The Big Bang Theory is the biggest lie in the western world

I have been working on various thought experiments recently and was trying to understand more about special relativity when I really had to take pause. Since mass and energy and time qualify as complimentary variables, how is it that the uncertainty principle as proposed by Heisenberg does not apply? The speed of light to me is just the “knee of the curve” where you really start to notice that you can no longer accurately measure time. As you have stated, we use matter to measure time so these experiments are in effect measuring matter with matter. More accurate atomic clocks are just more accurate accelerometers so we can better observe the effects of motion on tiny particles at speeds much less than the speed of light. Show me an anti-matter clock that runs slower at high speed, and now we really may have something. But let me tell you that while relativity is a stupidity, quantum science is a mania. Both are thriving upon our misunderstanding of wave mechanics.

I have a more serious problem with time dilation. This is in respect of the “twin paradox” thought experiment to make time dilation look more spectacular. Aging is due to the metabolic process of cells in the human body and their death. This cannot have any earthly or heavenly correlations with the time dilation which is talked about. Aging is a biologist’s domain and not that of a quantum physicist. So the thought experiments involving someone travelling in a space ship approaching the velocity of light would get his life extended is more of a fantasy. This need to be realized by the teachers of quantum mechanics. The space traveller may find his age significantly shortened on the other hand due to the effects of space radiation!

But that isn’t the strongest argument against the stupid theory of relativity. What underlies every biological process is some physical process. Relativists propose that physical processes get slowed down in moving frames and hence they believe that biological processes also get slowed down. They aren’t so stupid until this point.
Their stupidity actually lies in how they propose time dilation and how they prove this stupid phenomenon. Relativists are capable of claiming every observation as a proof of their weird theory. And they are capable of denying everything that exposes their stupidity by messing up between reference frames and by proposing further stupid notions like relativity of simultaneity.
Their secret of success lies in their boundless stupidity. Though one can never catch up with their stupidity however hard one tries, the following will give a taste of their stupidity.

spent a good portion of the past 10-15 years with what I call self-debugging (which is to find already accepted false information in one’s mind). I have also been very interested in the psychology of science lately. As a result, recently I came to the same conclusion that atomic clocks must be affected by ‘change’ as opposed to time. Especially since I had to face the fact that ‘time’ as the majority perceives it does not exist. Instead it is merely the creation of our the mind as it attempts to process input in order to predict probable outcomes. Therefore I agree with Harry, and also recommend going down the rabbit hole called ‘no-time’.
I also liked your perspective on maths and agree 100%. It’s just a language. A while back I used to consider that it is better suited for science than everyday language as it is less supportive of ambiguity. (Or at least it used to be until imaginary numbers were brought to the scene) But now I realize that when language is used properly, there is no need for maths. Logic is a property of the mind and maths inherits logic directly from the mind. I have nothing against maths BTW. I’m a software guy, so you can imagine it’s far from being one of my weaknesses. But as with everything else, there is a ‘time’ and place for it. Going overboard and thinking that solving the universal puzzle can only be done in maths is a mistake.

Now back to the atomic-clock mania. It is unfortunate for humanity that the phenomena of atomic clocks is being interpreted and pushed as proof of time dilation. It is not a proof. It’s just an accepted assumption. I think the smartest thing Einstein ever said was this: “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” Of course, he is no exception from the very ‘rule’ he laid down. Let me blunt here: “He didn’t manage to explain ‘it’ simply enough”. The first reaction of everyone I know when they hear about bent space and time is that it is weird. As you pointed out, this weirdness is then overridden by the religious momentum the weird idea managed to gain. But what is the real underlying cause here? Is it really stupidity? The way I see it, the root cause is simply false information. We all seem to be born into this world with a blank mind which is later filled by the thoughts of our culture. It is not easy to break free from this ‘community think’. There are isolated incidents (like yourself) where people refuse to buy the ‘norm’ regardless of how many followers it has. The new theory which disproves Einstein’s mind bending reality model will come exactly from such outliers. (Same goes for Schroedinger’s stuff)

