ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Education and Science»
  • Physics

Why can't you draw an atom?

Updated on December 24, 2015


___________________

The Rope Hypothesis - An alternative to waves, particles and wave-packets

(Comments have been disabled in all my hubs. If you wish to leave a comment go to Rational Scientific Method.)

___________________

Quantum Mechanics provides no sizes or diameters for the particles of the Standard Model. The particle mathematicians accelerate and talk about 0D 'point' particles. This may explain why they can't draw an atom.

________________

The naked emperor

The entire Quantum establishment is reliving Anderson's old Emperor's Clothes tale, but in reverse. The mathematical crowd is telling the robed king that he is nude. On the one hand, a mathematician defines an OBJECT as 'that which you can observe'. On the other, he claims that an electron is an object that has zero size. He asserts that 'scientists' have already smashed these 0D non-entities at the accelerators. It makes you wonder what it is that the scholars are ‘observing’.


Fig. 2

If that argument fails to persuade you, the mathematician has a backup story on hand. He alleges that 'scientists' can't see an electron because it’s too tiny. The atom is still under investigation, and that explains why "we don't know what an electron looks like. (If we only had more funds to build bigger colliders...)"

Fig. 3

This last one is a bald face lie! On the one hand, the mechanics boast that they have taken images of atoms, filmed electrons, and took pictures of gluons which mediate between quarks which are constituents of protons which are constituents of atoms. On the other, no one is investigating the bird's-eye architecture of the atom or of light. The entire establishment has caved in to Bohr's breathtaking explanation that it is impossible to visualize or imagine a 3D object such as an atom. Nevertheless, Bohr has already determined for all of us that these questions are outside the purview of 'science.' Structural questions of light, the atom, and 'fields' are not even among the ten most important of contemporary 'physics.' No one is investigating such matters. The mathematicians routinely delegate such issues to philosophers, which, as it turns out, aren't investigating them either.

It is also a lie because Quantum officially defines a hydrogen atom as consisting of a proton and an electron. Everyone learns this by rote in secondary school and this description is never amended at the university level. Rutherford determined early in the 20th Century that a proton has greater than zero size. No problem there! The electron, on the other hand, is a monster that no one wants to face. The electron is defined to have zero size, zero dimensions, no structure whatsoever! The electron is a non-entity that, if the decription of a hydrogen atom is to be accepted, compels you to imagine the atom as a bundle of nothing orbiting a nucleus. The mathematicians at all levels routinely explain that ionization consists of an atom that lost an electron BEAD! And electricity consists of a massive flow of these beads. So clearly, the mechanics are invoking the planetary model in these physical interpretations.


Fig. 4

Do the individual atoms in tis image look like 0D electrons orbiting a nucleus or does each atom look like the surface of a hill?
Do the individual atoms in tis image look like 0D electrons orbiting a nucleus or does each atom look like the surface of a hill?


.

The zero-size particle

Can the Quantum electron be a particle of zero size?

The first thing we must settle is that this is not a question of verification! We don’t run a test in Science to figure this out. It is strictly a conceptual issue. An object is that which has shape. Therefore, by definition, an object has greater than zero size. Period! Or are the Quantum mathematicians willing to stake their reputations and sink deeper in the quick sand by arguing that the electron is an abstract concept such as love or intelligence?

Fig. 5

But if the ‘scientists’ insist, we will go the extra mile and show that their own experiments make it inescapable that the electron has greater than zero size or dimensions. What the particle mathematicians have trouble answering is why the electron tracks in their bubble chambers have greater than zero width! WHAT object, what surface is it that collides against the gas molecules inside the chambers and leaves these contrails that can be imaged? In fact, when Carl Anderson discovered the infamous positron that earned him his Nobel, which is touted as the ‘positive’ nemesis of the electron, the greater-than-zero BEAD carved a groove across his wafer (Fig. 6)! There’s the diameter of your infamous electron, dear mechanics! No more excuses!

Fig. 6

Nobel Carl Anderson's wafer shows objectively that the positron and the electron have diameters greater than zero!
Nobel Carl Anderson's wafer shows objectively that the positron and the electron have diameters greater than zero!


.

Quantum is just 'philosophy'

The contemporary world of 'science' consists of mathematical philosophers more comfortable with publishing nonsense such as time travel and dark energy than about thinking critically. We will never know what an atom looks like because no one cares any more about WHAT an atom IS or looks like. Then again, the mainstreamer complains now and then that he doesn't have a deeper meaning of Quantum. No kidding?

Meanwhile, we continue to send the checks to CERN, SLAC and KEK where the modern philosophers accelerate and smash 'point' particles and break them up into more non-entities. When some phenomenon can’t be described, the mathematicians invent a new particle and assign it a flashy Greek-letter name so as to make headlines. That’s how we ended up with muons, pions, dark matter and the amusing Higgs, a particle of mass! Never does anyone question whether the foundations are rotten to the core. That's when you know it's time to distinguish between Science and religion!

Fig. 7

Of course, dissent is put down violently in order to shield the beloved religion of Mathematical Physics. Careers, glory, money are all on the line. Anyone rising against this madness is quietly censored. Try publishing a paper in Nature or Science criticizing Quantum, Relativity or String Theory on qualitative grounds. You have better luck publishing your argument that God doesn’t exist in L’Osservatore Romano.

Nevertheless, you’re wasting your breath because Bohr, Heisenberg, Feynman, Susskind and the rest of the crowd have already preempted you. They are already on record stating that Mathematical Physics is irrational:

Bohr: "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is... If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet."

Heisenberg: "The problems of language here are really serious. We wish to speak in some way about the structure of the atoms. But we cannot speak about atoms in ordinary language... The solution of the difficulty is that the two mental pictures which experiment lead us to form - the one of the particles, the other of the waves - are both incomplete and have only the validity of analogies which are accurate only in limiting cases... The violent reaction on the recent development of modern physics can only be understood when one realises that here the foundations of physics have started moving; and that this motion has caused the feeling that the ground would be cut from science."

