History of science

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: History of science

Unread postby crawler » Sun Jun 16, 2019 3:33 am

webolife wrote:
crawler wrote:Ivor Catt explains that in a circuit we hav a pseudo IAAAD, due to the continual presence of a continuous Heavyside slab of em energy flowing in both directions & reflecting off ends (eg open switches) & off restrictions (changes in size or material or geometry), whereby when a switch is closed the Heavyside slab is allready at that point & hencely instantly continues on instead of reflecting.

A simpler analog is Newton's cradle.
The history of science is replete with side trips into uncharted territories and "weirdness", of which post-modern science has its fill. IAAAD is not actually wierd, being that it is regularly observed; but the objectivists have headaches over anything non-mechanistic, as though the universe will stop functioning if something "immaterial" is injected into it. Too bad... :P
No Newton's Cradle duzznt explain Catt's IAAAD. Only Catt explains. Standard science trys to explain using two different conflicting faux-explanations. Catt calls them Westerners & Southerners. The Newton's Cradle faux-explanation fits into the Westerners' faux-explanation.
crawler
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: History of science

Unread postby webolife » Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:01 pm

crawler wrote:o Newton's Cradle duzznt explain Catt's IAAAD. Only Catt explains. Standard science trys to explain using two different conflicting faux-explanations. Catt calls them Westerners & Southerners. The Newton's Cradle faux-explanation fits into the Westerners' faux-explanation.

Elaborate a bit on this, if you please.
What makes "faux" or "pseudo"... ?
Your brief quote of Catt doesn't really say why IAAAD is incorrect...
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: History of science

Unread postby crawler » Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:15 am

webolife wrote:
crawler wrote:o Newton's Cradle duzznt explain Catt's IAAAD. Only Catt explains. Standard science trys to explain using two different conflicting faux-explanations. Catt calls them Westerners & Southerners. The Newton's Cradle faux-explanation fits into the Westerners' faux-explanation.

Elaborate a bit on this, if you please.
What makes "faux" or "pseudo"... ?
Your brief quote of Catt doesn't really say why IAAAD is incorrect...
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/ is a good place to start re Catt's stuff. There are praps 40 good articles & youtube videos out there re Catt & his Question.
http://www.ivorcatt.com/2604.htm & lots of others.
crawler
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: History of science

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Thu Jun 20, 2019 8:37 am

While I appreciate the information, I am not sure whether Ivor Catt's theories are at the right place here.

Einstein's work

Einstein's work has 3 major parts:

1. Photo-electric effect
Forces and light are made of particles
Quantum mechanics shows that particles are actually illusions.
We can only measure particles at detectors.
This means that the photo-electric effect is invalid in some way.

Quantum mechanics is in conflict with ALL theories of Einstein.
And this causes all the weird theories.

2. Special relativity
The time (and length) of every thing, depends on that thing.
This gives a different time and space measurements for each object.
Steven Crowder states that this idea is invalid, because you need a different time/space
for the same object when it interacts with different objects.

3. General relativity
Gravity equals acceleration, it even bends light.
AND by combining the Space/time of special relativity we can create a space/time
that only exists in maths.
Steven Crowder shows that this works just like numerology.

Derivatives

Derivatives that are likely false:

1. Accretion disk
Einstein believed that his gravity caused a loss of energy.
This would mean that the objects would slowly spiral towards each other.
Instead, in reality we see objects moving away from each other.

2. Inflation
This was Einstein's error.
He needed a value to compensate to the loss of energy by gravity.
Via the Lambda of the General relativity equations,
we can get a perfect expanding space, in maths.
In reality, you pretend to get everything out of nothing.
And this became the best way for astronomers to produce papers.

3. Black holes
No-one really believed in black holes.
And crowder shows that it mixes the Newton's gravity (escape-speed) with Einstein's ideas.
But invisible things are the best way to secure your astronomy career.

4. Bending of light / Einstein-rings/ crosses
Let's just all forget about plasma in space.

5. Wormholes / time travel
Yes. Science fiction.

6. Multiple worlds / Multiverse
This were derived to combine Einstein's ideas and quantum mechanics.
They do not work together, so the scientists created a concept
in which they can work together, theoretically.
But no-one will never know whether this exist.

The Historical Error

The weird thing is that all these theories were swallowed without much resistance
and without much additional research into alternatives.

Now even criticism of Einstein's ideas are even under heavy attacks.

In normal science we further develop a theory to make it more useful.
But Einstein's theories are so abstract, and internally conflicting (Crowder),
that we can not go further without replacing his theories.

If we look at the history, we can see that it combined with Propaganda.
This propaganda started already in the first world war.
How bad that was is shown in this link:
History is written by the winners
From documents from Russia we can see that much of the real history of WW1 has been destroyed.
The documents show that the newspapers (owned by a small group) were continuously lying about
what was going on, and were creating the situation and mind-set for the war.

I think that a similar thing is going on in science.
The propaganda machine was setup around the WW1 (or earlier), later this moved
to WW2, and then continued during the cold war.
The propaganda used the atomic bomb, NASA's moon landings and much more.
They used Einstein and also involved some others, like Steven Hawkins.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 992
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: History of science

Unread postby Electrodynamic » Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:24 am

Einstein was a brilliant mind and as he said...“If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the theory, but too often it’s easier to keep the theory and change the facts.”

2. Special relativity
The time (and length) of every thing, depends on that thing.
This gives a different time and space measurements for each object.
Steven Crowder states that this idea is invalid, because you need a different time/space
for the same object when it interacts with different objects.


It begs the question... If we put a clock in a space craft and the craft accelerated to incredible speed and then returned to Earth and the indicated time on the clock had changed in some way why would anyone assume time in itself as a measure has changed?. It would never cross my mind that the measure of time would change rather the material properties of the clock itself had been effected in some way distorting the measure of time.

For example, if I put a yardstick in the space craft and the indicated inches on the yardstick appeared to grow longer should I assume inches (a measure) have changed?. Well no that is absurd and if the measure of something has in fact changed then I would suspect the material properties of something have changed and not the measure of something which must remain constant otherwise it's obviously not a reliable measure of anything.

It's a perceptual brain fart in my opinion and it's as if I could take a 36" yardstick and physically stretch it out to 72" and all of a sudden everyone would assume one inch is now variable and magically morphed into two inches. However, no... one inch is not two inches, one inch is one inch and only the physical properties of the thing being measured have changed.

It also begs the question, why would anyone assume a material thing or object made up of 1% matter and 99% EM fields travelling through a universal EM wave field we call space at high velocity would not be effected by said EM wave fields?. The measure of time is constant and must remain a constant for the same reason an inch is an inch and must remain constant otherwise it has no inherent meaning or value as a measure. I mean, you cannot just change the rules just because it doesn't fit your calculations or flavor of reality... that's not how science or nature works.

However as Einstein said..."too often it’s easier to keep the theory and change the facts." and I suspect he did for reasons I do not know. Now we could jump to conclusions concerning ignorance, malice or greed however I do not believe that nonsense. Generally we do the best we can with what we have to work with at the time and times change. As such I believe Einstein is no more at fault than we were at fault for believing in the Easter bunny and Santa Claus so long ago... times change and so must we.
Electrodynamic
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 5:13 pm
Location: Canada

Previous

Return to The Future of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests