PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-28, 09:37:51
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
Author Topic: What is wrong with science today  (Read 12615 times)

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Just a general chat about science today, and the flaws that surround it.

A video to kick off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCnzhpH3ZdQ


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
One major flaw is the formation of cult like behavior that keep amending past "ideas" with ever increasing hacks and workarounds until only the few in the cult can make sense of the immense complexities.

Ideas and theories should be fluid, experimentalists and engineering are what give us structure and equations to build things from these fluid ideas. If experiments show behaviors that the theory does not predict THEN it would be time to look for something completely different and not add tumors to the theory until it becomes terminally sick. Gripping for dear life to your favorite super star theory and calling everyone else a crackpot is what turns super smart people into mindless drones that barely can get rockets into space 60 years after we reached the moon with simple calculators and the human mind. Computers are good at simulating ideas, but when we constrain them to faulty ideas that should have been fluidic in nature we get dumb computers too.

In my opinion any theory that is not fractal in nature should not even be entertained in once mind. Trying to explain a fractal on a given scale will make you go around loops forever always one step behind the fractal that keeps morphing forever eluding your non-fractal theories and equations.

Maybe this crackpot is/was onto something:

https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Conrad-Ranzan-2013957168


Or how an IC reverse engineer shows us what the Mandelbrot set truly looks like if we rendered its "complete" form:

https://www.righto.com/2011/12/new-multi-branch-algorithm-to-render.html

I consider myself  stupid and slow, barely capable at doing "science" yet even I can form ideas about the universe that are worth looking at just by surfing the web and finding interesting ideas, can you imagine what really smart people can do with the right framework and mindset free of a rigid church like belief system? But I warn everyone, even if cult like behavior is determinantal, spiritually is very important on the other hand. The path to seek the truth of where we come from is not for the faint of heart. Going in without any spiritual background or a circle of good people around you that can help you stay grounded at times, will make you quickly lose your grasp on reality. It might sound cheesy, but love is everything.
« Last Edit: 2024-03-30, 12:42:32 by broli »
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1940
My simple contribution.  Why is inertial mass considered as an internal property of matter?  Put another way, why is the external force that we can feel on our bodies when we are on a rotating carousel not considered by science to be an external force?  Why are we not allowed to draw force vectors pointing outwards from our mass indicating an external force.  There is no other branch of science where the results of this simple experiment would not be taken as evidence of an external force acting on the body.

Smudge
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
My simple contribution.  Why is inertial mass considered as an internal property of matter?  Put another way, why is the external force that we can feel on our bodies when we are on a rotating carousel not considered by science to be an external force? 
Quote
Why are we not allowed to draw force vectors pointing outwards from our mass indicating an external force.
  There is no other branch of science where the results of this simple experiment would not be taken as evidence of an external force acting on the body.

Smudge

Would that be considered centrifugal force ?
They say there is no such thing, and the force is actually centripetal-apparently, but I disagree.

We have centrifugal pumps, that through the water outward.
If i was in a large drum, say with a diameter of 5 meters, and a depth of 1 meter, and that drum was full of water, and was rotated at lets say 60rpm, then i would be thrown out to the rim of the drum by the centrifugal force- a force with outward force vectors. There is no centripetal force, as there is no force vectors pointing in toward the center of the drum by me or the body of water.

Just my take.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1940
  There is no other branch of science where the results of this simple experiment would not be taken as evidence of an external force acting on the body.

Smudge


Would that be considered centrifugal force ?
Yes.  If you were held by a rope attached to a rod fixed along the centerline of the drum so you didn't reach the outer edge the rope would be in tension.  The usual method of denoting tension is to have two arrows pointing in opposite directions, one at each end of the rope.  The outer one points outward and the inner one points inward.  Just to confuse things, for this case where the tension is caused by centrifugal force, science has given these two arrows different names!! But there is no doubt that there is a force on the mass pointing out into space.  The force is at right angles to the velocity, so to confuse things more it is callled a fictional force.  If we have an experiment where the force on an electron is at right angle to the velocity (as we do with movement though a magnetic field) we don't call that fictional, and we recognize it as an external force on the electron due to motion through that field.  Why can't we accept that the centrifugal force is due to motion through an aether field.  It doesn't have to be a field with field lines, it can be a field of scalar potential.  Indeed it can be an already known scalar, gravitational potential.  We live within a huge gravitational potential coming from all the masses in the universe, with the largest contribution coming from the most distant masses.  Only if that scalar value varies with distance do we get a gravitational field and we know what that is because of the local masses like the earth, the moon, the sun etc.  But the huge added scalar value that is uniform across our local space is never considered.  It is so so easy to deduce that acceleration within that huge scalar leads to the external force we endure.  We even have identical math for the case of an electron accelerating within a scalar electric potential.

