| Mad scientists do experiments |
In Science, we don't do experiments
The worldly wisdom among mathemagicians is that experiments are an integral part of what they call
'science'. An experiment allegedly enables them to observe the phenomenon under controlled conditions,
confirm their predictions, and prove their theories to others.
Unfortunately for our deluded mathemagicians, observation, predictions and proof are outside the purview
of Science. It is the inventor, the developer of technology, who uses his hands. It is the technician who does
the footwork, runs errands and collects data. A scientist uses his head. His job is to explain.
What is the purpose of an experiment if not to impress the audience? The mathemagician runs an
experiment in an attempt to persuade the crowd much like a prosecutor tries to sway the jury in his favor
by doing a show and tell. The purpose of persuasion is to convince and the purpose of convincing is to
recruit. The mathemagician wants the listeners to believe in his theory. This is, plain and simple, nothing
but an attempt to change opinions. This is religion, not Science!
Science is objective and rational. Science doesn't care about opinions. Science merely cares about
rational explanations. What people believe after the conference is over doesn't concern Science. In
Science, we don't run experiments. In Science, we explain them. Skeptics are welcome to run experiments
at their labs on their own clock. When they come to the next conference, their job is NOT to electrify the
audience with an awesome experiment. Their job is to EXPLAIN the causes behind the phenomenon.
Gawking = experiments - explanations ....... (Gee!)
Let's look at this matter in light most favorable to the mathemagical world. We run an experiment. We
release a pen and verify that it falls to the ground. We repeat the experiment as many times as the
mathemagician wants. We do it 1000 times and have it verified independently by people on the other
side of the planet.
Now... why does the pen always fall to the ground? Why doesn't it fall to the sky? These are the type
of questions a scientist must answer. The mathemagicians have run millions of experiments since the
beginning of time. Not one mathemagician on Earth can rationally explain to you the mechanism of gravity.
Faraday is a hero of Mathemagix. The mathemagicians boast that he ran experiments and developed the first electric motor. Unfortunately for them, a motor has nothing to do with Science. The mathemagicians mistake Technology and invention for Science and explanation. Faraday never understood WHAT either electricity or magnetism were about. Faraday could only GAWK! |
| WHAT physical object causes the pen to fall DOWN to the Earth? |
| Why doesn't the pen fall upwards towards the sky? |
| In order to answer this question you MUST propose an invisible entity that mediates the transaction. |
Making the invisible visible
The mathemagicians are trying to do the impossible. They are trying to come up with an experiment to see
the entity that mediates electromagnetism, magnetism, light and other invisible phenomena. It can't be done,
and certainly not with an equation. 'Proof' of this is that no mathemagician can explain gravity. The only way
to determine WHAT invisible agent is acting during gravity is to propose one through a SUPPOSITION. You
make an ASSUMPTION and SIMULATE the event with your proposal, for instance:
- "Let us ASSUME that light is mediated by an entity that has a rope-like
configuration."
Having proposed an object we can now proceed to explain the phenomenon with this agent. That's the Way
of Science!
What the mathemagicians never realized is that they never PROVED that particles (photons, muons,
electrons, etc.) mediate physical phenomena. They have always ASSUMED and taken for granted that
what they have in front of them are particles. They passed these alleged 'particles' off as facts. The reason
not one mechanic on Earth can draw for you a single particle of Quantum Mechanics is that the entire
Standard Model is an ASSUMPTION. Not one mathemagician has ever seen a so-called 'particle'. They
have ASSUMED that the spiraling lines they see in their bubble chambers are traces of particles. It never
dawned on them that the computers that make images of these traces are already built to treat these lines
as traces of point particles. To quote Luigi Galvani (1737 - 1798), a physician who changed his long-running
opinion regarding why frog legs twitch when subjected to electrical stimulus:
- "...for it is easy in experimentation to be deceived, and to think one has
seen and discovered what one has desired to see and discover"
No experiment will ever be able to tell a human WHAT the invisible entity that is moving in Mother Nature's
secret world looks like. The reason many people have concluded and believe that Man is not intelligent
enough to figure out how this Universe works is that the mathemagicians have been unsuccessful in
elucidating the nature of the invisible mediators for phenomena such as light and gravity. Once we simulate
these phenomena with an agent that explains all phenomena, the mystery goes away.
Most people have been told and led to believe that the Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics has been proven through experiment. The reality is that not one mathemagician on Earth can draw or illustrate a single subatomic particle because they have never seen one. The mechanics ASSUME that the mediator they are staring at is a particle. They have built the entire model on this ASSUMPTION. The mathemagicians have also built their machines and programmed them to treat every signal as a discrete particle. The alleged 'traces' they see in their bubble chambers can just as well be simulated with threads. No experiment can ever be designed to elucidate the architectural nature of an invisible entity. Indeed, it would be quite simple for the mechanics to calculate the radius or width of their particles by merely measuring across one of the curved lines on the left. Instead, they talk about energy and speed and tell you that their particles are 0D! |
The Particle Supposition
- Technology just confuses people more
To make matters worse for the independent thinker, the overwhelming majority of laymen will side with the
peer reviewers, the logic being that the technology we have today is proof that both General Relativity and
Quantum Mechanics are, if not complete, at least more or less correct. The following are typical replies
that you will often read in the forums:
- 1. "There is much that we don't know. We are still investigating."
2. "Man's intelligence to God's is like a snail's intelligence with respect to Man's. We will
never be able to understand our Universe."
3. "The Universe works rationally. It is Man who thinks irrationally."
4. "Your computer is proof that Quantum Mechanics is correct. We built it relying on
Quantum principles."
5. "If General Relativity were wrong, GPS wouldn't work."
- Unfortunately, most people have grown up with the misleading notion that technology is a measure of how
much we know (i.e., science). The typical examples that you'll hear over and over are the sophistication of
computers and the infamous GPS. However, Science has absolutely nothing to do with technology. They
have nothing in common. Science is about explaining a phenomenon rationally. Technology is about
inventing and developing gadgets by trial and error.
Science is not 'useful'
A popular argument in the forums is that 'science' has to have a useful purpose. Science allegedly enables
humans to invent gadgets and devices that make our lives more comfortable. Manufacturing thrives on
inventions: "Just look at all the inventions we have patented in the last 50 years and all the money they made
for the entrepreneurs." The notion has spread that 'science' has to have some tangible results, that it must be
useful. Usefulness, in turn, serves as a corroboration that the presenter 'knows'. His 'theory' resulted in a
tangible product.
So, let's begin by memorizing the law...
- "In Science, 'useful' is useless!"
- Science is about explaining a mechanism or cause underlying a phenomenon. An explanation per se has no
purpose other than understanding. If a theory induces someone to put two and two together and come up
with a device, more power to him, but this segment of the process is divorced from Science. Science stops
at explanation and understanding. What the individual in the crowd believes or whether he translates that
idea into a workable gadget is beyond the purview of Science.
.
| To comment on any of the pages in this website go to: Rational Scientific Method |
Bill's books
