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.

 

Modern Physics is approximately 99.99999999% False!!

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   
"How can this statement possibly be true?" you ask.

"Just look at all the wonderful things we can do with our knowledge of physics" you say.

The fact of the "matter" (no pun intended... ok maybe there was) is that we have absolutely no idea what makes the universe tick. We are beginning to figure out how to measure and describe certain aspects of it and by using this data we can do some pretty neat things. We can make Atom Bombs and Nuclear Power Plants. We can make Lasers and Microcomputers and all sorts of other wiz bang things.

But we still don't know WHY these things work.

The reality is that our knowledge of the universe is akin to a child trying to figure out what inside a fancy gift box. We can look at it and describe it to our friends. We can weigh it and shake it and hear things rattle. We can stand on it to reach the cookie jar. We can hit each other on the head with it or even burn it for heat. But, we still have no idea what is actually in there. And we also are not even sure it is for us. There isn't a gift tag on it. We only assume it is for us because we found it in our parents' closet and since we are the "only child" it must certainly be for us , right?

How can I possibly prove such "wild allegations "? The brightest minds all say that we are very close to understanding the fundamental workings of the universe. Of course they do, if they said they were lost in the fog they wouldn't have a job tommorrow. They are always getting closer and closer to a true explanation of the universe and the closer they get the more complicated the explanation gets. This is because they are working with false assumptions from the very start.

At the heart of these false assumptions is the supposedly "unshakable" bedrock that all currently accepted models of the universe are setting upon is "c" the speed of light.

The speed of light is derived and defined using false assumptions and circular logic and is therefore not scientific.

What is "circular logic" and how could it possibly be used to define the speed of light? Circular logic is using something to explain itself thus resulting in a "circle". Here is an example: What is cold? Cold is the absence of heat. What is heat? Heat is the absence of cold. What is cold? etc. etc. Something defined with circular logic is not necessarily wrong. The definitions above are obviously correct, and they are actually useful, if an object isnt cold you could burn yourself on it for example. What it does mean is that this definition is unscientific and is therefore has no merit.

The speed of light is defined as 299,792,458 meters/second in a vacuum.
This definition uses a formula: meters per second.

And a condition: a vacuum. A true vacuum is an impossibility, even before "scientists" admitted that they dont know where about 90% of the universe is or even what it might be. For all we know "space" is not empty at all but full of some sort of "dark matter" or energy or even something that we havnt yet grasped the basic nature of. Perhaps the ancients had it nailed when they posited that space was filled with "ether".

So what is a Meter? A meter is 1/299,792,448 the distance travelled by light in a second. Hmm- the speed of light is defined using using the meter and the second. And the meter is defined using the speed of light and and the second. So surely the second must be the linchpin that holds these formulas together right? Wrong.

Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K (absolute zero). The ground state is defined at zero magnetic field. The second thus defined is equivalent to the ephemeris second, which was based on astronomical measurements and is 1/31,557,600 Julian year.

WOW! With so many big words and formulas this surely must be scientific!
No, it isnt. The new second is defined in such a complicated manner because many people down to the average curious child could easily see that basing time on orbits of the earth around the sun, which constantly changes, would not be a constant. The new definition is no more scientific than the last, it is just buried in a big pile of BS.

I am not going to post all of the complex formulas to derive the second. There isnt room here, but since we are all on thinternet you can easily look at them for yourself. I am just going to point out that it is derived by "counting" pulses of radiation in the form of microwaves given off by cesium in a VACUUM (which we already know does not exist, either in nature or in a laboratory)by saturating it with microwaves that cause the atoms to jump between two "hyperfine states" (this excitation of atoms is what is used to make lasers). What is absolute zero? These microwaves are defined how? How else, by the good old meter and the speed of light. How are cesium atoms defined? by using empirical physical measurements using the meter and the speed of light.

