets of the Universe, published by The University of Science and Philosophy.
I am struck by this passage quoting Russell speaking to the biographer:
"Lock yourself up in your room or go out in the woods where you can be alone. When you are alone the universe talks to you in flashes of inspiration. You will find that you will suddenly know things which you never knew before. All knowledge exists in the God-Mind and is extended into this electrical universe of creative expression through desire. Knowledge is yours for the asking. You have but to plug into it. You do not have to learn anything; in fact, all you have to do is recollect it, or recognize it, for you already have it as your inheritance."
Originally posted by Mary Rose
You do not have to learn anything