The limitations of the scientific method and scientism

[Quantum Quack]

By that standard all of math is a pure abstraction and there is no physical interpretation of any formulas or diagrams.


You can't google, or just don't want to bring any facts forward to dilute your opinions?


Straight pseudoscience. Creating impossibilities from arbitrary unfounded principles that are completely divorced from actual physical science.


Huh? They're the things that are mostly flickering in and out of existence.


Actually you mean Galilean relativity.


That's pretty convoluted reasoning. It's sufficient to say that absolute position and velocity are pure abstractions of the kind you were referring to up above, with no physical interpretation. This inability to draw the line between good and bad science is what keeps you flailing away without being able to say anything even half true.


Also backwards. Whenever you write t=(a constant), it says nothing about duration. It's a reference to an infinitesimal moment, nothing more. t = "eternity" is a bad formulation, also meaningless. In most applications involving references to infinity you will encounter situations such as "the limit, as t approaches infinity, of f(t)", written:

$$\lim _{ t\rightarrow \infty }{ f(t) } $$​

Except that physical dimensions and whatever you're talking about have nothing in common.


No, the result of an inability to correctly interpret the mathematical abstractions you believe have no physical interpretation.


But since your premise is false, so is the rest of your reasoning.


Except that what you're talking about is not mysterious or unknown, it's just not practical or useful in almost any application you can imagine. And this idea, a radix-3 number system, has no relevance to the universe no matter how much you oversimplify and invent explanations.

Much better is to rely on what's known to be true, where the best evidence is, then to go off and create fiction in place of attainable fact. Otherwise you'e off in the weeds of superstition, on your way to all things anti-science: pseudoscience, creation science, conspiracy theory and outright denial and/or deliberate ignorance.

Instead of proclaiming how things are, why not just ask the science and math folks here to help you understand basic principles?

After re-reading your post I wanted to ask you what you intended to achieve?
I can only surmise that you are avoiding the question regarding t=0 HSP having no duration and what implications that has for SRT... even an infinitesimal moment is still a state of absolute rest. No matter how small that moment in time is it still invokes an issue with the continuity of movement.
What you seem to be suggesting is that an infinitesimal amount of time [ movement ] is somehow static or stationary. Time is only a value given to an amount of movement or change. To say that an infinitesimal amount of movement is non-movement is absurd.
another doozy for photon/srt fans and one you Aqueous Id seem to be avoiding like the plague is to ask:
How much light or em energy is in transit universally at any given t=0? and why this energy is not accounted for when calculating universal energy mass...
After all it is your science that determines that a photon transits space [with out any observable evidence I might add]... You need to account for it...

 

[Aqueous Id]

After re-reading your post I wanted to ask you what you intended to achieve?

To correct your errors. To reintroduce science as it really is as you attempt to dismantle it by distortion. To show that nothing you claim has any basis in logic, or application of first principles. That kind of thing.

I can only surmise that you are avoiding the question regarding t=0 HSP having no duration and what implications that has for SRT...

There are none, you are only inventing this concepts rather than trying to analyze what a hypersurface is, and what its physical interpretation is. Worse is your assumption that t=0 means something to you but which has no correlation to reality.

even an infinitesimal moment is still a state of absolute rest.

False. This is just another case of proclaiming a thing to have a physical interpretation because you say so. In the first place all time and motion measurements are relative from the Galilean POV, before you even add in the intricacy of SR. Infinitesimal time therefore only has meaning relative to a local inertial reference frame. But that frame is in motion relative to all other frames in the universe. Thus you have only defined the infinitesimal of a thing in motion. It just goes to show how your logic completely ignores first principles. Furthermore, you keep inventing the term t=0. It's not even the correct representation for infinitesimal time, dt, or lim (Δt→0), which only goes to show that you should be asking more and proclaiming less. Furthermore, all motion is defined as the instantaneous rate of two infinitesimals, dx/dt, so your statement is absurd from the get go. It remains that t=0 is your personal gripe for lacking a background in differential calculus, all of which is built upon the -- what did you call it - pure theory with no physical relevance? (something like that) -- it's all built upon the principles of convergence at asymptotes of functions taken in the limit, usually either approaching zero or approaching infinity. You seem to forget that all of math is based upon a solid ground of theorems and postulates which can't be repealed by personal opinion, particularly when you lack the chops to wade through the implications of doing so. In sum, you can't repeal the laws of nature. It's not a democratic process. We are its slaves. Pretending to buck these chains does not make you free. It just leaves you thrashing, rending garments and gnashing teeth. You could be chillin' with some high school math and science materials in hand, and actually deriving pleasure from interacting with the cosmos in the only way possible - by studying it.