There were a couple of other provably false assumptions pointed out as being used in "science" in this brief overveiw such as the "absolute zero" concept. How can there be no energy in a mass if mass=energy?How would the motion based concept of atoms hold up with no energy? It wouldnt.

So to recap :What is the speed of light? The speed of light is defined using the meter and the second. What is the Meter? The meter is defined usine the second and the speed of light. What is the Second? The second is defined using the speed of light and the meter.What is the speed of light?

Round and round it goes.

This is circular logic, not Science, and therefore Modern Physics is nothing more than a house of cards built on a very shaky table.



Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.





[edit on 2/1/2008 by JacKatMtn]




posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Nice attempt, but unfortunately you are wrong.

The term "meter" is indeed completely arbitrary. There's no scientific basis for the measurement of meter, but the speed of light is not defined to meter. You can give it in feet, inches, miles, whatever form of measurement you want.

The speed of light is a constant derived from both mathematics and observation. If you want to deny that 2+2=4* or tell me that every scientist is simply making things up when they observe that a particle cannot break the speed of light, then I'm afraid you need some help.

*Obviously the mathematics are a little more complicated, but the formulas work.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
The physics isn't necessarily wrong - it's evolving as theoretical characteristics are proven or disproven by logical process.

The metre is a good point, it was originally defined by a bar of precious metal stored in a constant temperature vault in France I believe then a new definition came about which defined it as a finite number of wavelengths of the orange line of radiation from a krypton atom in a vacuum. Perhaps that definition has evolved even further by now in search of a stable reference.

As we find situations in the real world that fall outside our previous assumptions of how things really are, the formulae describing those relationships evolve. Still searching for the theory of everything and perhaps the ultimate answer is, in fact, 42



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by evanmontegarde
 


There is indeed claimed to be a scientific basis for the meter. All scientists use the same system(except NASA of course, apparently they cant seem to get past using feet and meters) created by the BIPM and here is their website:

www.bipm.org...

and here is a small exerpt from that site which defines the speed of light
"
The 1889 definition of the metre, based on the international prototype of platinum-iridium, was replaced by the 11th CGPM (1960) using a definition based on the wavelength of krypton 86 radiation. This change was adopted in order to improve the accuracy with which the definition of the metre could be realized, the realization being achieved using an interferometer with a travelling microscope to measure the optical path difference as the fringes were counted. In turn, this was replaced in 1983 by the 17th CGPM (1983, Resolution 1) that specified the current definition, as follows:

The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.
It follows that the speed of light in vacuum is exactly 299 792 458 metres per second, c0 = 299 792 458 m/s. "

Do you notice anything? The speed of light is defined by the Meter and the second, which is defined by the speed of light and the second, exactly as I had already typed in my posting.But there it is again for those like yourself that didn't read or comprehend it the first time.

The second is also defined here but they do not give the method by which it is derived, which indeed involves using both the meter and the speed of light.

Notice also that it is specified as being measured in a vacuum. I suggest reading up on this. It is an impossible condition.There is always some amount of matter in any given space and these days the possibility of this space being filled with the missing 90% of the universe has to be considered.
Why is it defined as beingin a condition known as a vacuum? Because of the phenomenon known as Refraction. Refraction is defined as the change in direction of a wave due to a change in its speed. Light refraction occurs when light waves travel from a medium with a given refractive index to a medium with another thereby changing its phase velocity, otherwise known as SPEED.
So to get an accurate measurment of the speed of light you would indeed have to measure it in a true vacuum because the interference of even one atom would change its speed. A tiny amount of refraction would of course mean only a slight error in the measurement but even if the measurement is off by .000000000001% it is still wrong and therefore not scientific in nature and certainly not a physical constant because the number of atoms the light beng measured would refract with varies each time.

As for the particle/speed of light reference I never mentioned anything in my post about that.Whos making things up? But since you mention that, I would like to comment upon it. I do not know ehter or not the speed of light can be surpassed. I do suspect however that it may be possible to travel faster than 299 792 458 m/s becuase the true speed of light is not known.

