Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Aether plus spin equals matter

Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 4:47:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The universe is a simple place which can be explained in a very simple manner using spin as the basic unit of activity which the universe is based. I came to this conclusion by observing that galaxies spin, planets spin, suns spin and that atoms must spin also. The universe is divided into fractal dimensions, like a series of Russian dolls. These dimensions extend to infinity both outwards and inwards directions forever.

The universe is made of only one basic sub-atomic particle. This particle has 3 states - left spin (clockwise), right spin (anti-clockwise) and no spin (black-hole). The left and right spin could be interpreted as positive and negative, while the no spin particle could be interpreted as a black-hole or neutron.

These 3 forms make up space and matter. Space is made of alternate left and right spin aether particles which I would call "ethons". The no spin ethon forms the centre of all matter and atoms (neutrons). Neutrons could be regarded as black holes which attract aether particles into rotation similar to how planets rotate around a sun. Aether particles spin at the speed of light.

The speed of light is a dimensional signature of the sub-atomic world. In the sub-atomic world, things happen very fast and don"t obey our laws of time and space. Light is a product of the sub-atomic world and travels at light speed because the ethons are naturally rotating at this speed and are thus conveyed like a conveyor belt. The ethons in space are not attached. They only engage one-another when light passes or they are united by a no spin ethon or neutron. When light passes through aether the ethons engage, as do the cogs in a clock or watch and cause the wave to move at the speed of light. Thus, light is two dimensional. It has both spin and wave energy.

The universe is energy rich. Aether particles spin at the speed of light. When 2 aether particles approach a large body like a sun, they are pushed together and stop spinning. This releases their energy. Thus " E=MC squared.

Using this concept the forces of the universe can be unified. Thus, spin becomes the common denominator which unites matter, light, electricity, gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 8:09:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
1. Form an experiment to test your idea.

2. Remove any unnecessary assumptions.

3. Explain how your idea can predict future observations.

4. Reconcile all the conflicting evidence.

Only then can your idea be accepted as a legitimate hypothesis.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 8:38:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/11/2015 8:09:15 AM, SM2 wrote:
1. Form an experiment to test your idea.

Evidence is all around. No need to do any experiments.

2. Remove any unnecessary assumptions.

I don't have any unnecessary assumptions.

3. Explain how your idea can predict future observations.

My ideas are just a description of what I see and know. I predict that the sun will shine tomorrow. Thus, my theory is correct.

4. Reconcile all the conflicting evidence.

I don't have any conflicts. All the parts of my theory fit together perfectly and make the world a logical place which has purely mechanical explanations.

Only then can your idea be accepted as a legitimate hypothesis.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 2:47:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/11/2015 4:47:59 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
The universe is a simple place which can be explained in a very simple manner using spin as the basic unit of activity which the universe is based. I came to this conclusion by observing that galaxies spin, planets spin, suns spin and that atoms must spin also. The universe is divided into fractal dimensions, like a series of Russian dolls. These dimensions extend to infinity both outwards and inwards directions forever.

The universe is made of only one basic sub-atomic particle. This particle has 3 states - left spin (clockwise), right spin (anti-clockwise) and no spin (black-hole). The left and right spin could be interpreted as positive and negative, while the no spin particle could be interpreted as a black-hole or neutron.

One of the remaining three properties of a black hole IS spin. Try again.

These 3 forms make up space and matter. Space is made of alternate left and right spin aether particles which I would call "ethons". The no spin ethon forms the centre of all matter and atoms (neutrons). Neutrons could be regarded as black holes which attract aether particles into rotation similar to how planets rotate around a sun. Aether particles spin at the speed of light.

The speed of light is a dimensional signature of the sub-atomic world. In the sub-atomic world, things happen very fast and don"t obey our laws of time and space. Light is a product of the sub-atomic world and travels at light speed because the ethons are naturally rotating at this speed and are thus conveyed like a conveyor belt. The ethons in space are not attached. They only engage one-another when light passes or they are united by a no spin ethon or neutron. When light passes through aether the ethons engage, as do the cogs in a clock or watch and cause the wave to move at the speed of light. Thus, light is two dimensional. It has both spin and wave energy.

The speed of light is governed by the permittivity (electric constant) and permeability (magnetic constant) of free space.

The universe is energy rich. Aether particles spin at the speed of light. When 2 aether particles approach a large body like a sun, they are pushed together and stop spinning. This releases their energy. Thus " E=MC squared.

That simple makes no sense.

Using this concept the forces of the universe can be unified. Thus, spin becomes the common denominator which unites matter, light, electricity, gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces.

