Modern physics is not science

[Hollie]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
magic molecules botherer

There's nothing magical about molecules, proteins or the building blocks of life. The hyper-religious remain wilfully ignorant about the reasons why the biological sciences superseded claims made for your various supernatural entities. ''The gawds did it'' serves no purpose toward making a case for those supernatural entities as a causation. It's a tactic that is stereotypical of angry, hyper-religious to make every attempt to discredit science as a way to promote their sacred cows.

The fact remains, however, that the building blocks of life, exist on earth and in the cosmos. Your polytheistic gods on the other hand.....

 

[ding]

Where does metaphysics get reliable premises if it is not based on empirical data?

You mean like the laws of nature were in place before spacetime was created? Convince me otherwise.

 

[rupol2000]

You mean like the laws of nature were in place before spacetime was created? Convince me otherwise.

I'm not interested here in your philosophy. I ask: how does metaphysics get reliable premises?

 

[Grumblenuts]

I ask: how does metaphysics get reliable premises?

Magic.

 

[Grumblenuts]

So, continuing from above, the first video is interesting in that it apparently offers an alternative to the two explanations that have usually been offered for how "light propagates" within and through a plate of glass. Those two being that it slows down due to ping ponging around, striking lots of atoms -or else- it gets absorbed and reemitted by said atoms, then magically emerges from the glass in a coherent beam. The guy says no. Each of those old explanations would logically produce a diffused (blurry) mess of sorts. Then he offers that the electrons within the glass are actually disturbed by the passing light enough to produce a reactive electric field which magically slows and redirects the light without diffusing any of it until it emerges, voila, and inexplicably speeds back up to c while bending back to its original angle.

The second guy says no. Light never propagates at all. It "perturbs" the Aether medium, perfectly analogous to how air gets "perturbed" by our spoken words, and the medium then propagates that perturbation through itself. Okay, go.

And.. crickets..

Really? Not one's willing to stand up and defend modern physics dogma anymore? Wuh happened?

 

[JoeMoma]

And.. crickets..

Really? Not one's willing to stand up and defend modern physics dogma anymore? Wuh happened?

Does it need to be defended" Does anyone care what the OP thinks about it?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Does it need to be defended" Does anyone care what the OP thinks about it?

About this:

So, continuing from above, the first video is interesting in that it apparently offers an alternative to the two explanations that have usually been offered for how "light propagates" within and through a plate of glass. Those two being that it slows down due to ping ponging around, striking lots of atoms -or else- it gets absorbed and reemitted by said atoms, then magically emerges from the glass in a coherent beam. The guy says no. Each of those old explanations would logically produce a diffused (blurry) mess of sorts. Then he offers that the electrons within the glass are actually disturbed by the passing light enough to produce a reactive electric field which magically slows and redirects the light without diffusing any of it until it emerges, voila, and inexplicably speeds back up to c while bending back to its original angle.

The second guy says no. Light never propagates at all. It "perturbs" the Aether medium, perfectly analogous to how air gets "perturbed" by our spoken words, and the medium then propagates that perturbation through itself. Okay, go.

Along with the videos I posted prior. The OP's input is, of course, welcome as well..

 

[Grumblenuts]

How about this. Say you pluck a guitar string and suddenly hear a sustained note. The string is vibrating but not touching your ear. Does the note somehow propagate itself? -or- do the string's vibrations immediately compress and rarify the surrounding air, which then radiates those initial perturbations to your ear all by itself? Without the air you'd hear nothing, correct? So, regardless of path, how could you ever "see" any light with no medium to initially perturb and then transfer those vibrations through itself all the way to your eyes?

 

[james bond]

There's nothing magical about molecules, proteins or the building blocks of life. The hyper-religious remain wilfully ignorant about the reasons why the biological sciences superseded claims made for your various supernatural entities. ''The gawds did it'' serves no purpose toward making a case for those supernatural entities as a causation. It's a tactic that is stereotypical of angry, hyper-religious to make every attempt to discredit science as a way to promote their sacred cows.

The fact remains, however, that the building blocks of life, exist on earth and in the cosmos. Your polytheistic gods on the other hand.....

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. 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.

 

[scruffy]

speculations?

No.

Where's the rolleyes smiley?

 

[rupol2000]

No.

Where's the rolleyes smiley?

waiting for an answer to the question

 

[rupol2000]

Dogmaphobe
Quote from your article:

"Inbreeding is known to lower intelligence, and outbreeding can raise it."

whom "known"? If we crossed an amoeba and a human, would the hybrid intelligence become higher than that of a human?

 

[rupol2000]

Dogmaphobe If an increase in IQ is the result of outbreeding, then why is it catastrophically reduced precisely in conditions of outbreeding?

 

[Grumblenuts]

I suppose atheists think there is a sound even if there is no one to hear it. IOW, the atheists can't prove squat.

If the C.I.A. bugs a forest and a tree falls, do they hear it?

 

[Grumblenuts]

the framework of THEORETICAL Physics is solid -- because all of things EXIST.. A "framework" of understanding is better than REJECTING things outright - simply because they cannot be completely described.

The Aether, for example. Nine out of ten THEORETICAL Physicists ACCEPT it outright.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Dogmaphobe
Quote from your article:

"Inbreeding is known to lower intelligence, and outbreeding can raise it."

whom "known"? If we crossed an amoeba and a human, would the hybrid intelligence become higher than that of a human?

Though certainly no scholarly work of art, the article consistently treats 1st cousin breeding as "inbreeding" and 3rd cousin breeding as "outbreeding." 2nd cousins, who knows? Amoebas are right out. No idea what any of this has to do with modern physics.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You're ignoring the fact that a LOT of "guesswork" pays off in terms of PREDICTING quantum mechanics and atomic theory and even CELESTIAL mechanics.

And in every single branch of science that exists and ever will exist.

It's called "hypothesis".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How about this. Say you pluck a guitar string and suddenly hear a sustained note. The string is vibrating but not touching your ear. Does the note somehow propagate itself? -or- do the string's vibrations immediately compress and rarify the surrounding air, which then radiates those initial perturbations to your ear all by itself? Without the air you'd hear nothing, correct? So, regardless of path, how could you ever "see" any light with no medium to initially perturb and then transfer those vibrations through itself all the way to your eyes?

One primary discovery of quantum physics and duality was to shed this confining error in thought.

 

[Grumblenuts]

One primary discovery of quantum physics and duality was to shed this confining error in thought.

Understandably, so all quantum physicists continue to wish. Regardless, how do you explain "light" traveling to and through a sheet of glass, then speeding back up to c on exit?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Understandably, so all quantum physicists continue to wish. Regardless, how do you explain "light" traveling to and through a sheet of glass, then speeding back up to c on exit?

The same way scientists explain it.

How do you explain that it remains the same color, when it comes out the other side?