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: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by IMAdamnALIEN
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.


As the OP so amply demonstrates, you are so right with this observation.


PS. Amazing, isn't it, that there is electricity in your house and the gorram Internet obviously works, all of it based on science which is so gorram wrong.




posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Finally, someone doubts physics.

I'm no scientist, but I do know it's full of BS.

The only constant is change. Everything is changing, even the tiny little things that seem to be right where they always have been.

Do scientists know for sure that these fine measurements have always been the same?

Nope. They assume that is the case.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Although........... I could be super wrong. Humans SEEM so sure of themselves.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ItsHumanNature
 


And you turn it into a bash..........
Ye GODS!!!




posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   
I find it quite ironic that the OP uses numbers in a percentile format (9999999.9% etc) to demonstrate their point that Physicists use of numercial formulation is incorrect.

Therein lies the problem and although Physicists dont know everything; I prefer them using formulas and numbers that can be indpendantly peer reviewed to justify there claims.

Imagine if they just posted 3 paragraphs of text with a few links and expected us to believe them ......



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Juliodone
I find it quite ironic that the OP uses numbers in a percentile format (9999999.9% etc) to demonstrate their point that Physicists use of numercial formulation is incorrect.

Therein lies the problem and although Physicists dont know everything; I prefer them using formulas and numbers that can be indpendantly peer reviewed to justify there claims.

Imagine if they just posted 3 paragraphs of text with a few links and expected us to believe them ......


The numerical representation of quantities isn't the issue being discussed here, but rather that the quantities they are representing are unknown and are based upon false assumptions and circular logic.

The concept of numbers has however been the focus of philosophical debate for centuries, particularly the concept of "Zero". That has absolutely nothing to do with anything in my original post and was not mentioned at all. In this discussion the supposition has been made that "numbers" both whole and fractional, and the rest of them as well are a valid method of depicting a quantity.

Thank you for your reply , and I am glad that I could clear up your misinterpretation of what is being discussed in this thread.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   
I believe you are right. Our physics is wrong, but in order to get the correct physics you need trial and error. You determined that our physics is 99.9999999% false, which in terms is also false. If you do not know what the real problem with our physics are then how can it be false? As of right now it is correct in our terms. Once scientists find out more information they can change their theories of physics. Until then this is the best we can come up with.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 



As of right now it is correct in our terms.


In OUR terms only. Our terms don't dictate to the rest of the universe.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   
To quote Agent Scully: "science isn't about why, it's about how".



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
I believe you are right. Our physics is wrong, but in order to get the correct physics you need trial and error. You determined that our physics is 99.9999999% false, which in terms is also false. If you do not know what the real problem with our physics are then how can it be false? As of right now it is correct in our terms. Once scientists find out more information they can change their theories of physics. Until then this is the best we can come up with.


I claimed that Modern Physics is approximately 99.99999999% False.
I stand by this claim.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature

Originally posted by Equinox99
I believe you are right. Our physics is wrong, but in order to get the correct physics you need trial and error. You determined that our physics is 99.9999999% false, which in terms is also false. If you do not know what the real problem with our physics are then how can it be false? As of right now it is correct in our terms. Once scientists find out more information they can change their theories of physics. Until then this is the best we can come up with.


I claimed that Modern Physics is approximately 99.99999999% False.
I stand by this claim.


I for one, see the circular logic, if you define A by the definition of B, but the definition of B is A, it is illogical.

I stand with you. Physics models things mathematically, yet it doesn't define what it models. Same with gravity, we can mimetically model it, but we have no idea what it is?



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
I claimed that Modern Physics is approximately 99.99999999% False.
I stand by this claim.


Until you can prove that mathematically, that claim is also nothing but hot air.

I've read your opening post several times. I can only conclude that you don't exactly understand the terms that you are trying to define and debunk.

As the poster that replied immediately after your opening said, the speed of light in a vacuum (c) has been derived through repeated observations and repeatable mathematics. The very fact that you are able to post what you did on the internet is a testament to the fact that the speed of light has been measured and determined repeatedly. (Look for stumason's explanation on how to detect fibre-op cable breaks in the cable-cut uh-oh thread here). The definition that you gave in the OP, while correct, is just a simplification so that it's easier to grasp the concept.

