Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What Is Light?

page: 9
12
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   
This is a bit off topic but something that recently struck me and the guys theory in the OP does closely depend on his suggestion of how EM ropes create atoms,.. My query has to do with the nature of the electron, nucleus, and atom as a whole... the electron is hardly thought to be a thing at all.. and it is thought to be surrounding, the hardly a thing at all nucleus of an atom.. So when we see close up images of atoms and they look like perfect circles,, are the edges/boundaries of the circles the electrons? look at your hand, look at your walls and floor, all you are seeing are electrons? It could be that you are seeing the nucleuses of atoms but then where would the electrons be? Or when we see close up images of the atom, are we seeing the nucleus as the circle? or is it that the electrons are moving so fast they appear as a stable circle?














posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
look at your hand, look at your walls and floor, all you are seeing are electrons? It could be that you are seeing the nucleuses of atoms but then where would the electrons be?


Hey look, I suggest you read up on optics and all that. ATS is really not a very efficient way to learn basic physics.

That said, what you see is the light scattered by objects. How this happens will depend on the object. Metals reflect a lot of incoming radiation because of high conductivity and the result of boundary conditions (which require for example that the "E" vector inside the metal is close to zero in amplitude. With dielectrics, it's more complex and once the objects are sufficiently small (like dust or fine drizzle) interferometric effects start playing out. Various kinds of dyes will absorb and re-emit light, at a different wavelength. There are other important classes of scattering of EM on molecules. Interaction of light with matter is a whole branch of science, actually, and it's quite tough. We had to do it in a class, that's some badass theoretical physics.

And no, you don't get to see the nucleus. Not the right kind of wavelength. You need gamma photons for that, and these cannot be detected with human eye -- they can with appropriate apparatuses.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ImaFungi
look at your hand, look at your walls and floor, all you are seeing are electrons? It could be that you are seeing the nucleuses of atoms but then where would the electrons be?


Hey look, I suggest you read up on optics and all that. ATS is really not a very efficient way to learn basic physics.

That said, what you see is the light scattered by objects. How this happens will depend on the object. Metals reflect a lot of incoming radiation because of high conductivity and the result of boundary conditions (which require for example that the "E" vector inside the metal is close to zero in amplitude. With dielectrics, it's more complex and once the objects are sufficiently small (like dust or fine drizzle) interferometric effects start playing out. Various kinds of dyes will absorb and re-emit light, at a different wavelength. There are other important classes of scattering of EM on molecules. Interaction of light with matter is a whole branch of science, actually, and it's quite tough. We had to do it in a class, that's some badass theoretical physics.

And no, you don't get to see the nucleus. Not the right kind of wavelength. You need gamma photons for that, and these cannot be detected with human eye -- they can with appropriate apparatuses.



So we know atoms have an existence apart from our perception and viewing of them ( im pretty sure the images i provided in my prior post were not imaged with light, but perhaps electron), so is it possible to establish an objective understanding and view of the atom, without depending on our biased viewing mechanisms? I asked what composes the boundaries of atoms that are viewable in those images? you are saying the EM radiation detectable in regards to the actions of atoms, is what keeps that atoms stable and gives them a solid appearance? the circular walls we see are electrons deflecting millions of quanta of EM radiation a second?
edit on 6-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose


. . . 4. The electron is a balloon-like entity that envelopes the hydrogen atom and is made from threads converging on it from every atom in the universe. This model accounts for the observed properties of the atom.

5. The proton and the neutron are not discrete particles. They are convergence points respectively of threads and ropes that interconnect these entities with every atom in the universe. The role of the neutron is not to keep protons apart as alleged by the mechanics. The neutron is simply a necessary byproduct of ropes crisscrossing the Universe.



Originally posted by Mary Rose

In Chapter Four, LIGHT: The Grand Unified Theory, on page 197, Fig. 4.21 represents the cross-section of the hydrogen atom:



So, what Gaede has done is simplify the atom into an electromagnetic entity.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

In Chapter Four, LIGHT: The Grand Unified Theory, on page 197, Fig. 4.21 represents the cross-section of the hydrogen atom:



So, what Gaede has done is simplify the atom into an electromagnetic entity.


