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

[Ophiolite]

What's wrong with you I already posted in previous posts what is so wrong-first thing is that you need to learn reading and than understand what you have read.

I am working my way through the thread and all I see from you are vague generalisations of topic areas that you assert are misunderstood by science. I see no clear, precise statements of what is incorrect in these areas.

If I may use an analogy. Here are two comments about a hypothetical education system:

1. Our education system is worthless. We are not teaching our children the fundamentals.
2. It is stipulated that our education system will teach children in the fundamentals of mathematics, English language and basic science. It fails in two distinct ways: there is no requirement for history, foreign languages, art, physical education or geography. Secondly, periodic testing carried out by the government has shown that fewer than 74% of fifteen year old's are reaching the required minimum standard in the fundamentals.

Your posts that I have read so far are analagous to the first example. What is required is something closer to the second. Will you provide it?

 

[Gravage]

Can you point me to a particular post where you pointed out specific flaws in our current theories of gravity?


Can we perhaps consider a real-world example?

It is observed that when monochromatic light is shone on a metal surface, electrons are sometimes emitted (and can be detected fairly easily). It is observed that if the light has a wavelength greater than a certain amount then for a particular metal no electrons are emitted, but with any shorter wavelength electrons are emitted. There is a simple quantum model that explains this (for which Einstein won the Nobel prize). The explanation describes the interaction between quantised photons of light and electrons in the metal surface.

Again, the problem with these explanations-if there is no direct observation where you can actually directly observe electrons than forget about quantum levels and their explanations, since you are truly blind, you need more scientific realism.

Do you agree that this is a relativity simple experiment that can be done in practice, or do you think that we can't observe anything directly concerning the interaction of light shone on a metal?

If you think the quantum explanation of the photoelectric effect is 100% wrong, or whatever, then what alternative explanation do you propose for the observed dependence of electron emission on the wavelength of the light used?

A physicist would say that Einstein's quantum model for the photoelectric effect is a good one because it makes predictions that match what is observed in this particular experiment and in other variations of the photoelectric experiment. But it sounds like you would say that Einstein's model is useless, just because it's a mathematical model of something happening on the subatomic scale and we can't directly observe that scale (whatever you mean by "directly observe").

From experience I can tell that beneficial uses from such wacky hypotheses that are untestable and unprovable because they can never be truly directly observed are all wrong-the fact is that all those examples exist without using explanations, and it is those inovators who invented things like transistors before QM wa said to be responsible for transistors in every day use.
The fact is that you do not need any hypothesis to create something for every day use, plus even if there is something, it doesn't mean that the hypothesis is correct at all, the use in every day lives is simply trial and error technique and nothing more, sorry but that's the way it is.

If you were asked to predict what maximum wavelength of light would be needed to eject electrons from a given metal, how would you go about that? Would you guess? Would you say "No prediction can be made, because the processes involved are not directly observable"? Would you throw up your hands and say "Science is bullshit!" and storm off in a huff? Would you say "The photoelectric effect has no value to my life in the real world, so why should I care!"? Or what?

Next time you use the digital camera in your cell phone, think about this: without Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect, that camera wouldn't exist. We'd have no idea how to begin to construct such a thing. Unless you have some better way of doing science than Einstein did, of course.

I aexplained above, as with Cern, it is the same thing with all advances in technology, it is not based on any hypothesis it's simply trial and error technique, explanations on how some camera and digital camra work are unknown for real, you just make from the materials you have and you try until it works.

A mathematical explanation allows us to predict what will happen for a given wavelength of light shining on a given metal, before we do the actual experiment. How are you going to do that without using mathematics?

Another delusion, mathematics explains, but you cannot know what is true and what is false, and mathematics does not solve anything it only creates more questions, plus it is not based on direct observations, but based on playing with numbers.

It's no delusion as to whether electrons are emitted from a metal when light is shone on it. Either you detect them or you don't. But we don't directly observe an individual photon interacting with an individual electron in the metal; that's the mathematical model.

What are you doing to replace that mathematical model with that will adequately do the same job?

In order to prove your hypothesis correct, you must first prove that everything that mathematics describes on quantum levels is actually correct-and that is my friend untestable, you cannot create hypothesis and say it's correct just because math says so.
Direct observation and correct and logical interpretation are crucial here, this is why I said you need testable hypotheses, the ones that are based on direct observations and not on playing with math on how math desribes, them, the fact is that math fills the holes and untestable predictions when there is no way you can directly observe anything in any experiment, and that is 100% wrong approach.

Yeah. Who would want to live in a world in which they live for twice or three times as long, on average, as their great grandparents, due to all that silly "scientific" medicine and technology and stuff that 100% wrong mathematical science gives us? Scientists surely are the greatest criminals for giving you the lifestyle you take for granted every day.

To be honest, I'll rather live and dies somewhere in Siberia or Alaska-if I actually could and not here in this hypocritical system called civilization, I can understand why people are running away from this so-called civilization.

And you live in a cave somewhere and are typing your posts on a bicycle-powered laptop, I assume.

There are reasons why I unfortunately cannot live in caves, I'll rather leave this crappy society, but there are some reasons why I cannot, and it has nothing to do with science and technology or anything like it.

Why don't you believe anything science says? Because you don't understand the science? Because you don't like it? Because your political affiliations mean you view scientific facts as political?

Because it's all about money and scientists think they wll create better society, and actually they are destroying it, and 2 science works for big corporations and similar super-ricj people, they use mathematics and statistics and computer models just to say they have proven something justiy funding and science is a big business today, and that's about it.
If you truly want to help people, leave corporations and all other big budget project and help people in local coumminities.

You ought to watch the weather forecasts for a week or so and check their accuracy for yourself. You might be surprised.


Lucky thing you're immune to all that, isn't it? Other people are gullible fools, but not you.

I'm just saying facts, why do you trust for anything that is considered official report?
Shame on you, you either work for them or second you are simply too naive and you accept everything without a shred of doubt, criticism.
History has shown how much thos who have poweer have manipulated those poor people, today is the same thing, however this powers is much larger, all enabled thanks to science and technology.

Are you sure you're thinking for yourself about all this anti-science stuff and not just accepting somebody else's propaganda because you don't perceive them as "official", and therefore imagine they are trustworthy and knowledgable?

No, because I have my own personal experience with government and corporations, I used to be like you, but that opened my eys in what way and how truly things are going.
Yes, it's called experience, you just sit in a lab and claim that you have proven this or that by just twisting facts and numbers and using mathematics and statistics and computer models.

 

[Gravage]

Second part:

I agree with you. Science is reducing job opportunities by making things more automated and less reliant on manual labour, for example. If that leaves some people poor and hungry, that is a bad thing, but it's not the fault of progress. It's the fault of the economic and political leaders in being too slow to restructure economic circumstances to adapt to the changed world that science brings.

Why should world adapt to such changes, because you scientists say it's better how it is better, overpopulation-that is the product of your science, now because of that overpopulation we are stuck in an unsolveable problem, than there is food, it's hard to find these days something that is truly natural and healthy, than job stress that is killing people, than people are so lazy-because they do not use manual labour, they are just losing their time on the internet and on the jobs, people are so full of stress and too much speed that scientists should stop requesting on what is good for us, when it is actually very, very bad.
This is not the world people want to live and technology is only making things worse and worse every single day, and this is why I hate this so called advanced society-only and idiot can call us advanced society, and thes causes of all negative effects are again scientists and technologists.

I'll rather day from bubonic lplague, than suffer the ne 50 years-that's not life, that's pain-quick death is much better than painful, long life, where you are surviving each day the way you can just because stupid scientists say this technological progress will save us-and the fact is it's destroying us all, the only one who say it's better are the ones who seel this such public relations and marketing crap.

Yes. Shame on them for facilitating your access to plentiful food, fresh water, technological marvels, freedom to travel to all corners of the world at relatively low cost etc. etc.

Actually it's the other way around, I had fresh water before companies and their scientists did not come along and they simply destroyed and started to sell their clean water.

Religion didn't build the computer/tablet/phone that you're reading this post on. It didn't build the x-ray machine the doctors used when you last broke a bone or had a filling in your teeth. It's so strange what science managed to do for you without having any real evidence of anything.

I'ts not about what is built, it's about what is considered proven, you can make all kinds of hypotheses, but if they are untestable just like math is and if you cannot directly observe those real evidences, than forget it, than it's pure religion.
Again the trial and error method has created everything what we have today, not what some hypothesis claims it i proven or disproven-and that is the real truth behind all these "proven" hypotheses.

 

[Gravage]

This is all very well, but we need to get down to models and observations. For example, so-called "gravitational lensing" of distance galaxies by intervening matter is observed daily. Moreover, the particular features seen in the resulting images observed through telescopes are exactly what we would expect if space and time bend in the way described by general relativity.

Let's end this once and for all: first of all; all those observations of so-called "gravitational lensing" of distant galaxies by intervening matter only show and 100% prove that those there are energy fields that are involved, there have been no space bending if there was no energy field/matter involved-that is the fact that you can actually from all those images-it only proves how big those energy fields and sizes of matter truly are.
And there is no evidence that time is affected at all, since there is no such thing as time in space there is only motion, speed and gravitational field-people invented time, time does not exist in the universe, people created the concept of time.

 

[Kittamaru]

Let's end this once and for all: first of all; all those observations of so-called "gravitational lensing" of distant galaxies by intervening matter only show and 100% prove that those there are energy fields that are involved, there have been no space bending if there was no energy field/matter involved-that is the fact that you can actually from all those images-it only proves how big those energy fields and sizes of matter truly are.
And there is no evidence that time is affected at all, since there is no such thing as time in space there is only motion, speed and gravitational field-people invented time, time does not exist in the universe, people created the concept of time.

Good lord man, your sentence structure doesn't make much sense...

Let's end this once and for all: first of all; all those observations of so-called "gravitational lensing" of distant galaxies by intervening matter only show and 100% prove that those there are energy fields that are involved

I presume you are trying to say that the effect we call gravitational lensing is proof of some sort of energy field, and not the result of the bend on the fabric of the universe (eg, not caused by gravity)?

there have been no space bending if there was no energy field/matter involved

There is no bending of spacetime where there is no matter involved, yes - that is how gravity works. I don't know where/why you are involving some mystic "energy field"...

that is the fact that you can actually from all those images

I think you are missing a verb here...? Did you mean "That is the fact that you can actually observe from all those images"?

it only proves how big those energy fields and sizes of matter truly are.

You do understand how Mass and Gravity works, right? Massive objects (such as a black hole, or a galaxy) have a large "gravitational footprint", to the point that light will actually bend as it passes those objects.