Helium can have zero spin.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2015 3:16:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/11/2015 2:47:14 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

One of the remaining three properties of a black hole IS spin. Try again.

That's a pretty cool assumption, considering that nobody has ever seen a black hole. Light can't escape from a black hole, so how do you know that it spins?
Maybe there is a lot of spin before matter and aether enters a black hole, but that doesn't mean there is any spin once you get inside. Note - A black hole is a dimensional gateway where time and space have no meaning.


The speed of light is governed by the permittivity (electric constant) and permeability (magnetic constant) of free space.

Magnetic constant equals the speed of light. Spin is charge- positive right spin, and negative - left spin. The only way to logically store energy is through spin. Thus, the universe has no choice but to use use spin as a means of transferring and storing energy. If you want to make an electrical charge you need to spin something and rub against it or use an existing charged material.


Helium can have zero spin.

Any aether particle that is not spinning will become a black hole. The Helium atom contains 2 mini-black holes (neutrons) . Rotation is not spin.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2015 3:59:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/11/2015 8:38:14 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 10/11/2015 8:09:15 AM, SM2 wrote:
1. Form an experiment to test your idea.

Evidence is all around. No need to do any experiments.

Wrong.


2. Remove any unnecessary assumptions.

I don't have any unnecessary assumptions.

Your first and most deadly assumption is that you're right.


3. Explain how your idea can predict future observations.

My ideas are just a description of what I see and know. I predict that the sun will shine tomorrow. Thus, my theory is correct.

You can't infer that from your "theory". So... wrong.


4. Reconcile all the conflicting evidence.

I don't have any conflicts. All the parts of my theory fit together perfectly and make the world a logical place which has purely mechanical explanations.

Pure arrogance. You are not worth talking to.


Only then can your idea be accepted as a legitimate hypothesis.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2015 8:51:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/12/2015 3:59:41 AM, SM2 wrote:

Wrong.

Ditto


Your first and most deadly assumption is that you're right.

Ditto



You can't infer that from your "theory". So... wrong.

Ditto


Pure arrogance. You are not worth talking to.

Ditto

So you don't have any intelligent questions to ask?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2015 3:25:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/11/2015 4:47:59 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
The universe is a simple place which can be explained in a very simple manner using spin as the basic unit of activity which the universe is based. I came to this conclusion by observing that galaxies spin, planets spin, suns spin and that atoms must spin also. The universe is divided into fractal dimensions, like a series of Russian dolls. These dimensions extend to infinity both outwards and inwards directions forever.

The universe is made of only one basic sub-atomic particle. This particle has 3 states - left spin (clockwise), right spin (anti-clockwise) and no spin (black-hole). The left and right spin could be interpreted as positive and negative, while the no spin particle could be interpreted as a black-hole or neutron.

These 3 forms make up space and matter. Space is made of alternate left and right spin aether particles which I would call "ethons". The no spin ethon forms the centre of all matter and atoms (neutrons). Neutrons could be regarded as black holes which attract aether particles into rotation similar to how planets rotate around a sun. Aether particles spin at the speed of light.

The speed of light is a dimensional signature of the sub-atomic world. In the sub-atomic world, things happen very fast and don"t obey our laws of time and space. Light is a product of the sub-atomic world and travels at light speed because the ethons are naturally rotating at this speed and are thus conveyed like a conveyor belt. The ethons in space are not attached. They only engage one-another when light passes or they are united by a no spin ethon or neutron. When light passes through aether the ethons engage, as do the cogs in a clock or watch and cause the wave to move at the speed of light. Thus, light is two dimensional. It has both spin and wave energy.

The universe is energy rich. Aether particles spin at the speed of light. When 2 aether particles approach a large body like a sun, they are pushed together and stop spinning. This releases their energy. Thus " E=MC squared.

Using this concept the forces of the universe can be unified. Thus, spin becomes the common denominator which unites matter, light, electricity, gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces.

Excellent, I just want to see a few things:

1.) What observational evidence does your hypothesis account for that is not also accounted for by other, established and well tested theories, or have failed to have been explained or contradict established theories. An excellent place to start considering your claims would be to provide a quantum mathematical description of a gravitational singularity.

2.) Please provide a method of falsifying your hypothesis; IE: please explain and describe a measurement you can make that you haven't already made prior to the construction of your hypothesis that must necessarily give a specific answer or result, and demonstrate how giving a different answer would demonstrate that your hypothesis is incorrect.

