Everything That is Wrong With Modern Science

[StevenO]

Here's my theory

[altonhare]

Steven you made some subtle but important errors, specifically #3. Shapes are visualizable, not necessarily "visible" (seeable). An object may be too small to SEE (we cannot see it, it is invisible), but if it has shape we can certainly visualize it.

Next, in prop 9, if you can point to an object and say "God" then you have a valid hypothesis. It doesn't matter if you say "cafdoanlads". There is no taboo on the word God in science, objectively it's just a sound, although you like to use it to take advantage of its connotation and make me look religious. The only requirement for a valid hypothesis is that we can present a model of it. A statue of Jesus is fine. Your "God pulling on ropes" theory sounds silly because you have presented it to sound as such. In actuality, according to thread theory, we are all pulling on ropes. Each atom in our body is under tension via the rope with every other atom. Every movement you make involves interaction with every atom in the U according to TT, and this is consistent with Mach's philosophy on the origin of inertia. Just because we throw in an object called "God" and say that he, too, is pulling on these ropes doesn't make any difference. In TT every object is pulling on the ropes, whatever you choose to call it.

That's fine with me, I'm just trying to represent you as correctly as possible and have a scientific discussion. The correct list should then be:

Alton:
1. "Objects are" (primitives, physical)
2. "Objects have shape"
3. "Visible things have shape"
4. "Physics is visible objects or visible models of objects"
5. "Invisible objects are"

Steven:
6. God cannot be distinguished from an object by propositions 1-5.
7. So can invisible ropes
8. A visible pen falls on the floor through an invisible cause
9. Since I can visualize a God pulling invisible ropes on this pen I have proposed a valid physical theory.

The representation is still not correct.

1. An object is that which has shape.
2. Exist is that which has shape and location.
3. Physics is the study of objects that exist.

4. If God has shape, it is an object by definition, and is a valid hypothesis.
5. If rope has shape, it is an object by definition, and is a valid hypothesis.
6. A pen falls to the floor, through an invisible cause.
7. The pen falls to the floor because it is bound by invisible ropes. If the object "God" is nearby also, it is bound to the pen and earth by invisible ropes and also pulls on them.

It is a matter of course that whatever has shape can be pointed to or visualized. It is also a matter of course that not all objects have to emit light (be visible).

Now, what experiment do you have that would be evidence that your or my hypothesis is so much better than current or even old physics theories?

It's not even a matter of being better at this point, but more a matter of actually having a theory at all. There is currently no theory of how one magnet physically attracts or repels another one. The concept "field" is a useful conceptual and mathematical device, but it is not a physical mechanism. In fact, it is worse than proposing "God", because at least God has shape. Fields do not, since 'a' field is conceptual. It becomes a catch-all term that tricks us into thinking we have explained some new phenomenon when we have really learned nothing except perhaps a mathematical model for the behavior.

The particle is an object, but one cannot justify attraction with discrete particles. To get around this we have dressed our particles in concepts (fields) in order to imbue them with whatever properties we need them to have in order to justify the observed behavior, no matter how supernatural these properties may be. The particle becomes a ptolemaic explanation, i.e. we insist on particles because they are easy to visualize and think about (and because the universe looks particulate to us), and continue to insist upon them in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Waves are not objects, it is not what something is, but rather what something does. Wave theorists always beg the question of what is waving. The answer is the rope. This is what wave theorists have been missing for so long, an actual object/form to propose as hypothesis. At least the particle physicist has a hypothesis, which is the advantage the particle model has enjoyed for so long, even though they only pay lip service to it. The particle is the indispensable "something". For wave theorists, I believe the rope can serve as the "indispensable something" that we don't just have to pay lip service to.

I'm sure Newton was quite capable of defining the terms he used, but saw no need to restate the obvious, just like you do with your definitions that you call "ubiquitous" or "self-evident".

Maybe he could, but he didn't! So even if he could, we will never know. The difference him and me is that some of what he is referring to is not primitive and is actually rather subjective. Different people have different notions of time, in particular, but he elected not to define it. Additionally motion is not primitive because motion implies the motion of something. So first we must define "something", which he also deigned not to define. Worst of all, he did not define what he meant by "exist", a word which different people carry vastly different notions of. The only requirement of the definitions of these terms is that they are used consistently through the person's theory. Because Newton opted out, one can later insert whatever definitions necessary or convenient for key terms in the theory. Worse yet, each individual inserts their own notions and ideas about the meanings of these words as they read the theory, which means they are now not learning Newton's theory but their own (or perhaps a slightly modified version of their own).