What Gaede has done was to create a ridiculous diagram with no relation to hydrogen atom, no more, no less.
edit on 6-2-2013 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Typical, statements made early in the video are completely incorrect. Also very typical is the aggressive nature in which scientists and 'the establishment' are made to sound like people who don't know anything or just because there are some textbooks that explain things in ways that people might be able to grasp, but are not 100% accurate that means that it is 100% wrong... Oh by the way, the only good parts of the video was Pachelbel's Canon, which is a beautiful piece.

Orbitals? and shell models? seriously? Atomic electrons are held in fuzzy electron shells, it is just conceptual that we can draw them in 2d as being like a planetary system. We know that is just a basic way of showing it but we in no way say "Oh thats how it is" because its not, the 'orbitals' are more like shells in reality and electrons don't orbit around, they wobble around.

My biggest question is still this; Why the aggressive nature, why suggest that science is 100% incorrect when it predicts so many things, based of models that have evolved and changed with observations, so why is it we need to go back by about 100 or more years and start over when in reality theories do evolve, the way i see it, it evolved quite well and is so useful in many many ways, we didnt get it so wrong as to not make any breakthroughs in optics, or understanding the atom. Id like the author to predict hyperfine structure and not use any of the atomic physics that he clams is wrong.


I said it before... discussing science an theory is fine, absolutely fine and I encourage it it is healthy to question why what and when at all times. It is also great to revisit old theories and try and poke holes in them. However, being overly aggressive and suggesting that the scientific world is 'wrong' is just quite simply ridiculous and disrespectful, since most scientists never dream of claiming to be right about everything. We just know what works and what does not... if a theorist wants to suggest a theory of his or her is correct, then it is up to that person/team to prove us all wrong. If a theorist suggests a theory to replace one that exists currently, it has to be extremely tight and cannot have any holes.

The whole proposition bothers me because it essentially requires instantiates information communication between all objects in the universe. To say there is a string like link between all atoms in existence and that photons are waves that travel along these strings, means that things like line of sight simply dont work.

If i pass light down one string... then it represents two atoms that have some separation. If I block this, (say like the laser to the moon example. then the string exists only between the object i blocked with, and the source. Now if i unblock it, the string instantaneously has to go back to the moon. You can say it moves with the speed of light, but then you have just broken the rules set down by the video.

A side note

I burst out laughing when he said "Scientists cannot tell you what light looks like"

Yeah because if i am to be as arrogant, it is because sir it doesn't look like anything, it is a fluctuation in fields, we detect light, but dont actually look at light 'waves/particles' as objects in themselves...



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErosA433

If i pass light down one string... then it represents two atoms that have some separation. If I block this, (say like the laser to the moon example. then the string exists only between the object i blocked with, and the source. Now if i unblock it, the string instantaneously has to go back to the moon. You can say it moves with the speed of light, but then you have just broken the rules set down by the video.



Yeah because if i am to be as arrogant, it is because sir it doesn't look like anything, it is a fluctuation in fields, we detect light, but dont actually look at light 'waves/particles' as objects in themselves...


If I understand his theory in the slightest.. he would say that what you call a "field" are the EM rope connections between atoms, and the fluctuations are torsion's of the ropes...

He is merely saying that instead of disconnections between everything,, and for the everythings to interact with one another they shoot particles of energy at one another... that they send energy from one atom to another via their connected rope.. It pretty much sounds like the physicalization of the field concept.

for your blocking of string example... I think he would say that when you shine a laser at your hand.. the atoms that are excited in the laser oscillates the EM field between the atoms in the laser and your hand, transmitting that kinetic energy into the medium of air it vibrates into and into your hand... when you remove your hand, the atoms in the laser now oscillate the EM field and wave the path of ropes toward the moon.
edit on 6-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
He is merely saying that instead of disconnections between everything,, and for the everythings to interact with one another they shoot particles of energy at one another... that they send energy from one atom to another via their connected rope.. It pretty much sounds like the physicalization of the field concept.


It looks as if you didn't pay attention. "Torsion" is a very specific term. It implies an elastic medium. Your attempt at telling this story is inconsistent with what the auteur has invented (which is just as well, since it's utter crap anyhow).



I think he would say that when you shine a laser at your hand.. the atoms that are excited in the laser oscillates the EM field between the atoms in the laser and your hand


That doesn't make any sense at all. The field is emitted and it pretty much leaves the laser and propagates towards its target. The atoms in the laser no longer have connection to the radiation that's left, just like a train leaves the station.


transmitting that kinetic energy into the medium of air it vibrates into and into your hand..


