Putting the final nail into modern science's coffin

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
reply to post by BeReasonable

 

What to someone who doesn't even know what current his own house uses?

WTF are you talking about? are you spastic? you must be 14...

reply to post by chunder

Originally posted by chunder

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Go take a look at everything in your house, it runs on DC, not AC.

Sorry this has to be corrected and not sure if it is just a simple typo because the exact opposite is true.

Actually, it is a mix. Electronic devices mainly run on DC; they contain a 'rectifier' to convert AC mains current to DC. On the other hand, electrical devices – such as refrigerators, air conditioners, fans, irons, washing machines, dryers, power tools, etc. – generally run on AC.

C'mon guys, the facts that CircleOfDust has been persistently, stubbornly ignorant, whilst childishly deflecting truth and is unable to provide a single scrap of evidence,all points towards him/her being nothing other than a dirty old troll.

Nobody can be THAT stupid whilst maintaining such a high level of arrogance right?

You've got to feel sorry for these people.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

He and Edison were both right on some things. For instance Tesla was an AC man, Edison a DC man. You might say AHA, we use AC so Tesla was right. Wrong. Go take a look at everything in your house, it runs on DC, not AC. They were both right, and simply too stubborn to see they both had a great idea that needed to be combined.

Both were right but Tesla understood that AC was the way to go for long distance power. You are correct that he didn't invent it out of thin air, but he made it practical in application and why your outlets are AC and not DC today.

BTW Edison was a Pompous Ass...and thought he was the greatest mind of his time, Tesla didn't understand that concept and went the direction that was correct.

But you totally missed my point... Which was Tesla invented things within his era and not well advance of his era...

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by teamcommander

 

I quote...

There is a lot to be said for the old ways of thinking and the old conservative ways of making people live the way you think they should because after all, you're the one who knows what's right and best.


Hold on you want to make people live the way you want? and sod the others because you know whats right and best? who made you king eh?
The old ways? what are you going to do to people who don't want to live under your rule? stone them to death? pfft.

Surely you are being sarcastic?

edit on 25-7-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)

Sarcasm !
Sarcasm ?
I hope you read the whole post. I am trying to be supportive.
How could you find any "sarcasm" in anything I said?

reply to post by grey580

I like how you frame the problem.

One thing I've read about is the spotlight effect. It's what happens when scientists go where the evidence is more easily found. And the other issue is that often times during experiments they will get "abnormal" readings. They usually throw them out. But what if there was a hidden discovery?

When a theory is well supported, I think we tend to filter out conflicting evidence to save time. You know that the brain itself does this too. It's a top-down sort of executive control. It's conservation of energy. For example, our brain will see faces in clouds or faces where there're no faces. This is because we see faces so often and they're important. I think this is our brain's way of saving energy and alerting us of threats sooner. Interestingly, schizophrenics do not show this bias as much because the connections between the lower and higher parts of the brain are somewhat severed. This is what allows them to see through so many sensory illusions that normal people fail at. The problem is because the connections are broken, their brain spends unnecessary time on useless things - like hallucinations. There's essentially - practically - nothing there to filter it out.

So there's a temptation to be skeptical of a well supported theory. If people are filtering out conflicting evidence then there's the possibility that they filtered out some crucial information.

But we have to be careful not to criticize a theory BECAUSE it's well supported. If a theory IS the best theory then it's logical it'll be popular, right? It's not guaranteed, but reasonable to assume.

It's not about popularity, or it shouldn't be, rather it should be about the supporting evidence. So if you want to attack a well grounded theory, use evidence and peer review.

IMHO, it's popular to believe as a laymen person that established science theory is wrong. So while scientists are oftentimes haughty about their theories, laymen can be worse.

My thinking is that established theory might be wrong, but it's correct enough. It allows us to split atoms, power whole countries, communicate across the planet and even across interstellar space, accurately tell time whether on earth or in orbit or on the moon, and so on.

Scientists aren't the best people to serve as the face of science, but who else will work as hard as they do at what they do? I see many people that ridicule modern theory, but how many will have the extreme work ethic present in the people who're actual scientists? Science is hard, it requires real brains and prolonged commitment. People in science dedicate their life to it.

reply to post by CircleOfDust


That is all anti ether theory.
Some ether processes.

The Atomic Hydrogen Process

SMOKESCREENS FROM ACADEMIA

ANOTHER ASTOUNDING PROOF AND MORE HYDROGEN METHODS

The only opposition to modern science I found that might make a difference:

After all, why should “they” allow “us” to buy a whole gallon of pure H2O “chemicals” for less, especially when a gallon is enough for a lifetime?