And there is no evidence that time is affected at all, since there is no such thing as time in space

There is no time in space? So... the people coming back from the International Space Station haven't aged, then?

there is only motion, speed and gravitational field

There is plenty more than that... strong force, weak force, electromagnetic forces, etc... oh, and the passage of time. It is a real thing, and quite tangible (how do you think we can measure radioactive decay?)

people invented time, time does not exist in the universe, people created the concept of time.

People invented sound - if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear, does it still create a sound?

Just because we measured and quantified the concept of time, that doesn't mean people "created" it. Much the same as we measured and quantified radioactive decay... we didn't "invent" radioactive decay, we just made sense of it.

 

[Gravage]

All controlled scientific experiments involved eliminating, as far as possible, all influences on the experimental results apart from the ones you're trying to measure. In the case of gravity wave detectors, truly herculean efforts have been made to eliminate or take into account all sources of vibration other than gravity waves. There's far too much detail for me to even start on, but you can look it up online if you're interested.

Oh, please stop, just stop there is no way you can 100% isolate the waves you were looking for fromt he rest of the environment-don't sell me this story.

Again, let me give you an analogy. Your radio has some buttons that let you select a particular radio station. Those buttons link to circuitry inside the radio that selectively make the radio circuit resonate in a particular frequency interval in the radio spectrum, depending on which station frequency you choose. Without the oscillator circuit in the radio, you'd hear a whole range of frequencies at once and your radio would produce only noise (like static).

It's uncomparable because of the fact you hear the voice you are looking, it's not the same as waves in space which you can never know what is what since you don't really know what is the sound of any wave, plus there tons of other waves that have the same sound as gravity wave you are looking for..

The air around you is full of electromagnetic radiation. Considering just human-produced radiation, there's all the radio stations, TV broadcasts, radio communications used by the emergency services, aviation and other things, not to mention very different frequency radiation such as visible, UV and infrared light. Then there's radio noise from space, from the atmosphere and from various sources, both human and natural.

Your claim that it is impossible to isolate gravity waves from other vibrations is equivalent to your saying that it is impossible to build a radio that you can tune to just one radio station. Your argument for radio would be that "the whole electromagnetic spectrum is interconnected and affected by matter and energy, so nothing can be isolated".

The problem you simply ignore like all other physicists is the fact you do not know how gravity waves look like and how they sound like-you would need to know and detect the very source of gravity waves, don't tell me that you hav detected gravity waves, since the source of them is over billion light years away from Earth-in one billion light years gravity waves can be easily misinterpreted and replaced with something else, you cannot possibly know if that really is the source at all.
And second you exactly know where to tune your radio because you are told where to tune your radio and what is exactly on this radio-with gravity waves you know nothing, absolutely nothing, it can only be shockwaves from the collision of 2 celestial bodies and that's about it-and shock waves are not gravity waves.
And if there is too much interference you can't hear anything, and in thze universe there is so much intereferency that you simply do not know what you have detected-the only thing you can do is to jsut go there on the source 1.3 billion light years away and listen to the source that is creating waves.

I hope by now you can see how silly that particular claim of yours is.


It's a process of elimination. You consider: what are all the things that could make this detector vibrate? Next: how can I eliminate all those sources apart from gravity waves? Then: you observe that your carefully-designed detector has detected something after years of careful effort in designing and building it. So, you tentatively conclude that it has detected gravity waves.

You also check that the various features of the detected waves match what you expect those features to look like for gravity waves, of course. And for that you need a mathematical model of what gravity waves ought to look like, which requires that thing you most hate: a mathematical physical theory of gravity.

At the end of the day, of course, even with all your fancy theory and data, you can never be sure you detected gravity waves. Those vibrations could be caused by a completely new phenomenon nobody has yet thought of and which you didn't consider in your careful design of the detector, but which nevertheless have a very similar signature to the expected gravity waves.

In my radio analogy, your question is like asking: assuming you can tune a radio to a particular station, how can you be sure you heard Beethoven's Ninth Symphony and not Beyonce's latest hit on that station? Answer: you have some expectation about the kind of sound Beethoven's Ninth makes, and the kind of sound Beyonce makes. It is always possible that Beyonce's latest album is full of classical music inspired by Beethoven, of course, so you can't be 100% sure.


It's all well and good to say that, but do you know how much effort those guys and gals who built the gravity detectors went to in order to eliminate electromagnetic noise?

It does not change a fact that you cannot isolate anything, no matter how much you try, other waves also come and leave, the only way to know this is to simply go to the source to actually find out what you have actually detected.
Plus, you created simulations before gravity waves, how do we know this is not some simulation only, and not the real signals...., because you say so, yes sure.

No. The model only stops being successful (never mind "correct") when its measurable predictions fail to match experimental or other observations of the real world.

The model stops being succesful when it is not proven with real and directly observational evidences, and not with some mathematical crap-this is when model is not succesful-you cannot say that the model is succesful if you cannot directly observe what the model says-that is the main problem with quantum mechanics, gravity waves, relativity which is misinterpreted-they all suffer the same mathematical syndrome.
The fact is there is so much that it is unprovable and yet it is considered proven-and yet the only thin you have is math-again it doesn't matter if model is succesful if it's not proven with direct observations and correct ntepretations-with math you have 99% unprovable hypotheses and concepts and less than 1% directly observed.