Refusing to define a word such as "exist" means what exists and doesn't in the theory is up for debate! Such holes in the presentation render the theory unfalsifiable, since what the theory says is up to each individual's interpretation. The math doesn't change, because the math just cares if it matches (reasonably closely) what we read out on our instruments.

Now, what makes a physics theory purely based on (hypothetical) visualized shapes so much better than a theory based on formula's? How would you send people to the moon through that?

Science isn't about sending people to the moon. Science is just about explaining a phenomenon of nature. Getting mathematical models that match up well helps us build devices, but don't say anything about the underlying physical mechanisms. Posing physical mechanisms can help us to understand.

[StevenO]

The representation is still not correct.

1. An object is that which has shape.
2. Exist is that which has shape and location.
3. Physics is the study of objects that exist.

4. If God has shape, it is an object by definition, and is a valid hypothesis.
5. If rope has shape, it is an object by definition, and is a valid hypothesis.
6. A pen falls to the floor, through an invisible cause.
7. The pen falls to the floor because it is bound by invisible ropes. If the object "God" is nearby also, it is bound to the pen and earth by invisible ropes and also pulls on them.

It is a matter of course that whatever has shape can be pointed to or visualized. It is also a matter of course that not all objects have to emit light (be visible).

Proposition (2) conflicts with two of your other statements:
(a) "An object exists independently of the ability to see it", and
(b) "Location is the set of distances that separate one object from one or more others".
A few questions that pop up are:
- What is the "location" of an invisible object that exists?
- Does an individual visible shape have no "location", i.e. it does not "exist"?
- Define "distance"
- Define "separation"

Now, what experiment do you have that would be evidence that your or my hypothesis is so much better than current or even old physics theories?

It's not even a matter of being better at this point, but more a matter of actually having a theory at all. There is currently no theory of how one magnet physically attracts or repels another one. The concept "field" is a useful conceptual and mathematical device, but it is not a physical mechanism. In fact, it is worse than proposing "God", because at least God has shape. Fields do not, since 'a' field is conceptual. It becomes a catch-all term that tricks us into thinking we have explained some new phenomenon when we have really learned nothing except perhaps a mathematical model for the behavior.

Visualized fields have real nice three dimensional shapes...

The particle is an object, but one cannot justify attraction with discrete particles. To get around this we have dressed our particles in concepts (fields) in order to imbue them with whatever properties we need them to have in order to justify the observed behavior, no matter how supernatural these properties may be. The particle becomes a ptolemaic explanation, i.e. we insist on particles because they are easy to visualize and think about (and because the universe looks particulate to us), and continue to insist upon them in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

You are confusing particles with your definition of "objects". A particle is only discrete in terms of energy content. An exchange of a discrete amount of energy can be described by a "virtual particle", very similar to your "invisible objects". If the total energy content of a system goes down when the particles move closer together you get attraction, otherwise repulsion. I do not see the problem.

Waves are not objects, it is not what something is, but rather what something does. Wave theorists always beg the question of what is waving. The answer is the rope. This is what wave theorists have been missing for so long, an actual object/form to propose as hypothesis. At least the particle physicist has a hypothesis, which is the advantage the particle model has enjoyed for so long, even though they only pay lip service to it. The particle is the indispensable "something". For wave theorists, I believe the rope can serve as the "indispensable something" that we don't just have to pay lip service to.

A wave has shape and location, so it is a real nice object too And rope theorists always beg the question of who is pulling the ropes

I'm sure Newton was quite capable of defining the terms he used, but saw no need to restate the obvious, just like you do with your definitions that you call "ubiquitous" or "self-evident".