3.) Please provide a prediction or set of predictions about some aspect of reality, or the universe that is not already known, and would not be explainable by any other theory. These predictions should be definitive in that they are causally related to your theory (IE: results that are required to occur for your hypothesis), specific (IE: in that they can't be some general prediction that could be true even were your hypothesis false), and falsifiable (IE: it would falsify your hypothesis if shown not to be true, see (2) ).

4.) As you have unified all four forces, please provide geometric field tensor mathematics, and associated equations that describe the relationships between the standard model forces and gravity; describes standard model force interactions within matter in the context of your aether, and mathematically describes how and why the standard model and gravitational theories are applicable to reality at this time, together with the physical constraints under which those theories hold true.

5.) As you have unified all four forces, please also describe the method of attaining mathematical symmetry of these forces, and physical conditions under which they are unified.
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2015 11:33:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/11/2015 8:09:15 AM, SM2 wrote:
1. Form an experiment to test your idea.

2. Remove any unnecessary assumptions.

3. Explain how your idea can predict future observations.

4. Reconcile all the conflicting evidence.

Only then can your idea be accepted as a legitimate hypothesis.

Then submit the work to be scrutinized by public eye and peers.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 1:40:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/12/2015 3:16:07 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 10/11/2015 2:47:14 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

One of the remaining three properties of a black hole IS spin. Try again.

That's a pretty cool assumption, considering that nobody has ever seen a black hole.

First of all, YOU are the one making claims about black holes and now you say nobody has every seen one. Contradict yourself much? And secondly, the properties of a black hole are based on General Relativity.

Light can't escape from a black hole, so how do you know that it spins?

Light has nothing to do with a black holes spin.

Maybe there is a lot of spin before matter and aether enters a black hole, but that doesn't mean there is any spin once you get inside.

Sorry, but an aether has never been shown to exist.

Note - A black hole is a dimensional gateway where time and space have no meaning.

"Dimensional gateway" LOL. Science fiction, dude.


The speed of light is governed by the permittivity (electric constant) and permeability (magnetic constant) of free space.

Magnetic constant equals the speed of light.

No, it does not. The magnetic constant is a property of space, it does not have a velocity.

Spin is charge- positive right spin, and negative - left spin. The only way to logically store energy is through spin.

No, it is not, energy stored is a potential.

Thus, the universe has no choice but to use use spin as a means of transferring and storing energy. If you want to make an electrical charge you need to spin something and rub against it or use an existing charged material.

I think you have quite the abysmal understanding of spin and charge in physics.


Helium can have zero spin.

Any aether particle that is not spinning will become a black hole.

Particles do not become holes, massive amounts of mass are required.

The Helium atom contains 2 mini-black holes (neutrons) . Rotation is not spin.

Sorry, you're talking nonsense.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 3:04:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/12/2015 3:25:15 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

Excellent, I just want to see a few things:

1.) What observational evidence does your hypothesis account for that is not also accounted for by other, established and well tested theories, or have failed to have been explained or contradict established theories. An excellent place to start considering your claims would be to provide a quantum mathematical description of a gravitational singularity.

Current theories don't take into account that nature always uses the simplest solutions. The current theories use hundreds of sub-atomic particles to explain the universe and matter. I have theoretically shown that only one particle which has 3 states could do the same job far more efficiently. You don't need a trillion dollar collider to understand the universe. Note - A complicated universe makes more money for scientists so they can get more grants and gain more prestige. A simple universe doesn't attract big money and makes science too easy so that a 5 year old could understand it. This is not what the science community wants. Thus, they reject all simple theories and promote complicated ones. Thus, they get more money, prestige and stable employment.



3.) Please provide a prediction or set of predictions about some aspect of reality, or the universe that is not already known, and would not be explainable by any other theory. These predictions should be definitive in that they are causally related to your theory (IE: results that are required to occur for your hypothesis), specific (IE: in that they can't be some general prediction that could be true even were your hypothesis false), and falsifiable (IE: it would falsify your hypothesis if shown not to be true, see (2)

1. My theory explains how light transfers through space using mechanical action.

2. My theory explains how action at a distance is possible via pushing forces and not by pulling forces.

3. My theory explains how the sun gets its energy from aether influx.

4. My theory explains how the universe is divided in fractal dimensions.

4.) As you have unified all four forces, please provide geometric field tensor mathematics, and associated equations that describe the relationships between the standard model forces and gravity; describes standard model force interactions within matter in the context of your aether, and mathematically describes how and why the standard model and gravitational theories are applicable to reality at this time, together with the physical constraints under which those theories hold true.

I am not a mathematician. I can only visualize the universe in pictorial, mechanical, electrical and language terms.

5.) As you have unified all four forces, please also describe the method of attaining mathematical symmetry of these forces, and physical conditions under which they are unified.