Only that's not how scientists really think. Nothing in science is ever considered proven forever and ever. All science if provisional and subject to revision in the light of new evidence. Science is self-correcting. It's one of its greatest strengths, and something that fundamentally distinguishes it from the religion you imagine it to be.

Don't sell me this crap, because it is a pure lie, if that was the case, the Big Bang hyp0thesis and many, many other hypotheses would be left long time ago.
plus, you always say about math has proven-like it is 100% proven, not giving anyshred of doubt in it.
Shame on you physicists, you are more like wizards of Oz.

I'm all ears. Explain a particular criticism you have and we'll work through it together (as long as it's something you and I are qualified enough to evaluate).

If you didn't see those holes that I was posting all the time in previous posts regarding mathematics, statistics, computer models and all other tools that use for science, and not the real world evidences and interpretations of only what experiments show and prove, not what mathematics says and "proves", than I cannot help you at all.
And it's totally unfair to call anyone more intelligent if all the hypotheses and concepts exist only in mathematics, statistics and inside computer models, and not in real world.

For example you say detect electrons and itsweird behavour, but the problem is that you do not detect neither directly observe anything in those devices, you only detect signals-and that's about it-than after you do that say mathematical model is correct, that's not science, that's magic, that's mathematical religion-and this is exactly what you scientists do all the time in the last 100 years-facts.

 

[Gravage]

Good lord man, your sentence structure doesn't make much sense...



I presume you are trying to say that the effect we call gravitational lensing is proof of some sort of energy field, and not the result of the bend on the fabric of the universe (eg, not caused by gravity)?

Yes, it's called matter, energy/energy field.

There is no bending of spacetime where there is no matter involved, yes - that is how gravity works. I don't know where/why you are involving some mystic "energy field"...

So, electromagnetic field of Earth is also magic-wrong-field is simply a field of physical influence it depends on how much massive and great an cosmic object is, and galaxies and clusters of galaxies are huge with extremely large energy fields.
If thatt was true what youa re saying the magnets would not have their own magnetic fields and yet they do have, you can actually feel the magnetic forces of magnets-as an example.
It's matter rand energy that get distorted, not space itself.

I think you are missing a verb here...? Did you mean "That is the fact that you can actually observe from all those images"?

That is exactly what is actually observed.

You do understand how Mass and Gravity works, right? Massive objects (such as a black hole, or a galaxy) have a large "gravitational footprint", to the point that light will actually bend as it passes those objects.

But again only where great mass is involved, where there is no mass, there is no matter and energy, no matter and energy no gravitational lensing.

There is no time in space? So... the people coming back from the International Space Station haven't aged, then?

Yes, they do age, but not because of time, but because of the fact their biological organisms age naturally because of bilogical processes, it has nothing to do with time.

There is plenty more than that... strong force, weak force, electromagnetic forces, etc... oh, and the passage of time. It is a real thing, and quite tangible (how do you think we can measure radioactive decay?)

Yes, I know that but I was giving an example, and with these forces you mentioned also proves my points about gravitational lensing.

People invented sound - if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear, does it still create a sound?

No they did not because the sound existed before people existed without people creating it, and people discovered sound and before people created it, there is no such mechanism in nature/universe.
However they did not discover time, they basically invented it, because there is nothing in this universe that shows that time exists in the first place, we created clocks as measure of time-but we also created time by measuring it, because nature does not maeasure time anywhere, neither does the entire universe.

Just because we measured and quantified the concept of time, that doesn't mean people "created" it. Much the same as we measured and quantified radioactive decay... we didn't "invent" radioactive decay, we just made sense of it.

You measured, speed and motion-you did not measure time, grater gravity, the faster the clock hands are-again it has nothing with time.

 

[origin]

So you are just going to continue to make outrageous claims with zero evidence. How typical....

 

[Gravage]

I am working my way through the thread and all I see from you are vague generalisations of topic areas that you assert are misunderstood by science. I see no clear, precise statements of what is incorrect in these areas.

If I may use an analogy. Here are two comments about a hypothetical education system:

1. Our education system is worthless. We are not teaching our children the fundamentals.
2. It is stipulated that our education system will teach children in the fundamentals of mathematics, English language and basic science. It fails in two distinct ways: there is no requirement for history, foreign languages, art, physical education or geography. Secondly, periodic testing carried out by the government has shown that fewer than 74% of fifteen year old's are reaching the required minimum standard in the fundamentals.

Your posts that I have read so far are analagous to the first example. What is required is something closer to the second. Will you provide it?

Well, my point here is that the real science does not exist anymore-and when I talk about science I'm not talking about science that is used in every day life, I'm talking about fundamental science that builds more and more abstract models that always remain unprovable, real science needs to be testable, but not testable in a way for an example that you create a device that supposedly detect electron and than you investigate the properties of an electron, how can you actually say that you have proven the existence of an electron and its physical and chemical characteristics just because you detected signals? Based on what?
You need to directly observe electron and than directly observe its physical and chemical characteristics for example-there is no scientific realism anymore just pure assumptions created by models that are unprovable and untestable.

 

[Gravage]

So you are just going to continue to make outrageous claims with zero evidence. How typical....

Oh, I hgave you evidences, real evidences, nto some mathematical abstractions that you call evidences, but you all on these forums ignore them, because it's not mathematics, it's not a model and it's not compatible with your mathematical models.

