Modern physics is not science

[Flopper]

defer to the accepted scientific explanation. Or you can offer something different.

You completely zoned on what I wrote. SOMETIMES the hypothesis is the BEGINNING of the "scientific process" and SOMETIMES -- it's the END step.

NOT --- "every single time". Yeah -- there's some calculations and pages full of "framework" for a proof. But NO experiment, NO mathematical proof, no empirical data means it leaves the building as a "guess"...

When we are talking about most of modern physics, all theories are just working theories that explain some event(s). For example.
Hubble's discovery in the 1920s of a relationship between a galaxy's distance from Earth and its speed suggesting the expansion of the universe; and the discovery in the 1960s of cosmic microwave background radiation indicated that the universe must be expanding. This and other observations lead to conclusion that the universe is expanding. If universe is expanding and in order to support other observations there must an event that started the expansion. Thus we have the Big Bang Theory. For the Big Bang Theory to hold, there has be further explanations which came with Inflation Theory of the Universe. However, this created a problem knows as the Horizon Problem. This was solved with acceptance of the Multi-Universe hypothesis.

Most of Modern Physics is all about finding explanations for events without always being able to offer evidence or observations to support the hypothesis. If there is acceptable evidence offered the hypothesis becomes a theory. However, the testing of the theories make be many generations away.

 

[Flopper]

So where is the process or method when you start with a guess and end with a guess. What happened to the "experiment/measurement/analysis" part huh?

Me thinks you dont see that the latter course of action is entirely different than the scientific method that you learned in middle school.

The "guess" could be modified a bit by nibbling at the edges of a proof. That MIGHT qualify as "scientific method". Depends on how "invested" the investigator is in the fame and notoriety and ego that came with PROPOSING the "theory" in its original form.

That is downfall of a LOT of scientists thru history. I could give you MANY examples where they chose to cling to the "guesses" that made them famous.

Science giveth and science takest away fame, notoriety and ego.

Remember "cold fusion"? One of latest personal tragedies of science. Along with a certain Dr. Malone whose original attempt to indict the Covid vaxxes brought him to clinical nervous breakdown.

When studying the cosmos, there are very few experiments possible but there are observations and mathematical analysis.

The first steps in the scientific method occurs, defining the question, investigating and gathering data. Usually this starts with a conundrum. For example we know A is true as it is supported by both observations and mathematical analysis. We know B is true because it is likewise supported by observations and mathematical analysis. Yet B contradicts A. The scientists looks for a condition in which B would not contradict A. That condition if found would be a new hypothesis. However, moving the hypothesis to theory is often not possible at this point in time. It maybe accepted as a working theory in order proceed with other investigations.

For example the Multiuniverse hypothesis is not well accepted by most physicists because of one simple fact: If you can't leave our own universe, then there's no way to prove that any other universes exist. However, not everyone agrees with that premise. A number of scientists point out that the Multiuniverse hypothesis explains a number of cosmological events, that without Multiuniverse those events could not have happened.

 

[Grumblenuts]

When we are talking about most of modern physics, all theories are just working theories that explain some event(s).

As we are.. doing so.. here.. supposedly..
And anyone who studies things related to either the natural or physical sciences is, by definition, a "scientist".. As is anyone who "publishes" their related experiences, thoughts, and findings (research) anywhere.. It's not like one must first find the Holy Grail or anything. Making public demands of anonymous others is stupid enough to begin with. Yet many stroke their egos on the interwebs by ignorantly attempting to cut others down, having displayed no more qualification to speak knowledgeably or authoritatively in the area than those they snootily flail at. Given, it's the internet stupid, practically all smartly remain as anonymous as possible. There are some concrete "givens" that we all should try harder to keep in mind.

 

[Colin norris]

God comes in because one has to have an observer of the molecules, proteins or building blocks of life or else the particles do not exist.

rubbish. They existed billions of years before youninvrnted your god theory.
Try this for example of not seeing it. There are more molecules of water in one cup than there are cups of water in all the oceans.
Yet your silly god can see and witness everyone. Don't make me laugh.

The common paradox is... If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? It makes a sound if there is someone to hear it. I suppose atheists think there is a sound even if there is no one to hear it. IOW, the atheists can't prove squat.

Believing what you say is squat.
You are avoiding the naturals laws of physics etc to support your pathetic belief that God did it.
Not one sceric of evidence. Just that good old iron age literature . That ever reliable book that has never been altered in 2000 years to adjust to the oceans of knowledge we now know to be fact.
No. Its that god of gaps again. When the acceptance of science and physics is ignored and not understood roll in the never fails god of gaps.

