Putting the final nail into modern science's coffin

Originally posted by CircleOfDust

Originally posted by Wyrdnews
This might sound a stupid question, but couldn't ionised plasma, or electromagnetic energy effecting the universe on a sub-atomic scale be the 'Dark Energy' that science is looking for? It could be that both Newtonian physics and EU are both occurring, but on different scales....

You're absolutely right.But they'll never admit it. Don't listen to O's Razor. He doesn't know a thing.

Name one thing I have been wrong about? Now show me anything which shows electricity moves FASTER than the speed of light, as you claimed it does. That's what I thought.

Originally posted by stirling
Will one of you pseudo eggheads please explain to us?

The mechanism which enables us to remote view?

Why are we discussing things which aren't true? If you think they are true, I will give you a test so you can prove remote viewing. I have offered the test before, no one wants to take me up on it.

The "speed of thought, in a vacuum?

Spooky action at a distance being as slow as light speed???(thought it was instantaneous

This does not violate anything, maybe you should do some reading and inform yourself rather than remain ignorant? I will even start you off. No information is transferred, thus nothing is moving faster than light. Do some research.

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
reply to post by phishyblankwaters

 

Again, you or Tesla, hmmm, that's a toughie. Also, thanks for proving that Light isn't a constant.

I already proved Tesla wrong on several things. Sorry

I tried to follow the thread but it seemed mostly huffing and puffing. Perhaps if I say Rumpelstiltskin three times you will go away.

I know what you are saying in your OP and I think that in order for us to discover new truths then it is always best to question everything.

I see people ruthlessly defending relativity yet we have to have one formulae for the super big and another for normal size. General Relativity v Special Relativity. Then of course a whole separate what for the microcosm or Quantum mechanics. Doesn't that in itself prove its all incorrect? 3 theories trying to explain the same thing.

Originally posted by grey580
IMO

The problem with modern science is.

If it's not a popular theory it doesn't exist.

Not true. Look at the creation of string theory. There were competing theories such as super gravity along with several variations of string theory. Turns out they were all pieces of a larger theory that has come to be known as M-Theory.

Look at the Hawking Paradox with regards to black holes. There are examples everywhere that show that non-popular theories have replaced popular ones. Most people just have no way of comprehending any of the research or debates going on unless they explicitly work in that field., especially with regards to theoretical physics.

Originally posted by MarsIsRed

The reason I asked was simple. The OP immediately launched into an attack of cosmology, quantum mechanics and physics in general - yet not a mention of the biological sciences which would be responsible for evolutionary theories. I wonder why that was?

Based on your general views, I must therefore assume that science confuses you, essentially rendering your views on it utterly meaningless.

PS - I also assume you're using magic to access the internet, right?

The new tactic is to support creationism by shifting away from the merits of evolution, to arguing theoretical physics, since the likelihood of someone truly understanding the insane mathematical calculations and nuances going on between the scientists in the field is so slim. They figure they can win the argument against evolution by default based on the complexity of Theoretical Physics that they themselves don't understand.

Originally posted by CircleOfDust

When you do the math...

well if you think science is lost, why go to hospitals? why take medications? why take Vaccines?

do you even know math?

I doubt it!

Originally posted by new_here

Same with Psychology and its theories on Human behaviour. Keen observations, copious notes, double-blind trials, statistical analysis and predictive capabilities. And yes, the ultimate goal... the explanation-- in this case of what goes on in the human psyche. (Side Note: Wonder why so many consider it a pseudo-science when the process of developing theories is so 'regular' science?

Anyway, yes... the whole idea of scientific theory is to get as close to proven, as is humanly possible. That's the plan, and as soon as we get all the agenda-driven money out of scientific study, we can all feel more confident that all of our best scientists are free to follow along the path to knowledge with genuineness, ingenuity, and freedom from distraction.

Even if that pipe dream came true, getting "close to proven" does not = fact. It equals 'educated guess/assumption.'

Money isn't going away. Science drives technology and technology drives industry. Nobody would have the time and oppurtunity to dedicate to science while trying to put food on their table if not through grants and private funding.

That said social sciences are quite possibly the hardest to quantify. Unlike theoretical mathematics, where you can do calculations as if a vaccum is constant in the equation, we cannot control all the variables in our dynamic environment. That's not including fields such as neuroscience, etc where we can compare quantifiable data.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Just because modern academia says so, that's really your answer? Tesla still wins.

Let me mention again the experiment I already mentioned. Go get a jump rope. Swing it up and then down slowly like a wave. Then do it faster. Is the wave traveling at the same speed, or does it go faster?

So basically you have no evidence whatsoever and not a single experiment or mathematical proof you can show me. So I shouldn't trust modern academia (whatever that means), I should just trust you, because you say so.

Dude, don't be so harsh, he gave you a perfectly good explanation - trust the jump rope

Honestly CircleofDust just comes across as an idiot who's angry at his own stupidity. It was the same in his last thread. He never gave any evidence and continually shot down, or belittled anyone who questioned him.

We should just make some sort of unwritten rule to ignore his threads from now on. He doesn't seem to care that there are countless experiments proving that speed travels faster than electricity, and he doesn't seem to have the capacity to prove otherwise. But I guess he is using that timeless scientific method - THE JUMP ROPE

Peace

Originally posted by CircleOfDust

Originally posted by Evil_Santa

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

And who decided that he was wrong on both counts? you? Einstein? Nobody has arrived at his genius to stand in judgment. Electricity does travel faster than light, and mass and energy are not interchangeable. E=mc2, how can you just pick a big number like the speed of light arbitrarily?

