If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information.

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Welcome to Freedomain Radio Message Board

If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.

steljarkos

Has science become unscientific?

58 posts in this topic

Like most everyone else in these FDR forums, I'm wholly sick and tired of the Left with their hypocrisies and stupidities and their impact on Stupid Culture. But I'm also sick and tired of what passes for science these days, with the unsubstantiated conjecture that is allowed to enter into scientific discourse. I therefore arrive at my position and the purpose of this post... Stupid Culture can only ever create Stupid Science. Let us take a closer look... based on an an excerpt from a book that I am working on.

Concerns about the peer-review process are not new. The crux of these concerns are addressed by the likes of Binswanger (2013) and Horton (2015) (references below). But as we now observe what seems to be the unravelling of the west as we know it, perhaps we should be taking these concerns to a new level. The culture of liberalism, feminism, SJWs, Antifa and the like, with their increasing hostility to freedom of speech, democratic principles and basic commonsense, seems to be pointing to a breakdown that I now fear to be more extensive than previously supposed. Could it be that our culture of Fake News is not confined to media and politics, but is actually an expression of a far wider problem... a mestatized cancer that has affected the whole culture? The symptoms are there, and a flailing peer-review in Academia is one of them.

This is a rabbit hole that we need to go down, because science is itself a product of culture. Even the most objective of the sciences relies on cultural narratives to be understood. And if culture is broken, then we have to ask... is science also broken? Now as someone whose university education is solidly grounded in engineering and business, I have no problem with the most mathematical and Newtonian of the STEM disciplines. There is nothing here to intimidate anyone with a solid grounding in the hard sciences or math. TEM (technology, engineering and math) is on rock-solid ground for the most part, and Newton is perhaps the epitomy of good, rigorous science. But the S (science) of STEM is showing some signs of disintegration. There are some branches of S that are just not scienfific at all. Let us take a closer look.

BIOLOGY

Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection is respectable enough, but it is not the whole picture. Darwin himself accounted for the production of variety by way of Lamarckism, not genes. Things take a turn to La-La land in NEO-Darwinism, and the implementation of the infotech narrative in a genocentric paradigm. This infotech-based narrative thrives, despite the following inconsistencies:

  1. Absence of a computer technology to process the data. Where is the computer? If someone wants to inculcate others to the notion of genes/DNA as data, then the onus is on them to locate and specify the technology that processes said data. And thus far, no indications of any such technology in biological systems is forthcoming;
  2. DNA does not behave in any manner that is consistent with the infotech narrative, and the evidence has started to come in. Notice in the following link (Crew, 2017), the absence of anything resembling a computer or infotech... DNA replication appears to be taking place in a manner never before anticipated: http://www.sciencealert.com/dna-replication-has-been-filmed-for-the-first-time-and-it-s-stranger-than-we-thought
  3. Consider that the Human Genome Project has estimated that there are 20,000 to 25,000 protein-coding genes in the human genome. For comparison, the number of genes in some less "complex" organisms play out as follows (Kimball, 2016): Naegleria gruberi (unicellular amoeba) - 15,727; Fruit fly - 17,000; Humans - 21,000; Caenorhabditis elegans (nematode roundworm) - 21,733; Mouse - 23,000; Pufferfish - 27,918; Picea abies (Norway spruce conifer) - 28,354. Is it conceivable that we humans have been bested by worms, mice, pufferfish and conifers? If we base our reasoning on genetic complexity, then this clearly is not the case;
  4. Consider how much information a DNA molecule can contain. The haploid human genome is estimated to be of the order of 3.2 billion bases long. For comparison, the now unremarkable Western Digital external hard drive sitting on my desk comprises 2 terrabytes, or  2,000 billion bytes. And if we interpret our 3.2 billion bases in the context of bytes, then the justification to interpret DNA in the context of the infotech narrative becomes even more preposterous. The four nucleobases that comprise the base-pair building blocks of the DNA molecule are cytosine, guanine, adenine and thymine (DNA), abbreviated as C, G, A and T, respectively. There are four base-pair combinations that manifest as the rungs along the length of the DNA spiral, namely, C-G, G-C, A-T, T-A. If we interpret the four base-pairs that are possible as comprising one "byte" of data, then 3.2 billion bases would translate to a measley 800 Mb of data. Will the 800 Mb of data that a DNA molecule might contain, at maximum, be enough to specify a human? Really? A human with cells and neurons and eyes and bones and teeth and skin? Our scientists need to think this through. They need to think more like engineers, and not SJWs being supported by government grants;

Genes and DNA are of course, very important... but not in the way that mainstream academia thinks. More importantly, there is no one-to-one correlation of genes with "intelligence." How can there be? If there were, we'd have to wonder what puffer fish or Norway spruce conifers were up to with their superior genetic configurations. What nefarious plans might a genetically well-endowed but inedible puffer fish be up to when we remove it from our hook to toss it back into the ocean? It would seem that, contrary to the Establishment's infotech narrative, the inferred relationship between genes and "intelligence" is non-existent.

SPECIAL AND GENERAL RELATIVITY THEORY (SGR)

The stupid is not confined to Neo-Darwinian biology. The same kind of wishful thinking extends into other wings of Establishment Academia that have interests and careers to preserve... such as relativity physics.

