Lew Paxton Price's Challenge to Mainstream Physics

page: 7
15
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
What HAS been proven that QED is a remarkably precise theory which very accurately describes - in particular - scattering of electrons.


Does it prove electron - virtual photon exchange?


In the sense that such description of reality works -- yes, most definitely.




posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
What HAS been proven that QED is a remarkably precise theory which very accurately describes - in particular - scattering of electrons.


Does it prove electron - virtual photon exchange?


In the sense that such description of reality works -- yes, most definitely.



Yea but you dont know what an electron, a photon, or space is... You dont know how EM radiation works or exists or what it is. You know what a field is on paper, but you dont know if it physically exists in reality, and if so what it is, how it exists, why it exists. You dont know where the photons come from that in the theory are said to be exchanged by electrons, you dont know how they are exchanging them if they are, or what they are exchanging.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Yea but you dont know what an electron, a photon, or space is... You dont know how EM radiation works or exists or what it is.


If you insist on metaphysical knowledge, then no. If one, however, looks at what reality is, i.e. can make a calculation and prediction and stuff happens according to that, this obviously constitutes knowledge. And again, I'm sorry your quest for something philosophically more pleasing is not satisfied.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

If you insist on metaphysical knowledge, then no. If one, however, looks at what reality is, i.e. can make a calculation and prediction and stuff happens according to that, this obviously constitutes knowledge. And again, I'm sorry your quest for something philosophically more pleasing is not satisfied.


Why are you so satisfied with knowing such little about the field of study you have committed your life to? Lots of people in the field of physics focus on really specific topics and areas and problems, does anyone or teams of people try and summarize it up and highlight how it all works together? Making a map of reality certainly is knowing to degrees what is going on with aspects of reality, but it is not understanding, and there are potentially many degrees more of knowing that are possible. There must be answers, the universe must be exactly something, which exists the way it does because exact things occurred, those things must be knowable because we can think about anything and potentially understand everything. If things work in a cause and affect fashion, or logically, we can comprehend if even to simplified and crude amounts, the 'idea' behind it all.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
If one, however, looks at what reality is, i.e. can make a calculation and prediction and stuff happens according to that, this obviously constitutes knowledge.


It is knowledge about how to manufacture things that work but it is not knowledge of how the universe works. There's a difference.

Correct theories of how the universe works are important for developing the technology of the future.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
If one, however, looks at what reality is, i.e. can make a calculation and prediction and stuff happens according to that, this obviously constitutes knowledge.


It is knowledge about how to manufacture things that work but it is not knowledge of how the universe works. There's a difference.


You totally failed to get the meaning of what I wrote. I won't try the second time.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Well, that's progress. At least you're not accusing me of "infant babbling."



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Well, that's progress. At least you're not accusing me of "infant babbling."


No, it's not babbling, just lack of comprehension skills.



posted on Oct, 13 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
From a 40 page .pdf file by Price entitled "Gravity - Dynamic Ether Inflow," which can be downloaded here:


The basic concepts of nether theory came as a very sudden revelation that left me in a state of shock for a few days, and the world took on a new in-depth appearance that has grown since that time. From someone who was never quite certain about any theosophical or philosophical theories (there are so many and they disagree with one another) I became someone who knew (as opposed to believing) the truth about creation and our subsequent and consequent universe. It was all so simple, so elegant, and so different from accepted models of physics that the idea of Einstein's "unified field theory" was not even close enough to allow anyone to begin to conceive of such a thing. Even the idea of a "field" was a ridiculous mathematical excuse for something that was not even remotely understood.





top topics
 
15
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join