No matter how small that moment in time is it still invokes an issue with the continuity of movement.

No, it invokes your lack of comprehension of basic math and science.

another doozy for photon/srt fans and one you Aqueous Id seem to be avoiding like the plague is to ask:
How much light or em energy is in transit universally at any given t=0?

As much or little as you want since the question has no meaning. It simply bears out your ignorance of the meaning of infinitesimals. Again, the expression lim (Δt→0) f(t) is entirely different than simply proclaiming f(0)=0 or whatever you think you're saying. I would encourage you to begin to study more and publish less. This gets back to understanding first principles. Twisting an hacked version of calculus into a personal world view is not even close to trying to understand how nature works. You apparently think you know what a continuum is. Think again.

and why this energy is not accounted for when calculating universal energy mass...

Blah blah blah. More useless meaningless BS. It may surprise you to learn that the integral of dx is equal to x. Until you get past first principles, estimating the mass of the universe is way beyond your reach. How about starting with estimating the mass of 1cc of water, then air, and so forth? You have to learn to crawl before you can walk.

After all it is your science that determines that a photon transits space [with out any observable evidence I might add]... You need to account for it...

Account for what? You simply created a windmill of your mind and started throwing nukes at it. There is no substance to what you're claiming. And the irony of all of this is that you began here with the premise that science itself is fundamentally flawed. Haven't you understood yet that all the flaws are yours alone? No one person is greater than the sum of all human knowledge. You would begin to comprehend this if you would humble yourself by learning a little math and science rather than strutting around proclaiming that this is so and that is not so. You've simply got it all backwards. No one gets to dictate the laws of nature, especially someone with none of the requisite knowledge of how nature works, much less the principles of organizing ideas and formulating valid postulates which is a requisite step in understanding first principles.

As for photons transiting space, the correct term is propagation and it's a somewhat paradoxical phenomenon. Propagation is not a particle dynamic, but as waves. The difficult thing to comprehend is that particle kinematics is linear or one-dimensional (at least in the limit) whereas waves are spherical and therefore omnidirectional. Explaining how an electron can travel in a straight line, induce a magnetic field, and yet the field emits a spherically propagating wave . . . now there's some science to digest -- not this hot air you're whipping up while you're railing at those windmills. You just don't get to proclaim what a photon is or what it does. You have to study it, and try your best to understand it. The more you study, the less you will proclaim. That's the moment you can begin to say you are qualified to issue commentaries about the state of science. In the mean time you're just filling the thread with BS. And not even good BS.

 

[Quantum Quack]

To correct your errors. To reintroduce science as it really is as you attempt to dismantle it by distortion. To show that nothing you claim has any basis in logic, or application of first principles. That kind of thing.


There are none, you are only inventing this concepts rather than trying to analyze what a hypersurface is, and what its physical interpretation is. Worse is your assumption that t=0 means something to you but which has no correlation to reality.


False. This is just another case of proclaiming a thing to have a physical interpretation because you say so. In the first place all time and motion measurements are relative from the Galilean POV, before you even add in the intricacy of SR. Infinitesimal time therefore only has meaning relative to a local inertial reference frame. But that frame is in motion relative to all other frames in the universe. Thus you have only defined the infinitesimal of a thing in motion. It just goes to show how your logic completely ignores first principles. Furthermore, you keep inventing the term t=0. It's not even the correct representation for infinitesimal time, dt, or lim (Δt→0), which only goes to show that you should be asking more and proclaiming less. Furthermore, all motion is defined as the instantaneous rate of two infinitesimals, dx/dt, so your statement is absurd from the get go. It remains that t=0 is your personal gripe for lacking a background in differential calculus, all of which is built upon the -- what did you call it - pure theory with no physical relevance? (something like that) -- it's all built upon the principles of convergence at asymptotes of functions taken in the limit, usually either approaching zero or approaching infinity. You seem to forget that all of math is based upon a solid ground of theorems and postulates which can't be repealed by personal opinion, particularly when you lack the chops to wade through the implications of doing so. In sum, you can't repeal the laws of nature. It's not a democratic process. We are its slaves. Pretending to buck these chains does not make you free. It just leaves you thrashing, rending garments and gnashing teeth. You could be chillin' with some high school math and science materials in hand, and actually deriving pleasure from interacting with the cosmos in the only way possible - by studying it.