Most of us, at one time or another, have probably come across some reference to the inconsistencies between relativity theory (SGR) and quantum mechanics (QM). The second of SGR's two postulates is that nothing can go faster than the speed of light (c). But this conflicts with QM, where information has been experimentally shown to be, for all practical intents and purposes, instantaneous. If we weren't educated in either of these fields, we might be inclined to defer judgement to the experts. It is now time to confront them on these inconsistencies. Either QM or SGR or both are wrong. Only one of them, at most, can be right. I am putting my money on QM, and I do so for the following reasons:

  1. Experimental evidence consistent with QM is compelling and repeatable (some silly or annoying interpretations of said results notwithstanding). Bell's inequality and entanglement have been proven experimentally time and time again, with good, smoking-gun evidence that is difficult to refute;
  2. SGR has no smoking-gun evidence... the evidence that they produce is open to concerns about confirmation bias, and brings us back to Binswanger and Horton, and the question of peer-review footsies, and interpretations by "experts" with an agenda. Most importantly, there is no GPS smoking-gun evidence, GPS technology does NOT factor in relativity corrections, but relies on basic feedback control algorithms and Laplace transforms - Barry Springer (2013). This GPS urban legend is trotted out at every opportunity like a prize bull at the Spring Fair, but it is complete nonsense, debunked as comprehensively as the wage-gap myth has been. But it's the only "smoking gun" evidence that they ever had... and it had me until I started digging around;
  3. So we've dispensed with the GPS smoking gun. What other evidence do they cite? Galactic red-shift as evidence for the Big Bang? The tired-light hypothesis provides an alternative explanation. And the more they say things, like, "but every scientist knows that tired light is nonsense and not taken seriously any more", the more I am reminded of Fake News Media and the Left. Nope, the tired light hypothesis is as real as red sunsets (photons losing energy tend to the red, in accordance with E=hf. And light scattering by the particles or molecules of interstellar space can also contribute to redshift, as what happens at sunset, when photons have more atmosphere to transit). And no, the Tolman brightness test and other tests are not inconsistent with tired light, no matter how often our lab-technicians masquerading as scientists stamp their feet. We need to ask what part Fake Science might be playing in confabulating a miasma of Big Bang Baloney;
  4. Mercury's perihelion shift. Again, no smoking-gun evidence here. Experimental evidence is not conclusive, because said relativity correction contributes of the order, only, of about 7.5% of the total. Given our concerns about Fake News Culture and the peer-review process, we need to be concerned whether this small fraction was arrived at impartially, or in the spirit of confirmation bias. Did they factor everything else in? What about the asteroid belt? Or Dark Matter for that matter?
  5. SGR is based on an assumption about the speed of light, and that's all it is... an assumption. They've constructed self-consistent mathematical proofs around that assumption in order to arrive at what I personally conclude is a major category error... the conflation of time as a dimension of space-time;
  6. Several sources are available online that debunk relativity theory. It is pointless enumerating them here, as the arguments are detailed and complex, and take us beyond topic. But for those who are interested, googling [relativity theory debunked] provides a good starting point;
  7. And finally, an important question that does not seem to entered into mainstream physics discourse. Is it possible that SGR's second postulate, the constancy of c, actually relates to a quantum-mechanical phenomenon rather than a relativistic one? If so, then the central axiom of special relativity, with its relevance to general relativity, no longer holds. This is a question that I am researching at the moment, and it relates to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and the notion of "quantum tunnelling"... that a particle's motion through space is not the simple, linear vector as commonly understood in Newtonian physics.

SGR's inconsistencies with QM are non-trivial. That nonlocal effects are instantaneous regardless of distance is a huge problem for SGR. That in itself might be enough to kill this SGR monstrosity once and for all, yet the SGR dogma continues to thrive. Like whack-a-mole, it repeatedly keeps wedging its weakly supported assertions into physics discourse, as if "nothing, not even information, can go faster than light" were an established axiom. No sooner do quantum physicists come up with an intriguing conjecture that deserves to be explored, than up it pops again... the constancy of c postulate, as if SGR were an established scientific fact. This weakly supported conjecture is a ball-and-chain that needs to be settled once and for all.

THE BIG PICTURE

After reading thus far, it still might not be clear to some readers what the core of my objection is. Does my objection relate to Darwinism? Relativity theory? Science? The scientific method? It relates to none of these. The core of my objection relates to culture, and the bad science that must necessarily accompany broken culture. We should judge a culture in the same way we judge people... by its fruits and by the company it keeps. Any culture that can entertain nonsense as toxic and absurd as feminism, with the accompanying victim narratives of post-2016 liberalism, with all its violence, delusion and hypocrisy, will yield mostly rotten fruit. Thus our problem is not that of a few bad apples, but rather, a systemic problem best understood in the context of a broken culture yielding broken science. The core of my objection is that contemporary, mainstream science has ceased to be scientific, and has ceased to conform to the rigorous principles of the scientific method.