Maybe he could, but he didn't! So even if he could, we will never know. The difference him and me is that some of what he is referring to is not primitive and is actually rather subjective. Different people have different notions of time, in particular, but he elected not to define it. Additionally motion is not primitive because motion implies the motion of something. So first we must define "something", which he also deigned not to define. Worst of all, he did not define what he meant by "exist", a word which different people carry vastly different notions of. The only requirement of the definitions of these terms is that they are used consistently through the person's theory. Because Newton opted out, one can later insert whatever definitions necessary or convenient for key terms in the theory. Worse yet, each individual inserts their own notions and ideas about the meanings of these words as they read the theory, which means they are now not learning Newton's theory but their own (or perhaps a slightly modified version of their own).

My god, it's really amazing he got away with it and that his theories still hold after these hundreds of years!

But, tell me, how is "acceleration" defined in "objectively existing something" theory?

Refusing to define a word such as "exist" means what exists and doesn't in the theory is up for debate! Such holes in the presentation render the theory unfalsifiable, since what the theory says is up to each individual's interpretation. The math doesn't change, because the math just cares if it matches (reasonably closely) what we read out on our instruments.

Pfew, at least the math and the instruments work, even though we do not know what it calculates or measures exists at all...

Now, what makes a physics theory purely based on (hypothetical) visualized shapes so much better than a theory based on formula's? How would you send people to the moon through that?

Science isn't about sending people to the moon. Science is just about explaining a phenomenon of nature. Getting mathematical models that match up well helps us build devices, but don't say anything about the underlying physical mechanisms. Posing physical mechanisms can help us to understand.

I have seen a gazillion theories that claim to explain everything. How would that "help us to understand" instead of "distract us into confusion"? What objective criterion exists that distinguishes the good ones from the bad ones?

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
You wrote:

In fact, it is worse than proposing "God", because at least God has shape.

You might want to talk about that with a Hindu or a Daoist, for example. After you have suitably defined the term 'God', of course.

[altonhare]

The representation is still not correct.

1. An object is that which has shape.
2. Exist is that which has shape and location.
3. Physics is the study of objects that exist.

4. If God has shape, it is an object by definition, and is a valid hypothesis.
5. If rope has shape, it is an object by definition, and is a valid hypothesis.
6. A pen falls to the floor, through an invisible cause.
7. The pen falls to the floor because it is bound by invisible ropes. If the object "God" is nearby also, it is bound to the pen and earth by invisible ropes and also pulls on them.

It is a matter of course that whatever has shape can be pointed to or visualized. It is also a matter of course that not all objects have to emit light (be visible).

Proposition (2) conflicts with two of your other statements:
(a) "An object exists independently of the ability to see it", and
(b) "Location is the set of distances that separate one object from one or more others".

I see no contradiction or conflict. An object that exists has shape and location whether I can see it or not.

Also, location is just the set of distances of one object that exists from every other object that exists.

A few questions that pop up are:
- What is the "location" of an invisible object that exists?

The set of distances from it to every other object that exists.

- Does an individual visible shape have no "location", i.e. it does not "exist"?

This keyboard has location, it's right here. It definitely exists.

I don't understand your confusion. You seem very hung up on visible vs. invisible when it is completely irrelevant.

I repeat, if it has shape and location, it exists by definition. Where do you see anything about visibility in this definition? However, if it has shape there is no reason we cannot visualize what it might look like.

So an electron or 'a' quark may be too small for anyone to SEE (it's invisible), but if it's an object then there is no excuse for us not to imagine what it looks like.

- Define "distance"
- Define "separation"

The inherent static relationship between two objects. Qualitatively the concepts "distance" and "separate" mean that we are referring to two objects and not one.

Now, what experiment do you have that would be evidence that your or my hypothesis is so much better than current or even old physics theories?

It's not even a matter of being better at this point, but more a matter of actually having a theory at all. There is currently no theory of how one magnet physically attracts or repels another one. The concept "field" is a useful conceptual and mathematical device, but it is not a physical mechanism. In fact, it is worse than proposing "God", because at least God has shape. Fields do not, since 'a' field is conceptual. It becomes a catch-all term that tricks us into thinking we have explained some new phenomenon when we have really learned nothing except perhaps a mathematical model for the behavior.

Visualized fields have real nice three dimensional shapes...

Which is contradicted in the next breath when fields are said to "exist over all space" i.e. have "infinite extent" i.e. no boundary or border.

Nevertheless, you may use this word "field" however you want. Show me the field of your theory? How does it physically justify attraction and repulsion?

