Debunking Physics and the Process of the Universe: An Essay by Stephen Mooney

[Stephen Mooney]

I would be most interested in responses to my essay titled Debunking Physics and Discovering the Process of the Universe. This essay can be found at paradigm.blogharbor.com

I suggest you read the whole essay before making a response.

Stephen Mooney

 

[anti_crank]

Another Brick in the Wall

Firstly, I want to congratulate you on your most amazing discovery. How hallowed this place now becomes as you have graced it with your wonderful and enlightened presence. I can only imagine what they are thinking in Stockholm, as the newest prodigy has made his appearance in this, a lowly and down-trodden internet sub-forum.

That having been said, I regretfully inform you that there's no bloody way that anyone here will be willing to listen to your endless prattle. While half of the people in this forum are complete crackpots who will not listen to your own theories unless you re-write them to match the results of the ever-wonderful thought experiments that they're obsessed with, the other half is too busy getting tired of the squishing sound of their head hitting a wall as they scream out in utter frustration caused by the inane, insane, and completely nonsensical ranting coming from the first half.

Just as you should never stand between a politician and a pot of money, you should never stand between a physicist and a means of measurement. It didn't take me long to realize that physicists are people who are obsessed with measurements and mathematics and who will sacrifice all logic for the sake of this obsession

This, taken from your wonderful essay, seems to overlook the simple fact that science itself is built on measurements and mathematics . Science is about interpretation, prediction, and explanation of such measurements using mathematical theory. Though assumptions makes asses of you and me (though about 99.9% you), my limited vocabulary fails to catch where the word "philosophy" fits into the word "science". (But of course, that's from my limited mental abilities. You can correct me on that one.) That having been said, any kind of theory or model that is proposed either lives gloriously or dies horrifically to the exactness of measurements, since they are what come from the real world and are the only kind of evidence that is available. Such data is painstakingly put through its paces, placed through equations and formulae in order to test the theory with the fact because only through that can we ever hope to support any kind of theory that we may have. Note the word "support". We never try to pass off our theories as "scientific fact". Only measurements are scientific fact, but you don't seem to like them...

All that said, upon reading your magnum opus, I discover to my curiosity and horror that there exist no equations anywhere within the site. Furthermore, I cannot see how your wonderful theories can be put into equations in the first place, though again, that could be due to the fact of the vast gulf of intellectual inferiority between us. This may just be a very simple oversight on your part. However, until such day that this is rectified, I must simply refer you to the philosophy section. Sadly, the people here (and I included) look so much to such equations and numbers, and I doubt that we could understand the most-likely brilliant arguments that you are making. When that day comes, though, I happily will happily rejoice, because you will hopefully have either written something actually meaningful and worthy of our time and effort, or will use such opportunity to show the horrible and demented errors of your ways. (Oh, and be sure to make at least one prediction correct to one part in ten billions.) Until then, I can refer you to many other geniuses who, just like you, have posted similarly brilliant theories on the Internet. You can argue with them for as long as you like, I'd love to see the kettle and the pot going at it. You can even see some of their posts in this forum, or check out the sites in the ads section that we all love to see.

And to prove that I did read the whole post and not simply skimmed through it, I present this point: it is completely laughable as much as it is mentally deficient to suggest that the processes that have evolved DNA to its current state can be explained by a principle as simple as you’re suggesting. To do so would insult those people who have put in so much of their time and effort into vast supercomputers with which such problems are tackled, (out of necessity), when instead they could’ve just spent some quality time with a Radio Shack calculator. Encapsulated, if things were that simple, do you really think no one else would’ve found it by now?

Succinctly, your essay is not science. I can provide you the link for the philosophy section so that you can try to speak to a more receptive audience. Until then, I leave you with this link:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

I realize it’s full of those numbers and equations you philosophically reject, but you might find it an amusing way to kill time, and possibly provide us with more humour than we can possibly imagine (Fox Network included). In closing, welcome to the real world, kid. Welcome to PF.

 

[Doc Al]

crank and anti_crank!

I would be most interested in responses to my essay titled Debunking Physics and Discovering the Process of the Universe. This essay can be found at paradigm.blogharbor.com

I suggest you read the whole essay before making a response.

Stephen Mooney

Please don't just spam our site with a link to yours. If you wish to discuss your "theory", you are welcome to do it here in TD only. (Do not post this stuff to other forums on this site.) But give us some content, not just a link.

Ordinarily I would just delete your post as spam. But anti_crank gave such a good response that I will keep it.

 

[geistkiesel]

Please don't just spam our site with a link to yours. If you wish to discuss your "theory", you are welcome to do it here in TD only. (Do not post this stuff to other forums on this site.) But give us some content, not just a link.

Ordinarily I would just delete your post as spam. But anti_crank gave such a good response that I will keep it.

I never thought my fingers would come to the :yuck: conclusion that , "I agree with Doc Al", but a first for everything I suppose.

 

[pallidin]

Wow! Would I love to hear more of anti crank. What a most remarkable set of comments. Great job.

 

[jcsd]

If only Einstien, Feynman or Hawkins were alive to witness this paradigm shift!

 

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Its A Start...

Stephen has made some quite valid points, which I would never expect (most of you) to even consider. He does make some excellent points about the “Holy Grail” experiments, which a lot of theory are based on. MOST of these experiments are wrong in their INTERPRETATION.

However, Stephen, a couple of points;

(1) Antimatter does exist. You can even purchase the stuff…;
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=cache:ND2Ol53lNvcJ:accelconf.web.cern.ch/AccelConf/e02/PAPERS/FRXGB003.pdf+purchasing+antihydrogen&hl=en

(2) You made a couple of “spelling” errors on Page 7 of your theory.
I refer;
“…As we all know, Albert Einstein come up with the idea of cured space to account for gravity. The Sun, for example, is said to cure the space around it due to its mass.”

The people who posted above, didn’t notice the errors (so they probably didn’t even read it)!

However, don’t be discouraged!
It really has got some great points (about the initial experiments and the interpretations thereof), and I encourage you to pursue it!

If you need any help or info, drop me a line…

 

[Chronos]

Fascinating. A snip of vitriol, a stitch of humor, and a link of baloney. I love this bar.