Smudge 
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
My simple contribution.  Why is inertial mass considered as an internal property of matter?  Put another way, why is the external force that we can feel on our bodies when we are on a rotating carousel not considered by science to be an external force?  Why are we not allowed to draw force vectors pointing outwards from our mass indicating an external force.  There is no other branch of science where the results of this simple experiment would not be taken as evidence of an external force acting on the body.

Indeed and the treatment of inertia by science is a good example of circular reasoning and cognitive dissonance.

For example, suppose two objects A and B of equal mass push away from each other simultaneously in space. A<<< >>>B
A moves to the left away from B and B moves to the right away from A.

Problem
1)In order for A to move to the left B must offer some resistance but B is not attached to anything.
2)In order for B to move to the right A must offer some resistance but A is not attached to anything.
3)We can only conclude B must have acted on itself in order for A to produce a force and push off of it.
4)We must also conclude A must have acted on itself in order for B to produce a force and push off of it.

As we know science forbids anything "acting on itself" and yet this is exactly what must happen in the example above. What science seems to have done is use a clever variation of circular reasoning to explain inertia. For example, what does A push off of?, well it's B. Then what does B push off of?, well it's A.  They claim A and B push off each other but never explain how either object was able to offer a resistance in order to produce a force and push off anything. As they say it's "Turtles all the way down".

AC






---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Quote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCnzhpH3ZdQ

"Einstein was wrong": that's the kind of stupid headline that's designed to attract attention.
When a theory describes a multitude of things with great precision, it will always do so and therefore will never be "wrong". If in new fields, or with new precision in measurements, it is found to be inadequate, then its area of validity is clarified, and the new encompassing theory is used to make further progress.
Relativity has proved that Newtonian gravitation is "false" in the sense in which that word is used in the article. But that doesn't mean that Newtonian gravitation is no longer relevant in its field. Of course it's still correct, and still allows useful calculations.
And the same goes for relativity if a more relevant theory emerges.

Scientific theories are what best describe what we know about the universe at a given time. They can never be "wrong", since known facts occur in accordance with their predictions up to a certain degree of accuracy. But incomplete, certainly, and it will always be like that for any theory, unless you believe in absolute knowledge. It's commonplace to say so.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
My simple contribution.  Why is inertial mass considered as an internal property of matter?  Put another way, why is the external force that we can feel on our bodies when we are on a rotating carousel not considered by science to be an external force?
...

because it is only felt by the rotating object.
If the force is "external", why doesn't the object feel it when it stops?


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Smudge
Quote
Why is inertial mass considered as an internal property of matter?  Put another way, why is the external force that we can feel on our bodies when we are on a rotating carousel not considered by science to be an external force?

It may be because the terms internal and external are ambiguous in reality.

In reality you are 1% matter/particles floating about in 99% hard vacuum full of EM waves. The atmosphere outside your body is also 1% matter floating in 99% hard vacuum full of EM waves and outside the Earth it's also over 99% hard vacuum full of EM waves. Ergo the difference between you and the space you occupy is only 1%.

So what is "internal" when 99% of you is the same stuff which is external to you?. There is no such thing as "internal" from the perspective of the particles your made of. For example, if I were floating beyond our solar system with a big telescope and saw you on Earth floating in a big empty space should I say you are internal?, relative to what?.

So when were speaking of our bodies on a rotating carousel we should understand nothing is truly internal because were talking about 1% particles moving about in 99% hard vacuum full of EM waves. Ergo, 99% of the stuff by volume presumed to be in motion is not in reality. The 99% hard vacuum of space within the supposedly moving body is stationary.

