I know I should be done with this thread.
and I want to be
but how is questioning reality,
then testing it not the scientific method ?
seems as if you have lost your fundamentals.
maybe go read the idea of the scientific method and get back to us
My objection to Gambeir’s hypothesis that the entire edifice of modern theoretical physics is a Nazi conspiracy to misinform the public and halt scientific progress is that it fails when tested, to even a modest degree. His portrayals of scientific history are flagrantly inaccurate, which I’ve demonstrated. And his allegations are contradicted by every piece of credible physics history that we know. He rejects all of the available credible facts and reason, and instead offers nothing more than a wooden sign for a curio shop which may or may not resemble a ufo, as proof of his hypothesis.
That’s the antithesis of scientific reasoning: cherry-picking, and confirmation bias. The scientific method requires an earnest effort to disprove your own hypothesis. He refuses to do that. So he’s not practicing science. He’s weaving baseless conspiracy theories that defy fact and logic. There’s a place for that kind of discussion elsewhere on these forums, but not here in a thread about science.
I also, the idea that math is not reality has been presented to you many times in this thread
you never address this when it threatens your math (not to be confused with logic, a larger topic that contains math)
Math is a simulation, like a virtual machine. It’s the only method for producing precise predictions from any model of reality so those predictions can then be tested observationally and/or experimentally.
That’s why it’s the language of physics – without it, you can’t test an idea with any level of rigor.
you only accept what you have been taught.
(that is called schooling, learning is something else entirely)
you have been presented with all kinds of ideas here.
you only accept the ones that suit you.
(that is called schooling, learning is something else entirely)
That’s untrue, and I’ve already explained both my lifelong adversarial stance with respect to the mainstream theoretical physics community, and the constant on-going research that I do to examine credible new ideas and to formulate my own.
You’re only accusing me of dogmatism because I don’t agree with ideas that fail at either the basic level of mathematical expression, and/or those which contradict the available and well-established empirical evidence. That’s critical reasoning, not bias or dogmatism.
now why has there not been any evidence as to how inertia can be messed with,
from your point of view, it is because all of it was removed from your schooling
from other points of view, how about the electrostatic charge of a pendulum inside a faraday cage of the same potential ?
that is just one of many
when you hide from anomalies you don't figure things out.
when you go look at them, you find reality.
You should’ve looked harder. You’re talking about an effect reported by Erwin Saxl in his 1964 paper “An Electrically Charged Torque Pendulum.” That experiment has been replicated on numerous occasions and it turned out to be experimental error: when the capacitance between the charged pendulum and Saxl’s inductive coil is accounted for, his results are easily replicated. When the capacitance is removed, the “Saxl effect” vanishes. Here’s one citation about it:
“Electrically Charged Torque Pendulum Experiment with a Null Result,” Jianguo et al.,Chinese Physics Letters, 1992
Here’s a freely available paper which describes the same null result and capacitance explanation:
“Test of Saxl's effect: No evidence for new interactions,” Liu et al., Physics Letters A, 1998
Like I’ve said previously, conducting a rigorous experiment is very difficult, and even trained physicists sometimes miss a simple experimental error like we see here. That’s why peer review and independent experimental replications are so important to the scientific process.
you started early in this thread with seemingly being annoyed with people that have never studied relativity (and potentially quantum physics, but I forget if you took issue with that)
you seem to have abandon that as of late
I studied it in great detail.
A lot of people study relativity. Fewer people understand it. And I’m not annoyed that most people have never studied relativity – I only get annoyed when people very strongly argue against it…without ever actually understanding it. That would be like me going to a surgeon to have a tumor removed, and insisting that using a scalpel is the wrong way to go about his job. The audacity of thinking that you know better than the entire theoretical physics community…without actually knowing what it is that you’re talking about, is mind-boggling to witness, and frankly, rather offensive, imo.
reading this thread it is clear you pick and choose what you reply to
Who doesn’t? I could spend all year responding to every little point that somebody has made in this thread. I choose to respond to the points that I find significant.
you pose ideas like someone that is skilled in rhetoric
a winning thing if running for public office, but clearly not someone seeking the truth.