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Not electricity per say but charge induction perhaps.
Wheatstone 1834 found 1.5 speed of light to fill up a copper wire.
Tesla repeatedly adds and fills up a secondary copper coil with
charge from the primary with charge induction.
See Whittaker's Aether Theories Vol 1 Classical Theories.
Only worked with copper wire in a spiral.

reply to post by Xtrozero

Actually AC & DC both have their pros & cons and DC is the system of choice for high power long distance transmission because you only need 1 conductor (if you use earth return) and there are no reactive losses. It's just that in the days of Tesla and Edison DC could not be transformed to different voltages as easily or cheaply as AC so AC is definitely the best system for short distribution with simple transformers to change from feeder voltages to domestic distributor voltage levels. AC with it's natural phase rotation is perfect for cheap reliable motors as well.

100 years ago engineers did not have access to the modern high power electronics we have now that make DC transformation more economical for long distance transmission than AC. IE rectify EHV AC to DC at the sending end and convert it back to AC at the receiving end with banks of massive triacs (thyristors).

We can thank the scientists for their contribution to our lives - we'd still be burning whale oil for lighting without their imagination.

Originally posted by chunder

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Go take a look at everything in your house, it runs on DC, not AC.

Sorry this has to be corrected and not sure if it is just a simple typo because the exact opposite is true.

Sorry, No.

DC is useful for appliances that run on a steady current itself. Just about all electronic devices use DC. For example, your TV plugs into an AC wall outlet, but the first thing that the circuitry in the TV does is convert this into DC, which is what the rest of the circuitry needs.

van.physics.illinois.edu...

AC is fed into your house, and most appliances need to convert it to DC first.

Originally posted by CircleOfDust

Originally posted by chunder

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Go take a look at everything in your house, it runs on DC, not AC.

Sorry this has to be corrected and not sure if it is just a simple typo because the exact opposite is true.

Exactly, and we are to take what these guys have to say seriously? I think not.

As I just proved, he is wrong. Most appliances run on DC, you are welcome to research why, but you wouldn't believe them anyway I suppose.

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
Here's another FACT that MS science doesn't want to deal with.

The cosmic RAY.

They call it a ray, because they don't want to admit it's actually a neutron with mass. It has billions of volts and It moves faster than light. If they admit it has mass that just destroys Einstein's THEORY of relativity.

Wrong. They admit it has mass, and they know the speed, it is less than the SoL.

The velocity of cosmic rays can go from a small fraction of the speed of light up to about .999999999999 times the speed of light. Since cosmic rays are matter (typically the bare nuclei of atoms), they CANNOT exceed the speed of light.

helios.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Funny how everything you say and think is completely wrong, especially what you claim MS science says and then the truth is MS science says something completely different.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

He and Edison were both right on some things. For instance Tesla was an AC man, Edison a DC man. You might say AHA, we use AC so Tesla was right. Wrong. Go take a look at everything in your house, it runs on DC, not AC. They were both right, and simply too stubborn to see they both had a great idea that needed to be combined.

Both were right but Tesla understood that AC was the way to go for long distance power. You are correct that he didn't invent it out of thin air, but he made it practical in application and why your outlets are AC and not DC today.

BTW Edison was a Pompous Ass...and thought he was the greatest mind of his time, Tesla didn't understand that concept and went the direction that was correct.

But you totally missed my point... Which was Tesla invented things within his era and not well advance of his era...

edit on 26-7-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)

I never disputed that, my point was that Tesla did not see the value of DC, and Edison did not see the value of AC. Both of them were stubborn. Edison probably had a bigger ego, but Tesla suffered from thinking he was better than others as well. We were both making the same point, that Tesla was not a demi-god to be worshipped, he was a very intelligent man with some brilliant ideas. He advanced his generation, he did not shatter boundaries. In fact when Tesla heard Cosmic Radio Waves he had no clue what he was listening to and thought it was Aliens.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Not electricity per say but charge induction perhaps.
Wheatstone 1834 found 1.5 speed of light to fill up a copper wire.
Tesla repeatedly adds and fills up a secondary copper coil with
charge from the primary with charge induction.
See Whittaker's Aether Theories Vol 1 Classical Theories.
Only worked with copper wire in a spiral.

You think electricity traveling through COPPER as a medium goes faster than light? Are you serious? You do realize we 100% know the speed through copper right?

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
That the stark realities of our world show the complete opposite of a progressively upward worldview of evolutionists should be embarrassing enough.

But to add even more insult to injury, they also adhere to these old, out-dated, terribly deficient and embarrassing concepts.

...SNIP...

I mean, shall we go on?

You could go on by explaining why each item you listed is a 'old, out-dated, terribly deficient and embarrassing concept'.

