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

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Gravage, Dec 20, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,390
    Perhaps you should argue with exchemist? Chemistry thrives on QM.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,633
    Indeed, modern chemistry is founded on Quantum Theory and Statistical Thermodynamics.

    I tried to get a bit of this across to Gravage earlier but he couldn't hack it and just flipped back to unevidenced hostile assertions. Tant pis.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,006
    Since you are steadfastly refusing to comment further on your claim that you have discovered room temperature super conduction, I assume that is your passive way of admitting that it was a goofy thing to have written.
    Looks like there is at least one thing we can agree on.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,249
    Well, two goofy things.

    The other goofy thing, which he has written about a hundred times is that science seeks to prove things.

    It doesn't. It seeks to model things well enough that we can make predictions from those models with confidence.

    Since this has been pointed out to Gravage at least a hundred times, and he is utterly stone deaf to it - not to mention utterly ignorant of the goal of science - this entire thread is nothing but trolling.

    Which is why it is in pseudoscience.

    So, sure Gravage, the goal of pseudoscience can be ... whatever you fancy.
     
  8. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,241
    I'm not talking about this, read below, you obviosly have no idea what are you talking about, get down on earth.

    Exchemist, Origin and DaveyC:
    All I'm saying that all those processes that you claim they prove QM is correct is totally wrong, because you cannot see ions, atoms, electrons or anything like it.

    I'm just stating facts, you cannot claim that your models predict anything that cannot be proved to exist inside experiments with direct observations-atoms, nuclei of atoms, electrons and everything on quantum level, plus everything that you directly observe with telescopes that is so faaaar away that you cannot possibly know what it is, is simply untestable and unprovable to exist.

    So, even if you are totally blind when it comes to direct observation of these levels, you still say models predict-models predict only after experiments and close and direct observations are made-and atoms and elecrons and all that mentioned stuff is simply untestable, and no model should contain them, until they are testable and experiments prove them to exist.

    The only parts that are actually proven in models are those that are actually directly observed in experiments-and this is exactly from where you can exactly create models that are predictive, not from invisible and untestable concepts like the one mentioned here above-I mean how stupid do you have to become to not realize these facts?

    So, according to you no matter how blind you are you will still say that something exists just because the models say so and "prove" so-although it's impossible to check this out with experiments and with direct observations-I mean this approach is really, really stupid, limited, naive, 100% wrong, and it makes you wonder why are you angry on people who believe in eistence of ghosts and afterlives, and yet you are doing the same thing with mathematical models?
    Yep, this is irrefutable evidence that science and models are religions and you scientists, are religous and your greatest religions are mathematical models.
    In order to practice science, you have actually become religious pseudo-scientists.

    Again you have rights to create hypotheses, but none of you scientists has any right to claim that they are testable/tested and provable/proven.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2017
  9. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,241
    You are obviously an psychopath/sociopath who lost his or her touch with reality, there is no point of reading anything you write, similar things eventually happen with all genius-level scientists.
     
  10. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,731
    Anybody care to comment on where they think those comments come from?

    Why I am obviously..........

    How did I give myself away???

    who lost his or her touch with reality

    Again how did I give myself away???

    there is no point of reading anything you write

    No loss

    similar things eventually happen with all genius-level scientists

    Boy is that a leg up

    I'm really much closer to Humpty Dumpty but that's only on days which end in y

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,331
    The maths tells us our models are right.
    You can't argue with the math.

    Alex
     
  12. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,731
    Can't see mathmatics

    Can't see atoms

    Can't see Black Holes (but that's more or less a given)

    Can't see Black Energy - ditto above

    I just remembered I haven't seen my cat today. Hope he still exist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,249
    No one claims proof. For the hundred and first time.

    Agree. They simply make an excellently predictive model. So excellently predictive that they can be used to put satellites in orbit that can detect your position on Earth within 5 yards. But you're right, that tells us nothing about how nature actually works.

    Demonstrably false, one hundred and one times now.

    Oh we absolutely can claim that they are testable and tested. There are 3 billion cell phones on the planet that test SR and GR every day. There are hundreds of millions of electronic devices with semiconductor chips in the world that test QM every day. Not a single one of them - in the several decades of daily use - has ever failed to corroborate our best model.

    But provable? No.
    That's one hundred and two now.
     
  14. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,006
    You brought up that you discovered room temperature super conduction.

    However, since you are steadfastly refusing to comment further on your claim that you have discovered room temperature super conduction, I assume that is your passive way of admitting that it was untruthful.
    Looks like there is at least one thing we can agree on.
     