This may relate to a phrase by Hermes Trismegistus, "As above so below".
Quote
In essence, it suggests that the patterns, structures, and principles that govern the universe are reflected in smaller systems and phenomena, and vice versa. It implies a sort of unity or interconnectedness between different levels of existence.

Which begs the question how someone in the 4th century could understand atomic and astronomical scales could have a similar relationship?. I mean, these people were supposedly primitive goat herders so how could they develop an advanced concept 99% of people today cannot even understand?. It boggles the mind...

AC



---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
because it is only felt by the rotating object.
If the force is "external", why doesn't the object feel it when it stops?

This statement is not true and the basis of Mach principle, which states that if the entire universe rotated instead of the bucket that the water would still head towards the walls.

Its not that General Relativity is "wrong" but I never understood why when we call a medium "SpaceTime Continuum" it is celebrated but when we call it a dynamic Aether its ridiculed out of the room. Both can be equivalent and both can be referring to the same thing, one from a purely mathematical construct point of view the other from an actual physical point of view (which others have formulated the math for as well, e.g. Mach himself, Robert Distinti, Conrad Ranzan, Andre K. T. Assis... and so many others). However looking at it as a physical reality as well gives us much more mental clarity and perhaps allows us to do experiments to validate this. Ironically EVERY general relativity experiment does not invalidate the Aether, and as you say when the model fits it doesn't need replacement unless a better model can explain MORE of the universe, for instance unify what happens at the small and large scale (I am only aware of Robert Distinti doing this right now).

Just a week ago we got a never before seen picture of a black hole showing what appears to be a damned water sink vortex, showing a very fluidic nature, if that isn't amazing then I dont know what is.

This is what is keeping science held back, the lack of ability to change perspectives. One might even ironically say, the lack of ability to look outside of the spinning bucket.

I will try and make an illustration of the bucket experiment using a "medium" which would make more sense than anyone I have seen so far.

https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Conrad-Ranzan-2013957168
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368123001644
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215457491_The_cellular_universe_A_new_cosmological_model_based_on_the_holographic_principle
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/image-black-hole-milky-way-magnetic-field-rcna145331
« Last Edit: 2024-03-30, 22:31:36 by broli »
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1940
because it is only felt by the rotating object.
If the force is "external", why doesn't the object feel it when it stops?
It is not the rotation of the object, it is the transation of the object.  If the object is at the center of the carousel it rotates but there is no force.  When the carousel stops rotating, the force on an off-center body disappears because the translation through the aether stops.  I am surprised that someone of your calibre should make that comment.

Smudge
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
Here is my view on the bucket/centrifugal force dilemma (and Mach's principle) using a medium. I have not seen anyone explain it like this before. Maybe Newton was missing Powerpoint to understand his bucket experiment  >:-).

When you accept a dynamic medium model you start dealing with flow and pressure gradients and things start to make much more sense. Unlike SpaceTime which is a "static" medium model, missing crucial dynamic information that comes with fluid DYNAMICS. When you accelerate through a medium, you will hit a lot more "stuff", just how your face starts to warp due to the wind when you free fall from the sky or there is a big pressure build up if you move a flat plate through the air, felt as a "fictional drag" force. The same goes for whatever "stuff" the universe is filled with.

For crying out loud just this past week experimentalists have shown they can simulate black holes in a lab using super fluids and even simulate the ability for sound waves not being able to escape the "event horizon": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_nTWdg_neE

"Scientists" are starting to face crushing dilemma's on a weekly basis now. The 100 year old jig is up its time to face the music. And every time they cheer and say "this opens up new scientific discovery" ignoring all the voices that have been proposing them for all those years. Ignorance begets ignorance.

The question is if manipulating the pressure of the medium is as simple as rotating a body of mass that even a child can do, what else can we unlock from this knowledge? Shouldn't "scientists" be excited by such endless new possibilities just by shifting their perspective and FINALLY accepting that we are surrounded by a medium? Instead of referring to a century old flawed experiment that only proved this medium was NOT static? Which "Spacetime" is essentially referring to from a purely mathematical point of view.