Why air? Light can be transmitted in a vacuum, as I hope you know.


Your logic seems poor and the knowledge is non-existent.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem


It looks as if you didn't pay attention. "Torsion" is a very specific term. It implies an elastic medium. Your attempt at telling this story is inconsistent with what the auteur has invented (which is just as well, since it's utter crap anyhow).


He refers to EM radiation as the torsion of the elastic EM rope which connects atoms... When a charged particle is accelerated, its change in velocity is detected via its "wiggling" of its attached EM ropes, which we detect as varying levels of EM radiation depending on the energetic circumstances of the particles movement..





That doesn't make any sense at all. The field is emitted and it pretty much leaves the laser and propagates towards its target. The atoms in the laser no longer have connection to the radiation that's left, just like a train leaves the station.



I know of the ways you are putting it.. I was trying to respond in conjunction with his theory... arent atoms always moving, thus always emitting EM radiation, meaning there is a constant EM field between all atoms in the universe?

They do have a connection, in that the EM field still exists between them and all surrounding atoms, which after the propagation leaves the immediate area of the atoms which caused the propagation, the EM field or ropes connected to the atoms which caused the propagation are now at a relatively lower energy state then they were at the moment of the acceleration which caused the excitation.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
He refers to EM radiation as the torsion of the elastic EM rope which connects atoms... When a charged particle is accelerated, its change in velocity is detected via its "wiggling" of its attached EM ropes, which we detect as varying levels of EM radiation depending on the energetic circumstances of the particles movement..


I can claim that there is a string of miniature lollipops connecting charged particles. I think my theory is more elegant that the stupid "torsion wave". Point being that that "rope" is an arbitrary pronouncement. Why does acceleration cause torsion? What "circumstances"? That's just some verbal diarrhea.



I know of the ways you are putting it.. I was trying to respond in conjunction with his theory...


It didn't really work, did it?


arent atoms always moving, thus always emitting EM radiation, meaning there is a constant EM field between all atoms in the universe?


All of the above is essentially false. Atom may be at rest in a particular system of reference. When an atom moves with a constant speed, it's as good as rest, again no radiation. More importantly, since atoms are neutral, there is no first order radiation in any case. An argon atom sitting here where I am, and another argon atom sitting in a bottle in my lab do not experience any electrostatic interaction between each other, not up to multiple decimal places. There can be very subtle polarization when the two are very close, but as I said it's safely negligible, and it falls off so quickly with distance, it's moot.

No ropes.
edit on 6-2-2013 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

I can claim that there is a string of miniature lollipops connecting charged particles. I think my theory is more elegant that the stupid "torsion wave". Point being that that "rope" is an arbitrary pronouncement. Why does acceleration cause torsion? What "circumstances"? That's just some verbal diarrhea.


Well atoms are always moving, so there is always an EM field between them all, When charges are accelerated at a specific energy level we can detect this with our eyes. the rope is not arbitrary... It is a physical explanation for a wave and a particle-wave. think of joltingly wiggling a jump rope once... its a rope! its a wave! take a photo you will see the amplitude/particle/region of highest energy density...





All of the above is essentially false. Atom may be at rest in a particular system of reference. When an atom moves with a constant speed, it's as good as rest, again no radiation. More importantly, since atoms are neutral, there is no first order radiation in any case. An argon atom sitting here where I am, and another argon atom sitting in a bottle in my lab do not experience any electrostatic interaction between each other, not up to multiple decimal places. There can be very subtle polarization when the two are very close, but as I said it's safely negligible, and it falls off so quickly with distance, it's moot.


so are you saying all atoms on earth are not touching? are you saying all atoms on earth are always still? if you are not saying that at all... then there is a constant EM field of changing potentials at all moments. unless the earth is absolute zero, there will always be atomic motion, atomic motion is heat, heat is thermal radiation, thermal radiation is EM radiation.
edit on 6-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I would also like to know how you suppose an electron exhibits a force beyond itself?