You'll have to do better than that son.
Keep praying.

 

[Colin norris]

When studying the cosmos, there are very few experiments possible but there are observations and mathematical analysis.

The first steps in the scientific method occurs, defining the question, investigating and gathering data. Usually this starts with a conundrum. For example we know A is true as it is supported by both observations and mathematical analysis. We know B is true because it is likewise supported by observations and mathematical analysis. Yet B contradicts A. The scientists looks for a condition in which B would not contradict A. That condition if found would be a new hypothesis. However, moving the hypothesis to theory is often not possible at this point in time. It maybe accepted as a working theory in order proceed with other investigations.

For example the Multiuniverse hypothesis is not well accepted by most physicists because of one simple fact: If you can't leave our own universe, then there's no way to prove that any other universes exist. However, not everyone agrees with that premise. A number of scientists point out that the Multiuniverse hypothesis explains a number of cosmological events, that without Multiuniverse those events could not have happened.

Yourr obviously a good thinker.
Do you think the current expansion of the universe since the big bang, which is still expanding as we know, will ever stop?
Take it further. Do you think it could reverse to the point where all matter reforms into the big crunch of shrinking, like say how they think it started.

It is a tossed about theory that our current big bang might not have been the first.

Another of my readings.
The number of planets in our solar system is billions. We know of life on one, this one.
Let's say this solar system has one billion and one earth. Using that calculation and there are billions of galaxies, which leaves the possibility that on that ratio, there are a billion planets that could have life.

Any thoughts.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Sound is acoustic energy. Requires a medium for transfer. Works with not JUST air. Light OTHand, requires no medium to transfer because it's propagating as Electromagnetic waves at a lot of different frequencies. Molecules were required to send it off into the ether, and perhaps they were vibrating because of heat or electrical/explosive energy, but they'll propagate line of sight and generally broaden the beam somewhat as it travels.

"Requires a medium for transfer." From the teensiest to the most massive scales, all energy exchange is accomplished ultimately by and through the ubiquitous Aether "medium" (or field) itself.

Light OTHand, requires no medium to transfer because it's propagating as Electromagnetic waves at a lot of different frequencies.

No. Sound also gets described as "propagating" through the air medium as "waves at a lot of different frequencies." But that medium, in turn, depends upon the Aether medium to accomplish its every internal and external energy exchange. Yes, while air molecule dynamics allow for sound energy transfer, air molecules also interfere with light energy transfer, and the so-called "vacuum of Space" (the Aether field) "interferes with" (disables / disallows) all direct sound energy transfer. The evidence is all over. One need only become open to seeing it and begin looking for it instead of continuing to simply deny its existence (usually because Michelson-Morley!).

Molecules were required to send it off into the ether,

Wait, hypothetically speaking or are you acknowledging the Aether's existence here?

but they'll propagate line of sight and generally broaden the beam somewhat as it travels.

Huh? The Aether transfers "propagates" all wave energy through itself. The initial, perturbing "light" (energy) never goes anywhere, just as the guitar string goes nowhere. The air transfers the sound energy through itself all the way to your ear's demodulation apparatus. But you are certainly correct in that "light energy" travels "line of sight" through space (the Aether), only not as depicted by most of modern physics. As Tesla put it so elegantly, it must be a longitudinal wave transfer of alternating compression-rarefication cycles. Meaning not classically sinusoidal nor transverse, but simply fat, narrow, fat, narrow,.. Still, those cycles limit the transfer speed to c, whereas pure longitudinal waves have no speed limit - thus, "spooky action at a distance" and everything commonly attributed to "quantum mechanics."

They accept it outright because we can design antennas/transmitters/receivers to get signals from beyond the solar system. So the path control and power/time issues ARE empirical.

I was being sarcastic, thus the .

since Einstein -- it's COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY for explaining electromagnetic propagation. The speed of light or EM waves is now a universal constant that doesn't require a transfer medium that affects its motion or directivity.

So the preachers continue to chant while their flocks go "BAAAA!"

 

[james bond]

rubbish. They existed billions of years before youninvrnted your god theory.
Try this for example of not seeing it. There are more molecules of water in one cup than there are cups of water in all the oceans.
Yet your silly god can see and witness everyone. Don't make me laugh.

Believing what you say is squat.
You are avoiding the naturals laws of physics etc to support your pathetic belief that God did it.
Not one sceric of evidence. Just that good old iron age literature . That ever reliable book that has never been altered in 2000 years to adjust to the oceans of knowledge we now know to be fact.
No. Its that god of gaps again. When the acceptance of science and physics is ignored and not understood roll in the never fails god of gaps.

