I have to admit that gave me a chuckle....
The Big Bang Theory is the biggest lie in the western world
- Thread starter Gravage
- Start date
- Status
There is no way you prove the existence of any subatomic particle in any way.
Oh, really and what evidences you have presented fo the existence of subatomic particles and similar-only stupid models and nothing more, you cannot directly prove the existenc of any of these particles or everything inside Quantum mechanics, plus relativity is misinterpreted.
I did not say nothing against magnetic field, because the simplest evidence you have is from magnets, and aurora borealis and aurora australis polar lights as evidence of Earth's magnetic field.
And sure you have pigeons.
And there lies the the gretaest and the most crucial problem of all-the mathemtics is the fundamental basics of scientific evidence-without showing real evidences with direct observations, you only have detections of things that you cannot know what they are and they exist if you cannot directly observe them.
Energy fields at least have physical effects on physical enviornment-that's how you know they definitely do exist, an field is just an area and range of physical influence in physical environment.
I'm just stating facts, the real science existed when people could actually test and directly observe what they tested.
Yes, but you can directly prove them with mircoscopes, we have technology that enhances areas that we cannot see, but what can we see when it comes to quantum mechanis-nothing, aboutlutely nothing.
I already explained above with microscopes, however the problem with telescopes is when you try to observe distant "gravitational lensing for example-and the fact is that you do not actually observe spece distortion only you see matter, lightand energy distortion-but not the distortion of space at all, plus how do you know that something that is millions of lights years away you see is gravitational lensing you cannot know that it's too far away-plus it could be the electromagnetic field for example-none knows.
Sure, but at least you can detect all these gases with technology, you cannot do the same with quantum mechanics and similar.
--
They would be all useless if there was not technology to detect them first-at least they have physical, and directly observable influence on the environment, even though you cannot see them.
Science 200 years ago was ahead of laypeople.
Science these days is not ahead of laypeople since it talks about unprovable and testable fairy tales plus they misinterpret everything with mathematics and they do not interpret what exactly is shown in the experiments-this is no longer science, fairy tale and playground for kids.
Pepple do not trust science since they all work for large coprorations and they do whatever they like with people as laboratory rats and wthey use them as experimental rats for technology and politicians and for super-rich people who want to control, manipulate everything and everything-scientists also do have the same desire and goals-it's in their nature, otherwise they would not scre around with gm food, pesticides, herbicied, fungicides, chemistry and nanotechnology and work for the military.
If scientists truly want for the people to trust them and if they truly care about people, first they have to do is resign from large coporations and governements and work for local communities with localized, reneweable economy unaffected by outside influences-again forget the IT industry, I mean on the food production and other essential stuff, IT industry will not give you food-IT industry will not make you immune to outside influences, only real production of food and renewable economy will, based on reycling and similar stuff.
I know exactly how science is done and how technology is made, like I said you are using math and statistics and models using untestable predictions because they cannot be directly observed in any way-that's not science, that's fairy tale, the only good thing from this is technology-well it's a bad thing since technology is destroying us, but you know the point.
Interesting, you are accusing me and you forget that it is the scientists themselves who said first that when mattter and antimatter collide there is explosion of pure energy-i always knew that there is no such thing as pure energy, but it's you scientists who spoke about this not me.
and you call yourselves credible yeas, sure....
The hell you can't see , just look at the lightning, electricity.this is all energy-and it's not made of numbers in a real world, because the numbers do not exist ina real world as your schizophrenic brain fantasizes about.
This is why I said mathematicians are the worst kind of people they mix and compare things that exist in a real world with abstract concepts that do not exist in a real world-and yet they say they are real.
If you can directly observe energy with some technology than is sure exists, since it expands vision in all parts of EM spectrum.
Kinetic energy/motion energy, everything is active every single day, everything if there was no energy there would not be anything, heck you don't need tech to see the effects of energy in place, and you can see some forms of energy like electricity/lightning, fire and similar.
End of part 1....