False information is very disruptive to the mind. We are no different than computers in this sense. If we work with false information the results (the output of our thought process) will also be false. A single false datum is enough to make our mind ‘spew all over the place’. We all have false information from the time we ‘enter’ this existence. A side note here is that I consider missing information to be false information for the following reason: False information is that which deviates from reality enough to be unworkable. In this sense, missing information can be thought of as information with maximum (or infinite) deviation from reality. Add to this the mind’s tendency to fill in the blanks by assumptions and you have a the perfect recipe for being lost indefinitely. The universal puzzle is clearly not an easy one to crack but I believe (now more than ever) that the key to it has nothing to do with one’s IQ. The key is to go full blast on weeding out potential false assumptions which in our current society means virtually zero support from mainstream science as they will surely perceive you as a quack who is rebelling because you didn’t manage to comprehend the grand theory. When in fact they are the quacks (as you so rightfully phrased) ‘chanting’ someone else’s theory as the greatest ever.

Now why is it crucial to weed out the false? What triggered my ‘self-debugging’ is the realization that humans (as a whole) can’t be trusted with information. They will misinterpret and alter the information unintentionally; as well as intentionally as dictated by their ego. As paranoid as it sounds, I came to realize a while ago that the only way I can accept something as valid is if I personally verify it. Not because I’m somehow special but because others can’t be trusted to make accurate and unbiased reports. Mainstream science is not only not an exception but at times they are the worst offenders of the very rules of science.

It was very refreshing and reassuring to find like minded people here who dare to question. That’s science. Building overly expensive particle accelerators (the chapels of the religion) is not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

19 post

Count them please to make sure I have not mis counted

Must be worth a Nobel

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is not lack of intelligence but is their religious belief in science which prevents people from realising the fact that relativity and other weird theories of modern science are utterly wrong. People in our modern society adorn scientists as gods. Obviously one wouldn’t question what one’s own gods preach!
For the vast majority of the people, it doesn’t really matter whether a scientific theory is right or wrong. What matters to them is just material comforts and because science has offered to them so many comforts and gadgets without which modern society can’t live for a minute, it is understandable why people believe in everything that is taught as science. If they find some scientific theory weird, they put that down to their ignorance rather than question their gods.

In olden days it was philosophers, in their quest to understand Nature, who ‘invented’ science. Then came different sub-disciplines including physics. Obviously the more one specialises the more tubular one’s mind becomes. And in modern society, becoming a scientist isn’t an easy thing – One has to study science for years and demonstrate that one thoroughly ‘understands’ the same and also please one’s professors. These ‘made scientists’ obviously can’t think out of the box, so they don’t realise the absurdities in science but keep chanting them louder and louder and make science ‘advance’. Those who realise the absurdities and argue against science cease to become scientists, lose their career and suffer humiliation.

Modern scientists ‘do’ science for better career and fame. But that is not the case with philosophers and they don’t bother about the material comforts either. They are not made after years of chanting or supervised education. They are made by themselves by observing the Nature. They derive pleasure by understanding the creation. The deeper they delve into the secrets of Nature, the more happiness they experience. Unlike what Stephen Hawking says, philosophy is not dead. The truth is that Philosophy is at its nadir in our modern times. The reason is that the formal/ structured education imposed upon the modern society is leaving few minds to grow and think independently. But we know that things ‘oscillate’ in Nature i.e. they come and go in cycles. And so is the case with knowledge and ignorance. At times people are more knowledgeable and at times they turn ignorant. True knowledge never breeds competition unlike the case with our present day science and technology. I think it is time that philosophy reigns back, true knowledge prevails in the society and true happiness spills over.

Further to your comment about a Nature Article I am also curious and puzzled about a note added to an English translation of Einstein’s 1905 publication of “On the electrodynamics of moving bodies” in Section 4 – Note 7 states “Not a pendulum-clock, which is physically a system to which the Earth belongs. This case had to be excluded.” I had always assumed that all clocks were equivalent.

It is interesting to note that Newton in the Principia took due account of the time differences between pendulum clock observations at the equator compared to Paris or London resulting in the need to reduce the pendulum length to synchronise the pendulum clock measurements used for astronomical observations and acknowledged the gravitational variation with latitude.