The particle is an object, but one cannot justify attraction with discrete particles. To get around this we have dressed our particles in concepts (fields) in order to imbue them with whatever properties we need them to have in order to justify the observed behavior, no matter how supernatural these properties may be. The particle becomes a ptolemaic explanation, i.e. we insist on particles because they are easy to visualize and think about (and because the universe looks particulate to us), and continue to insist upon them in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

You are confusing particles with your definition of "objects". A particle is only discrete in terms of energy content. An exchange of a discrete amount of energy can be described by a "virtual particle", very similar to your "invisible objects". If the total energy content of a system goes down when the particles move closer together you get attraction, otherwise repulsion. I do not see the problem.

What is this energy "thing" that you are exchanging which a particle apparently possesses? If particles are not little pebbles, what do they look like? What does this energy thing that the particle carries on its back?

Could you transfer some of your height to me, or some of your motivation please? Of course not, these are concepts.

What you're saying is that you take some measurements and you get X result when A and A' move together and Y result when A and B move together. One result you refer to as "energy increases" and the other as "energy decreases". This is accounting, not a physical mechanism/theory.

Waves are not objects, it is not what something is, but rather what something does. Wave theorists always beg the question of what is waving. The answer is the rope. This is what wave theorists have been missing for so long, an actual object/form to propose as hypothesis. At least the particle physicist has a hypothesis, which is the advantage the particle model has enjoyed for so long, even though they only pay lip service to it. The particle is the indispensable "something". For wave theorists, I believe the rope can serve as the "indispensable something" that we don't just have to pay lip service to.

A wave has shape and location, so it is a real nice object too And rope theorists always beg the question of who is pulling the ropes

Really? What does the wave of your theory look like?

How do you use 'it' to explain how light propagates rectilinear from source to target but also consists of anti parallel components moving in a helical/torsional pattern?

Everybody and everything is pulling on everybody and everything else. Your point is moot. Thread theory has not posed an action (such as waving) divorced from an object as wave theorists generally do. In TT the rope is the entity doing the moving.

I'm sure Newton was quite capable of defining the terms he used, but saw no need to restate the obvious, just like you do with your definitions that you call "ubiquitous" or "self-evident".

Maybe he could, but he didn't! So even if he could, we will never know. The difference him and me is that some of what he is referring to is not primitive and is actually rather subjective. Different people have different notions of time, in particular, but he elected not to define it. Additionally motion is not primitive because motion implies the motion of something. So first we must define "something", which he also deigned not to define. Worst of all, he did not define what he meant by "exist", a word which different people carry vastly different notions of. The only requirement of the definitions of these terms is that they are used consistently through the person's theory. Because Newton opted out, one can later insert whatever definitions necessary or convenient for key terms in the theory. Worse yet, each individual inserts their own notions and ideas about the meanings of these words as they read the theory, which means they are now not learning Newton's theory but their own (or perhaps a slightly modified version of their own).

My god, it's really amazing he got away with it and that his theories still hold after these hundreds of years!

What theory? He confessed he had no idea how objects attracted each other nor why inertia and gravitation appeared to be quantitatively equivalent. He just mathematically summed up a great many observations in a concise framework. He made the bookkeeping and accounting much more tractable. He had no theory, he didn't even have a hypothesis. Well, he did propose the corpuscle for light, but he had no such hyp for gravity.

But, tell me, how is "acceleration" defined in "objectively existing something" theory?

Acceleration isn't the problem, the definition of the terms that define acceleration are the problem (position and time). The definition of acceleration is the same when the proper definitions of time, distance, location, and distance-traveled are in place.

Refusing to define a word such as "exist" means what exists and doesn't in the theory is up for debate! Such holes in the presentation render the theory unfalsifiable, since what the theory says is up to each individual's interpretation. The math doesn't change, because the math just cares if it matches (reasonably closely) what we read out on our instruments.

Pfew, at least the math and the instruments work, even though we do not know what it calculates or measures exists at all...

lol, you better be observing that which exists, since you cannot get around it.

Now, what makes a physics theory purely based on (hypothetical) visualized shapes so much better than a theory based on formula's? How would you send people to the moon through that?

