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.

 

The end of science as we know it?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   
cience seems to have reached the end of its journey with its current vehicle. The scientific method has gotten us far, but science is now faced with a bottomless pit that no number of cause and effect propositions can illuminate. We see this in physics, where researchers have begun to return to the original philosophical roots of the science because they are faced with a bizarre, synchronous state of affairs at the quantum level that makes a mockery of the conventional scientific approach. Mathematicians are turning in loops, too, weaving webs of increasingly complex equations which only cast further confusion on whatever mathematics is illuminating (I have a feeling that it's just mapping the 4-dimensional interplay of our reality, while hinting at other dimensions). Geneticists are about to sink below the surface as well now that the human genome has been mapped. Now that they have begun to be able to read the chromosomal language, they may soon find that language has itself been fashioned and honed. These are uncertain days for scientists indeed, and exciting ones for all the nutcases who've long argued that the world and universe is a far stranger and more remarkable place than we've been lead to believe.




posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   
More and more scientists are "evolving" in the sence that they dont fell an urge to hang on to old theories.

Older scientists tend to have this urge, as the "old theories" are what keeps them employed, and they have stuck to them so long, that they just cant see past them.

Alot of science as we know it today, in the established community, has its roots 100 years ago or more, and have been build apon in all this time.

Now, if we look back to study some of the old scientists whos work was "demolished" at their time, we now see that there was not really any valid reasons, to "demolish" them. It was more a state of.. "this fits best with todays knowledge, lets hang onto this" ... and it has been that way ever since..

Many of the old "demolished" scientists, where simply ahead of their time.

Imagine if 100 years of study and tests, would be put into their theories...I wonder where we would be today?

I'm talking Viktor Schauberger, Nikola Tesla, Henry Moray, Thomas Townsend Brown, just to name a few...In my opinion.. they where the "real" scientists.

[edit on 13-12-2007 by Bluess]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   


cience seems to have reached the end of its journey with its current vehicle. The scientific method has gotten us far, but science is now faced with a bottomless pit that no number of cause and effect propositions can illuminate.

And what exactly do you propose as an alternative?




they are faced with a bizarre, synchronous state of affairs at the quantum level that makes a mockery of the conventional scientific approach.


It makes no such mockery. Quantum mechanics may be unintuitive, since our minds evolved to deal with the classical world, but the mathematics of quantum mechanics are solid. Any current difficulties in particle physics comes from the fact that experimental research can’t keep up with the theoretical research, since its becoming harder and harder to get governments to fork over the cash needed for big accelerators like CERN.




Mathematicians are turning in loops, too, weaving webs of increasingly complex equations which only cast further confusion on whatever mathematics is illuminating


Mathematics certainly does provide insights into this world, and there is plenty of practical work done in it. Just because it is difficult for a laymen to understand, doesn’t mean that it teaches us nothing.




Geneticists are about to sink below the surface as well now that the human genome has been mapped. Now that they have begun to be able to read the chromosomal language, they may soon find that language has itself been fashioned and honed.


Do you have any evidence that this is really the case? And even if the language has been “fashioned and honed” it in no way means that the scientific method is failing to allow us to understand it.

As of now, all those fields you mentioned still continue to provide us with increasing amounts of knowledge of the world, all through the use of the scientific method.




These are uncertain days for scientists indeed, and exciting ones for all the nutcases who've long argued that the world and universe is a far stranger and more remarkable place than we've been lead to believe.


I’d choose the scientists over the nutcases any day and yet I still believe that this universe is stranger and more remarkable then what we can currently see thus far. Even what was can see is still remarkable and wondrous.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Was Tesla a nutcase? Or a demonized genius. Like most scientists that have knowledge to change the world. Or they get demonized, or they get murdered.
That happens in technology, medicine, space, energy. It happens everywhere.Even today.
Which shows again and again how corrupt and controlled mainstream science is.
it's so corrupt they don't even know it themselves.
It's good that science is lookin further. They have to because deep inside they know.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   
There should no stop to science. Science is looking for the truth of how the everything in the universe works.


It's just that scientists are ignorant to change their mine-set and don't want to believe in the truth of reality. I think Tesla and other scientist really wanted to make a chance in the world, but got put down and now people look at these great scientists as 'cooky' and crazy in a way.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   


More and more scientists are "evolving" in the sence that they dont fell an urge to hang on to old theories.


Care to provide some examples?



Older scientists tend to have this urge, as the "old theories" are what keeps them employed, and they have stuck to them so long, that they just cant see past them.


Old theories aren’t what keeps old scientists employed, tenure keeps them employed.
Seriously though, old scientists in the past did not end up getting fired en mass when the old theories were destroyed.



Alot of science as we know it today, in the established community, has its roots 100 years ago or more, and have been build apon in all this time.


Because those roots worked. And even if they weren’t totally correct, many were still sturdy enough to serve as a base, such as Newtons laws.



