DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Primitive is a comparative word. What other model(s) do you compare it to that are more advanced?
The Big Bang Theory is the biggest lie in the western world
- Thread starter Gravage
- Start date
- Status
William Tiffit's findings
William Tifft shows that the Universe might be a steady state Universe after all .
refer to the thread in
Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology
refer to the thread in
Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
You make some very good posts here about the nature of science. Gravage clearly does not understand what science is and what it seeks to do.
This exchange strikes me as an excellent example of why some understanding of the philosophy of science is so important when dealing with lay people. Paddoboy (now departed) used to ridicule philosophy as useless, copying the mouthy assertions of Krauss and those like him. But Paddo, God bless him, had no science training: he was just like a faithful dog trying to be loyal to his master.
This confusion about proof - or rather lack of it - in scientific theories is a very common error, as is the notion that science explains the nature of reality, rather than simply modelling how it behaves. I suspect that the mathematical nature of a lot of physical science leads some people to think science must involve proof.
I remain eternally grateful to my 6th Form chemistry teacher, who never told a pupil he had got something "right". He always used to say "Yes, this is one model". We used to ridicule this at first, but as we encountered more of the rival models that abound in chemistry and became aware of their strengths and weaknesses, we began to see the light.
Many people do not realise that in science we often use approximate models and that we select different models of the same thing for different purposes, depending on what we are trying to predict or account for. So much for explaining reality.....
I don't know what the biggest lie in the western world is.
But I think it is safe to say this is the biggest lie on this thread!
But I think it is safe to say this is the biggest lie on this thread!
Let's end this once and for all:
Saying that atomic bombs would never be built without the model is one of the biggest lies ever, here is why:
In 1895, Wilhelm Roentgen discovered the existence of X-rays, though the mechanism behind their production was not yet understood. In 1896, Henri Becquerel discovered that uranium salts emitted rays that resembled X-rays in their penetrating power. He demonstrated that this radiation, unlike phosphorescence, did not depend on an external source of energy but seemed to arise spontaneously from uranium itself. Influenced by these two important discoveries, Marie decided to look into uranium rays as a possible field of research for a thesis.
She used an innovative technique to investigate samples. Fifteen years earlier, her husband and his brother had developed a version of the electrometer, a sensitive device for measuring electric charge. Using Pierre's electrometer, she discovered that uranium rays caused the air around a sample to conduct electricity. Using this technique, her first result was the finding that the activity of the uranium compounds depended only on the quantity of uranium present. She hypothesized that the radiation was not the outcome of some interaction of molecules but must come from the atom itself. This hypothesis was an important step in disproving the ancient assumption that atoms were indivisible.
Curie's systematic studies included two uranium minerals, pitchblende and torbernite (also known as chalcolite). Her electrometer showed that pitchblende was four times as active as uranium itself, and chalcolite twice as active. She concluded that, if her earlier results relating the quantity of uranium to its activity were correct, then these two minerals must contain small quantities of another substance that was far more active than uranium. She began a systematic search for additional substances that emit radiation, and by 1898 she discovered that the element thorium was also radioactive.
Here is where science stops being science in the first place-it's not scientific to assume that atom exists in the first place; now, Marie Curie did prove that radiation comes from uranium compunds, and not from an outside external source, science stops being science when Marie Curie simply said that radiation comes from the atom itself-although there is not a shred of evidence actually exists.
Also, this proves why models are useless when they are dealing with things you can never prove, the only conclusions that you can make are from experiments-in experiments, like the one with Curie there is simply no place for models that cannot be tested and cannot be proven.
When it comes to radiation it's all about energy levels and its directly observable effects on the environment and on human bodies-so, the part that is untestable is that what models claim with particles and similar, but however what is truly testable and provable and proven are direct observational effects of these energy levels-so with every energy level there is a different name for it.
Atomic bombs and H-bombs and all other experiments suffer from these same misinterpretations-instead that you interpret what happened in the experiments and what you have directly observed in experiments, you interpret what mathematical models say-this is number one error.
The only thing that was really/truly proven in creating these bombs are observable effects everything that was tested in the laboratories and on the field when those bombs exploded-and not the models themselves.