Feynman: "the more you see how strangely Nature behaves, the harder it is to make a model that explains how even the simplest phenomena actually work. So theoretical physics has given up on that... I think I can safely say that no-one understands quantum mechanics... Do not keep asking yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, but how can it be like that?… Nobody knows how it can be like that..."

Susskind: "Modern science is difficult and often counterintuitive…Where intuition and common sense failed, they had to create new forms of intuition, mainly through the use of abstract mathematics… When common sense fails, uncommon sense must be created…"


Therefore, you are rasing a strawman, barking up a tree if you argue that Quantum is poppycock. The mechanics aren’t interested in logic or the real world. They are merely interested in Math. They add insult to injury by telling you that you are doing philosophy. It’s you who is on the wrong side of campus. The modern world of ‘science’ is not about causes or explanations. It is strictly about describing mathematically and running experiments to confirm the observation. Contemporary ‘science’ is not about understanding, but about making predictions. A mathematician is an individual who predicts that the Sun is going to be eclipsed by the Moon tomorrow morning yet can’t tell you WHY the Moon doesn’t drift out of the Solar System! He can tell you the exact force on a charge, but can't tell you how a magnet attracts another. They are not even interested in these questions any more, let alone in investigating them. We’ve replaced priests with astrologers, syllogism with the 17th Century version of the ‘scientific’ method. We have yet to do Science.

So where does that leave a rational person? How did genuine scientists lose control of Science to the religious crowd of Mathematics? Is there any chance that rationality will ever make a comeback now that generation after generation of graduates are ‘conditioned’ at university assembly lines?

The answer is that it is quite humbling to realize one day that you have awakened inside a gigantic asylum that is run by the loonies themselves.


_______________

___________

















Comments

Submit a Comment

  • profile image

    Kirui 6 years ago

    Now, the more mature ones say Newton 'reduced' but not explained otherwise science could have reached the end. I hope you understand this. 'Reduction' is an explanation to some extend. Newton certainly didn't explain why things fall and he knew this very well. He explained rather, why moon donnot escape by saing that the whatever pulling things down prevents it from doing so.(i think even me myself could explain this!). We don't say Newton did nothing because we now only need to explain why things fall down and will have explained why moon donnot escape with a single sweep instead of struggling for two entirely different explanations. Remember that at that time, they, for instance, were wondering what propels planets and Newton at least did some help.

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "Energy is the God of Mathematics."

    .

    And don't forget the Higgs, the God Particle. That explains why every particle -- including the Higgs -- has mass.

  • profile image

    Robotix  6 years ago

    "Energy is the God of Mathematics. Whenever a mathematician cannot explain a phenomenon, he just has to invoke the word 'energy' and everyone in the room goes "AAAAHHHH"! Like God, energy is ubiquitous, omniscient, and answers all our questions."

    Love this quote! I'm borrowing it... :P

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "there is no attempt to pretend that he [Newton] was explaining gravity"

    .

    But then, if Science is about explaining, Newton didn't explain. Newt just described. He was not a scientist. He was just a mathematician.

  • profile image

    Kirui 6 years ago

    I don't want you to take that Newton is the father of the morden mathematical physics. Newton knew very well that mathematics is just descriptive because he admitted that he didn't know what gravity was caused by. He just could describe it mathematically. Close exarmining his laws, there is no attempt to pretend that he was explaining gravity.

    Now consider someone between Maxwell and Einstein, as you say. The 'field' keep on oscillating back and forth from object to. concept. More notorias is when they want to describe electromagnetic waves. Now, consider 'Newton' when describing the waves along a rope. He begines by setting the sceen clearly. We have two poles and a rope to begine with. Nowhere do the rope morph to a concept or a vice versa. But Maxwell? He is just intergrating and differentiating equations until 'wave equation' emerges. When he says 'change in B' during differentiation, it is not accompanied by a physical or any illustration of how B will change in the mid air. No magnets, wires or capacitors are there in the scenario. Just fields (consepts) having effect on other fields. Unjustifiable because Farraday was experimenting with magnets and wires. Not with 'field' and 'field', which is imposible. His pseudoscience do not realy follow from Farraday's experiments as pretended.

    There we are today. Example is when they say a stone have wavelength. The guy simply message equations without physically illustrating the meanings. Why do we multiply h and f. What exactly is h etc. Newton was abit better. He somehow could differentiate objects from concepts. Morden physicists scores very little here.

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "one of the purposes of mathematics is to quantify the physical world... 123 cattle... buy 24 more, how many do I have?... Still, not all description of the physical world qualifies as "Physics... the mathematics used to properly manage a cattle ranch is hardly "physics," even though it absolutely is supposed to be a description of the physical world"

    Quite hilarious what you wrote, math! Here again it shows how devious the mathematicians are and how they go around in circles in ALL their closing arguments: "Math is Physics, but Math is not Physics, yet it is Physics. We don't explain. We just describe. But Math explains."

    Doesn't counting cattle count as 'a description of the physical world'? Isn't the ranch's accounting a trade that dates to when Math was born thousands of years ago? What part of a ranch's physical operation which is described in quantitative terms is not a part of Math? Show me a single example of any branch of Math today that is not claimed by the idiots of Math to depict the physical world (i.e., 'reality')!

    .

    It is really appalling to see how you people fool yourselves. You throw the stone and attempt to hide the hand. Ask an idiot of Math whether General Relativity has been confirmed and he'll reply that it has. Among the 'evidences' he will present are GPS, Mercury's perihelion shift, Big Bang, the Harvard Tower Experiment (Pound & Rebka), the Hafele and Keating Experiment, and the recently finished (thank God!) NASA Gravity Probe B experiment. Those are what the idiots of Math perennially throw at me. I know their arguments by heart by now. If there is something which is 'predictable' in 'science' it's the replies you get from the mathematical world.