Do you think "nothing" exists anywhere in this universe? ( Im not meaning to play the word games when this type of thing is usually brought up " well nothing by definition cant exist, once you say nothing exists thats something so nothing can create something and doesnt exist ever always etc...") Im desperately curious, because it is thought space-time did not exist before the big bang. Its thought all that existed was the entirety of energy of the universe now, packed in a dense area... and when the big bang started the energy started decompressing/expanding, which would make space-time a quality of energy similar to energy/matter we are familiar with, just a version of least density... So now im curious about the true meaning and existence of something like a vacuum, is it actually nothing (i know i know particles popping in and out of existence,,, but every peni second that a particle is not popping into existence in an area of vacuum, are those areas of vacuum nothing?)

When you suck the air out of a water bottle the bottle collapses because of differing pressures right? Could this be what gravity is? Energy was accelerated during the big bang and the lesser pressure of space-time then constantly collapsed itself around the denser,clumpy regions of energy which forced them towards one another?

What do you think dark energy is? Is dark energy the relativistic mass of galaxies? their kinetic energy we cannot detect in a single photograph of them?



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
I just think that here there is a fundamental problem, even if you consider it as propagation along a rope/string between atoms... why? well ok so the speed of light according to this is an effect of a propagation limit between atoms on this rope.

Well, my point about breaking a connection holds as breaking this model i believe. The reason for this is that of you have an object that orbits another, say the Earth and moon. Now if you suppose the moon was more distant. In my experiment if i fire a laser at the moon, my source points AT the moon... I fire a single photon... also possible and provable by science that it is possible to produce a em wave, singular....I excite the string between a single atom of the lasing cell of my laser (oh yeah also lasers dont work in this theory either, infact not much works when you apply it to real physical objects but ill get to that later) and a singular atom on the moon... now, the propatation of this light will remain or should remain, in the string between these atoms, it should become locked.

But the moon is moving, and if it is far enough away, my photon can miss. This then means that the universe allows tranmission of information at FTL speeds because the rope constantly should remain in a straight line in the direction of which the laser was pointed.

The model is just wrong or invents a whole host of complications that point back to photons of light being packets of electromagnetic vibration. Trust me, as complicated as atomic physics is, optics and physics is in general, this model is just massively simplified and as a result produces highly complicated explanations in order to explain very simple real life concepts.

Using this model of how photons propagate, I would probably think (but ill think about it a bit more) that explaining atomic physics just doesn't work, explaining how lasers work is impossible. Time of flight just comes out as a mess and a whole host of issues.



On the above post regarding the nature of the universe... well to be truly open minded about this, and I really am asking a serious question or getting to a serious point.

Why cant there be nothing? The universe how science has defined it is an expansion of a bubble of space time, what exists outside it is unknown. What ever it is, it is not the same as the space-time we experience inside the universe. It is a mind bending concept that many scientists think about. It could be that we are a part of a multiverse system, with many other bubbles of spacetime with different properties exist... who knows? But spacetime itself can be empty as in void of particles. Fields we would suggest are everywhere, most fall off with a 1/R^2 relation so even though Jupiter is far away, we still do get a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny bit of its gravitational field affect us (it is insignificant) closer up to Jupiter, its field was responsible for breaking up whatever planet was forming between Mars and itself - today it is the asteroid field.

All I am saying is that there are many unknowns out there and science has tried throughout its history to make a theory work with what we observe. If something comes along and changes that, at this point in our development, the theory needs to be groundbreaking, more ground breaking than anything that came before it... and right now, all i see is a bunch of people with toy models pretentiously making out that these toy models are the real thing and that all these huge mountains of research and information (that is freely available) is all wrong rubbish and wrong some more.

It is like claiming you have a house because you bought a single brick.

Just an analogy, and no it is not because scientists want to cover up the truth, it is that scientists want to explore the meanings behind everything, our theories work because they took 100s of years and 100s of thousands of men and women to develop... no discovery or theory ever is the result of one person, to suggest it is just wrong in so many ways. Einstein didnt lock himself in a room and produce his theories. He worked and wrote to many people about his ides and his mathematical explanations, He was able with the help of others to prove his theories worked and thats why nothing is ever a singular effort.

This theory... well... he doesnt want scientists on board, he wants to tell people how it is and not accept any questions, and more importantly, not give any working proofs
edit on 7-2-2013 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 


well what can I say, that was a great response and I am understanding of it and you... I never claimed to believe this guys theory,I was only trying to argue in favor of it so see it could be agued in favor of.. when mary brought him up the first thing I did was ask a bunch of questions, questioning his theory on his youtube channel and send him messages... that is directed towards your last statement in your post "he doesnt want to answer any questions", if you open the youtube video from the OP and bring up your falsifying concepts, perhaps you will shut him up



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I knew you were curious of the reasons and possible explanations, apologies if if I came off sounding like I was working hard to convert a believer.