Science isn't about sending people to the moon. Science is just about explaining a phenomenon of nature. Getting mathematical models that match up well helps us build devices, but don't say anything about the underlying physical mechanisms. Posing physical mechanisms can help us to understand.

I have seen a gazillion theories that claim to explain everything. How would that "help us to understand" instead of "distract us into confusion"? What objective criterion exists that distinguishes the good ones from the bad ones?

Firstly, we distinguish those theories that are rational as scientific, and discard all the rest. Any theory that poses the unimaginable, inconceivable, demands contradiction, etc. is right out. Religions are a great example, they all propose God, then immediately insist that "he" (of course it's a man) is inconceivable. They then propose contradictory and supernatural mechanisms and explanations such as creation ex nihlo. Consistency and conceivability are objective criteria. We cannot scientifically evaluate that which contradicts itself and we cannot scientifically evaluate a "theory" that is incomprehensible.

If the theory is True, in that it matches exactly with reality, then one's belief in that theory is Right. Otherwise one's belief is Wrong.

[solrey]

A lot of what's wrong with modern science is exposed in this recent study:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 425036.ece

One in seven scientists says that they are aware of colleagues having seriously breached acceptable conduct by inventing results. And around 46 per cent say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in “questionable practices”, such as presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.

Now this cracks me up:

However, when scientists were asked about their own behaviour only 2 per cent admitted to having faked results.

It's everybody elses fault! Now where's my grant money!



sad, sad, sad. But I think most of us here knew this already. It is, however, pretty good ammunition when debating the validity of scientific research/peer review, on other forums.

[StevenO]

Proposition (2) conflicts with two of your other statements:
(a) "An object exists independently of the ability to see it", and
(b) "Location is the set of distances that separate one object from one or more others".

I see no contradiction or conflict. An object that exists has shape and location whether I can see it or not.

Also, location is just the set of distances of one object that exists from every other object that exists.

So, the proposition is then "The universe exists out of objects with shape and location, some of which have a visible presence". But, what objective criterion does exist to determine the shape and location of the invisible objects?

A few questions that pop up are:
- What is the "location" of an invisible object that exists?

The set of distances from it to every other object that exists.

- Does an individual visible shape have no "location", i.e. it does not "exist"?

This keyboard has location, it's right here. It definitely exists.

I don't understand your confusion. You seem very hung up on visible vs. invisible when it is completely irrelevant.

I'm just completely puzzled how in this world one would determine the shape and location of the invisible objects, especially if you don't acknowledge the existence of space, time or forces described by fields.

I repeat, if it has shape and location, it exists by definition. Where do you see anything about visibility in this definition? However, if it has shape there is no reason we cannot visualize what it might look like.

So an electron or 'a' quark may be too small for anyone to SEE (it's invisible), but if it's an object then there is no excuse for us not to imagine what it looks like.

A visualisation is not a proof of what the shape and location of an object is. There is no law that nature is subjected to human imagination.

- Define "distance"
- Define "separation"

The inherent static relationship between two objects. Qualitatively the concepts "distance" and "separate" mean that we are referring to two objects and not one.

So, distance and seperation are the same? But WHAT separates two objects? An invisible object?

Visualized fields have real nice three dimensional shapes...

Which is contradicted in the next breath when fields are said to "exist over all space" i.e. have "infinite extent" i.e. no boundary or border.

Nevertheless, you may use this word "field" however you want. Show me the field of your theory? How does it physically justify attraction and repulsion?

I do not have to show it, it is an invisible object with shape and location. E.g. the earth's magnetic field originates from it's core and is kind'a shaped like an apple.

You are confusing particles with your definition of "objects". A particle is only discrete in terms of energy content. An exchange of a discrete amount of energy can be described by a "virtual particle", very similar to your "invisible objects". If the total energy content of a system goes down when the particles move closer together you get attraction, otherwise repulsion. I do not see the problem.

What is this energy "thing" that you are exchanging which a particle apparently possesses? If particles are not little pebbles, what do they look like? What does this energy thing that the particle carries on its back?

Why do you think nature should adhere to human concepts like "carrying something on its back"? Energy is the ability to do work, the ability to move something, e.g. one of your objects. But I assume you have not "defined" it yet, so it is not part of your vocabulary. Still a long way to go then...