    So? What are these evidences which the Math Asylum regards as 'proofs' of relativity? What is it that leaves the PhD numskulls gaping and drooling after ten years of high level schooling? What is it that rational folk can no longer challenge?

    1. Do GPS, Merk's Perihelion, or Gravity Probe B confirm that space is warped as asserted by Einstein in 1916 and 'proved' by Eddington three years later?

    2. Does 13 or so B years of rewinding the universal tape known lovingly as Big Bang 'prove' that matter can self-assemble from the void or that there is 'nothing' outside of spacetime?

    3. Is the HTE evidence that light can be bent by the CONCEPT gravity?

    4. Is the HKE proof that a second can be stretched to a minute?

    These and other 'observations' and 'predictions' are known as 'confirmations' of relativity. At the Wiki they call them 'tests of GR'.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_rela...

    Everywhere else they call them 'confirmations', meaning, that there is nothing more to argue. Relativity is a done deal!

    http://www.bartleby.com/173/a3.html

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201003...

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/315184/1919-New-York-Tim...

    http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/relativity/einstei...

    But when you check these 'confirmations' out, you discover that they are all mathematical rubbish. They have to do with measuring invisible phenomena and INFERRING that space is warped. Einstein's equation of Merk's Perihelion DESCRIBES the ITINERARY of this planet.

    Does his eq 'predict' where Merk will be next?

    Yes and no. It does in the ordinary sense of the word 'prediction', the loose one used by laymen. We can calculate the location of Merk in 100 years ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL (e.g., no provision for a comet to destroy Merk). It doesn't because this is not a prediction (when we define the word rigorously) and because all predictions are DESCRIPTIONS anyway (too lengthy to elaborate on either argument).

    So what do we have?

    We have the mathematician telling us that 'science' (meaning Math) just describes. It has no power to explain. Any paper considered for publication at the Establishment's journals has to have hieroglyphics and ancient numerical symbols or otherwise it's not published. Un-Mathed manuscripts are simply not 'science'! It's just that simple! No QUALITATIVE papers are accepted, especially if the abstract begins something like "I will show in this paper that Einstein and Bohr were two stupid idiots that..." For some reason these submissions instantly become 3-pointers. There is no chance of criticizing GR or QM on qualitative grounds because the mathematicians are already on record stating that GR and QM are irrational: "We cannot imagine warped space. In fact, we cannot even imagine 4D spacetime, ahyuck, ahyuck. Why... we cannot even imagine OUR model of the H atom despite that we took pictures of atoms with SEMs and smashed tinier particles at Brookhaven, ahyuck, ahycuk, ahyuck. The electrons in these pictures look nothing like an orbiting bead. They look like balloons. Ahyuck, ahyuck! And the alleged 0D particles leave GROOVES in physical wafers that are clearly 2D! Ahyuck, ahyuck, ahyuck, ahyuck!"

    But then the mathematician points to the fine print. He throws the law book in your face and says that Math is neither about Physics nor about the real world. Yet when you check again the definitions and principles of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and String Theory, you discover that they are ALL mathematical 'theories'. The 'PHYSICAL interpretation' offered by the Math Klub is qualitative and is allowed to spill over onto the general population thru lesser magazines. When someone from the general population attacks the qualitative PHYSICAL interpretation provided by the establishment, the mathematicians quickly dismiss the objection as 'philosophy' and tell the dissident that he is attacking a strawman. "We know 'physics' is irrational. But we do Math, not Physics! We do 'science', not philosophy!" And then again, the people who engage in these irrational pursuits go by the title of 'physicists'. Round and round and round and round...

    So you gotta make up your mind, math. Either Math has something to do with Physics and the real world and Science or it doesn't. If as you insinuate, Math can be a purely 'abstract' discipline -- Math for Math's sake alone -- then it is garbage. ANd if Math is the mouth of Physics, it becomes Math Phyz, which is also garbage. Either way, Math loses. Math is reduced either to an iterative idiocy given to autistic patients at the Math Asylum to keep them busy (purporting to 'explain' the real world with quantitities and amounts) or it becomes a religion (the mathematician doesn't believe that Math explains the real world, but insists that Math backs his physical interpretation of the phenomenon; objections are degraded to 'Philosophy').

    The fact is that we don't need Math to EXPLAIN any phenomenon of nature (i.e., Science)! Equations will not tell us WHAT invisible entities mediate light, gravity, magnetism, electricity, etc. For this there is but a single method: hypothesizing. You must make an ASSUMPTION about the physical configuration of the invisible entity!

    The Math Asylum has proposed the 0D Particle Hypothesis for light, atom, electricity, charge, and magnetism (i.e., 'fields') and converted space into a physical object in order to justify gravity. Aside from being irrational in themselves, these hypotheses also form the basis for irrational physical interpretations (i.e., theories). 'Observation', experimental 'evidence', measurement, have been powerless to outweigh conceptualization. Design of experiment (DOE) before experiment! First Law of Engineering! If you cannot conceptualize first, you certainly cannot run your experiment at the lab subsequently. All you will do is confirm your foregone conclusions, which is exactly where the physical interpretations of GR and QM stand today. If you allow warped space on the board, your gyrsocopes will undoubtedly find warped space in the cosmos. If you concede 0D particles on paper, you will definitely end up with 0D gluons and quarks in the bubble chamber. That's the status quo! That's how Math ended up being Phyz!

  • mathsciguy profile image

    mathsciguy 6 years ago from Here, there, and everywhere

    For some reason, I thought I my point was clear and self-evident. So, please allow me to elucidate and provide some examples of what I mean.

    Sure, one of the purposes of mathematics is to quantify the physical world (ie, if I had 123 cattle and I then buy 24 more, how many do I have?). Still, not all description of the physical world qualifies as "Physics." I really think that you must agree with this. When I pointed out that "math is NOT Quantum Physics, Cosmology, Electrodynamic Theory, Astronomy, etc." this is what I meant. For example, the mathematics used to properly manage a cattle ranch is hardly "physics," even though it absolutely is supposed to be a description of the physical world.