 

[Kittamaru]

I'm sorry Gravage... but so far you have presented zero compelling evidence for any of your claims.

Can a person sense a magnetic field? Typically, no... but there are animals that can. A person probably COULD feel a magnetic field, when it gets amped up to the point that it starts ripping the iron from their blood...

You claim you have "real evidences"... why not post them here? What do you call "real evidence" - photos? Video? You dismiss math (which is ironic as it is one of the fundamental basics of scientific proof), yet have presented no alternative beyond what appears to be idle ramblings...

 

[Ophiolite]

Well, my point here is that the real science does not exist anymore-and when I talk about science I'm not talking about science that is used in every day life, I'm talking about fundamental science that builds more and more abstract models that always remain unprovable, real science needs to be testable, but not testable in a way for an example that you create a device that supposedly detect electron and than you investigate the properties of an electron, how can you actually say that you have proven the existence of an electron and its physical and chemical characteristics just because you detected signals? Based on what?
You need to directly observe electron and than directly observe its physical and chemical characteristics for example-there is no scientific realism anymore just pure assumptions created by models that are unprovable and untestable.

Did I do a third rate job with the analogy? This is just more empty, hand-waving ranting. You have just mouthed a bunch of words that are a vague set of assertions.

More than that, the assertions are patent nonsense. But I shall play along with you for one more attempt. When was the last time that real science existed?

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, my point here is that the real science does not exist anymore-and when I talk about science I'm not talking about science that is used in every day life, I'm talking about fundamental science that builds more and more abstract models that always remain unprovable, real science needs to be testable, but not testable in a way for an example that you create a device that supposedly detect electron and than you investigate the properties of an electron, how can you actually say that you have proven the existence of an electron and its physical and chemical characteristics just because you detected signals? Based on what?
You need to directly observe electron and than directly observe its physical and chemical characteristics for example-there is no scientific realism anymore just pure assumptions created by models that are unprovable and untestable.

I imagine the old school scientists scoffed and mocked the newfangled "microscopes" that appeared to show supposed microbes and bacteria - (which ushered in a new age of medicine and biology). They rued that science had come to an end because you could no longer see and experiment on real things - just things that could only be viewed second-hand through some infernal device.

After all, microbes are only theoretical. It's not like it'll ever be real science.

Telescopes. How can there be any science about something you can only see with a contraption? No, science can only be done on things we can see with our own two eyes.
Those pinpricks in the black canopy of the night sky are only supposedly stars; we'll never really know. We'll certinaly never be able to build mathemtical models of their structure and evolution. It certainly won't involve knowledge beyond that of a high school student.

And spectrographs. Now there's some sketchy stuff. You can't examine the compositon of the sun with your own eyes, therefore we will never know what the sun is made of. Did you know that helium the element was first identified via spectrographic observation of the sun?


--

Seriously though. You are comfortable with microscopes, telescopes and spectrographs, right? Because they've been part of our tools for centuries. They're not just for scientists any more.

You think this next wave of tools and mathematical models is too ephemeral, but that's only because they're new to you.

Scientists have always been ahead of laypeople when it comes to science. Laypeople have always thought the latest science was not to be trusted.

We are progressing beyond our feeble eyes. That is what it means to advance our knowledge. We're not Early Man on the savanna, examining leaves by daylight anymore.

 

[James R]

Gravage:

It has become fairly clear to me that you don't have much idea about how science is done, or how technology is made. And your ideas about energy are ill-formed and not self-consistent. You contradict yourself.

I never said anything about pure energy, there is no such thing as pure energy, since energy alwys exists in some form.

So there's no "pure energy" substance, after all? Have you changed your mind on that? You've said on multiple occasions that energy is a substance. Now, though, you're saying that it is not. Or maybe you're saying that energy is lots of different substances that can change from one thing to another - is that it?

Can we at least agree that you can't show me any energy that I can see?

It follows from your own argument that your invisible energy, being unobservable, is a useless "mathematical" concept, doesn't it? You're claiming that this thing called "energy" exists, and yet nobody can see it. Aren't you guilty of the same kind of mathematical trickery you're accusing physicists of doing with their mathematics? You're just inventing a mystical substance whose properties you can't even describe clearly.

I cannot believe how stupid mathematicians can truly get, this is the lowest I have ever seen so far. So what if you have fingers, do you actually see numbers in the nature no you don't otherwise you would see 1,2, 1000 everywhere, you count fingers, but fingers are not made of numbers, just like nothing in nature is.

Can you actually see energy in nature? You're telling me you can't show me any pure energy in nature. So, isn't energy just like those numbers, then?

Also, it seems clear to me that I actually have 5 fingers on each hand, and that's something I can directly observe with my eyes. But you seem to be telling me that the number "5" is meaningless because it's not "in nature". What are you going to replace numbers with, then? What do you tell people about your fingers? "I have a bunch of fingers on my hand. There's no way to know how many there are, because numbers are something that doesn't exist in nature. Nobody can see a number." Is that what you'd say? Or would you perhaps tell them that numbers come in lots of different forms: 5 fingers is different from 5 jelly beans, for example. But then you've already said that energy comes in lots of different forms. So isn't energy like numbers?

