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: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ItsHumanNature
 


I am not at all upset, I just see your argument as unsupported. Also, those aren't quotes. I recognize that there are many gaps in our understanding and that new theories are invented and destroyed, along with old theories, all the time.

I've stated my case, there is no observable instance in which the very foundation of physics doesn't hold up. There are theoretical instances, but nothing we can watch, detect, or 'see' in any way. Or I could be wrong about that, in which case, tell me, I would love to know.

Really, my problem is that you're not giving us anything. I want that one instance where a fundamental of physics fails. If you can't produce it, then we have to fall back on our original model that works.

btw, a conflicting theory doesn't constitute proof unless it is supported by more evidence than the current theory.

"You seem genuinely upset at the thought of questioning anything that you are told."
Not at all, quite interested in fact.




posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by avingard
 


Thank you for your reply avin, you point out a few things that I covered in my original post. I give an example of an unprovable thoery that ALL modern physics is based upon: the speed of light. It is indeed defined using circular logic and measured in an impossible condition and is therefore not scientific, just as I painstakingly pointed out in my OP, so I wont repeat it here. Also I stated that our current understanding of Physics is indeed useful, it is just not accurate or scientific in nature.

Also, you are neglecting the fact that in the last ten years or so that physicists have determined that perhaps 90% of the universe is composed of something that they refer to as "dark matter" the basic nature of which is completely unknown. Is a description of the Universe that admits that 90% is completely unkown in its nature valid to you? Browse through the threads here and you will see a posting yesterday about NASA launching a new quest to try and figure out what and where this "dark matter" might be. It seems that the "scientists" you are speaking for think that our current understanding of physics is wrong, just like I do.



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I find a measure of comfort in having a numerical quantity that links two seemingly unrelated concepts: time and space. Even if the quantity is an approximation or best guess based on the available instrumentation, it's better than nothing. Like how 1 mL of water has a mass of 1 gram and occupies 1 cm^3 and requires 1 calorie of energy to raise it's temperature by 1 degree Celsius. You have to establish a baseline before you can get to the good stuff. It doesn't really matter how long a meter is, so long as when I say 1 meter you know what I'm talking about, at least to a reasonable degree of uncertainty. I can even tell you how many decimal places I was able to measure my meter before my instruments wouldn't give me any better precision.

So you're right. We've only scratched the surface of knowing everything, but then again we've had a pretty short run at it so far. Imagine where we'll be in another century or even another decade. I'll tell you one thing for sure: if we said 'screw it' and started all over it would take even longer.



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   
One of the "fundamental" principles of physics today is that the speed of light in a vacuum is a CONSTANT. Does anyone see what problems arise from having circular reasoning involved with the speed of light, as the OP has pointed out?

Anyone?........

Let me help you out. If the speed of light in a vacuum changes, WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO TELL. If you use the "bar of metal" standard for the length of a meter, then you would know. But if light slowed down to half (from an absolute perspective) the speed it once was, no one would know using the definition given, because both sides of the "equation" change in the same proportion.

Think about it.....



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
One of the "fundamental" principles of physics today is that the speed of light in a vacuum is a CONSTANT. Does anyone see what problems arise from having circular reasoning involved with the speed of light, as the OP has pointed out?

Anyone?........

Let me help you out. If the speed of light in a vacuum changes, WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO TELL. If you use the "bar of metal" standard for the length of a meter, then you would know. But if light slowed down to half (from an absolute perspective) the speed it once was, no one would know using the definition given, because both sides of the "equation" change in the same proportion.

Think about it.....


First you MUST make the distinction between c, as in the constant limit we call the speed of light, and the actual speed that light(or any energy for that matter) propagates through matter and space. The actual speed can and does vary, which is why we say 'the speed of light in a vacuum' meaning all things being equal, having no interference, this is how far the light goes in such and such an amount of time. If for some reason the speed of light in a vacuum WERE to change it wouldn't matter because it would change the same for all observers throughout the universe and we'd STILL all be on the same page. Think about what we're trying to accomplish: describe nature in a way that another can understand and verify, NOT prove that my numbers are the end of all science, no more discussion is needed. In fact according to the scientific method there is no such thing as proving something true, only proving things false. If all these scientists hammer away at a theory and the numbers keep coming back the same it becomes more and more likely that the numbers are not false. Isn't that what quantum mechanics is teaching us? That nothing is absolute? There are no certainties, only high probabilities? Does that make the world we live in any less real?

So what if a meter depends on a second and a second depends on a meter. All that means is time and space are intimately connected, and that is an awesome thing in itself. The length of your metal bar will vary with a slight temperature change; how is that any better than the speed of light in a vacuum, which I suppose could theoretically change, but we've never observed it, whereas thermal expansion happens whenever you turn on your car.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: ItsHumanNature

Its not true physics is physics is physics and its been proven true.
i dont thing proof means what you think it means



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Blasphemy.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Well...yeah. Science (physics included) is a work in progress. Scientists never prove anything true as such but rather try to eliminate that which is false and leave us with a best-so-far model of how things work.

Gravity is a great example. Theory after theory of it has been quashed and replaced with something else and there are still things we don't understand. But we can still predict the movement of the planets and even send objects to them based on out incomplete understanding.

You mention light, same thing. Of the top of my head (so could be wrong) we used to think light travelled instantaneously and existed everywhere, then we were aware of it having a speed but are now confused over the exact details of what lights nature is. Doesn't sop things like fibre optics or the whole science of optics working for that matter.

We will continue to refine and tweak the body of scientific knowledge, throwing away theories as they get disproven and investigating the things we do not understand. You mentioned dark matter in a post above, our understanding of DM may end up being thrown out as an idea altogether, we don't know.

I may be wrong, but your posts seem to take a dim view of science. What would you suggest we do instead in order to investigate the universe around us? Or, what would you change about how science (or physics specifically if you like) is done that you would find more pleasing?



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
they use't to think the sun go's around the earth.
in a way they still think like this.







 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join