From my perspective the fact that clocks perform differently travelling at speed and in different gravitational fields is not not really in doubt. What is really in doubt is length contraction. This is the magic that makes the velocity of light constant but has anyone ever observed this particular phenomena?
That statement from the ‘bible’ of relativity clearly exposes the distorted thinking of the religious followers of relativity. If a pendulum clock is physically a system to which the Earth belongs, why isn’t that an atomic clock not belong to the same system? What makes the atomic clock so divine?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This abstract concept is represented using clocks, and other oscillatory systems. More “meaningful” representation will be seasonal changes and biological phenomena like cell division and aging.
Therefore, when i was exposed to the notion of time dilation months ago, i had deep qualms accepting the conclusions drawn from measurements of time taken on land relative to measurements taken on flight.
1, the experiment results lack biological relevance
2, gravity and motion could have interfered with the atomic clock, leading to an artefactual difference in time measure in flight and on land.

The experiment suggests that time is an entity (ie dimension) which can be slowed by gravitational field and motion. But to proffer this conclusion requires one to assume that the vibrational/oscillatory mechanism of the atomic clock is eternally consistent and not influenced by any variables introduced during experiment! However, this point is not amenable to verification. Because to verify that the measurements of atomic clock is free from interferences, one has to use another set of chronological reference, but there isn’t an Absolute Chronological device known to (wo)man to validate the atomic clock measurement.

This brings forth a methodological issue in science – any attempts to measure using any devices can never be truly validated. Any attempts at validation of any measuring instruments are, in some ways, circular and tautological.
Take for instances, measurement of temperature. To use a mercury in glass thermometer is to assume that mercury expands linearly to temperature changes. This assumption can neither be falsifiable nor verified using a mercury in glass system to decide if mercury expands uniformly with changes in heat energy – we cant use a mercury based standard to evaluate a mercury in glass thermometer . even if we use a thermocouple to validate the measurements, measurement from a thermocouple does not offer a “true” measurement, since the physical properties of a thermocouple will be affected by temperature, time, and reactivity of the sample with the conducting wire.
It is likely that all measuring devices interact with the experiment systems that they are supposed to measure. So there is no canonical references to validate if a measure is “true”. A measurement can only be “good enough” for an “intended purpose” if that excludes seeking “absolute truth”.
To writ large the constructed and tautological nature of physical concepts, we have the National Institute of Standards and Technology or the ISO, where “reference” or gold standard devices and specimens to define mass (1kg), length (1m), time (1s) are kept…and based upon which, devices are calibrated. So it is a grand exercise in circularity. There is nothing available in this world to validate these gold standard specimens, they are assumed to be the final arbiter of units of measurements! This caps off the tautological nature of measurement in science.

I digressed. Sorry.~ back to “time dilation”

I also think that for “time dilation” to be a meaningful concept, it must have a biological/physical effect. Furthermore, assuming that living processes (metabolic reactions, cell division) have a biological periodicity/clockwork that is not altered by gravity/motion, they can serve as a more rigorous form of time-keeping compared to physical oscillatory systems such as atomic clocks.

Therefore, I was wondering if there are experiments performed on living systems to test the effect of “time dilation”. I couldn’t find any yet.

For example, we have 2 samples of yeast cells from the same lineage, with the same doubling time, grown in the same environment. Sample A is stationed on earth, and Sample B is sent into space. If gravity and motion influence the passage of time (assuming time is a dimension), then we will observe distinct cell counts in sample A and B. Due to the net “time dilating effect” of motion, B will have a lower cell count compared to A.

But then again, the measuring device (yeast cell count) is confounded with the experiment setup! because we cannot eliminate the possibility that yeast cell’s biological clockwork/metabolic process is not affected by motion, gravity and other cosmic influences…
Somehow, either the environment/phenomena being measured interacts with the measuring device or vice versa.

From the standpoint of someone who has the most rudimentary understanding of physics, Time, when viewed as a fourth dimension (ie physical property) feels very mystifying to me.
If physicists have consecrated much of their vast intellect chasing after the phantom problem of Time.
What underlies every biological process is some physical process/es. So as you have mentioned, even biological processes could get similarly affected by motion and gravity. So, whether we use yeast cells or muons or atomic clocks, we wouldn’t be able to prove time dilation as a real phenomenon.