    In addition, there are branches of mathematics that ARE NOT concerned at all with measuring or describing physical phenomena or anything physical at all! Consider cryptography, for example. Mathematical? Yes. Representation of anything physical? No.

    Now, I don't know what you mean by the "Math Klub," but nothing I have said would be considered apocryphal to anybody with some training in (or at least historical/topical knowledge of) mathematics. I believe I may have made my point more clear now, but only you can tell me for sure.

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "mathematics is a whole sovereign entity from any kind of Physics"

    .

    If it's not a part of Physics, what is the purpose of Math? I thought we invented Math to explain something about the physical world. Math for the sake of abstract thought alone is a vain pursuit.

    In fact, you would be kicked out of the Math Klub just for saying that Math is not the language of Phyz. That was the entire point of developing Math. And mathematicians every day and everywhere claim to 'explain' the real world with Math.

    So, it's not me but you who has to come up to speed on the overwhelming influence the mathematicians have on the 'scientific' world.

  • mathsciguy profile image

    mathsciguy 6 years ago from Here, there, and everywhere

    All of that is fine; I don't think you said anything untrue. Though again, I must say that I am at somewhat of a disadvantage with your arguments, since I don't study Quantum Physics. As a matter of fact, I believe that was the original point I was trying to make in my first comment. Sure, Quantum Physics relies heavily on math - and, I'll even agree somewhat that you could put it under the category of math. But math is NOT Quantum Physics, Cosmology, Electrodynamic Theory, Astronomy, etc., etc. If you wish to deem Mathematics as unscientific according to your perspective on the matter, then I must agree with you. Mathematics doesn't fit your definition of Science, because in math we ARE interested in being correct. If that makes mathematics "unscientific," then so be it.

    But you must understand that mathematics is a whole sovereign entity from any kind of Physics. That's really all that I wanted to point out. Although, I now understand you to mean "persons who use mathematics to make claims about Physics" when you say "mathematicians." Just didn't know if you were aware of the difference; some people aren't.

    "I like mathematics because it is not human and has nothing particular to do with this planet or with the whole accidental universe — because like Spinoza’s God, it won’t love us in return." - Bertrand Russell

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "no understanding comes without observation, do you agree?"

    Absolutely NOT!!! In fact, the reason we don't have a single explanation for Mother Nature's invisible phenomena today is that the mathematicians do a lot of 'observing' and no 'understanding'!

    .

    In Science, we don't observe! In Science, we explain and understand. Science is not a discipline dedicated to bird watching. Science is about reasoning why a bird flies or what induces it to lay eggs. In Science, we don't use our eyes or hands. We don't run experiments or measure or do calculations. In Science, we use our brains. Blind men and quadriplegics can be scientists.

    .

    In fact, I don't have to observe anything, certainly not every phenomenon ever 'observed' involving light, atoms, gravity or magnetism. I certainly did not 'observe' Napoleon fighting at Waterloo. I read about it in a book. Someone just has to tell you about it. Or someone just says, "What if..." And then your job as a scientist is to try to explain WHY Napoleon went to Waterloo. (Yes... History is also a part of Science. It just belongs to the Philosophy branch rather than to Physics.)

    .

    In Physics, someone may ask, "How do you explain polarization?"

    .

    You, with your 'observation' criterion, are proposing that we should answer that Q by going to the lab and repeating the experiment a million times to certify that polarization is indeed a phenomenon of nature. And of course, you never answer the Q because all you do is 'observe' and measure and frame the behavior in some neat little formula that garners a Nobel from your peers. You describe. That's all you do. You tell me that it is done at such a speed and with such and such mass or force or time.

    And the 'proof' -- the Lion's Paw test -- that your 'observation' method is poppycock is that you cannot answer ANY of the following Qs...

    .

    1. Why does a pen fall to the floor and not the ceiling?

    2. Why does a magnet attract another?

    3. Why doesn't Mercury drift out of the SS?

    4. Why does light travel so fast and obey c = ƒ ??

    5. Why are the Pioneers decelerating towards the Sun?

    6. What is the cause of the galaxy rotational problem?

    7. What is the source of X-rays in Cygnus X1?

    8. Why does an atom Quantum Jump?

    and so on...

    I can. Rationally. It's the difference between the 17th C 'observation/experiment' method invented by such idiots as Newton and Leibniz and the 21st C Scientific Method: explanation.

    .

    Science: the set of rational explanations

    .

    .

    "I don't think it's particularly "scientific" to just come up with theories and explanations without some sort of rationalization for them"

    .

    I agree. So what is the rationalization behind Einstein's relativistic 'warped space' theory? What is the rationalization for Quantum's explanation that 0D particles collide inside the chamber, or for the Higgs: a oD particle of weight that provides weight to all particles, including itself? What is the rationalization for a black hole, a 0D concept that swallows physical objects? What is the rationalization behind 'negative momentum transfer', the alleged ability the mathematicians have of attracting a chair by pelting it with stones?

    .

    .

    "the ancient Greeks... claimed that the cause of the sun rising was Apollo in his chariot racing across the sky"

    .

    The ancient folk concocted SUPERNATURAL explanations. The idiots of Math today propose IRRATIONAL explanations. A supernatural explanation is one where we can illustrate the objects, the actors that will play a relevant role in the film, yet the explanation does not follow from the premises. An irrational explanation is one where we can’t even illustrate the objects.

    The reason for this is clear. The stupid idiots of Mathematics have converted CONCEPTS into physical OBJECTS and go thru the motions of moving them around! The Math Morons transfer energy, dilate time, move a mass, carry a force, and compel mathematical concepts such as black holes to swallow objects such as astronauts.

    So I’ll take 'Apollo' and 'Jesus walking on water' over 'warped space' and '0D particles' any day, thank you. I can at least imagine God making the U. I can’t, for the life of me, visualize 4D spacetime self-creating in a Big Bang.

    http://youstupidrelativist.com/02Sci/03SciRel.html

    .

