The New Science 5
An important takeaway from this series on science: You’re not helpless. You can make your own assessments of truth and falsehood and the validity of scientific concepts, which is a fantastic ability and advantage.
Dissension
When it comes to theories, all questions need to be asked, and answered, all alternatives need to be considered, with the caveat that, of course, we can’t tolerate incessant harassment. The problem with a liberal approach, of course, is that there are some “crackpots” (though most of the real crackpots are the accredited scientists), so science can’t be constantly side-tracked with jabbering nonsense.
However, all the faked branches of science need to be discarded, and displayed somewhere for constant mockery. That includes parts of subjects like astrophysics, atomic physics, rocket science (astronautics); much of paleontology and medical science, and much more. This is an almost trivial (though long-term) exercise. Anything like cosmology with its ridiculous assumptions and fake findings needs to be trashed. Anything that relies on, “here’s a black hole causing something...” “here’s dark matter influencing something...” is tripe. Rule of thumb is, if it can’t provide tangible benefit, into the ashcan it goes! Those preposterous fuzzy pictures that they claim “proves” something in space are another good example.
Disruption, and How to Cope with It.
Every bugger with an opinion will post his or her infinite blatherings, so you do need a test before you allow contamination of the idea stream, much the same as every con with a vested interest will try to disrupt new science from being fostered. (As an example, consider how hard a crazed Monsanto would press to prevent, say, a new, safer, herbicide from being released by a rival.)
But this seems to contradict the principle that everyone with an idea needs to have their ideas heard and vetted. Well, there needs to be a disruption avoidance mechanism. Obviously, one part of this mechanism is to be free with giving someone a chance, but any screw-ups mean the person is discredited, and will need to redeemed before his next round of suggestions. Another mechanism is to have a sponsor that has been convinced by the petitioner’s argument and is willing to back him.
This leads to our rule that, if an idea/theory is consistent with reality, it is valid, it doesn’t matter who proposes the theory. If you can muster some support for your theory, of course it should be considered. Now, remember there is a lot of opposition to even good new ideas. One key here is in watching the reaction of the critics, for as soon as they resort to logical fallacies, or hand-waving. “I can’t see how it explains...” “If that were true, we'd have to rewrite the textbooks...,” you know the new theory gains credibility.
Making It Fit
Look back at Rule 6 from the first article in this series, you don’t “look for something,” in particular, to confirm your theory. You do research related to the topic at hand, and publish the results of that research. You may be guided by your theory, but you need to spend as much or more time trying to discredit your theory as to support it. The painful truth about ignoring this rule, is you get endless preposterous theories piling up, with endless costly and unprofitable searches to “prove” that preposterousness.
Some of these theories, like String Theory, are touted as being “mathematically consistent,” but you can make anything mathematically consistent when you can make up your own rules.
One issue, is that the researchers can’t see the limitations of their own thought processes.
So, we’ve had to tolerate bad theories, like their Atomic Theory.
According to the popular press, this theory has been around for thousands of years. The ancient Greeks are mentioned as developing it.
The model, still used, is the “nuclear model” of the atom. Said to be based on an ancient Grecian idea of a nucleus with electrons orbiting it – like a planetary system, believe it or not. But I thought we were so much more advanced now, than “back then?” Weren’t ancient times very primitive? Why are we using an ancient model? Especially when it has proven unsatisfactory.
Someone’s guess, 2000 years ago, is the basis for our most fundamental current science?
But weren’t ancient times primitive? That’s what we’re told all the time.
(Now they say, “Oh, things like electrons in the nucleus are just probabilities of quantum states,” which is another way of saying, “We don’t know what the hell we’re talking about, and we don’t want you to know, either.”)
Only a superficial glance is needed to tell us that the atom, isn’t.
An atom, by definition, must be the most fundamental level of matter, but then they go and tell us that it is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons.
Shouldn’t that alone make it suspect?
So what is atomic theory?
Well, it is the concept that atoms are the fundamental building blocks of matter, and – well, wait – not quite fundamental: They are composed of fundamental parts that look like little balls orbiting a central ball – sort of like the way we visualize solar systems with planets orbiting the sun.
So the little balls called “electrons” orbit the heavy central ball made up of protons and neutrons, called “the nucleus.” Sometimes, as in the case of Hydrogen, the nucleus is just one proton.
There’s no reason for the protons to stick together, because there are intense forces at work that should repel them away from each other and break up the nucleus, but we’re told they do.
Also, there’s no reason for molecules to stick together under this system, because the electrons would have to come nearby or in contact, and there are intense repulsive forces between electrons, but we’re told they do.
Oh, they did make up an explanation, that these particles called gluons hold nuclei together, and that molecules stick together because the atomic nuclei share electrons in the “orbitals” of their “valence shells,” but there’s no sensible mechanism to explain that assertion.
As their model failed to meet experimental expectations, but they didn’t retract. Hullo, Tards.
