Anonymous Participant

Are you aware of the psychological phenomenon known as projection? From my perspective it is easy to see what you're about, just looking at the photograph you use for an avatar reveals a hell of a lot more about you than you know. "There is only one race, the human race"....well, there goes the entire discipline of anthropology shot to hell, might as well burn the books and declare us all the same. Emotion has no place in science, superstition and faith based ideas that defy logic and rational thought belong elsewhere. You're displacing logic with irrational emotions, you know damn well I'm right about the races and you come onto a thread to attack me simply because I made you face it. You have no idea about what is being discussed here because you're not a person with a scientific mindset. Is it meaningful to you? Probably not. Does that mean it's not the most meaningful thing you've ever read? It could be and you'd never realize it. You are incapable of judging either way because it takes true intelligence to perceive true intelligence.

Right back atcha! Given our "exchange" last night I'd say you're the last person who should be citing the Dunning Kruger effect. Intelligence is self evident, it's not something that can be faked. The moment you claimed racists were knuckle dragging subhuman, you defined The Dunning Kruger effect. You don't even know what a racist is, and you deny the races are unequal. Why would we have to describe a race if it was equal to another? Anyway, keep your off topic insults off my threads. if you have an intelligent contribution let's hear it. I'd love to see you try to disqualify anything I've said.

Report it all you like, it is a simple statement of fact. If you can't understand what I wrote and when you said it was contradictory it definitely means you can't, you're not smart enough to discuss physics.I wrote in in a way that a small child could easily understand intentionally so that everyone would understand it exactly the same way. It's not an opinion or an insult, it's simply an observation of an obvious fact.

I would actually appreciate an intelligent attempt to disqualify the material I have thus far presented. I see no useful purpose in off topic side tracking or derailment of the subject. Paradoxes involving light should be well understood by everyone here. Whether you choose to define them as such is really not relevant to the conversation. If you can read look at the responses already made, the two paradoxes I refer to have been described already. I am beginning to see a pattern on this forum, one that I have seen before. 11 atheistic pseudo-scientists gave me a negative rating on this forum for no other reason than I insulted their religion by suggesting it has no place in science and proving it never has before. I don't feel I have to show such people any more respect than they have myself.

If anyone here has any questions about what has been said thus far or can or will attempt to disqualify anything I have thus far , let him contribute. I cannot infuse intelligence into an unintelligent mind. If you pretend to understand quantum physics and theoretical physics and cannot understand what has been said thus far, you need to find a another hobby. I am attempting to describe the nature of light within the context of conventional physics. What paradoxes do you think I am referring to? Logically?

I am not here to hold your hand, I suggest you learn to do simple websearches on your own ( I removed the last part of my comment because it didn't actually apply to you). A paradox is a statement that, despite apparently sound reasoning from true premises, leads to an apparently self-contradictory or logically unacceptable conclusion. A paradox involves contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time.

Bohr described another paradox involving light as well , Bohr referred to the fact that a given kind of particle like light will appear as a wave or a particle in different situations or observations as the duality paradox, which is also well know to all students of physics .

Perhaps you should spend your time on a minecraft forum. What is contradictory about it? The fact that you can't understand such a simple concept that a kid on a bicycle riding to school can reveals your lack of raw intelligence. LMAO!