That’s called an ad hominem attack, which is a logical fallacy. People generally do this when they can’t raise a rational argument against the points being made, and choose to attack the much easier target of someone’s personal character or behavior instead.
go pick the hard points, reply to them.
I already have.
like the idea that any simple math is unlikely to predict reality, or more critically so, if you have even one anomaly, you are sure your math is wrong.
GR and QFT aren’t described by “simple math,” they’re described by very advanced math. And the range and precision of their predictions are astonishing and well-documented.
And neither theory has presented an unambiguous anomaly, so I don’t know what you’re talking about. If you’re talking about dark matter and dark energy, as Gambeir likes to bring up, those don’t qualify as unambiguous anomalies because we don’t know whether they’re indicative of an incomplete theory of gravitation, or something else altogether – there are several viable explanatory contenders being debated and investigated right now. If it turns out that GR is incomplete, or needs to be replaced altogether, I'll be thrilled. But there's no compelling reason to make that assumption yet, and generally we need to have the correct answer before we can be sure about where we went wrong.
I give you an anomaly free version of physics, and you reply with the idea that it could take years to figure it out.
you might be correct,
but you gave no hint that you even read it once (takes a few hours)
much less taking notes and really trying to figure it out (takes a few days)
So you think that Wilbert Smith’s theory is free of anomalies. First of all, it’s agonizing to try to read because his writing style is incredibly ponderous. And second, there was hardly any math in there at all, so whatever he’s saying is clearly ill-defined and unfinished. And third, I've been extremely busy and setting aside a few days to gamble on a suspect book, on the off chance that it has something significant to offer, just hasn't been in the cards for me lately.
To properly evaluate the merit of his ideas would require formulating them into a cogent and precise mathematical theory so it could be used to generate precise predictions, which could then be tested. That would probably require years of dedicated work, if it can be done at all. It was up to him to do that work, not me. If you want to do it, then by all means have at it.
But I saw no reason in the first 10-20 pages to think that it would be a fruitful and worthwhile endeavor. I have far more fruitful directions to pursue, and I'm doing that. So I’ll do me, and you do you, okay?
in some way I do admire your point of view,
you have everything figured out, must be a very comfortable place to be.
makes sense that you would defend that point of view so much.
That’s absurd. I’ve pointed out until I’m blue in the face that we have yet to formulate a viable unified field theory, and the most exciting directions for scientific advancement are stymied by that major missing solution. Which I spend countless hours looking for and theorizing about.
So no, I don’t think that I or anyone else has it all figured out, and I resent your gross mischaracterizations of the myriad statements about this which I’ve made here.
I defend what is widely known and accepted on solid scientific grounds. But I’m the first to point out that the odyssey of theoretical physics is still far from complete. My point is that we can’t make progress when we spend our time debating the things that we already know, and which have been verified in many different ways through high-precision observation and experimentation.
you asked about hardware a while back
go look at that pendulum at high voltage first,
assuming you don't debunk it (for anyone that is not paying attention, debunking is an emotional attack on logic. disproof is quite another thing)
Okay then, I already disproved that. Unless you don’t believe in the results of rigorous experimental analysis.
I have more hardware to share if you are actually interested (but schooling dictates that you pretend to care long enough to figure out how to ignore it, if you were actually learning and testing the ideas, seems you would have said other things)
I’ll ignore the ad hominem attack buried in there. I’m a passionate advocate of experimentation. And I’ve previously asked you to share a description of your findings, because I’m always interested in promising results. If you’ve already provided a description of your work and your results, then I’d like to see the link. If not then you should start a thread about it so we can discuss it.
you should embrace the scientific method and stop defending your math so much.
(I fully expect you to pick apart the ideas presented here into sentences, possibly even words, after all, if you disprove a word here, the entire thing must be wrong.)
First of all, it’s not “my math” – I’ve only defended the theoretical work of greater minds than my own, because I’ve studied it in tremendous detail and I understand the mountains of verifying empirical evidence that supports that work.
And second, I’ve disproved Saxl’s experiment, so are you saying that the entire edifice of your argument must be wrong?