I already answered this-if that's science, than you are not better than religion. You should stick on what exactly you can make conclusions for, not on what models say and "prove" it is, because there is no such thing that is shown in any experiment-basically you are explaning things with concepts that do not exist and cannot be proven and cannot be directly observe so that you can make any reliable conclusions..
That's the biggest error ever: what will happen in the real world, it's up to experiments and their analyses, not up to the models, you should not use models to explain anything that experiments do not show and prove-directly observable:
Instead that you interpret what happened exactly in the experiments and what you have directly observed in experiments, you interpret what mathematical models say-this is number one error.
You should all abandon models and their "evidences" that you cannot directly observe with experiments in the first place.
And that is your biggest mistake, you should, because models are simply wrong, if you cannot prove the existence of the most fundamental concepts that models "predicts" that should exist-you finally have proven, that you are not doing science, you are doing pseudo-science, and you have nor right in judging people who believe in existence of Gods, ghosts, afterlives, UFOs and everything similar-because you are doing the same thing, by not doing a real science.
I will explain below why models do not predict anything, only experiments and what is directly observed in experiments predicts the world accurately.
I alread ypsoted and proved that space does not curve, what curves is the distence and trajctories of matter and energy, cosmic objects when it is inside gravitational field-outside of gravitational field nothing happens at all; everything that is made of matter and energy curves, but not space itself-this is what all experiments and proved.
This is the same example I wanted to post it, but you beat me to it: what eactly do you prove with light bulb-the way light bulb is built is not because of some model predicted, it is because trials and errors in experiments that have been done enabled to Edison how to finally create light bulb, it's wasn't because some mathematical model from quantum mechanics or any other hypothesis enabled us to do this, it was merely because of trials and errors in experiments, however the more experiments you make the less you make mistakes and you are closer in creating your new technologies-in this case light bulbs.
In 1895, Wilhelm Roentgen discovered the existence of X-rays, though the mechanism behind their production was not yet understood. In 1896, Henri Becquerel discovered that uranium salts emitted rays that resembled X-rays in their penetrating power. He demonstrated that this radiation, unlike phosphorescence, did not depend on an external source of energy but seemed to arise spontaneously from uranium itself. Influenced by these two important discoveries, Marie decided to look into uranium rays as a possible field of research for a thesis.
She used an innovative technique to investigate samples. Fifteen years earlier, her husband and his brother had developed a version of the electrometer, a sensitive device for measuring electric charge. Using Pierre's electrometer, she discovered that uranium rays caused the air around a sample to conduct electricity. Using this technique, her first result was the finding that the activity of the uranium compounds depended only on the quantity of uranium present. She hypothesized that the radiation was not the outcome of some interaction of molecules but must come from the atom itself. This hypothesis was an important step in disproving the ancient assumption that atoms were indivisible.
Curie's systematic studies included two uranium minerals, pitchblende and torbernite (also known as chalcolite). Her electrometer showed that pitchblende was four times as active as uranium itself, and chalcolite twice as active. She concluded that, if her earlier results relating the quantity of uranium to its activity were correct, then these two minerals must contain small quantities of another substance that was far more active than uranium. She began a systematic search for additional substances that emit radiation, and by 1898 she discovered that the element thorium was also radioactive.
Here is where science stops being science in the first place-it's not scientific to assume that atom exists in the first place; now, Marie Curie did prove that radiation comes from uranium compunds, and not from an outside external source, science stops being science when Marie Curie simply said that radiation comes from the atom itself-although there is not a shred of evidence actually exists.
Also, this proves why models are useless when they are dealing with things you can never prove, the only conclusions that you can make are from experiments-in experiments, like the one with Curie there is simply no place for models that cannot be tested and cannot be proven.
End of part 1....
Part 2....
Again, it doesn't have anything with the model, but it has everything with what experiments show, prove and indicate-based on exactly what you can directly observe.
It doesn't have anything to what I like-it is about to deal with facts and what can be directly observed in experiments-that's the bottom line.