You'll have to do better than that son.
Keep praying.

>>They existed billions of years before youninvrnted your god theory.<<

This ought to be good. Give us the low down. Why don't you explain how we came to be before the days of creation?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So where is the process or method when you start with a guess and end with a guess.

You test the first guess and refine it.

Scientific method

 

[Hollie]

>>They existed billions of years before youninvrnted your god theory.<<

This ought to be good. Give us the low down. Why don't you explain how we came to be before the days of creation?

There were no days of creation. Snakes don't converse. The planet is greater than 6,000 years old.

 

[james bond]

There were no days of creation. Snakes don't converse. The planet is greater than 6,000 years old.

I wanted your explanation, but you don't have any because you're a loser just like the others here.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Yep. Every single time. it's the first step of the scientific method, whenever the scientific method is performed. You start with a hypothesis. Every. Single. Time.

It is clear you have never done science research or read cumulative published research of a single topic.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is clear you have never done science research or read cumulative published research of a single topic.

Valid psychobabble

 

[flacaltenn]

"Requires a medium for transfer." From the teensiest to the most massive scales, all energy exchange is accomplished ultimately by and through the ubiquitous Aether "medium" (or field) itself.

No. Sound also gets described as "propagating" through the air medium as "waves at a lot of different frequencies." But that medium, in turn, depends upon the Aether medium to accomplish its every internal and external energy exchange. Yes, while air molecule dynamics allow for sound energy transfer, air molecules also interfere with light energy transfer, and the so-called "vacuum of Space" (the Aether field) "interferes with" (disables / disallows) all direct sound energy transfer. The evidence is all over. One need only become open to seeing it and begin looking for it instead of continuing to simply deny its existence (usually because Michelson-Morley!).

Wait, hypothetically speaking or are you acknowledging the Aether's existence here?

Huh? The Aether transfers "propagates" all wave energy through itself. The initial, perturbing "light" (energy) never goes anywhere, just as the guitar string goes nowhere. The air transfers the sound energy through itself all the way to your ear's demodulation apparatus. But you are certainly correct in that "light energy" travels "line of sight" through space (the Aether), only not as depicted by most of modern physics. As Tesla put it so elegantly, it must be a longitudinal wave transfer of alternating compression-rarefication cycles. Meaning not classically sinusoidal nor transverse, but simply fat, narrow, fat, narrow,.. Still, those cycles limit the transfer speed to c, whereas pure longitudinal waves have no speed limit - thus, "spooky action at a distance" and everything commonly attributed to "quantum mechanics."

I was being sarcastic, thus the .

So the preachers continue to chant while their flocks go "BAAAA!"

Not preaching. The "existence" of Aether/Ether no longer matters. Michaelson/Morley tried to confirm the existence and failed. But Einstein put the nails in the coffin. EMagnetic propagation IS SELF-contained. Only sheep here are the ones that STILL believe EM doesn't propagate in a vacuum and want to go into the Ether business. Good Luck !!!!

It's PURE ENERGY. Light is part of that spectrum. Otherwise the phasers on the StarShip Enterprise would be useless. Do appreciate the dry sarcasm tho...

After 3 courses on fields and waves and radiative physics i recognize that -- you actually HIT on the truth and then bloviated a lot. EM propagation IS self contained because of the interaction between electro and magnetic FIELDS. So -- if you LOVE ether SOOO much that ya gotta have it -- BE RETRO and lovingly call it ether. But dont try to insist it's a "medium". Because space contains NONE of it. It's carried baggage.

When I said ::":

Molecules were required to send it off into the ether,

I was not acknowledging the ether. I was referring to the source of the light or RF energy. None this exist WITHOUT a source. It's nothing to do with the path of conveyance of that energy. Things GLOW -- all colors and frequencies. That's the nature of the source. Receivers are kept COLD -- so they can FIND the tiniest bits of the transmission.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Valid psychobabble

LOL, you showed your total disinterest in it.

You are arguing with a decades long scientist who does research and you without any evidence offered that he is wrong about it.

Hypothesis IS "Educated guess" which during the process can sometimes be made for another Hypothesis while still in the same research process as pointed out by Purdue University because the conclusion phase isn't always complete.

"A hypothesis can be further supported or disproven at any time with an experiment or a new observation. If the hypothesis is disproved, the researcher develops a new hypothesis that incorporates the new knowledge from the experiment."

bolding mine

There can be more than one hypothesis made in a single line of research.