No, I'm saying that there are no numbers has any technology ever directly observed numbers no they do not exist, if nature has created them we would see them long time ago.
Numbers do not exist ina real world-deal with it-I mean how idiotic you had to become to discuss about if numbers exist or not? Something that all people know, and you are questioning this?
This is typical mathematical schizophrenia, you are obviously not normal in any way.
I explained above about numbers, I said we cannot know what energy is we can only see "at work" and in different forms.
so you know what energy is ayou arrogent bastard-you know? You are so limited to calculations that you never ask yourself what is beyond forms of energy, what is truly energy when it does not take any form have you ever asked yourself this?
No, because your hyper-limited mathematical brain cannot accept something that has no numbers and equations in it.
You can see it with thermal camera, plus you can feel heat-unless it's you we are talking about you are only seeing and sensing numbers that do not exist anywhere in the universe.
Heat is a form of energy, plain and simple, you are not any form of energy the way you are writing stupidities.
Well, I can burn you alive, if you want that-but that is not needed just see the lightining and see the movement of everything in the world, plus storms, lightning bolts-yes energy is observable and testable all the time, even without technology, however, inflation, dark matter, dark energy, quantum mechanics are untestable since you cannot directly observe what exactly you have tested in the first place.
Tell that too al those inovators who harnessed energy for electricity for example-Nikola Tesla is an example.
Because you are behaving like a child not me, scientists are obviously kids in their behaviours, but kids without and out of control, kids that are all psychopaths and sociopaths who only care to prove that they are right by using concepts that do not exist in a real world, and nothing more.
You did say this, exactly this like beings who are crawling are creating new space.
Transformation energy matter, the problem is none really know how they are created, it's simply speculation, they are sure did not come from nothing.
Exactly what I was talking about this same thing-you cannot have this without 3d bread existing in already existing 3d space, sure sultanas are galaxies-bu the fact is both bread and sultanas have dimensions and could only exist if there equal at least equal number of dimensions that bread and sultanas on the bread can expand into.
Like I said above something that has dimensions cannot exist and expand in absolutely dimensionless nothing-facts.
Yes, but that loaf of bread is finite plus it's expanding and not infinite. something that expands does not expand since it is already infinite.
The only way to describe this is that loaf is infinite in size and galaxies are moving aways from each other-but not space, since space is already infinite, only the distance between galaxies is expanding.
[/QUOTE]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?
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?[/QUOTE]
The very thing I have seen in those so called evidences are merely calculations not the expansion-so no there is not a snigle evidence for expansion-plus the expansion in calculation is so small that it's even further debatable if the universe is expandingt all-plus the problem with this is that you don't mean that the universe expands, but that galaxies are moving away from each other-that's not the same as saying expansion of the universe-2 entirely different things.
Electrons are merely hypotheses and nothing more and it will always be like this in the first place, you are all forgetting the fact about the limitations of our own perceptions when it comes to observing such small things that are forever unobservable-and this is why when you say electron, you don't know what exactly you have detected, since you have never directly observed electrons at all.
About electric currents-again this why I said unprovable hypotheses, since they are not based on real evidences and are untestable since you cannot directly observe anything, you can only make hypotheses of all kinds.
This is why I said, there is so much we don't know about anything, we would never know how and why everything in the universe was created in this same way, plus what exactly are the processes responsible for this-this is why I gave examples of blind man first knowing the elephant and thinking he/she has touched leaf, and yet it was elephant's ear-because they could not directly observe anything, the could not observe the entire elephant, in the case of scientists they could not observe the entire reality, only immensely small piece of it-you obviously did not learn the lesson, neither did all other scientists.
I am simply stating the facts (especially time machine and teleporter, althoug this would never be possible)-everything you mentioned is based on trial and error techniques and so are all the scientific hypotheses, obviously vast majority of those "proven" hypotheses that you talk about are 100% unprovable and untestable, however they are good for crating new technologies, the fact is transistors existed before quantum mechanics ever took place and they say quantum mechanics is responsible for creation of transistors-that's a pure lie.