CONCLUSION

I rest my case at this point, and conclude that Fake Science Academia is a logical extension of Fake News Politics and Fake Victim Culture. This is not a problem of Left versus Right but a cultural and epistemological problem that has serious implications for how our world will look in 50 years time. Science has become Scientism, a Church where lab-technicians masquerading as scientists become the caretakers of sacred dogma handed down from on high, and to whom we are all required to genuflect. The time to call them out on their scam is now long overdue. Fake Science Academia is inextricably an expression of Fake News Culture. It's the same kind of groupthink. It's the same kind of bullshit, with the same kind of smug, self-indulgent, intellectual weaklings controlling the discourse.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well laid out! Can I put it on my website with your name on it?

I accepted most of the relativity, and big bang, and black holes, and the 'gravity and light space time' that dabbles in time travel. Until I started my red pill journey 10ish years ago slowly unmasking one lie after another. QM is very compelling, and far far more respectable than the relativity stuff. I concluded a long time ago that one of the reasons Albert Einstein was promoted and hailed so much, was simply because it was exciting and interesting, and that the control freaks at that time did not mind it, and probably helped it along. Albert Einstein himself surely thought he was right of course.

It seems that the QM science needs alternative forms of media to be presented to people, as I can not recall much of it in controlled media, which only means its more possible that it can be the truth.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, A4E said:

Very well laid out! Can I put it on my website with your name on it?

I'm in the process of creating a blog. I'll send you the link to it when I'm done, so you can link to it.

18 hours ago, A4E said:

I accepted most of the relativity, and big bang, and black holes, and the 'gravity and light space time' that dabbles in time travel. Until I started my red pill journey 10ish years ago slowly unmasking one lie after another.

I respect Einstein's reasoning and follow-through. He was correct to address the issues, like the need to reconcile electromagnetism with the Lorentz transformations. It was good science to do so, given that it's bad science to just accept the status-quo... even though I might now disagree with his conclusions. The problem is with the groupthink and the investment in Einstein that followed in his aftermath. I originally began tackling these folk with great trepidation, as the issues raised are often complex and daunting. There is a great deal to become familiar with, such as Michelson-Morley, the Sanger effect, preserving symmetries, resolving infinities, time dilation, etc, etc. It turns out that while it pays to become familiar with these things so that you don't get intimidated by them, they are largely red herrings. Some of the more compelling refutations don't even make reference to them, and simply point out flaws in the assumptions made by researchers. For example, this one: http://www.nacgeo.com/nacsite/press/1march2016.asp

18 hours ago, A4E said:

I concluded a long time ago that one of the reasons Albert Einstein was promoted and hailed so much, was simply because it was exciting and interesting, and that the control freaks at that time did not mind it, and probably helped it along.

And the financial and intellectual investments that locked them into a momentum... it will be difficult to change the direction of this tanker.

18 hours ago, A4E said:

Albert Einstein himself surely thought he was right of course.

Actually, I've encountered sources suggesting that Einstein had his doubts. But once he became everyone's celebrity darling, it would have been difficult for him to backtrack.

18 hours ago, A4E said:

It seems that the QM science needs alternative forms of media to be presented to people

I so agree. What's the link to your website?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23.6.2017 at 7:36 PM, steljarkos said:

What's the link to your website?

selfuniverse d0t com. But I don't have much if any about QM there yet.

 

On 23.6.2017 at 7:36 PM, steljarkos said:

Actually, I've encountered sources suggesting that Einstein had his doubts.

Yeah I had that in the back of my mind, but did not think he was very serious about being sceptical to his own theories. And being critical of your own convictions is usually a rare occurrence, or only valid for people who are in transit from one belief to another.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know. Spruce trees and puffer fish don't have SJWs in their population. They may be smarter after all. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23.6.2017 at 0:16 PM, steljarkos said:

More importantly, there is no one-to-one correlation of genes with "intelligence."

 

Yes, but as far as I know nobody claimes this.  Genes encrypt information, thats all.  You need e.g. a lot of information to build a Boeing 747, but of course there is no correlation between the sheer amount of information and intelligence.

On 23.6.2017 at 0:16 PM, steljarkos said:

The second of SGR's two postulates is that nothing can go faster than the speed of light (c). But this conflicts with QM, where information has been experimentally shown to be, for all practical intents and purposes, instantaneous.

Einstein postulates that nothing with mass can reach the speed of light.  So photons move with the speed of light, they carry energy, but their rest mass is zero.  Also spacetime itself can expand faster than light - according inflation theory it did so right after the Big Bang. We see a universe with a radius of ~14 billions lightyears. This does not necessarily means that the universe ends there - it just means that spacetime beyond moves away relativ to us with more than the speed of light, so obviously no light can reach us from there.

You can not transfer information faster than light, sorry, even not with quantum mechanics and entanglement etc. Have a look at the Non-cloning theorem and Non - communication theorem.  You can use quantum entanglement for safe ciphering of information, but any information itself will move slower than the speed of light.

 

Einstein claims are proven every time they switch on the accelerator in CERN.  But yes, neither QM nor SGR tell us the whole story, and we still do not know how they fit together, or how, exactly, the Einstein universe emerges from QM.