And all of the other units of measurement that you mentioned have the exact same problem. I agree that choosing meters or feet or hambones or snail shells is irellevant. The point is that you need to have some "definition" and all of them are based upon using that which they trying to quantify as part of their definition. This is called circular logic which is exactly what I am pointing out in this thread.

Thank you for helping me to reinforce my point.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
A second could be defined as 1/86400 of a revolution of the earth but that isn't quite stable enough due to the earth imperceptably slowing down its speed of revolution. There's a 'leap second' added to standard time about once every 10 years to compensate for it.

Don't mistake searching for stable reference points as bad science as it's more a case of continuous improvement in action.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Great post my friend!

Unfortunately, there are lots of scientists on this site that would blindly disagree with you.

Like you, I am one who doesn't see the world in absolutes. For any person who says they have the answers to life's riddles they are only kidding themselves.

The universe is so incredibly complex and harmonious for any human mind to wrap around, it would be like an amoeba trying to figure out trigonometry.

Thanks for the read, fascinating stuff!



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


I am not knocking the "search" for stable reference points at all. My point is that we don,t have any, and that the"scientists" you are referring to base all of their calculations using falsley presumed ones.

Again, Thank you for the reply and helping me to reinforce my point .



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by evanmontegarde
 


it doesn't mean that 99% is wrong, it means 99% is missing.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by LooseLipsSinkShips
reply to post by evanmontegarde
 


it doesn't mean that 99% is wrong, it means 99% is missing.


So a ship with 99% missing isn't wrong? Maybe your "right" but I dont want to sail on your liner anyways. Thanks but no thanks.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ItsHumanNature
 


I agree with you somewhat.
But damn you went and stepped in it now. LoL!
No one wants to hear that we aren't as smart as we like to think we are.
And some will violently attack anyone who brings such a message to them.
But eh.
Good luck.
I doubt you will have about as much success as I have in getting the "9/11 truthers" to agree to disagree rather than turning every disagreement into a bashfest.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


You hit the bullseye.

Nobody wants to be told they are not as smart as they think they are. This is a primary problem when trying to offer new ideas to people that have had the "official version" of things pounded into their heads for so long. There is a strong parallel between raising this type of scientific question and in raising questions about Black Tuesday.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   
We , in this physical realm , cannot exceed the speed of light.
yup...that sounds right to me.

but, what about in a fourth dimensional realm?
(anyone who thinks this does not exist needs to look deeper)

A quantum string reaction by far exceeds the speed of light.
harmonic string reactions on quantum levels are non-linear.

linear space and time no longer exists in a hyper-space environment.

A wave can be made to propagate in such a manner that it will
create a dimensional vortex.
waves have the "NATUAL" ability to double under certain conditions as well as cause harmonics to sympatheticaly vibrate , and by utilizing this natual function of waves, you can send these doubling waves into a spiral and reach zero point.

the speed at which molecules can "CHUNK" to another shape
when subjected to a different light frequency
is also a harmonic reaction that is non-linear.

so, not really 99.999999999% wrong
BUT I see where you are coming from.....yup
more like 98.999999999%.... he he.

and the real kicker here is that
all this "NEW" Natual Science is in
fact Thousands of years old..


um...how come no one told us?..


poor Einstein... no wonder he was so close yet so far away.
I would imagine how angry the man would have been to
find out about this hidden knowledge.
knowing that he was right but the science just didn`t add up.

the universe/our conciousness, is a living spinning spiraling
entity.