All I can say is that spin is the common denominator. This is a basic mathematical concept. Once you have a common denominator you can manipulated all the forces in any way that you chose. I can describe everything that happens in the universe in terms of left, right and no spin.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 3:25:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 3:04:48 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 10/12/2015 3:25:15 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

Excellent, I just want to see a few things:

1.) What observational evidence does your hypothesis account for that is not also accounted for by other, established and well tested theories, or have failed to have been explained or contradict established theories. An excellent place to start considering your claims would be to provide a quantum mathematical description of a gravitational singularity.

Current theories don't take into account that nature always uses the simplest solutions. The current theories use hundreds of sub-atomic particles to explain the universe and matter. I have theoretically shown that only one particle which has 3 states could do the same job far more efficiently. You don't need a trillion dollar collider to understand the universe. Note - A complicated universe makes more money for scientists so they can get more grants and gain more prestige. A simple universe doesn't attract big money and makes science too easy so that a 5 year old could understand it. This is not what the science community wants. Thus, they reject all simple theories and promote complicated ones. Thus, they get more money, prestige and stable employment.

You didn't answer the question. What observational evidence does your hypothesis account for that is not also accounted for by other, established and well tested theories, or have failed to have been explained or contradict established theories.

Thus far, you have said a number of things, and have shown none of them.



3.) Please provide a prediction or set of predictions about some aspect of reality, or the universe that is not already known, and would not be explainable by any other theory. These predictions should be definitive in that they are causally related to your theory (IE: results that are required to occur for your hypothesis), specific (IE: in that they can't be some general prediction that could be true even were your hypothesis false), and falsifiable (IE: it would falsify your hypothesis if shown not to be true, see (2)

1. My theory explains how light transfers through space using mechanical action.

Not a prediction, doesn't answer the question.

2. My theory explains how action at a distance is possible via pushing forces and not by pulling forces.

Not a prediction, doesn't answer the question. Also, no it doesn't, as you have shown no detailed maths or working, nor have you tied it to specific and detailed observations, nor detailed what it explains that other well tested theories do not.

3. My theory explains how the sun gets its energy from aether influx.

Not a prediction, doesn't answer the question. Also, no it doesn't, as you have shown no detailed maths or working, nor have you tied it to specific and detailed observations, nor detailed what it explains that other well tested theories do not.

4. My theory explains how the universe is divided in fractal dimensions.

Not a prediction, doesn't answer the question. Also, no it doesn't, as you have shown no detailed maths or working, nor have you tied it to specific and detailed observations, nor detailed what it explains that other well tested theories do not.

4.) As you have unified all four forces, please provide geometric field tensor mathematics, and associated equations that describe the relationships between the standard model forces and gravity; describes standard model force interactions within matter in the context of your aether, and mathematically describes how and why the standard model and gravitational theories are applicable to reality at this time, together with the physical constraints under which those theories hold true.

I am not a mathematician. I can only visualize the universe in pictorial, mechanical, electrical and language terms.

If you're not a mathematician, and as a result obviously do not understand the mathematics that allows modern technology to operate, many based upon the laws of physics, how can you state that your theory is an explanation of anything?

5.) As you have unified all four forces, please also describe the method of attaining mathematical symmetry of these forces, and physical conditions under which they are unified.

All I can say is that spin is the common denominator. This is a basic mathematical concept. Once you have a common denominator you can manipulated all the forces in any way that you chose. I can describe everything that happens in the universe in terms of left, right and no spin.

As you cannot show the truth of anything you say, in either it's evidential support, predictivity, it's mathematical validity, or in explaining things it cannot explain, the answer is quite simple.

You have made something up, and lack the intelligence, training, education, and logical reasoning to be able to show it's true; yet profess that it is the truth anyway.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 3:36:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 3:04:48 PM, Akhenaten wrote:

You missed an import point in your reply to Ramshutu. Falsification is a vital component to any legitimate scientific theory.

At 10/12/2015 3:25:15 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

2.) Please provide a method of falsifying your hypothesis; IE: please explain and describe a measurement you can make that you haven't already made prior to the construction of your hypothesis that must necessarily give a specific answer or result, and demonstrate how giving a different answer would demonstrate that your hypothesis is incorrect.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 9:21:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/11/2015 4:47:59 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Using this concept the forces of the universe can be unified. Thus, spin becomes the common denominator which unites matter, light, electricity, gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces.

What does it predict that existing models don't?

How could that prediction be confirmed?

How could your conjecture be falsified?
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 11:19:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 9:21:39 PM, RuvDraba wrote:


What does it predict that existing models don't?