Late scientist Richard Feynman told us that: “We are in some kind of trouble.” (Regarding advancement of theoretical science.)
There are many big-name scientists with complaints and critiques, they either are just ignored, or aren’t well publicized. Feynman, Paul Dirac, Peter Bergmann and others.
It is nothing short of ludicrous to find our elementary textbooks explaining the present-day “knowledge” of the structure of the atom in positive terms and in great detail, while at the same time Heisenberg and the Copenhagen school, who represent the “official” viewpoint of present-day theoretical physics, tell us that “the atom of modern physics can only be symbolized by a partial differential equation in an abstract multidimensional space.” The statements commonly found in the textbooks, such as this one: “There is so much physical and chemical evidence for the correctness of the modern atomic picture that there can be no reasonable doubt of its validity,” become nothing but absurdities when the “modern atomic picture” explained in detail by the textbook authors is flatly repudiated by the leading theorists in the physical field.
- Dewey B. Larson: An Introduction to the Reciprocal System (pg. 36)
Void for Vagueness
Q: How has the concept of electrons in orbitals around the atom changed over the years?
A.I.: The concept of electrons orbiting an atom has changed from defined planetary paths to probabilistic clouds, as scientific understanding of quantum mechanics evolved. Early models imagined electrons as particles following fixed, circular orbits, but modern theory describes electrons as having wave-particle duality and existing within a region of space called an orbital, where the electron is most likely to be found.
The classical planetary model (Fixed Electron Orbits)
The early 20th century saw the introduction of the first models for how electrons might be arranged around a nucleus.
The quantum mechanical model
In the 1920s, new discoveries revealed that the concept of fixed electron orbits was incorrect and led to a radical shift in atomic theory.
Modern understanding: Probabilistic orbitals
This shift from certain positions to probabilities led to the modern quantum mechanical model of the atom, which replaced “orbits” with “orbitals.”
And so they play their little word games.
Remember: electrons are strongly electronegative. Even Encyclopedia Britannica has stated that all matter should explosively, violently blow apart due to the repulsive field strength between the electrons in atoms. But that’s okay, because no one takes the Encyclopedia Britannica seriously, at least not when it is at odds with something “they” want to promote.
But all this complication, and gluons and shared orbitals, still wasn’t enough. And then the whole model went to hell when they found that those “nuclei” broke up into a whole range of smaller particles.
So the model had to be abandoned, but they never admitted it.
And then we got Quantum Theory, and quarks with charm, spin, and color. And that wasn’t all that, and so String Theory came along. So instead of little balls, everything is supposed to be little strings.
They stopped playing with their balls and now are pulling their strings.
We’re not making this up.
It may sound like scientists are guilty of self-mockery, because the concept is as ridiculous as it sounds. It is the equivalent of saying that cars are made up of little car parts, or made up of little cars.
Now here’s the salient point: It would be fine if the fundamental were little balls or little strings, or what have you. But you’d instantly know the truth of the matter, if the model solved, or helped solve, some unsolved problems in physics! The proof is in the pudding, they say, and that’s your confirmation wrapped up in a bow.
But there’s something much more deep here. To say, for example, that matter is little balls or little strings doesn’t integrate any known facts into some new, valuable synthesis. It’s a dime store model, with no value. Note that, with a new synthesis, the old model that was inhibiting the discovery gets implicitly cast by the wayside, sometimes called a “Eureka! Moment.”
For example, the chemist Kekulé literally dreamed up the idea of the benzene ring. Scientists assumed that carbon molecules assumed a linear (or branching) form: C-C-C... However, in his dream, Kekulé pictured a row of carbon atoms dancing and twisting like a snake until the head joined the tail. He awoke and worked out that benzene must have a ring structure. This seemingly trivial advance was revolutionary, and note how it immediately leads to a discarding of the idea that all carbon compounds simply assume single or multiple branching structures. New information was integrated to make a new, better system of understanding. Then experiment (X-ray diffraction) later showed that benzene indeed did form a perfect flat hexagonal structure.
We’ve got to dwell for a moment on Kekulé’s insight: It laid bare the unquestioned assumption that all carbon compounds were arranged in a linear pattern. That was the unrecognized “theory” about carbon. Again, the old theory was wrong, but they weren’t even aware that they were adhering to this theory. A similar situation to looking for your pen while you’re holding it in your hand, a common “failing” of mankind. It’s crucial to know and understand this concept when doing any scientific or creative work. It’s one of the top priorities to help identify and address your bad theories, assumed or otherwise, and we should note that it is a monster principle in the new science.
Now, regarding String Theory, if everything were *groan* little strings, experiment would tend to confirm it and some existing scientific puzzle or puzzles would instantly be resolved. So you see, just coming up with some lamebrain “theory” (though string theory isn’t a real theory) doesn’t mean anything. Which leads to a new principle: A new theory is only tenable if it cleanly resolves some existing scientific puzzle, in a new way, that forces us to discard some old idea that is now consequently untrue. And another principle, that we could have suggested when we discussed Einstein’s space-warps: If a new theory suggests some radical modifications to our conception of physics or the universe, there must have been some unexplained observational or experimental evidence to back it up, in the past.