Spot on!!! I have been trying to publish the same arguments for many years but the mainstream “peer reviewed journals” reject them every time. Most of these publications can be found on my ResearchGate profile: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Johan_Prins

Modern theoretical physics based on time-dilation and this on Minkowski’s absurd space-time are all absurd Castles in the air.
I have also 15 years ago discovered super-conduction at room temperature up to 400 C (670 K). This lead me to the actual mechanism that causes super-conduction which is NOT caused by pair-formation of electrons. Millions of dollars are spent each year to study the so-called pseudo-gap in ceramic superconductors, while it is easily explained and modelled when not using pair-formation. But it MUST be pair formations must it not? A Nobel Prize has ben awarded for this absurd impossibility and now it is holy dogma.
We could have had superconducting processor chips 10 years ago which work up to 400 C and generate no heat. But this is blocked by the mainstream super-conduction “experts” all over the world.

When we measure some quantity, we use some suitable physical mechanism. So measuring is a physical process. And there is no physical process that doesn’t get affected by its environment. (In fact, anything that doesn’t interact with and doesn’t get affected by its environment can be argued as non-existent)

So obviously a change in the environment does influence the measuring system and hence does change the measurement. While sane people would take that change in environment into account while comparing the readings, relativists remain adamant that their measuring devices are divine and hence don’t get affected by the environment. So for them, if an atomic clock ticks slower in a blast furnace, it must be because time is running slower.

And despite their religious singing, atomic clocks in the twin flight experiment never really ticked as per their weird maths. They had to ‘correct’ many ‘errors’ before they could prove their superstition of time dilation. And after all that they again insist that the data must seen from the perspective of centre of earth observer. I have explained about all that on this blog at various places and exposed how physicists routinely mess up things to prove their delusion of time dilation.
It is not about flaws about humans.
It is just the way the system is set up. By design
It is a mind-controlled thing!
Most ‘scientistst are made very stupid.
They can memorize but they can’t think.
They have been dumbed down by their…..wait for it….. education what is actuallty propaganda! All this by design.
O boy , so much to say about this one alone.

 

I noted they were none on the 19 post post

So none of the 19 can be Poe

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

According to the theory, if you have two exactly similar clocks, A and B, and one is moving with respect to the other, they must work at different rates,i.e. one works more slowly than the other. But the theory also requires that you cannot distinguish which clock is the ‘moving’ one; it is equally true to say that A rests while B moves and that B rests while A moves. The question therefore arises: how does one determine, consistently with the theory, which clock works the more slowly? Unless the question is answerable, the theory unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A – which it requires no super- intelligence to see is impossible. Now, clearly, a theory that requires an impossibility cannot be true, and scientific integrity requires, therefore, either that the question just posed shall be answered, or else that the theory shall be acknowledged to be false. But as I have said, more than 13 years of continuous effort has failed to produce either response. The question is left by the experimenters to the mathematical specialists, who either ignore it or shroud it in various obscurities, while experiments involving enormous physical risk go on being performed. “”

Obviously, there are only two possible results from the above experiment. Either there exists multiple different realities, the number of which being dependent upon the number of observers which ultimately is infinite, or the SOL is not constant for all observers in all reference frames and the SOL is dependent on the velocity of the emitter of the light. Period.

I think it is pretty much true that people of ancient times had enjoyed much longer ‘natural lifespan’ (BTW average life span is not the ideal measure of longevity of a species) than our modern cult. And, of late, I am convinced that our ancestors were actually more intelligent than the people of our modern civilised society. I think, the more civilised and more technology dependent the society becomes, the less intelligent the people become!
Of course, we can’t swear upon everything that is mentioned in ancient texts, whether Indian or Greek or others as correct. It is possible that there existed many false theories in ancient times. It could be that some statements were meant only for those times and hence may not be relevant to the modern era. So it could be possible that big bang theory, evolution and other theories of modern science existed in ancient India at some point of time, possibly in somewhat different versions. The Greeks could have borrowed the same from ancient India or they could have independently conceived similar theories. And may be the fathers of modern science like Darwin, Einstein took a leaf out of them.

If we keep that aside, I do believe that our ancient literature and religious texts are great sources of wisdom and studying them will surely help us gain better insight into many aspects and solve the riddles that our modern sciences are struggling with, whether it is about our Universe or life philosophy or social harmony and peace. But of course it isn’t going to be an easy and straight forward task and it is almost certain that people of modern Era misunderstand them, misinterpret them and get mislead.