The universe is unpredictable. Therefore, you are asking for the impossible. My model predicts that the science community will reject my theory because it makes all the scientists around the world look foolish and stupid. My model isn't a mathematical model, but I have used the simple mathematical principle of the common denominator which any primary student should know. Einstein, Hawking and Feynman, all missed this basic principle of looking for the common denominator. You can't unite disparate forces until you have a common denominator. I have considered this problem for 40 years and have realized, just recently, that spin is the only possible common denominator.
My model predicts that aether influx is what powers the sun. Scientists still don't understand where the suns heat and light comes from. They are sending space craft to investigate it right now. They will eventually find that the heat is generated in the sun's atmosphere and not in the sun's core as previously thought. That is my prediction.

How could that prediction be confirmed?

See above.

How could your conjecture be falsified?

That's up to you to find out.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 11:28:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 3:25:22 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

You have made something up, and lack the intelligence, training, education, and logical reasoning to be able to show it's true; yet profess that it is the truth anyway.

The science community is not about finding scientific truth and reality. It is more about maintaining integrity, power, consensus, conformity, obscurity, difficulty and unnecessary complications. My theory is a huge embarrassment to the scientific community because it shows how stupid and consensus driven most scientists really are.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 11:37:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 11:19:47 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 10/13/2015 9:21:39 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
What does it predict that existing models don't?

The universe is unpredictable. Therefore, you are asking for the impossible. My model predicts that the science community will reject my theory because it makes all the scientists around the world look foolish and stupid.

How could that prediction be confirmed?
See above.

How could your conjecture be falsified?
That's up to you to find out.

Akh, congratulations on independently rediscovering pseudoscience!

Pseudoscience couches itself in scientific-sounding language, but lacks both the ethical and methodological underpinnings on which modern science rests. The adoption of scientific-sounding language is irrelevant to the quality of pseudoscientific ideas, but of critical importance to leeching credibility from proven scientific achievements.

Pseudoscience often repeats the same behaviours, and I've listed some common ones and checked them off:

* vague or exaggerated claims (Check!),
* unfalsifiable ideas (Check!)
* lack of independent and competent peer review (Check!)
* appeals to outdated or refuted scholarly works (Check!)
* indifference to independent refutation or verification (Check!)
* abrupt and unexplained methodological changes that don't change the underlying claims (Methodology missing or obscure, so Check!)
* refusal to accept scientific methodology, or claiming the methodology is inapplicable (Check!)
* reliance on negative proofs (Not observed yet, but I can smell it coming!)
* appeals to results in unrelated fields (Ditto!)
* misuse of scientific terms (Check!)
* misrepresentation of scientific terms (Check!)

To celebrate your rediscovery, here's a badge for you! Wear it proudly!

[https://abagond.files.wordpress.com...]
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 11:44:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 11:37:29 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
* reliance on negative proofs (Not observed yet, but I can smell it coming!)

Oops -- my mistake:

At 10/13/2015 11:19:47 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
My model predicts that the science community will reject my theory because it makes all the scientists around the world look foolish and stupid.

Rejection by the scientific community is PROOF of the model.

* reliance on negative proofs (CHECK!)

Atomic batteries to power!
Turbines to speed!
Engage the Phlebotenum to the Recursive Unaccountability Drive!
All systems to Static!

3... 2... 1... STALL!
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 12:43:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 11:37:29 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

Pseudoscience couches itself in scientific-sounding language, but lacks both the ethical and methodological underpinnings on which modern science rests. The adoption of scientific-sounding language is irrelevant to the quality of pseudoscientific ideas, but of critical importance to leeching credibility from proven scientific achievements.

Pseudoscience often repeats the same behaviours, and I've listed some common ones and checked them off:

* vague or exaggerated claims (Check!),
* unfalsifiable ideas (Check!)
* lack of independent and competent peer review (Check!)
* appeals to outdated or refuted scholarly works (Check!)
* indifference to independent refutation or verification (Check!)
* abrupt and unexplained methodological changes that don't change the underlying claims (Methodology missing or obscure, so Check!)
* refusal to accept scientific methodology, or claiming the methodology is inapplicable (Check!)
* reliance on negative proofs (Not observed yet, but I can smell it coming!)
* appeals to results in unrelated fields (Ditto!)
* misuse of scientific terms (Check!)
* misrepresentation of scientific terms (Check!)

