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: 11
55
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
She has a total grasp of physics and understands that Einstein's theory is fundamentally detached from reality.


a) she does not have a "total grasp" of anything. Re-read the discriminators part
b) special relativity it born out exceptionally well in experiments, as my own experience shows
c) her paragraph about how the forward radiation of the electron is not properly explained by QED is complete bull, I had a class in that and it works out fine, and matches the experiment

Quack science at its best, that lady.




posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
She has a total grasp of physics and understands that Einstein's theory is fundamentally detached from reality.


a) she does not have a "total grasp" of anything. Re-read the discriminators part
b) special relativity it born out exceptionally well in experiments, as my own experience shows
c) her paragraph about how the forward radiation of the electron is not properly explained by QED is complete bull, I had a class in that and it works out fine, and matches the experiment

Quack science at its best, that lady.


You mean like the LIGO and CDMS projects which totally failed to detect gravitational waves and dark matter?

Yeah, great experiments there.

So, tell me how many more wack job experiments must fail before you finally decide SR and GR are a load of garbage?

I consider the fact the two theories have not been fundamentally unified in the past 50 years to be a falsification of them on its face.

In contrast, LR starts from the electron up and requires no unification. One more reason why LR is correct while SR and GR are a load of rubbish.




[edit on 8-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
You mean like the LIGO and CDMS project which totally failed to detect gravitational waves and dark matter?


LIGO put a limit on a particular type of events within a specific radius. If a policeman didn't arrest any drunken drivers on his beat in a month, it doesn't mean that people in your county don't drink and drive.


Yeah, great experiments there.


Yes they are, I saw LIGO firsthand.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
You mean like the LIGO and CDMS project which totally failed to detect gravitational waves and dark matter?


LIGO put a limit on a particular type of events within a specific radius. If a policeman didn't arrest any drunken drivers on his beat in a month, it doesn't mean that people in your county don't drink and drive.


Yeah, great experiments there.


Yes they are, I saw LIGO firsthand.



LIGO is a joke.

Non-detection as a success?

Yeah I read the paper.

Its a joke.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





Theoretical physics today is not science.




I think I'm beginning to understand your problem.

It is bias.

You, who are ranting about the (alleged) biases of so-called (not sure if this is your term) "mainstream" science, and theoretical physics, as it is being examined in today's world ---

You, ranting about "those" scientists "wasting" money (as in the LHC, for instance) yet, YOU blithely trumpet the alternative theorists who exist out there, as IF they are somehow anointed with the "ONLY TRUTH" (according to mnemeth1).

Is this about right? Or, where did I misunderstand your position?

Are you a wave/particle duality too?



Because, isn't it about EVERYONE getting a turn at the trough? EVEN what you seem to think is 'more correcter' --- they are STILL THEORIES too!

(Just, not really as scientifically repeatable, in many people's minds...)

There are many, many different types of so-called 'scientists' out in the World. And, there are a few who aren't worth the air they inhale.

Examples: This may seem off the topic, but consider that there ARE people, who have impressive 'credentials' who believe strongly that Man was 'created' some 6,000 years ago. There are others, in another field, who will argue strongly for racial superiority of caucasians. the list is nearly endless, but I hope this makes a point.

EVERYONE is welcome to play, and just because YOU don't agree with one view of particle physics, or atomic theory, or whatever, doesn't mean it still isn't a valid avenue of research and study.

IF you wish to claim that everything counter to your pet 'beliefs' is a waste, then you are BIASED, and hardly scientific, at all.



[edit on 8 April 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


The truth is what is real.

Einstein's wack job theories are fundamentally detached from reality.

Hence, they are lies.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
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.


Buy The Fabric of the Cosmos by Briane Greene and read it. It'll explain to you that even the heavyweights in science have been and are being proven wrong all the time. Einstein lied? Newton lied? THEY ALLLL LIEEEEEEE! Wait.. maybe they were just wrong but they laid ground work for others to pick up where they left off? Wait, you mean that's exactly what happened and we can continue to expect happen? LLLIEEES! So many liiieeess......


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.


Innocent little question... with such a defensive answer?