    .

    "I don't consider this to be a scientific theory because it was not verifiable by any sort of test or accepted method of proof."

    .

    In Science, we don’t run tests and much less do we prove! What test can you run to show that space is a physical object? What proof do you have that a 0D particle can collide against another.

    Proof is the hallmark of religion. Proof means that YOU have made up your mind. Proof means that YOU now believe in God. Your neighbor still doesn’t. What is proof to you is lie to him!

    Name ONE theory that has been proven!

    And then again, the mathematicians argue in circles for another two hours saying that a new mousetrap may replace the old one.

    ("Wait a minute! I thought you said it had been proven? Wasn't General Relativity proven? Wasn't Quantum Mechanics a complete theory?")

    .

    .

    "science" ought to be able to show that its conclusions are correct"

    .

    Again, in Science, there is no right/wrong, correct/incorrect, evidence or proof. In Science, we only have rational and irrational theories. What you believe after the presentation is your personal business and doesn’t concern Science. Mother Nature doesn’t give a shit if the entire 7B people on Earth vote for the Flat Universe theory. It won’t make it so.

    .

    .

    "science is NOT about knowledge. Science is about explaining."

    .

    know/knowledge: the ability to predict the result of an experiment without error.

    explain/explanation: The prosecutor’s version of why a consummated event happened. To disclose the mechanism behind a phenomenon. To theorize.

    Knowledge deals exclusively with the future. Explain, you can but explain the past: a consummated event. Never the twain shall meet. Not even God knows the future, for, by doing so, ‘He’ has summarily converted it into the past!

    .

    .

    "Our definitions simply aren't compatible... Our true impasse is purely semantic"

    .

    In Science, we resolve these discrepancies objectively, not by voting. You either can or can’t use the definition consistently (i.e., scientifically).

    What is a ‘point’? What is a ‘line’? What is ‘distance’? What is an ‘object’? What do you mean by ‘exist’? What is energy? What is time? What is ‘a’ field?

    After 10,000 years, the mathematicians have no answers to these questions. They have not defined the strategic terms that make or break their theories.

  • mathsciguy profile image

    mathsciguy 6 years ago from Here, there, and everywhere

    "So let me get this straight. Are you saying that 'science' is merely about gaping and gawking without understanding anything?"

    No. And yes. My definition of Science is contained somewhere within that interpretation. Understanding should be the ultimate goal of true science. But no understanding comes without observation, do you agree? I don't think it's particularly "scientific" to just come up with theories and explanations without some sort of rationalization for them. Isn't that what the ancient Greeks did when they claimed that the cause of the sun rising was Apollo in his chariot racing across the sky? I don't consider this to be a scientific theory because it was not verifiable by any sort of test or accepted method of proof. I believe "science" ought to be able to show that its conclusions are correct. We will probably not come to agreement on this subject, since you have stated explicitly that "science is NOT about knowledge. Science is about explaining." Our definitions simply aren't compatible. As I have stated before, I don't have the credentials to make an assertion about whether Quantum Physics is accurate or even "scientific" since my area of expertise is not in Physics, but in Mathematics. Our true impasse is purely semantic.

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "animals have a much higher sense of smell and hearing... Who is to say that it is possible to build equipment"

    .

    I thought we were talking about Science, some? What's this entry got to do with Science?

  • someonewhoknows profile image

    someonewhoknows 6 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

    Let me ask you this! Do you agree that our physical human senses such as eyesight are limited in scope campared to other animals such as eagles.

    Other animals have a much higher sense of smell and hearing as well as sight.

    Dogs hear freqencies we can't hear.

    We know this because we have equipment that can detect it.

    Who is to say that it is possible to build equipment that can detect fequencies that are so high that they cannot be detected using "physical equipment" that we have to measure with.

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "Science is simply the systematic study of the observable world in which we live"

    .

    So let me get this straight. Are you saying that 'science' is merely about gaping and gawking without understanding anything?

    .

    http://youstupidrelativist.com/05SR/01Length/07Len...

    .

    .

    "Results of Science must also be somehow verifiable"

    .

    So we verify in my home that the pen always falls to the ground. After 1000 verifiable-by-anybody trials, not once did the pen fall to the ceiling. You run 1 million trials in your home and reach the same conclusion.

    .

    What have we learned? What's scientific about this?

    .

    The idiots of NASA spent 1B $ on the Gravity Probe B project, designed to prove that space is a physical object, something like a mattress or a canvas or a hammock. The stupid morons claim that their gyroscopes proved just that!

    .

    So? In what way did this costly experiment verify and confirm that we can bounce balls against the wall of space? They observed. They verified. And -- surprise! -- they confirmed their foregone conclusions: that anyone who dares to criticize the logic of General Relativity is a rotten egg and should be burned at the stake.

    .

    There is only one way to 'prove' that space is warped and that it is the wall that is preventing Mercury from leaving the SS. The followers of Pastor Einstein -- the idiot who proposed this explanation -- are required by Science to bring a chunk of space to the conference, warp it in our presence, and place this statue in the middle of the hallway.

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "Edison was an Inventor not a scientist"

    .

    Exactly! Edison couldn't explain electricity any more than Hawking can today. He just tried one thing after another until he perfected his bulb, specifically, the filament.

    Likewise, the Wrights were not scientists. They tried one thing after another until they got it 'wright'.

    .

    .

    "an Inventor who is able explain"

    .

    Even a philosopher who is able to explain a phenomenon is a scientist. The trick is to explain rationally...

    .

    http://youstupidrelativist.com/02Sci/03SciRel.html

    .

    The issues a genuine scientist should be attempting to explain include some of Mother Nature's invisible workings:

    1. WHY don't the planets drift away from the SS? WHAT physical object comes up against them and prevents these rocks and balls of gas from being unfaithful to the Sun?