It is accepted as fact and confirmed by innumerable experiments that protons, electrons and neutrons exist, and these particles are the components that make up the vast majority of the mass of the matter around us. Though electrons have a very small mass, the energy stored in their motion is significant, because their apparent velocities in the 'electron cloud" around the nucleus are substantially high. Each orbital shell of an atom possesses what is called an "energy level", this energy level being effected by the electrons distance from the nucleus and its velocity. So electrons in a "low energy shell" possess less energy than one in a "high energy shell". In conventional electromagnetic theory, electromagnetic radiation is emitted in the form of a mass-less particle known as a photon when an electron "drops" from a higher energy to a lower energy, This photon is represented in conventional theory as not only a mass-less particle, but one that possesses and can transmit kinetic energy in the form of a wave. There are several conflicts with conventional physics in this theory. Up until this point kinetic energy had been described as mass in motion. represented by the simple formula: K.E. = 1/2 m v2 As we all know, the theoretical (and that's what it is) photon defies this well proven formula by possessing Kinetic energy, while at the same time it has momentum and inertia (it resists a change in it's direction) but no physical mass. According to this new hypothesis, the photon as described by mainstream physics does not exist. The fact that this photon does not exist. is evident it has never been isolated or described or defined in a logical fashion that is in agreement with conventional and proved physics. This paradoxical definition of a photon itself is dependent on a dubious theory, and this new hypothesis doesn't rely on any such unproved theory for its conclusions.. What Is Electromagnetic radiation? In conventional theory, electromagnetic radiation is defined as mass-less particles emitted from atoms when electrons move from a higher to a lower energy level. ::This energy is radiated moving in waveforms of variant frequencies, the shorter wavelengths possessing the higher energy levels.:: Make a mental note for future reference that the highlighted sentence above is NOT a theory, but proved, undisputed fact . The preceding paragraph, however, is unproven, though all of the empirical evidence does support it, and none of the observations disqualify it.. The wave form frequency and energy level relationship are important to this new theory, as will become apparent. With electromagnetic energy, the higher the frequency, the more energy a given flux density of electromagnetic radiation can transmit through space(and matter). In conventional ways, we can observe that other physical manifestations of waveforms do not obey the same energy/frequency relationship as electromagnetic waves, with energy transmitted by a specific wave dependent mainly on amplitude , and this is simply because the ordinary wave is just energy traveling through a medium, like a wave on the ocean or sound waves moving through matter. . With light the matter follows the waveform moving with it. Electromagnetic energy is best and moist succinctly defined as oscillating , coupled electric and magnetic fields that travel freely through space at the speed of light. Notice the word electric and the word magnetic, the accepted (coupled)components of electromagnetic waves. Other forms of waves cannot pass through open space in the absence of a medium to propagate itself or in the absence of matter,, only the electromagnetic wave is capable of this phenomenon Quantifying the Energy Of Electron Orbits Though is seems a giant leap of faith at this point to consider the electron as a particle moving in a waveform just to explain a stable orbit, observations do bear out this likelihood,as shall later be explained. Integer( wavelength )=2pi(radius of orbit) Energy levels Explained When a mass is moving around a given point (like for instance an electron around the nucleus of an atom) , the velocity of a given mass is directly related to the force applied outward (centripetal acceleration) , and therefor the force required to hold it in place. It is necessary that a force exists because the direction of motion is constantly changing. This force being released is the energy electromagnetic energy. Note that none of what I have stated thus far does not in any way conflict with Bohrs model of the atom. The wavelength of the electromagnetic wave is related to the velocity of the associated particle, in this hypothesis it's not some mysterious "particle" with superstitious, illogical and paradoxical qualities, it is simple an electron. This force is the " force of attraction" between the electron and proton, in turn depends on the radius of the orbit. In this way it could be desceibed as an electro-mechanical model. The "orbitals" are energy levels and they occur in steps. Let us assign the variable Y to given orbital(integer) energy of "Y" orbital= -13.6/(Y)(Y) electron volts 1 electron Volt = 1.6 x 10-19 Joules This represents the amount of energy gained when an electron is accelerated by 1 electron volt. This includes the electrical and kinetic energy of the electron. Higher energy states have larger values of Y. [cont] I am referring of course to the paradox of special relativity with regard to light, the contention that the velocity of light is the same in any inertial frame creates an obvious paradox that all 1st year students of high school physics are familiar with. I will not entertain ignorant provocation. if you have something meaningful to contribute I will be glad to address it.

