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

Since you included this obvious lie:

I can only conclude that you are a dishonest troll just trying to annoy people or I guess you could be a deluded madman...

Either way, you have demonstrated that you have neither credibility nor basic knowledge of science.

Have a nice day.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As far as I can guess, you're attacking mainstream people and that's it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You can't have already posted answers to questions I have not yet asked! But listen, I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm just wanting to give you some insight into why QM is actually useful, because I always think it's a terrible shame when people have such a negative view of something I have found so inspiring in my life.

Will you allow me, then, to explain a bit about how QM makes sense of the Periodic Table?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Really?

Having just skipped through the previous 20 odd post you are still able to use the word sense

Good luck

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well I am feeling patient for now at least. Our friend seems very upset with science for some reason but I am prepared to give it a shot if he will stay with me and be civil. But I notice he's gone, now that I have offered the olive branch, so we'll have to see whether he is really up for a bit of practical science with a QM flavour.....

 

Have you looked under the bridge?

I don't think a olive branch is the fee to cross over

More like your brain turned into jelly and leaking from your ears

At least that will be something which can be directly observed and not require a mathematical model

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Now, now, don't be beastly........!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

While our friend seems to have some very ... insular ideas of what science is, he has only resorted to actual insults and name-calling a couple of times. He is talking relatively civilly*, even if his preconceptions exist in a vacuum.

We get so few of these here, it's a tempting challenge to see if he can still be saved. Consider it an exercise in rational redemption.

*on the scale to trolldom

 

Good idea

Provide only low calorie biscuits and nothing sweet enough to cause a sugar rush

Definately no full cans of caffeine laden Bull

Again good luck

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I wouldn't use religious language if I were you - could be a red rag to a bull.

But I think he or she (but it won't be a she, will it?) has gone for the night. I hope maybe to get a response in the morning.

 

Religious? You mean redemption? It's not exclusively religious.

 

Gravage,

OP is about big bang, Big Bang is surely unverifiable, because you cannot go back in time (thats what you seem to be saying). Similarly there could be many theories which are directly unverifiable, but they are falsifiable. A theory which can explain the observations is fine, if it fails even in explaining an observation, then either amend the theory or abandon it. But some kind of modelling is required. It is required even for all verifiable stuffs also. You kind of lost in making a clear point, somewhere in the lengthy posts you ended up impressing that you blame the entire scientific approach, if you restrict yourself to Big bang then at least you have an argument.

 

2 things:
Origin, you/scientists are all madmen and trols with zero credibilities and basic knowledge of everything who create all kinds of models without the possiblity to test their verifiabilities, one thing is to what is shown in experiments, it's completely the other thing when you extend these same experiments as evidences that models are correct/right beyond what it can be proved and concluded-only what in experiments is shown, proved and concluded can be considered prediction if model is correct or wrong, not the model which claims the existence of atoms or whatever else beyond what experiments can show, prove or at least indicate to exist and this is exactly what your models do, you and your models pretend you have proven and predict things with models that are not shown, proved or even indicated to exist in experiments-which you claim thy are, and that is a big lie to all people in the world.

And, Origin, the very fact you only calculate and not even try to prove and not even try to test and not even try to explain anything, 100% proves that you, scientists, are no smarter than lay people who have different opinions or religious people who have only one opinion-God-well your only opinions are mathematical models-who are Gods to you, not facts and not evidences, and if you cannot prove anything that proves additionally that you have no idea how the universe works anymore than someone who has never seen the book of more advanced physics-since entire physics is all about untestable and unprovable hypotheses and mathematical, statistical and computer models.

And you call me without reason, without sense?
It's obviously you scientists who are always irrational and senseless.

Experiments and what is shown, proved and indicate to exist predicted all those new hypotheses, but not on the level that your models desrcribe, only on the level that can be shown, prove and indicated to exist-for example there is absolutely no way anything atomic or subatomic can be proven to exist that models suggest and assume, it's like blind scientist is studying nature around himself, there is no way he/she can know how exactly the nature looks like; it's exactly the same problem with scientists who observe on telescopes vast distances and because of limited eye vision they cannot see everything, so the observational evidences for everything so much distant are all useless; the same as you cannot directly or even indrectly see the atomic-level, subatomic-level, sub-subatomic level world and quantum-level worlds and no tchnology can help you with this-this is something that all scientists simply ignore.