The Hadron Collider is a monument to pseudoscience, hail all multi-billion dollar pseudoscience projects - (Check)

Scientists still looking for gravity waves after billions of dollars of wasted money (check)

Gravity probe b failure cover-up to protect Einstein's theory (check)

Ignore theory and don't bother to see if its logical (check)

Use previous false information to verify current false information. (Check)

Assume qualified people know more than unqualified people (check)

Ignore fact that most innovations come from people outside the system (check)

Brief and cursory examination of facts (check)

Refusal to acknowledge possibility that old redundant theories might be correct (check)

Uses current models as unfalsifiable evidence. (check)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 1:39:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 12:43:50 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 10/13/2015 11:37:29 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

Pseudoscience often repeats the same behaviours, and I've listed some common ones and checked them off:

* vague or exaggerated claims (Check!),
* unfalsifiable ideas (Check!)
* lack of independent and competent peer review (Check!)
* appeals to outdated or refuted scholarly works (Check!)
* indifference to independent refutation or verification (Check!)
* abrupt and unexplained methodological changes that don't change the underlying claims (Methodology missing or obscure, so Check!)
* refusal to accept scientific methodology, or claiming the methodology is inapplicable (Check!)
* reliance on negative proofs (Not observed yet, but I can smell it coming!)
* appeals to results in unrelated fields (Ditto!)
* misuse of scientific terms (Check!)
* misrepresentation of scientific terms (Check!)

The Hadron Collider is a monument to pseudoscience, hail all multi-billion dollar pseudoscience projects - (Check)

Scientists still looking for gravity waves after billions of dollars of wasted money (check)
Gravity probe b failure cover-up to protect Einstein's theory (check)
Ignore theory and don't bother to see if its logical (check)
Use previous false information to verify current false information. (Check)
Assume qualified people know more than unqualified people (check)
Ignore fact that most innovations come from people outside the system (check)
Brief and cursory examination of facts (check)
Refusal to acknowledge possibility that old redundant theories might be correct (check)
Uses current models as unfalsifiable evidence. (check)

* Failure to adopt best practice scientific methodology and ethics when deficiencies are specifically pointed out (Check!)
* Misrepresentation of science used to bolster negative proof (Check!)
* Overstating of unqualified and untested competence to support grandiose claims to authority (Check!)
* Paranoid conspiracy invoked to dismiss conflicting evidence (Check!)
* Conflation of 'independent expertise' with 'ignorant eccentricity' (Check!)
* Rhetoric used in lieu of extensive, independently-verified data (Check!)
* Continued failure to acknowledge or accept accountability for ignorance, error, methodological obscurity, non-falsifiability of model and paucity of evidence, due to subjective attachment to static, ignorant, grandiose and untested ideas (Check!)

And as our Original Poster's manic pseudoscience slides into grandiose paranoia, it's time to celebrate his conceited dishonesty with...

A SONG!

[https://www.youtube.com...]
I've got my tinfoil hat on
Hip hip hip hooray
My tinfoil hat will shield me
From your mind controlling ray

I've got my tinfoil hat on
To insulate my brain
As long as I have got my
Tinfoil hat on, I'll be sane
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 3:13:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 1:39:19 AM, RuvDraba wrote:


* Failure to adopt best practice scientific methodology and ethics when deficiencies are specifically pointed out (Check!)
* Misrepresentation of science used to bolster negative proof (Check!)
* Overstating of unqualified and untested competence to support grandiose claims to authority (Check!)
* Paranoid conspiracy invoked to dismiss conflicting evidence (Check!)
* Conflation of 'independent expertise' with 'ignorant eccentricity' (Check!)
* Rhetoric used in lieu of extensive, independently-verified data (Check!)
* Continued failure to acknowledge or accept accountability for ignorance, error, methodological obscurity, non-falsifiability of model and paucity of evidence, due to subjective attachment to static, ignorant, grandiose and untested ideas (Check!)

And as our Original Poster's manic pseudoscience slides into grandiose paranoia, it's time to celebrate his conceited dishonesty with...

A SONG!

[https://www.youtube.com...]
I've got my tinfoil hat on
Hip hip hip hooray
My tinfoil hat will shield me
From your mind controlling ray

I've got my tinfoil hat on
To insulate my brain
As long as I have got my
Tinfoil hat on, I'll be sane


A simple experiment you can do.

Get a hand held electric grinder and grind a solid piece of metal for about 10 minutes.
Now - gently touch one hand to the other hand. What do you feel?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 4:15:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 3:13:20 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
A simple experiment you can do.
Get a hand held electric grinder and grind a solid piece of metal for about 10 minutes.
Now - gently touch one hand to the other hand. What do you feel?