The point is exactly this
to approach a problem with an open mind, now many would say I am closed minded because i probably assume current science is correct and just throw away all other opposing theories. Truth is, any good scientist or indeed anyone scientist or not, should look at all the options and figure out any problems and come to the conclusion of which theory or idea fits what he or she observes.

I am very wary of people/theories that start out with a statement basically saying "Dont listen to scientists they are all wrong" its just bad form and more importantly incorrect, because scientists will be the first to tell you that we dont know what is really going on. haha



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 


on that note... any idea on what an electron is? why charge exists or what charge actually is (why + attracts -)? how an electron has the ability to exhibit a force beyond itself (as seen in magnetism)?



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   
This is a very hard question and I wish I could provide a great explanation but the best I can do is tell you based upon what I understand or at least find very elegant about string theory.

Part of string theory is that matter is actually an energy oscillation in a closed loop, folded in within a plank length. Electrons appear to the best of our knowledge so far to be fundamental, it is also a lepton, which would also be a fundamental type of oscillation.

I have no idea if this is really the case and the predictable of string theory are way beyond what we can do in the lab currently and even at a stretch for the future.

What i like about it is that a part of physics that is quoted wrongly or at least used to wiggle around theories is that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed. Which isn't completely correct, it can be converted and is interchangeable. What is good or at least nice about matter being a stable localized energy oscillation is that you can start to see how say you can have a neutron decay and produce a proton, electron and a neutrino. The free neutron represents an unstable energy configuration and eventually the down quark within the neutron converts into an up. Doing so puts it in a lower energy state. The local energy oscillation release some of its energy and conserves the quantum numbers we know and love (lepton numbers colour etc...) producing the neutrino and electron.

That is massively simplified and the way we model it is that it occurs via W- exchange thought the premise is still the same. the W is virtual (yeah i saw his scoff at virtual particles, but its perfectly valid within the uncertainty principle) a W is created and carries away the energy and the quantum numbers and can do so only for a very short period of time, the W then converts into the electron and neutrino.

Sorry if it sounds like i didn't give any solid answers, it is because there is none at that level, we truly do not have a working model of what these fundamental particles are, that is were things like string theory try and have a poke at it and give an elegant explanation for it. Being mathematically nice and elegant however does not mean that it is correct, nore incorrect. It is out there however and the theorists are trying to tune models to fit our data, which is more than what can be said for most of the 'alternative' theories of what matter truly is.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 


Thanks for the response... Still have a hard time understanding how it is acceptable for non electrons to create a fundamental elementary no constituents involved, electron... The reasoning is that whatever the big bang was, "tuned" energy into these stable particles we see, and the stable particles being able to immediately interact with others kept them all mutually stable and existing?

any thoughts on magnetism? how an electron may exert a force beyond itself?

I should have asked you before I did this.. but i sent your post to the guy whose videos in the OP because I thought it was pretty good arguments...his response is rather ridiculous and humurous but certainly makes some good points, and it seems he picked small bits and pieces out of context to try and put down.. instead of really answering any of the valid points you brought up, which I thought was disappointing...I sent him a link to the first page of the thread but maybe I should have sent from a few posts prior to yours I sent because maybe that helped with the out of contextness...

edit on 7-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 


"the universe allows tranmission of information at FTL speeds because the rope constantly should remain in a straight line in the direction of which the laser was pointed"

You must be talking to an idiot! It is easy to determine that this bozo is an idiot. He makes a sweeping statement and doesn't justify an inch of it. The rope is straight. What does this have to do with light traveling FTL... whether an atom is near or far? Where is his justification, his argument? This is just an unsubstantiated statement so far.

"The model is just wrong"

This bean brain should make it a point to take an introductory course in Science once in his life. He will learn that in Science we are never wrong. It turns out that in Science, we are never right either. It is in religion where they are right and wrong (usually right). Right, wrong, correct, incorrect, true, false are OPINIONS. In Science we have no opinions. Subjectivity belongs exclusively to religion. In Science, we are only RATIONAL.

