The Climate Change AND contentious science thread- vampires and dark matter

[-=SS=-]

okay, saying that wave-particle duality is nonsense does it. have you ever studied quantum mechanics or something like that in university? basically all we know about spectroscopy would make no sense without it.

Nope, never studied it. Even if I did I would still reject the notion. It's nonsense, the wave-particle duality and the whole of QM. Pure fucking nonsense. Listening to experts talk about QM is like going to a sanitarium and giving ear time to some burned out raving derelict.. these people are totally nuts! They believe in maths so strongly it hurts. Just because they have letters after their names and can work mathematics to a high degree doesn't mean they're right.

Don't really care what you think of that statement or anyone else, or any experts.. I know bullshit when I see it, and QM is straight up lunacy. Yes some things work and match to physical reality, as is the case with relativity theory, but that doesn't make either of the theories true! The truth is the truth.There is no such thing as a particle. It's all waves. All of it.

you simply cannot explain how photons interact with atoms, without seeing them as particles, but the movment of EM radiation through space can only really be explained as a wave. and if you don't see electrons as waves as well, you cannot explain anything.

No, you cannot explain how light interacts with atoms without your theory. Light does interact with atoms, but that does not mean your theory is true. Light does what it does. Ever considered there may be another explanation? Ever considered that, hmmm, Einstein was just flat out wrong. How many times does this need to be pointed out.. he was a metaphysical dreamer, not an experimenter. His theories make sense and seem to correlate with what we observe.. doesn't mean he is right. Even lunatics sometimes get their predictions validated.

I'm out, this is just ridiculous.

I honestly can not believe how this one man is lauded above all others when he didn't do shit, and yet someone like Tesla.. who did SO much in both practical invention and also experimentation.. who had opinions on matters of physics.. is totally written off as a nut. Einstein is the greatest nobody in the history of mankind.

Einstein's Only Known Experiment Rebuilt
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-only-known-expe/

Although the device works, the reconstruction confirms that Einstein made the right choice in remaining a theorist.

Oh, I'm sorry, this "genius" couldn't even conduct one fucking experiment properly.. which coincidentally was based around electrical properties. Tesla shits all over this nobody any day of the week.

 

[Kittycat5]

How do you explain the double slit experiment?

 

[Bagseed]

quantum mechanics explains why atoms absorb and emmit photons at different wavelenghts. it can also explain why certain elements form certain bonds with each other. also quantum mechanics is not really Einstein's theory, in the beginning he even rejected it.
and how come you know the truth? last time I checked, physicists didn't even know what energy was (besides the "potential to do work").

 

[swilow]

SS please please provide some evidence of alternative theories. At this stage you are simply trolling.

 

[Foreigner]

I don't agree that SS is trolling. I find his posts super informative even if they are controversial.

 

[drug_mentor]

Foreigner, I agree that parts of SS' posts have been informative and interesting, but I tend to think that he is mostly trolling. For example:

Nope, never studied it. Even if I did I would still reject the notion. It's nonsense, the wave-particle duality and the whole of QM. Pure fucking nonsense. Listening to experts talk about QM is like going to a sanitarium and giving ear time to some burned out raving derelict.. these people are totally nuts! They believe in maths so strongly it hurts. Just because they have letters after their names and can work mathematics to a high degree doesn't mean they're right.

Don't really care what you think of that statement or anyone else, or any experts.. I know bullshit when I see it, and QM is straight up lunacy. Yes some things work and match to physical reality, as is the case with relativity theory, but that doesn't make either of the theories true! The truth is the truth.There is no such thing as a particle. It's all waves. All of it.

There is no argument here. He is just stating repeatedly that a respected scientific theory is nonsense. It is absolutely ridiculous to make these kind of claims without backing them up. When you come into a thread to shit talk a scientific theory without providing evidence for what you are saying, I call that trolling.