My mind would feel abused, Akh, at an experiment that failed to isolate multiple variables from one another, or my subjective responses from the phenomenon being studied.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 12:13:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 1:39:19 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/14/2015 12:43:50 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 10/13/2015 11:37:29 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

Pseudoscience often repeats the same behaviours, and I've listed some common ones and checked them off:

* vague or exaggerated claims (Check!),
* unfalsifiable ideas (Check!)
* lack of independent and competent peer review (Check!)
* appeals to outdated or refuted scholarly works (Check!)
* indifference to independent refutation or verification (Check!)
* abrupt and unexplained methodological changes that don't change the underlying claims (Methodology missing or obscure, so Check!)
* refusal to accept scientific methodology, or claiming the methodology is inapplicable (Check!)
* reliance on negative proofs (Not observed yet, but I can smell it coming!)
* appeals to results in unrelated fields (Ditto!)
* misuse of scientific terms (Check!)
* misrepresentation of scientific terms (Check!)

The Hadron Collider is a monument to pseudoscience, hail all multi-billion dollar pseudoscience projects - (Check)

Scientists still looking for gravity waves after billions of dollars of wasted money (check)
Gravity probe b failure cover-up to protect Einstein's theory (check)
Ignore theory and don't bother to see if its logical (check)
Use previous false information to verify current false information. (Check)
Assume qualified people know more than unqualified people (check)
Ignore fact that most innovations come from people outside the system (check)
Brief and cursory examination of facts (check)
Refusal to acknowledge possibility that old redundant theories might be correct (check)
Uses current models as unfalsifiable evidence. (check)

* Failure to adopt best practice scientific methodology and ethics when deficiencies are specifically pointed out (Check!)
* Misrepresentation of science used to bolster negative proof (Check!)
* Overstating of unqualified and untested competence to support grandiose claims to authority (Check!)
* Paranoid conspiracy invoked to dismiss conflicting evidence (Check!)
* Conflation of 'independent expertise' with 'ignorant eccentricity' (Check!)
* Rhetoric used in lieu of extensive, independently-verified data (Check!)
* Continued failure to acknowledge or accept accountability for ignorance, error, methodological obscurity, non-falsifiability of model and paucity of evidence, due to subjective attachment to static, ignorant, grandiose and untested ideas (Check!)

And as our Original Poster's manic pseudoscience slides into grandiose paranoia, it's time to celebrate his conceited dishonesty with...

A SONG!

[https://www.youtube.com...]
I've got my tinfoil hat on
Hip hip hip hooray
My tinfoil hat will shield me
From your mind controlling ray

I've got my tinfoil hat on
To insulate my brain
As long as I have got my
Tinfoil hat on, I'll be sane


Love the song, cheered up my otherwise dull day. It reminds me that someone (possible in a new scientist article) once took the time to investigate the possible efficacy of tinhats and found that a typical bacofoil hat was actually more likely to amplify any electromagnetic mind control ray. Some people clearly have too much time on their hands.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 12:44:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/11/2015 4:47:59 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
The universe is a simple place which can be explained in a very simple manner using spin as the basic unit of activity which the universe is based. I came to this conclusion by observing that galaxies spin, planets spin, suns spin and that atoms must spin also. The universe is divided into fractal dimensions, like a series of Russian dolls. These dimensions extend to infinity both outwards and inwards directions forever.

The universe is made of only one basic sub-atomic particle. This particle has 3 states - left spin (clockwise), right spin (anti-clockwise) and no spin (black-hole). The left and right spin could be interpreted as positive and negative, while the no spin particle could be interpreted as a black-hole or neutron.

These 3 forms make up space and matter. Space is made of alternate left and right spin aether particles which I would call "ethons". The no spin ethon forms the centre of all matter and atoms (neutrons). Neutrons could be regarded as black holes which attract aether particles into rotation similar to how planets rotate around a sun. Aether particles spin at the speed of light.

The speed of light is a dimensional signature of the sub-atomic world. In the sub-atomic world, things happen very fast and don"t obey our laws of time and space. Light is a product of the sub-atomic world and travels at light speed because the ethons are naturally rotating at this speed and are thus conveyed like a conveyor belt. The ethons in space are not attached. They only engage one-another when light passes or they are united by a no spin ethon or neutron. When light passes through aether the ethons engage, as do the cogs in a clock or watch and cause the wave to move at the speed of light. Thus, light is two dimensional. It has both spin and wave energy.

The universe is energy rich. Aether particles spin at the speed of light. When 2 aether particles approach a large body like a sun, they are pushed together and stop spinning. This releases their energy. Thus " E=MC squared.