I wasn't sure whether to post this here or in "speculations" , but I chose this section because what I am going to attempt to do is explain the Duality properties of light within the context of classic Newtonian Physics. While this new idea is certainly not well known to mainstream science, it does meet the criteria for a legitimate hypothesis , and it is not mere speculation because this new idea comes much closer to explaining the properties of light without defying known conventional physics, creating contradictions in logic or paradoxes, I.E. kinetic energy without mass. As most of us here know I would hope, Kinetic energy is a property of a mass in relative motion to a given point or as we often refer to it, frame of reference. Kinetic energy varies within different frames of reference. Light is no different and I will explain why, the Doppler shift does not apparently cause a change in the velocity of light, only it's wavelength. So a light source emitting a given frequency and moving away from us has a lower frequency that the same light source has moving towards us, the kinetic energy is higher in the latter case because the frequency is. In this way light obeys the classic Newtonian qualities of kinetic energy, though the light is not moving faster or slower linearly. The qualities of light have always been rather mysterious, as we know it has the qualities of both a particle and a waveform. The photon is the accepted particle component of light, it is defined basically as a mass-less particle that has the ability to transmit kinetic energy across distance. Higher frequencies have higher energies. The photon can't have mass because as we know the "speed limit" for mass in any frame of reference is "<C". What I am going to attempt to prove is the most logical conclusion, light appears to be a particle with actual mass propagating in a waveform because that is exactly what it is. As you shall see, if a particle is moving at "light speed" and following a high frequency wave pattern it is actually moving much faster than "C". Consider the following thought experiment: Two cars leave Los Angeles for New York City. One takes the "interstate" which has few curves or deviation in direction and the other takes "the back roads", which have many more curves and deviations in direction. Both arrive in New York City at precisely the same time and travel the same linear distance between two points on the Earths surface in exactly the same amount of time, but one of the cars must move faster and thus have a higher kinetic energy to reach it's destination at the same time. When and if this is acknowledged and understood I will begin to explain what light is and why it exhibits the properties of both a wave and a particle, and why shorter wavelengths/higher frequencies possess greater energy levels. I will accept any rational critique of what I have written thus far, but I remind you a hypothesis is not disqualified simply because it disagrees with a theory. What I intend to do is present a better explanation for what light actually is that explains all of the properties it exhibits.. [cont shortly]

No doubt there are all sorts of crackpots that get their jollies from exploiting the gullibility of the dumbed down sheep, but let me ask everyone here this, if you DID figure out a way to make an engine that required nothing that could be marketed to propel an automobile or you did find a way to give the world free energy, what do you think would happen? Do you really believe it wouldn't be suppressed? If you do, you're naive about the way the world is governed. Think about this, the modern automobile is essentially identical in concept and design to Ford's model T. It has four wheels, a steering wheel, a suspension, doors that swing open to allow passengers to get in and an internal combustion engine that burns fossil fuels. Electric cars also existed in that time. The point is other than the modern electronics and refinements, they're the same. Why do you suppose that is? Why do you suppose a model T got about 25 miles to the gallon and a modern SUV gets about the same? The fact is we live in a world controlled by those that have , and they're didn't acquire that power to impose their will and they didn't obtain their wealth by being honest , they did it by being psychopathic and ruthless. Science is suppressed, it always has been by the power elite of the time. Nicola Tesla was not a crackpot, but every one of you here would have labeled him that if you'd been alive in his time. Why not? Why do you seem so obsessed with control? A good moderator of a forum knows the definition of the word. Look it up

And you are an atheist, correct? Defending your religious belief? Atheism IS a religious belief. And belief concerning the existence or non existence of a god or sentient being is a religious belief, a negative is a belief. AN atheist could say everything is evidence of a lack of intelligent design, but he would be blowing smoke out his ass The conservation of energy has nothign to do with this debate. We know energy and matter are interchangeable though experiment and observation. However, entropy does disprove the big bang succinctly. Intelligent design is one of the most falsifiable theories in science. All you have to do is prove one natural phenomenon or thing in the universe lacks an intelligent design or indicated a lack thereof.. GOOD LUCK

Your simplistic , abrasive and confrontational comment betrays your lack of understanding, giving the creator a gender is obviously irrational. The creator is everything and everything is the creator and we are integral to it. The main observation in science that proves this is the repeating phenomenon that our own conscious observation of energy manifests into matter, into physical reality. In a way we are creating our own reality and the common collective conscious is how it is projected upon all of us.. Quote: Albert Einstein "Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." It seems your god believed the same thing I do, exactly. You got some 'plaining to do, Lucy

