Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Opposing Mainstream Physics - Swan001 (opposition) vs ATS

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
It's been a time now that physics is my favourite hobby. But now I'm about to introduce a new model. So I am wondering how strong really are some sides.

Ready? Okay. I'll form the opposition to root concepts (particle existence, observation of dark energy) - just to see how strong they are.

I, as the oppostion, say, "quarks don't exist". Prove me wrong.

I also say, "redshift from other galaxies is not caused by general rush-away-from-each-other movement, as many galaxies actually move towards one another and even collide. Instead, redshift is caused by photon interaction with space itself". Prove me wrong.

I also say, "Einstein's Relativity is inaccurate - time will not slow down for a fast-moving body, as any thought experiment involving a third party, always at equal distance from both the "immobile" and the fast-moving body, would show. " Prove me wrong.

I finally say, "if virtual particles exists even in total vacuum, how come the CERN is never picking them up? " Prove to me quantum model is the right one.

Let's start the debate!




posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Um... did you mean to put this in the Debate Forum??

Also you are picking things to debate that have ben tested, double tested, triple, etc.

I guess I don't get the purpose of this thread.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
Also you are picking things to debate that have ben tested, double tested, triple, etc.

Have you ever been to light speed? Have you ever seen a quark? The purpose of this thread is to determine what's fact and what's nothing more than glorious theory.

edit on 2-3-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
Also you are picking things to debate that have ben tested, double tested, triple, etc.

Have you ever been to light speed? Have you ever seen a quark? The purpose of this thread is to determine what's fact and what's nothing more than glorious theory.

edit on 2-3-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)


And you expect random anonymous people on ATS to answer that?
Even with all of the scientific evidence and proof??




posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
And you expect random anonymous people on ATS to answer that?
Even with all of the scientific evidence and proof??


There are physicists on ATS too, you know.

And "theories" are NEVER facts. That's why they are called theories. Want it or not.. some theories, especially quantum, are still open for debate.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
And you expect random anonymous people on ATS to answer that?
Even with all of the scientific evidence and proof??


There are physicists on ATS too, you know.

And "theories" are NEVER facts. That's why they are called theories. Want it or not.. some theories, especially quantum, are still open for debate.


Where did I mention "theories"???


you started out with your OP argumentative and are just continuing it. Why?
edit on 3/2/2013 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
Where did I mention "theories"???

The OP is about theories, but that's what you replied:

Even with all of the scientific evidence and proof??

So Now I told you that theories are not evidences/proofs.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6

you started out with your OP argumentative and are just continuing it. Why?

I was about to ask you the same. What are you attempting to achieve here?



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
Where did I mention "theories"???

The OP is about theories, but that's what you replied:

Even with all of the scientific evidence and proof??

So Now I told you that theories are not evidences/proofs.

This is what you call a debate?

I still don't really understand why you made this thread.

To argue???

the thread was flawed from the beginning with you saying "prove me wrong" several times.
edit on 3/2/2013 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


WRONG just because they are called theories it doesn't mean they are not fact.
Scientific theory can be fact.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
I, as the oppostion, say, "quarks don't exist". Prove me wrong.



Thats not the way science works.
There is a huge number of observations made about the universe, and an idea is thought of that some people think best explains the observations.
If you like, you can come up with an idea that explains the observations even better.

But sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "naahhh uuuhhh" is not the way.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


I agree, the burden of proof is upon the one with no proof. Since there have already been numerous vices that proof science in the direction of things like quarks, it is now up to OP to more or less prove the how not then us providing the how.

Like gravity, it is still technically a theory but though it fits well into explaining how a lot of things work then the people who claim that gravity isn't real are the ones who must support their argument against it.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Op I think the best way to go about this is to tell us what your theories are based on your observations, show the experiments that were conducted in regards to your theories and show how they disprove the current held theories on those topics you listed. The thread seems to be asking people to do research for you into those topics, you have not demonstrated what aspects you find to be false in those theories or presented your alternate explanations.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 



Prove me wrong.



Prove me wrong.



Prove me wrong.



Let's start the debate!

Tis is so f..screwed up in so many ways I don't know where to start.

But how about, since you are the OP and making these statements, maybe you could perhaps try to prove yourself right?

Just an idea.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 





time will not slow down for a fast-moving body


I can agree with this (even though I have no background or knowledge to do such a thing). I don't think time slows down, but rather the burning of energy slows down. The energy burned in the aging process slows down.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


You are incorrect about relativity, I will answer this for you as it is easily explained, and proof already exists physically right now.

The third party observer cannot be stationary, as if I travel at relativistic speed, away from ATS, you woukd have to go right along with me, at half my speed to maintain an equal distance to both me and ATS. Thus you would also suffer time dilation.

As proof, gps funtions on this exact method, and is not even going close to half of C ( C is the speed of light in physics btw) they are only going a couple of tens of thousands of mph, very slow really compared to C, almost standing still. Yet they still need to have clocks timed different from their land locked , ounterparts, as even at this relatively slow speed still suffers time dilation. As gos relies on exact timing between no less than 4 gps sats and the observer.

So you see your premise is way off, as time dilation is very real and proven by many different methods.

Nice thought experiment, but not really much thought, as this has all been questioned many times, yet nibody has ever proven anything wrong with it, in fact it has been proven accurate many times.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001

I also say, "Einstein's Relativity is inaccurate - time will not slow down for a fast-moving body, as any thought experiment involving a third party, always at equal distance from both the "immobile" and the fast-moving body, would show. " Prove me wrong.


It's pretty easy to measure the decay rate of unstable relativistic particles. And guess what? They live longer as they go faster, exactly as predicted.

Also, GPS.




I finally say, "if virtual particles exists even in total vacuum, how come the CERN is never picking them up? " Prove to me quantum model is the right one.

Let's start the debate!


Are you trying to deny quantum physics altogether? Because if so, then LED. Or solar cell. Or lack of ultraviolet catastrophe. Or spectra. Soooo many proofs that quantum physics are real. It's not really arguable.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 

To take that further. It is not so much the velocity of the satellite (special relativity) which produces time dilation effects, it is more that they are in a different gravitational frame of reference (general relativity). The velocity would cause the onboard clocks to run slower. The gravitational effects would cause them to run faster. The net result, because the gravitational effect is greater, is that the clocks do indeed run faster and so the effect must be compensated for or the system would not work.
edit on 3/2/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
Also you are picking things to debate that have ben tested, double tested, triple, etc.

Have you ever been to light speed? Have you ever seen a quark? The purpose of this thread is to determine what's fact and what's nothing more than glorious theory.

edit on 2-3-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)


Like so many non-scientists, you seem very confused by the way science uses the word 'theory'. It doesn't mean wild ass guess as it's used on ATS. It's an explanation that fits the observed facts, that is tested by experimentation, that is at least somewhat falsifiable.

It's not "Wow, I think we're on an atom on a fingernail of some other guy in another dimension, oh WOW" like most ATSers seem to believe.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
I also say, "redshift from other galaxies is not caused by general rush-away-from-each-other movement, as many galaxies actually move towards one another and even collide. Instead, redshift is caused by photon interaction with space itself". Prove me wrong.
The Andromeda galaxy is on a collision course with the Milky Way galaxy, and it's blueshifted. It's the redshifted galaxies that won't collide with us, which is most galaxies. You're suggesting some kind of "tired light theory" and these have been explored and ruled out for reasons which you can find in searching that term.

I don't think you even understand the theories you're attempting to debate against. Your OP statement shows you don't understand relativity.





new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join