The reason is that most people of modern era, including the religious preachers, are educated and so are indoctrinated by modern sciences. The situation now is that, even the spiritual gurus and religious authorities believe that science is true. In a way, their minds are spoiled and are incapable of independently judging the ancient literature and realising the truth. Unfortunately education has become such a compulsory social ritual in modern society that it is leaving few minds to think and flourish independently.

I think, for people who explore ancient literature, the main motive or intention will be to prove their ancient literature as highly scientific. The only way to prove one’s ancient literature as scientific is by finding correlations between the ancient and modern sciences. So what happens is that people who explore the ancient literature just concentrate on finding statements and ‘theories’ that vaguely sound similar to what the modern scientists preach.
Even the religious authorities have started reinterpreting their religious texts, and more and more of them are ‘realising’ that many of the statements mentioned in their religious texts are actually in agreement with modern science. And anything that is presented as scientific or as conforming to modern science obviously gains more acceptance in our modern educated society.

Obviously, the lack of clarity in ancient texts combined with the mess created by the mythical theories of modern physics gives vast scope for people to misinterpret things and ‘find’ correlations between the ancient and modern sciences. And in a way, that helps religious people to stand against the hardcore scientific minds like atheists, sceptics who are fighting against the existence of religions in modern society.

It is likely that the vast majority of the ancient literature got destroyed over time and I think the available religious texts contain only the essence of all that literature. The fact that the religious texts got conserved over generations and survived through many cycles of civilisation suggest that there must be truth in them.

Unfortunately, despite the great words of wisdom in the ancient religious texts, for lack of explanation/ clarity, many of the statements sound illogical and absurd even to the intelligent readers. Recently, I have read a quote apparently taken from Quran which says: “Logic is the tool of Satan”. I think even hard core Muslims don’t agree with that statement. I too thought it was stupid but just gave a thought. And I got shocked when I realised the hidden truth in that quote and the relevance to society.

Most humans are not intelligent enough to think logically. And if they use their own logic, they end up coming to different conclusions and the result would be confrontations, disharmony, violence and disintegration of societies. (But why didn’t God made all of us equally intelligent and programmed us to think the same? In other words what if everybody thinks the same way? That would be the most boring society to live!)

While it is the religiousness that helps maintain harmony and peace, it is variations in opinions, beliefs, likings and choices that make a society dynamic and interesting to live. So I think it is better if people are religious to some extent and follow what the authorities preach even if it means that at times the authorities could be wrong and people could be clinging to false beliefs. It is better to live in a peaceful ignorant society than a ‘knowledgeable’ society quarrelling each other. Having some control is far better than not having any control. I have a feeling that Galacar may not agree with that. I would like to hear his views on this point.

BTW, as part of my work on the issue of God and evolution, I have realised that there are two ways of realising God: one is the religious route (Bhakti marg) and the other is Satanic or scientific route (Jnana Marg). (Of course both are mentioned in the Hindu texts). The later one questions the existence of God and logically explores the world and understands the creation through to the deepest level and finally realises the existence of God. So it is Satan that helps people become saints! But the problem with this route is that most people get stuck in between, come to false/immature conclusions and succumb to the material addictions. That explains why there is so much suffering and misery in our modern scientific society despite all the ‘development’. And that is probably the reason I think why most religions don’t encourage the Jnana marg or Logic!!!

 

Is this back alley in the wilderness of science the only thing which mystifies you?

 

It is truly amazing to know that. I think our ancient Hindu sages and philosophers knew a lot more about Nature and creation than our modern celebrity scientists. Apart from their knowledge about the number of life forms on earth, I think they were able to predict the movements of stars/ planets, occurrence of solar and lunar eclipses etc.
I don’t think they did all that because they had some hi-tech equipment. If one understands Creation to the deepest level, one would know everything about Nature automatically. And there existed plenty of such great sages in ancient India. Because Nature isn’t erratic unlike what the quantumists preach, it is possible that they were able to predict/know everything by just their thought process. They probably were able to experience the entire universe at once, and see the past and the future. And I am sure they calculated things much faster than the entire software that exists at the LHC.