Saying that none of this is based on trial and error technique is pure lie, because the entire science and mathematics is based on trial and error.
Plus there is a problem with misinterpretations in the first place.
Yes, because it is the fact oyu really don't have to know the hypothesis to build something you could easily build something without knowing the hypothesis behind it-again trial and error, the entire science is just about speculations, some of those who are truly proven are not speculations, but that's minority in the last 100 years.
Sure apples are directly observational and they are big enough to say for sure how many of them are in your hands.
Again I cannot believe how muchyou don't understand anything I wrote in the last 20 pages: first hypotheses behind all those inventions are simply unobservable so you cannot know on quantum level what is tru and what is false-it's ll about scales and levels-on macroscopic levels-you can directly observe things, however this does not mean that your explanation is correct, it's actually incorrect since you cannot se the whole reality only one small part that you are directly observing it and test it.
Digital camera, scanning tunneling microscopes and all similar stuff are simply trial and error, you try it doesn't work you try something else, but there is no way that the explanation that you have is actually correct since yuou cannot observe the entire process of how everything is done in the first place-this is why you have to try it many times before you find the right "spot" in building something like this.
I don't have money in the bank, I don't trust them at all. and if you want to talk abotu numbers people created numbers on money inside the computer, there is no such thing as money and numbers and computers in nature/universe.
But how do you know that it emits electrons-where is the evidence that electrons are emitted-sure it does emit something but who says it's an electron at all-you would have directly observe the entire process to see it for sure.
The frequency of what exactly if there is no direct observation o anything, just mere detection of frequency.
Everything you described here and above is pure trial and error technique.
No, I cannot, after I've seen what science and tehcnology have done to the people.
Oh, really, but people use science and technology to kill other people-so yes science and technology are simply bad, very, very bad, they didn't do aynthing good to this world, only bad.
Not to mention people are so addicted to science and technology much like they are on heroine and cocaine.
No, you are robots who only care about themselves and push the limits where you should not, the very fact you work for big corporations proves my points here, if you really care about people and want to help them-forget corporations and help local communities and poor-not through corporations, because than it's obvious you don't want to help anybody you only care that you prove that your hypotheses are correct and nothing more-and you use trial and error on people like laboratory rats.
No, the problem is that I live in a grey zone, you live in a black and white zone-I take all the negative consequences of what your kinds of people are doing and experimenting with people like me using trial and error.
First of all population, yes the above is true, none is arguing it, the least educated society is the real problem, but let's suppose that everyone is highly educated-there will still be increase in population, not very rapidly, but it will be, so the population might be slowed down, but it will still rise, one way or another, alghough much slower.
About food-yes there is much more than enough food on this world-but you have to question yourself how much good quality is there?
Pesticides, herbicides and similar chemistry how much food is poisoned, plus the nutritous values are also mucb less than they used to be 30 years ago, today's fruit and vegetables are at least 30% less nutritious, and you have to eat 2 apples today back than one apple was enough-that's an example.
Plus pollution, plastics, than they have discovered air being polluted by amoniac and similar chemicals, I mean how much more people you want on Earth?
We will destroy everything-it's doesn't matter if we destroy ourselves we deserved that thansk to science and technology and politics and thanks to people allowing to have super rich people, nothing would happen to Earth, we will be gone, the Earth will heal again and move one.
It only seems that people are cancer of this planet-they are nothing good only bad for this planet (we ll, not all the people Indians, Aborigines, Bushmans they truly live in the harmony with nature).
I might don't know this, but my grandfather and father do-they managed to survive this-however even this better than suffer in the nest 80 or 100 years in trying to adapt to what science and technology and politics is forcing us-that's much more and much longer pain-and they say that's because they want to help us not they don't, than why should we adapt to anything why it shouldn't be like it is now or has been 30 years ago-and they all say they want to help us, they help only to themselves just to gain more power, control and manipulation over everyone and over everything.