Muddling around trying to select a smallest “thing” at the root of all physical existence means they’ve ass-u-me-d that there is such a “thing,” and so poisoned their own search before it even got started. The real question is, perhaps, “What, if anything, is at the root of all physical existence?” Or, “What is more fundamental than the smallest things we can see, control or interact with?”
It has been experimentally observed that matter and energy are related and even somewhat interchangeable. Why would you then try to decide what “little object” is fundamental? It flies in the face of reason.
Because no matter what “little object” you pick, it wouldn’t explain energy being part of the mix.
A sensible researcher would look for something fundamental to create a good working model of a fundamental building block.
Oh, some brilliant real scientists have observed and commented to this effect, but to no avail – the bulk of research continues on dead-end paths like String Theory. We can state here, unequivocally, that “String Theory” is false, stupid and a waste of time and money, and even if they someday come out and say it is true, or proven, they will be lying. (Note that the theory suggests there must be 10 dimensions, with no experimental evidence that ever suggested the existence of 10 (or any extra) dimensions.) That is a huge failing, and we can also unequivocally state that String Theory is an embarrassment. However, things like that are very necessary to the need to keep directing science down worthless paths, to prevent real discovery, and sidetrack people who might otherwise do useful work. All while tapping into the bounty deep-sucked from the taxpayer.
Very Important
Ding-dongs don’t realize, if there’s an objection to a theory, part of your theory itself is to anticipate and explain the error in the objection. That’s when a theory is useful. (If someone wrongly suggests an error, that still helps expose errors in the teaching of the theory, pointing up where people might get confused, revealing sticking points where people have trouble digesting it. If someone doesn’t welcome that, as a theorist, it’s an indication that person is a deceiver.)
Despicable Scum
So, criticism, wrong or right, often helps. It helps the person with a theory, motivating the theorist to refine his explanation. There’s no need to inject any emotion into the response to criticism. Mind-gimps who go nuts when someone cites anomalies in the moon landings, Relativity theory, etc., are scum.
Anticipating objections, should all done ahead of time, instead of putting the onus on people who have to sort through a new theory (which may be just a bunch of jabbering nonsense), and then tolerate the insolence of so-called scientists saying they “don’t understand,” or “aren’t specialists,” when they raise an objection.
Here’s a good example: Aulis online (at aulis.com) has a report showing by mathematical analysis that the moon photos were taken on a stage or set. Naysayers have all sorts of arguments against the (PhD, by the way) who presented the work, like, “Oh, there’s pinhole and barrel distortion in the lens that took the pictures on the moon! That guy’s an idiot and doesn’t have a real degree, or if he does, the university wasn’t very good and his degree isn’t in moon pictures!”
Well, ignoring the rather conspicuous question of why NASA sent up warped lenses, and the fact that the report compensated for distortion, the onus was on NASA to list the specific distortion of the lens, publicly, ahead of time, to anticipate just this sort of thing. Its responsibility, not someone else’s.
Also note, a theory can be mathematically correct, but conceptually wrong.
They say that string theory requires 10 dimensions to be mathematically consistent, as though that is a point in its favor. (Again, absolutely no evidence of such dimensionality.) We have to step back and recognize here, the capacity for humans to complicate things beyond reason. Or obsess on things beyond reason. (Beanie Babies, Cabbage Patch Kids, tulip bulb hysteria, Bitcoin hysteria, etc.) There’s no governor or regulator, and things can get out of hand without guidance.
Once you’re working in a realm of complication (and often, needless complication), there’s always going to be a point of failure. If you’re indoctrinated in a bunch of false assumptions and conclusions, and you have to juggle those around while trying to do innovative research, well, of course you’ll be spinning your wheels. One of the biggest failures of most scientists is the unwillingness or inability to go back and review initial suppositions and theories for truth or falsehood.
Peer Review
Absurdities
In Cuckoo World, as we discussed, scientific misconduct is the major cause for withdrawal of scientific papers (studies), with 10,000 papers retracted in 2023. Those are just the ones found to be wrong, there will be many more that go undetected.
But not a ripple seems to ensue when it should be clear that scientists are incompetent to police themselves, what with their “peer reviews” and such. (And isn’t it ridiculous to fathom how this ever arose? Any time you have a group without external safeguards there will be shenanigans.)
Repeating our rule 7, from The New Science 1: Peer review, as it is structured today, is idiotic. Public review is considerably better. Without “peers” to suppress good science and reinforce nonsense, the whole house of cards of phony science would have collapsed long ago. All peer review in its current form does is uphold the status quo. It is an often unconscious sanction of the one of the worst of traits, confirmation bias. Peer review might be okay, only if we could find ourselves some better peers.
Comments