Aside from this, when other posters make substantive points which pose problems for his views, he doesn't really engage them at all. Here is an example:

You are missing the point here. The whole idea behind Einstein's "spacetime" is to demonstrate that space in fact is not empty. It is real. What is it? Who knows, but if you try and traverse it, you won't get very far. Given the fact that it exerts a demonstrable effect on things we consider "extant", its hard to deny that space certainly does exist. Can you think of anything else, that is does not exist, that directly influences aspects of the physical world? And, of course, I am referring to the time required for anything to get anywhere in this vacuum. Furthermore, the parameters of empty space (temperature, organisation of matter) can certainly lead to complex physical ocurrences, such as the loss of electrical resistance close to absolute zero. This is a known parameter of space that exerts (or reduces perhaps) another force; it exerts effect. Further to that, if empty space/vacuum sits above absolute zero, is this not a distinct "property" of this nothingness? Or why is it not absolute zero? What gives rise to this is radiation, exerting some influence on something. Or would you believe that something that has properties could conceivably not exist? I'm not so sure...

No, you're getting confused here. Space itself has no properties. How can it when it is an abstraction. Something which has no being has no properties. If there is anything occurring, such as the things you mention, then it is the result of other factors, not of space itself.

Einstein didn't demonstrate anything. It's a mirage of mathematics, not an actual demonstration. It is only real if you believe/trust the theory. I don't, for the simple reason that you can not affect space, something which has no properties. You can not affect nothingness, an abstraction with no substance. Again, if something is occurring it is because of something else. Whether it is the ether or what, I don't know. All I know is that space-time is just a plain absurdity.

As you can see, Willow presented some serious difficulties for SS' criticisms of spacetime. In response SS largely ignored most of the points which Willow raised.

Furthermore, SS insists that no matter how much evidence is accrued to discredit his position, it is irrelevant because the proof is all fabricated:

If they fail they will simply conjure up something new and exotic, or tweak something a little somewhere.. all in all they will just add another floor to the castle made of sand. I wouldn't be surprised if they claim to have succeeded in finding dark matter.. unfortunately it all seems to rapidly descend into particle physics and levels of mathematics that no one but the experts can decipher these days. Like the Higgs Boson, supposed mass particle.. another bunch of bullshit.

On the whole I would say this is clearly trolling.

 

[swilow]

I don't agree that SS is trolling. I find his posts super informative even if they are controversial.

I think he is being controversial to try and get a rise from people. I don't think he is being informative because he isn't offering anything in return. Constantly saying that things are "bullshit" and "absurd" isn't really informative, its an expression of opinion. Fortunately, science doesn't really care about opinions, only facts. In this field, he is vastly outgunned.

I mean, I love speculation such as seen in this thread, but I don't like it when it is mindless.

Nope, never studied it. Even if I did I would still reject the notion.

That is dangerous, biblical thinking. Even if you understood quantum mechanics (which you don't) you would reject it. Perhaps the real reason for you rejecting it is because you don't understand it. I certainly don't claim to understand it. On face value, it seems nonsensical, but the thought that there is some cohort wishing to impose this nonsensical agenda on us, for unknown reasons, seems way more nonsensical to me. Who is maintaining this status-quo and why?

The truth is the truth.There is no such thing as a particle. It's all waves. All of it.

But, you haven't studied this stuff. How can you know this? Please provide evidence. I'm not talking about peer-reviewed articles even, just some physical reason for you to believe something that better educated and better informed humans do not.

SS, the modern flat-earther :D

 

[Kittycat5]

http://m.phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html

Actual evidence we can see with our eyes on the wave-particle duality.

 

[-=SS=-]

quantum mechanics explains why atoms absorb and emmit photons at different wavelenghts. it can also explain why certain elements form certain bonds with each other.

I genuinely feel it's more of a close match as opposed to what is actually happening. The issue is things at that scale are difficult to physically study and observe, for obvious reasons. I think we've misconstrued what is happening. Some of it is useful, and works, in going forward, but if it's based on faulty assumptions then we will ultimately reach a dead end.. which is where we ar

also quantum mechanics is not really Einstein's theory, in the beginning he even rejected it.