Setting the angular kinetic to mc^2 and requiring that the edge of the spinning object moves at speed c requires that the spinning object has a moment of inertia of 2mr^2. This is double the maximum possible moment of inertia of any shape. So your prediction is impossible, unless you are re-writing Newton mechanics.


Using this concept the forces of the universe can be unified. Thus, spin becomes the common denominator which unites matter, light, electricity, gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 2:37:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 4:15:19 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

My mind would feel abused, Akh, at an experiment that failed to isolate multiple variables from one another, or my subjective responses from the phenomenon being studied.

Tesla said "experiment, experiment, experiment, theory is for idiots".

Pity, you could have felt spin in action.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 2:50:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 12:13:51 PM, chui wrote:


* Failure to adopt best practice scientific methodology and ethics when deficiencies are specifically pointed out (Check!)
* Misrepresentation of science used to bolster negative proof (Check!)
* Overstating of unqualified and untested competence to support grandiose claims to authority (Check!)
* Paranoid conspiracy invoked to dismiss conflicting evidence (Check!)
* Conflation of 'independent expertise' with 'ignorant eccentricity' (Check!)
* Rhetoric used in lieu of extensive, independently-verified data (Check!)
* Continued failure to acknowledge or accept accountability for ignorance, error, methodological obscurity, non-falsifiability of model and paucity of evidence, due to subjective attachment to static, ignorant, grandiose and untested ideas (Check!)

Support of corrupt science system (Check!)

Denial of gross and wasteful expenditure on failed experiments (Check!)

Protect bureaucracy from investigation (Check!)

Create diversions so that you don't have to discus important issues (Check!)

Create weak and pathetic humour so that sycophantic mates can have a laugh (Check!)

Rely confusing mathematical nonsense hoping that nobody will notice that you are really stupid (Check!)
Chaosism
Posts: 2,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 3:35:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 2:37:09 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 10/14/2015 4:15:19 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

My mind would feel abused, Akh, at an experiment that failed to isolate multiple variables from one another, or my subjective responses from the phenomenon being studied.

Tesla said "experiment, experiment, experiment, theory is for idiots".

Pity, you could have felt spin in action.

Experiments must not set out to confirm a hypothesis, they must attempt to falsify it. The former will cause you to fall among the many victims of Confirmation Bias. (http://www.psychologyandsociety.com...)

This is why it is vitally important that a means of falsification be established, as Ramshutu mentioned, and that I had reminded you again about in post #14.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 4:56:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 2:50:21 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 10/14/2015 12:13:51 PM, chui wrote:
* Failure to adopt best practice scientific methodology and ethics when deficiencies are specifically pointed out (Check!)
* Misrepresentation of science used to bolster negative proof (Check!)
* Overstating of unqualified and untested competence to support grandiose claims to authority (Check!)
* Paranoid conspiracy invoked to dismiss conflicting evidence (Check!)
* Conflation of 'independent expertise' with 'ignorant eccentricity' (Check!)
* Rhetoric used in lieu of extensive, independently-verified data (Check!)
* Continued failure to acknowledge or accept accountability for ignorance, error, methodological obscurity, non-falsifiability of model and paucity of evidence, due to subjective attachment to static, ignorant, grandiose and untested ideas (Check!)

Support of corrupt science system (Check!)
Denial of gross and wasteful expenditure on failed experiments (Check!)
Protect bureaucracy from investigation (Check!)
Create diversions so that you don't have to discus important issues (Check!)
Create weak and pathetic humour so that sycophantic mates can have a laugh (Check!)
Rely confusing mathematical nonsense hoping that nobody will notice that you are really stupid (Check!)

The song link was mine, Akh -- as were the points you quoted. Only the 'confusing mathematical nonsense' (also sometimes called 'Physics') belonged to Chui.

And at the risk of letting you shift the subject, I support independent scrutiny of scientific results. Every professional scientist does. Whether you personally have the expertise to apply such scrutiny is another matter though, and regardless, arguing for more scientific scrutiny does not mean you get to skate on the lack of rigour in your own claims.

So now let's shift the topic back.

At 10/14/2015 2:37:09 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 10/14/2015 4:15:19 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
My mind would feel abused, Akh, at an experiment that failed to isolate multiple variables from one another, or my subjective responses from the phenomenon being studied.

Tesla said "experiment, experiment, experiment, theory is for idiots".

You've already hinted that you think scientific rigour lies in experiments. While that's not the whole story about scientific rigour, I agree that experiment is part of it.

But what makes an experiment rigorous? How do we recognise when an experiment is not rigorous?

Here's a hint: if you consult 'inner wisdom' before giving an answer, your answer will be wrong.