 

Please, do explain, you are very welcome, I have nothing against that.
I always welcome hypotheses and models of all kinds, what pisses me off when scientists say they are proven (mathematically pseudo-proven, not truly proven in experiments and direct observations (that can prove, or at least indicate that they are proven to exist) and they say that for all models) because it is simply wrong, that's a key difference, between me and all the scientists.

Before you start to explain, please read this copy of my answer to Origin and to other posters from above:

 

Read what I posted an answer to oirigin:

But I have to admit your post is by far the best post with the best answer I've seen so far on this thread.
All I'm saying that modelling has to be adapted to what evidences show, prove or indicate to exist in th first place, and not based and adapted on unprovable and untestable concepts in models-for example there is no way you can conclude if atoms exist based on everything that was tested-check this out:

Sure, you have radiation that passes through and one in every eight thousand was deflected from something solid-how the hell you can know you hit the nucleus of the atom, how the hell you know it's atom at all, how the hell you know it's electrons around the atom?
This is 100% impossible to even assume what radiation hit at all, let alone put an hypothesis around it-that's just preposterous, you cannot know anything you know it hit something, but what exactly, sure it's solid, but again what exactly it hit something solid in the first place; so it's not just Big Bang hypothesis, but the entire physics and entire science, however I do understand, you need to name everything in order to know how to.

Also, everything in radiation has had to be called somehow based on how much they can penetrate human bodies and inside the environment, so there is no way you can prove or test that the particles exist you can only test and prove levels of radiation and on what levels they are harmful to people-and this is why they need to have different names-in this case so called "alpha particles"/actually alpha radiation have directly observable effects:
1. Alpha radiation is not able to penetrate skin. 2. Alpha-emitting materials can be harmful to humans if the materials are inhaled, swallowed, or absorbed through open wounds. 3. A variety of instruments have been designed to measure alpha radiation. Special training in use of these instruments is essential for making accurate measurements. 4. A civil defense instrument (CD V-700) cannot detect the presence of radioactive materials that produce alpha radiation unless the radioactive materials also produce beta and/or gamma radiation. 5. Instruments cannot detect alpha radiation through even a thin layer of water, blood, dust, paper, or other material, because alpha radiation is not penetrating. 6. Alpha radiation travels a very short distance through air. 7. Alpha radiation is not able to penetrate turnout gear, clothing, or a cover on a probe. Turnout gear and dry clothing can keep alpha emitters off of the skin.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You have permission

Even a please - welcome and a nothing against

I still think you need a few buckets of luck

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Haha yes but don't be disingenuous. You are adopting the type of language used by Evangelicals. I dread a pseudo-agument back from our friend to the effect that "this proves science is a religion" and all that ballocks.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thanks, I've read your remarks. They seem to repeat - once again - the myth that science claims to have "proven" its theories are correct. As you have been told many times by me and by others, this is untrue. The history of science shows very clearly that nothing can be claimed as final "truth" or "proven", since new discoveries often come along and upset the apple cart. (We can think of relativity vs. Newtonian mechanics, QM vs. classical electromagnetic theory, or more recently Plate Tectonics.) It is however the case that in talking about science, scientists implicitly talk in terms of their models. We can't be forever saying "if the model is right" or "according to the model". We all know that and it is implicit in what we say.

I do agree it is unfortunate if some scientists, in TV popularisations or books, forget to remind their audience that this is all about models (usually highly successful and amply reconfirmed). Maybe it is this impression of certainty or arrogance that offends you. If so, I have some sympathy.

Now to QM and the Periodic Table:

Mendeleev, when he constructed the Table did so on purely empirical grounds: he ordered elements according to their atomic weight (increasing left to right and top to bottom, like lines on a page) and the similarities known at the time in their physical and chemical behaviour (which determined the lengths of each line). But why is there a block of two columns on the left, one of 6 columns on the right and one of 10 in the middle? And why do "alkali metals" such as lithium and sodium form ionic compounds in which they are +ve ions, while inert gases do not form compounds at all?

