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: 12
54
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by ImaNutter
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.



All of science is a lie.

When you corrupt cosmology, you corrupt all of the sciences.

Cosmology tells us the approximate age of the earth. How matter is formed and what it constitutes. The ancient history of the earth. The history of our oceans. How stars are formed and energy is transported across space. etc.. etc...

The fundamental tenants of cosmology directly impact the assumptions of ALL sciences.

There is not a single science out there that in some way does not make assumptions based on the work of cosmologists.




posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a^2 + b^2 = c^2

true all the time, every time.

A simple little equation found by observation long ago.

By god, I think they call it science.

Therefore, all of science is not a lie.

Go home.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


I very much agree...I stopped my academic pursuits after my bachelor's degree because there was nothing of importance to learn within the provided cirriculum. I'm a research scientist, so private industry allows me the financial means to work on my projects. This could not be done in academia. My yearly budget is in the 1-2 million range...not going to happen at school.

All that being said, I have met people that only have their high school degree but like to learn about science as it intrigues them. I have not only been challenged by some of these people, I have been corrected in the very subject matter that society would consider me to be an expert in. I can be vehement in my discussions when I feel that I am correct. But, I admit that i'm wrong when i'm wrong. It's a learning experience.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaNutter
a^2 + b^2 = c^2

true all the time, every time.

A simple little equation found by observation long ago.

By god, I think they call it science.

Therefore, all of science is not a lie.

Go home.


Math is not science.

Math is a tool applied to solve scientific problems.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Math is not science.

Math is a tool applied to solve scientific problems.




Science is:
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena

Dude A says: You know, I bet the sides of right triangles have a constant mathematical relationship...
Dude B says: No waayyy.. you're crazy.. what would you call it?
Dude A says: I don't know I like the sound of hypothesis, what do you think?
Dude B says: Whatever you want to call it dude... you better test it and find out...

Dude A and B test and observe 190238467 right triangles and find that there IS a mathematical relationship between sides of a right triangle! The squares of the 2 sides will always equal the square of the hypotenuse!

Dude A says: No way.. I can't believe it. I tested my hypothesis and it turned out to be correct! This is so crazy cool I should make a name for this to...
Dude B says: Scientific Method sounds good to me???
Dude A says: Me too...

end scene.

Math is the language of science.

So an equation found to be true all the time every time through observation is most definitely science. If you took physics classes you would know how useful trig is and how concrete trig is


Without Math we would have people with 13 page threads of word theory on why they think science is wrong...



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Awesome post OP! To many just believe what they see on the discovery channel and what the "celebrity" scientists have spoken about without looking any further. There are scientists who do not believe in black holes, but you wouldn't know that flipping through the channels or even browsing youtube.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaNutter

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.


I know you are just in here trolling me and not actually providing any counter arguments to my claims; however, I think its important to point out what Occam's razor actually says since it has direct applicability to string theory.

Occam's Razor:
"entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity"

Now, let us look at how this statement applies to M theory and other such theories.

M theory posits 11 dimensional space. If I can account for the properties of matter and space in standard 3 dimensional space plus time within a simpler theory, Occam's razor tells me the simpler theory is the correct one based on the fact dimensions are not needlessly multiplied.

Occam was a smart man.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by mnemeth1
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.

An unending stream of lies.


Usually the people that run the line, "everything you're being told is a lie", are usually cult leaders or sme other kind of agenda-driven liar. The old "don't believe those guys but believe me" isn't going to work on any rational, thinking individual.


You don't have to take my word for it.

Google everything I just said.
Why not just provide proof for your claims? If you can't, then why not just say so, as opposed making someone go through all of that trouble just to realize that you were wrong? Until you provide proof for your claims, this is nothing more than a opinion piece at best.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




Non-detection as a success?


And here I thought you had run out of ways in which to advertise your ignorance. Are you really criticizing science for it's failures without understanding that science at it's core is a process of falsification? A negative result from testing a hypothesis is every bit as important as a positive result. Even more so.

Further, just because certain accepted theories have not been reconciled for (any) length of time, doesn't falsify either theory. Newton's models of classical mechanics are not reconcilable with Einstein's SR, but does that mean Newton's models are wrong? Yeah, if you're trying to predict the orbit of Venus. But for modeling the interaction of billiard balls on a table, or predicting the velocity of a object dropped from a specific height will have upon reaching the ground, it works quite well.