 

regards

Andi

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Darwin himself accounted for the production of variety by way of Lamarckism, not genes.

How are varieties in Lamarckism passed on if not through genes?

 

Quote

Absence of a computer technology to process the data. Where is the computer?

You don't need a computer to process the data from a blueprint.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Goldenages said:

You can not transfer information faster than light, sorry

Why not? I read the paragraph before, but just curious if you have more to back up such a conclusion.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets assume we create an entangled pair of particles,  I keep one and you take the second.  Now you start measuring the state of yours, and the state of mine is correlated instantaneuosly.

But: The correlation is stochastic.  To find out the exact correlation we have to meet again and compare our results, and with that hindsight we are able to find out whats happened. 

 

regards

Andi

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Goldenages said:

You can not transfer information faster than light, sorry, even not with quantum mechanics and entanglement etc. Have a look at the Non-cloning theorem and Non - communication theorem.

The non-communication theorem is an assumption, intended to be self-consistent with the constancy of c assumption. That's all. And around these self-consistent assumptions is built the self-consistent mathematical framework. Do away with the constancy of c assumption, and the non-communication assumption no longer stands.

The second postulate is that the speed of light has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference. It may well turn out that this is a quantum-mechanical phenomenon related to quantum tunneling and analogous to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. In this context, a particle's motion through space is not the simple, linear vector as commonly understood in Newtonian physics. Michelson-Morley's famous "failed experiment" has done away with the ether, but relativity theory need not be the only alternative explanation. This QM perspective can factor in the role of the observer - nay, it SHOULD factor in the role of the observer - and an observer travelling at the speed of light will intercept photons in exactly the same manner as if he were stationary... no violation of the second postulate, by any observer at any speed. This is an important possibility that might help explain numerous phenomena, such as the quantum eraser experiment.

8 hours ago, Goldenages said:

Lets assume we create an entangled pair of particles,  I keep one and you take the second.  Now you start measuring the state of yours, and the state of mine is correlated instantaneuosly.

But: The correlation is stochastic.  To find out the exact correlation we have to meet again and compare our results, and with that hindsight we are able to find out whats happened. 

References to random information, or stochastic correlation, seem generally to be poorly thought through. Think of radio waves and their carrier frequency, to finish up as sound coming out of your radio's loudspeaker. If your "random information" can be made to follow a pattern, then you might still be able to transmit information. Perhaps there is scope for converting random information into some kind of carrier base over which information might be transmitted, much like a radio carrier frequency being used to broadcast sound.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, ofd said:

You don't need a computer to process the data from a blueprint.

Here's a video clip that shines a light on the amazing complexity within a living cell, but there is no indication here of anything even remotely analogous to either a computer or a blueprint. In fact, the inner workings of a cell seem to resemble another ecosystem, much like what we are already familiar with in forests and wildlife, albeit much more cooperative:

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, RoseCodex said:

You forgot to mention the madness of dark matter or dark energy

Glad you brought that up. No, I didn't forget... I'm just trying to avoid information overload, as there is much to digest. If there's something that doesn't gel, they invent dark stuff to explain, for example, the fact that there's not enough matter to keep galaxies together. Take the following link, for example, where they spell it out in their opening sentence, "Dark energy and dark matter are theoretical inventions that explain observations we cannot otherwise understand."

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-ditch-dark-energy-relativity.html#jCp

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, steljarkos said:

Glad you brought that up. No, I didn't forget... I'm just trying to avoid information overload, as there is much to digest. If there's something that doesn't gel, they invent dark stuff to explain, for example, the fact that there's not enough matter to keep galaxies together. Take the following link, for example, where they spell it out in their opening sentence, "Dark energy and dark matter are theoretical inventions that explain observations we cannot otherwise understand."

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-ditch-dark-energy-relativity.html#jCp

Yep not to mention unfalsifiable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc#Hypothesis

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, steljarkos said:

The non-communication theorem is an assumption, intended to be self-consistent with the constancy of c assumption. That's all. And around these self-consistent assumptions is built the self-consistent mathematical framework. Do away with the constancy of c assumption, and the non-communication assumption no longer stands.

 

Here is a simplified version of whats going on when you want to send information instantaneuosly:  Lets say our entangled particles can have 4 conditions: A, B, C, and D.

Before the measurements the condition is unknown. Not only to us, the condition is undefined, as Bell proved.

Lets say you want to send me an "A".  Now there is no way to influence your particle such that your measurement will result in an "A", the chance is 1:4, it could be any of A,B,C,D, you know it earliest when you have done your measurement.

Things become even more complicated on the receiving end. Because the correlated state for an "A" of your particle can be also an "A" for mine, but with a certain probability it could be a "D".

 

So if somebody manages to send information with this setup, I will bend my knee instantaneuosly.

And I seriously doubt that the state is behind this tricky happenings:)

 

regards

Andi

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Goldenages said:

Lets say you want to send me an "A".  Now there is no way to influence your particle such that your measurement will result in an "A", the chance is 1:4, it could be any of A,B,C,D, you know it earliest when you have done your measurement.