It's already too late.
But everything you mentioned the very first time all these inventions were made, they were made by strictly trial and error technique-facts.
You really don't get it, do you? On radio we are exactly told what on what frequency is going to be-facts, that's not the case with gravity waves.
Again how do you know they are gravity waves, one thing is radio which is manmade, but gravity waves something that is outside of scope of all our senses and experience-I don't think, plus at the distance 1.3 billion light years away?
I don't think so, like I said they could be shock waves of any kind.
No, they cannot, especially not in the universe, you could pick up any wave without knowing it is shock wave of electromagnetic wave or similar-the fact is that you simply cannot know, in order to know it is gravity wave you should see the spacetime bending-and there is no such thing directly observed or detected in the first place-again it's not the space it gets bended/strectched its only matter, energy and energy fields that interact with waves.
Again another unprovable, unobservable and undetectable hypothesis, nuff-said.
Again, you cannot know if the incoming signal/wave is simply radio wave or something similar.
I explained above.
And theories are also trial and error, you tried here, again how do you know it's gravity wave, what if you detected the wrong wave and not the right one?
Actually all of this is simply trial and error because you try to detect an signal and you don't know if you detected the right signal, you just cannot know in tons of other signals.
How can you say that you detected gravity wave if you don't know anything about it and you don't know how exactly it would look like, as well as its frequency-again trial and error-and the question remains opened and unanswered because you only think that hypothesis of this frequency is correct-again how do you know-yo know nothing-this is why I said it's just trial and error technique.
Yes, but I exactly know what to listen and on what frequency and you know nothing about gravity waves.
Another reason why gravity waves cannot be detected is because of 1.3 billion light years away-there is no way their energy would survive such a long trip to Earth.
What I'm saying is that they have first created simulations on how exactly this signal would look like, and than after they have actually detected the signal and simulations were exactly comparable with the real signal-so this opens question-how do we know scientists did not simulate both signals just to get more funding....
I already explained above, yes experiments are done-but what exactly has been tested if you cannotm observe the primal object of your testing (like electron, photon and similar), if you cannot directly observe than you are blind, and you say mathematics is proven just because you have detected something and you could not directly observe in order to first directly prove its existence and than to study it as much as you can-you cannot study something if you cannot directly observe it, and if you cannot directly observe it you cannot prove that is exists at all.
I already told you which ones-no evidence for inflation, dark matter and dark energy, I already explained space bending and why time does not exist, plus cmbr can be from the stars explosions, plus I know what you will say that there is no centre of the universe-but if the unvierse was actually created/expanded than there has to be the evidence of the centre where it all started-no centre, no big bang.
Of course not, but if we get into that realm, but I explained a little above this sentence; there is no science we can talk about, we can talk about philosophy or metaphysics, abstract, spirituality, but not science, because the science and the scientific realism is all about evidences and direct observations and correct interpretations of those same evidences-what you cannot directly observe and directly prove than it's not science-and this is why we can only see and prove only the tiniest scratch of the entire reality, because we cannot see well over 99% of it, but even those that we can see our interpretations of the visible direct observations are false because we cannot see the rest of the reality-and since the entire reality is interconnected, we can never directly or indirectly observe thos connections, we can only make hypotheses of all kinds-but without real evidences, and without real and direct observations, plus because of our hyper-limited perception of reality.
Actually I know 1 man who can actually see in the ultraviolet level-for him the entire world is violet, but like I said before we have technology.
I already answered above.
Evidence!
That evidence seems to be right up your alley. But I bet you will reject it, because it is just more icky-poo science.
What material is super-conducting at 400C? If you supply me that information I GUARANTEE that I will make sure that the world knows about it and knows that you are the person that discovered it!
Last edited:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Once again you betray a total inability to behave in a way that would even remotely look scientific. Please, if it is not to much trouble, when specifically in time and place and personality did this occur.