In light bulb you can only test what you can directly observe and based on these 2 most important criterions you can create hypotheses, and it is exactly on what models should be created, not on some non-existent things that we will never be able to know and directly observe if they exist or not.
Now, you cannot know anything, if you have not study electron itself and its physical and chemical properties, and that is 100% impossible if you cannot directly observe it-so you can prove it that it truly exists-you shoudl rather focus on what you can directly observe and based on what you can directly observe in experiments, after you do that, you should create models based on behaviours of existent and experimentally proven direct observations.
The models that you create simply cannot be proven, and their behaviours cannot be proven, because there is no way you can directly observe what their behaviours are-it's a total guess-unprovable and untestable guess!
No, I already explained above, models that you create do not predict anything, only what is observed in experiments can be predicted and not what is created by models that are even untestable and unprovable-you can predict with only something that you can directly observe its behaviour in experiments-and in your models that is simply impossible, because your models go faaar beyond on what is possible to test the predictions, since they are alll untestable.
Yes, but without models that are untestable, only use the models that are based on direct observations of whatever happens and how it behaves in experiments, not based on what your models do.
No, it's not jst take microscope for example, all people need is to be able to magnify their vision-microscopes in a way do such things.
However the models that you call "predictive" are 100% untestable because there is absolutely nothing in technologies that can be used to directly observe them.
You only prove that mathematics is religion not science, everything you do all the models that you create should be based on direct observations on what is happening in experiments-only based on this you can create accurate models and more accurate predictions.
Models that you do do not predict anything, they are predictiong of so many particles and who know what else, but when it comes to experiments, the existence of particles is wrong, because it is not shown in experiments and cannot be tested in any way; it is what you directly observe in experiments, models can indicate or prove (directly or indirectly) to exist, not what your models that are untestable.
This is one of the examples where you should abandon all similar models such as this one, because if you create models like this you create models of something that does not exist-yes, something is passing, but you can have no idea what it is-and than saying that electron passes just because it should be electron is a logical fallacy, since maybe it's not even an particle-the problem is you will never know-never-you should create a model based on what exactly you can directly observe, you cannot observe electron, so you simply say it's an signal, but a signal from what, sure it's energy, but energy from what, that you cannot know, and that's why saying it's an electron is like making things up that are not even there-these kinds of models are wrong.
The only thing you can do is to repeat cloud chamber experiments million times (trials and errors) and than make conclusions on what exactly does this cloud chamber phenomenons do and prove or at least indicate-this is how true and correct/right models are made-after you make experiments like these million times in a row to make some sound and reasonable conclusions based on evidences that you have directly observed in cloud chambers, not by just saying that is it electron without a shred of evidence to back it up-the same as you claim fro conspiracy theorists that you claim that have no evidences-but in this case neither you have any evidence that this is electron or alpha particle or whatever-pure, untestable and unprovable speculations and assumptions.
Nothing what you claim is provable and testable if your 5 sneses cannot directly observe it, it's provable and testable only inside your heads and in your mathematics and statistics-so what?
You should make/create models only after you make tons of experiments and make conclusions of what you just directly observed, not before you make tons of experiments-because your models are wrong, and if you go any deeper in models that are untestable, than your models are useless, only models created only after you make tons of experiments and make conclusions of what you just directly observed-are correctly predictive.
Models that you use and go deeper, did not prove anything, only direct observations in experiments did-and these are the facts.
Again, it doesn't have anything with the model, but it has everything with what experiments show, prove and indicate-based on exactly what you can directly observe.
It doesn't have anything to what I like-it is about to deal with facts and what can be directly observed in experiments-that's the bottom line.
In light bulb you can only test what you can directly observe and based on these 2 most important criterions you can create hypotheses, and it is exactly on what models should be created, not on some non-existent things that we will never be able to know and directly observe if they exist or not.
Now, you cannot know anything, if you have not study electron itself and its physical and chemical properties, and that is 100% impossible if you cannot directly observe it-so you can prove it that it truly exists-you shoudl rather focus on what you can directly observe and based on what you can directly observe in experiments, after you do that, you should create models based on behaviours of existent and experimentally proven direct observations.
