The limitations of the scientific method and scientism

Yeah, you haven't been hiding what you believe, what the point of all this is - at least in the context of this thread so far. Beyond that you may have a more general anti-science "everything we know is wrong" stance, but that is outside the scope of the discussion so far, so I'm not sure.

[edit] Looking for background on your "photon challenge" finds a 3 year old thread where you say: So it certainly sounds like the point here is a rejection of pretty much all of physics since 1900, with particularly emphasis on cosmology.

On the other hand: ...it is also possible that you're just generally insane.

hee hee Do u think posting your own quote implying that is mine makes any difference to your reluctance to use the scientific method. ( re. challenger disaster
) and yeah and I know moderators can edit anyone's post any time they like.
 
Last edited:
hee hee Do u think posting your own quote implying that is mine makes any difference to your reluctance to use the scientific method.
Google is a beautiful thing. It lets people find things posted years ago. The thread/post where you said that is here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?102307-The-Photon-Challenge&p=2566327&viewfull=1#post2566327

The title of this thread is also a clue. "Scientism" is not a word used by scientists, it is a word used to attack the scientific method and scientists by people who don't accept the scientific method as being useful and wish to denigrate it by comparing science to religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
 
Google is a beautiful thing. It lets people find things posted years ago. The thread/post where you said that is here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?102307-The-Photon-Challenge&p=2566327&viewfull=1#post2566327

The title of this thread is also a clue. "Scientism" is not a word used by scientists, it is a word used to attack the scientific method and scientists by people who don't accept the scientific method as being useful and wish to denigrate it by comparing science to religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Used in context:
posted in 2010:
Because you asked if I knew of Richard Feynman and how that relates is that I have reason to believe that he knew of this issue insert: [the anomaly] before the Challenger disaster in 1986 in the earlier parts of 1985.
The Challenger disaster possibly being an outcome of this error in the use of 'c'. as was the reason for the CBR probe as well which appears to have been deployed in part to help discover the 98% missing energy/mass as mentioned earlier.
insert: the wiki article on the disaster included at the time reference to the CBR probe being destroyed in the accident. [It has since been deleted to either hide the fact that CBR was on board or that they had made a genuine mistake in the editorial]

I only mentioned this as an aside....
and
Not qualified? He had a proven track record of solving problems.
But he was no "flight engineer" nor did he have an intimate knowledge of the design as many other considerably more qualified professionals would have had.
One of Feynmans primary specialities was light quala...afterall...his primary interest woud have been associated with the CBR probe.
"Error in the use of 'c'"?
Nothing to do with the O ring and low temperature then?
If you can't see how the error in the use of 'c' can upset your equations and formulas and predictions I have nothing to say to you.
except:
Provide the evidence required and win the money....

yes and I still stand by it. [it's a good thread if any one is interested go have a look for yourselves just remember it is 3 years ago].. the ramifications of maintaining and error in the interpretation of 'c' are absolutely huge. I was at the time referring to th eissue of missing mass energy and how this error and the need for dark energy and mass was caused by the mis-interpretion of the value of 'c'. [that it transits a vacuum]
However Grumpy has straightened me out on one thing [re DM & DE] and that is the deductive observation of "something"



Yes the term Scientism is often used as a pejorative...due to the fact that scientists are making claims they can't support properly. Like photons transiting space. and "if you can't prove it , it don't exist"
In this thread I have been attacked from the outset by those whom due to their incredibly fearful and defensive behavior have behaved in a manner I would refer to as scientism.
This thread is testimony to the term, where by a call to authority is presumed to be adequate for good science.

You really don't want to deal with the photon transit issue do you?

You are so busy doing a hyper defensive hopscotch around the actual issue that me having egg on my face is nothing compared to what you are trying to do here in your response to an obvious and simple oversight.
And that is that apart from the "I can't think of any other way excuse" there is absolutely no evidence that a photon actually transits a vacuum
and yet you believe it in the same way religious folk believe... and you claim to be a scientist following the scientific method.
The term scientism could be used synonymously with "hypocricy"
Science also missed another equally simple observation and that is the attraction paradox discussed here.
and maybe you can explain how the hell did science miss such an incredibly vital factor in the way this universe functions.
 
Last edited:
The fact that there is "deductive evidence" to support what you guys refer to as dark mass and energy is a real break through for me...and I thank you all for making it happen...[even if it was unintended [chuckle]
just rereading the old photon challenge thread...and found this doozy! [talking about E=mc^2 and massless energy]
Because Albert was unaware of QED or quantum entanglements/tunnelling and due to the culture at the time he HAD to use the photon in the from he did. He had no choice as E=mc^2 was by far way to important to be stuck in some political bun fight over dimensionalism.
The solution was to use the photon in a "mechanistic" fashion even though it has to have zero mass and zero dimension yet, and here is the irony, a contra to E=mc^2 and a whole heap of other intuitive theories, the photon had to have massless energy!

so E=mc^2 and therefore all mass must =energy and all energy must = mass.....yes?

And here we have massless energy in the form of a photon. Gotta be wrong surely!!:m:
 
Last edited:
So then that's a yes that you reject pretty much all of physics advancement over the last 100+ years?
 
So then that's a yes that you reject pretty much all of physics advancement over the last 100+ years?
of course not!
Why do you need to feel that that is the case?
Explain why your paranoia has kicked in again...

why do you can claim pride in such an irrational way?
 
@Billvon and others,
according to the scientific method

Given what you believe you know, how much mass less energy do you think is in transit at any given t=0 universally?

Want to hazzard a guess?
 
At any given t=0 [duration] what is the value of d [distance]?
want to give an approximation to a fundamental axiomatic question?

That makes 2 questions not wanted to be answered by science... wonders why?
1]
Given what you believe you know, how much mass less energy do you think is in transit at any given t=0 universally?

Want to hazzard a guess?
2]
At any given t=0 [duration] what is the value of d [distance]?
want to give an approximation to a fundamental axiomatic question?
but+wait.jpg

View attachment 6144
 
So I was right? You don't accept any modern physics?
well. When you are prepared to take you capacity to apply critical thinking free of scientific religious dogma then I will take your question as being more than an attempt to bait and switch.
 
At any given t=0 [duration] what is the value of d [distance]?
Distance of what?

At any t=0 duration... doesn't matter what...what?

The two questions asked are directly related and help explain the conundrum/paradox generated by granting a photon a transit capacity
I am sure Russ that you are smart enough to work it out....
If t= zero duration at any t=0 then how big is the universe at any t=0 duration point on a time line.

How does that effect the answer to the first question?
How much energy is in transit at any given t=0 duration point on a time line universally?
 
Letting go of dogma is not easy! Whether that be religious indoctrination, science indoctrination, commercial indoctrination or any other imposed system of thought, belief etc. There is no need to believe in any of it. You only have to believe in yourself. That is all there is to it.

The rest of it is just "fluff and bubble" - just believe in yourself and your own capacity to think for yourself...and the world will get an opportunity to see just how smart you are.

worldleader.jpg

image : St Kilda Beach, Melboure Australia New Years Eve with words added. ss-2011
taken with a cheap Pentax SLR digital, with a crapped out zoom lens assembly.
 
They say that this local guy is nuts... not bad for someone who made millions..

[video=youtube;L3h6pyZi88w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3h6pyZi88w[/video]
 
QQ - I think I'm reading that you say that photons exist at source and at end, but not in between. Regardless of what science says, why not cut to the chase and say what YOU think happens ?
 
Back
Top