This is an area where there seems to be a lot of confusion, misinformation, and perhaps even just not enough known about it... myself included. However... you can impact on the polarization of photons being transmitted (perhaps equivalent to modifying A, B, C or D?) by using polarization filters. As to the practicalities of entangling said polarized photon with another in the context of instantaneous messaging (typically, a pair of photons created together in a laser are entangled), that's a different matter... there are the practicalities relating to the collapse of the wave function, because once said photon is observed, it ceases to be entangled. More specifically, can you alter a polarization without collapsing the wave function and therefore breaking the entanglement? If you can...(?)

These practicalities are significant, and I wouldn't like to conjecture whether there is a practical solution to them. But if we are to be purist about it, my understanding is that you CAN impact on the likelihood of an emitted state of a photon when it passes through your polarization filters, the orientation of which is within your control.

Maybe there is no practical solution to the instant communication problem... but changing the narrative from the non-communication absolute to "no practical way of achieving it" places a different slant on how we understand what's going on. What you are suggesting implies something fundamental about the nature of information, whereas I am wondering if our problem is a practical one rather than a theoretical one (my background is in engineering, not physics). And by addressing these two distinctions we might come to a more realistic interpretation of relativity theory, of which there is good reason to be skeptical.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

typically, a pair of photons created together in a laser are entangled

No, parametric down conversion only happens very rarely under special circumstances. Two photons can only be entangled when they come from the same photon. Energy is conserved when one photo turns into two, so the new photons have twice the wavelength and half the energy. The sumtotal of the spin is conserved as well, which is what entanglement is. Knowing how one photon is polarized thus tells you the polarisation of the other. The superposition of states is also what makes entangle impoosible to communicate with. You may know the total spin, but not how it is distributed among the two.

Lets say you know that the spin is 7. That leaves you with several possibilites of how it is distributed among the photons:

1 - 6

2 - 5

3 - 4

4 - 3

5 - 2

6 - 1Insert other media

When you break the entanglement, you determined the state of 'your' photon and conversely the state of the other one. But to transmit that information you have to use electromagnetic waves which have an upper limit with c.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, first is that the mere fact that critters on this planet all derived from a common ancestor is something that you can reliably speculate on by the provable fact that everything is described using the "same" building blocks.

 second, yes, we (humans) just like everything else ARE a collection of symbiotic organism..no mystery there at all. Even a few minutes with any basic biology text will show that. I think this is the greatest proof to date that we "Evolved" as symbiotic species in the past changed over time to have a stronger degree of symbiosis. 

I think the confusing point is that idea that the the length of genome somehow indicates  "higher" advancement is not how you need to look at it. Think of the basic building blocks more like an alphabet...more "words" do not necessarily mean a great masterpiece or fundamental truth of science. While more complex behavior or capabilities take up more "words" in your blueprint, the ability that those words produce can be vastly different. Think of the blue print needed to describe the complex built-in behavior of some societal creatures (ants)..that is pretty complex from the start. Now, consider how higher level mammals are useless from the start; the "words in their book" do not capture a specific complex starting behavior but a "Future" ability. Rather than describe what you need to know now, they describe the ability to rapidly adapt and learn what happens in the future. They have traded all that built-in starting knowledge with the idea that another of your species will take care of that and allow that "programming space" to be used for something else...a more complex but not necessarily a vastly more space consuming program.

Much like understanding any foreign language, once we have figured out all the semantics of the human genome (we have already gotten the syntax (structure) figured out) then we really will be answer many of these questions.

The scary part will be, once we have truly decoded the genetic language, what will society do with that???? scary....very scary...

Everyone with:

eidetic memory, enhanced bone density (some people actually do have bones that are many times harder that most of us right from start), strength and fitness "built-in"(the biochemistry that occurs as a result of exercise, is still just chemistry, if you can program that behavior into your body you will always be "fit"), regeneration of lost limbs,  disable the aging of internal cells (they seem to have a built-in "timer" now that counts down to death), disease resistance, etc. etc.

This will fundamentally change human society in a single generation by creating a "super human" with all others falling off the evolutionary tree.  The replacement of homosapien with homosuperior is a given, and from that point on evolution is no longer in play.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, steljarkos said:

What you are suggesting implies something fundamental about the nature of information, whereas I am wondering if our problem is a practical one rather than a theoretical one

From what is known today it is a fundamental problem.  Sending information faster than the speed of light basically means sending information backwards into time.

 

Would there be faster than light information causality in our world could not exist. We would observe actions taking place before a cause happens, and we would observe news from the future.

 

Yes to remain sceptical is the first duty of any reasonable mind.  However it is very unlikely that Einsteins relativistic theory will be proven wrong in any fundamental claim. If we look at the progress from Newton to Einstein, Einstein is more precise than Newton, includes Newton and enormously extendes the area of knowledge. But nothing Newton said is refuted by Einstein. So any substantial progress in our knowledge - and we know that there still is a lot unknown - will, and i will hold any bet, rest on Einstein and include his claims.

Construction sites are our ignorance about the nature of time. Funny enough, Einstein does not tell us anything about a flow of time, his spacetime (the four coordinates that define a point) just exists as a whole.

Another site is the fundamental properties of space(time) and the fabric its made of. While, as far as we know, nothing with mass can move faster than c within space, spacetime itself can expand at any rate.