Could you transfer some of your height to me, or some of your motivation please? Of course not, these are concepts.

Sure, just stand on my back. My motivation I'm already transferring, but you're just so hardheaded. And while you are at it, could you throw me a rope to one of your "invisible shapes with location"

What you're saying is that you take some measurements and you get X result when A and A' move together and Y result when A and B move together. One result you refer to as "energy increases" and the other as "energy decreases". This is accounting, not a physical mechanism/theory.

That's what you do when your theorizing leads to actual results

A wave has shape and location, so it is a real nice object too And rope theorists always beg the question of who is pulling the ropes

Really? What does the wave of your theory look like?

What? You've never seen a wave? And you pretend to do physics? Try throwing a rock in the lake and then come back.

How do you use 'it' to explain how light propagates rectilinear from source to target but also consists of anti parallel components moving in a helical/torsional pattern?

The mainstream theory is that the photon is the quantum of the EM field, so one can only interact with the EM field through photons. My theory is different and would take too much time to explain here. You can find it in the "Reciprocal System" thread.

Everybody and everything is pulling on everybody and everything else. Your point is moot. Thread theory has not posed an action (such as waving) divorced from an object as wave theorists generally do. In TT the rope is the entity doing the moving.

Why do you think the physical universe is restricted to "objects" and to even more restrictive "pulling objects"? How do I see a rope move?

What theory? He confessed he had no idea how objects attracted each other nor why inertia and gravitation appeared to be quantitatively equivalent. He just mathematically summed up a great many observations in a concise framework. He made the bookkeeping and accounting much more tractable. He had no theory, he didn't even have a hypothesis. Well, he did propose the corpuscle for light, but he had no such hyp for gravity.

At least Newton was honest that he had no theory and did not want to pose something if he had no clue. You're just hypothesing an invisible entity that cannot be objectively detected. What's the difference?

But, tell me, how is "acceleration" defined in "objectively existing something" theory?

Acceleration isn't the problem, the definition of the terms that define acceleration are the problem (position and time). The definition of acceleration is the same when the proper definitions of time, distance, location, and distance-traveled are in place.

Long way to go then. But maybe you could hypothetize something. Question is: how to determine from your definitions of objects, locations, etc. that an object is accelerating?

Science isn't about sending people to the moon. Science is just about explaining a phenomenon of nature. Getting mathematical models that match up well helps us build devices, but don't say anything about the underlying physical mechanisms. Posing physical mechanisms can help us to understand.

I have seen a gazillion theories that claim to explain everything. How would that "help us to understand" instead of "distract us into confusion"? What objective criterion exists that distinguishes the good ones from the bad ones?

Firstly, we distinguish those theories that are rational as scientific, and discard all the rest. Any theory that poses the unimaginable, inconceivable, demands contradiction, etc. is right out. Religions are a great example, they all propose God, then immediately insist that "he" (of course it's a man) is inconceivable. They then propose contradictory and supernatural mechanisms and explanations such as creation ex nihlo. Consistency and conceivability are objective criteria. We cannot scientifically evaluate that which contradicts itself and we cannot scientifically evaluate a "theory" that is incomprehensible.

If the theory is True, in that it matches exactly with reality, then one's belief in that theory is Right. Otherwise one's belief is Wrong.

Please define "rational", "unimaginable", "inconceivable", "creation ex nihilo", "incomprehensible", "True", "Right", "Wrong" and "exactly with reality"(is that within 1% or 0.0000001%?).

Since current mainstream theories match with reality they must be Right beliefs then.

[bdw000]

For anyone who might be interested, here's some feedback on Bill Gaede's book WHY GOD DOESN'T EXIST available from his website http://www.youstupidrelativist.com.

I am not a physicist, nor a mathematician.

I'd say that Gaede's book is one of the best critique's of modern physics (relativity and quantum) I've ever come across, and I've read any critiques I could get my hands on for the last 10 years. I am talking only about the part of his book where he critiques modern physics: his own ideas and theories about physics are beyond me and I don't even care about them. He could be right or wrong. The important material for readers of this website is, in my opinion, his critique of modern physics.