The models that you create simply cannot be proven, and their behaviours cannot be proven, because there is no way you can directly observe what their behaviours are-it's a total guess-unprovable and untestable guess!
No, I already explained above, models that you create do not predict anything, only what is observed in experiments can be predicted and not what is created by models that are even untestable and unprovable-you can predict with only something that you can directly observe its behaviour in experiments-and in your models that is simply impossible, because your models go faaar beyond on what is possible to test the predictions, since they are alll untestable.
Yes, but without models that are untestable, only use the models that are based on direct observations of whatever happens and how it behaves in experiments, not based on what your models do.
No, it's not jst take microscope for example, all people need is to be able to magnify their vision-microscopes in a way do such things.
However the models that you call "predictive" are 100% untestable because there is absolutely nothing in technologies that can be used to directly observe them.
You only prove that mathematics is religion not science, everything you do all the models that you create should be based on direct observations on what is happening in experiments-only based on this you can create accurate models and more accurate predictions.
Models that you do do not predict anything, they are predictiong of so many particles and who know what else, but when it comes to experiments, the existence of particles is wrong, because it is not shown in experiments and cannot be tested in any way; it is what you directly observe in experiments, models can indicate or prove (directly or indirectly) to exist, not what your models that are untestable.
This is one of the examples where you should abandon all similar models such as this one, because if you create models like this you create models of something that does not exist-yes, something is passing, but you can have no idea what it is-and than saying that electron passes just because it should be electron is a logical fallacy, since maybe it's not even an particle-the problem is you will never know-never-you should create a model based on what exactly you can directly observe, you cannot observe electron, so you simply say it's an signal, but a signal from what, sure it's energy, but energy from what, that you cannot know, and that's why saying it's an electron is like making things up that are not even there-these kinds of models are wrong.
The only thing you can do is to repeat cloud chamber experiments million times (trials and errors) and than make conclusions on what exactly does this cloud chamber phenomenons do and prove or at least indicate-this is how true and correct/right models are made-after you make experiments like these million times in a row to make some sound and reasonable conclusions based on evidences that you have directly observed in cloud chambers, not by just saying that is it electron without a shred of evidence to back it up-the same as you claim fro conspiracy theorists that you claim that have no evidences-but in this case neither you have any evidence that this is electron or alpha particle or whatever-pure, untestable and unprovable speculations and assumptions.
Nothing what you claim is provable and testable if your 5 sneses cannot directly observe it, it's provable and testable only inside your heads and in your mathematics and statistics-so what?
You should make/create models only after you make tons of experiments and make conclusions of what you just directly observed, not before you make tons of experiments-because your models are wrong, and if you go any deeper in models that are untestable, than your models are useless, only models created only after you make tons of experiments and make conclusions of what you just directly observed-are correctly predictive.
Models that you use and go deeper, did not prove anything, only direct observations in experiments did-and these are the facts.
Part 3....
I explained in my previous post.
Are you stupid or what if you make thousands of experiments to prove something or to make something useful for every day lives-than it's sure trial and error-and that's all science is about.
I already explained in previous post about the models, read the answer. If you need to change the model-than it's trial and error, and this is omnipresent at all times in science and technology-if models were correct, than you will instantly create technologies and prove that they work in every day lives and you would not need anymore experiments to change models from time to time-again tiral and error.
Models that are made exactly by what experiments show, prove or indicate and behave are based on what is truly tested, and you cannot know if particles or anything else on quantum level are based on models that are simply impossible to experiment with and they are untestable if you actually want to show and prove that they exist in the first place.
What you again fail to see is the fact that you can only use for technologies only after what you have observe in experiments-however, the problem becomes is how you interpret what has your experiment proved.
If something works in experiments, than it would work in using the same thing in every day technologies, regardless of what is your interpretations of done experiments-right or wrong.
I already explained to you in previous posts-big bang hypothesis is religion based on untestable models with mathematical "pseudo-evidences" of concepts that do not even exist or are even proven in experiments to exist in the first place-and they are also all untestable, for those who are are even observable, they are misinterpreted, like space thing and time which does not even exist.