Hmm... I think that was the answer wasn't it?

s my edit said, we weren't picking on your education... we wanted to know what qualifies a man working in a scientific based industry to say science is all a lie... now we know... he's an armchair expert.

Have a good one buddy, let me know when you break science wide open



[edit on 8-4-2010 by ImaNutter]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaNutter
 


As opposed to yourself who is obviously infinitely more qualified to interpret scientific papers and theory.

In case you didn't notice, I'm not the one proposing new physics or theories. Everything I've said has come from people with relevant PhDs in their respective fields.

Plasma cosmology is a recognized field of study by the IEEE and has hundreds of published papers on the subject.

Lorentz relativity and the wave property of matter theories were also created by people with PhDs in their respective fields.

I'm simply the information conduit bringing you what they are saying.

I have presented nothing here that hasn't be published before.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ImaNutter
 


As opposed to yourself who is obviously infinitely more qualified to interpret scientific papers and theory.


I'm not the one making claims here, let's remember that hmm?? Did you think everyone was going to read what you wrote and say "whoooaaaa this dude so brilliant man look how big that word is duuududee!! star and flag !!!!!! thanks for clearing it up for me maaannnn, bravo! " People are going to challenge you and ask you questions about why you think what you do. Your scientific background is a huge part of you making a scientific claim. My qualifications aren't relevant to your claims... but YOUR qualifications are.




I have presented nothing here that hasn't be published before.


HERE IS YOUR CLAIM: ALL OF SCIENCE IS A LIE

Using your original claim... "all of science is a lie"... these people would have had to study science to get their PhDs, even write papers on science.... you're presenting what these PhDs have published... therefore everything you've presented is a lie because "all of science is a lie."

Can you somehow admit your original claim is illogical nonsense or show the flaw in my logic above please?


[edit on 8-4-2010 by ImaNutter]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


There's contradictions in what you're presenting which is fine because the real issue is the concept of logical inference -- what Edgar Allen Poe called "beyond genius." Caroline Thompson did not accept Maxwell as correct and she proposed a "hidden variable" interpretation on quantum mechanics. De Broglie and Bohm also proposed a hidden variable -- the pilot wave -- and Thompson's key point is that it is longitudinal like a sound wave. Tesla made the same claim -- that the aether is longitudinal -- and these are now called scalar waves. There's a physicist in Germany who makes technology that runs on scalar waves.

But the 2nd link you give has a model of two types of electrons with opposite spin as opposite phase -- this is the scalar model again -- phase being the reverse direction of time. So the pilot wave can travel faster than light and then give signals to the group wave.

As far as quantization -- it is classical statistics -- from an infinite potential. Originally the photoeffect relied on classical statistics from Boltzmann's model of the atom. Consider that Boltzmann's "quantization" of matter as the atom was not accepted by mainstream physics -- but is now considered the main way to model chemistry.

So quantization of subatomic particles is just an extension of this mathematical model -- which WORKS -- for the technology used -- called quantum statistics. Only in quantum statistics due to time reversal and entanglement there are paradoxes of logic from the infinite potential before the transfer to classical measurement -- the collapse of the wave function.

This recent interview with Stuart Hameroff makes some interesting points from Roger Penrose's model of a classical spacetime "objective reduction" of the subatomic realm.




Penrose also takes superpositions as spacetime separations, and that instead of branching off and forming new universes, the separations were unstable, and would reduce, or self-collapse to particular states at a given time due to an objective threshold - this is called objective reduction, or OR. For other reasons related to Goedel's theorem Penrose said the choices were influenced by Platonic values embedded in Planck scale geometry, and that a moment of consciousness occurred.


newsweek.washingtonpost.com...

The point is that due to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem -- the infinite potential as consciousness can only be logically inferred and then measured with technology after the fact.

This means that science is dependent on the technology -- the quantization is a byproduct of the technology used to measure. This was Caroline Thompson's focus for which she was rejected from mainstream physics. I agree with her model -- that reality is based on a longitudinal wave. I call this "sound-current nondualism."