Please lets take the blue pill and wake up from the dream into the real world finally and get rid of all these imaginary constructs like:

  • dark matter
  • dark energy
  • "fictional" centrifugal force
  • "virtual" particles
  • "imaginary" complex number i
  • Quantum Foam
  • Higgs field

And lets finally stop mocking REAL concepts like the "imaginary" unit complex number ''i'', part of our physical reality since the beginning of time explaining the rotational (non-linear) nature of the universe elegantly so we can finally perhaps get back into space without burning enormous candle sticks.

However I am a big fan of physics that can be visualized without any math AND tells you what is happening so that even a child can understand it. As math is a language and needs education, visual information is universal and that is how you start to inspire a new generation with new ideas not intimidate them with your math skills meant to impress your cult for prestigious prices and medals. The math part comes handy when you start to build space ships.
« Last Edit: 2024-03-31, 21:14:40 by broli »
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
"Einstein was wrong": that's the kind of stupid headline that's designed to attract attention.
When a theory describes a multitude of things with great precision, it will always do so and therefore will never be "wrong". If in new fields, or with new precision in measurements, it is found to be inadequate, then its area of validity is clarified, and the new encompassing theory is used to make further progress.
Relativity has proved that Newtonian gravitation is "false" in the sense in which that word is used in the article. But that doesn't mean that Newtonian gravitation is no longer relevant in its field. Of course it's still correct, and still allows useful calculations.
And the same goes for relativity if a more relevant theory emerges.

Scientific theories are what best describe what we know about the universe at a given time. They can never be "wrong", since known facts occur in accordance with their predictions up to a certain degree of accuracy. But incomplete, certainly, and it will always be like that for any theory, unless you believe in absolute knowledge. It's commonplace to say so.

And the increasing speed of the expanding universe ?


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
And the increasing speed of the expanding universe ?

The limits of theories are well known, notably the incompatibility of general relativity with QM.
Does this mean that below these limits, where the theory is in phase with measurements, the theory would be "false"?

If you use the limits of knowledge as an excuse not to use that knowledge, we can go back to the Stone Age.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
The limits of theories are well known, notably the incompatibility of general relativity with QM.
Does this mean that below these limits, where the theory is in phase with measurements, the theory would be "false"?

If you use the limits of knowledge as an excuse not to use that knowledge, we can go back to the Stone Age.

I have been Reading scientific work, papers, articles and journals for many years. I have talked to many scientists across those years. Very very very few of them were open minded enough to even accept an alternative viewpoint. It's not about who is right or wrong but about the ability to open up to new ideas even if they come from the "fringe".

I have linked to some papers previously. Why has not a single astrophysicist considered Conrad's work for instance. Is it because he dresses cooky? Why is it that we can model one of the most elusive cosmic body, a black hole, with a super fluid and get terrifyingly accurate results? Is there perhaps a medium after all?

The unwillingness to change perspective is what bothers me the most. I have been ridiculed many times yet here we are facing "crysises" on a daily basis in cosmology. The standard model needs saving by investing more billions of local currency so we can build ever more powerful colliders. Fusion reactors have been stuck in a rut for many decades. What if we just changed perspectives and listened to some of those crackpots. Perhaps this 100 year impasse will finally come to pass and we can move on into a world we could not even imagine right now. A world were ideas flow freely no matter where they came from.

I have a feeling that admitting that Einstein was wrong in his assumptions and facing the consequences of that is for many akin to insulting their religion. Einstein cannot be touched no matter what. Why? He is Just a human who brought an interesting idea for its time. Ideas are like humans too, they grow old, become weak and die and a new generation of ideas take over. It's the natural process of the universe.

We humans have a bad habit of idolizing the person behind an idea rather than using the idea untill it reaches its limits. Here's hoping we can get rid of bad habits in the future.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
The limits of theories are well known, notably the incompatibility of general relativity with QM.
Does this mean that below these limits, where the theory is in phase with measurements, the theory would be "false"?

If you use the limits of knowledge as an excuse not to use that knowledge, we can go back to the Stone Age.

