Putting the final nail into modern science's coffin

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.

The Big Bang

Relativity

A constant speed of light

Gravity

A nuclear powered Sun

Black holes

Dark Matter

Dark Energy

Curved space

An expanding universe

Light composed of different colors

Space as a vacuum

A self-generating magnetic field (Earth)



I mean, shall we go on?

Let me just quote Tesla first:

The bulk of Tesla's research into the aether and electromagnetism was conducted between 1892 and 1894, when he was conducting experiments with high frequency and high potential electromagnetism and patenting devices for their utilisation. It was completed, according to Tesla, by the end of the 1930s. Tesla claimed that the theory provided an alternative to Einstein's general relativity, explaining gravity as a mix of transverse and longitudinal electromagnetic waves.

"... It explains the causes and motions of heavenly bodies under it's influence so satisfactorily that it will put an end to idle speculation and false conception, such as that of curved space ... '

"Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists."
Nikola Tesla - New York Times (11 July 1935)


Now, let me also include two posts from my friendly yellow sun thread:

Originally posted by AstronomyAddict
Oh, and let me add one more thing.

The "Electric Universe" theory is also utter nonsense. Not one assertion has been proven true, and in fact all the "objections" that EU theory posits about mainstream physics has been proven false.

EU theory says:

-- 99% of the Universe is plasma. Not True At All, and it can be proven over and over again that this is nonsense.

-- Neutrino emissions from the sun are non-existent or insufficient for nuclear fusion. Again, not true. EU theory ignores tau-neutrinos and only counts electron-neutrinos. Bad, bad science.

-- The sun's energy doesn't follow the inverse-square law. (i.e. The corona is hotter than the photosphere). Again, nonsense. Yes, the corona is hotter than the photosphere. But the inverse-square law DOES NOT APPLY to convective and conductive energy in an atmosphere. It ONLY applies to radiation through a vacuum.

-- Convection on the surface of the sun is impossible. Not true either. The EU fanatics argue that convection cannot occur in fluid dynamics at certain values. They say the "Reynolds Number" determines convection. Well folks, it DOESN'T. Convection is controlled by the Rayleigh Number, which means that the convection on the sun is easily explained.

Electric Universe theory has been thoroughly discredited.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by joer4x4




Interesting.

It seems the basic structure of the universe is the atom and everything in it is made of atoms. In physical terms and properties, the universe is only capable of containing material that is intrinsic to the atom.

Atoms combine to form different elements and materials of a chemical structure. These elements and materials like rock, wood, plasma, air, etc. can be traced back and broken down into its original atoms.

Secondly the atom is electric in nature. Electricity is intrinsic to the atom as is magnetism and current flow (electron movement). It is fact and proven you can't have one without the other. Where there is magnetism there is current flow and electricity.

Now if the sun is nuclear in nature then it would not have a magnetic field. Nuclear fission or fusion does not produce a magnetic field on its own like electricity does. It only produces heat. So how does the sun get it enormous and complex magnetic fields? How is it possible the earth had a huge magnetic field? How is a magnetic field possible without electricity?

What is dark matter? Is it a new chemical compound? Perhaps it is one of many scientific taboos?

I will go one step further. No scientist or theory has ever claimed that gravity is a property of an atom. How is it possible to have gravity if it is not intrinsic to the atom, the building block of the universe? Why has no one ever been able to harness gravity in over 200+ years or trace it back to its original atoms?

When you do the math, electromagnetic force has more effect on bodies than gravity. This is right out of mainstream science. It was mainstream science who insisted that the universe was made of plasma in the early 2oth / late 19th century.

Many insist the universe is expanding and the proof is in the red shift. Yet superb photos show many galaxies much closer than thought. Is the universe really expanding?

What happen to the scientific method of observe, collect data, create a theory, then disprove the theory? My guess is you can't disprove a theory that was not observed or had data collected?

I think science has become formula and spreadsheet happy and many of the theories (which are taught as dogma) are figments of a formulae.

If you build a house out of brick and wood, you get a house of brick and wood. No more no less. And no theory can change that (or formula). It's all in th atoms.

Yet science in its wisdom makes brick and wood mysterious and complicated. Science also has a habit of breaking its own laws for mysterious new theories issuing an excuse instead of a "we were wrong".

Science has lost its way. Even Einstein broke scientific principle. He never observed anything in his theories and he only had the made up math to show for it. Never proven yet dogma.

As far as I can see, science has lost its credibility. And it used to be fun.

BTW: When electricity travels through the air from one electrode to another that air becomes plasma. Even in an old fashion vacuum tube plasma creates path of least resistance. Plasma is everywhere - it's just an ionized gas.