I HAVE presented my evidence for intelligent design and stated it quite succinctly what it is, and you know it. The evidence of intelligent design is every single observation we make in science, and that the scientific process itself is predicated upon the belief that there is an intelligent arrangement that can be decoded by intelligence. I am putting the ball in your court, I have said my evidence is everything about the universe, and yours is obviously nothing and you know it. I have given you ample room and method to falsify my evidence of EVERYTHING , every single observation yet made in science. Now if you can't find a single observation that falsifies it, you have to face the fact that you're wrong, and you are. You are desperate to censor my intelligent contribution here because you are intellectually incapable of defeating me in scientific debate or on the evidence itself. If you want a specific evidence how about the fact that the earth supporting life is dependent upon a very large number of precise conditions and complex interactions, any of which a slight variation would cause life to cease to exist, or the properties of water, the distance of the moon from the earth being precise enough to cause total solar eclipses where the sun and moon appear identical in size, the fact that when the Sun experiences a solar flare the strength of the geomagnetic field increases in direct response, the fact that so many forms, numerical sequences and relationships are repeated in nearly everything and the DNA code being indistinguishable from intelligence. Come on man, you know I've given my evidence, you're a religious fanatic supporting a faith based idea having an identical reaction to any other religious fanatic when your beliefs are challenged!. WRONG! Organized religion does operate on that assumption but I believe we are just an integral part of it and we project our conscious onto energy to create what we perceive as our reality. There are numerous experiments being conducted that prove the physical world around us does not exist until we consciously observe it, that indicates we are integral to it. The belief in intelligent design of the universe has nothign whatsoever to do with religion other than religious people believe the universe is an intelligent design, it has to do with science.You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater I do not believe in a God as you obviously perceive it, some old dude with flaming radioactive eyes and huge flowing grey beard sitting on a huge golden throne in the sky metering out suffering to anyone who opposes his will, I believe in something very different, that the universe, the self and the creator are integral to each other. It is critical to understand that science is not a religion nor is it a pulpit for atheism, but it si obvious this forum is. It is equally obvious that academia has been taken over and controlled by atheists. Yesterday evening I posted a comment from Albert Einstein which said essentially the same thing I have here about intelligent design and it was removed very swiftly by the above atheist moderator, for obvious reasons. He might be the god of Aesthetic pseudoscience but he was a deist and he believed in a creator and intelligent design himself.

Proving it is an intelligent design proves it was designed.If all of the empirical evidence indicates it is, then as scientists we are require to accept that it is. This is exactly why every single notable scientist in history that predates Einstein believed in an intelligent design and sentient superior designer. Even Einstein believed this, ironically. It's a logical conclusion that only a hard headed moron (like a religious fanatic) would deny

By coherent you mean in agreement with yourself, and your belief system of pseudo scientific atheism. See the problem here?

Again, I challenge anyone here to provide a single piece of empirical proof or evidence that the universe is not an intelligent design.

And yet that is exactly what every one of you who is seeking to silence this opposing viewpoint is doing. Promoting the idea of intelligent design is not supporting a religious belief system, it is supporting all of the observable empirical data and information., but imposing atheistic ideas on science is indeed preaching a belief system.

Read the first line in the post you replied to. I can't help but notice the sig at the bottom of your post. Talk about ego! Anyone who disagrees with you is subhuman. rac·ist ˈrāsəst/ noun noun: racist; plural noun: racists 1. a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, OR who believes that a particular race is superior to another. Comparing present day sub Saharan Africa to Rome 2000 years ago or a graph of the bell curve illustrating and comparing intelligence of whites , blacks, and Asians should illustrate to you well that the races are not equal and some are inferior to others in a variety of areas. To impose impossible equality degrades and undermines society. It might not be politically correct but it is factually correct and it doesn't have to mean you dislike or are prejudice against another race. I think the races (and us as individuals) have strengths and weaknesses that invariably make us unequal and yes, superior or inferior to other races.

Ego has no real place in science, neither does belief. Real science does not seek to silence opposing viewpoints by disqualifying them as non mainstream. You could be right if your hypothesis holds water, until someone disproves or falsifies it it is valid as such. I don't agree with your description and basic premise and I can prove to myself and most educated and moderately intelligent individuals that they are incorrect using only facts. The one thing all exceptionally intelligent individuals understand is what we actually know to be true and what we think is true or are accepted as true by even "the mainstream" are not necessarily the same thing , that is referred to as the bandwagon fallacy. One of the things I cannot help but notice is that it is those of mediocre intelligence who possess disproportionate large egos who are always sure they are right in their own minds, while those of superior intelligence are open to new ideas and never quite convinced of anything if there are reasonable doubts or contradictions. It is fine to be able to repeat what one has learned , but being able to scrutinize it independently defines true intelligence. Those who possess superior intelligence invite open debate because they shine in such conditions, and those of limited understanding seek to limit intellectual expression to what they think they know, ie what they have been taught. What if you have been intentionally mislead? What proof do YOU have that "quarks" exist or light is a mass-less particle with kinetic energy and there is a "speed limit" associated with mass in any frame of reference?. NONE. None at all. You are relying on the information supplied by others to form your belief system, and that is what it is. It takes big money to run these kids of experiments and access to the process is always limited, there is no really independent confirmation as required by science, science becomes an agenda of those who have he power and influence to steer it where they want it to lead, which in the case of post 19th century science is the singular belief that the universe is a random happenstance and there is no meaning to our existence. I came to this forum with the intent of introducing the concept of intelligent design, because in my understanding I cannot explain the universe in any other way or the fact that the scientific process works to describe it. Just the fact that relativity "works" to make predictions through complex mathematical interaction supports this idea. I have much to contribute to those who have an open mind and who are not indoctrinated. The best explanations are always those that everyone understands the same way, and as can be ascertained by reading this forum it is easy to see all of you believe you know what you're talking about and understand the concepts involved, but doesn't it make you wonder why there is so little consensus and so much dissension? Like maybe that was the intent? Just a bunch of egos clashing. The important thing to understand about the theory of relativity is that it is a completely mathematical construct that incorporated observations into its foundation. It cannot be wrong within that context because it was created as a mathematical expression of the observations, that is it can be used to predict and quantify effects but this does not mean it's basic premise is correct. In my own opinion if you are reluctant to consider anything that conflicts with your own beliefs and seek to silence those with conflicting viewpoints or information to share, you have no place in the intellectual discipline that is science.