True, but he inadvertently helped lay some of its foundations.

and how come you know the truth? last time I checked, physicists didn't even know what energy was (besides the "potential to do work").

I don't say I know what the truth is, I just know what is not. At this point I don't think anyone has got a handle on it. Perhaps some physicists and experimenters approximately 100 years ago were close to taking science off in a new tangent, then derailed by relativity. This is the big issue.. relativity, and QM, just absolutely dominate the scene.. all young minds now go through being educated along those lines. No one is interested in probing from another angle, and we don't have too many lone maverick experimenters anymore.. no one is pushing the boundary.. or rather they're only pushing at the one edge (where relativity/QM is). This is a mistake in my estimation.

SS please please provide some evidence of alternative theories. At this stage you are simply trolling.

What do you want me to do.. if I had it, everyone would have it, we'd be investigating it right now. All I can say is I'm convinced science has taken us into a dead end and somewhere approximately 100 years ago we should have gone off on another tangent. In conjunction with that I hedge my bets that it has something to do with electricity, that electricity is the key to unlocking a new realm of scientific investigation that will prove far more fruitful than the line of investigation we have now.

 

[Kittycat5]

SS, did you see my question about the double slit experiment?

Also, I think there are physicists trying to come up with alternatives theories all the time. I mentioned in another thread about two guys who are trying to explain the discrepency between the theoretical and observed cosmological constant. Rather than go to the multiverse idea, they used a different starting point and said the cos constant may not even be the energy density of the vacuum, rather an emergent phenomenon of quantum gravity or space itself. And they utilized equations of Bose-Einstein condensates, which normally are in the realm of condensed matter physics.

But you seem to always say if a theory fails, the next one will just be a variation on a theme and that is not always the case.

 

[Bagseed]

I genuinely feel it's more of a close match as opposed to what is actually happening. The issue is things at that scale are difficult to physically study and observe, for obvious reasons. I think we've misconstrued what is happening. Some of it is useful, and works, in going forward, but if it's based on faulty assumptions then we will ultimately reach a dead end.. which is where we ar



True, but he inadvertently helped lay some of its foundations.



I don't say I know what the truth is, I just know what is not. At this point I don't think anyone has got a handle on it. Perhaps some physicists and experimenters approximately 100 years ago were close to taking science off in a new tangent, then derailed by relativity. This is the big issue.. relativity, and QM, just absolutely dominate the scene.. all young minds now go through being educated along those lines. No one is interested in probing from another angle, and we don't have too many lone maverick experimenters anymore.. no one is pushing the boundary.. or rather they're only pushing at the one edge (where relativity/QM is). This is a mistake in my estimation.



What do you want me to do.. if I had it, everyone would have it, we'd be investigating it right now. All I can say is I'm convinced science has taken us into a dead end and somewhere approximately 100 years ago we should have gone off on another tangent. In conjunction with that I hedge my bets that it has something to do with electricity, that electricity is the key to unlocking a new realm of scientific investigation that will prove far more fruitful than the line of investigation we have now.

maybe you should stop envisioning particles as tiny little spherical objects, if you think of an electron as a little tiny (electrically charged) ball, you're just being biased by your everyday experience. I seriously doubt that we will ever see the true shape of an electron. rather you could see particles as an excitement in a wave/field. you should also not think of "mass" in terms of particles as how you see massive objects in everyday life.

 

[-=SS=-]

That is dangerous, biblical thinking. Even if you understood quantum mechanics (which you don't) you would reject it. Perhaps the real reason for you rejecting it is because you don't understand it. I certainly don't claim to understand it. On face value, it seems nonsensical, but the thought that there is some cohort wishing to impose this nonsensical agenda on us, for unknown reasons, seems way more nonsensical to me. Who is maintaining this status-quo and why?

It's not dangerous, what the hell are you on about. It's called having my own opinion. Again you have it the wrong way round, you have the biblical thinking and if anything dangerous attitude that nothing can go against the grain of your established religion of choice (21st century scientific/physics paradigm).