Oh I understand the "bound by nature" rule, with out a problemo, but I fail to understand the "bound by our math derived from nature" law.

The Mathematical reality is for example that we have no idea what is happening in the universe today as all our information is derived from ancient and possibly irrelevant sources. So I am sorry but I can not agree with your math if you abuse your own understanding by ignoring your first premise, "That light data takes 'c' to transit"

No, it invokes your lack of comprehension of basic math and science.

yes see above... understand your own models first and apply your own premises consistently and you may get some where.

The limitation of the scientific method is adequately exposed with this "simple" error of inconsistent application of the very model you are working with.
Your model is saying that the "night sky full of stars" is irrelevant to knowing or observing today's universe.... and that says heaps about the limitations of the scientific method.
Your model is also stating that the universe is literally teeming with transiting energy... eh what?
Your model relies upon the transit of an energy packet [photon - wave/particle] across the void of space that has never been observed and can never be observed to actually transit that space.

just a model...just a model...

As much or little as you want since the question has no meaning. It simply bears out your ignorance of the meaning of infinitesimals. Again, the expression lim (Δt→0) f(t) is entirely different than simply proclaiming f(0)=0 or whatever you think you're saying. I would encourage you to begin to study more and publish less. This gets back to understanding first principles. Twisting an hacked version of calculus into a personal world view is not even close to trying to understand how nature works. You apparently think you know what a continuum is. Think again.

The term "Infinitesimal" is a term introduced to aid mathematics in solving their dilemma of being trapped in their own limited understanding of how nature works. It is pure abstraction needed to provide a way for you humans to deal with the nature of zero, oblivion , unconsciousness, center of gravity, center of mass, zilch, nothingness, etc... You simply can't deal with "non-existence" can you.

The very idea that gravitational action could be the effect of 4 dimensions constantly contracting to zero, oblivion, end times, zilch, nothingness is unable to be comprehended is it?

"The primary reason we humans stand up [fight against the pull of Gravity], is because we know if we remain lying down we shall surely die"

Blah blah blah. More useless meaningless BS. It may surprise you to learn that the integral of dx is equal to x. Until you get past first principles, estimating the mass of the universe is way beyond your reach. How about starting with estimating the mass of 1cc of water, then air, and so forth? You have to learn to crawl before you can walk.

so ...uhm, according to your use of the light effect model how much energy is in transit at any given moment?

Can't address the question can you? Intellectual cowardice perhaps?

Account for what? You simply created a windmill of your mind and started throwing nukes at it. There is no substance to what you're claiming. And the irony of all of this is that you began here with the premise that science itself is fundamentally flawed. Haven't you understood yet that all the flaws are yours alone? No one person is greater than the sum of all human knowledge. You would begin to comprehend this if you would humble yourself by learning a little math and science rather than strutting around proclaiming that this is so and that is not so. You've simply got it all backwards. No one gets to dictate the laws of nature, especially someone with none of the requisite knowledge of how nature works, much less the principles of organizing ideas and formulating valid postulates which is a requisite step in understanding first principles.

As for photons transiting space, the correct term is propagation and it's a somewhat paradoxical phenomenon. Propagation is not a particle dynamic, but as waves. The difficult thing to comprehend is that particle kinematics is linear or one-dimensional (at least in the limit) whereas waves are spherical and therefore omnidirectional. Explaining how an electron can travel in a straight line, induce a magnetic field, and yet the field emits a spherically propagating wave . . . now there's some science to digest -- not this hot air you're whipping up while you're railing at those windmills. You just don't get to proclaim what a photon is or what it does. You have to study it, and try your best to understand it. The more you study, the less you will proclaim. That's the moment you can begin to say you are qualified to issue commentaries about the state of science. In the mean time you're just filling the thread with BS. And not even good BS.

then, addressing the issue of "how much energy in transit" should be a real and fundamental requirement to any understanding of universal dynamics...
Playing hopscotch around the issue by attempting to bury it in complexity and some sort of call to authority serves you badly and reeks of intellectual cowardice.
The simple fact is that according to your science there is energy in transit throughout the universe, and currently it is unaccounted for. Why is that? Sheer blindness? Or a lack of courage to consider that science may have it wrong?
Note: we are not talking about cosmic background radiation [CBR]. ( we haven't even started to consider this one.]

A great article landed on my desk via email today:

extract:
Time after time you hear people speaking in baffled terms about mathematical models that somehow didn't warn us in time, that were too complicated to understand, and so on. If you have somehow missed such public displays of throwing the model (and quants) under the bus, stay tuned below for examples.

A common response to these problems is to call for those models to be revamped, to add features that will cover previously unforeseen issues, and generally speaking, to make them more complex.

For a person like myself, who gets paid to "fix the model," it's tempting to do just that, to assume the role of the hero who is going to set everything right with a few brilliant ideas and some excellent training data.

Unfortunately, reality is staring me in the face, and it's telling me that we don't need more complicated models.

If I go to the trouble of fixing up a model, say by adding counterparty risk considerations, then I'm implicitly assuming the problem with the existing models is that they're being used honestly but aren't mathematically up to the task.

But this is far from the case - most of the really enormous failures of models are explained by people lying. Before I give three examples of "big models failing because someone is lying" phenomenon, let me add one more important thing.

Namely, if we replace okay models with more complicated models, as many people are suggesting we do, without first addressing the lying problem, it will only allow people to lie even more. This is because the complexity of a model itself is an obstacle to understanding its results, and more complex models allow more manipulation.
src: to remain anonymous

The first premise is that people act in good faith, good will and have a genuine interest in what they are doing and strive for the better good.
obviously a failed first premise....

 

[Aqueous Id]

Oh I understand the "bound by nature" rule, with out a problemo, but I fail to understand the "bound by our math derived from nature" law.

Then you might as well close up shop and go home. You're saying it's impossible to know anything, therefore your opinions are greater or equal to the aggregate of human knowledge. Go figure.

The Mathematical reality is for example

Mathematics is not reality. What the hell does that phrase even mean? It's just BS filler to substitute for substantive language. Implicit is this is "QQ hates math". You may not be surprised to learn that math doesn't revolve around your opinion of it. It just keeps winking and wiggling its upturned finger, beckoning you to enroll in a class if not just to go take same jr. high math and start to get your feet wet, rather than just strutting around and griping about the odds of rainfall.

that we have no idea what is happening in the universe today

What does that even mean? More of the universe than you will ever have time to study is right beneath your nose. But even that's not god enough for you, presumably because it takes work, and it's much easier to sit back on your laurels and gripe about it. Gawd forbid you would have to pick up a pencil and paper and start learning elementary geometry - theorems and proofs - when you can just beat your gums and pretend to be saying something meaningful. That's the real subtext of this whole thread. QQ has gone to the land of all play and no work and can't be bothered by all the intellectual turmoil out there. Yet it's all over the web every day - about CERN or Gravity Probe B and a bunch more cool stuff - so, hey, QQ just jumped on the bandwagon and started rewriting all of the history of human intellectual endeavor. Because it's easier than trying to understand some infinitesimal piece of it.

as all our information is derived from ancient and possibly irrelevant sources.

More meaningless BS. I realize it disturbs you to discover that the light from cosmic objects left their nuclear furnaces eons ago, but they obviously did so at vastly different times. This means that all the cumulative specks of light paint a panorama of the state of events of nearly the entire history of the universe. Crying that this is "possibly irrelevant" is, ironically, more than just possibly irrelevant. The question is: what do you say human knowledge has gained from the study of the cosmos? Turn your cynicism around and come down off that high horse and suddenly you will be immersed in a boundless ocean of relevance. Although the kid's pool is quite shallow, and for a good reason.

So I am sorry but I can not agree with your math if you abuse your own understanding by ignoring your first premise, "That light data takes 'c' to transit"

More meaningless BS. First of all, this has nothing to do with me. I'm just correcting your nonsense and bald claims with a few tidbits of elementary material. You can't even get past this to begin to take on the big questions.

yes see above... understand your own models first and apply your own premises consistently and you may get some where.

You're not in a position to tell me where to go. You bogged down at the elementary school level. I'm standing up on the hill, with the first principles as my foundation. You haven't even learned to scramble up the first switchback, and you sure as hell haven't packed a lunch for the trek. So it's pretty ridiculous for you to stand in judgment of me, and much worse, of all math, all science, and all human knowledge in general. It's a knuckleheaded pseudo-intellectual attack on true intellect, something that you seem to be fixated on destroying. And why is that? Envy I suppose. You've got an axe to grind against the educated world because you never got anywhere in school. Wah! :bawl:

The limitation of the scientific method is adequately exposed with this "simple" error of inconsistent application of the very model you are working with.

I'm not working. I'm kicked back. You're the one pounding away at this granite mountain with your little plastic hammer. You have no connection to first principles, so you're just inventing all these fictional demons and dragons that you're pretending to march off and rescue us from. But they only exist in your mind, filling the void that most people stick their education in.

Your model is saying that the "night sky full of stars" is irrelevant to knowing or observing today's universe....

"Model" = BS. "Today's universe" is meaningless moronic BS. There is no "today" in distant reference frames - you alone are tripping on this. It's your own creation of an imaginary monster threatening to unpin all human knowledge, and set it loose from its moorings. But up here where the visibility is better, it's just you pounding that little plastic hammer into your forehead because you never really got very far in school, so you like to come to the forums and pretend to wear the big boys' britches. But they don't fit. Your pants keep falling down since you never learned to button them. You actually have no clue what you're talking about. It's all pretense - styrofoam.

and that says heaps about the limitations of the scientific method.

The only heaps are the piles of BS you're shoveling. This statement locks you in as a hardened crank. You know nothing at all about science, yet you alone have come to the carefully determined analysis that all of human endeavor is fundamentally flawed. Yet even the novices are standing up here on this colossal rock, looking down at you and laughing at the fool beating himself up with a plastic hammer, pants falling down, and unable to make the first few steps up the beginner's slope. Given this, even if the scientific method did happen to have some flaw - which only a dunderhead would claim - we would still have the mountain quaking with the thunder of laughter at the fool below.

Your model is also stating that the universe is literally teeming with transiting energy... eh what?

Claiming I proposed a model is just a bald lie. "Transiting energy" is meaningless BS. As I'm sure you know, virtually all we know about the cosmos is made evident by the wealth of radiant energy bombarding us from all directions. Yes, radiation is pervasive in the cosmos. Other than that your statement is just more BS.

Your model relies upon the transit of an energy packet [photon - wave/particle] across the void of space that has never been observed and can never be observed to actually transit that space.

Again, stop blaming me. You are the loner here, not me. When you learn how to clip your suspenders on, try to see if you can actually formulate an intelligent statement. A photon is a quantum of energy with limited comparison to a particle, and almost entirely known to us by its wave nature. And yes, there is abundant evidence about what photons reveal about the cosmos. Your refusal to comprehend what is revealed can best be remedied by a few high school science classes. I would encourage you to find an observatory that offers some educational classes, and I would certainly invest in a telescope before I set out to dismantle all of human knowledge. A good beginner's telescope is a great way to learn how to get down off that high horse that has you locked into an infinite loop of stubborn ignorance.

just a model...just a model...

No, I have said nothing about models. You just learned to throw jargon around to give the appearances of having something meaningful to say.

The term "Infinitesimal" is a term introduced to aid mathematics in solving their dilemma of being trapped in their own limited understanding of how nature works.

No, it's a term that describes the sum of your knowledge of math and science. In math, it has a precise meaning, and even the ancient Greeks had a better handle on it than you do. But since you have no clue about what I'm talking about, and since you so stubbornly resist learning the things you are ignorant about, I won't waste the time explaining it to you.

It is pure abstraction needed to provide a way for you humans to deal with the nature of zero, oblivion , unconsciousness, center of gravity, center of mass, zilch, nothingness, etc...

Here again you are pontificating about stuff you've never bothered to learn. And, predictably, your remarks have no bearing on first principles, stuff normally picked up in jr. high and high school.

You simply can't deal with "non-existence" can you.

You simply can't deal with educated discussion, can you.

The very idea that gravitational action could be the effect of 4 dimensions constantly contracting to zero, oblivion, end times, zilch, nothingness is unable to be comprehended is it?

Speaking of nothingness, that pretty well characterizes the content of this statement. And all of the lack of comprehension is attributed to the knuckleheads who refuse to learn.

"The primary reason we humans stand up [fight against the pull of Gravity], is because we know if we remain lying down we shall surely die"[/I]

At present the reason you can't stand up is because you're hopelessly lazy. Once you actually try to learn something, all the pretense that you're using to hide your ignorance of nature will fade. I mean it would be like that if you would ever actually took the plunge and did something about those ugly warts you've got covering up the input pathways to your intellect.

so ...uhm, according to your use of the light effect model how much energy is in transit at any given moment?

When you learn to ask an actual question I'll be glad to answer you. Playing word games is pointless. As you know (or should I say: as you should know) a photon is charged with an amount of energy equivalent to the amount given up by the electron that created it. This is the moment propagation begins. At that moment the energy content of the photon is equal to Planck's constant times the frequency of the created wave. Of course you could have googled that so I suspect you've got some snarky retort planned for any reply to the bogus question you posed.

Can't address the question can you? Intellectual cowardice perhaps?

What does that even mean? Why don't you just cut the BS and get real? Address what? Your stubborn insistence on being vague, dumb and flat wrong?

then, addressing the issue of "how much energy in transit" should be a real and fundamental requirement to any understanding of universal dynamics...

More BS. You asked about the energy content of a photon. I answered you. So what. None of what you just said means anything. You're just sniping at random to cover up for what you never bothered to study. Go crack a book and snipe at yourself for once. That's where all of your problems lie.

Playing hopscotch around the issue by attempting to bury it in complexity and some sort of call to authority serves you badly and reeks of intellectual cowardice.

Blah blah blah. When in doubt throw around some more meaningless BS.

The simple fact is that according to your science there is energy in transit throughout the universe,

No, it's not mine. It's everyone's - except yours, of course because you keep spitting out what's being spoon fed to you. Again "energy in transit throughout the universe" is meaningless BS. Just get off your high horse and ask about the nature of light seen through telescopes. Instead of pontificating about it, tell us what it is, what we've learned about it, and what we've learned about the universe by the many fields engaged in studying it - optics, physics, cosmology, etc. Then you'll actually be approaching the forum as an adult instead of this snot-nosed brat who's got a chip on his shoulder because - well, gee, ma, the stuff is just too hard wah!! :bawl:

and currently it is unaccounted for. Why is that? Sheer blindness?

Said the guy in dark glasses tapping a stick while complaining about the color and hue of all of the things he has never laid eyes on.

Or a lack of courage to consider that science may have it wrong?

I would think that refusing to pay attention in class or do the homework is the only character deficit you should concern yourself about. Until you can say one intelligent thing about what science has right, you're not in a position to comment on what may be wrong with something that happens to irk you. But only a moron holds "all of science" (whatever that means) accountable for his own willful ignorance. So far all of the indictments are being written against you, for your own gross confessions of guilt. Yes, that's right, it's all on the record - and J'accuse!

Note: we are not talking about cosmic background radiation [CBR]. ( we haven't even started to consider this one.]

I think you need to start with some very basic science before you can pretend to care about the presence of the microwave background radiation of the cosmos. You have to learn to crawl before you can begin to learn to walk. But first you have to take the thumb out of your mouth to liberate the hand you need to set our self in motion. But first you have to get over all the fundamental learning issues that have kept you in the oral phase of early development.

A great article landed on my desk via email today:
The first premise is that people act in good faith, good will and have a genuine interest in what they are doing and strive for the better good.
obviously a failed first premise....

It sounds like someone else sees the same flaws in you that you have put on display here, in full Technicolor and surround sound.

 

[Quantum Quack]

@Aqueous Id

Claiming I proposed a model is just a bald lie. "Transiting energy" is meaningless BS. As I'm sure you know, virtually all we know about the cosmos is made evident by the wealth of radiant energy bombarding us from all directions. Yes, radiation is pervasive in the cosmos. Other than that your statement is just more BS.

Then quantify this radiant energy you talk of. How much of it is out there in transit right now?

If we presume that the average photon wavelength [0.6 um] has a rating of 3.31e-19 joules [re: http://pveducation.org/pvcdrom/properties-of-sunlight/energy-of-photon ]
and effectively multiply that by the volume of observable space and then by all the light sources

It isn't hard to realize that according to the currently held scientific beliefs, that there is an enormous amount of Light energy in transit. And that doesn't include non-visual EMR either.

A great article landed on my desk via email today:
The first premise is that people act in good faith, good will and have a genuine interest in what they are doing and strive for the better good.
obviously a failed first premise....

It sounds like someone else sees the same flaws in you that you have put on display here, in full Technicolor and surround sound.

Do you often mis-quote someone deliberately as you have done above... shame on you ! tutt tutt....
edit: Notes that my web site zeropointtheory.com has been hacked again since posting the above... [ almost routine now ] I wonder how much it is costing them?
The site is now on a number of different servers so it wont stay down too long.