If (and that is a very big "if," of course) our scientific establishment ever escapes the "dark ages" of physics, I'd guess that Gaede's book will be seen as a very important work in the "philosophy of science." He might even become as well-known as someone like Karl Popper.

I am not saying that I know that everything Gaede says in his book is correct. In fact, there were several places where even someone such as myself felt that his argument looked a bit weak. But that does not detract from the numerous places where he demonstrates that too much of modern physics is based on ABUSING LANGUAGE in order to get the "ooooh's and aaaaah's" from the audience (AKA "the gullible public").

As someone who views the THUNDERBOLTS.INFO website as one of the most important advances in science in our time, I would recommend Gaede's book as a very, very helpful addition in the fight against the madness of modern physics and astronomy.

Even people like Thornhill and Don Scott and all the other real contributors to this site would probably find some ammunition to aid their fight for sane science. Just my guess.

It is a very large paperback book (about the size of a 1 and a quarter inch thick phone book) and it is one of the best $30 I ever spent.

[junglelord]

Well I got to say that APM is more then worth the money.
This work by Dave Thomson has evidence, it has intelligent math, not flights of theory.
If algebra cannot be trusted, then all bets are off, otherwise, its time to wise up.

It has the unified field theory complete. No gluons, no missing quantification of ES charge.
It is simple, completes itself, and opens it self up for much more to come....


In short the work done by Dave Thompson could have been done as early as 1930.
Its clear that the EU has been also surpressed since 1930 OR EARLIER.


Two whole generations, brainwashed, by the industrial military complex....sad but true.

[StevenO]

Nah...., got to hand it over to Dewey Larson with his "Reciprocal System Theory". Just lightspeed units of motion and three dimensions is all you need to explain the physical universe (and life too). Wins hands down using Occam's Razor.

And indeed, no gluons....hadronization is what you get if you throw a lot of energy in the high speed motion that is called atom....but no quantum constants either.... ... lightspeed is all the constant you need. While APM is still working on its first binding energies, RST has explained virtually everything from quantum dynamics up to quasars and the Grand Cycle of the Universe. I bet string theorists a.o. could learn a thing or two about the nature of space and time from RST.

Typical too that he developed his theory in the 1930's and that he has been completely ignored ever since.

[junglelord]

I accept the fact that the system can be imaged in more then one way...NASA does it all the time.
Farinfrared, Ultraviolet, Xrays, Radiowaves....etc.

APM, by its very nature is correct. The Recipricol Sytem is also correct. I see no problem with that.

[Solar]

hehehe...

Its always interesting to see the different approaches. I'll share mine.

Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology-Aetherometry-Konstanine Meyl

Which alchemically boils down to EU/PC/Tesla

The manner in which Aetheromettry is compatible with EU/PC reveals itself in several ways. One of them being "Collision-less Plasma" wherein "wave coupling" of the various 'wave states' accounts for energetic dynamics (wave:frequency, length, speed, amplitude, phase, density, excitation etc) in relation to Alfven waves, Langmuir waves et al as pertaining electro-plasma dynamics.

Another complementary aspect is in relation to Tesla waves/radiation, which would naturally have a relationship with the aforementioned plasma waves via this second form of radial "ambipolar electric charge" Tesla coils are known to produce. I like this one:

The typical quantum graduate comes to Tesla with a big handicap. His challenge is to shed a thick crust of miseducation. If he insists on coming to Tesla as a physicist, he would do well to submerge himself in ether physics. To comprehend Tesla one must dare to cross over into the fringe. - High Voltage Press

[webolife]

I think the NIAMI forum burped and out came these last few posts...
I throw my hat in the ring with Robert Archer Smith's PFT [punctual field theory] which recognizes the non-constant nature of the so-called c-rate, instantly unifies time, entropy, electricity, light and gravity under the umbrella of the T-field, deriving all the main "constants" from hexagonal geometry, which he had nearly fully developed by 1960.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi JL, StevenO, Solar and Webolife,
I'll stick with the Tao Te Ching, it's much simpler.

Five

...

The realm of heaven and earth is like a bellows,
both empty and full.
Moving, it brings forth, endlessly.

More words, less understanding.
Hold fast to the core.

My emphasis.

[junglelord]

"Simply to simplify."


Tao of Jeet Kune Do
Bruce Lee