 

reagrds

Andi

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Goldenages said:

Sending information faster than the speed of light basically means sending information backwards into time... Would there be faster than light information causality in our world could not exist. We would observe actions taking place before a cause happens, and we would observe news from the future.

I liked your previous answer better. You were right about the no-communication theorem that relates to QM, independently of SGR (relativity), and the theorem's premise that quantum entangled states cannot be used as a basis for transmitting information. A decision has to be made between QM vs SGR. It's either one or the other. For me, QM has always been the more compelling theory, with its evidence that is repeatable and irrefutable. SGR is not an option for all the reasons I've already outlined in my previous posts, above.

What is time? It is a measure of the progression of events. A ticking clock is one of the means of measuring that progression of events. To conflate this progression of events as a dimension of space-time in which coordinates can be set, and to which you can, in theory, relocate to, is nonsense that is better suited to science fiction than science fact. Once a progression of events has run its course, that's it... you can replicate the method and the formula, but not the moment or the self in that moment.

We should spare ourselves the grief of SGR's convoluted, nonsensical rationalizations. No, nobody can go backwards in time to kill your grandparents before your mother was born so that you cannot be born... not even in theory. This stuff is as ridiculous as it sounds. Now irrespective of whether SGR theorists take this nonsense seriously (I know that some of them do, and they agonize over the paradoxes), the conflation of time as a dimension of space-time is in principle a most serious category error. But worst of all, SGR keeps getting in the way, and this distracts smart people in QM, so many of whom reflexively take on board SGR's objections. SGR is a ball-and-chain that is hampering real scientific progress. Let's dump it once and for all.

10 hours ago, Goldenages said:

However it is very unlikely that Einsteins relativistic theory will be proven wrong in any fundamental claim.

There exists evidence that debunks SGR. But the SGR behemoth of mainstream academia refuses to accept it. And like the fake news of mainstream media, this fake science of mainstream academia is going to require another James O'Keefe to crack it.

Cheers

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ofd said:

Where?

If my previous, self-explanatory outlines don't do it for you, then my most recent search came across the following reference: http://www.nacgeo.com/nacsite/press/1march2016.asp

But further evidence abounds by just googling [relativity theory debunked]. As in any google search, there will be much rubbish to sift through to find the nuggets, but they're there. And just because mainstream fake-science academia, like mainstream fake-news media, refuses to acknowledge said sleights on their precious reputations as they clutch their pearls, does not mean that these debunkings are without merit.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fringe journal posts fringe article. That's not evidence. I am asking for evidence as in reproducable experiment that has been validated.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ofd said:

I am asking for evidence as in reproducable experiment that has been validated.

Validated by whom? Those whose theoretical foundations are being criticized? By your own words, you are proving my point for me.

3 hours ago, ofd said:

Fringe journal posts fringe article.

SGR has not been proven conclusively and so the onus is on those promulgating a doubtful conjecture to provide the evidence. And yes, SGR is doubtful, particularly within the context of a broken peer review process as I've introduced in my opening post (Binswanger and Horton). Now you may not think that the SGR conjecture is doubtful, but then, Christian believers also don't think that their God conjecture is doubtful. Such is the nature of faith, and the true believers who follow that faith.

Now your dismissal of the reference that I provided as being fringe... here's the situation. ANY outsider daring to challenge The Establishment will be dismissed as fringe. It's a given, it is expected, and it happens every.single.time. Look at the lead-up to the current crisis in the Fake News Network. It's the same dynamic that will eventually come to bear on the Fake Science Network... if not now, then later.

Before I can accept SGR, I want to see clear, unambiguous evidence that it works. I don't want to see category errors or other indications that logically incoherent concepts are coming together to explain the unfalsifiable. I'm not happy with SGR's measley 7.5% contribution to Mercury's perihelion shift... a whopping 90% would be more compelling in eliminating my doubt (the seeds of doubt planted by Binswanger and Horton). GPS relativity corrections is now a certified urban legend on a par with feminism's wage gap myth. Red shift is NOT evidence of big bang because tired light has not been disproven. And so on. There was a time that I accepted SGR, because what I now realize, had never occurred to me before. Things began to change once it occurred to me what a load of horse manure the GPS urban legend is... and yet, how often it was trotted out like some kind of gotcha moment for science.

If people are going to dismiss every debunking of SGR as fringe, then my challenge is for the SGR true believers to provide GOOD evidence, and not the vague "weight of evidence" that is open to interpretation or concerns about peer-review footsies. Weight-of-evidence can be compelling... but you've got to trust those providing it. Binswanger and Horton have shown us that that level of trust is not warranted.

The seeds of my doubt were planted in GPS and the broken peer review process (Binswanger and Horton). And now they are snowballing with the Fake News phenomenon. Why? Because there's another crucial dimension to science... and it is the cultural narratives that inform science. You judge a person by the company they keep. You judge a culture by the bullshit it entertains. Feminism, SJWs, Antifa and fake news carry the same stench and are an expression of the same miasma... my concern is, does this stench extend also to fake science? A broken culture can only ever create broken science, and that's why we need to be careful with the concepts that we take on board. It is on SGR that the onus lies to provide the evidence behind their faith, because it is fundamentally impossible to disprove something that relies on faith.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Goldenages said:

Sending information faster than the speed of light basically means sending information backwards into time.

