Notices
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Achallenge to established phyisics on the mechanics of light

  1. #1 Achallenge to established phyisics on the mechanics of light 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2
    I wish to propose to all scientists and physicists around the world a completely different way of looking at the nature and mechanics of light.
    Unfortunately it is not possible to put a full explanation on a forum thread such as this as the explanation requires a significant number of line diagram drawings to illustrate the mechanics and effects, so I respectfully ask you to take the time to visit my website at http://www.scientific-revolution.com and scroll straight down to the section on the workings of light, then come back to this forum and discuss it between yourselves.

    Those scientists and physicists who have what it takes to join me in this new and different way of thinking, will be the scientist who will go forward to a new world order in science, whereas those who fight against it with old ideas, disciplines and ridicule will simply be left behind to wallow in their own outdated dogmas and fantasies.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by pfrobson View Post
    I wish to propose to all scientists and physicists around the world a completely different way of looking at the nature and mechanics of light.
    Unfortunately it is not possible to put a full explanation on a forum thread such as this as the explanation requires a significant number of line diagram drawings to illustrate the mechanics and effects, so I respectfully ask you to take the time to visit my website at http://www.scientific-revolution.com and scroll straight down to the section on the workings of light, then come back to this forum and discuss it between yourselves.

    Those scientists and physicists who have what it takes to join me in this new and different way of thinking, will be the scientist who will go forward to a new world order in science, whereas those who fight against it with old ideas, disciplines and ridicule will simply be left behind to wallow in their own outdated dogmas and fantasies.
    I looked at your site and I can see that you spent quite a bit of time on it. Unfortuantely it is just a pseudo-science and hand waving expaination for things that do not need to be explained because they are very well understood. I recommend that you go to nonscience woo-woo sites to propose your ideas and they will probably be well recieved. Good luck


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Here is a sample of what's on the web site, just to save anyone else the trouble of looking.

    If, as it is said, sound-waves cause the eardrum to vibrate and each different sound instrument or mechanism causes sound-waves to travel through the air at different wave frequencies and different wave lengths, considering that an ear drum or the complete ear mechanism could not possibly under any practical circumstances vibrate at more than one single vibration rate at any one time, how could it ever be possible for anyone to hear all of the different instruments playing in the orchestra all at the same time? Surely if the sound-wave theory were true, no-one would ever be able to hear any more than one single sound at any one time with either ear.

    There are no sound-waves. What there is instead is real actual sound which fills a room or a space by the natural mechanics of energy radiation and the splitting or dividing of sound radiation by the fabric of the atmosphere plus reflection and deflection off material objects just the same in mechanical principle to that of light radiation and heat radiation together with a process of energy conduction relative to electrical energy. With all of this in mind, it has to be seen that there is simply no need whatsoever to apply the wave theory to the transmission of sound.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    You didn't calculate anything on the entire site...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Goodness me. I think I'll move this to pseudo.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Here is a sample of what's on the web site, just to save anyone else the trouble of looking.
    Wow. That is truly pathetic.

    I love this bit:
    There are no sound-waves. What there is instead is real actual sound which fills a room or a space by the natural mechanics of energy radiation and the splitting or dividing of sound radiation by the fabric of the atmosphere plus reflection and deflection off material objects just the same in mechanical principle to that of light radiation and heat radiation together with a process of energy conduction relative to electrical energy.
    I think the technical term for that is "jibber jabber" or "word salad".
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    I think the technical term for that is "jibber jabber" or "word salad".
    I'm partial to the word "gibberish" myself.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by pfrobson View Post
    I wish to propose to all scientists and physicists around the world a completely different way of looking at the nature and mechanics of light.
    Unfortunately it is not possible to put a full explanation on a forum thread such as this as the explanation requires a significant number of line diagram drawings to illustrate the mechanics and effects, so I respectfully ask you to take the time to visit my website at http://www.scientific-revolution.com and scroll straight down to the section on the workings of light, then come back to this forum and discuss it between yourselves.

    Those scientists and physicists who have what it takes to join me in this new and different way of thinking, will be the scientist who will go forward to a new world order in science, whereas those who fight against it with old ideas, disciplines and ridicule will simply be left behind to wallow in their own outdated dogmas and fantasies.

    If we asked enough questions about what you're trying to relate, are you prepared for that? You "will not be offended", right?

    Ok. If you know we know how offensive the questions can be, let us continue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    I have tried very hard over a number of years to put my findings to the scientific and higher education establishments, but because I have had no formal university education, no one from any part of these establishments nor the media will look at them
    No. That is not the reason. It is because your "findings" consist of a series of unsubstantiated, unsupported assertions some of which plainly contradict reality. You provide no evidence other than your personal incredulity. You have no mathematical models so your "findings" are of no practical use.

    these deep flaws in scientific thinking are in reality costing the world-wide tax payer vast amounts of money and resources which are continually being wasted on what are in fact old out-dated baseless theories
    And yet, those "out-dated baseless theories" provide you with the computer to write this nonsense and the Internet which allows you to distribute your nonsense to gullible punters. As well as countless other examples of practical technology built on the scientific theories you so despise.

    A second reason why scientists will not look at my discoveries is because they flatly refuse to consider the possibility that their own theories could in any way be wrong
    You are absolutely wrong. Scientists are trained to look for ways in which their ideas could be wrong. That is the main thing that science does: test theories to destruction.

    As Peter Watts puts it:
    'This is how it works: you put your model out there in the coliseum, and a bunch of guys in white coats kick the shit out of it. If it's still alive when the dust clears, your brainchild receives conditional acceptance. It does not get rejected. This time.'

    No one is even going to bother poking your ideas with their toe; it has zero value. The phrase "not even wrong" comes to mind.

    Skipping many tedious paragraphs of inane drivel we get to this gem:
    he Doppler effect of sound-waves then light-waves which is what the expanding universe theory is built upon has no base of any kind in practical fact
    The Doppler effect doesn't exist? I suggest you go outside and listen to the traffic mate.

    As for the expanding universe, once again you just demonstrate your profound ignorance. Firstly, cosmological red-shift is not caused by the Doppler effect and, secondly, this isn't what the theory is built on (it is based on general relativity and red-shift is just one of the very many lines of supporting evidence).

    It is said that light has energy whereas heat has not
    I don't know where that is said. I doubt it is said anywhere outside your febrile imagination. Of course heat is a form of energy. Have you been reading those 18th century texts about "caloric"?

    The universe is not held together by Newton's theory of gravity ... but remains in orbital positioning through the natural mechanics of Galileo
    You do realise that Galileo said that objects will continue in a state of uniform motion unless acted on by a force. That means they would continue in a straight line, not an orbit. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

    plate-tectonics is absolutely physically impossible
    That's it? The sum total of your argument is "physically impossible"? No evidence? No argument against the physical evidence demonstrating tectonics takes place? You do know we can actually measure the movement of continental plates (using GPS - brought to you by those same "out-dated baseless theories")?

    You just expect us to believe you, some idiot on the Internet, "because you say so". I'll stick with the overwhelming evidence, thanks. Arrogant as well as stupid, then.

    Human beings did not evolve from apes nor did they all originate in Africa which would again have been phyisically impossible
    Again with the "physically impossible"? Sheesh.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 26th, 2011, 11:21 PM
  2. Rice mechanics
    By Leszek Luchowski in forum Physics
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: September 20th, 2010, 04:50 AM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: October 2nd, 2009, 01:58 AM
  4. Mechanics help please?
    By Agneisse in forum Physics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 9th, 2009, 09:16 PM
  5. are you good in mechanics?
    By zbekblent in forum Physics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 19th, 2008, 02:13 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •