Reality Physics or Fantasy Physics
Reality physics is based of observable evidence and reason while fantasy physics is based on belief and ego. One is objective the other is subjective. While the one tries to explain the data, the other tries to make the data conform to their beliefs.
Fantasy physics creates explanations and excuses by creating evidence that they determine as valid and proof of their beliefs. Particle accelerators, literally, examine garbage and will provide proof of anything that can be imagined from theory but nothing that will contradict theory. One is about science while the other is a make believe fantasy.
Reality is consistent and doesn’t change behavior as new discoveries are made. It is governed by laws or rules that are always followed, without exception. If discrepancies are detected either the observation is wrong or the law is invalid.
There are no amendments or addendum. When evidence is created instead of observed or new aberrant behavior or properties are proposed to make reality conform to theories, it is no longer about reality but becomes fantasy physics.
What do we observe that constitutes evidence? We see objects and motion, or matter and energy. Unless matter radiates energy we cannot detect it and unless energy interacts with matter it too is undetectable. We have made an assumption that both energy and matter cannot create or destroyed, so we will start with the premise that the universe is composed of energy and matter.
In today’s physics there is one component that can magically change from one form to the other as needed, allowing for the preservation of any theory despite contradictions. If it weren’t for the old belief in evidence, we would still be talking about phlogiston today.
Matter and energy have different properties. Matter has mass and produces inertia while energy, with no mass, creates motion. Matter has electrical properties, positive and negative, and an electric force that binds the matter together. This electric force only become apparent when the base state of matter is disrupted, separating the charges and converting the internal force into radiated electric fields.
When energy interacts with matter it overcomes matter’s inertia causing objects to have motion. Just as matter is composed of two components energy also contains two components, a north flow and a south flow. This is why when we observe the universe the matter tends to concentrate in equatorial discs, where the north and south flow of energy coming from a source of energy are equal. Matter not in these discs will eventually be moved into them by the unequal flow of the two directions of flow of the different components of energy.
The two components of observed objects, matter and energy, interact perpendicularly, causing the matter to move in orbits around an energy source, with the objects speed equalizing with the strength of the energy field. All objects, no matter how much mass they contain will have the identical velocities when they are in the same energy field where the strength of the field is the same.
If energy is added to an object in an orbit, it will no longer be in equilibrium with the field and move into a weaker energy field or higher orbit, losing energy to the field. When energy is lost by an orbiting object it will move into a stronger energy field, gaining energy from the field, until it is again in equilibrium with the field.
In satellite dynamics to increase the velocity of the satellite you step on the brakes while to decrease the velocity you step on the gas adding energy. There is no force of gravity coming from mass, just the forces of energy associated with the mass.
The electric force of matter and the motion force of energy have similar behavior but act in opposite ways.
When opposite electric charges come together their force becomes internal, binding the matter together and reducing the radiated force, while when similar charges are forced closer together it increases the radiated electric force.
With the force of energy the opposite occurs, as shown by the action of gravity and magnetism (a directional energy force). When opposite magnetic poles get nearer, the strength of the radiated force increases and the internal force decreases. As similar magnetic poles approach the repelling force between them (north flowing against north) increases, while the radiated force decreases.
Since all objects have motion instead of being stationary, it is apparent that the force of energy is greater than the force of matter, overcoming the inertia of the mass. This raises the question of what causes the interaction of matter and energy. Energy always flows from objects with greater energy per unit mass to objects with less energy per unit mass. Matter does not radiate or flow, only energy.
Because matter does not radiate and isn’t transferred to other objects in elastic collisions, the second “Law” of thermodynamics is wrong and not a law of reality physics but it is a foundation of today’s physics. Heat is kinetic energy, a function of both mass and energy, but it is only energy that is being transferred.
Energy will flow from an object with less mass but greater energy to an object with less energy (velocity) but more mass and kinetic energy. The Law of Conservation of Momentum, where energy flows from an object with greater energy per unit mass to an object with less energy per unit mass, is the correct law for reality.
This shows that energy is attracted to mass, in particular positive matter. A neutron particle is a subatomic molecule composed of a proton and an electron while as an alpha particle is a subatomic molecule composed of four protons and two electrons. Quarks, with there six different flavors are a result of theory in today’s physics and “proven” to exist by particle accelerators.
A proton and an electron combine to create a neutron and when that neutron decays it converts back into a proton and an electron. You’d think that this would make it obvious that the neutron contains both a proton and an electron.
The conversion of an element into an element with more protons, when the nucleus of an atom undergoes beta (electron) decay, would also seem to show this but in today’s physics, the neutron and proton are composed of different flavors of quarks. Utter gobbledygook.
A neutron not within a nucleus will decay into a proton, an electron, and energy (in the form of gamma radiation) within ten minutes, despite the electric force between the opposite charges. An alpha molecule is stable, despite containing opposite charges, producing an internal repelling force. This shows that the force of energy is greater than the force of matter and it is able to dislodge electrons from protons.
Today’s belief that energy and matter are the same requires that the forces of matter behave in opposite ways. Mass produces inertia which is a resistance to motion but also gravity which cause motion. If inertial mass and gravitational mass wee equal, objects would not move.
If gravitational mass is greater than inertial mass the result would be that objects would never stop moving and if inertial mass is greater than gravitational mass things will never move. No matter how you make it the theory does not conform to reality.
Another of today’s beliefs that contradicts itself and reality is the structure of the atom. The nucleus of an atom is composed of protons and neutrons (proton-electron molecules) where the similar positive force of the proton’s charge produce a repelling force that should destroy the nucleus, if it weren’t for the created strong nuclear force binding the nucleus together.
The problem with this theory is that the strong nuclear force must also come from the proton. Again you have something with opposite actions, repelling other protons and yet binding them together.
The positive charge of all protons is the same but the force coming from the protons binding them together changes as the number of protons change. With a hydrogen atom there is no binding force coming from the proton, while with helium the force must counteract the similar charge repelling force between the protons.
As the number of protons increases, the binding force from each proton must continue to increase so the repelling force between the protons must also increases the binding force the protons together. With beryllium each proton must produce a binding force to overcome the repelling force of three other protons. As the number of protons increases, the strength of the binding force and the energy necessary to maintain the nucleus must also increase at a growing rate.
How do we know that the binding force is a product of the proton? The stable argon atom has one less proton than the stable potassium atom but greater mass. The stronger binding force in the potassium atom is not the result of the loss of a proton=electron molecule and a reduction of mass. If this were the case the isotope U235 would be stable instead of radioactive.
This contradictory nature of a proton shows that the force holding the nucleus together is not some imaginary binding force that is confined to the nucleus. Even as the repelling force within the nucleus and the strength of a force needed to confine it increase as multiples, the size of the nucleus barely changes as the atomic number of elements increases.
It is the compression force of energy being attracted to positive matter (including that in neutron molecules) combined with the negative charge of electrons within neutrons that hold the nucleus together and that compressing energy force radiates from the nucleus in increasing strength with increasing size of an element in the form of gravity, or as a magnetic force. (Magnetism is due to the repulsion between negative matter and energy causing the orbiting electrons to make the radiated energy force, coming from the nucleus, into a directional force.)
Electrons separated from the positive charge of a proton in a nucleus will still be attracted to the positive charge but because energy creates a barrier around the positive charge, they will be unable to return to the stable proton-electron state, where they have no radiated electrical force. They will be forced into an orbit perpendicular to the energy flow. As the number of positively charged matter units (protons) in a nucleus increases, more energy will be attracted to it, increasing the compression force holding the nucleus together.
When the energy around the nucleus increases it will force the orbiting electrons into larger more distant orbits. This is why atoms get larger instead of smaller as the number of protons increase. With the increase in force between the orbiting electrons and protons in the nucleus one would expect that the electrons would be pulled closer reducing the size of the atom. The nucleus of an atom is held together by the compression of the energy and as long as its surface is comprised of positive matter, it will be stable with the negative electrons within it being protected from the force of energy.
It requires a lot of energy to separate an electron from a proton and eject it from the nucleus of an atom. It must overcome the attraction of all the protons in the nucleus and then penetrate the repelling force of orbiting electrons, and yet beta decay occurs. How can the force holding the nucleus together be the source of this energy and yet after ejecting an electron (which helps to hold the nucleus together) it is able to form a stable nucleus, containing and even greater repelling force from the additional proton?
According to today’s physics this energy is provided by the conversion of mass into energy. Since all atoms have a mass that is an integer multiple of the mass of a neutron there has never been any atom that has the average mass of the isotopes of the element. If the conversion of mass into energy was the source of energy, it must either result in the creation of an ion, an element with a smaller atomic number, or an isotope with one less neutron.
Energy flows to equalize with all positive matter, regardless of the structure of the matter, making it, as well as the electric force of matter, subatomic forces. It will produce the same results regardless of what the size of the mass is, creating the same structure whether an atom, molecule, solar system, or galaxy. The evidence of the subatomic actions of the energy and matter forces are seen throughout the universe. The laws of physics remain the same regardless of perceived size.
This means that the electrons of atoms will form a circular disc perpendicular the energy field, just like a solar system or galaxy.
In today’s physics electrons occur in shells around a nucleus that are not only horizontal discs around the nucleus but also perpendicular to the nucleus and protruding from the nucleus in diagonal directions. These electron shells were determined by calculating the probability of finding an electron in area, using the assumption that there was no magnetic (energy) field. All atoms radiate a magnetic field as well as electric fields (both positive and negative).
Atoms and elements are created in the sun and the sun has multiple magnetic fields. Exactly where in the universe is there no magnetic field? You will never be able to see it because with no energy field there can be no light or electromagnetic radiation.
The attraction between different units of matter comes from the energy field surrounding the nucleus, not from electrons magically being attracted to each other. It is the attraction between opposite flows of energy that cause matter to try to create larger objects. It is the repulsion between electrical forces of objects that keeps them separate. Stable structures are a result of the two opposite forces of matter and energy achieving equilibrium. At this point the energy being gained by the nucleus from the energy field is equal to the energy being lost by it to the energy field, resulting in stable orbits for electrons.
Objects do not equalize with other objects by the radiation of energy. Since objects radiate energy in all directions and the strength of the energy decreases with distance from the source, an object with less energy cannot gain enough energy from another object with more energy causing it to have energy equal to the source of energy. Objects achieve equal levels of energy by losing or gaining energy to the energy field they are in.
It is the directional flow of energy from higher to lower that provides order to the universe. The theory of entropy with random movement is nonsense. Any apparent disorder is a result of objects trying to achieve equilibrium with different sources of energy.
The objects in orbit around the sun are in equilibrium with the energy field coming from the sun. The objects in orbit around the Earth are in equilibrium with the energy field coming from the Earth. The correct point of reference for objects is to the source of energy they are in, not to the speed of light which varies with the strength of the energy and matter fields it travels in.
When an object (radiating energy equalized with the sun’s energy field) in the form of a meteor leaves the energy sun’s energy field and enters the Earth’s energy field, it will lose energy as kinetic energy, disintegrating, (not burning up) as it sheds particles with kinetic energy in order to achieve equilibrium with the energy field radiated by the Earth.
Energy is attracted and flows to positive matter. When additional energy is added to a nucleus of an atom it causes an expansion of the surrounding negative electric field coming from the electrons. The expansion will occur in the direction of atoms with less energy increasing the repelling electric force on those neighboring atoms.
This results in an increase in the distance between the atoms which in turn will cause energy to flow to the nuclei of neighboring atoms. Their electrons will then expand and establishing a new equilibrium point between the atoms and continuing the flow of energy from higher to lower. (Does anyone else wonder why motion occurs perpendicular to a changing electric field and magnetic fields? )
The transfer of energy to other nuclei will cause a reduction of energy around the nucleus that is the source of energy and the surrounding electrons of that atom will contract, creating the spectrum that is unique to every element. This is an electromagnetic wave or light and it is not a particle but a wave produces by a change in amplitude of the energy field around the nucleus.
As this disturbance moves from one atom to another its speed will change as the strength of the energy field changes. As the density of the energy field decreases with distance, the speed of the wave decreases along with the amplitude of the wave as it spreads over a larger area.
When the disturbance crosses an equilibrium point between two energy fields its speed will increase as the density of the new energy field increases. It is the passage of the wave though varying energy fields that causes the red and blue shifts of the light coming from distant stars. If it travels through multiple energy fields it will result in the blurring of the spectral lines.
This is a different theory of physics. This one doesn’t have separate rules for small things, laws that can be mostly right, objects with properties that are self contradictory or able to change defying logic, forces that have unique behaviors, myriads of components based on need to conform to theory instead of evidence, the observer choosing the reality and what evidence constitutes proof, or that the vast majority of reality is invisible and can’t be detected. It is up to the reader to decide which version of physics is a fantasy and which is about reality.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Cloudbuster
| #
Who is Herb Rose?
Reply
Howdy
| #
Herb is a commenter, and regular article provider at PSI.
Reply
Howdy
| #
“Reality is consistent and doesn’t change behavior as new discoveries are made”
The problem there Herb, is that newer techniques and technology allow things to be seen that weren’t visible before, thus changing the conclusions. The actual fact is never known, and this annoying feature is prevalent through all of science.
It leads to loss of faith – but faith is for religions, isn’t it…
The proof of this appears on PSI time and again. The truth cannot be known.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
These ten papers should answer all your questions about accepted theory Herb,
https://www.academia.edu/107692754/Paper_No_1_Time_is_a_Wave_A_Breakthrough_in_21_st_Century_Science_
https://www.academia.edu/107064975/Paper_No_2_The_Binary_Universe
https://www.academia.edu/107237539/Paper_No_3_Special_Relativity_and_the_Luminiferous_Aether
https://www.academia.edu/107384691/Paper_No_4_The_Experiment
https://www.academia.edu/107372963/Paper_No_5_Gravitation_Causality
https://www.academia.edu/107373076/Paper_No_6_Gravitation_Weak_Fields
https://www.academia.edu/107386014/Paper_No_7_Gravitation_Strong_Fields
https://www.academia.edu/107397410/Paper_No_8_Before_the_Big_Bang
https://www.academia.edu/107413446/Paper_No_9_How_the_B_U_T_Resolves_Important_Conundrums_in_Science
https://www.academia.edu/107417938/Paper_No_10_The_double_Slit_Experiment
Reply
Sifi
| #
Hire a proof-reader, it makes you look sloppy.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Albert Einstein stated: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Which physicist was Einstein: a reality physicist or a fantasy physicist?
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
When the energy of particles emitted by radioactive atoms was measured it did not match the prediction of E=mc^2. As a result the neutrino, a particle with no charge or mass moving at the speed of light, was created to make the results match the theory. What kind of physicist do you think he was. His quote should read: no experiment can prove me wrong.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Why does it seem that you cannot answer a direct question with a direct answer.
You ask: “What kind of physicist do you think he was.{?}. I know he was a physicist whom a President of the USA followed his advice. Therefore I agree with this president that he was a REALTY PHYSICIST for the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan did not refute in any way that E = m c^2.
Have a good day.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
Why is it you don’t know squat about physics? The bombs dropped on Japan were fission bombs where “binding energy” was released, not fusion bombs where mass was converted into energy (E-mc^2).
The discovery, by Hubble, of the red and blue shift of light coming from distant stars showed Einstein was wrong. According to relativity the source of light can have no effect on the speed of light (c) so the shifts cannot be result of motion of the stars. Since time does not exist at the speed of light, no change in speed can occur in transit through space.
I didn’t know that Einstein was involved in real estate.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You asked: “Why is it you don’t know squat about physics?” It is because I am an experimental CHEMIST and have done an investigation of the simultaneous diffusion of Pb^++ and Cd^++ ions In NaCl crystals and KCl crystals. This to produce the observed ,evidence which other physical scientists, and I can reason. This research was sponsored by the USA Department of Defense who were considering the storage of radioactive isotopes with very long half-lives in salt mines.
Because you referred to physicists and not physical scientists I must ask: Who provided the physical evidence that led to the long accepted theory that matter is composed of the tiny, tiny particles we now call atoms?
Have a good day
(Fixed your own misspelled name) SUNMOD
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb,
I consider Gerald Pollack’s thinking on water to be fantasy physics. Yet you accept it as valid. And you seem to not be able to say why you accept it other than to repeat what Pollack has said. So, it seems to me you don’t fully practice what you preach.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Dr. Pollacks does experiments that can be repeated. If you doubt the results of the experiments you can repeat them for yourself. If you doubt his interpretation of the results you should provide an alternative explanation that conforms to the results. What causes a layer of water close to certain surfaces exclude colloidal particles and ions increasing the concentration in the body of the water? How can that water desalinate or create an difference in electrical potential between the edge and center? Why does this layer become thicker when IR energy is added? Why does water create a current through submerged tubes?
If you think these results are fantasy, not reality, do the experiments and debunk them.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb: Dr. Pollacks does experiments that can be repeated. If you doubt the results of the experiments you can repeat them for yourself.
JMcG: Those aren’t experiments, they are demonstrations followed by vague claims. There is hardly any correspondence between them.
Herb: you should provide an alternative explanation
JMcG: To what, exactly? He doesn’t even address the existing literature.
Herb: What causes a layer of water close to certain surfaces exclude colloidal particles and ions increasing the concentration in the body of the water?
JMcG: Uh, you are essentially asking why do the molecules along a surface attract each other (have greater tensional forces, excluding impurities) while those below the surface do not? In other words, he is asking why does water have surface tension? So he is just using different words to describe what is already been observed. How is this useful? Moreover where is his explanation? He is just restating the question. Why do the exact same molecules as those on the surface have different properties (no tensional forces) when they are below the surface? What words do you see coming from Pollack that would or could explain this? He says nothing. He is just confused, just like all of academia. Prove me wrong. Quote him on this question/issue. He has brought zero insight.
Herb: How can that water desalinate or create an difference in electrical potential between the edge and center? Why does this layer become thicker when IR energy is added?
JMcG: More questions? Where are the answers? Or we could even just ask why is liquid H2O so reactive to IR in relation, let’s say, to any other gas or liquid (incliuding gaseous CO2; just look at the difference in spectrum). Does Pollack offer any insight at all? Or does he just stand on the sideline using different terminology to draw attention to what has already been observed–again?
Herb: Why does water create a current through submerged tubes?
JMcG: Once again, more semantic repetition of what has long been observed. No answers. Pollack is doing nothing but using different terminology to establish what has long been established. You call them answers but they are not. You are just confused.
Herb: If you think these results are fantasy, not reality, do the experiments and debunk them.
JMcG: You are confused. These are not results. These are observations that have already been observed and already been commented on many times before. Pollack has failed to provide any answers. You are just delusional. Pollack is not less confused than all of academia. He is just using different words.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
An experiment is a demonstration of different behavior observed as a result in a change in conditions (with an effort for only one condition to change) and an effort to explain why that change of conditions caused the observed change.
The observed exclusion zone will occur in a glass container but not some plastics. Does the surface (actually interfacial) tension between water molecules change so that only in the glass container ions are excluded.?
You complain that he doesn’t cite existing literature while maintaining that existing literature and academia are wrong. His explanation is that water molecules are being split into hydroxyl and hydrogen ions (something existing theory supports but you deny) and these ions form liquid crystals where impurities are expelled. As these crystals grow (by walls growing thicker) they absorb different wavelengths of IR, which gasses or individual H2O molecules would not. Why do your nano droplets absorb different wavelengths if their composition is homogenous? It is different bonds or structures that determine which wave length of energy are absorbed.
We have different beliefs on the nature of the water molecule where you believe the bond is exclusively covalent while I believe it is also ionic.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb: His explanation is that water molecules are being split into hydroxyl and hydrogen ions (something existing theory supports but you deny) and these ions form liquid crystals where impurities are expelled.
JMcG: LOL. No theory supports such a silly assertion.
Water does not and could not possibly form into ions and hydroxyls in such a casual manner.
Herb: Why do your nano droplets absorb different wavelengths if their composition is homogenous?
JMcG: As is explained explicitly in the most recent two videos on my YouTube site entitled Solving Tornadoes, the reason the IR signature of liquid H2O is so wide has to do with the fact that H2O polarity is variable and the hydrogen bonds are the mechanism of this variability by way of neutralizing 25% of each other’s polarity per hydrogen bond.
Undoubtedly this explain will leave you even more confused than you already are. But you should not use this as an excuse. It is easier if you start with surface tension, as I do in my videos.
The reason the molecules on the surface of liquid water are attracting each other while those below are not is because those on the surface only have three hydrogen bonds with their neighbors while those below have four. Since H2O polarity is the inverse of connectedness the less connected molecules on the surface still retain 25% of their polarity. Those below the surface have zero percent.
Seem my YT site for explanation of IR and high heat capacity.
Herb: It is different bonds or structures that determine which wave length of energy are absorbed.
JMcG: I agree but you chose the wrong bonds. The covalent bonds don’t change. It is hydrogen bonds where there is a lot of looseness and variability. So, your assertion is based on your own deliberate ignorance. It’s not based on facts. It’s based on your own laziness to avoid thinking.
Herb: We have different beliefs on the nature of the water molecule where you believe the bond is exclusively covalent while I believe it is also ionic.
JMcG: LOL. Your beliefs are also based on your ignorance of the fact that ions and hydroxyls are impossible as such low temperature.
James McGinn / Genius
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Since I work with KOH I can assure you that even when below 0C the hydroxyl ions are still there and able to burn your skin off.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
KOH?
You are just speaking nonsense, Herb.
James McGinn / Genius
Wilson Sy
| #
Do not be confused. Facts are the reality; theory is the fantasy. Theoretical physics is fantasy as Einstein said.
Theory is not reality, only a fantasy to explain and organize facts. Universal laws are constructs of theory and therefore are not reality. Those laws are theoretical fantasy to organize economically observed facts.
Only facts (repeatedly verified) are the reality. Fact can falsify theory, but theory cannot falsify fact. When facts change, theory must change. This is how science makes progress.
Theory can change radically in a scientific revolution due to a change in perspective (e.g. Copernicus) or due to a new fact (e.g. constancy of speed of light).
Do not be confused like 99.9% of world (including Karl Popper) who think science is theory and universal laws.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Wilson,
What is considered “fact” is subject to interpretation by theory. You consider the constant speed of light as “fact” but it is theory. If light is an electromagnetic wave how can it be constant if the electric and magnetic fields it is in vary? If the speed (velocity) of light is constant in a vacuum how can it lose energy (v^2) with distance from the source?
When Copernicus proposed his heliocentric solar system there was no change in the observations from astronomy or perspective. It was an alternate theory, using the same data, that could explained the aberrant behavior of five “stars” out of thousands visible in the sky. We still see the sun, moon, and stars “orbiting” the Earth but is reason that shows us the reality.
Herb
Reply
Wilson Sy
| #
Velocity of light is measured independently, but interpreted in the context of Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism. Copernicus explained the the retrograde motion of planets, puzzling to the geocentric theory.
Reply
Howdy
| #
“When facts change, theory must change”
A fact that changes was not fact in the first instance. This is how science currently works, by continuously changing the ‘facts’.
Reply
Wilson Sy
| #
A fact when repeatedly verified is a fact which usually does not change. “When facts change” (emphasis on plural facts) means when the set of facts change, e.g. a new and verified fact is added to the set, then “theory must change”, if it is unable to accommodate the significant new fact.
This was explained by Einstein in three critical tests of general relativity theory by observing three predicted new astronomical facts. Einstein said: “If a single one of the conclusions drawn from it proves wrong, it must be given up.”
In science, “facts change” means we learn new facts and there lies an explanation for scientific progress.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Wilson,
According to GR gravity and acceleration are equivalent and increasing velocity or increasing gravity will cause time to expand. Since the speed of light is constant any expansion of time will cause a corresponding increase in distance.. This means that as you get closer to a center of gravity its increasing strength will cause time to expand and the distance to the center of gravity must therefore also increase.
Herb
Reply
Howdy
| #
“In science, “facts change” means we learn new facts and there lies an explanation for scientific progress.”
AKA, the reality is never known, and scientific ‘facts’, are worthless, as I originally posited.
Reply
Howdy
| #
A PDF that some may find interesting:
https://sidoli.w.waseda.jp/Omnibus_Science_Sidoli_01.pdf
Wilson Sy
| #
What is reality? In science, all truths or facts are conditional – potentially falsifiable. This is not the same as “worthless”. Otherwise, don’t fly in a plane, because the laws of physics may be false and worthless.
Howdy
| #
“What is reality?”
Reality is what science is supposed to represent – the actual. You don’t know that?
Otherwise it is opinion, reasoning, or supposition. None of which reflects reality.
Years ago, it was accepted fact that the sun was a ball of gas, and yet, now it’s claimed as not anything like. The earlier ‘fact’ was worthless.
“Otherwise, don’t fly in a plane, because the laws of physics may be false and worthless.”
Another gab ruined by flippancy – what’s new?
Wilson Sy
| #
Represent is not actual.
Howdy
| #
You know exactly what I’m saying, but if you have no relevant info to add once again, just say so instead of being a child.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Howdy,
How much of “fact” change is due to a change in reality or our perception of reality?
When we look at our solar system matter is extremely sparse. Very little of the energy radiated by the sun is absorbed by that matter, with most of it being sent into space. Since that energy cannot be destroyed that energy will continue to travel through space until it is eventually absorbed by matter. Is the reality of the universe we see through the Hubble or Webb telescope fact or are we seeing light being emitted by stars at different times in their lives being observed after it has been redirected in space and come into view? Is the reality the scarcity of matter around the solar system or the abundance of matter that is seen by the more powerful telescopes?
Herb
Reply
Howdy
| #
As far as I am concerned, facts do not change, Herb. They are a truth, and truth does not change. If it does do to a new discovery, the previous truth was at best, a belief.
As far as space and perception, Humans have a distorted view of the world . One even has a distorted view of ones-self.
One sees what one should see as part of that life in order to bring certain things into perspective at the expense of the unnecessary.
It is not for Humans to know the secrets of the universe.
“Is the reality the scarcity of matter around the solar system or the abundance of matter that is seen by the more powerful telescopes?”
Excellent point, Herb, but one that will not be proven one way or the other because it is hidden knowledge.
To put it another way, how many years must pass before a person, at a point on Earth, is able to see the total expanse of space, in a usable time frame? More to the point, how to ensure that received information has not been altered on it’s journey to the recipient? Space cannot be viewed in real-time, and anomalies of space, known or otherwise will intervene.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Sunset and Herb,
Albert Einstein stated:”The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.” To what could he be referring? I will allow you both or any others an hour,, or two, to submit an answer before I submit mine; which I consider might Jerry related the scientific confusion which seems to exist in this present discussion..
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
This is not a classroom, and my answer is, subterfuge.
Reply
Howdy
| #
While there are references to Einstein as a ‘genius’, there are also references that he was a plagiarist.
“All this was maintained by Poincare and others long before the time of Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery to him.” — Charles Nordmann
From the book: Albert Einstein : The Incorrigible Plagiarist
Personally, I couldn’t care less about Einstein’s words – I’m a skeptic toward everything. His true actions will define him for what he was for all to see, all in good time.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Sunset and Herb,
I read that Einstein was born in the German Empire, but he moved to Switzerland in 1895, I know that an English translation of Galileo Galilei’s famous book written in the common Italian language was translated to English and published in 1914. So for nearly 200 years what Galileo had written was not available to most English scientists and the scientific community prospered without a knowledge of what he had written.
I have a copy of Newton’s “The Principia”,as translated to English in 1848 by Andrew Motte and published in 1995 by Prometheus Books. This book is well indexed and there is no reference to Galileo even though there is reference to the results, which Galileo reported in his book about his pendulum experiments.
As I have noted, my copy of Newton’s book is well indexed, but there is no reference to page 15 where I read: “the necessity of which equations, for determining the times of a [phenomenon], is critical as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter.” It seems it is not indexed because “pendulum” has been made an adjective instead of the noun of the experiment.
.
Have a good day.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers and Herb,,
This comment concerns what is commonly termed FACT. If you read this it must be a FACT that you are a PSI reader. Herb has written his article and made comments about my comments, which question the validity of some of his statements.. I make my comments so you, are aware that what Herb writes is not necessarily a FACT in the context of the topic about which he and I are discussing. For I believe (but don’t know) that such discussion is CRITICALLY essential in this activity termed SCIENCE. For example, “When Copernicus proposed his heliocentric solar system there was no change in the observations from astronomy or perspective.” Herb Rose. April 28, 2024 at 9:13 pm | . I totally agree with Herb”s but a reader of this needs to KNOW that at this earlier time there was a debate between to ideas (models): one termed the geo (earth) centered model of the universe and the other termed the hello (sun) centered model of the universe.
This debate us endless until a man (Galileo) made his own telescope, previously invented by another, to observe that the planet Venus had periodic phases similar to the long observed phases of the moon. And quickly others made telescopes and observed the same periodic phases of Venus and only one of the two models of the universe could explain the periodic phase changes of the planet Venus.
And a historical FACT is Galileo wrote a book describing experiments he had done with a simple device termed a pendulum. About which I have just drawn to your (PSI readers) attentions.
I write this comment to demonstrate the validity of Albert Einstien’s comment: “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” Which means you need to see everything that might require the invention of NEW INSTRUMENTS like thermometers, balances, etc. to make quantitative measurements natural phenomena.
Have good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and other PSI readers,
I have regularly been critical, and still am, of what you (Herb) write. like the common thermometer,, which Fahrenheit invented, cannot measure the temperature of gases (the atmosphere)., However I now see that , other of your comments of which I have been critical, are not necessarily wrong.
It is very labor intensive for me to keyboard because of old age but I am going toe try to explain to other PSI readers who might have a wrong impression of much you do write. Some physicists have stated that they cannot explain INERTIA. Can you, because I believe I can? But I would like to have you go first.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Reades,
As you can read I make numerous mistakes. So this comment is to alert a reader that so do others An author of the Oxford Dictionary wrote the following two definitions; each with what I term an application.
INERTIA: a property of matter by which it continues in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is changed by an external force.
FRICTION: resistance that one surface or object encounters when moving over another.”a lubrication system that reduces friction.”
Inertia is not a property of matter. It is the result of friction—an external force. Or, that a solid is not perfectly rigid. Hence, steel train wheels are defected from perfect round when setting on a perfectly straight and level steel rail which is deflected where each wheels sets.
I saw the probability of these slight deflections when I watched a video of a strong men’s completions One event was the time, or distance, it took to move a stationary 18 wheel semi-truck and its trailer a certain distance. Two contestants were able to get this unit moving but the initial problem was the lack of sufficient friction, between the soles of their boots and the road surface, which was not a problem once the wheels began to turn as the moving unit accelerated as it was pulled toward the finish line. The man with the greater mass, hence friction, won.
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
“steel train wheels are defected from perfect round when setting on a perfectly straight and level steel rail which is deflected where each wheels sets”
You refer to rolling resistance. Train wheels have one of the lowest resistances, hence a vehicle can pull heavy loads on rail that would not be possible with rubber tyres due to the deflection of the rubber. The same reason an under-inflated tyre robs engine power and fuel economy as the increased deflection causes a higher rolling resistance.
It is very important in race events.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
hi Howdy,
Are you unable to acknowledge the mistake which I consider the central focus of my comment.
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
Everybody makes mistakes. I added a dimension to your comment, that’s all.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
you wrote”. “”You refer to rolling resistance. ” Yes, but I described the observed FACT that the rolling resistance was less than th stationary resistance and attempted to explain why this was observed.
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
Rolling resistance affects the force required to move a wheel from a static state, as well as when it rolls, so don’t know what you mean.
This explains what I have so far stated:
https://www.continental-tires.com/us/en/b2b/business-know-how/tire-rolling-resistance-fuel-consumption/
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Reader,
I just acquired, for free, a most amazing book titled OUR AMAZING WORLD OF NATURE. It begins “Chapter One
Life iIn The Wilderness “Every wild plant, every freeborn animal is designed to fit some niche in the wilderness community where it can find food, fend off enemies, survive seasonal changes and produce young. The dazzling variety of adaptations that have evolved among the millions of species on our planet is one of nature’s miracles. [Reader Digest Editor, 1969]
And it ends, EARTH IN ALL HER CLORY by Donald Culross Peatties “I know that in nature growth is sure, and upward. That at the heart of things is serenity. That in due season even the desert will flower, and that for all of us life is a gift to be revered as Devine”
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Reader,
I, or Peattie, repeats “I know that in nature growth is sure, and upward. That at the heart of things is serenity. That in due season even the desert will flower, and that for all of us life is a gift to be revered as Devine”
It seems that too many forget the long HISTORY before 400, or 500, years ago. Nature’s growth is sure and upward. However, out solar system is finite and everything must come to an end. When? I have no idea. But I BELIEVE that GOOD will eventually triumph over EVIL.
Have a good day
Reply