If I had qualifications and was doing my own thinking and experimenting you and/or experts would still just write me off. Can't win. So again, who has the dangerous thinking? You want evidence and you want it within your paradigm, as opposed to taking the stance of a truly open minded individual and considering all angles and thoughts. I'm following my intuition on this, and perhaps my mind sees something yours doesn't. You're more than welcome to reject that and I understand, but don't write me off as nuts just because my opinion falls outside the realm of "accepted wisdom".

At no point in our history have we ever had a solid grasp on anything. It's arrogant to assume 21st science has it now.

But, you haven't studied this stuff. How can you know this? Please provide evidence. I'm not talking about peer-reviewed articles even, just some physical reason for you to believe something that better educated and better informed humans do not.

Why would I want to study it when I can see it is clearly flawed in its foundations? It's not like I can create my own test kit and probe space-time myself for example.. if I go and get "educated" on the subject then I potentially expose myself to being bombarded with mathematics and experts orating until I finally just cave in and say "Yes! I see it now, it all makes sense!". Why would I want to do that? You wouldn't go and subject yourself to any cult or religious group when you can clearly see from the outside it is flawed at its foundations.. if you go in you may just get snowed.

I know you'll think/say "but this is science!". So what? Science is composed of people, and the realm of study we're talking about here is heavily steeped in higher mathematics and on a scale we can not personally hope to understand, unless we go get "educated" to that level. How many students in those fields still doubt relativity, or QM? Maybe 1 in 500? 1000? The majority overwhelmingly trust the experts and trust the chain of development that has happened in the past 100 years. No one has time to go back and do all the experiments, and crucially do all the thinking that those people did in the past. As you should know from my other threads, I don't do consensus thinking. I trust my intuition and my own mind.

There is no argument here. He is just stating repeatedly that a respected scientific theory is nonsense. It is absolutely ridiculous to make these kind of claims without backing them up. When you come into a thread to shit talk a scientific theory without providing evidence for what you are saying, I call that trolling.

You would quite happily walk into a religious thread and state your opinion there, which in their eyes would be trolling.. but from yours it is completely valid. I maintain my position is completely valid here. It is my opinion on the subject. We are both as ignorant as each other at this point; just because you place great faith in science doesn't make your position any more legitimate.

 

[drug_mentor]

You would quite happily walk into a religious thread and state your opinion there, which in their eyes would be trolling.. but from yours it is completely valid. I maintain my position is completely valid here. It is my opinion on the subject. We are both are ignorant as each other at this point, just because you place great faith in science doesn't make your position any more legitimate.

This is a ridiculous comparison. There is no real evidence to support religion. To point out that there is no hard evidence in favour of God is not the same thing as ignoring the evidence in favour of a scientific theory.

The theories you are trash talking have considerable evidence in their favour, not the least of which is their explanatory power. If you want to discredit theories with a weight of evidence behind them then you need some evidence of your own, or at least some sound logic. Coming in here and declaring everything you disagree with to be absurd or a conspiracy is not debating in good faith.

I don't subscribe to the ideology of scientism, but I think you actually need some evidence to discredit contemporary science, not just intuition.

As you should know from my other threads, I don't do consensus thinking. I trust my intuition and my own mind.

I see you parroting this bullshit all the time. Just because someone agrees with the consensus does not mean they are engaged in "consensus thinking". You seem to think it isn't possible for someone to look at the weight of the evidence and conclude that the consensus happens to be correct. This doesn't come across as very open minded to me.

You should know that human intuition is very prone to error, this is one of the reasons that the scientific method was developed. It seems incredibly misguided for you to presume that you do not operate with the same heuristics which make human intuition highly prone to logical error and cognitive bias.

 

[-=SS=-]

This is a ridiculous comparison. There is no real evidence to support religion. To point out that there is no hard evidence in favour of God is not the same thing as ignoring the evidence in favour of a scientific theory.