Modern physics may not be 100% correct (definitely not 100% correct), but saying that it is 99.99999999% is just as arbitrary as the concept of the meter you knocked in the opening post.

And like PsykoOps posted, it's not about the why, it's about the how. If you want to know the why, look towards religion. You won't find it in science.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by looofo

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%.


Thanks for the reply loof, you are nearly 100% correct. I think that my claim that approximately 99.99999999% of Modern Physics is Bunk is actually more accurate than mainstream scientists claims about their basic understandings of the Universe.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maya432
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.


Great post maya, and gets to the heart of this whole matter. Science is supposed to be about provable theories, "pretty good" explanations are just that- maybe usable and maybe correct, but they are not Science.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   
My attitude is, "You gotta use something." Even if the theoretical foundations of some science leaves a lot to be desired, they didn't just fall out of the sky, and they do all right when it comes to practical applications. I've never heard a very clear explanation of exactly what electricity is, but people are very skilled at using it. That's a good thing. The science works good enough that we can use it to build better machines to help us eventually figure out what's really going on (if possible).

Besides, science, which helps define physics, is really more of a technique for figuring things out rather than a wonderful "explanation" of everything. The way I understand it, there are no real truths in science, and everything is subject to revision or rejection at any time. Right offhand, I can't think of an exploratory technique that is any more logical or functional than the scientific method. Observe something happening -- make a prediction based on your observation -- test to see if your predictions come true -- if so, build on your prediction, if not, throw it out of modify it. Repeat as necessary. Makes sense!

But, if somebody's got a better mousetrap, good for them. Let's see it in action. Make a prediction using your crazy method, test it, and see what you get.




[edit on 5-2-2008 by Nohup]



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup

Besides, science is really more of a technique for figuring things out rather than a wonderful "explanation" of everything.


This statement is exactly 100% wrong Nohup. Science is indeed about logical provable explanations for everything and the applications thereof are known as the "applied sciences"- "rocket science" for instance refers to the field of applying the laws of Science to producing rockets.

The "technique" you are referring to is called the Scientific Method, and the point of my post is to suggest that those whose branch of science is known as "Physics" are not practicing science at all.

Thank you for helping me to illucidate that point of this topic.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 11:17 PM
link   
the current concept of physics, and everything else in science, is just a model meant to explain and predict nature. It's point isn't to be 'right', it just has to fit the observations, be able to predict what will happen, and be repeatable.

To say that physics is wrong is rediculous.

1) objects at rest tend to stay at rest and objects at motion tend to stay at motion until acted on by an outside force

2)F=M*A

3)for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

show me one, ONE, instance where any one of those don't apply and I'll preach your ideas with all the vehemence of a zealot.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Basically all these other guys are saying "How dare you question." you evil heretic you.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Basically all these other guys are saying "How dare you question." you evil heretic you.


That's how it might appear to someone with no basis for their criticism. Physics is chock full of heretics. Heretics thrive in the physics community. I would even say that a majority of people in the community are there because they hope to prove somebody (Einstein, usually) wrong. I don't imagine there are too many who have a burning desire to only verify current theories.

And if somebody has that burning desire, I strongly suggest they educate themselves properly, learn the math, study, and become part of the modern physics community they claim is so wrong. Because nobody's going to listen to some crank sitting in his basement railing about the inaccuracy of modern physics unless that crank can actually come up with the goods. Put up or shut up. Research talks and B.S. walks.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by avingard
 

Thanks for the reply, avingard. You seem genuinely upset at the thought of questioning anything that you are told. The Newtonian principles that you incorrectly quote are a good example of the false belief that we have everything figured out. Einstein proved half of Newton's theories wrong, with theories that are 90% correct, based on assumptions that are completely wrong. They are "accepted" and used because they work in many cases, and we dont have anything else to use. This doesn't mean they are correct, it just means that these are the best thoeries available today, just as Newton's theories were used for 200 years because they worked to do many things, and no better theories to replace them had been come up with.

When you can come up with a scientific definition of time, the speed of light, and linear measurement that are not based on circular logic, I suggest that you write it down, because there are tens of thousands of the sharpest minds on the planet spending billions of dollars trying to figure this out right now, with no success.




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join