What else would constitute more advanced technology than that we already see in Nature? What else can harness and store power more efficiently than photosynthesis? What else that man invented would constitute more fuel efficient engines than living organisms? We can go on listing the various ‘technologies’ that are inherent in the Nature from waste disposal mechanisms, recycling and so on so forth. And, how do various celestial bodies communicate and influence each other? Isn’t gravity some technology of highest order? Can there be any technology that is more intelligent/ elegant than the one that orchestrates this entire universe? All the modern technology that man invented amounts to nothing in front of the natural technologies.

What is the ultimate phenomenon that underlies all those natural ‘technologies’? How do things communicate and influence each other? All that occurs purely because of flow of energy from one to another. And what underlies the human thought process and human actions? Again they occur from flow of energy. So it is possible that enlightened people, who managed to understand the Universe to the deepest level, could see/harness/influence every phenomena/technology that exists in Nature just by their thoughts! The more they understand about Nature, the more capable they become.

The truly enlightened people of our ancient times lived happily despite leading the most basic life style. They lived happily in forests in much ‘primitive’ conditions. But the ‘intelligent’ people of modern era aren’t happy despite all the luxuries and air-conditioned rooms. So, none of the technology that we are proud of has really contributed to the happiness and well being of mankind. Rather it only made people dependent.

Happiness comes from knowledge and not from material wealth and luxuries. True knowledge never makes people crave for material luxuries. Those who understand the Universal orchestral mechanism and see the whole picture of the Nature experience what is called as bliss or ultimate happiness. And material world becomes the least interesting thing to them. They would realise that death is a natural process and they would happily walk through it.
It is the ignorant material minds who are scared of death and are obsessed with living in this world at any expense. They die every day in their frantic efforts to live longer and endanger and kill so many other species in the process. Thus people of scientific era are proud of things that they must actually be ashamed off!

Note: There is more on this subject but I don't have time anymore, I work 12 hours a day, and today is the first day I finally caught some time to post the conclusions and holes that are shown by other intelligent people on why relativity sucks big time, again these are not my posts but their reasearch in the first place, which showes holes that relativists ignore all the time and how and why exactly something is proven like in this case time dilation for one example-greetings to all of them.
In case you ask yourselves how did I write so many posts in such a short time, I didn't write any of them; I simply copied them from my Mcrosoft Word on my computer, I already have these posts and more posts about subjects on my Microsoft Word like these 4 months already, I was simply doing copy/paste from my Microsoft Word.

 

And about quantum fluctuatuons thing no energy does not come from nothing:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...tions-create-matter-and-energy-out-of-nothing

Did quantum fluctuations create matter and energy out of nothing?

No. Matter can be created from gamma photons in pair production. Those gamma photons are not quantum fluctuations. And we know of no way to create energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

Has it ever been experimentally confirmed that matter and energy were created and are created by quantum fluctuations out of nothing all the time? No.

I thought it was just a hypothesis until I bumped into this link which claims that it has been confirmed but I'm not really sure. What is the status of this claim?
It's popscience misinformation I'm afraid. I'll take you through it:

Matter is built on flaky foundations. Physicists have now confirmed that the apparently substantial stuff is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum.
Not true. The wave nature of matter is not in doubt, but vacuum fluctuations are absolutely nothing like the hard gamma rays from which we can make matter. For an analogy, think of a gamma photon as an oceanic swell wave. Vacuum fluctuations are then something like the tiny random ripplets on the surface of the ocean.

The researchers simulated the frantic activity that goes on inside protons and neutrons. These particles provide almost all the mass of ordinary matter.This is rather misleading. A proton is not some bag of "frantic activity".

In quantum terms, the strong force is carried by a field of virtual particles called gluons, randomly popping into existence and disappearing again.
This is badly misleading. Virtual particles are not short-lived real particles that pop in and out of existence like magic. They "only exist in the mathematics of the model". See anna v's answer here. She's a retired particle physicist.

The energy of these vacuum fluctuations has to be included in the total mass of the proton and neutron.

More misleading material. Virtual particles are not the same thing as vacuum fluctuations. In the oceanic analogy, a virtual particle is like a cubic metre of sea water. Did you see the last line?

So if the LHC confirms that the Higgs exists, it will mean all reality is virtual.