    2. WHY does light travel so fast? If light is comprised of discrete particles (as the establishment argues), WHY can't light travel faster? WHY does light obey the relation c = ƒ ? ?

    3. How does a magnet manage to PHYSICALLY attract another one? WHY when you turn it around, the magnet repels the other?

    4. WHY does an atom Quantum Jump? WHY when it does so does the atom emit/absorb light?

    ... Slit Experiment, EPR, Photoelectric Effect, Polarization, Tunneling...

    Surprisingly, none of these issues is on the things to do list of 'modern physics'. The 10 most important Qs of 'physics' on the menu, instead, include topics such as...

    1. Predicting dark matter. (The idiots of Math already 'know' it's there. There's no chance to argue this issue any more. Now they just want the astronomers to find it.)

    2. Predicting the Higgs. (The Math Morons have invented this 'particle of weight' -- a particle of a concept, something like a 'particle of love' -- and now are busily and expensively trying to smash particles at the LHC in order to find it. The funny part is that the Higgs itself has weight. It weighs 150 GeV/c2. So, the particle that provides weight to all other particles is also made of Higgs. Of course, this idiocy will never reach the level of idiocy that 440 stupid, idiotic morons attained when they decreed that the top quark weighs as much as the entire gold atom it forms a miniscule part of.

    http://www.ur.umich.edu/9394/May09_94/5.htm )

    3. Predicting the black hole. (The mathematical establishment has no rational explanation for the behavior of some stars. Therefore, the mathematicians forcefully converted them into binary systems: A star that is heavily influenced by a ghost, an unseen neighbor. The theory consists in taking a big sun, compressing it out of existence, but leaving its ghostly mass around so that this CONCEPT can gobble up light, astronauts, clocks, and any other garbage that happens to fall in it. So how is it that LW+H convert into nothing? By what physical process?)

    4. Predicting time travel (The mathematicians have already decreed that it is physically possible to kill your great great grandfather and to be half as young as your twin brother. The only issue we need to resolve now is how to build the Time Tunnel so that we can get away from all this madness.)

    We don't have physicists (explanations) running the world. We have psychics (predictions).

  • mathsciguy profile image

    mathsciguy 6 years ago from Here, there, and everywhere

    Ah! We have reached understanding, sir. Please recall that my hypothetical hypothesis (for lack of a better description) was proposed not in an effort to establish my position on what Science is, but in an effort to determine with more clarity what -your- idea of it is. It wasn't a turn of rhetoric, really, but an honest attempt at describing the breach in my understanding of your statements. And I will admit that in that regard I did mistakenly assume that you would disagree - but I assumed this only because I assumed that my own understanding of what you were saying was flawed or incomplete. However, since you did agree I now see that I did, in fact, comprehend you. So, I humbly thank you.

    I'm not sure what we are seeing if I can "back up with a rational argument" as I don't think I put forward a position in that comment.. but I will share my idea of what Science is. Quid pro quo, eh? It is a good way.

    To me, Science is simply the systematic study of the observable world in which we live. Results of Science must also be somehow verifiable in order for me to consider them truly "scientific." Now, there are all sorts of semantic games one could play with that definition, and it is admittedly very loose. But, there you have it - we certainly disagree on our definitions of Science. Interestingly enough, it seems like your definition is more narrow in some ways, but in other ways mine is more narrow. Just an observation.

  • someonewhoknows profile image

    someonewhoknows 6 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

    I have to agree with you there.

    Edison was an Inventor not a scientist.

    Would you say an Inventor who is able explain the principle behind their Invention as a scientist? Or should I say the mechanism or physics of their Invention?

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "practical science and theoretical science"

    .

    There is no such thing as practical Science. Practical 'science' is called Technology. People confuse the fact that we have developed Technology to such interesting levels with the explanation of phenomena.

    There is no practical application of the answer to the Q "Why doesn't Mercury drift out of the SS?" Science is there merely to understand how Mother Nature runs her shop. We don't need Science to develop Technology. As Edison once summarized, "I have not failed. I just discovered 10,000 ways that don't work."

  • someonewhoknows profile image

    someonewhoknows 6 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

    I agree science should be about explaning.

    I also think that teaching should be about explaning as well.

    You are making a distiction between practical science and theoretical science.

    I've heard that the Ivory tower of theorectical science and the down to earth practical science do not always agree with each other.Your hub is proof of that.

    My question is how do you propose to close the gap between the two?

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "I know that atoms are real"

    .

    1. Science is NOT about knowledge. Science is about explaining.

    .

    2. Until you define the crucial word 'real', you have said nothing.

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "I have a theory that the ocean is blue because it is reflecting the sky... Is that Science???

    .

    YES! You have explained WHY YOU think the ocean has a given color. Another person may offer a different explanation.

    .

    .

    "Surely not."

    .

    Oh, Why not, math? You made an unsubstantiated statement. You just assumed I would agree, which I don't. Let's see if you can now back up your words with a rational argument.

    It wouldn't hurt to tell us what Science is about as part of your answer.

  • profile image

    PieterTheProphet 6 years ago

    Phew! You Guys are waay beyond me.. Fantastic stuff! I do have some thing to add how ever:

    I know that atoms are real. I saw them when I was nineteen while wandering around in an "enhanced" state of mind (for about 12 hours). They were everywhere. I couldn't get away from the danged things!

  • mathsciguy profile image

    mathsciguy 6 years ago from Here, there, and everywhere

    I looked at the page you suggested and read some more of your comments, and I think that I am now even more confused about what you consider to be really actually honest-to-goodness "Science." I hate to sound like an imbecile, but as a mathematician I get the vague impression that you probably already consider me to be one, so I have nothing to fear anymore, do I? :)

    That said, I would most sincerely like to come to a mutual understanding with you. If I may refer to a specific stumbling block of mine in apprehending your view of Science:

    "Science is about presenting a theory in a logical manner. The definition of science also makes no provision for mathematical equations. An equation is just a description, and a description alone is not science."