No, I'm talking about the fact that with 5 senses there is not much you can actually prove or test in the first place, this is where technology steps in, but even technology still depends on our 5 senses, and technology itself does have upper limits.
I already said that bacteria exist-just take microscopes and you can magnify it, you read nothing, you should stop posting anything to me if you haven't read anything before in my previous posts-typical, you listen only to yourself.
Electron microscope, I alread posted before, you make me angry by not reading my posts-DON'T WRITE TO ME IF YOU DON'T READ MY ANSWERS TO OTHERS, NOT JUST TO YOU.
Even if you somehow one day manage to directly observe particles and "prove" their existence, read this:
I explained in my previous post.
Are you stupid or what if you make thousands of experiments to prove something or to make something useful for every day lives-than it's sure trial and error-and that's all science is about.
I already explained in previous post about the models, read the answer. If you need to change the model-than it's trial and error, and this is omnipresent at all times in science and technology-if models were correct, than you will instantly create technologies and prove that they work in every day lives and you would not need anymore experiments to change models from time to time-again tiral and error.
Models that are made exactly by what experiments show, prove or indicate and behave are based on what is truly tested, and you cannot know if particles or anything else on quantum level are based on models that are simply impossible to experiment with and they are untestable if you actually want to show and prove that they exist in the first place.
What you again fail to see is the fact that you can only use for technologies only after what you have observe in experiments-however, the problem becomes is how you interpret what has your experiment proved.
If something works in experiments, than it would work in using the same thing in every day technologies, regardless of what is your interpretations of done experiments-right or wrong.
I already explained to you in previous posts-big bang hypothesis is religion based on untestable models with mathematical "pseudo-evidences" of concepts that do not even exist or are even proven in experiments to exist in the first place-and they are also all untestable, for those who are are even observable, they are misinterpreted, like space thing and time which does not even exist.
No, I'm talking about the fact that with 5 senses there is not much you can actually prove or test in the first place, this is where technology steps in, but even technology still depends on our 5 senses, and technology itself does have upper limits.
I already said that bacteria exist-just take microscopes and you can magnify it, you read nothing, you should stop posting anything to me if you haven't read anything before in my previous posts-typical, you listen only to yourself.
Electron microscope, I alread posted before, you make me angry by not reading my posts-DON'T WRITE TO ME IF YOU DON'T READ MY ANSWERS TO OTHERS, NOT JUST TO YOU.
Even if you somehow one day manage to directly observe particles and "prove" their existence, read this:
Part 4....
Again the way how exactly is electron microscope made does not prove a single thing about something you can never test-you simply can never know what is behind surface.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/scanning-electron-microscope2.htm
The parts are real, but the explanations are untestable when they speak about atoms and all other particles and everything else on atomic and subatomic levels.
No, you are not right at all, you are actually 100% wrong; we use radiowaves every single day-it's all about on how much we use every single day to listen our radio-stations and all kinds of sounds, so we can actually and we do observe their effects on environment and we listen to the radios-what effects gravity waves have nothing-absolutely nothing-with gravity waves we know absoltely nothing, because like I said it can be from anything, literally anything, plus, what I bet is that gravity waves are not really detected, it's shock waves that are detected in the first place.
That's why those so called-gravity waves are not detected, maybe radiowaves are detected-again with such a distance of 1.3 billion light years away you cannot know anything what signal have you detected and from what exactly-that was my point with gravity waves, while it is 100% certain of what we use radiowaves every single day-plus there is how much energy they hav also:
The difference between ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation is exactly here: in energy levels-so basically these are all the same waves, their key differences exist in energy levels:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EM-spectrum.svg
What you fail to understand is that scientists have detected those energies, but the problem with radiowaves, microwaves and similar was not at all in proving it that they exist, the problem was in how to divide them based on energy levels that they are detected with measurable devices and directly observale effects that they have on environment and on human bodies and how they can be used in every day lives.
Yes, if you cannot create testable models-again no untestable and unprovable concepts involved like particles, quantum mechanics and similar, only what experiments show, prove and indicate and what you can conclude frm the experiments, not from something that you cannot actually test-like particles, quantum mechanics, and similar.