There is no evidence to support your conception of religion, or God.. what you think they are or ought to be. That's not the same as no evidence. This is going to go off tangent, so I'd rather ditch it at this point, but all I will say in closing is that both camps here there own merits. I wouldn't be so hasty as to write off all ideas contained within religion.

I know the point you're driving at, and it's valid. But here's one for you. What makes a cm a cm? Or a second a second? What is our point of reference? It's all a mathematical circle jerk, though very convincing it attempting to describe the 'how'. The only real point of reference we have, is 'I'. When was the last time you or a scientist really asked themselves, "Who am I?". Religious/Philosophical/Psychological exploration has its purpose. So does science.

The theories you are trash talking have considerable evidence in their favour, not the least of which is their explanatory power. If you want to discredit theories with a weight of evidence behind them then you need some evidence of your own, or at least some sound logic. Coming in here and declaring everything you disagree with to be absurd or a conspiracy is not debating in good faith.

What are you expecting? If I went into group who believed in the spaghetti monster and tried to argue on their terms I would get no where except give myself a headache. Much easier to just call it as you see it. Maybe because of my insistence you'll do some digging of your own to try and prove me wrong, coming from an angle of "OK, maybe there is something not quite right, I'll see if I can find it". Maybe you won't. I don't mind. I'm still just going to call things as I see them. Feel free to reject them.

I've already provided a completely fair and balanced rebuttal to the concept of space-time, you just don't see it or get it.. which tends to be the case when someone is hypnotized. You can not bend or exert a force on something that has no properties, that is an abstraction. Combining both space and time, two abstractions in their own right, to create space-time.. a super abstraction.. well, if it makes sense to you then great. To me that is just one giant hypothetical creation that requires a great deal of faith to believe in. The maths is just there to bamboozle you into submission.

Until someone can show me space-time, capture it in a bottle, I reserve the right to reject its existence. Same goes for God.

You should know that human intuition is very prone to error, this is one of the reasons that the scientific method was developed. It seems incredibly misguided for you to presume that you do not operate with the same heuristics which make human intuition highly prone to logical error and cognitive bias.

Some of the greatest advancements in science have come through intuition, dreams and visions. If we never paid any attention to the internal dimension of our consciousness mankind would go nowhere and be like any other animal.

 

[drug_mentor]

I know the point you're driving at, and it's valid. But here's one for you. What makes a cm a cm? Or a second a second? What is our point of reference? It's all a mathematical circle jerk, though very convincing it attempting to describe the 'how'. The only real point of reference we have, is 'I'. When was the last time you or a scientist really asked themselves, "Who am I?". Religious/Philosophical/Psychological exploration has its purpose. So does science.

The point of centimetres and seconds is so we have a point of reference. They are a universal measurement we use to understand the world, we need standardised measures in order to quantify observation and experience. I don't understand what your problem with maths is, it can help explain an awful lot, and it is fundamental to understanding physics. Of course there are limitations to what numbers can explain, but this doesn't justify blind criticism of maths.

I am an intending philosophy major who is currently completing a Bachelor of Arts, and I spend a reasonable amount of my spare time reading philosophy. I spend considerably more time thinking about philosophical questions than scientific ones. I am not sure what your point is.

What are you expecting? If I went into group who believed in the spaghetti monster and tried to argue on their terms I would get no where except give myself a headache. Much easier to just call it as you see it. Maybe because of my insistence you'll do some digging of your own to try and prove me wrong, coming from an angle of "OK, maybe there is something not quite right, I'll see if I can find it". Maybe you won't. I don't mind. I'm still just going to call things as I see them. Feel free to reject them.

I am expecting you to make a reasoned argument for your position. Any schmuck can come along and say something is bullshit. If you want to be taken seriously then you need to come up with some evidence or a sound argument.

You don't have to agree with quantum physics, spacetime, etc. but it is pretty arrogant to think that because you intuitively don't agree with them that this fact alone makes them "bullshit", and that anyone who believes in them is engaged in "consensus thinking".

