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.

 

All Of Science Is A Lie

page: 10
54
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
Of course a project like the LHC is a gravy train, as is Carbon Tax, and we probably do not need to know the things they are trying to find out at the LHC. After all, I for one don't actually care what happened in the first second after the alleged Big Bang, neither do I actually care if there 'n' dimensions. It is not something that will have an impact on my life.


It is common for a layperson to conveniently disregard science as having impact on their lives as long as it simply works. A few decades ago, you would have said that you don't care for quantum mechanics, but now you enjoy your DVDs and what not without thinking twice, all because of hard work of scientists (who are "liars" according to the inane OP).

I'm not sure if you care about GPS, but I use it quite often and consider it an important part of our infrastructure. If not for application of "lies" related to theory of relativity, the said GPS wouldn't function at all! Read more at:

www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu...


[edit on 8-4-2010 by buddhasystem]




posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I endorse this post - I completely agre with everything that the OP has said.

I will aslo add the following;

The atomic model is incorrect, it is functional from an practical chemical point of view - but it is very rough.

Vacuum is not empty - it is a fluid.

That is all for now


I am glad I am not the only crazy person - I did 2yrs of theoretical physics in Uni - I took everything I could on electromagnetism; it would be better for theoretical physicists to say "God did it" and be done with it. It would be an answer that is based on the same level of speculation and lack of emperical evidence.

For the record - I personally dont think god did do it - but its certainly not seriously disputed by modern theoretical physics.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by Amagnon]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amagnon
The atomic model is incorrect


It's not? How so? What other model you propose that explain the phenomena we explain with the atomic model, and quite well?


Vacuum is not empty - it is a fluid.


Sure, and the Earth is hollow.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
Out of interest OP are you formally educated in these fields and if so to what level and from where did you recieve your qualifications?



I received a BS in computer science from UWM and have since spent an extensive amount of time researching various cosmological theories on my own.

They don't offer degrees in plasma cosmology


Plasma cosmology was created by Nobel prize winning plasma physicists and engineers. The man who first put the theory together actually did work for electric companies as an electrical engineer. He ended up winning the Nobel prize for his work in plasma physics.

I currently work as a software engineer.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


...............You say as you type on your computer, in your more than likely heated house and later drive your car to the supermarket. Science is all around, there's pseudoscience and even science theory. Applied science is the reason your living in a better condition that what you "naturally" should be.

My advice, whether you take it or not; is to actually THINK before you start making illogical statements.

Peace.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I received a BS in computer science from UWM and have since spent an extensive amount of time researching various cosmological theories on my own.

They don't offer degrees in plasma cosmology



But sure they offer basic physics courses, so why not start with those.

... and what about the photoeffect, again?



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by PuterMan
Of course a project like the LHC is a gravy train, as is Carbon Tax, and we probably do not need to know the things they are trying to find out at the LHC. After all, I for one don't actually care what happened in the first second after the alleged Big Bang, neither do I actually care if there 'n' dimensions. It is not something that will have an impact on my life.


It is common for a layperson to conveniently disregard science as having impact on their lives as long as it simply works. A few decades ago, you would have said that you don't care for quantum mechanics, but now you enjoy your DVDs and what not without thinking twice, all because of hard work of scientists (who are "liars" according to the inane OP).

I'm not sure if you care about GPS, but I use it quite often and consider it an important part of our infrastructure. If not for application of "lies" related to theory of relativity, the said GPS wouldn't function at all! Read more at:

www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu...


[edit on 8-4-2010 by buddhasystem]



GPS clocks are better explained by Lorentz's version of relativity.

Dr. Tom Van Flandern explains:

www.metaresearch.org...



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I received a BS in computer science from UWM and have since spent an extensive amount of time researching various cosmological theories on my own.

They don't offer degrees in plasma cosmology



But sure they offer basic physics courses, so why not start with those.

... and what about the photoeffect, again?


Because engineering work relies on Maxwell's equations and provable facts. You're not going to find too many engineers running around trying to use Einstein's field equations to solve engineering problems.

Hence I have a bias toward reality. I tend to ignore useless tripe that has no ties to fundamental reality.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
No, what is insane is believing that there is a wave particle duality. That somehow light is at the same time a particle and a wave.

Light, like any other electromagnetic function is a wave - purely a wave.

Standing waves well explain ALL functions of light and do not devolve into pure nonsensical theory by claiming to be both.


I understand that in the heat of debate it's easy to overlook questions posed to you, so I if I may ask again:
a) how do Maxwell's equations explain electron-positron pairs?
b) and add: how do Maxwell's equations explain photoeffect?

How do you explain the results of the Pound-Rebka experiment (done in a physics lab)"?
en.wikipedia.org...

How do you explain laser operation?


A) I already presented you electron positron pair creation in an LR based system with standing wave electrons. LR complies with Maxwell's equations.

B) The photoelectric effect is related to wave-particle duality. I previously explained that the wave-particle duality is solved when one uses LR in conjunction with standing wave electrons.

Blaze Labs did a nice piece on electron/positron pair creation here, which I previously linked.
www.blazelabs.com...

And LaFreniere has a nice web site detailing how standing waves account for wave-particle duality here.
www.glafreniere.com...



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
A) I already presented you electron positron pair creation in an LR based system with standing wave electrons. LR complies with Maxwell's equations.


I didn't find your explanation of antimatter in this thread.


B) The photoelectric effect is related to wave-particle duality. I previously explained that the wave-particle duality is solved when one uses LR in conjunction with standing wave electrons.


How so? What does relativity have to do with photoelectric effect? I think this pile of gibberish is catching up with you.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Equipped with his five senses, man explores the universe around him and calls the adventure Science. ~Edwin Powell Hubble



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   
I have one question, what would be the point in lying about it all?



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   
i do not want to digress the thread with Tesla, but the following ideas presented in the youtube after 3:00, seem to collaborate what the OP is saying.

Some quotes from the video.




The likes of Marcini and Edison still tend to feature more prominently in most electrical textbooks, although they were merely more successful at commercializing many of Tesla's ideas.

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. Tesla





posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
A) I already presented you electron positron pair creation in an LR based system with standing wave electrons. LR complies with Maxwell's equations.


I didn't find your explanation of antimatter in this thread.


B) The photoelectric effect is related to wave-particle duality. I previously explained that the wave-particle duality is solved when one uses LR in conjunction with standing wave electrons.


How so? What does relativity have to do with photoelectric effect? I think this pile of gibberish is catching up with you.


To understand the photoelectric effect, one must first have a correct understanding of exactly what light is.

The current understanding of light is wrong.

Physicist Caroline Thompson discusses the photoelectric effect and its lack of proof for quantization here:
freespace.virgin.net...

LaFreniere models light here:
www.glafreniere.com...

[edit on 8-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Physicist Caroline Thompson discusses the photoelectric effect and its lack of proof for quantization here:
freespace.virgin.net...


Her understanding of experimental physics and instrumentation is severely lacking, from what I can tell. In the starting paragraphs, she openly admits she doesn't know much detail, and in the second part she just mumbles about her distrust of discriminators (as it applies to circuitry).

Bleh.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Physicist Caroline Thompson discusses the photoelectric effect and its lack of proof for quantization here:
freespace.virgin.net...


Her understanding of experimental physics and instrumentation is severely lacking, from what I can tell. In the starting paragraphs, she openly admits she doesn't know much detail, and in the second part she just mumbles about her distrust of discriminators (as it applies to circuitry).

Bleh.


I would argue quite the opposite.

She has a total grasp of physics and understands that Einstein's theory is fundamentally detached from reality.

Hence her arguments in favor of light being entirely composed of a waves.

If we have waves, we must have a medium for waves to travel through.

This is the only logical conclusion that has a fundamental tie to reality.


[edit on 8-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Mike_A
Out of interest OP are you formally educated in these fields and if so to what level and from where did you recieve your qualifications?



I received a BS in computer science from UWM and have since spent an extensive amount of time researching various cosmological theories on my own.

They don't offer degrees in plasma cosmology


Plasma cosmology was created by Nobel prize winning plasma physicists and engineers. The man who first put the theory together actually did work for electric companies as an electrical engineer. He ended up winning the Nobel prize for his work in plasma physics.

I currently work as a software engineer.




I nearly spit up my coffee reading this...

You're a funny dude.

All this hate for science and you got a degree in Computer Science?

What was wrong with UWM's Engineering school? You didn't say your degree was CSE so I assume it's not...

Is all this just pent up hatred because you felt inferior without a real Engineering degree?

There's some real math in those courses... you'd probably have been better equipped to make a point if you were more milling to display your mathematical prowess as to how these theories can not be so... instead of telling us to google something or watch a video you saw...

But unfortunately I can't take someone very seriously who hates their own existence (living, working, breathing, and eating in a completely scientific world)

The funniest thing is is you're trying to disprove science with more science... lol ...

The correct answer is and always has been: we don't know everything.

This applies to theoretical physicists dealing with 11 dimensions and it applies to you as well..

Now go write 1293804385 lines of non scientific code on your non scientific box with your non scientific peripheral siting on your non scientific chair (yes science went into your chair too) in your non scientific office building...

Really the more I think about your lil' rant at the beginning I think the problem is you thought science was finished and done and we had it all figured out... like you were sore with religion or something so you wanted science to be your new god then much to your dismay, science doesn't explain all things that ever were either! Oh no! So it must be a llliiieeeeee!!! All if lllieesss! Maybe they were just wrong?

Einstein was wrong about quite a few things and his work has been revised many times over (maybe that's why we don't use Einstein's super famous equations as Engineers hmm?)



[edit on 8-4-2010 by ImaNutter]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaNutter

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Mike_A
Out of interest OP are you formally educated in these fields and if so to what level and from where did you recieve your qualifications?



I received a BS in computer science from UWM and have since spent an extensive amount of time researching various cosmological theories on my own.

They don't offer degrees in plasma cosmology


Plasma cosmology was created by Nobel prize winning plasma physicists and engineers. The man who first put the theory together actually did work for electric companies as an electrical engineer. He ended up winning the Nobel prize for his work in plasma physics.

I currently work as a software engineer.




I nearly spit up my coffee reading this...

You're a funny dude.

All this hate for science and you got a degree in Computer Science?

What was wrong with UWM's Engineering school? You didn't say your degree was CSE so I assume it's not...

Is all this just pent up hatred because you felt inferior without a real Engineering degree?

There's some real math in those courses... you'd probably have been better equipped to make a point if you were more milling to display your mathematical prowess as to how these theories can not be so... instead of telling us to google something or watch a video you saw...

But unfortunately I can't take someone very seriously who hates their own existence (living, working, breathing, and eating in a completely scientific world)

The funniest thing is is you're trying to disprove science with more science... lol ...

The correct answer is and always has been: we don't know everything.

This applies to theoretical physicists dealing with 11 dimensions and it applies to you as well


I have a love of science.

Theoretical physics today is not science.


www4.uwm.edu...


[edit on 8-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
So they didn't explain everything to you like you think it should be and give you all the answers so it's not science?

And is your degree an Electrical Engineering degree or is it a Computer Science degree?

Where I went we had Computer Science and CSE (I am considering the possibility our colleges are not ran the same)... so if you had to go through the jazz of applying to the Engineering school and take the required courses for an Engineering degree then I take some of what I said back and promptly apologize.

I still don't think you're equipped to say it's just all a lie.

Some of it's wrong, sure. It won't all be sorted out in your lifetime though... and your original statement that it's a lie is totally bogus or you and I wouldn't even be chit chatting right now (and what's weird is I know that you know this yet I don't know why you're caught on this "they're lying to us" bit)

If you think you're the man with the master plan then take that 6 figure paycheck and put your butt back in school to publish some papers then , eh?

ATS isn't exactly the foreground of scientific breakthrough or discussion...

(note: I'm not harshing on you so much about the degree because of your job or anything... since you're in the IT field yourself I know you work with plenty of peeps who hold an engineer title in the workplace and never spent a day in a formal college or have a degree... I'm grilling you about it because someone who has taking those kinds of classes is obviously more equipped to deal with this than say someone who didn't get an Engineering degree... that's the only reason I ask and the only reason someone else asked "what are your credentials to even make a statement like this?"

The bum on the street told me science was a lie and I better repent to God but I didn't believe him

[edit on 8-4-2010 by ImaNutter]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaNutter
 


Picking on my qualifications rather than my arguments is a waste of time.

I'm not going to defend my education here.

If you want to try and refute my arguments that's fine.

I graduated magna cum laude with a technical degree and I work in a technical field. I'm obviously not dumb or crazy. That's all you need to know.



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join