And this is the biggest fallacy ever, the biggest lie ever-you cannot find more about the world, if you cannot directly observe anything at all, if your models of particles and all other abstract concepts that are untestable in all experiments, than you cannot actually find out about the world anything concrete and for real, than it's the upper limit of science, you use those untestable models to fill the gaps and holes that you cannot test, but the fact is, it is over, true science is over long ago.
I already answered to you this in my preious post/answer to you.
Also, if models were actually correct-there would not be any more experiments to conduct in the first place, the very fact you need all those experiments and than create models, not only something that is untestable like particles, quantum mechanics and similar; but to create models based on all of experiments what you directly observe in experiments and that's how you create new technologies for every day lives-trial and error.
The problem with matheamatical models that you insist are correct is not something any experiment can test and prove-and therefore such models should be abandoned forever.
Again the way how exactly is electron microscope made does not prove a single thing about something you can never test-you simply can never know what is behind surface.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/scanning-electron-microscope2.htm
The parts are real, but the explanations are untestable when they speak about atoms and all other particles and everything else on atomic and subatomic levels.
No, you are not right at all, you are actually 100% wrong; we use radiowaves every single day-it's all about on how much we use every single day to listen our radio-stations and all kinds of sounds, so we can actually and we do observe their effects on environment and we listen to the radios-what effects gravity waves have nothing-absolutely nothing-with gravity waves we know absoltely nothing, because like I said it can be from anything, literally anything, plus, what I bet is that gravity waves are not really detected, it's shock waves that are detected in the first place.
That's why those so called-gravity waves are not detected, maybe radiowaves are detected-again with such a distance of 1.3 billion light years away you cannot know anything what signal have you detected and from what exactly-that was my point with gravity waves, while it is 100% certain of what we use radiowaves every single day-plus there is how much energy they hav also:
The difference between ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation is exactly here: in energy levels-so basically these are all the same waves, their key differences exist in energy levels:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EM-spectrum.svg
What you fail to understand is that scientists have detected those energies, but the problem with radiowaves, microwaves and similar was not at all in proving it that they exist, the problem was in how to divide them based on energy levels that they are detected with measurable devices and directly observale effects that they have on environment and on human bodies and how they can be used in every day lives.
Yes, if you cannot create testable models-again no untestable and unprovable concepts involved like particles, quantum mechanics and similar, only what experiments show, prove and indicate and what you can conclude frm the experiments, not from something that you cannot actually test-like particles, quantum mechanics, and similar.
And this is the biggest fallacy ever, the biggest lie ever-you cannot find more about the world, if you cannot directly observe anything at all, if your models of particles and all other abstract concepts that are untestable in all experiments, than you cannot actually find out about the world anything concrete and for real, than it's the upper limit of science, you use those untestable models to fill the gaps and holes that you cannot test, but the fact is, it is over, true science is over long ago.
I already answered to you this in my preious post/answer to you.
Also, if models were actually correct-there would not be any more experiments to conduct in the first place, the very fact you need all those experiments and than create models, not only something that is untestable like particles, quantum mechanics and similar; but to create models based on all of experiments what you directly observe in experiments and that's how you create new technologies for every day lives-trial and error.
The problem with matheamatical models that you insist are correct is not something any experiment can test and prove-and therefore such models should be abandoned forever.
I'm not some weirdo, who think nothing exist, I'm simply saying that models that you create are not based on experiments, but on your mathematical equations, but they are unprovable and untestable in experiments, since you can never directly observe anything at all.
On November 8, 1895, at the University of Wurzburg, Roentgen was working in the lab when he noticed a strange fluorescence coming from a nearby table. Upon further observation he found that it originated from a partially evacuated Hittof-Crookes tube, covered in opaque black paper which he was using to study cathode rays. He concluded that the fluorescence, which penetrated the opaque black paper, must have been caused by rays. This phenomenon was later coined x-rays and though the phenomenon of x-rays is not the same as radioactivity, Roentgen opened the door for radioactive discovery.