Reality is not virtual! I'm sorry but New Scientist is often sensationalist and misleading. I stopped reading it some years ago.

So, no even religious mainstream physics admits at least admits the brutal fact that there is no creation of energy out of litereally nothing.
So, Paddoboy you are 100% wrong with quantum flctuations example.

 

That's because you are either stupid or simply you don't accept anything that does not match with you rstupid math and statistics and computer models, plus the fact the details that physicists do not use in their hypotheses like the one I posted in the last 19 posts, you call me a religios person, but it's the other way aroound it is you who believe manistream science, not me, I'm questioning them and criticize them and proving them wrong, you only repeat what science say-so where exactly I'm a religious and where exactly I did not prove anything?
Just read what I was posting about space-none even wants to think about-that is your problem of all of you you don't think, you simply calculate-that's totally wrong approach and it's not scientific.

 

I am simply saying facts that none wants to accept, you are so in love with your religion, mathematics, statistics and computer models that you simply dso not want to accept or hear anything that beats your religion, I cannot believe that people like yourselves are full of religious fanatism, that all from me right now, since there is no point of discussing with people who think they know everything about everything by only using math, statistics and computer models and not accepting that facts that scientists use what they want to use as evidence and what fits with mathematics and its equations, with their statistics and with their computer models.
That's not science, that's mathematical, statistical, and computer/IT religion, shame on you only calculate, all of you, even if it's in the arguement with facts, evidences and logic-shame on all of you combined together.

 

Ah har

You don't know if it is scrap or crap

Here you mis spell your name

Confess Confess

It was you all along

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

But you still have not made a point what is it.
Look all you wrote looks too long to read so I can only guess you must be wrong because it did not seem to set out any equations.
I am sorry that you have to work 12 hours a day so I thank you for taking your precious time to put forward your thoughts.
So given the current science is wrong what can you offer to replace it?
How did the universe start?
How did life start?
Do you get paid overtime?
I encourage you to hold your interest butt also encourage you to try and learn more about science as I am sure your views will mellow as you learn more.
Good luck with your quest for knowledge.
Alex

 

After reading here my brain feels like it has been in a pickle jar.
I just think its amazing how science can work out everything and all they need is math.
Is he saying the Pope is a mathematician was that the point?
Alex

 

There is a thread for that if you want to go there but full disclosure it only says jar nothing about pickle

I had heard constipated mathematicians worked it out with a pencil

Well if you take the word pope

Start at the letter p at the side of the qwerty keyboard

move to letter o

back to p

then to e (note they are all on the same line)

Then take the word math

start with m

move to letter a

then to letter t

finish on letter h

Stay with me it gets tricky now

Note none of the letters in pope appear in the word math

Also note none of the letters in math appear in the word pope

All letters in pope are on 1 line

The only two letters in math a and h appear on the same line

And that's why all of science is bunkum

Clear?

 

The way to understand special relativity is there are real affects and there are mirage affects based on the reference. As an example, say we have two rockets, one with mass M and the other with mass 2M. While the crews are asleep, one of the two rockets uses E amount of energy, until the two rockets end up with a final relative velocity V.

Since neither knows who used the energy, they both assume relative motion and both calculate the used energy, based on their relative velocity. One says that 1/2MV2 energy was used while the other says MV2 of energy was used, since it has double the mass. They both can't be right. One is adding or taking away energy, in violation of energy conservation. This invisible energy can appeared to be justified via a mirage for one of the two references.

Like a mirage in the desert, we can see what appears to be a lake. We can even photograph the mirage lake, but it is still not real, since you can drink from it. Reference may be relative based on velocity, but it is not relative based on an energy balance. Like in the twin paradox, both twins are in relative motion, but only one twin ages and one twin stays younger. The one that stays younger had the real energy, while the other twin is mirage affect based on relative motion.

Once the two meet it is easy to tell the difference. But if the two never meet, like most of the universe and the earth, a mirage can be called real, if there is a consensus. There is no good way to do an energy balance based on the assumption of no preferred reference. \

Einstein made a provision for this called relativistic mass. The equivalence of mass and energy allows one to use relativistic mass to do an energy balance. Unfortunately, it is not easy to measure relativistic mass. It has been lumped into space-time and velocity to allow mirages to rule. The problem the layman has is, they sense the energy balance is not right, but the math appears to justify the mirages.