The very best way to prove anything is the same as something else is to concentrate on trying to show how they're not. If you come to the conclusion it is impossible to isolate a conclusive fundamental difference in observation and fundamental causes, then you're own your way to proving they are the same. With gravity and electrostatic forces the only real difference is electrostatic forces can manifest themselves as observable phenomenon with much smaller masses because differences in electrical potential are much greater where electrostatic forces are involved and observed because they involve electrically charged matter, ie an excess of electrons. We think of gravity as existing between one large mass like a planet and smaller masses, but we know the force exists between ALL masses, it's just such a tiny force it is difficult to observe or measure. Clumping together of uncharged particles observed in spacecraft is an example. All mass contains electrons, protons and neutrons, and we know a force of attraction exists between electrons and protons as it does between both electrons and protons and neutrons. While it would appear the overall forces of attraction should cancel between uncharged masses because similar charges repel, the fact that neutrons have a difference in potential with both electrons an protons is probably the actual force behind gravity and it is electrostatic in nature, as are nuclear forces.. On a much smaller scale, an atom exhibits the same phenomenon , as protons and neutrons bond in the nucleus and electrons are held in place by the difference in electrical potential between themselves and both protons and neutrons. There is no experiment which can prove otherwise. It is you who are refusing to support your claim. My claim is you cannot come up with an experimental proof of your assertions that I cannot debunk. Get to it. Provide what you believe is an experimental proof I cannot debunk and I will. I'm not going for the shotgun effect here, there are just too many experiments that have been used as alleged proof of Einstein relativity to debunk them all and they all have Newtonian explanations

Why don't you? Think of the best experimental proof you can that seems the most supportive and conclusive

The same thing appears different in different situations and interactions. Very simple really. What do all of the main forces have in common? Let's compare nuclear and electrostatic forces, for instance. How are they different? Scale?

You're going to have to be specific if you want me to attempt to respond. Gravity and electrostatic attraction are similar in many mores ways than dissimilar, in the end it will be discovered that the four main forces are all the same thing. You are reaching, and desperate. Just like a religious fanatic whose god has been denied. My assertions ARE falsifiable, all you need to do as I pointed out already is prove in an instance that the universe is not an intelligent arrangement. NOW GET TO IT!

The subject of the thread was could relativity be wrong, I think it's just a bit pretentious to claim I hijacked the thread with non mainstream ideas, don't you? How could we possibly discuss the subject without introducing non mainstream thought into the equation? I think the real problem is I introduced some facts that are hard to answer to within the context of manistream thinking, like for instance all observations prove or at least do not disprove intelligent design and the scientific process as it is couldn't function unless there was an intelligent arangement to the universe. No so called man mainstream scientist has ever tried to respond to that assertion, and that shoudl tell you something.. Spare me trying to determine where you did this, and simply post it here and now" I would like to make it clear to anyone who chooses to respond to my posts that I DO NOT subscribe to any mainstream religion as they are all constructs of human minds with a underlying agenda of controlling thought and thus action. This includes Catholicism, Islam, Kabbalism, Judaism, Protestantism, and mainstream pseudoscience pretending to be anything other than the religion of atheism.