I thought the premise was that time slowed down for an object the more speed above the speed of light you are going. Is it not? I don't think it would be possible to go backwards into time to the moment the object was created and watch it transform into its previous state. Or is that included in it? I thought something like that was only possible in worm holes or black holes. (two equally fantastic contraptions)

But this is exciting to think about right? One reason it got popular. A boring universe where everything is straightforward is not exciting enough. Relativity theory = Fail videos and cat videos of today?

3 hours ago, ofd said:

I am asking for evidence as in reproducable experiment that has been validated.

Well. The people behind the theory, or other supporters, would have to prove the theory. And it is other people's choice whether they want to believe a theory or not. If people create new theories based on a theory, then that is their choice and problem. I agree with Steljarkos that it holds back productive science.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

SGR has not been proven conclusively and so the onus is on those promulgating a doubtful conjecture to provide the evidence. And yes, SGR is doubtful, particularly within the context of a broken peer review process as I've introduced in my opening post (Binswanger and Horton). Now you may not think that the SGR conjecture is doubtful, but then, Christian believers also don't think that their God conjecture is doubtful. Such is the nature of faith, and the true believers who follow that faith.

Now your dismissal of the reference that I provided as being fringe... here's the situation. ANY outsider daring to challenge The Establishment will be dismissed as fringe. It's a given, it is expected, and it happens every.single.time. Look at the lead-up to the current crisis in the Fake News Network. It's the same dynamic that will eventually come to bear on the Fake Science Network... if not now, then later.

Before I can accept SGR, I want to see clear, unambiguous evidence that it works. I don't want to see category errors or other indications that logically incoherent concepts are coming together to explain the unfalsifiable. I'm not happy with SGR's measley 7.5% contribution to Mercury's perihelion shift... a whopping 90% would be more compelling in eliminating my doubt (the seeds of doubt planted by Binswanger and Horton). GPS relativity corrections is now a certified urban legend on a par with feminism's wage gap myth. Red shift is NOT evidence of big bang because tired light has not been disproven. And so on. There was a time that I accepted SGR, because what I now realize, had never occurred to me before. Things began to change once it occurred to me what a load of horse manure the GPS urban legend is... and yet, how often it was trotted out like some kind of gotcha moment for science.

If people are going to dismiss every debunking of SGR as fringe, then my challenge is for the SGR true believers to provide GOOD evidence, and not the vague "weight of evidence" that is open to interpretation or concerns about peer-review footsies. Weight-of-evidence can be compelling... but you've got to trust those providing it. Binswanger and Horton have shown us that that level of trust is not warranted.

The seeds of my doubt were planted in GPS and the broken peer review process (Binswanger and Horton). And now they are snowballing with the Fake News phenomenon. Why? Because there's another crucial dimension to science... and it is the cultural narratives that inform science. You judge a person by the company they keep. You judge a culture by the bullshit it entertains. Feminism, SJWs, Antifa and fake news carry the same stench and are an expression of the same miasma... my concern is, does this stench extend also to fake science? A broken culture can only ever create broken science, and that's why we need to be careful with the concepts that we take on board. It is on SGR that the onus lies to provide the evidence behind their faith, because it is fundamentally impossible to disprove something that relies on faith.

 

So to summarize the post, you don't have any evidence that 'SGR' is wrong?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ofd said:

So to summarize the post, you don't have any evidence that 'SGR' is wrong?

I also don't have evidence that witches don't exist. Nor do I have evidence that god does not exist. Nor do I have evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. Do I keep going? Your point?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I fully agree that some scientists are on the payroll of the state, just have a look at those who claim that CO2 is toxic and will destroy our planet. It is obvious why they do it.

But I cannot see any reason why a government should be interested in a cover up concerning the speed of light or relativistic effects.  You just can´t get taxes out of this:)

Regarding Einstein: He is the benchmark and THE genius, and there are a lot of people out there - scientists and others  - who think hey, if I can prove Einstein wrong in one way or another, then I must be much smarter than him.  Some physicists recieve dozens of mails every week where somebody explains why Einstein is wrong.

But, as a matter of fact, Einstein was wrong in some of his thoughts. He was one of the fathers of QM, unintentionally, and always stated that QM must be wrong in a fundamental way, he especially disliked the probabilistic character and could never adapt to the fact that entangled particles seems to outmanouver space and time.  And Einstein was wrong here, a fact that, however, does not derogate his merit in other fields.

So I can not understand the flurry.

 

regards

Andi

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, A4E said:

I thought the premise was that time slowed down for an object the more speed above the speed of light you are going. Is it not? I don't think it would be possible to go backwards into time to the moment the object was created and watch it transform into its previous state. Or is that included in it? I thought something like that was only possible in worm holes or black holes. (

Time slowes down the closer you come to c. When you reach c, time stands still. If we could go beyond c, time would go backwards.  There are, for example, particles called Myons, whose lifetime normally is very short (a fraction of a fraction of a second), but is considerably longer - exactly according Einstein´s equations - when they move with high speed close to c, however still below.