Purdue University

The Scientific Method

What is the scientific method? The scientific method provides an organized way to think about and solve problems based on data. Most scientists describe it as the following steps:

1. State the problem. State the problem that you will study as clearly and concisely as possible.

2. Form the hypothesis. Describe what you think the result of your study will be.

3. Observe and experiment. Observe or set up an experiment to test your hypothesis. Tally your data.

4. Interpret data. Once you have collected your data, you must understand what it tells you. The data can be interpreted by comparing numbers visually and/or in graphic form.

5. Draw conclusions. Did your observations and/or experiments support your hypothesis? Was your hypothesis proved or disproved by your study? Did your results show a strong correlation? Were there things that could be changed to make a better experiment? Are there things that need to be studied further?

LINK

red bolding mine

Another hypothesis can be used to continue the experiment in a different direction.

 

[flacaltenn]

You test the first guess and refine it.

Scientific method

AHHHHA.. A NEW guess. Very good. Just what I said. The "method" FAILS a lot doesn't it? The end result of an old guess being a NEW guess that MIGHT be marginally better ----- or worse.

Or as I said, fame, ego and notoriety often get in the way of actually IMPROVING "theories". And I'll add POLITICAL winds to that as well, because UNFORTUNATELY, science NOW has to contend with deep public policy swings as the whims of the country/world politics change.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I was not acknowledging the ether.

Didn't think so. Thanks for clarifying that. Otherwise, LOL, but I'll review it after my nap just to see if anything inspires me to further comment then.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Another hypothesis can be used to continue the experiment in a different direction.

Yep. Every single time. it's the first step of the scientific method, whenever the scientific method is performed. You start with a hypothesis. Every. Single. Time.

Not seeing genuine disagreement here. Just semantics.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Not seeing genuine disagreement here. Just semantics.

He is confining it at the beginning only while I said it can be applied again later in the research which he disputed earlier with FlaCal Tenn who wrote this response:

"You completely zoned on what I wrote. SOMETIMES the hypothesis is the BEGINNING of the "scientific process" and SOMETIMES -- it's the END step.

NOT --- "every single time". Yeah -- there's some calculations and pages full of "framework" for a proof. But NO experiment, NO mathematical proof, no empirical data means it leaves the building as a "guess"..."

my bolding

To which Fort Fun Indiana replied by repeating:

"Yep. Every single time. it's the first step of the scientific method, whenever the scientific method is performed. You start with a hypothesis. Every. Single. Time."

He fogged his mind up over what FlaCalTenn was really saying.

 

[Grumblenuts]

He is confining it at the beginning only while I said it can be applied again later in the research which he disputed earlier with FlaCal Tenn who wrote this response:

"You completely zoned on what I wrote. SOMETIMES the hypothesis is the BEGINNING of the "scientific process" and SOMETIMES -- it's the END step.

NOT --- "every single time". Yeah -- there's some calculations and pages full of "framework" for a proof. But NO experiment, NO mathematical proof, no empirical data means it leaves the building as a "guess"..."

my bolding

To which Fort Fun Indiana replied by repeating:

"Yep. Every single time. it's the first step of the scientific method, whenever the scientific method is performed. You start with a hypothesis. Every. Single. Time."

He fogged his mind up over what FlaCalTenn was really saying.

Thanks and understood. But scientific method is necessarily foggy. You may say "hypothesis" while FLT may say "guess" meaning the exact same thing. You can say "framework" whereas I could say "research," or "background work," or "preparation," or whatever, meaning the same thing given different contexts. It just strikes me as a silly thing to keep arguing about. Science is never settled whether anyone can "prove" things in some sense or not. Consensus among commonly acknowledged experts is the closest thing to "fact" we're capable of, and even that often turns out being wrong or insufficient in short order. For example, here's just one instance where Einstein clumsily attempts acknowledging that Michelson, Morley, and Tesla must have been right to some extent all along, else his relativity theory could have no legs:

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. - Apr 8, 2016

Little wonder then as to why Tesla stated things like this:
Tesla (date?):

I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.

Tesla (date?):

Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.

Tesla (1937):

Only the existence of a field of force can account for the
motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption
dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this
subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all
attempts to explain the workings of the universe without
recognizing the existence of the ether and the
indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.
My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest
importance. As I have searched the entire scientific
records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time
without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself
the original discoverer of this truth, which can be
expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter
other than that received from the environment.

 

[Hollie]

I wanted your explanation, but you don't have any because you're a loser just like the others here.

There's that benevolent Christian spirit.