The true nature of matter

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Dougiefresh, Mar 16, 2013.

  1. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Not stupidity.
    Let's say a person has no grasp of higher mathematics, myself for example,
    What that person should not do, is to confuse a verbal description of physics with the science itself.
    Science is mathematics and experimentation, not whatever you can dream up.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Lady Elizabeth Registered Member

    Messages:
    42
    Simply a pile of crank dung - hopeless alzhiemer fuelled nonsense.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. eram Sciengineer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,875
    Sorry, what do you mean by confusing a verbal description of physics with the science itself?

    Science isn't mathematics, it is our knowledge of physical reality. Mathematics is a tool which scientists use.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Exactly the sort of phrase I was talking about.
    Just like "The true nature of Matter"
    It doesn't mean anything.
    Not scientifically anyway.

    Science concerns itself with theory and experimentation, not truth.
    I agree that mathematics is a tool.

    Added later.
    Having thought about it further, I'll backtrack a little. Try this:

    Discussion of science is insufficient by itself.
    When it is all that is presented in support of a theory,
    that proposition is not scientific.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2013
  8. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    Alternative theories ->
     
  9. Dougiefresh Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    I agree. I do not offer discussion of the Pyramid Physics theory in support of its validity; rather, I wish to promote precisely this type of open discussion about it. Jurjen van der Wal is not a physicist, and his primary motive in deciding to share the theory is this: if it turns out to have any elements which intrigue some scientist(s), perhaps this will stimulate experimentation and eventually even lead to worthwhile discoveries.

    By the way, my thread was named "the true nature of matter" as a way to attract some interest in this thread, and I did not mean to imply that "TTNOM" can ever be defined.
     
  10. Dougiefresh Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    In all the hoopla about the Standard Theory here in this thread, I don't believe I have seen any mention of the fact that it does not account for gravity.
     
  11. Dougiefresh Registered Member

    Messages:
    8

    Thank you for pointing out my misuse of words here. It should read "cubic structures and straight line forces".
     
  12. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,010
    You know come to think of it the Standard Theory does not address the Theory of Evolution either!

    By the way WTF is the Standard Theory?
     
  13. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Dougie.
    I don't want to pick on you.
    You are obviously an OK person.
    But devote your energies to things that are worth the effort.
    This is just nonsense..
     
  14. eram Sciengineer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,875
    I beg to differ Cap'n. I'm not being poetic here, science really is our knowledge of physical reality.

    The task of science is about the true nature of things. Whether Dougie has got us closer to it (probably not) is another matter.


    I don't quite get what you mean by this.

    You also said "to confuse a verbal description of physics with the science itself", I don't get that either.
     
  15. eram Sciengineer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,875
    i agree with you on this one
     
  16. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    I see you have gotten any smarter during your time here. <shrug> Besides natural rubber - which is still somewhat available - our synthetic rubber is just a rearrangement of polymer strings. Currently we use petroleum as the source but we can switch that to a number of different oils - soybean oil being just one example.

    Sure, we need to wean ourselves off petroleum but it's a long way from being the only source of polymer chains on the shelf.
     
  17. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    How is science different from Religion or Philosophy then?
    I'd say that that is more their territory.

    Possibly the physical nature of things.
    Scientifically, it matters more that the information is reliable than it is a close description of reality.
    How would we know anyway that the latter is correct.
     
  18. Dougiefresh Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    First of all, thanks for the complement. ;-{)

    I would not be posting about this theory - let alone creating graphics-intensive web pages introducing it - if it were not worthy of my efforts. It is my goal, as well as that of the author of this theory, that through actively sharing it in forums such as this, someone may actually give more than just a cursory look at the work he has done (Decoding the Periodic Table), and then point out precisely what makes it "nonsense". That would be most helpful.

    The book covers so much more than I can possibly describe, but here are about a third of the subjects covered in the chapters:

    The Split-up of the Neutron
    Intrinsic Spin
    Electric Charges
    The Electron and its Mass
    The Positron
    The Neutrino
    Gravity and the Weak Force
    Creating Nuclear Mass
    Quarks
    The Electromagnetic Wave
    Electric Current
    The Electron’s Mass
    The Anti-proton
    The Electron’s Orbit
    Chemical Bonding
    Gluons
    Helium’s Nucleus
    Assembling the Periodic Table
    Carbon’s Hexagon
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2013
  19. Dougiefresh Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    Science is science. This is a theory that is not the work of a "scientist", and there exists no scientific "proof" of its worthiness. It merely represents an alternative way of describing chemical elements based on their known structural characteristics.
     
  20. Dougiefresh Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    "Gravity is not accounted for by the Standard Model - at least, as it exists today." Further, "There is no experimental evidence for the graviton to date."
    Check it out. Look up: What-does-the-standard-model-have-to-say-about-gravity.
     
  21. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    And?? It does nothing to lend any credibility to the proposed so-called "theory" you're talking about.
     
  22. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,010
    I went to the pyramid web site and it is basically all nonsense and I only spent a few moments there, I became concerned about permanent brain damage if I read too much.

    But to the specifics! I started in the gravity section; the site proclaimed that 'science' says atoms are spheres and then it states, "If atomic particles were actually spherical objects, they would only make contact with one another at a single point on their spherical surface when bundling together to form chemical elements".

    This is an absurd and false claim, atoms are not considered spheres. Apparently his chemistry education consists of looking at some pictures of chemical bonding on google images. He tries to refute the mainstream without even having a clue what the mainstream is saying. Pretty typical of these psuedo-science cranks.

    So anyway as you can see from the quote he assumes that the electrostatic forces that hold molecules together are only where the spheres are touching. I mean that is the stupidist thing I have heard in a while. Who in the hell could even come up with such a stupid idea?

    Anyway based on this moronic misinterpretation of chemistry that led him think that the forces that hold molecules together are only where the 'spheres' touch this idiot says atoms must be little cubes. That way they wouldn't touch at just one spot. It is like this whole thing was written by 9 year old.

    He then jumps to nuclear forces. Do you know what he thinks a nuclues looks like. Yep, you guessed a drawing of red and white spheres packed together as seen in google images. More of those pesky spheres. He does not say if science thinks the neutrons and protons are actually red and white though. So of course the strong force is transfered only where the spheres are touching (he really says that!), and the would result in a nucleus that was very porus (because of the rigid little spheres!). Well gee, if they aren't rigid little spheres what else could they be?? You got it neutrons and protons are little cubes. It results is a much less porus nucleus.

    It is dismally pathetic. It isn't even funny just sad really. Maybe it is just a parody site like the Onion, here's to hoping....

    Oh, and I hope this is helpful!
     
  23. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Perhaps not a 9 year old, but closer to 9 than 60.
    14?

    How old are you Dougie?
     

Share This Page