I've already provided a completely fair and balanced rebuttal to the concept of space-time, you just don't see it or get it.. which tends to be the case when someone is hypnotized. You can not bend or exert a force on something that has no properties, that is an abstraction. Combining both space and time, two abstractions in their own right, to create space-time.. a super abstraction.. well, if it makes sense to you then great. To me that is just one giant hypothetical creation that requires a great deal of faith to believe in. The maths is just there to bamboozle you into submission.

Your "rebuttal" was completely facile. You ignored most of the substance of willows objection and basically just repeated yourself. He asked a number of hard metaphysical questions which you need to answer coherently before you can get away with calling space an abstraction. Assuming willow is correct that space exerts an effect on things, then you have to explain how something which has properties is a mere abstraction. Just saying, "well it is something other than space exerting the effect" is not very convincing. You haven't proposed what is exerting this effect or how it is doing so.

Some of the greatest advancements in science have come through intuition, dreams and visions. If we never paid any attention to the internal dimension of our consciousness mankind would go nowhere and be like any other animal.

They didn't come through intuition alone though. Intuition sparks the idea, it still takes some kind of experimental/observational/mathematical/etc. verification before it counts as discovery. There is nothing wrong with having intuition in the tool kit, relying on it blindly is where you have gone wrong.

 

[Bagseed]

image related

 

[Xorkoth]

I honestly can not believe how this one man is lauded above all others when he didn't do shit, and yet someone like Tesla.. who did SO much in both practical invention and also experimentation.. who had opinions on matters of physics.. is totally written off as a nut. Einstein is the greatest nobody in the history of mankind.

I absolutely disagree with that statement, by all accounts Einstein was brilliant and also a really great person. Regardless of whether his theories all pan out long-term, he made a tremendous contribution in math and science.

I totally agree that Tesla is weirdly overlooked though. But, whether Tesla was "better" or not, it doesn't devalue Einstein.

 

[-=SS=-]

I absolutely disagree with that statement, by all accounts Einstein was brilliant and also a really great person. Regardless of whether his theories all pan out long-term, he made a tremendous contribution in math and science.

I will only agree with the sentiment that he was brilliant and great if it is in the context that all other scientists are equally as good. There are so many others who get little to no recognition, who have contributed far more in practical terms, than Einstein. Not even talking about Tesla here, just other great minds. In practical terms Einstein didn't contribute much at all, he was a theoretical musing person, not an inventor, experimenter, anything that involved actually doing. Even more than that his most famous contribution, relativity, wasn't like a stroke of genius that no one had ever considered before.. it was already in the works before he committed it to paper.

I totally agree that Tesla is weirdly overlooked though. But, whether Tesla was "better" or not, it doesn't devalue Einstein.

Weirdly is an understatement. He was one of the most famous people in the world at one point, and could have been one of the richest too. On top of that he invented an incredible amount, completely revolutionizing the world more than once in a short space of time. Pinged the ionosphere with a huge coil before anyone else had a clue it even existed.

It's not so much about being better, though IMO Tesla clearly had the superior mind. It is perverse that whilst Tesla gets little historical recognition Einstein is essentially one of the pillars of modern science. The amount praise and recognition Einsteins work got is just as suspicious as the lack of Teslas recognition. If you want my honest opinion I believe the two are in fact related.

 

[Bagseed]

I dunno, it seems every other internet hipster sciency afficionado is all about tesla this tesla that, in this demografic he seems very popular. yeah the general public doesn't know about him, but how many really understand the implications of works by the likes of Einstein, Newton, Heisenberg, and so on? I had no clue about all of this until I actively started to learn about it. of course, back when I was completely "scientifically ignorant", I heard about these people, but I had no understanding whatsoever. it's more important imo that people understand science more than to know which scientists are famous for something they did. that's why I think that Carl Sagan's approach to popularize science was fantastic.

 

[Xorkoth]

Well okay, it sounds like you're making a reactionary statement because it bothers you that other great minds haven't received as much notoriety in the general public as Einstein has. Perhaps a valid point, but to say he is "the greatest nobody in the history of mankind" is pretty outrageous.