It's ironic that you are a software programmer who believes in a wave model of reality since computers rely on binary logic. There is no "pure" math as a theory or model -- ever since the concept of irrational magnitude using the logic of proof by contradiction there has been a dependency on the technology for the measurement, even if it's just a hypotenuse. So Newton got his inverse square law from Archytas, the military engineer who collaborated with Plato. This was not published until the 1960s in the Royal Society of London proceedings -- if you stretch a string to 4 times its length using 4 times the weight then you get twice the frequency.

These mathematics of time or frequency as spatial logarithmic distance -- magnitude -- rely on symmetric-based or commutative mathematics. Archtyas used the arithmetic mean, harmonic mean and geometric mean from Babylon with the equation AM x HM = GM squared. But the original Law of Pythagoras violated the commutative property -- just as is the case in quantum logic. So in music frequency the harmonic ratio C to G is 2:3 while G to C is 3:4. The Chinese called this the "infinite spiral of fifths." In other words it's sound as a logarithmic ether wave and just as in noncommutative math, the direction of measurement changes the phase value. It's not symmetric but relies on complementary opposites.

Still in nonwestern music you can only logically infer the source of sound as pure consciousness that bends spacetime -- this "infinite spiral of fifths." In quantum math it's called the "time-frequency uncertainty principle."



The self-collapse occurs, given by a very simple equation, E=h/t related to the indeterminacy principle which defines a spectrum of conscious events. When this event occurs, a quantum moment of consciousness occurs.


So the "classical" conversion of the quantum math -- using Planck's constant -- already assumes the technology involved to make the measurement. But this technology is not necessary -- the technology does demonstrate a pilot wave of nonlocal information -- superliminal consciousness -- but the technology itself is not the consciousness. So the hidden variable is therefore rejected by science because you can not bottle it up and sell it as a technology! But you can logically infer that this infinite potential exists as the source of reality.

This is the main point of the excellent book "Veiled Reality" by the quantum physicist Bernard d’Espagnat who recently won the Templeton Award blogs.discovermagazine.com...

The quantum math works but it raises paradoxes -- just like computer software works yet computers have produced the most concentrated toxic waste superfund sites in the U.S. You can make the math work and build the technology on the math -- the two go together -- but there are "externalities" built into the mathematics itself!

I argue this is due to the original lie at the foundation of math about the inverse square law -- which ignores the noncommutative property of time reversal -- it does not have a one to one correspondence with geometry. Consciousness itself is beyond space -- so to say that infinite space is static is still dependent on defining time as spatial distance.

The constant "second" as time devised by Galileo was measuring time as distance for speed. This concept of frequency or time as spatial distance is built into the inverse square commutative mathematical logic from Archytas. I have an article on this which was corroborated by math professor Joe Mazur and math professor Luigi Borzacchini:

naturalresonancerevolution.blogspot.com...

This math as technology goes back to ancient India's use of the Pythagorean Theorem to increase their sacrificial altars -- to find the center of circles -- and the altar geometry -- converting lunar circles to solar square altars -- was then used to find the center of circles for chariot technology. And civilization then relied on territorial expansion of space with an acceleration or contraction of time.

Math professor Abraham Seidenberg documents that origin of Western science back to 3,000 BCE in Vedic philosophy. But the archaeologist Jacque Cauvin's book "Birth of the Gods and the Origin of Agriculture" takes it back to 10,000 BCE or so -- and calls it the "symbolic revolution" for rectilinear technology -- plow-based farming from a philosophy of territorial expansion.

So these "externalities" of science -- be it the mathematical models and the issue of logical inference which is what you are confronting -- or the externality of the technology itself causing a global crisis of automation (mass unemployment and poverty) and ecological destruction (breakdown of resources and health) are really a byproduct of the structural connection between left-brain dominant logic that encloses space using phonetic symbols and a "divide and average" measurement process. This started in the ancient city states -- and the 10-based number system replaced the ideograph math because it's easier to do "divide and average" calculations of the difference between the solar and lunar calendars.

