A purely practical challenge to scientific theory

Discussion in 'Serious Discussion' started by pfrobson, Oct 17, 2012.

  1. pfrobson

    pfrobson MDL Novice

    Oct 15, 2012
    I am, or I was before I retired, just an ordinary working man much the same as all other working men who have earned their living throughout their lives by whatever means that they can but with one exception being that I have always had a very inquisitive mind, which, among many other things, has given me a deep lifelong interest in the workings of nature in the sense of how everything in nature actually works.

    Having a more practical mind rather than an academic mind and having never attended a university I have mainly studied these workings from a purely practical point of view and only in later years have I turned my attention to studying nature from an academic or scientific point of view by studying scientific literature borrowed from various libraries. This has resulted in a firm conviction that many of the theories illustrated in scientific books and journals and on television just don’t match up with what I see from a purely practical point of view. This has to mean that if my findings on the workings of nature, some of which I can offer hard proof to support, are right, which I’m sure that they are, then a significant number of well-known scientific theories just have to be wrong.

    I have over several years tried to put my findings to the scientific establishment and to the higher education establishments but they have simply ignored or brushed off my findings as the ramblings of a crank without ever looking at them so I am now turning to the general public to see what the general public think of them.

    Unfortunately what I have to show with explanatory text and drawings is too much to illustrate in a single thread on a forum so I have set up a simple website illustrating my studies and results which I hope members of the public will read through and judge for themselves whether or not they think that my submissions are acceptable against established scientific theory then come back to discuss the contents on this forum.

    I have a while ago posted a thread onto a science debating forum in much the same way that I am doing here with mostly negative responses but this thread is addressed directly towards the general public in the hope of getting people to take me and my discoveries or findings seriously.

    The website address is http://www.scientific-revolution.com

    It may be thought that I am using this forum to lead people to my website which in a sense is true but unless I can find ways of directing people towards the site, the site is likely to just sit there as one of several million websites which no-one knows exists unless someone just happens to stumble across it. The site and my discoveries and finding are far too important to be left buried and unread under the weight of internet numbers.
    The second and most important point is that using a forum to bring my findings to public attention is the only way that I have of getting to know how people react or respond to my discoveries and proposals.
  2. Yen

    Yen Admin
    Staff Member

    May 6, 2007
    #2 Yen, Oct 24, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
    Hi and welcome to the MDL forums.

    It is not quite clear what's your intention in the aspect of the high demand to understand the nature as it really is.

    I mean what is the difference of light and sound to wave (theory) and particle (theory)?

    The wave theory and the particle theory are IDEAS of light and sound, whereas light and sound are phenomena beyond those ideas. Those ideas can only describe attributes of those phenomena.
    And nothing but 'new' ideas you are developing.
    Are there waves of sound and light, can one perceive them per se? No. Are there photons or particles per se? No. They are ideas.
    But there is light and sound, phenomena of consciousness.

    What is established science? Do you think that what is established is the truth?
    The benefit of established science is its existence. But not its truth. During our history different scientists became popular. They became popular, because they took already present theories and developed them further.
    Means: They studied what others have discovered and explained and then they enhanced the complex of theories.
    They learned the language 'science' / already established theories and by using them they enhanced them.

    So it came that the pure determinism of Newton broke down by the findings of Schrödinger, Einstein and Heisenberg.
    That what seemed to be unbreakable broke.

    Established science has its long history of different minds (scientists). Its strength is its collective, its maturity and its huge complex of relative truths. It is a box of tools made for everybody who is willing to study them and to enhance the collective of relative truths.

    Science is not here to find 'the truth'. But that is the intention of most scientists and it seems to you also. All that can be found (thought and explained) will be relative truths. And since those truths are relative, with their creation one creates their relative flaws.

    Science means to eliminate those flaws with new theories which are conform to new discoveries. The job of established science is to enhance its construct by adding more and more relative truths.

    And because of our structure in our society one can only do that when be familiar with and conform to established science.

    So the flaws which you seem to have discovered exist in your mind, but seemingly not in established science.
    But when becomes one established? When one becomes to be one of them. This has actually nothing to do with 'the truth'.

    Science today and its truths has become as it is due to its scientists.

    Let me now reply to some of your findings.

    Quantum Physics, relativity theory and uncertainty principle. These were actually unwanted. Unwanted because they had destroyed classic determinism and the idea of absolute measurement. Anyway the physics has survived that crisis.

    It is the contrary to your mentioned fantasy. It has caused actually that what you try to achieve. To break down established science!?
    Subject and object have no barrier. The observer takes always his influence and affects that what is observed. Means the measurement alters the object that is measured. Matter and energy are conform, are attributes of the same phenomenon (which is consciousness). Both appear as forms, objects.

    Doppler effect: When a moving object emits a constant sound frequency, then the sound frequency becomes shifted, relative to the observer. That can be observed and that is the Doppler effect. (A passing train's siren sound.) And when you say there is no Doppler effect then you have not got what the Doppler effect is.

    There is an observable effect AND its theory, the effect is experience, pure observation, the theory of it is a pure product of the mind, but never the effect itself.
    The effect can happen only at present, the theory of it is a past idea, though.

    The observed effect (shift of frequency, wavelength) can be observed by everyone and is BEFORE the theory of Doppler. So when one can prove that there is a red shift of light when an object moves fast away, then one can certainly assume that an observed red shift of an object in space indicates that the object is moving away. And the logic conclusion is that the universe is expanding relative to time.