That they are irreconcilable doesn't mean they're wrong, but it does mean they are incomplete. So the fact that LIGO hasn't discovered evidence of Gravitons yet is hardly a waste, as it's constantly kicking out valuable data on what so far hasn't worked... providing falsification. The graviton is still hypothetical, and LIGO's testing will help determine whether or not the idea is valid or bunk... or it may uncover errors in the methods currently being used leading to refinements. Either way, it's failures serve as circumstantial evidence for the currently accepted SR model which has evidence to back it, such as mentioned before with GPS clock synchronization, the Shapiro Effect, and gravitational lensing. Gravitational Lensing effects (which I don't recall you addressing, though I may have missed it) are well known and their ability to focus light normally too disparate for our best telescopes to detect has yielded practical application as a gravitational telescope. Some of the most distant galaxies we've discovered are due to this effect in the Abell 2218 galaxy cluster.

Further, very process of searching for the hypothetical graviton may yield new evidence related to a different aspect of physics, and solving mysteries to which solutions were previously elusive. New discoveries tend to be made while looking for something else. That Robert Ballard's expedition to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge looking for missing heat to explain temperature differentials that previous models could not account for succeed in turning up hydrothermal vents which accounted for the missing heat... but it also revolutionized the way we view marine biology via the discovery of entirely new ecosystems based around those vents, including chemosynthetic organisms that had previously only been hypothesized.

Data generation is the name of the game though, and whether it provides evidence supporting either verification or falsification is secondary. The larger the data cache gathered, the more information you have to work with. The more information you have, the more conclusive inferences derived from that data are. The more accurately averages can be calculated, the clearer trends become, and the easier it is for errors and and outliers to be detected. The larger the sample size, the better. Despite it's setbacks, the resources to preform the experiments LIGO does have largely already spent in construction. That they are using a tool to generate data is hardly a point of criticism IMO.

You may consider it a waste of resources, but it's this type of fundamental research which will give us the understanding of what works and what doesn't necessary to build the technology of tomorrow. That will be used to increase your standard of living. Similarly, the Apollo missions could have been achieved at only a fraction of their actual cost if reality worked in a fashion which provided correct answers before we even knew enough about which questions were even applicable. If experiments were only preformed if we knew beforehand they would have a 100% success rate. We could have just built one rocket and passed Yuri Gregarin on the way to the Moon in one shot. But that's not how it works, and the experiments preformed along the way - both successes and failures - are what provided the basis for today's technology.

Skewed views of what you think Science should be and a contempt for it's rejection of your pet theories aren't going to change that. There is only one reality in which we all share, and the endeavor to explain the functions of that reality has only one set of answers we're trying to find. Unless you can provide examples of technology which depend upon an accurate understanding of the mechanics described by your favorite models of how the universe works which are both more functional and comprehensive to the reality they operate in than Science has provided... then you have nothing but baseless assertions, accusations, and misunderstandings. And true to your thread title, I expect to see no congruence or accommodation for Science in those examples of technology you give... else-wise, your claim of "All" science being a lie would be false.

------------
A few post-notes/thoughts.

No single "unified" theory in physics will explain every aspect of everything on every scale. That's not even the point of a unified theory, so if you're expecting a generic one-size-fits-all model of the universe... it's not going to happen. Just like Evolution acts as the unifying theory of biology, but cannot explain fully the intricacies of the fields it ties together. Evolution applies to genetics, but cannot fully explain the current diversity of life. You need to know about chemistry and how molecules interact in order to understand how and why mutation occurs. You need to know a bit about geology, paleontology, and climatology to study the environments which forced the selective pressures that favored certain mutations. You need to know a bit about astrophysics to understand the various influences affecting Earth's interaction with the sun and other bodies in space. Meteorite impacts, for example.

(Evolution, btw, is ironically proving to be a more robust and inventive engineer than even human engineers in many cases. GA's are still fairly primitive and simplistic, but have proven to invaluable tools in brute-forcing engineering solutions which are difficult or time-consuming for humans to generate. Shape optimization of the electrode arrays in cochlear implants being a rather prominent example... with (IIRC) some designs even allowing for current hardware scale to support more channels than human designed versions.)