Making bold statements without anything to back them up is embarrassing and terribly deficient as well.

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
Here's another FACT that MS science doesn't want to deal with.

The cosmic RAY.

They call it a ray, because they don't want to admit it's actually a neutron with mass. It has billions of volts and It moves faster than light. If they admit it has mass that just destroys Einstein's THEORY of relativity.

I presume you don't have any evidence that mainstream science doesn't want to deal with or doesn't understand cosmic rays?

I also presume you don't know what you should have said when you say 'billions of volts', The electron volt is a measure of mass or energy and relates to it's relativistic mass. So to say they don't admit it has mass although their energy is measured in a mass unit is laughable.

I have reason to believe you would struggle to put an actual nail into a coffin never mind put a nail into modern science's coffin.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by chunder

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Go take a look at everything in your house, it runs on DC, not AC.

Sorry this has to be corrected and not sure if it is just a simple typo because the exact opposite is true.

Sorry, No.

DC is useful for appliances that run on a steady current itself. Just about all electronic devices use DC. For example, your TV plugs into an AC wall outlet, but the first thing that the circuitry in the TV does is convert this into DC, which is what the rest of the circuitry needs.

van.physics.illinois.edu...

AC is fed into your house, and most appliances need to convert it to DC first.

Refridgerator / Freezer : AC current (compressors and blowers us AC current).
Washing Machine: AC current (agitation / spin motors use AC)
Dryer: AC current
Electrical Stove / Oven: AC current
Toaster: AC current
Blender: AC current
Window Air Conditioning unit: AC current
Outside central Air Conditioning: AC current
Heat pump system (blowers, compressors, etc): AC current
Hair Dryer: AC current
Light bulbs: AC current
Fans / Ceiling Fans: AC current
Power Tools such as, Drills, Circular Saws, Table Saws, etc: AC current
Electrical Trimmer or Weed Wacker: AC current
Electric Chainsaw: AC current
Well Pump (if you live in the country like me): AC current

And that's not all.......

Basically, if it has a motor of some kind, the electrical device tends to run directly on AC current, and in many cases heating elements.

Electronic devices (notice the difference in names, Electrical or Electronic....):

Computer: DC current
Monitor: DC current
Television: DC current
DVD player: DC current
Stereo system: DC current.

This list is based on my home. There are many, many more things that require AC to run than those that take DC to make a home.
I need a way to keep food, cook food, keep the house cool/warm, light my house, and pump water from the ground.
My home does not absolutely need the DC devices, most of which are purely for entertainment.

The electrical devices I listed for AC do not normally require a AC to DC rectifying circuit, because their basic function is achieved using AC. Some of them may have AC to DC rectifiers in them for extra electronic built into them (digital display and controls for example).

Basic rule of thumb is: if it uses a motor for it's primary function, it's an AC Device and is also called an Electrical Device. If it uses semiconductor components for it's primary function, it's a DC Device and is also called a Electronic Device (yes, I know that there are semiconductors that use AC, just as their are DC motors, but the rule still stands).

So I'm sorry, but no. There are more devices in your home that require AC than DC......unless you're a electronics geek that loves to own any new electronic device that comes out (but isn't needed for a home)

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Its not me, just read what I posted.

Wheatstone and Whittaker say so.

You refuse them like Relativist have their code and probably
twisted their arms to say there was lab error but I didn't see
any retraction so this must have escaped.

Charges being fine ether matter are particles and can go
faster than the speed of light when in copper or break
through the fluid insulation layer that electricity 'sees'
(similar to gravity 'sees' curvature) is perhaps the meaning.

Ed; Not copper straight, you must read the text.
Spiral or zig zag formation has the 1.5 capability.
Thats why I mentioned Tesla primary and secondary coil
charge transfers might be an astounding coincidence.

Ed+:
book

page 274online, 254 book

Later revisions had back up testing and found spiral wire was used.

reply to post by TeslaandLyne

Wheatstone performed his ingenious but crude experiment in 1834 – science has moved on a bit in the last two hundred years. So has the accuracy of experimental equipment.

You can read Wheatsone's paper to the Royal Society about his experiments here. Unfortunately, he got the theory wrong, as explained here, which is why he got an erroneous result.

The speed of electricity along a wire is actually quite close to the speed of light; before Wheatstone it was believed that transmission was instantaneous. In fact, it is quite close to the speed of light but does not equal (far less exceed) it.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Its not me, just read what I posted.

Wheatstone and Whittaker say so.

You refuse them like Relativist have their code and probably
twisted their arms to say there was lab error but I didn't see
any retraction so this must have escaped.

Wheatstones experiment using rotating mirrors was genius but hardly accurate by todays standards.