    It is the effect and the logic conclusions that makes scientists say the universe is expanding relative to time.
    Why there is that shift does actually not matter here.

    "There are no sound-waves. There are no light-waves." When saying that then it says nothing but one's idea of waves does not match which one's idea of light and sound. Nothing more, nothing less.
    So the issue is an issue of the one's mind. And when established science hasn't that issue, then that issue does not exist there.

    Can light and sound ever be explained, means be fully described by one's mind?
    It are experiments, observations which are made by the observer. So we create ideas of a phenomenon. Ideas, models, theories which describe an attribute, a character of an object. But always relative to the observer.

    This means light behaves as wave when there is a place of probability of it (waves are mathematical functions of places of probability and hence a sort of unreal). And it behaves as particle, photon when it has a presence or absence at a special place. (IMHO actually without time).

    So if light behaves as a wave or as a particle is dependent on the observer who has setup an special experiment.
    Diffraction happens whenever there is a barrier, you think the effect is because of the imperfection of the slit?
    The double slit experiment had been done with photons, electrons, yes even with molecules. All can behave as particles or as waves.
    Also the 'slit' don't have to be a mechanical slit. It can be atoms itself or wave peaks of light for electrons which are passing through them.

    You have said you want to understand the nature, its true character. But is then the intention to be accepted by established scientists obsolete? I mean do you want to become one of those you say they have many flaws in their theories?
    When this intention persists, don't you have then the idea in your mind your findings are truer? Can they be truer at all?
    Or would they be just of the same value when became established as the established theories already have?

    Or do you think one needs theories of science to 'understand' the nature? That means everybody has to get familiar with those to understand the nature and without those the one would be lost. Means most of the humans would never be able to understand the nature, because they have no interests or are not able to get those theories.
    I mean you are just replacing ideas of light and sound, but that what light and sound really is, their true nature IS with your or without any theory and the observer alters the observation since there is no subject object dualism .:)


    Another already mentioned issue is the time. I mean we cannot prove time directly. It all happens now, at present. So all what light and sound are are they ever and already now, their real nature is ever present now and their 'truth' cannot be found in the future.
    In other words: When one is able to perceive light and sound now as they are (without to create an idea of it) one has 'got' what they are. This seems not very satisfying for a mind orientated scientist so we are hunting the ideas of them and we will always stay at ideas of phenomena, but not at the phenomena themselves.
    I mean from where to where can sound and light go, when all happens in one's mind? :biggrin::)

    As a scientist I thought I could measure and explain everything until 'I' have understood 'the nature', how wrong I was...:)
    But anything is that easy, it is as it is, now. ;) ...too easy because our mind wants constantly explain 'it'.

    I have done those (simple) slit experiments by myself a long time ago (in the 90s) on a optical bank and have most of the theories forgotten already. I actually have studied organic synthesis (Chemistry), but today I'd say I have a far closer understanding of the nature due to mind observations and it's the mind that makes us struggle always wanting an explanation for everything, lol.

    The purpose of making own experiments is to have fun when doing them. I did a lot at home and I do at my job. It is the moment when doing the experiment that contains already everything. It is the enthusiasm that exists at every moment during the experiment. This is vivid science.
    The result later and how others think of it is secondary. (Except it is your profession and your boss wants an result, lol).
    Doing the experiment because of the process itself.....that's fun. One is understanding the nature when be present in the experiments. To be present means to be not separated.

    I respect your work. IMHO you don't need to change established science. Be enthusiastic and you are with the nature.

    Some stuff for the mind, though: ;)

    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  3. zen45

    zen45 MDL Addicted

    Feb 25, 2010
    you guys are to deep for me, all i know is everything in creation everything!! recycles to what end, who knows? we get smarter with each generation when does it end or does it ? o_O
  4. Yen

    Yen Admin
    Staff Member

    May 6, 2007
    #4 Yen, Oct 26, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2012

    The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiments are a PITA to conservative science. Most physicists steer clear of it. :biggrin: But it actually reveals what others already know...we are living in the past (a past idea), this reality is a thought and hence illusional reality, whereas the 'true' reality is now at present. How can the photon at the experiment know which way the other photon has chosen even though it has not arrived yet????

    The evolution of mind relative to time will never end. But if needed we (or some of us) need to accumulate complex theories in our mind until the simple truth can be recognized, the truth that the truth is never changing and already fully present in every moment...means needs no time to 'be communicated'.

    So it can be 'understood' fully now and everywhere by everyone (already), with or without established theories, a western scientist can, a simple worker can, a monk can, you can.

    Or in other words the approaches to 'find' the truth have all one 'place' where they meet and that is actually the present. But yes we get smarter and smarter relative in time. To get smarter means to accumulate relative truths which have relative benefits in a relative world. Those truths are dual, means have always their 'bad and good use'. Their adherents and their flaws. One breaks out when remaining at the present, though.

    There are 2 major findings in science which make science come closer to that what 'spiritual' people know already. At both the word 'delay' plays a major role.

    The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiments and the discoveries of Salk institute: http://www.salk.edu/news/pressrelease_details.php?press_id=31

    Conservative scientists strictly deny those discoveries or don't what to think about. The movie Matrix (1999) takes up that as well.
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...