But reality is not based on "divide and average" -- rather it is one of complementary opposites whereby the process of measurement is not contained by space. The measurement of time is not based on magnitude of a divide and average distance relying on weights for mass. This basic difference between phase as longitudinal scalar waves and frequency as symmetric-based math therefore introduces complementary and uncertainty into the quantum measurements. It's a limitation of the technology itself. Math professor Joe Mazur traces this paradox of technology and the Zeno paradox in his recent book the Motion Paradox:

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270746170&sr=1-1

A great article on science relying on measurement as a "negative infinity" limit -- a mathematical limit which is a byproduct of the technology -- is Professor H.M. Collin's Turning Lead into Gold:

101) Collins, H. M., (2003) `Lead Into Gold: The Science of Finding Nothing', Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 34, 4, 661-691

He calls it the technological infinite regress.

www.cardiff.ac.uk...



Upper limits can be published before gravitational wave detectors are sufficiently sensitive to report positive results. In fact, upper limits can be set with devices of arbitrary insensitivity. For example, the fact that the keyboard of your computer is not palpably vibrating sets a limit on the proximity of inspiralling binary neutron stars of about 100 kilometers.


[edit on 8-4-2010 by drew hempel]

[edit on 8-4-2010 by drew hempel]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaNutter

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ImaNutter
 


As opposed to yourself who is obviously infinitely more qualified to interpret scientific papers and theory.


I'm not the one making claims here, let's remember that hmm?? Did you think everyone was going to read what you wrote and say "whoooaaaa this dude so brilliant man look how big that word is duuududee!! star and flag !!!!!! thanks for clearing it up for me maaannnn, bravo! "




I have presented nothing here that hasn't be published before.


HERE IS YOUR CLAIM: ALL OF SCIENCE IS A LIE

Using your original claim... "all of science is a lie"... these people would have had to study science to get their PhDs, even write papers on science.... you're presenting what these PhDs have published... therefore everything you've presented is a lie because "all of science is a lie."

Can you somehow admit your original claim is illogical nonsense or show the flaw in my logic above please?


Yes, you are making claims.

Your claim is that the standard theory of cosmology is correct.

I'm pointing out its not.

What is illogical is believing space bends itself into knots and fairy dust makes galaxies fly apart.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaNutter
 


I'll have to say this.

No offense to you of course. I think you gave some really good arguments.

But a degree in anything doesn't mean a thing. It proves you understand what you have learned.
The same study or subject could just as well be a hobby. It will not make someone less or more intelligent when that someone has a degree in it. Or not of course. For some it just comes to them just like taking a leak after a few pints.

Education is important but it is by no means what so ever needed to understand something really really good.

I'm just saying.
Don't underestimate people because they don't have a degree. Not everybody lives and dies like a sheep.

I have the privilege to know a few brilliant minds. One of them even stopped his study because it was boring. He already knew. Funny actualy, He now studies something with tourism. He told me it's because he wanted to learn how to work with others.

-SK



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


All Of Science Is A Lie

If it ever proves the existence of God this will be exactly what they're
saying.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Your claim is that the standard theory of cosmology is correct.


Quote me please.

My claim is that the only thing you can count on in the scientific community is the theories are going to change. Not out of mischief or an attempt to make us less intelligent but because we are making new discoveries and advancing. Einstein & Newton didn't "lie" to us... they just didn't have all the pieces to the puzzle (guess what, we still dont)



What is illogical is believing space bends itself into knots and fairy dust makes galaxies fly apart


What is realllly illogical is not responding to what was written to you.

But it's okay, I've realized we've hit that point in our discourse when actually answering what I ask will only make you look worse so you're going to do a few circles.

You exposed yourself as an armchair expert a few posts back and I'm glad more layman like yourself who are comfortable in "not knowing" will catch that disclaimer....



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The LHC... is a joke. The particle physics model the LHC research is based on is a joke. Cosmology is a joke. Everything you are being told is one gigantic fat lie. The history of the Earth as it has been told to you is a lie. Theoretical particle physics is a lie. The big bang is a lie. Comets made of water is a lie. The formation of planets is a lie. Climate science is a lie.

You forgot to mention Christian Science.

[edit on 8/4/10 by Astyanax]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by drew hempel
 


Caroline Thompson said Maxwell was incorrect insofar as his theory is incomplete. This is an important distinction. She is not challenging the fundamentals of what Maxwell proposed.