I don't know what you think constitutes direct observation, for your grasp of facts are so abysmally deficient that I don't even want to guess. So you tell me:
Who was one of the last scientists to practice real science?
What were they studying?
When to within a year or two did this happen?
If you cannot do this I shall move heaven and Earth to see you permanently banned from this forum.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Yes. We do.
That bears repeating:
...we have technology that enhances areas that we cannot see... full stop.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Origin showed you a cloud chamber, which shows direct, naked-eye evidence of things that our subatomic models predict.
There are no errors in these interpretations of twin flight experiments and other time experiments with atomics clocks, all these experiments that I wrote in all posts from 341 to 361 are exactly interpreted in the way what experiments show based on real world-facts and evidences-these interpretations are exactly what experiments show and prove they are not additionally misinterepreted in the way mathematics claims and does with all experiments in physics and that are not exactly shown and directly observed in experiments-so basically mathematics is showing not what is is actually proven and shown in the experiments, but it misniterprets experiments in the way mathematics wants and twists facts the way it (mathematics) wants in the the first place-so what is shown and proven in experiments is not what mathematics claims that it is proven in the first place-that's the fact in all scientific experiments in physics today in these modern times.
I fully understand everything: I already explained above.
and if you ask about link to these posts, I cannot find them anymore, I copied them a year ago in my Microsoft Word, and that's where from I copied all the posts to this thread.
Last edited:
Exactly, technologies, that's the only thing that science and mathematics are truly good for, non-stop trials and errors creates technologies like these that we can now directly observe microbes and similar, but we will never be able to directly observe any particles in any way, ever.
The only good thing about all of these so much wrong hypotheses is that they push the limits of technology thanks to trials and errors-it's the only good thing, but if you want to study the origins of the universe, and explain everything, than it is entirely 100% wrong approach to do this-because of all the reasons and facts I posted above and in previous posts.
Again, I'm stating facts: Can you imagine a blind scientist who is having a frog that he cannot see and cannot actually know what it is until someone who can actually see tells him what this animal is?
The same blind scientists cannot really know and cannot find out if that frog truly exists and all the experiments that he/she makes on the frog cannot say what exactly he/she has proven-this is one of many examples, how science work today in modern times-they are all dealing with quantum mechanics and all the scientists cannot directly observe anything to actually prove that anything on atomic level and subatomic level and on the sub-subatomic level and on the quantum level actually exists if they are all so blind and no technology can actually show them what is truly going on here, and if subatomics particles exist at all-the way their mathematics says so-this key issue and key limitation is the same as with scientists who are blind who are studying everything that we can see and they can't; of course their deductions would be different and wrong because of the limitations they possess with much more limited perception than those who have all 5 fully functional senses-the sam reasons and the same limitations are omnipresent with physicsits trying to "see" into quantum mechanics/subatomic/sub-subatomic and below, and quantum level and below-everything they say about these levels is wrong because of their much limited perceptions and inability of direct observations and direct studying-that they will never be able to directly see exactly the way it is even with all the technology they have and that they will have in the future.
The same reasons and limitations are when you try to observe with telescopes truly vast distances and know nothing and observe truly nothing in details that you actually want-it's just too fay away, plus there are are optical illusions, limited perceptions and similar.
The only good thing about all of these so much wrong hypotheses is that they push the limits of technology thanks to trials and errors-it's the only good thing, but if you want to study the origins of the universe, and explain everything, than it is entirely 100% wrong approach to do this-because of all the reasons and facts I posted above and in previous posts.
Even if you somehow one day manage to directly observe particles and "prove" their existence:
An ultrasound picture of a baby accurately reflects the actual form of the baby. A Scanning Tunneling Electron Microscope does not accurately reflect the form of an atom because it simply uses an artificial dot to represent the presence or absence of an atom. In short, the "map" that STM's give us is abstracted from reality and does not accurately portray an atom (in large part because STM's still simply due not measure at the scale of an atom).