  15. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,241
    No, not math, that is the biggest lie of them all, only what direct observations and experiments show and prove or indicate if models are right, also if parts of the models are untestable and unprovable the models should be abandoned, like the mention of atoms, electron, ions and similar, they are all 100% untestable so that you can see if they exist or not.
     
  16. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,241
    Actually, it's you who did that, not me, this doesn't change anything what I was posting the facts about models and experiments.
     
  17. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,241
    And for 101st time, if there is no proof there is no science we can talk about, there is only religion; it's the same as telling the fairy tales to someone, you obviously have difficulty in dividing fiction with reality.

    But atoms, electrons and ions and everything similar do not create predictive models, only what is truly testable, directly observable and provable in experiments create predictive models, you cannot make predictions on something you made it out to exist, with zero indication, let alone the evidence that it exists in the fitst place.

    And for 102nd time, what I wrote above, and what I'm writing about are facts, not fiction, I'm no selling models as predictive, like you all are, predictability is not about models since it's not about models, it is about experiments and direct observations of experiments from which are created predictions, not from untestable and unprovable concepts like QM, atoms, electrons, ions and everything similar.

    No, you cannot claim any of that, like I said with SR and GR the main problems are 100% wrong misinterpretations of theese hypotheses, although directly observable, the conclusiones were made to fit the SR and GR hypotheses, which is all 100% wrong; and it should be that both SR and GR adapt to evidences-and here this is not the case at all, not even the slightest; like with time experiments and time does not even exist at all, since there is no evidence in nature/universe for the mechanism that actually proves the existence of timem and second; all the observational evidences in all experiments and with telescopes actually 100% prove that space is not affected by gravity at all; actually all those experiments actually 100% prove that space is 100% static, 100% unchangeable and 100% empty, but other matter and energy are, only when something created by matter and energy is stuck inside gravitational field, you can actually directly observe the change in trajectories and distances of material objects, and what really changes/bends/contracts/stretches are the objects created by matter and energy, NOT the space alone-get your facts straight, and than we can talk about it further.

    The problem with you scientists that you replace word space with field-field is not space, space, is not energx, space is not matter, and you raped the meanings of this wors space so much that you actually show yourslves that for you space is fields, matter, energy-everything.
    But that all is not space, since this all mentioned concepts exist in/inside space, true space is simply 100% empty, and all the fluctuations-they are not created by space/vacuum, they exist and are created inside space/vacuum but space/vacuum does not create them they exist inside vacuum/space, fields, energy, matter they all exist in/inside space.

    If you tell again totally wrong, that space/vacuum creates flcutuations, than we are not talking about space, because this is not space, if it can be created from "space/vacuum"-facts.
    Space is something immaterial/abstract and therefore it doesn't interact with anything, since it's 100% empty void.
    Basically what scientists say that space=field/energy/matter, at least that's what they imply, but that all mentioned above is not space and it has nothing with space, the same as word nothing has anything with scientific nothing, which actually is not nothing at all, you are all deliberately misusing words space and nothung and represent them like they are one and the same as words something, matter, field, energy, matter, phiyscal influence and similar, which is manipulaton of all public and all the people.

    Plus, one more thing; if there is no space, there would not any dimensions; no dimension would be able to exist in the first place, since there would be no space that dimensions could exist in the first place-facts.
    Something physical/created from matter and created from energy cannot influence/interact with anything abstract, as much as something abstract cannot influence/interact with anything physical created from energy and matter.

    And if you talk about uses in technologies, again it has nothing with models, the only thing that it has with are small companies that create them, scientists never put finger on it, it's just pure trial and error testing, until you get the product you need, and again in these technologies neither model is correct only the model that you can actually observe to crate models, while you creating new technology/product, nothing major.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2017
  18. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,331
    Why not if you have the math to back up your model?
    Alex
     
  19. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,331
    How do they achieve this manipulation of which you speak.
    What net work opperates?
    Present your work on the thingy you recons changes everything and demonstrate something.
    Alex
     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,249
    Since science is not about proof your assertion is non sequitur.

    We talk about predictive models. The models continue to describe our world with exquisite accuracy.

    Science is silent on the subject of what nature "is" - as you correctly point out, that is the purview of religion or philosophy - fields where proving things might matter.

    Science is merely about modeling how natures behaves. And it does so very well.

    This point has been beaten to death. Your insistence in combining the word 'science' with 'proof' is utterly misguided. Stop doing it.
     