I am glad you see that there are limits to which the theories hold true so far.

We use these limits of knowledge to go forward.
That is why we are here--to find gaps in the theories we can use to our advantage.

Physics say that the permanent magnet cannot do useful work.
How could they know that for sure, when they don't actually know what the field is that surrounds a permanent magnet ?
Could the magnetic field be the bending, curving, warping of space/time ?
Could it be a disturbance in this dark energy field they claim must exist?
This claim by physics is based around-well we haven't been able to do it, so it can't be done.

Claiming that this magnetic field can't do useful work, without knowing what that field actually is, is like claiming some ones vehicle cannot exceed 100mph, without knowing what the vehicle is.
There are holes left for us to use to our advantage.
We just have to find them.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 472
There are energy sources not used today like cosmic radiation or Earth magnetic field. Maybe theories are good but the people have wrong look at them.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
It is not the rotation of the object, it is the transation of the object.  If the object is at the center of the carousel it rotates but there is no force.  When the carousel stops rotating, the force on an off-center body disappears because the translation through the aether stops.  I am surprised that someone of your calibre should make that comment.

This seems incorrect on several levels.

Quote
If the object is at the center of the carousel it rotates but there is no force.
In fact there is a force internal to the object which acts from it's exact center to it's perimeter. Here's a hint, it's magnitudes more efficient to spin up an object on it's center axis and have it tear itself apart than it is to tear or crush it into pieces. Logically any matter off the exact center of rotation down to the atomic scale will feel a force.

Quote
When the carousel stops rotating, the force on an off-center body disappears because the translation through the aether stops.
The problem in question is perceptual.

The centrifugal force is an illusion of sorts. As shown below, draw a radius line R from the center of the carousel to the perimeter. Now place an object on the line R and draw a line perpendicular to R in the direction of rotation. As we can see the line perpendicular to R is the direction the object wants to travel but it cannot because it is bound to a circular path on the disk. So the "centrifugal force" is simply the inertia of the object wanting to continue moving "in a straight line" when it is bound to another path not in a straight line. As such this is not a special force in any sense of the word it's just that many people seem to get confused by things which move in circles.

Here is a hint, forget the circle and simply draw the line R as a lever which it is in reality. Now draw the path of rotation (P) and the perpendicular line it wants to go (D) as short segments. Connect the segments and we get a triangle where segment PD represents the change in direction and the force experienced by the object due to it's own inertia.

We could also invert the triangle and imagine pushing the object up a ramp or hill. As the object is pushed up the ramp it is changing direction from level to an upward motion. The change in direction constitutes an acceleration upwards thus the object experiences a force. Should we also call this force "centrifugal" because it's the same force as before?.

AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1940
And future space ships have been proposed that have simulated gravity.  They are huge drums that are rotating with the humans living on the inside of the curved surface.  They feel gravity, if they drop a ball it fals towards their ground.  Yes they can perform careful measurements to show it is not the usual gravity if they know the math, but the behaviour is acting like an external gravity force.   It is quite easy to create the math for this external force in the same manner we do for moving electrons.  And that is far more sensible than the usual dribble about inertia that AC has just expounded.

Smudge
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
And future space ships have been proposed that have simulated gravity.  They are huge drums that are rotating with the humans living on the inside of the curved surface.  They feel gravity, if they drop a ball it fals towards their ground.  Yes they can perform careful measurements to show it is not the usual gravity if they know the math, but the behaviour is acting like an external gravity force.   It is quite easy to create the math for this external force in the same manner we do for moving electrons.  And that is far more sensible than the usual dribble about inertia that AC has just expounded.

Smudge

Or we can just manipulate the aether flow and "shower" ourselves with it simulating gravity :). The other interesting question is what does the hull of the space ship need to be made of for Aether to flow around it like a wing rather than through it. Super dense structures? We already see strange higher dimension Quasi crystals in meteorites and high velocity impact experiments. I believe highly ordered structures and nano technology like meta materials will be key in this field. Additionally breaking the light barrier might come from understanding the nature of Aether and how to manipulate it.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
This seems incorrect on several levels.
In fact there is a force internal to the object which acts from it's exact center to it's perimeter. Here's a hint, it's magnitudes more efficient to spin up an object on it's center axis and have it tear itself apart than it is to tear or crush it into pieces. Logically any matter off the exact center of rotation down to the atomic scale will feel a force.
The problem in question is perceptual.