It’s nice to see you in agreement with her. Theoretical physics needs to return to reality.

Thompson didn’t have all the answers, I believe LaFreniere has solved Thompsons remaining mysteries.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by ImaNutter
 


I'll have to say this.

No offense to you of course. I think you gave some really good arguments.

But a degree in anything doesn't mean a thing. It proves you understand what you have learned.
The same study or subject could just as well be a hobby. It will not make someone less or more intelligent when that someone has a degree in it. Or not of course. For some it just comes to them just like taking a leak after a few pints.

Education is important but it is by no means what so ever needed to understand something really really good.

I'm just saying.
Don't underestimate people because they don't have a degree. Not everybody lives and dies like a sheep.

I have the privilege to know a few brilliant minds. One of them even stopped his study because it was boring. He already knew. Funny actualy, He now studies something with tourism. He told me it's because he wanted to learn how to work with others.

-SK


I completely agree with you, I really do.

In the IT industry what you're saying is especially true. I got turned on to IT by a guy who works as a Network Engineer in his own small business with no college degree. I also work around a few administrators who did the same thing (the certification route). So you're right, it's not uncommon, and I remember long ago and always took to heart when I heard someone say "some of the smartest people I ever knew never went to school." I am a firm believer that if you look for it, you can learn a little bit of something from everyone.

But in the context of this discussion I would never ask someone who hasn't taken a full course load in Calculus and physics to explain M-Theory to me or why it's incorrect!

For someone that hates theoretical physics like this dude, he hasn't done anything but talk about theory since he started his thread lol That's kind of why I asked about some number crunching... okay, we can all talk... but can he show me all of science is a lie?

The thread's title is "all of science is a lie"... so prove it or just shut up already.

Fact is... he'll never prove it, as it's a horrendously stupid thing to say in the first place. The guy went to school for a science degree and thinks the fact he can now code and create an application or piece of software isn't a direct result of his learning science? Therefore science can't all be a lie? Did he not contemplate this as he was putting down his rant on his science box thing we call a computer?

This thread is crazy dumb.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaNutter
 


I don't have to fully understand M theory to show it is incorrect.

I can show it is incorrect by proving another theory is simpler and accounts for observations better without ever having even looked at a magazine article on M theory.

M theory is so wildly obtuse and incorporates so many assumptions that most doctorates in physics couldn't even describe what it fully represents.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Alright I'm going to end this thread once and for all... Brian Greene who is a professor of Physics and Mathematics at Columbia University had this to say at the end of one of his books about the state of where we're at and where we're going and what we know...

"We are, most definitely, still wandering in the jungle," - Brian Greene, Fabric of The Cosmos

We're getting there, we just haven't arrived yet. It's because all the time the ignorant are becoming the enlightened.

To say all of science is a lie.... is a complete and utter lie.
To say all of science is ignorant.... is also a lie.
To say SOME of science is ignorant.... is true.

Tis it, tis all.

Everyone have a great day, this was a fun thread to be in.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ImaNutter
 


I don't have to fully understand M theory to show it is incorrect.

I can show it is incorrect by proving another theory is simpler and accounts for observations better without ever having even looked at a magazine article on M theory.


If I see you mistakenly apply Occam's Razor one more time I'm going to have a fricking heart attack... "IF ALL THINGS ARE EQUAL..." "IF ALL THINGS ARE EQUAL...." "IF ALL THINGS ARE EQUAL...." repeat this over and over to yourself buddy because this is the part of Occam's Razor you are not presenting because it might make what you're saying appear a little less cut'n'dry.


M theory is so wildly obtuse and incorporates so many assumptions that most doctorates in physics couldn't even describe what it fully represents.


So I definitely shouldn't expect a Computer Science major who won't even read a magazine article on M-Theory to be able to describe it either? That's why I didn't ask you, but thanks anyway for more broad and general sweeping statements! Do you have a youtube video I can watch with more broad and general statements?

C'mon man I've said my piece I'm trying to leave but you won't stop amazing me here.... I give you questions and you ignore them. I make statements you reply. Annoying.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by ImaNutter]



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join