QM provided the answers. In QM, the electrons in the atom behave like waves. It is well known by musicians that if you twang a violin string, it will vibrate at a set of resonant frequencies, made up of a standing waves. You can excite the fundamental, or the 1st harmonic, 1 octave above the fundamental, or the 2nd harmonic, a perfect fifth above the 1st harmonic, and so on. If you take a slo-mo video of a rubber ball that has been hit and made to vibrate, the vibration patterns will also be a range of resonant standing waves, called "spherical harmonics".

QM predicted, through calculations (Schroedinger's equation etc) that if electrons behave as waves, they will only take up arrangements in the atom corresponding to spherical harmonics and will have different energies accordingly (lowest energy level being level 1, "the fundamental", if you like):
Level 1: one possibility - spherically symmetric mode of resonance (called "s")
Level 2: 4 possibilities - one spherically symmetrical like Level 1 plus 3 dumbbell shaped modes of resonance, at right angles to one another (in x, y, and z directions if you like) called ("p")
Level 3: 9 possibilities - one spherical (s) , 3 dumbbells (p) as above and 5 double-dumbbells, called ("d").
Level 4: 14 possibilities - 1 s; 3 p; 5d and 7 quadruple dumbbell shapes called "f".

...etc.

You will know that according to the standard atomic model, as you go across and down the Periodic Table, you have increasing numbers of +ve charged protons in the nucleus, and correspondingly more and more electrons.

According to QM, these will go into these various levels, 2 to a level, filling the lowest energy ones first. (This is something called the "Aufbau Principle".)

In alkali metals - according to this model - the common feature is you have filled up all the lower levels and have just started the next level up in energy, with one electron in that level. The +ve charge on the nucleus is the lowest it can be to start filling that level. Now, the electrostatic binding force on the electron will depend on the charge: the greater the charge, the stronger the force. So this last electron is predicted to be weakly bound - and easily lost. And this is what we find.

In the inert gases you have just filled a level completely. The +ve charge in the nucleus is the maximum it can be before you are forced to start putting electrons in the next level up. This mean the electrons are predicted to be as strongly bound as they can be, leading to low tendency to react. And this is what we find.

And the block on the left is where you are filling the "s" modes, the block on the right is where you are filing the "p" modes, the block of 10 in the middle is where you are filling the "d" modes, and so on.

So, at a stroke, QM brought a beautifully elegant explanation for the layout of the table and why the distinctive properties of each element are the way they are. The whole of inorganic chemistry relies on this QM understanding.

Now, you can do quite a bit of practical chemistry without understanding this model, as people did in the c.19th at Mendeleev's time. But it would be a bit perverse to ignore or dismiss the theory that explains the pattern so well.

 

First of all congratulations on the longest sentence ever seen on Sciforums.
Secondly, I am an engineer not a scientist and I do not make models myself, I spend my time analyzing data and running experiments.
Thirdly, I am not going to argue with you about science because you have a strongly held opinion that you are not going to change, so there is no point.

The main point is why would you make up the stupid lie that you have discovered room temperature super conduction? What is the point of that? You are basically saying that science is wrong, all scientist are stupid and you make up stupid shit.

It is just kind of weird.

 

Modelling is mostly based on observations only (yes, it must have some predictive power, it must predict something which could be subsequently verified). Take for example GR (I am not a fan of GR but still), it predicted Gravitational waves, and finally they have been detected. GR is a mathematical model which explains gravitational phenomena quite nicely. Infact it was originally based on certain understanding of gravity.

Atom certainly exists, its a name given to an entity made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. You can surely question the dynamics and arrangement of these sub atomic particles. In fact you must be aware how thomson, rutherford and then Bohr ideas were moved out (amended or improvised to adapt to evidence) and QM took over. The great part is that this model of atom works. I do not understand how you wish to conclude the existence of an atom?