The centrifugal force is an illusion of sorts. As shown below, draw a radius line R from the center of the carousel to the perimeter. Now place an object on the line R and draw a line perpendicular to R in the direction of rotation. As we can see the line perpendicular to R is the direction the object wants to travel but it cannot because it is bound to a circular path on the disk. So the "centrifugal force" is simply the inertia of the object wanting to continue moving "in a straight line" when it is bound to another path not in a straight line. As such this is not a special force in any sense of the word it's just that many people seem to get confused by things which move in circles.

Here is a hint, forget the circle and simply draw the line R as a lever which it is in reality. Now draw the path of rotation (P) and the perpendicular line it wants to go (D) as short segments. Connect the segments and we get a triangle where segment PD represents the change in direction and the force experienced by the object due to it's own inertia.

We could also invert the triangle and imagine pushing the object up a ramp or hill. As the object is pushed up the ramp it is changing direction from level to an upward motion. The change in direction constitutes an acceleration upwards thus the object experiences a force. Should we also call this force "centrifugal" because it's the same force as before?.

AC

This explains why but not how. When you are forced to rotate, all the atoms in your body are constantly being accelerated through the Aether, this Aether flow will have a net flow radially outwards and thus causes the force we have been calling "fictional" for centuries. The same goes for when you are accelerated in a straight line, you encounter much more Aether flow, wanting to drag you "back" just like the drag force of air. At constant speeds the Aether flow is constant and thus no force is felt. Not voodoo physics, simple fluid dynamics.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
I also want to add this thought. I dont believe the medium we call Aether, spacetime or whatever is "absolute". I believe we can only live in a fractal universe meaning this "stuff" itself is fractal in nature too and thus will have its own infinite structure the further down we go investigating it. If we assume nature repeats we only need to study our own "level" of the fractal to unveil the whole fractal.

However my hunch is that this "stuff" might be very similar in structure to water on our "level" of the fractal. Just like how protons appear to have 2 quarks and one special "charm" quark, or water that has 2 hydrogen and one special oxygen atom or even our solar system that seems to come in pairs of two similarly sized planets and one sun. The signifiance of 3 is on every level important it seems. Or rather the significance of 2 similar things being held by one dissimilar, usually larger, "godly" thing. Even on the light spectrum we see this pattern of "3". What if this pattern is part of the very "DNA" of the universe, what if this state happens to be the "ground state" or the state where the universe is in its most ideal energetic configuration. And when we come across such a state we get to see magical things. Wouldn't that imply that the ground state itself is setup to induce life itself?

The magical thing that makes this possible on our level is the neutron. Without neutrons there would be no elements, water or anything else. The neutron itself is unstable and will decay within 15min. However if there is hydrogen nearby it will stick to it and form Deuterium. This stable "neutronic" configuration then kick stars a whole universe of elements through fusion.

Even lower we have neutrinos doing essentially the same thing, building structure. At higher scales we have neutron stars, arguably holding the universe together. So this often "neutral", "neutronic" particle or "god" particle as some may call it repeats throughout the fractal giving rise to structure to an otherwise structureless energetic universe. The question then arises, where or how is this "god" particle formed on each level? Gravity, or more correctly electrostatics. When you bunch of enough hydrogen atoms together through the force of "gravity", some electrons will jump to the proton and form neutrons. These neutrons will attach to other hydrogen atoms and you kick start the formation of elements. But fusion is not limited to our level either. Subatomic particles have their own "elements" table as well which we see fragments of when we smash atoms together.