That is the main problem with you, mathematicians, you don't know none knows, the job of science is try to answer this questions, without using math and statistics, because with such tools you only calculate, you never explain anything.
None know what energy truly is, the only thing we know it exists in all kinds of forms. Maybe the entire universe is just a physical and dimensional form of energy.

So now you're saying that you don't know what energy is, but the one thing you know for sure is that it isn't a number.

You're not making a very convincing case here. Can you see that?

Yes, it can, if energy is so crucial for existence of entire universe and everything in it, than it's the most fundamental substance that exists.

What do you think? Is energy crucial for the existence of the entire universe? This invisible substance that you don't know what it is? I would think that something so crucial would be better defined.

I'm only saying that energy is much more than just an abilit to do work, it's what enables work, and in entropy there is useful work, and yet energy still exists in different forms-like heat for example.

I doubt you can explain what "heat" is any better than you can explain what energy is. You can't hold heat in your hand, can you? You can't see it. You can't bottle up a quantity of heat. So maybe heat is just a number, too.

What? You say you can feel heat when you stand under the hot sun? Does that mean that some mystical "heat substance" is flowing from the sun to your skin? Physicists explain what is happening there with references to photons of light hitting your skin and causing the atoms there to vibrate, etc. etc., eventually causing nerve signals to your brain so you feel warm. But that description doesn't include any "heat substance" or "energy substance".

No, I'm simply saying the fact that electricity is not made of numbers-and it exists and it is a form of energy.

Ok, so let's see. So far you have said energy comes in different forms, including heat and electricity. And previously I talked about chemicals in a battery and light. So is energy just whatever you want it to be?

Obviously we can isolate energy if we can use energy for uses in every day life, what kind of question is this.

You can't show me a bottle full of energy, can you? If you can't then you haven't isolated it. If the energy is in something then it's not isolated - it's part of the thing it's in.

I've never seen any isolated energy. Have you?

I already explain, but you either you are stupid or you simply don't want to read anything.

Why do you feel the need to insult me? Can't you tell from my posts that I'm not stupid? Are you a child, or an adult?

How exactly I did not explain-you are the who creates idiotic assumptions that 3d beings create space...

Er... no. I haven't said that beings of any kind create space. You, on the other hand, said that everything in the universe was created. You didn't say by what or by whom.

I have questions for you: what makes you think it has to be higher-dimensional, why it is not 3d space, 3d expansion in 3d space.
I hate when scientists say it has to be higher-dimensional, no it doesn't have to be, and such reasoning is stupid and wrong.

I don't think it has to be higher-dimensional. I was just giving you one way to visualise the expansion of the universe. Another way is to think of the universe like a loaf of sultana bread that is being baked in an oven. The sultanas are the galaxies, and the bread is space. As the loaf bakes, the sultanas all move further away from one another.

You say you think the universe is infinite and eternal. So, picture that loaf of bread as the infinity of space. The expansion is still described the same way, with no need for higher dimensions.

That is the problem it is not testable, forget principles, we need real tests-and only an idiot would say that universe can exist and expand in nothingness-again something that has physical dimensions cannot exist and expand in/inside dimensionless-that's a fact-you created your own paradox for what?
And you actually believe in it?
How exactly this is not dogma.if it's based on totally wrong assumptions????
Wake up.

I already told you I don't think the universe can exist or expand in nothingness.

What real tests do you propose that would sort out this mess?

This is the problem you and the rest of the gang don't seem to realize-big bang is not testable, at all, inflation, dark, dark energy, cmbr (it's from the stars, planets explosions and its leftovers not from expansion), you cannot really test any of those in the real environment-that's the whole problem-the same problem is quantum mechanics-you don't know what you have detected, since you cannot directly observe it.

The basics observation that led to the big bang theory is that the universe is expanding. Do you believe we can't "directly observe" the expansion of the universe? Is that why you don't believe in the big bang?

Do you think we will ever know whether the universe is expanding, contracting or staying the same? Is there any way we can ever "directly observe" that?

 

[James R]

(Part 2)

Again, the problem with these explanations-if there is no direct observation where you can actually directly observe electrons than forget about quantum levels and their explanations, since you are truly blind, you need more scientific realism.

Do you believe in electrons? Nobody has ever "directly observed" an electron. Does that mean electrons don't exist?

How do you explain electric currents?

Do you think we have no idea how electricity actually works, and that it's all trial and error?

From experience I can tell that beneficial uses from such wacky hypotheses that are untestable and unprovable because they can never be truly directly observed are all wrong-the fact is that all those examples exist without using explanations, and it is those inovators who invented things like transistors before QM wa said to be responsible for transistors in every day use.
The fact is that you do not need any hypothesis to create something for every day use, plus even if there is something, it doesn't mean that the hypothesis is correct at all, the use in every day lives is simply trial and error technique and nothing more, sorry but that's the way it is.

The bolded part of this quote is what struck me most forcefully in your latest series of replies. I find it virtually incomprehensible that somebody could seriously believe that all technology is based on trial and error.

Are you for real?

Suppose you wanted to build an electric motor by trial and error. Assume you know nothing about those silly mathematical and physics theories of electricity and magnetism.

Where are you going to start in your trial and error process that will end up with a working electric motor? How will you know what materials to use to make the motor? How will you know how they should be put together?

Do you seriously believe that somebody just invented an electric motor one day by pure accident - trial and error?