Henri Becquerel learned of Roentgen's discovery of x-rays through the fluorescence that some materials produce. Using a method similar to that of Roentgen, Becquerel surrounded several photographic plates with black paper and florescent salts. With the intention of further advancing the study of x-rays, Becquerel intended to place the concealed photographic paper in the sunlight and observe what transpired. Unfortunately, he had to delay his experiment because the skies over Paris were overcast. He placed the wrapped plates into a dark desk drawer. After a few days Becquerel returned to his experiment unwrapping the photographic paper and developing it, expecting only a light imprint from the salts. Instead, the salts left very distinct outlines in the photographic paper suggesting that the salts, regardless of lacking an energy source, continually fluoresced. What Becquerel had discovered was radioactivity.
Though it was Henri Becquerel that discovered radioactivity, it was Marie Curie who coined the term. Using a device invented by her husband and his brother, that measured extremely low electrical currents, Curie was able to note that uranium electrified the air around it. Further investigation showed that the activity of uranium compounds depended upon the amount of uranium present and that radioactivity was not a result of the interactions between molecules, but rather came from the atom itself. Using Pitchblende and chalcolite Curie found that Thorium was radioactive as well. She later discovered two new radioactive elements: Radium and Polonium which took her several years since these elements are difficult to extract and extremely rare. Unfortunately, the Curies died young. Pierre Curie was killed in a street accident and Marie died of aplastic anemia, almost certainly a result of radiation exposure.
In 1909 at the University of Manchester, Rutherford was bombarding a piece of gold foil with Alpha particles. Rutherford noted that although most of the particles went straight through the foil, one in every eight thousand was deflected back. "It was as if you fired a fifteen inch naval shell at a piece of tissue paper and the shell came right back and hit you," Rutherford said. He concluded that though an atom consists of mostly empty space, most of its mass is concentrated in a very small positively charged region known as the nucleus, while electrons buzz around on the outside.
The problem with alpha particles is that they are unprovable and untestable-what you can directly observe is exactly what is observed-through the foil-these what were deflected back does not mean he has proven that atom exists in the first place, it doesn't prove anything at all.
There is not a single shred of existence of alpha particle; what we do know and has been detected/observed is that radiation is real based on measuring devices, that were built just to be able to detect energies.
The part that is scientific because you can directly observe effects of x-rays or any other radiation-what you fail to understand is when you use model of atom to explain such things-the only thing that is truly proven is that radiation in Curie's case came from uranium-but she said it was from the atom inside uranium material-that is not scientific to say that it came from an atom-since there is no way you can first directly observe and prove that atom exists, and that is only possible when you can directly observe atom and test its physicla and chemical properties or whatever properties atom possesses-that is my point, and you are all too stupid to understand, you keep posting without even realizing that the approach you are using is 100% wrong, because you worship your models before experiments-which is 100% wrong.
You make some very good posts here about the nature of science. Gravage clearly does not understand what science is and what it seeks to do.
This exchange strikes me as an excellent example of why some understanding of the philosophy of science is so important when dealing with lay people. Paddoboy (now departed) used to ridicule philosophy as useless, copying the mouthy assertions of Krauss and those like him. But Paddo, God bless him, had no science training: he was just like a faithful dog trying to be loyal to his master.
This confusion about proof - or rather lack of it - in scientific theories is a very common error, as is the notion that science explains the nature of reality, rather than simply modelling how it behaves. I suspect that the mathematical nature of a lot of physical science leads some people to think science must involve proof.
I remain eternally grateful to my 6th Form chemistry teacher, who never told a pupil he had got something "right". He always used to say "Yes, this is one model". We used to ridicule this at first, but as we encountered more of the rival models that abound in chemistry and became aware of their strengths and weaknesses, we began to see the light.
Many people do not realise that in science we often use approximate models and that we select different models of the same thing for different purposes, depending on what we are trying to predict or account for. So much for explaining reality.....
But you cannot model something you cannot prove to exist! You cannot model something that you cannot test it in the first place-that's my point, it's totally wrong to model anything, if you don't have real evidences and real facts that back you up in the first place, not some abstract models with concepts that are untestable and that do not exist in the first place-that is simply not scientific, why you are calling yourselves scientists in the first place than, because you are not scientists, you belivers in mathematical models-that's religion and not science-again I'm talking about strictly physics.