"explaining how lasers work is impossible."

Well, it would not surprise me that this bean brain can't figure out how a laser works. He doesn't seem to have the gray matter to deal with such issues.

"Why cant there be nothing?"

Not a question of Science! In Science, we only deal with rational questions.

"The universe... is an expansion of a bubble of space time, what exists outside it is unknown"

This is idiocy to the 40th power! Too many errors in just two lines, to wit...

a. The word 'Universe' is not a noun for the purposes of Physics!

b. Concepts don't form into bubbles or expand.

c. The idiot who is giving the presentation HAS to tell the crowd what is outside of and gives shape to HIS proposal. If the stupid idiot who is giving the prez doesn't understand HIS own theory, then he is # out of luck! In Physics, the first thing that a proponent of a theory has to do is DRAW HIS objects, the ones HIS theory is based on! Physics is first and foremost the study of objects. Can't do Physics without objects! The only way to present an object is to illustrate it. There is no object that doesn't have a contrast! The proponent has to label them both.

"It is a mind bending concept that many scientists think about"

Perhaps this issue stumps the monks in the religion of Mathemagics who mislead the public by calling themselves 'scientists'! Perhaps they are Christian 'scientists'! In Science, this is one of the easiest questions to answer! It's a no-brainer!

"Fields... are everywhere"

... except in Science! Field is where a cow poops! It is the idiots of Mathemagics who have converted concepts (field, mass, energy, time, force, black hole, charge) into objects. There is no such thing as 'a' field in Science. The word 'field' belongs in religion, specifically, in the religion of Mathemagics. It has no place in Science, let alone in Physics!

"If something comes along and changes that, at this point in our development, the theory needs to be groundbreaking, more ground breaking than anything that came before it..."

Whether something comes along that is groundbreaking it will NEVER be accepted. The mathemagicians control the publishing world. No matter what, they will publish ONLY that which ratifies and confirms GR, QM and ST. We die with the religion of Mathemagical 'fizziks'. It's too late to introduce groundbreaking theories. There's a mountain of opposition and censorship to derail any new proposal.

"all i see is a bunch of people with toy models pretentiously making out that these toy models are the real thing and that all these huge mountains of research and information (that is freely available) is all wrong"

The only folks who have unimaginable models are the idiots of Mathemagics! They ONLY have irrational theories. Not one idiot at the LHC can draw a single particle of the Standard Model. Not one moron from any big name university -- Harvard, Cambridge, Stanford, CalTech, MIT -- can explain to you how a magnet attracts another one. Not one astronomer in the world can explain to you why the Moon doesn't drift out of the SS. We have two stones: Earth and Moon. What physical object keeps the Moon faithful to the Earth? After 400 years of Newtonian rubbish the mathemagicians still can't answer simple questions rationally. Their theories are not 'wrong'. Their theories are irrational!

"it is not because scientists want to cover up the truth"

Truth is the hallmark of religion. If it is truth someone is covering or uncovering, that idiot is a monk or priest in sheep's clothing. In Science, we don't deal with truth, knowledge, beliefs, opinions or predictions.

edit on 7-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   
"our theories work"

In Science, we don't give a # whether theories work or are lazy! Angels also work. If God has his way, the angels push the Earth around the Sun. That 'works' too!

In Science, we ONLY have RATIONAL theories. If the proposal is OBJECTIVELY irrational, it instantly gets dumped in the dumpster of religion. All of Mathemagical 'fizziks' is there now. Not one ounce of it survives! It's all rubbish!

"they took 100s of years and 100s of thousands of men and women to develop"

Millions believed the Earth was flat. Therefore, a show of hands does not determine whether a theory is rational. Science is NOT democratic. Likewise, how much effort someone put in developing a theory is irrelevant!

"Einstein... worked and wrote... mathematical explanations"

Impossible! The first thing Einstein should have learned is that Mathematics does NOT explain! Math can ONLY describe! Pastor Al never explained anything in his life in a RATIONAL manner.

"He was able with the help of others to prove his theories"

Proof is a hallmark of religion. In Science, we don't prove anything, much less theories! It is in religion where they prove all theories! The curious thing is that some religions have dogmas that contradict the others, yet each religion claims that it has proven its theory in its monastery.

Therefore, if this bozo Einstein 'proved' his theory, with or without the help of others, they were all doing religion.





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join