Space is not a vacuum so all that space in the universe, since it is not a solid or liquid must be a gas. And gas can be ionized. Therefore it is logical that 99% of space is plasma. To be illogical is nonsense.

edit on 16-7-2013 by joer4x4 because: add more data

www.abovetopsecret.com...

IMO

The problem with modern science is.

If it's not a popular theory it doesn't exist.

reply to post by CircleOfDust

Putting the final nail into modern science's coffin

May I walk out on a limb here?

First, I don't agree with a number of mainstream science things because those things somehow escaped the beaker and were not science at all when they were all either announced as absolute truth or denied.

NOTE: this is NOT to address ALL science... just that area that requires certain approvals, lol...

But that now said, I would rather give the job of sending a human being to Mars to science... than the Pope or that guy on the corner preaching from a book dated Woodstock 1969.

One has to take these things into context

reply to post by CircleOfDust


Classic Science is an outdated belief system. People take science as fact when it is never anything more than theories that are debunked using falsification. Most peoples scientific views of the universe are Cartesian in nature. This view point is still taught in the education system and is well outdated even by scientific standards. The models of the universe that are taught to make people think they are nothing more than machines and the mercy of an infinite universe. In reality nothing could be further from the truth.

People are fast to forget that science itself is a philosophy and creates models of the universe. These are models at best. Never reality itself.

I believe many faculties of science are suppressed on purpose to keep us in the dark. The electric universe theory being a good example. Why would such knowledge be suppressed.. because if it was to be understood fully we could have free energy. Imagine how different the world would be if peeps never had to work to have energy. The control system would crash.

reply to post by CircleOfDust

The Big Bang

We can detect the risidual "echo" of the big bang while looking at the cosmic background radiation.

Relativity

Proven to be correct on the macroscopic level, still stands today

A constant speed of light

While it appears that the speed of light varies to an almost unnoticable degree, it remains basically constant.

Gravity

you already mentioned that, because relativity is the theory of gravity.

A nuclear powered Sun

The inner core of the sun, and a star, is a process of nuclear fission, which creates the elements, well most of them, that occupy the universe. This isn't in dispute.

Black holes

black holes exist. Get over it. They've even imaged one sucking in a massive cloud of gas.

Dark Matter
Dark Energy

Still just a theory, but the math works. 97% of the universe is missing without dark energy.

An expanding universe

It is expanding, it's measurable, and it's speeding up.

Space as a vacuum

it is a vacuum as such as there is no atmosphere or oxygen.

A self-generating magnetic field (Earth)

the dynamo effect is well tested, hell, any shaker flashlight, in a loose way, is an example of how the earth is generating a magnetic field

I mean, shall we go on?

Oh.... i bet you could for some time.

IMO The problem with modern science is. If it's not a popular theory it doesn't exist.

IMO it's people who can regurgitate keywords and sound intelligent while not having a clue about what they are talking about. Case in point, this OP.

reply to post by purplemer

People are fast to forget that science itself is a philosophy and creates models of the universe. These are models at best. Never reality itself.

people are equally fast to forget that science is self repairing. Science updates itself as theories are tested and found to be accurate or wrong. That's kinda the whole way science works, at the core, proving each other wrong.

Yes, it does take time for a new theory to be accepted by the whole, and it will only be deemed acceptable once it can be tested.

Perhaps what we should remember is science is the knowledge of what we can prove...we can say that if you have two apples in one hand and two in the other then you have 4 apples and you can test it out as many times as you want and the number will never change....and for the bible belt if you have 2 rounds in a clip and add another 2 then you will have 4 rounds and it doesn;t matter how many times you repeat the experiment, pray to jesus you will have 4 which means its a scientific fact that 2 of something added to 2 of something will equal 4 every time

I honestly weep for the future of mankind If the education system has failed the OP like this.

Come on OP disprove space as a vacuum please try.
In fact disprove any of them.

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


This is absolutely the way it should work.

However in some cases many scientists are slow to accept and at times even deny things in the face of fact.

I guess no one wants to go out and relearn everything they know.

reply to post by grey580


That's pretty much sums it up. If it's from outside the box it should stay out the box according to modern science. I think they should open their minds wide open and form conclusions based on information instead of this ugly trend of working backwards.

reply to post by CircleOfDust


Are you one of those "the earth is only 6000 years old" people?

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by CircleOfDust

 

Are you one of those "the earth is only 6000 years old" people?

Of course he is, just one of many who think that a mistranslated book is the answer to everything. He falls into the trap of thinking that the bible = truth. The arrogance of "Christians" is beyond belief. Most so called "Christians" are "Churchians" anyway.

Modern science is changing all the time. Things like a constant speed of light, the impossibility of faster than light travel, and various other examples you gave, including some of the outlying regions of relativity, are being dissected using ever more complicated and precise equipment, using ever newer information.