Also, would it be worth your time trying to build a time machine, or a teleporter, perhaps? There's no way to know that it isn't possible to build either one by trial and error. So, maybe if you try enough things then one of them will eventually result in a working time machine. Do you think so?

How about that smart phone you own? Do you think all the hardware got that way by trial and error? And all the apps?

Have you ever tried to write a computer program of any kind? If so, did you do it by trial and error, or did you start by learning something about the programming language and the tools you could use to make the program?

I aexplained above, as with Cern, it is the same thing with all advances in technology, it is not based on any hypothesis it's simply trial and error technique, explanations on how some camera and digital camra work are unknown for real, you just make from the materials you have and you try until it works.

Seriously?

Are you honestly telling me that you believe that somebody invented the digital camera without using any scientific theories or mathematics? Did they just slap parts together at random until eventually - viola! - a working digital camera appeared?

And the Large Hadron Collider ... that was just a bunch of scientists and engineers randomly assembling billions of dollars worth of equipment in the hope that the resulting machine might do something useful?

This is the way it is, is it?

Another delusion, mathematics explains, but you cannot know what is true and what is false, and mathematics does not solve anything it only creates more questions, plus it is not based on direct observations, but based on playing with numbers.

If I have 2 apples in one hand, and 3 apples in the other hand, mathematics tells me that if I put them all in the fruit bowl there will be 5 apples there.

You're telling me I can't know whether there will really be 5 apples in the bowl, because I can't know what is true of false from doing maths. When I add 3 and 2 to get 5, you're telling me I'm just meaningless playing with numbers. It's just dumb luck if I do end up with 5 apples in the bowl, I guess. Trial and error.

How do you manage your money, Gravage? You can't know what is true and false about your bank balance, because that's just a number, you're telling me.

In order to prove your hypothesis correct, you must first prove that everything that mathematics describes on quantum levels is actually correct-and that is my friend untestable, you cannot create hypothesis and say it's correct just because math says so.

So if the maths predicts that a certain minimum frequency of light will be needed to for a metal to emit electrons, then it's just dumb luck if that's what I happen to observe in an actual experiment? It's nothing to do with whether the theory that allows me to make the prediction is any good?

Direct observation and correct and logical interpretation are crucial here, this is why I said you need testable hypotheses...

Didn't I just give you an example of a testable hypothesis? The maths predicts that the minimum frequency will be x, and then I go and do the experiment and find that, indeed, the minimum frequency to make it work was x. Didn't I just test the theory?

the fact is that math fills the holes and untestable predictions when there is no way you can directly observe anything in any experiment, and that is 100% wrong approach.

What alternative approach would you use? Trial and error?

To be honest, I'll rather live and dies somewhere in Siberia or Alaska-if I actually could and not here in this hypocritical system called civilization, I can understand why people are running away from this so-called civilization.

There are reasons why I unfortunately cannot live in caves, I'll rather leave this crappy society, but there are some reasons why I cannot, and it has nothing to do with science and technology or anything like it.

Because it's all about money and scientists think they wll create better society, and actually they are destroying it, and 2 science works for big corporations and similar super-ricj people, they use mathematics and statistics and computer models just to say they have proven something justiy funding and science is a big business today, and that's about it.
If you truly want to help people, leave corporations and all other big budget project and help people in local coumminities.

Can't you appreciate any of the benefits that science has given you? Really?

I'm just saying facts, why do you trust for anything that is considered official report?
Shame on you, you either work for them or second you are simply too naive and you accept everything without a shred of doubt, criticism.
History has shown how much thos who have poweer have manipulated those poor people, today is the same thing, however this powers is much larger, all enabled thanks to science and technology.

Science and technology are tools. They are have no aims of their own. Science doesn't kill people - people kill people.

I'm still not sure why you have it in for science.

No, because I have my own personal experience with government and corporations, I used to be like you, but that opened my eys in what way and how truly things are going.
Yes, it's called experience, you just sit in a lab and claim that you have proven this or that by just twisting facts and numbers and using mathematics and statistics and computer models.

You make a lot of assumptions about me.

Do you believe that scientists are not human beings like you?

 

[James R]

(Part 3)

Why should world adapt to such changes, because you scientists say it's better how it is better, overpopulation-that is the product of your science, now because of that overpopulation we are stuck in an unsolveable problem, than there is food, it's hard to find these days something that is truly natural and healthy, than job stress that is killing people, than people are so lazy-because they do not use manual labour, they are just losing their time on the internet and on the jobs, people are so full of stress and too much speed that scientists should stop requesting on what is good for us, when it is actually very, very bad.

I'm not sure why you're targeting science with your complaints. In fact, you seem to have much more general issues with the society that you live in. You can't lay the blame for all your problems onto science.

A few quick points. First, population is increasing most rapidly in the least educated societies with the least access to science and technology. Second, science has greatly improved the productivity of the world's food resources. There is more than enough food to feed everybody in the world. Third, most people have a choice whether to exercise and keep themselves healthy, or to eat junk food and spend all their time on the internet or whatever. Fourth, stress comes from lots of different facets of life; it can hardly be put down to evil science.

I'll rather day from bubonic lplague, than suffer the ne 50 years-that's not life, that's pain-quick death is much better than painful, long life, where you are surviving each day the way you can just because stupid scientists say this technological progress will save us-and the fact is it's destroying us all, the only one who say it's better are the ones who seel this such public relations and marketing crap.