But you have ears, you can hear it, just turn on the radio sir.
Maybe also those waves are invisible but they physical effects on environment, that's how we know gravity exists, but when it comes to quantum mechanics you don't observe anything, and even if you observe something you cannot know from what it is, with radio waves we have over 50 years of experience enough to tell it's from radiowaves, besides you have images in radiowaves, it's all about energy levels.
The problem with blind people and elephants is a real-world example on how much people can be wrong when they interpret something that know nothign about even though they observe it, but since they cannot see the whole picture even what is observed is misinterpreted in the first place, and if you misinterpret something thana everything else after that whatever model you make is wrong.
Quantum mechanics you cannot even directly observe the causes of observable effects, the only thing you can do is, like blind people from that elephant story, to interpret as much as you can directly observe, and nothing beyond that.
Instead, physicists create mathematical models that are untestable, instead they should interpret on what is exactly shown in experiments and directly observed and only after that create models; so even though interpretation is wrong because you cannot see the whole picture, only tiny parts of it on the surface; the interpretations that are offered by models are even more wrong because they cannot know what exactly is the cause of all those observable effects-because the causes that models offer as explanations are untestable and there are not even indirect indications in experiments of what all the causes of observable effects might be.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
One can model anything about the natural world that can be deduced from reproducible observation. A proper model in science needs to make predictions that can be tested, by means of further reproducible observations. That is what science tries to do.
Of course I would agree that, if you have no observations, then any model you make cannot be tested and thus cannot be regarded as more than a hypothesis. But there is evidence in support of the Big Bang hypothesis, such as the observed isotropy and CMBR (ifI recall correctly - I am not a cosmologist). As for predictions, there is a summary here: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-ba...ction-of-the-big-bang-68ab6f4a5475#.y0cja6eqh You are quite at liberty to regard this evidence as not conclusive, however. In science, all theories are provisional and subject to refinement , modification or total overthrow, in light of new observational evidence.
You might even go further and say that, in your opinion, it is mistaken, because....niddle, naddle, noo [insert your own observations that you think contradict it].
But for it to be a "lie", as you called it in the thread title, would require that there is deliberate suppression of evidence that falsifies the Big Bang hypothesis. Do you actually mean that?
Youa re 100% wrong, general relativity might be observable but you misinterpreted in a way that you lie to people all the time. QM is not even testable in a way that you can say that anything actually exists in the first place, shame on you-again in relativity there is no such thing as space bending, what exactly is bending are distances, trajectories and everything what is made of matter and energy what is inside an gravitatioanl fields.
Read my replies to JamesR for more informations about why thes emodels do not predict anything at all, only models that are made by observable effects in experiments are useful in making models, so models based on real evidences not on abstract concepts that do not exist ina r eal world, sir.
You can see that something is behaving, but you cannot say what exactly is behaving in the first place-this is something you lost your focus-if models claim what is exactly behaving, than the models are not based on experiments and evidences, they are based on untestable predictions of what are the causes of such behaviour-which again are untestable and unprovable.
And you are forgetting that thos reproducibile observations can be from stars, I honestly don't believe that this is any kind of evidence, neither isotropy is, it's like saying that I have proven the existence of ghosts by detecting electromagnetic anomalies-that produce truly creepy voices over my bed.
Again, when people ar eso small and arogant they say they have proven and yet they can never see the whole picture only its tiniest part-and if you cannot see the whole picture, everything you do and assume is wrong, because you cannot directly observe the entire reality and the whole picture only its tiniest part, because there is so much outside of your observational abilities and outside your realm of what you can observe and experience.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
QM most certainly does account for and predict an enormous range of observed behaviours of the world.
Have you ever come across the Periodic Table? Do you know why it is laid out the way it is?
Have you ever seen a line spectrum? Do you know why the lines appear where they do?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Would you care to re-express that reply in the form of a set of coherent statements? At the moment it is not really possible to work to what you are trying to say. Perhaps a few full stops would help.
And do please stop talking about things being "proven". You have been told several times that proof plays no part in a scientific theory.
- Status