We dont need large extremely expensive hydron colliders to investigate nature (or rather the debri of nature) nature is giving us the biggest atomic show when we just look up at the night sky at such a slow pace that even the best detectors cant emulate. Is it a coincidence that since the James Webb Telescope went up there now is a crisis in cosmology on a monthly/weekly basis?

https://www.livescience.com/space/after-2-years-in-space-the-james-webb-telescope-has-broken-cosmology-can-it-be-fixed

Wouldn't it be ironic if we discovered the universe was actually contracting rather than expanding. It wouldn't be the first time our monkey brains had the direction wrong.

Makes you think about things.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
My simple contribution.  Why is inertial mass considered as an internal property of matter?  Put another way, why is the external force that we can feel on our bodies when we are on a rotating carousel not considered by science to be an external force?  Why are we not allowed to draw force vectors pointing outwards from our mass indicating an external force.  There is no other branch of science where the results of this simple experiment would not be taken as evidence of an external force acting on the body.

Smudge

I asked chatGPT

A- The situation you're describing, where you feel a force on your body when on a rotating carousel, is indeed due to an external force – the centripetal force. However, in classical mechanics, the concept of an inertial reference frame is fundamental. An inertial reference frame is a frame of reference in which Newton's first law of motion holds true – that is, an object will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force.

So seems like science just want's you do do it their way, even though you are correct Smudge.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1940
Wouldn't it be ironic if we discovered the universe was actually contracting rather than expanding.
That expansion is based on just one aspect of astronomical observations, the shift of frequency (or wavelength whatever is measured) of the known spectral values for different elements.  This is assumed to be a doppler shift indicating that the distant matter is moving relative to us.  The shift seems to generally follow a law where the recession velocity is proportional to the distance away from us, but if you look at the actual measurements it is not a straight line.  No account has been taken for the possibility that the shift may be due to other factors, the most obvious one being that a scalar gravitational potential in the outer reaches of a finite non-expanding universe could account for the spectral shift.  Or some other aether aspect along the lines Broli is expounding.  So the Big Bang theory is based on one single assumption that could be wrong.

Smudge 
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
This statement is not true and the basis of Mach principle

Mach's principle is a hypothesis. It doesn't predict our observation of the universe as well as relativity, and what's more, it doesn't predict phenomena that relativity does, such as the lifetime of radioactive elements as a function of speed.
This need to look for an approximate alternative theory, out of rejection of academic science, is irrational.

I have been Reading scientific work, papers, articles and journals for many years. I have talked to many scientists across those years. Very very very few of them were open minded enough to even accept an alternative viewpoint. It's not about who is right or wrong but about the ability to open up to new ideas even if they come from the "fringe".

This point of view is totally arbitrary and contrary to the facts, in my opinion due to a misunderstanding of why scientists hold a certain number of current theories to be the best and others to be false  or insufficient.
On the other hand, they are totally open to new ideas as long as they are relevant, i.e. verify observations. If they weren't open, Einstein would never have been able to put forward relativity, which shocked everyone at the time and was nevertheless adopted.
This openness can also be seen in scientists' ability to question their own theories - I've already mentioned this in connection with relativity - and to search for a "new physics", because they are perfectly aware of the limitations of the current theories. Do a Google search for "new physics", and you will see that all physicists are looking for it. Seriously, do you think you're the only ones who know that scientific theories have limits and want to look beyond them?!

This closed-mindedness of those who believe themselves to be open-minded can be seen everywhere in FE, particularly in the rejection of any scientific theory because it is beyond them. Some people here challenge relativity when they don't understand it at all - they've only read a vague popularization of it. How can you criticize something you don't understand?
I am addressing them.
Denying what you don't understand, refusing to acknowledge facts that are different from what you'd like to see, falsifying and reducing the world to simple beliefs, demand an absolute Truth but inventing imaginary realities like FE machines that no one has, has always been the lot of believers. They believe that what they don't understand is false, that the world should be reduced to what they do understand or dream, and that it should be rewritten to suit the childishness of children railing against their teachers or great minds.
When mankind is equipped with your "free energy" machines, you'll be able to teach scientists a thing or two. For the moment, it's thanks to them that you have energy, that you can communicate here, so thank them, show some modesty, lean on them to go beyond, and before condemning what's beyond you, try to learn to think straight or you will always be as bad as today in the creation of a new technology useful to humanity.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-28, 09:37:51