A mirage is a naturally occurring optical phenomenon in which light rays are bent to produce a displaced image of distant objects or the sky. The word comes to English via the French mirage, from the Latin mirari, meaning "to look at, to wonder at". This is the same root as for "mirror" and "to admire".

In contrast to a hallucination, a mirage is a real optical phenomenon that can be captured on camera, since light rays are actually refracted to form the false image at the observer's location. What the image appears to represent, however, is determined by the interpretive faculties of the human mind.

 

Oh! I thought you were a troll, but you are just delusional. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

For all of you everyone is a troll, who doesn't think like who observes fact and evidences and does not misinterpret facts the way you all do, you are all just repeating what you have learned you have no brain yourself to figure out what exactly is misinterpreted, you only calculate, which proves that you are all religious trolls without critical brain that quastions and criticizes everything that is misinterpreted and misused by mathematics, statistics and computer models.

 

Just as well math and science plays no part in the functioning of the internet and the devices that give us access to using it or we would be stuffed.
You say such wild things but it probably not entirely fair that everyone thinks you are a fool and have no idea what you are talking about.
It seems in your case a little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing.
But as I said after some years of actually learning what you are talking about you hopefully mellow such that you can appreciate why folk at the moment think you are foolish.
Good luck on your journey to knowledge and understanding.
What I don't understand is if you do not use math how can you work out anything or record results.
Maths is so necessary so basic to everything I can't see how you can hold a position of ignorance.
Science is not a religion you need to get past that hurdle thinking like that is folly.
Alex

 

I know enough about science to call it religion-the fact is you call everyone trolls who just ever criticize models and their holes, it's not about creating new models, it's about the fixing the existing ones, otherwise there is no progress in anything.
And that is the problem, and that is the limitation you don't want to accept, since you are all arrogant, egoistical and think and say we know how did everything happened in the universe-wrong.
Why do you bother with questions that you can never answer-yes never, you can keep trying forever, but you will always fail-why because you are all stuck with mathematics, statistics, computer models and you are also stuck with misintepretations and non-existent evidences that exist inside mathematics, statistics and computer models.
The fact is evidences always get fit with mathematics, statistics and computer models-which aare all very clever manipulating tools of deception, for those who don't care and do not want to waste time on it.
The fact is in all experiments even if it's n0ot shown in experiments, the mathematics, statistics and computer models will claim that it is proven, just because you hit something correct an signal or energy pattern-this is so stupid, naive and manipulating from the side of all scientists, because that's like blind man says I have discovered a new species and yet he cannot see/observe anything to confirm what he/she theorizes-this is how blind scientists have become.
The fact is science has stopped being science from the very moment scientists could not directly observe everything they told us that it is proven.

The problem even exists with direct observation because, it is full of misinterpretations that again show that scientists do not take verything into account, they take only what is proven in mathematics, statistics and computer models, and not what exactly is directly observed in experiments-and no more than that, because going further in theorizing is pure, unprovable speculation.
For people like, science is like drugs, you cannot accept that its fundamentals are wrong, because it therizies, everything but what is proven, because if you take only direct observation of experiments, you would not be able to prove anything at all, since we are all just too much limited on what scientists can actually experiment and actually prove and of course give the correct interpretation.

And also, the scientists are also like blind people who could not recognize that elephants has ears the very first moment blind people have been told aabout the existence of elephants-they thought they are leafs-the same thing is with the universe and everything within the universe-if you cannot see the whole picture of the entire, true reality/universe and everything inside the reality/universe the way it is, since you can only see/observe it's immensely small/tiny piece of that universal reality-than forget the Big Bang and all other hypotheses, because they are all wrong-because we barely scratched the surfcace of vast and immense universe/universal reality, And since we can never actually directly observe the whole picture and correctly intepretr it-than all they hypotheses about the universe are useless, since we will never truly know anything about anything-yes we know nothing about anything/nothing/everything.

And mathematics, statistics and computer models are simply fooling us into thinking we have proven something, and yet we did not prove anything, since we observe immensely small parts of reality, since we don't know what truly and exactly is the whole picture.