    I think that you directed me to this particular module in an effort to further exemplify your position. However, to say that science is about presenting a theory in a logical manner is still rather vague, don't you think? For instance, I have a theory that the ocean is blue because it is reflecting the sky (not really, just for argument's sake). I have presented this theory logically - water reflects objects, the sky is an object in position (presumably) to be reflected by the water in the ocean, the sky is blue and therefore the ocean is blue. Is that Science??? Surely not. So there must be more to it than that. That's really all I want to know - what do you have to add to the logical presentation of a theory to make it "Science?" I've read lots about how mathematics isn't science (and I agree, to a certain point!), but not a whole lot about what IS science.

    I was going somewhere else with this comment, but writing that just now has redirected me (short attention span). I think it would be very helpful to me if you could give an example of something that you do consider to be scientific. Not a definition - an example. And again, please excuse any misunderstanding on my part.

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "the mass of the electron is not zero, but 1/1836"

    .

    Irrelevant to the instant Q. The issue is whether an electron is a physical object or an abstract concept. Not one mathematician on planet Earth knows the difference.

    It turns out that this is the first thing we learn in Physics. If an individual doesn't understand the difference between an object and a concept, he cannot be a physicist.

    Therefore, whether an electron weighs 2 lbs or 3 is not the issue. The issue is that if the proponents of Quantum claim that an electron is an object, that it moves and collides and produces the effect called electricity, it MUST, absolutely MUST have size!

    "Heisenberg was misunderstood as dismissing mathematical physics as irrational."

    .

    Heisenberg tried to sweep the irrationality under the rug! He tried to justify it. He was saying, "Forget about classical (i.e., rational) Physics. The subatomic world doesn't work that way. The Quantum version of the subatomic world works irrationally (i.e., we cannot justify the behaviors of particles.)

    And the problem was simple. You simply CANNOT explain the subatomic world with PARTICLES!. There are no such things as discrete particles in nature. That's where the error is. If Popper has any validity, Quantum should've been rejected decades ago.

    "it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and the momentum of an electron"

    .

    Heisenberg reached this irrational conclusion because in the religion of Mathematics 'position' and 'motion' are synonyms. The mathematicians of the world are such stupid idiots that they never figured out that standing still is not the same thing as running.

    This moron Heisenberg essentially said that when the ball is standing still (position, static concept), it doesn't move (momentum, dynamic concept). Again, the reason for this nonsense is that the mathematicians have never defined the strategic terms that make or break their theories.

    In Physics, we don't use the word 'position'. It has no meaning whatsoever. Position is the object itself. In Physics, we use the word 'location', defined as the set of distances to all other objects in the system under consideration. The location of an atom is simply the set of distances to the rest of the atoms in the U.

    And 'motion' consists of two or more locations (i.e., a minimum of two frames in the Universal Movie). Location is to photograph what motion is to movie. Heisenberg is comparing apples and oranges! His 'remarkable insight' has no place in Science.

    "Energy is not a tangible entity"

    .

    In fact, energy is not an entity at all! There is no such thing as energy. We don't use this word in Science, not to mention in Physics.

    The mathematicians have converted 'energy' into a physical object, again, because they don't understand the difference between objects and concepts. They talk about the 'transfer' of energy. The mathematicians are in the business of transferring abstract concepts.

    Of course, they cannot make a movie of their beloved 'transfer of energy' theory. What will they put on the screen? What object will act the part of energy in the movie?

    The mathematicians invented such words as energy, mass, force, time, field and charge to hide their ignorance. These words are strictly prohibited in Science. They belong exclusively in religion. Any person using these words to explain a phenomenon of nature should be locked away in an asylum.

    Energy is the God of Mathematics. Whenever a mathematician cannot explain a phenomenon, he just has to invoke the word 'energy' and everyone in the room goes "AAAAHHHH"! Like God, energy is ubiquitous, omniscient, and answers all our questions.

    "electronic theory was once again extablished in semi conductors electron with hole"

    .

    So what is a hole? Can any mathematician on Earth draw a hole for me, just the hole?

    A hole is a CONCEPT. There are no holes in nature. The gofer touches earth, not the absence of it. The mathematicians are so ridiculous that they even invented a hole in or into nothing -- the infamous black hole, an alleged opening in the vacuum.

    Therefore, the electron - hole theory is nonsense. It is a Ptolemaic theory of semiconductors.

    "the electrical and electronic tools in our environment today are evidence of the accuracy of the of the present understanding of the electronic principle"

    .

    Absolutely NOT!

    .

    1. Science is NOT Technology! What 'works' has nothing to do with Science. In Science, we ONLY explain phenomena.

    2. Ptolemy's epicycles also 'worked'. Is it then a fact that that's how Mother Nature runs her Solar System?

    3. Technology is developed by trial and error. Every mathematician out there knows how to pick iron filings with a magnet (Technology). Not one mathematician on planet Earth can provide a physical mechanism for how one magnet attracts another and then repels it when the magnet is reversed.

    The only way to explain this phenomenon is with Physics. Math has no power to explain.

    .

    https://hubpages.com/education/Einsteins-Idiots-9

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "a prevalent theme in your articles is that "the modern world of ‘science’ is not about causes or explanations. It is strictly about describing mathematically"

    .

    And I quote... "science doesn't answer why questions, it only answers how questions. Science doesn't explain; science describes." Donald Simanek, Emeritus Prof of Phyz, Lock Haven U.

    .

    That's the establishment's version of 'science'.

    Nevertheless, Mathematics is a language that can only describe. Math has no power or authority to explain. That's why we have no explanations today.

    "what you DO consider to be "Science."

    .

    http://youstupidrelativist.com/02Sci/00SumSci.html

  • James Agbogun profile image

    James Agbogun 6 years ago

    We must clarify that the mass of the electron is not zero, but 1/1836 of the mass of proton.