These theories you mention are used as bases for thinking in science because as of yet they provide the best fit that we can get AT THE MOMENT, and because people working in the effected fields, need a jumping off point which allows them to glimpse behind the curtain so to speak.

The thing that determines wether a theory hangs around, is wether or not it is still useful for something, and wether or not something has clearly and unquestionably, in the opinion of every respected thinker on the topic at hand, been surpassed by a better, more complete, more elegant theory.

With such high measures being applied to these theories, it is no wonder that the theories which you mention are hanging around, despite coming into question. But slow as changes may be, modern science is morphing, and new information is coming to light all the time.

What I do think is very unfortunate, is that very old, very inaccurate information is being taught in schools, in all sorts of subjects, from English, to science. In the ninties when I was in school, our textbooks were often quite old, and I happened to know that the curriculum itself, particularly in the sciences, was at least five years too old to be good information, certainly no bloody use to me when I was a teenager that I can tell you. Mind you, the high school curriculum was pretty pedestrian and tedious really, particularly in terms of science.

Nonsense high school crap, and old hat aside though, we are learning and improving our understanding as a speices all the time, but totally discarding some of the cleverest theories ever devised, takes significant improvements in understanding. We still look to Newton for some of the most useful applications of physics, and his ideas are centuries old!

A good idea remains good for as long as a better one does not exist.

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
That the stark realities of our world show the complete opposite of a progressively upward worldview of evolutionists

STOP!

You lost me at evolutionist. What's an evolutionist?

"Modern Science" is a for profit industry where lies and deceit are the norm in order to secure more funding for "research" and then that blatantly biased "research" is tossed to the masses as "fact" even though at best those facts are unworkable nonsense theories...

Once the nonsense becomes "common knowledge" anyone that points out the absurdity is a "heretic" and told to "put on a foil hat"... if you don't believe me that's fine but as an aside would you like to buy some Carbon Credits...

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
old, out-dated, terribly deficient and embarrassing concepts.


Gravity

Black holes

Space as a vacuum

A self-generating magnetic field (Earth)

Really? These are out-dated concepts? Did I miss something?
Are you from thunderbolts? You can't be. I've lurked on there before and usually when members say off the wall things they back it up with their own hypothesis.

reply to post by iamusic


Trust me we will never see any evidence from the OP...I have banged my head against a brick wall before asking for it...It never comes.

Originally posted by Sailor Sam

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by CircleOfDust

 

Are you one of those "the earth is only 6000 years old" people?

Of course he is, just one of many who think that a mistranslated book is the answer to everything. He falls into the trap of thinking that the bible = truth. The arrogance of "Christians" is beyond belief. Most so called "Christians" are "Churchians" anyway.

Way to go Strawmen... last I checked Tesla wasn't in the New or Old Testament and his inventions/discoveries have had a far more profoundly positive influence on today's society than anything Einstein ever did...

Originally posted by TrueBrit
Modern science is changing all the time. Things like a constant speed of light, the impossibility of faster than light travel, and various other examples you gave, including some of the outlying regions of relativity, are being dissected using ever more complicated and precise equipment, using ever newer information.

These theories you mention are used as bases for thinking in science because as of yet they provide the best fit that we can get AT THE MOMENT, and because people working in the effected fields, need a jumping off point which allows them to glimpse behind the curtain so to speak.

The thing that determines wether a theory hangs around, is wether or not it is still useful for something, and wether or not something has clearly and unquestionably, in the opinion of every respected thinker on the topic at hand, been surpassed by a better, more complete, more elegant theory.

With such high measures being applied to these theories, it is no wonder that the theories which you mention are hanging around, despite coming into question. But slow as changes may be, modern science is morphing, and new information is coming to light all the time.

What I do think is very unfortunate, is that very old, very inaccurate information is being taught in schools, in all sorts of subjects, from English, to science. In the ninties when I was in school, our textbooks were often quite old, and I happened to know that the curriculum itself, particularly in the sciences, was at least five years too old to be good information, certainly no bloody use to me when I was a teenager that I can tell you. Mind you, the high school curriculum was pretty pedestrian and tedious really, particularly in terms of science.

Nonsense high school crap, and old hat aside though, we are learning and improving our understanding as a speices all the time, but totally discarding some of the cleverest theories ever devised, takes significant improvements in understanding. We still look to Newton for some of the most useful applications of physics, and his ideas are centuries old!

A good idea remains good for as long as a better one does not exist.

Hmm. I was quite serious when I asked, am I missing something, in my last post.
You seem to have a view point of someone who works in the science field. So are you saying that some of these theories are flawed?

reply to post by CircleOfDust


The member "AstronomyAddict" who wrote the quoted section in your OP is awesome. No offense people should ignore your OP though your list of theories is nice and many can be questioned and discussed, the quoted material is awesome, id like to see dissenters argue him and his points on that matter.