There's a philosophy idea that in order to say we can "see" something, we have to be able to collect consistent information by several different methods. For example if all we have is a STM, then we don't know which parts of the image are artifacts and which are real so we haven't seen anything. But if we have an STM and crystallography, we can have more faith in the features that are common to both images - such as interatomic distances and the geometry of crystal structure. But we still couldn't say that we've seen the shape of an atom since that would look different in each instrument's image.
A great example is people who "discovered" lost cities under the sea. They saw regular patterns of lines on the seafloor in Google Earth and interpreted them as ancient roads or walls. But they were only seeing artifacts from ships that had sailed back and forth in straight lines collecting data. If they had looked both at those sonar scans and some other data for the same location, they would have only seen the lines on one image and been able to conclude that they were either an artifact of the sonar or below the level of sensitivity of the other instrument.
Last edited:
And what exactly you have proven-there is no sign and there is not a shred of evidence od direct obseervations of subatomic particles in it, sorry, I truly don't know where exactly do you see particles-you say you see tracks, yes, you see tracks, but the tracks of what exactly???
You cannot actually know from what exactly are tracks are made in the first place.
There is no such thing as particles shown and directly observed particles that you can actually study them in the first place.
It's incedible, how people are delusional, and how much they see and observe what they want to see.
Even if you somehow one day manage to directly observe particles and "prove" their existence:
An ultrasound picture of a baby accurately reflects the actual form of the baby. A Scanning Tunneling Electron Microscope does not accurately reflect the form of an atom because it simply uses an artificial dot to represent the presence or absence of an atom. In short, the "map" that STM's give us is abstracted from reality and does not accurately portray an atom (in large part because STM's still simply due not measure at the scale of an atom).
There's a philosophy idea that in order to say we can "see" something, we have to be able to collect consistent information by several different methods. For example if all we have is a STM, then we don't know which parts of the image are artifacts and which are real so we haven't seen anything. But if we have an STM and crystallography, we can have more faith in the features that are common to both images - such as interatomic distances and the geometry of crystal structure. But we still couldn't say that we've seen the shape of an atom since that would look different in each instrument's image.
A great example is people who "discovered" lost cities under the sea. They saw regular patterns of lines on the seafloor in Google Earth and interpreted them as ancient roads or walls. But they were only seeing artifacts from ships that had sailed back and forth in straight lines collecting data. If they had looked both at those sonar scans and some other data for the same location, they would have only seen the lines on one image and been able to conclude that they were either an artifact of the sonar or below the level of sensitivity of the other instrument.
Last edited:
Have you any ideas of what causes the tracks?
I agree you cannot see the particles but you can see the tracks
So would it be your position ' I don't know what is causing the tracks '?
Would that be your answer?
Exactly; I don't know, you don't know, none really knows what is causing the tracks; I'm fine with speculations the scientists are bringing, but none of them should treat their hypotheses as proven-it doesn't matter if they speculate and assume the existence of subatomic particles or something else for that matter-however, what truly angers me when scientists say they have proven the existence of subatomic particles in accelerators and similar, but what all scientists can directly observe with our and their limited perceptions/observations is totally different of what scientists claim they have proven in the first place and it is definitely not existence of particles, but rather tracks of with don't know what because we cannot directly observe the causes of tracks in the first place, none can and that's about.
If scientists see objectively what is directly observed in the experiment, exactly what experiment shows and proves and they do not expand that with unprovable mathematical hypotheses they all (all scientists) would also say it's just tracks, anyone/everyone would-because these are facts, since all people operate and interact on the same level of 5 senses, and we all directly observe equally (except those who are unfortunate with the missing of one or more senses, their perception is even more limited than the rest of population).
So, yes, you are completely right; the most objective and the only true answer is simple: none know what is actually causing the tracks, since it is faaaar beyond anyone's and beyond any scientists' abilities to directly observe even beyond of the most advanced and the most sophisticated and with the most sensitive technologies now and in the future on even much smaller scales what is truly causing the tracks.
Last edited:
- Status