Now, if we look back to study some of the old scientists whos work was "demolished" at their time, we now see that there was not really any valid reasons, to "demolish" them. It was more a state of.. "this fits best with todays knowledge, lets hang onto this" ... and it has been that way ever since..


And if you looked back, you’ll see that many of the demolished theories in fact did deserve to be demolished. Was the plum pudding model of the atom ahead of its time? Was the ether ahead of its time? Was a strictly wave or strictly particle picture of light ahead of its time? Was the Bohr atom ahead of its time? Niels Bohr himself helped in demolishing and replacing that theory.



Imagine if 100 years of study and tests, would be put into their theories...I wonder where we would be today?


Tests of the other theories also test the demolished theories. You only need to compare the results with what the accepted and demolished theories say.



I'm talking Viktor Schauberger, Nikola Tesla, Henry Moray, Thomas Townsend Brown, just to name a few...In my opinion.. they where the "real" scientists.


And yet Tesla even has his own SI unit named after him.

[edit on 13-12-2007 by Lethys]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Lethys
 


I will Provide you some links to "new" science instead of starting an arguement over words, wich seems to be one of your favorites! (no offence).

And please don't twist the word "new" that i use and say this is old science.. I am talking about science that litteraly "shakes the booty" of already established science.

vortex-mechanics.htm

This is the evidence describing the Vortex nature of our curved and divided, Electric Universe of appearances, from the so-called "sub-atomic" to the super-galactic, as opposed to the curved space and time of einstein's imagination.


jnaudin.free.fr
A frenchman with alot of "on hand" experience in science, not so well thought of by the conventional establishment, with working models .

Peswiki

Welcome to PESWiki The community-built resource that focuses on alternative, clean, practical, renewable energy solutions.


calphysics

The primary mission of the Calphysics Institute is to carry out research on the electromagnetic quantum vacuum, with emphasis on the formulation and execution of experiments to elucidate the properties of the quantum vacuum and to search for possible technological applications.


fractaluniverse

The Big Bang theory is a failure. It has failed because the wrong guesses were made by Einstein and Friedman. Their equations assumed that the universe was formed from dust. So much for the supposed 'rigour of mathematics'.


markorodin

Within, you will be taken on a spiraling tour through the toroidal roller coaster of our deterministic universe. Dark Matter, the vibratory essence of all that exists, is no longer on its elusive hide and seek trip -- it has been found! With the introduction of Vortex-Based Mathematics you will be able to see how energy is expressing itself mathematically.


plasmascience

Over the years, cosmology, the study of the universe, has excited mankind. Who we are, where we are, where we came, and where we are going. And the nature of the all we observe. Unfortunately, there is often conflict about this subject, one whose answers we can never know for certain. Cosmology even defies the definition of science, a subject defined by three essential ingredients. First, hypothesis. Second, analysis, as in the derivation of evolutionary laws and their solution such as solving Kirchoff's equations in the electrical sciences. Lastly, experiment, the final adjudicator to the original hypothesis: does the data validate the original hypothesis?


That is just a few.. I hope you will look at them, and hopefully open up a bit, instead of "defending" the established science, in such a way that it would seem, there are no alternatives...cause there is.

Just because an already established theory works in its way, it doesnt mean that a totally new or alternative theory, can't work in its way.
It might take alot of effort and time to be proven, just like the established theories of today, have taken so many years of work to become what they are today.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   
The whole notion that "science" is obsolete or corrupt or whatever makes no sense any way you look at it. Science is not a monolithic entity, or any kind of entity, for that matter. It's simply a method of figuring out relationships between things.

Scientific knowledge is constantly shifting and evolving, and there's no central committee somewhere declaring anyone's findings to be the Absolute Truth. All findings are provisional, and subject to revision or even complete abandonment, given strong, new logical data that stands up to reasonable scrutiny. How can you have a beef with that?

In my opinion, those who find themselves somehow at odds with science generally don't have a basic understanding of what they claim to be against.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


That is very well said! Working together with open minds, not excluding theories before they have been examined well, and hopefully learn from eachothers succes and failures is the way to go.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Modern science is all about coming up with ideas and doing real experimentations.

I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with people, calling them selves scientists, who have a difficult time with these two concepts.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:57 PM
link   
For the links you posted, I’m afraid it’ll be a bit before I’ll be able to give you much of a response to anything, as I currently have finals to study for and won’t really have time to give a real response until Monday, maybe Sunday evening if I’m up to it.

Still, I wouldn’t consider links like that much of an example of more and more scientists not feeling an urge to hold onto the “old” theories. The people behind them are the vast minority and I wouldn’t exactly call most of them scientists.

I have seen some of the sites you’ve linked to me before. First let me ask, what do you mean when you say that a theory “works in its way.”

And a little something that I saw when I opened one of your links.


The Big Bang theory is a failure. It has failed because the wrong guesses were made by Einstein and Friedman. Their equations assumed that the universe was formed from dust. So much for the supposed 'rigour of mathematics'.


www.fractaluniverse.org...