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,633
    Actually no, I don't think that's right.

    Maths cannot tell a scientist his model is right. The only thing that can provide evidence to support his model is observation.

    Maths may provide a large part of the detail of the model, but the maths used will always be working with observational evidence. There may be mathematical theorems and proofs within the structure of the model, but all of them will ultimately depend on assumptions about the physical world that have been observed to be the case, or deduced from observation.

    And, famously (K Popper etc), even observation cannot tell the scientist the model is right. It can either tell him it is defective, or it can be consistent with the model, in which case it lends support to it.

    But he can never be sure there will not be some unexpected future observation that shows it to be defective.

    This is what Gravage cannot - or will not - grasp.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2017
  22. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,241
    Again, if something is not proved by experiments, than the models are not predictive as simple as that, the very good examples are atoms, electrons and QM in general, you create models about something you cannot prove that it actually exists, and when you conduct experiments the only thing that you can make true predictions are not explanations that models offer, but the explanations that are fully tested, fully confirmed and fully proved in experiments-this is how models become predictive, you cannot model anything at all and no model can be preictive on how nature behaves, if there is no direct observation on what you can directly observe in experiments.

    If you model for example how an light bulb works, you will use QM to model the light bulb and offer explanations, but the problem is none of this is actually testable and provable since it lacks direct observations, so the only true models that you can make about light bulbs are not the one that QM offers, but what you can directly observe while you are creating light bulbs-and those evidences and effects are the ones that everyone can actually directly observe-like copper wire, electric current, tungsten filaments and similar, this is what you can know for sure and how can you be sure on how light bulb works and how the model of an light bulb becomes predictive; not by creating untestable, fictional and unprovable models that QM offers.
     
  23. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,241
    Yes, observation is needed, butif you cannot observe atom you cannot tell if the model is correct, which means the model cannot be said that it is predictive, maths work with observational evidences, but the problem with math is that is adapting observational evidences to what math explains, not to what experiments actually show and prove or at least indicate that exists.
    There is not even an indication that anything what QM assumes to exist, actually exists-it's totally wrong, since you cannot know anything about quantum levels and atomic levels.
    You cannot have mathematical evidence for anything, because mathematical evidence is pure fiction/fantasy/fairy tale, until it is actually proven, observationally proven in experiments.

    If you model for example how an light bulb works, you will use QM to model the light bulb and offer explanations, but the problem is none of this is actually testable and provable since it lacks direct observations, so the only true models that you can make about light bulbs are not the one that QM offers, but what you can directly observe while you are creating light bulbs-and those evidences and effects are the ones that everyone can actually directly observe-like copper wire, electric current, tungsten filaments and similar, this is what you can know for sure and how can you be sure on how light bulb works and how the model of an light bulb becomes predictive; not by creating untestable, fictional and unprovable models that QM offers.


    It's obviously you who does not understand anything at all.
    Observation can tell you if the model is right/correct, but only based on what you can actually observe in experiments; atoms, electrons and everything else in QM are simply untestable and unprovable assumptions, and nothing more.
    The only thing that observation cannot tell is not if something exists or, because that something does exist 100%, since you can directly test it, prove it and even modelit but only after you tested it, observed it and proved that it exists; the only problem here is that interpretation is wrong, because you cannot see the whole picture/reality, you can only directly see/observe the tiniest part of that picture/reality that you can actually directly see/observe inside experiments, and because of that interpretation of what you directly observe is different and it's wrong, from the interpretation if you can actually directly observe the entire reality around that object.

    The object or anything else that you directly observe is 100% correct and 100% proven, but the interpretation of that same object when you can actually directly observe entire reality is different is 100% right, compared to what you can observe when you observe this object, if you can only directly observe a tiny fraction of all reality.
    So, the object definitely exists, but you cannot know what it is for sure, if you cannot actually directly observe the entire reality around that object-facts!
    And this is why observations of something are not always correct, not because an object or whatever else does not exist, but because you cannot directly observe the entire reality around that object-fact.

    This is why I said about that example with blind people who have never heard about animals that are called elephants-because of their extremely limited perception, they interpreted elephant's ear as leaf, and they interpreted elephant's trunk as snake-because they cannot directly observe, perceive and experience reality around these elephant's body parts-the same limitations are for scientists and all other people who are trying to model something that they can never directly observe, as well as they cannot directly observe the entire reality around these mythical, hypothetical, untestable and unprovable entities/concepts/assumptions.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page