3, 6,and nine are the key dimensional numbers.
they are what cause special oscillations in waves.
(3,6 and nine are non-physical results of whole number equations)
meaning that 1, 2,4 5 7 and 8 are what make up the physical side of vortex equations. 3,6 and nine are fourth dimensional results.

because of their infinite values they can be created
to propagate at infinite levels.

video.google.com...

www.markorodin.com...

www.svpvril.com...

what a amazing thing .....this life........its much more than
than we know..............it has to be..................so much more.
We are the masters of our destiny..............gods.
but we are blinded and supressed......brainwashed...conformed..
attacked...ridiculed.....imprisoned....killed......lied to....
laughed at....cheated....raped......taxed....
these do not sound like the life of gods.
gods are free to create at will.

so I think I`m gonna go create something beautiful.
mabey some music.
..just a thought







[edit on 2-2-2008 by Maya432]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I don't understand what exactly you're getting at. Are you saying that all those engineers (basically applied physicist) are bunk?



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maya432
We , in this physical realm , cannot exceed the speed of light.
yup...that sounds right to me.

so, not really 99.999999999% wrong
BUT I see where you are coming from.....yup
more like 98.999999999%.... he he.

and the real kicker here is that
all this "NEW" Natual Science is in
fact Thousands of years old..


um...how come no one told us?..


poor Einstein... no wonder he was so close yet so far away.
I would imagine how angry the man would have been to
find out about this hidden knowledge.
knowing that he was right but the science just didn`t add up.






You may be right. At this point multi-dimensional travel is equally as plausable as the "can't be done" faster than light theories.

The ancients were amazingly accurate in many of their assumptions and deductions , and modern science often starts by ridiculing those "archaic" beliefs only to come full circle, later concluding that they have made a "discovery" .
Would this have anything to do with procuring government funding or tenure?



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
I don't understand what exactly you're getting at. Are you saying that all those engineers (basically applied physicist) are bunk?


no not bunk at all.....good science.....yup.

its just that it was only enough to explain our basic physical
realm.

not the right science to explain the universe.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
What is "circular logic" and how could it possibly be used to define the speed of light?


I am not an expert, but I think your claims 99,99...9% are false.

The speed of light has not been defined it has been measured with meters and seconds. It could have been measured in bananas length and in a time unit equal to 1 earth day.

Ok, this would not be very accurate, but I think usable. And that doesn't make physics 99,99% wrong, but only with a certain margin of error.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by looofo

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
What is "circular logic" and how could it possibly be used to define the speed of light?


I am not an expert, but I think your claims 99,99...9% are false.

The speed of light has not been defined it has been measured with meters and seconds. It could have been measured in bananas length and in a time unit equal to 1 earth day.

Ok, this would not be very accurate, but I think usable. And that doesn't make physics 99,99% wrong, but only with a certain margin of error.


I would first like to say that your claims are nearly as accurate and scientific as those made by mainstream scientists.

As for a for "the speed of light not being defined but measued" I can say with certainty you are exactly 100% wrong in that regard.

A scientific quantity is described or defined by how it is measured, as opposed to some more vague, inexact or "idealized" definition.

Measurements are used to help define physical phenomenon.Thus defined, it is called a proof. The top of all proofs are called physical constants.

Edit to remove small irresistable jab at previous poster.

[edit on 2-2-2008 by ItsHumanNature]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
I would first like to say that your claims are nearly as accurate and scientific as those made by mainstream scientists.


As accurate and scientific as your 99,99....9%.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by looofo
Ok, this would not be very accurate, but I think usable. And that doesn't make physics 99,99% wrong, but only with a certain margin of error.

not very accurate but usable?
that does not sound like solid science at all.

if a science is to explain something then...well....
It has to totally explain it in deadly accurate numbers.
pi .... well its almost perfect....almost?
at least we had Pythagoras to show us some of natures
mathematical secrets.
but then along comes Plato to hide most of it.
DOH......

the slightest variation in quantum equations will result in
a failure.

because the formulas reach so deep into octaves that the dimensional results cover the entire length and spectrum of time and space.
and this happens in a non-linear reaction.
so the equations must have accurate results.
no room for error.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Maya432
 


What other realms do you know of?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join