Einstein made no such assumptions about the universe being composed of dust when he was creating any of his theories. The first page and it already gets something completely wrong. Something like that doesn’t speak well for the rest of the site.

Well anyway, I’m getting back to work, if you want to continue this when I return, then I’ll be ready.


[edit on 13-12-2007 by Lethys]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lethys
Einstein made no such assumptions about the universe being composed of dust when he was creating any of his theories. The first page and it already gets something completely wrong. Something like that doesn’t speak well for the rest of the site.
[edit on 13-12-2007 by Lethys]


Einstein didn't believe in the Big Bang theory at first. Initially, he believed the universe was at "steady state" and defined something called the "Cosmological Constant" to explain why the universe would not collapse back on itself.

Later, when it was discovered that all stars were traveling away from each other, and the Big Bang theory seemed irrefutable, he reluctantly accepted the Big Bang theory (that the Universe actually had a starting point) and called the "Cosmological Constant" his greatest mistake.

The irony here is that recent discoveries indicating that the universe is actually accelerating away from its starting point. The Cosmological Constant appears to be valid again. It turns out that Einstein’s “greatest mistake” might not have been such a big mistake after all!

#.

We are slowly learning the details about the universe, constantly refining what we know as our instruments get better and better. The scientific method and the philosophy of epistemology are still rock solid.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Bluess
 


Your Right, without reseacrh, and failures there would be no products, to clean up oil spoils in our seas, Grow some plants in water or sand, in winter yes, winter have u seen the ni-cads batteries, they charge in usb ports, and for cancer patients a new MRI called TOMO Therapy, no more cook organs, most people understand the here and now, Like solar flares, El Nino's lets keep the books open. PEACE



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silenceisall
Science seems to have reached the end of its journey with its current vehicle.


This is correct to some degree. Science only considers that the universe and everything in it is made up of matter and energy, that's it. Until they admit that there is also something called mind or consciousness, they will come to a dead end and never fully understand everything. Also, it seems like for anything we learn, it just leads to finding out there is even more we don't know. For example the universe is a lot more puzzling now with more unanswered questions and contradictions than when I was a child.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Buck Division
 


Hey Buck,, if you are going to plagiurise Perry Marshal,, at least give him the credit for writing your post



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
reply to post by Buck Division
 

Hey Buck, if you are going to plagairize Perry Marshal, at least give him the credit for writing your post


Plagiarism is defined as "to take and use as one's own writings of another". What are you talking about here? Can you send me the reference showing the points of similarity between my post and some writing of Perry Marshall? I assure you that I barely know who Perry Marshall is. If there is some striking similarity here – I’m definitely interested. (See the thread on “Universal Consciousness” in the ATS “Paranormal Studies” forum.)

Get back to me on this plagiarism thing if you want to discuss this further.

#

I first learned about the Cosmological Constant in school. Also, I saw a show on this last year on the Discovery Channel. You can Google "Cosmological Constant” for more info. In particular there is a Wikipedia article on this here which is quite good.

This story about the Cosmological Constant is significant because it shows how the Scientific Method is still valid, and is really the only way to gauge what is true and untrue. Refinements and revisions to our belief system, based on that method and upon new info, are still occurring in matters we previously thought were completely settled. (That is essentially the topic of this thread.)

My post also intended to underline the remarkable brilliance of Einstein: that somehow he intuitively understood something, but didn’t have enough information to back up his assertion. So it appears to be a combination of intuition AND the scientific method which yields new understanding.

What other concepts have been tossed out (beside the Cosmological Constant) and will be rediscovered to be actually pertinent and true, in the face of new information?



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   
I do know what you guys mean.

When I came to my new lab, Basel/Switzerland, I landed on a place where everything already published was shown as absolute knowledge.

However, after a couple of months I started to cause a little bit of panic. I began doing experiments condemned to fail because they were going against some scientific dogmas.

By the way, science is really the opposite conception of a dogma. We only know what we are able to access.

What I've found goes against 50 years of scientific research. Nevertheless it was published on a high impact scientific journal.

Now I found something great, again "out of nowhere". I have probably discovered the genetic mechanism to repair kidneys starting to fail working because of aging.

The problem I have faced, and I still do, is that every time I want to do something new I have to explain why and if it goes against present knowledge it makes no sense.

NO, things done 50-100 years ago should be revisited and confirmed with current methods.

A lot of manuals are wrong because people assumed too many things based on wrong/artifacts results.

It's time to "stop" and revise. The revision only may lead to major discoveries.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
As was noted before scientific methods and scientific establishment are two different thing. Beurocrats are beurocrats even in science.
Today's "absolut truths" are tomorrow jokes, and tomorrow truths
will some day become jokes.
However making scientific experiments on your own is VERY costly (how about Tesla again,once he lost funding - no patents, no published researches) and therefore scientists are forced to supply what is in demand.
Still, no other method delivered so many "goodies" , good or bad.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join