Another example of scale affecting physical properties which cannot comprehensively be fully modeled by a one-size-fits-all description of physics are nano-particles. Nano-particles don't contradict what we know of chemistry and atomic theory, but at their scale they have the unique property of being mostly surface area with very little volume. This allows a far greater number of interactions to occur along the surface of the object which affect the properties of the object. Stained Glass coloration and Carbon Nanotubes being prominent examples.

Speaking of which... someone earlier mentioned that the Atomic Theory was wrong, that the periodic table was wrong. I don't recall the alternative mentioned, but since the OP suggests all science is a lie, atomic theory would be included. By what mechanism, then, would explain molecular self-assembly, fission/fusion, etc... and the practical application of such. The generation of new (though unstable) elements, nuclear weapons/power, and molecular self-assembly such as "DNA Origami"?

I wonder how much the OP has read up on the science of Chaos/Complexity theories. Whether or not he's familiar with their implications and application... and whether or not he applies any consideration towards them when forming his opinions. Perhaps understanding them would illustrate the mechanism by which scale can change the dynamics of how matter and energy interact to produce unique variations in those interaction which require modification to those mathematical descriptions in order to correctly model. It may also help explain the striking self-symmetry and apparent "elegance" in physics... and why the gravitation's existence is so strongly suspected given the success of the standard model so far. Especially when that elegance has shown itself time and time again, vis-a-vis the Yang-Mills Theory as an example.

Description and Explanation are not irrevocably linked in regards to Science. Description of a phenomena can form "Laws of Physics" and accurately described with extremely high levels of precision and predictability. And explanation gives you an understanding of WHY the phenomena exhibits the properties it does, and can give you a greater capacity by which to interact with that phenomena... but they are not inseparable. You don't need to be an expert in ballistics to use a gun while hunting. You would be a more capable hunter if you did, but what happens when you pull the trigger has little to do with your capacity for knowing WHY it behaves that way.

Just because we cannot fully explain gravity, doesn't mean we don't know a great deal about how gravity works and to what extent those descriptions are useful and to which extents they start to break down.





"Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion?" ~ Oliver Heaviside


The OP, I think, would rather starve to death than suffering the fatigue of learning to cook and risk indigestion.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
So science and math is a lie? Hmm, those must be some amazing lies considering they gave us HUGE technological advancements and with out them we would be cave men.....

With no language, no tools, no thought process, no nothing... Hell, we would be simple monkeys... Even some apes use tools... Ever seen a chimp use a stick and put it into an ant hill to get ants so they can eat? I have...

With out science and math and technology, we would be really stupid monkeys.... So it is a good thing we have been lied too...

So my friend, I ask you... What IS the truth then? Are you suggesting that we were not supposed to ever have any kind of technology? Because that is just silly...

What IS the truth?

[edit on 8-4-2010 by gimme_some_truth]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


It's all fare and well saying all of science is a big fat lie, but you offer no evidence to backup your claims. You are insinuating that you know the real truth, so what is it?

How were planets formed?
Where did the Earth's water come from, if not from comets?
Where did the universe come from?

You sound like you're a believer in the electric universe model theory.


www.thunderbolts.info...
www.electricuniverse.info...



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by kindred
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


It's all fare and well saying all of science is a big fat lie, but you offer no evidence to backup your claims. You are insinuating that you know the real truth, so what is it?

How were planets formed?
Where did the Earth's water come from, if not from comets?
Where did the universe come from?

You sound like you're a believer in the electric universe model theory.


www.thunderbolts.info...
www.electricuniverse.info...


Oh dear please don't provoke him. We'll spend another 12 pages arguing over the anode cathode anomoly. . .



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

"I'm not going to defend my education here."...............




"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."


Defended.



[edit on 8//4/1010 by misteRee]

[edit on 8//4/1010 by misteRee]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I know you are just in here trolling me and not actually providing any counter arguments to my claims; however


The truth of the matter is I counter argued this little piece of gold from you "Math is not science. Math is a tool applied to solve scientific problems" And I got nothing back. Why are you selectively responding to me when the entirety of what I write to you is for you to read and contemplate?

I've also pointed out the fallacy from your claim... "all of science is a lie" ....... for instance how is it you became a Software Engineer and how is it you are able to code a piece of software? Evil dark magickz??? Or maybe science along the way helped with things like the transistor, then the microchip, and on and on. All of this is science. And here we are chit chatting across the interwebs, and it works doesn't it? More dark magickz??? Hmm..