I'm not sure how much you know about bubonic plague, but I assure you it would be a horrible way to die. Fortunately, science has meant that bubonic plague is no longer a major health issue in the modern world.

When it comes to things like climate change, in fact the stupid scientists are saying quite loudly that we shouldn't rely on technological progress to save us. We need to act to change the way we live, before it's too late.

Again the trial and error method has created everything what we have today, not what some hypothesis claims it i proven or disproven-and that is the real truth behind all these "proven" hypotheses.

Try building a microwave oven by trial and error. Try building a car engine. Try building an aeroplane. Try building a house by trial and error - you'll get a poor house - or at least a very expensive one - as a result. Try building an x-ray machine by trial and error - where will you start?

Surely you can see that it is madness to think that technology is all created by trial and error. In the absence of scientific theory, most modern technology simply would not exist.

 

[James R]

(Part 4)

Oh, please stop, just stop there is no way you can 100% isolate the waves you were looking for fromt he rest of the environment-don't sell me this story.

So radio is impossible because it's 100% impossible to isolate a particular frequency of radio waves from the rest of the radio waves in the environment. Right?

It's uncomparable because of the fact you hear the voice you are looking, it's not the same as waves in space which you can never know what is what since you don't really know what is the sound of any wave, plus there tons of other waves that have the same sound as gravity wave you are looking for..

No. You can actually hear the sounds of particular gravity waves online. Luckily, gravity waves happen to operate at frequencies that the human ear can actually hear. And the sounds turn out to be very specific. The sound of two black holes merging is different from the sound of the collapse of a white dwarf star, for example.

But you missed my more general point about how unwanted "noise" can be eliminated from complex signals. I gave you the analogy of radio waves, and by analogy the same kind of thing is possible with gravity waves.

The problem you simply ignore like all other physicists is the fact you do not know how gravity waves look like and how they sound like...

But I do. The theory tells me what they should look like and what effects they should produce in a detector such as LIGO. Other theory tells me what they should sound like if I amplify them and play them through a speaker.

So, when LIGO detects something, I can check whether that something looks like anything the theory predicts, or whether it is something else (perhaps extraneous noise of one kind or another, which can never be completely eliminated). And, importantly, it is possible to extract the signal from the noise - to "tune" the detector like you tune a radio to a particular station.

-you would need to know and detect the very source of gravity waves, don't tell me that you hav detected gravity waves, since the source of them is over billion light years away from Earth-in one billion light years gravity waves can be easily misinterpreted and replaced with something else, you cannot possibly know if that really is the source at all.

What else could they be misinterpreted with? How could they be replaced by something else, and what would that something else be? If you make these kinds of claims, you need to be specific. Vague, unsupported claims are worthless.

And second you exactly know where to tune your radio because you are told where to tune your radio and what is exactly on this radio-with gravity waves you know nothing, absolutely nothing, it can only be shockwaves from the collision of 2 celestial bodies and that's about it-and shock waves are not gravity waves.

You're wrong again. Scientists don't tune their gravity wave detectors by trial and error, like you think they do. They build them with reference to scientific theories. And those theories do tell them where to tune the detector to look for gravity waves.

And if there is too much interference you can't hear anything, and in thze universe there is so much intereferency that you simply do not know what you have detected-the only thing you can do is to jsut go there on the source 1.3 billion light years away and listen to the source that is creating waves.

And all you can do to listen to the radio is to get in your car and drive down to the studio so you can hear the presenter's voice directly.

Plus, you created simulations before gravity waves, how do we know this is not some simulation only, and not the real signals...., because you say so, yes sure.

Are you claiming that scientists faked the detected gravity wave signals? Got any evidence for that?

The model stops being succesful when it is not proven with real and directly observational evidences, and not with some mathematical crap...

But nothing can be proven with "some mathematical crap" - apart from other mathematical crap.

Experiments tend to either support theory or refute it. When the experiments support the theory, we think we have a good theory. When they refute it, then it's back to the drawing board.

You seem to have a real problem with this basic aspect of how science is done.

Don't sell me this crap, because it is a pure lie, if that was the case, the Big Bang hyp0thesis and many, many other hypotheses would be left long time ago.

Are you claiming that there is real-world evidence that refutes the big bang theory? If so, then present it!

For example you say detect electrons and itsweird behavour, but the problem is that you do not detect neither directly observe anything in those devices, you only detect signals-and that's about it-than after you do that say mathematical model is correct, that's not science, that's magic, that's mathematical religion-and this is exactly what you scientists do all the time in the last 100 years-facts.

Do you believe that the only things that really exist are things you directly perceive with your naked eyes and other human senses?

Do you believe in ultraviolet light? You can't directly observe that.

Have you ever been sunburnt? Tell me how you explain sunburn without referring to things that are not directly observable.

 

[James R]

.... real science needs to be testable, but not testable in a way for an example that you create a device that supposedly detect electron and than you investigate the properties of an electron, how can you actually say that you have proven the existence of an electron and its physical and chemical characteristics just because you detected signals? Based on what?
You need to directly observe electron and than directly observe its physical and chemical characteristics for example...

Please tell us all how we could directly observe an electron.

 

[Ophiolite]

Did you know that helium the element was first identified via spectrographic observation of the sun?

And things just ballooned from there!

 

[Michael 345]

I'ts not about what is built, it's about what is considered proven

Has god (ANY - I'm not particularly) been PROVEN?