    Heisenberg was misunderstood as dismissing mathematical physics as irrational. It was an explanation drawn from his uncertainty principle:

    "certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, cannot be simultaneously known to arbitrarily high precision"

    "it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and the momentum of an electron or any other particle with any great degree of accuracy or certainty"

    "It was a statement about the system itself" based on the observation from the uncertainty principle.

    You must also know that Heisenberg did not limit his principle to electrons. His position was electron or any other particle.

    What do you expect of Niel Bohr? He came up with the Bohr model which attracted a nobel Prize. But that should have been the peak of the atomic theory. Suddenly, that same theory was replaced by quantum mehanics. Is it not reasonable for him to conclude:

    "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is... If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet"?

    Energy is not a tangible entity. The real nature of energy is as evident in biological systems where we do not have to see it as a product of high temperature. Here, it is entropy that matters. You see it as Glucose-which is supposed to give the energy-is being broken down while its intermediate products are being used to assemble ADP with Phosphates to form ATP.

    You will agree that the electronic theory was once again extablished in semi conductors where the question was not about pairing the electron with proton, but electron with hole.

    What is more important is that the electrical and electronic tools in our environment today are evidence of the accuracy of the of the present understanding of the electronic principle. You may not be able to see the electron, but you can detect, study and measure it with instruments around you.

    The computer you are using right now, your TV, light, and a lot more are a product of what is known so far. It is because we have not been able to understand it in its entirety, that we are not yet travelling at the speed of light.

    Science is gradual!

    Thanks!

  • mathsciguy profile image

    mathsciguy 6 years ago from Here, there, and everywhere

    I'm afraid that you are perhaps making some unwarranted generalizations here. I don't find fault with your dissatisfaction with contemporary theories about electrons or the minimum required size of an object. As far as I'm concerned, I don't have the credentials to make any sort of authoritative stand on these points. I will leave that to any theoretical physicists who happen to be browsing around on HubPages. :)

    However, I do think that you have mistakenly equated "Mathematician" with "Theoretical Physicist/Quantum Mechanic." For example, a prevalent theme in your articles is that "the modern world of ‘science’ is not about causes or explanations. It is strictly about describing mathematically and running experiments to confirm the observation." This particular quote confuses me somewhat because, frankly, mathematics forms the basis of even Classical Mechanics - which seems to me to classify it as a legitimate part of scientific study. That is, unless you contend that Isaac Newton wasn't a real scientist?

    It is unfair to generalize in that way, to scorn mathematics as somehow unscientific simply because you don't agree with what Quantum Physics uses it to conclude, you see?

    But, I think that alternatively I may just not really be understanding what you DO consider to be "Science." So, if that is the case or seems to be the case to you, then I apologize and would sincerely like to know more clearly how you would define it.

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "In Electronics they teach that Electrons flow in wire like water flows in a pipe"

    .

    That nonsense comes from the Quantum mathematicians, who, as the article shows, are not very bright.

    .

    "everything in the universe is made up of energy"

    .

    Erm... please draw this 'building block' you call energy. I've never seen 'an' energy.

    .

    "evertything has electrons within it"

    .

    Discrete little balls? What is an electron? You can't say that everything has electrons until you tell the crowd what it is that you're talking about.

    .

    "Hydrogen has only one"

    .

    Again, one WHAT? A discrete little ball?

    .

    "it has a lot of energy within it"

    .

    Okay, so it has a lot of X in it! What is X? Please draw this X for me. I wanna see WHAT it 'has'.

    .

    "I have a string that represents the force holding my electron in orbit around me like a kite"

    .

    So you DO need a physical object such as a string to hold the ball, correct? You cannot do it with more discrete little balls as the religion of Quantum alleges, correct? The world of Quantum does not have strings (i.e. the stupid idiots of Quantum never discovered the force of PULL! That's why they cannot explain gravity!) They do PULL with discrete particles! Quantum is strictly a particle theory. How do you PULL with particles? That's the Q! We can all imagine the atom if we use a rope or string (Videos # 7 + 8)

    .

    "My point is we can't live without them"

    .

    That's NOT the point! The point is WHAT are they OBJECTS or CONCEPTS. In Physics we deal ONLY with objects. We don't move concepts in Physics.

    .

    "They are said to be positive and negative"

    .

    The idiots of Mathematics never were able to tell the world what positive and negative mean in PHYSICAL terms! WHY does a positive attract a negative? That's what they need to answer. The rely is in Video # 9. There are no such things as 'positive' and 'negative' in nature. Positive and negative simply means that a mathematician is an ignoramus and doesn't have the foggiest clue what it is that he is talking about.

    .

    "Maybe electrons are like snowflakes where no two are the same."

    .

    Irrelevant! The only issue before us is whether an electron is a discrete little entity like a ball or a star that orbits the nucleus as the religion of Quantum claims. Whether it looks like a snowflake or a dog or a rock is immaterial!

  • someonewhoknows profile image

    someonewhoknows 6 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

    In Electronics they teach that Electrons flow in wire like water flows in a pipe.As pressure builds up in the wire from too much electrostatic force the electrons build up pressure that we call voltage and electrons try to find ways to escape to a place with less pressure if possible.It's the same with water in a pipe.As far as describing a tree dimentional model I only know that everything in the universe is made up of energy which means evertything has electrons within it.Hydrogen has only one and it has a lot of energy within it.

    I like to think of the hydrogen atom in this way.Imagine I am the nucleous of the hydrogen atom and I have a string that represents the force holding my electron in orbit around me like a kite on a string.If,I'm forced to release the kite it's because of an external energy source that overpowers or weakens my hold on the kite.I of course need the kite in order to be stable so I have to find a new kite somehow,maybe even share a kite with my neighbor.If,they don't mind or go crazy if they do.

    My point is we can't live without them,and we are forced to live with them anyway.

    So,the next time you feel the need to ask someone what an electron looks like look "i-o-n" the mirror.They are said to be positive and negative.

    What else can I say! Maybe electrons are like snowflakes where no two are the same.