Answer me that one. This is my counter argument to your claim.

You are using a computer... we're talking... it works... all of science is not a lie. This is my counter point. Did you really miss that in all of my posts?

That is not trolling. That is making you look rediculous as you cherry pick what you do and don't want to respond to.

I challenge you to put me in my trolly place and please destroy my counter arguments that I have put into just about every post I've made in this thread.... I dare you... I double dog dare you.


I think its important to point out what Occam's razor actually says since it has direct applicability to string theory.

Occam's Razor:
"entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity"


Here's some reading for you on Occam's Razor as applied to today's world since we're not in the 1400s anymore...


The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is
"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

In physics we use the razor to shave away metaphysical concepts. The canonical example is Einstein's theory of special relativity compared with Lorentz's theory that ruler's contract and clocks slow down when in motion through the ether. Einstein's equations for transforming spacetime are the same as Lorentz's equations for transforming rulers and clocks, but Einstein and Poincaré recognised that the ether could not be detected according to the equations of Lorentz and Maxwell. By Occam's razor it had to be eliminated.

The principle has also been used to justify uncertainty in quantum mechanics. Heisenberg deduced his uncertainty principle from the quantum nature of light and the effect of measurement.


www.phys.ncku.edu.tw...

If you took a physics class and didn't google a wiki page you would have heard occam's razor described the same way I did...



[edit on 8-4-2010 by ImaNutter]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


A page long diatribe doesn't change the fact that LIGO hasn't detected gravitational waves, which is in direct contradiction to what was predicted.

The LIGO never would have been built if scientists weren't convinced that gravitational waves existed and the LIGO could detect them.

So you have two arguments from which to chose from:

1. The failure of the LIGO means a failure of Einstein's bogus relativity, and hence Einstein's relativity should be rejected.

or

2. Scientists wasted an epic amount of tax payer dollars building a detector for something they weren't even sure it would be able to detect in the first place.

I know, its a tough position to be in, but given your arguments those are the only two choices left for you.

Pick your poison.




[edit on 8-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
MNEMETH1: where is your reserch? citations? these are extremely bold and totally unsubstatiated claims, even for a forum of this nature. i attend a university and studied astronomy for some time. i can tell you that much of these things that you are indeed theories, but they make quite a lot of sense and indeed seem to be the only logical conclusions that can be drawn. why all this animosity towards science anyway? by the way, the whole concept of a black hole is that it is so massive that even light cannot escape from it, so it cannot physically be seen at all. hence the name black hole. if what you were saying was true, don't you think there would be all kind of "rogue scientists" (a lot of times these guys are really smart get great degrees and still cant find jobs) out there denouncing these prominent theories with actual substantiated evidence? i would think so yet i have looked and found nothing. basically, your claims (to me) are unbelievable. whats this really about? religion?



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


Further, if I may:

Please explain how the non-detection of gravitational waves is in anyway different than the null result of the Michelson Morley experiment which resulted in Lorentz's relativity being wrongly rejected.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
People please can we stop playing the yes and no game ?

I followed this thread from the beginning. IMO the OP does not say all science is wrong.

He says our modern day science is wrong starting with cosmology.
That's where the problem lies. The theories on cosmology are used as basics from where other theories are made from.

IMO he only says that we continue to build on unproven theories that he claims to be wrong. If he's right it means all science which is based on those wrong theories is a lie.

I would define a lie different because IMO the people at the time were probably convinced their theory was right.

I've heard him say some interesting things so if you all would please focus on those. I would really appreciate it.

The more info I can google the better.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


One important difference is that the "aether" was supposed to be everywhere so it should be detectable anywhere, at any time.

Gravity waves on the other hand would be transient phenomenon. Here and gone. LIGO is capable of detecting only very short wavelength gravity waves of sufficient strength. It is possible we have not been subjected to such waves since LIGO has been active.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mattf1233
 


Scientists have had half a century to unify Einstein's hair-brained relativities.

Track record to date:

1. Failure of the LIGO
2. Failure of the CDMS
3. Quasi-Failure of Gravity Probe B
4. Failure of WMAP to show homogeneity.
fail fail fail

So what's the standard response?

"Oh, well, we actually expected to fail! Never fear! We can adjust our bogus theories to meet any observation! Nothing can falsify them!"




top topics



 
54
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join