Not only time slowes down the faster you move, also the mass increases. Regardless how small the mass of a particle, at the point where it would reach c its mass would be infinite, and the necessary energy to reach c would be infinite. So as far as we know nothing with mass can reach c, and thus nothing can be sent into the past. For the accelerator at CERN they need the power of several power stations just to accelerate a few atoms at 99% c.

Worm holes are mathematical objects, the experts discuss wether they can exist or not, and wether they shorten the way through spacetime or allow a way into the past - I do not know.

Black holes seem to exist, most probably there is one in the center of our galaxy, Sagittarius A. Whats going on there and what can be done with it - well, to find it out we have to go there. :)

 

regards

Andi

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Goldenages said:

But I cannot see any reason why a government should be interested in a cover up concerning the speed of light or relativistic effects.

Strawman.

11 minutes ago, Goldenages said:

Time slowes down the closer you come to c. When you reach c, time stands still. If we could go beyond c, time would go backwards.

Wow. Really. Not sure how I got my information screwed up then. Will it work like if an object is going at 2% of C, that time will go slower for it than for an object going at 1%? What about the movement of the planet, and solar system, and galaxy? Is time changing dynamically according to these all the time as well? If so, we would have some serious issues making any accurate measurements of the universe.

And if an object is going at 100% of C, time will stand still for it, right? so how can it move anywhere if it is 'frozen' in time??

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, A4E said:

I agree with Steljarkos that it holds back productive science.

I do agree, not regarding the relativistic theory, but regarding energy: Germany alone spent 500 billion Euro for wind generators and solar panels. A technology that never can work as advertised.

The whole EU spends 4 billion Euro per year for research in nuclear fusion. For a technolgy thats crucial for mankind.

Yes they are holding back productive science.

regards

Andi

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Goldenages said:

The whole EU spends 4 billion Euro per year for research in nuclear fusion.

I wouldn't call that holding back though. That kind of money in the right hands could perform miracles.

How many years have they received this kind of money? What progress have they made?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, A4E said:

Will it work like if an object is going at 2% of C, that time will go slower for it than for an object going at 1%? What about the movement of the planet, and solar system, and galaxy?

Shure. And yes, every planet, solar system and galaxy, even every car on the street and every plane in the air has its own pace of time. But since all of them move at a fraction of c it does not matter. Things become interesting at 50 or let´s say 75% c.

For the age of the universe they look into the sky and look as far as they can. We can look ~14 billion lightyears in any direction - so the universe is ~14 billion years old. (But it does not end there. Spacetime beyond is moving away from us with greater than light speed.)

20 minutes ago, A4E said:

And if an object is going at 100% of C, time will stand still for it, right? so how can it move anywhere if it is 'frozen' in time??

Right. And yes - a photon, moving at c, does not move - from it´s point of view.

If a photon had consciousness it would observe every thing at once. From the Big Bang til the end of time. Just a single glance. What a divine view, hmm?

 

18 minutes ago, A4E said:

How many years have they received this kind of money? What progress have they made?

 

They started in the 70ies. It took years just to adapt the site, its a project of whole Europe and thus "progress" is slow. And then its only a testreactor.

In Germany nearby Munich they test a reactor in form of a torus, meant to keep the fusion constant (the project ITER mentioned above is a pulsed reactor). But they do not get any money.

 

regards

Andi

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I also don't have evidence that witches don't exist. Nor do I have evidence that god does not exist. Nor do I have evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. Do I keep going? Your point?

As long as you don't have evidence to back up your theory, it has the same epistemological status as witches. First you come up with a theory, then you look for experiments that validate it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Goldenages said:

But I cannot see any reason why a government should be interested in a cover up concerning the speed of light or relativistic effects.  You just can´t get taxes out of this:)

Academia (and SGR) is part of an industry. Leftism, feminism, the domestic violence industry, etc... an industry can be as stupidasfuck, but all industries can be taxed, can draw funding, can be manipulated for power, etc, and can make money for gubmints, at least in the short-term.

13 hours ago, Goldenages said:

Regarding Einstein: He is the benchmark and THE genius

HERE is the crux of the problem... in your own words. In a very real sense, Einstein has become the symbol of genius, and the secularist's ideal god... or at least, a savior in God's image. But the truth is that Einstein was just a human being. In order to be able to debunk Einstein, you need to respect and understand where he was coming from. He had good ideas, and they deserved to be taken seriously... reconciling electromagnetism with the Lorentz transformations was an important objective. But upon closer inspection, Einstein's interpretation begins to unravel. Of course, once he became God, that unravelling was not something that his devotees wanted anything to do with.

QM does not have the equivalent of an icon like Einstein. They are free to forge ahead, to conjecture, to experiment. There are some good ideas, and some woefully bad ones (manyworlds is an embarassment, imho). But the experimental evidence is compelling, and they do not have gods, yet, that they might worship. QM does not, yet, have the sorts of devotees that get hostile should you dare to challenge their cherished dogma. QM still remains open, for the most part, to the principles of the scientific method.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now