Modern physics is not science

[james bond]

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

But who created the CIA? People. Who created people?

My thinking is sound. Your thinking is evolutionist/atheist, i.e. wacko.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The same way scientists explain it.

Meaning the way most don't and just dismiss it out of hand. In effect: I dunno. Whatever that textbook said all those years ago. That was fine by me. I remembered some of it then. Parroted enough back on the test. Did fine. Why bother with any of it now? Thinking's hard!

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

Good question. But still your turn,.. though why do you suppose guy#1 neglected to even mention it? Wearing a Dark Side t-shirt no less!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Meaning the way most don't and just dismiss it out of hand.

Uh, no, you're being silly. Scientists do, in fact, have an accepted explanation for it.

No, it is not my turn. I defer to the scientists.

Now, answer my question. You could also defer to the accepted scientific explanation. Or you can offer something different.

And...go.

 

[Flopper]

Natural science is that which adheres to scientific methodology.
Scientific methodology was put forward by the positivists as a counterbalance to the speculative dogmatism of the church.

The first requirement is that a scientific law is not a dogma, but a pattern derived from experience - a generalization of experience.

Modern physics is not based on the scientific method.

By definition
Natural Science is a branch of science that deals with the physical world, e.g. physics, chemistry, geology, biology.

Modern Physics means physics based on the two major breakthroughs of the early twentieth century: relativity and quantum mechanics. Examples of Modern Physics are: Atomic Physics, Nuclear Physics, Relativistic Physics, and Quantum Physics.

The question of whether the Scientist Methods Applies is sort of. It depends on what branch of modern physics are we talking about. We certainly can gather data, experiment and form theories in nuclear physics. However, Relativistic Physics and Quantum Physics, it simple is beyond our capability.

We certain can ask the questions and we can do some very basic research and form hypothesizes but that is about as far as we can go with what we know today.

Mathematically we can explain why classic physics begins to fail as we approach the speed of light or when particles are small enough. However, physically it is beyond our capability at least at this point in time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Meaning the way most don't and just dismiss it out of hand. In effect: I dunno. Whatever that textbook said all those years ago. That was fine by me. I remembered some of it then. Parroted enough back on the test. Did fine. Why bother with any of it now? Thinking's hard!

Good question. But still your turn,.. though why do you suppose guy#1 neglected to even mention it? Wearing a Dark Side t-shirt no less!

As always, a reminder

You're ether stuff may be correct. I could never say for certain that it is not. I just don't see how it's really necessary.

 

[flacaltenn]

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?

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.

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

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. But more importantly ---- 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.

 

[flacaltenn]

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

It's called "hypothesis".

Hypothesis is a STEP in the process. It's always there whether it's provable or not. The difference is for SOME specialties, it depends on how good the guess IS without the means to experiment or otherwise confirm.

........ and there's a LOT of lousy "guessers" in science. LOL....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Hypothesis is a STEP in the process.

Yep. Every single time. Every time.

No guesswork = no hypothesis = no scientific method

 

[flacaltenn]

Could watch that all day !!! It's a lot like Monty Python. Bet those kids are Python fans.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yep. Every single time. Every time.

No guesswork = no hypothesis = no scientific method

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"...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

SOMETIMES the hypothesis is the BEGINNING of the "scientific process" and SOMETIMES -- it's the END step.

Uh...okay

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

NOT --- "every single time".

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.

 

[james bond]

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.

This is proof you don't understand the scientific method .

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is fascinating how people who clearly know next to nothing about science post in this section.

 

[Grumblenuts]

As always, a reminder

You're ether stuff may be correct. I could never say for certain that it is not. I just don't see how it's really necessary.

A reminder. I know. Thus why I continue trying to help you and others "see how." But, no worries. I understand. Thinking outside the box comes hard. Increasingly so with age.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A reminder. I know. Thus why I continue trying to help you and others "see how." But, no worries. I understand. Thinking outside the box comes hard. Increasingly so with age.

Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but nothing you say is complicated or even new.

Don't make the mistake of thinking "unevidenced, unnecessary fantasies" are "thinking outside the box".

Sometimes they are just folly.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but nothing you say is complicated or even new.

Don't make the mistake of thinking "unevidenced, unnecessary fantasies" are "thinking outside the box".

Sometimes they are just folly.

Again, no worries. That your arrogance knows no bounds has been evident from day one. Btw, to "answer" your question, it's irrelevant. Newton demonstrated that simple dispersive prisms separate white light energy into its component colors (frequencies) due to refraction. FAIK, neither Einstein nor Tesla ever objected to that theory. You just might. One never knows..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That your arrogance knows no bounds has been evident from day one.

I agree.

Not one iota of published research, and you think you have outsmarted the global scientific community and have upended robust scientific theories. It doesn't get any more arrogant than that.

 

[Grumblenuts]

flacaltenn - thanks for your response here. I'll respond later..

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

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.