Uhm, Electricity travels faster than light?

Wow, and to think that fibre-optic networks (ya know.. they use light to communicate, instead of electricity) are 100x the speed of traditional electric networks. You really need to bring this to the attention of the IT world, ASAP, because right now most of the IT world is switching over to FC (Fiber-Channel) NICs (Network Interface Card) because their testing shows that light is faster then electricity.

Oh, yeah. Just to make sure that you understand what's written above, allow me to translate into your native tongue of moron.

HURRRRRRRRRRDURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

edit on 23-7-2013 by Evil_Santa because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-7-2013 by Evil_Santa because: (no reason given)

Are you serious? You're comparing throughput and bandwidth to speed?

Irrelevant, you still haven't provided any proof that electricity travels faster than light. Please back up your own claims before attacking anyone.

Oh, you want us to go shake a rope? Great

Originally posted by Rosinitiate

I see people ruthlessly defending relativity yet we have to have one formulae for the super big and another for normal size. General Relativity v Special Relativity. Then of course a whole separate what for the microcosm or Quantum mechanics. Doesn't that in itself prove its all incorrect? 3 theories trying to explain the same thing.

Not really. It seems to be more a case of us perceiving nature to behave different at different sizes and amounts of energy , which causes us to have to form four different theories so we can reach a satisfying explanation (classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, relativity and quantum field theory), still without being able to fully unify them.

Oh, and BTW, there's not such thing as General Relativity v Special Relativity. The difference between both is that the later doesn't account for gravity, while the former does.

reply to post by CircleOfDust


www.extremetech.com...

Researchers at the University of Southampton in England have produced optical fibers that can transfer data at 99.7% of the universe’s speed limit: The speed of light. The researchers have used these new optical fibers to transfer data at 73.7 terabits per second — roughly 10 terabytes per second, and some 1,000 times faster than today’s state-of-the-art 40-gigabit fiber optic links, and at much lower latency.

The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 meters per second, or 186,282 miles per second. In any other medium, though, it’s generally a lot slower. In normal optical fibers (silica glass), light travels a full 31% slower. Light actually travels faster through air than glass — which leads us neatly onto the creation of Francesco Poletti and the other members of his University of Southampton team: A hollow optical fiber that is mostly made of air.

People don't believe in modern science for one simple reason: denial. It is too uncomfortable for many to believe that the bible is a fraud. Even though it is. It is too uncomfortable to believe that climate change is real because if it is, corporations may not be able to continue to exploit people to make huge profits. Look at the nuclear industry. The nuclear industry has turned out to be much more dangerous for humanity than originally believed. Most people don't realize that nuclear waste has been piling up since the 1940s. Not to mention the meltdowns that have occurred. Antiscience people (Republicans) are like an overweight person with heart disease who has decided not to believe his doctor's prognosis and continues to eat Double Whoppers every day. The petroleum industry is another industry that continues full force with no regard to the consequences because some people choose to ignore reality. There was another oil rig explosion in the Gulf yesterday. People believe in modern science when it gives them computers, cell phones, electricity, gasoline, and air travel. But they don't believe in it when it tells them that we are destroying the Earth. "Putting the final nail into modern science's coffin" Does that title make you feel better? There is no danger. Nothing to see here. But watch out for that brown foreign guy.

Originally posted by LiveEquation


well if you think science is lost, why go to hospitals? why take medications? why take Vaccines?

do you even know math?

I doubt it!

True knowledge and understanding comes from fundamentally understanding and in turn, truly knowing something.

Science is great, science is the best, science is all that matters.

Science does not fundamentally understand or know the nature of reality. So there is room for perspectives and theories and ideas on what the fundamental nature of reality may be.

"well science itself claims it doesnt know everything"... yea thats what this thread is about, discussing what science does not know, not how good it is at making iphones and toasters and changing its mind.


We are ignoring all the stuff science has done, to try and think about and discuss what science may not know, and potentially why. And those who have a problem with this, are only discussing what science does and has done, and ignoring its ignorance. which quite frankly is ignorant.

reply to post by Adaluncatif


True knowledge and understanding comes from fundamentally understanding and in turn, truly knowing something.

Science is great, science is the best, science is all that matters.

Science does not fundamentally understand or know the nature of reality. So there is room for perspectives and theories and ideas on what the fundamental nature of reality may be.

"well science itself claims it doesnt know everything"... yea thats what this thread is about, discussing what science does not know, not how good it is at making iphones and toasters and changing its mind.



We are ignoring all the stuff science has done, to try and think about and discuss what science may not know, and potentially why. And those who have a problem with this, are only discussing what science does and has done, and ignoring its ignorance. which quite frankly is ignorant.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Go take a look at everything in your house, it runs on DC, not AC.

Sorry this has to be corrected and not sure if it is just a simple typo because the exact opposite is true.

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
reply to post by Junkheap

 

you must not have performed the experiment.

As a matter of fact, I did, and no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't increase the speed of the wave, only the frequency and amplitude.

reply to post by CircleOfDust

Just because modern academia says so, that's really your answer? Tesla still wins.

Why bother people.

Originally posted by chunder

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Go take a look at everything in your house, it runs on DC, not AC.

Sorry this has to be corrected and not sure if it is just a simple typo because the exact opposite is true.

Exactly, and we are to take what these guys have to say seriously? I think not.

reply to post by Astyanax


It's common to be the harshest on others that which we know to do in ourselves. But I'm willing to look at my behavior if you're willing to look at yours So whose shall we look at first, yours or mine?