Jump to content

The Scientific Method?


Recommended Posts

Hello, fellow science lovers!

I was just rather shocked when I went to look for the current scientific method procedures. I have had arguments on science forums for decades, and I had assumed everyone was discussing the same scientific method. I had presumed because of the outcomes of specific experiments that they were applying it incorrectly or were disingenuous in their results. However, after a thorough search of the internet, I found that the current scientific method is missing a much-needed procedure to ensure 99.99 percent accuracy. In fact, without this one line of code, I am pretty sure that I could round up some scientists to sign off on my experiment and prove or disprove anything I wish within reason. 

 

Universal Scientists developed the scientific method, and it stood the test of time and created just about everything cool we have today. However, after World War Two, some American schools and Universities started teaching and training teachers, professors, and students to use the modified, abbreviated, or hacked version of the scientific method. This scenario is my theory as I could not be there to see what most others learned. Having contacted individuals about the subject, I found that my education included the Universal Science scientific method, and theirs did not. I received lectures from Universal Scientists, and apparently, they did not. Even honor students in other states and other counties in New York did not receive the same education. I knew that only honor students received Universal Science training. It incorporated weapons of mass destruction from ordinary materials for factory safety purposes; some teachers felt that teaching kids to make small handheld disintegrative devices out of children's toys was too dangerous for all but honor students. A mistake, in my opinion, but what has passed has passed. My point is that I was under the impression until recently that many scientists understood the scientific method and were not applying it. But now I have enough evidence to state that is not so. 

 

The universal scientific method was rather simple and concise. It was a six-steep basic procedure that was pretty hard to mess up if you followed it to the letter. 

 

  1. Form a Hypothesis that you wish to prove with an experiment. 
  2. Perform a simple demonstration of your hypothesis in front of peers, using words, hands, bodies, or objects.  
  3. List all variables in the experiment. Example: The temperature, the humidity, the weather sunny or cloudy, rain or snow, all known electrical storms near the time of the experiment, and their locations. The moon's location and tide levels. Seismic activity, manmade electromagnetic effects with distances to transmitting towers, transformers and power lines, plane traffic, and distances, satellite locations at the time. Building equipment, HVAC, lighting, alarm systems, sensors, and their effects on ambient temperature and pressure. 
  4. Remove all variables possible and list those that cannot be. 
  5. Experiment making a record of the experiment.
  6. Remove new variables that arise in the experiment and list them with the old already know variables. Repeat process to 99.99 percent accuracy. 

You might say step two sounds like something for a child to have to do. The truth is that step protects the experimenter and the world from bad science and actual catastrophic disaster. Enrico Fermi would have been wise to use the standard Universal Science Scientific Method before he heated a nuclear pile to destruction. 

 

But on a more standard day-to-day use of the scientific method, if you take the current scientific method, you are supposed to research and then form a hypothesis. Which was kind of a given back in the day. But it is a good thing to do if what you research is accurate. If your research is filled with incorrect data by some chance, a very severe error or catastrophic accident could occur. 

 

If you follow the Universal Science Scientific Method, you will find that demonstrating your experiment to your peers will highlight such shortcomings in the proposed experiment. 

 

For example, lets use something that many might get wrong, but experts understand—a simple household vacuum cleaner. Using the current scientific method, I could research a vacuum cleaner and find things like "dirt is sucked into a vacuum.", "Objects are drawn to the vacuum with cyclonic action" or "The vacuum creates a powerful attraction force that sucks dirt into it." Now I might be working on a propulsion system that I believe will pull a ship forward in space. So I do an experiment with a vacuum cleaner and show the powerful force of attraction. I have a lot of money, and I get a lot of scientists that work for me to sign off eagerly for a little bonus. Now that I have proven an attraction force, I can get that grant from the government. 

 

If I used the Universal Science Scientific method, I probably would not get past step two. When I attempted to demonstrate a sucking force or an attraction force, I would not be able to do so. I could ask everyone on earth to demonstrate an attraction force, and no one would be able to do so because there are no attraction forces in our universe. At about this time, I might try the vacuum cleaner manufacturer who would get a kick out of my hypothesis and then explain that a vacuum cleaner moves air with pressure alone. He would explain that a vacuum does not move air; only air pressure moves air. The pump in the vacuum compresses air in the veins of the pump and then expells the compact pressurized air back into the room. When the partially evacuated pump veins are exposed to the vacuum canister, the air pressure in the canister pushes air into the pump veins. Subsequently, the air pressure in the room pushes air and dirt near the pickup port of the vacuum cleaner into the partially evacuated vacuum canister. There is no sucking or pulling action at all, just pushing forces.  

 

Our minds have been subjected to very unscientific terms in life. When a plane at high altitude suffers structural cabin failure, a person is not sucked out of the plane; he is blown and pushed out of the plane. When you pop an inflated balloon with a pin, the pin does not suck the air out of the balloon; the air is pushed out of the balloon. When you have a small diameter hose, water is running through and moving a short two-inch piece of the same hose to the larger hose, keeping it in line and parallel to the larger hose; apparently, it will be pulled to the larger hose as it moves closer and closer. In reality, the short hose is pushed to the larger hose by the water now exiting the shorter piece of hose. Magnets work just like that when opposing poles face one another; a flow of particles is set up between them, negating the ambient pressure between them, and they are pushed together. When the tides go out and the level of the ocean drops the rivers are not sucked to the ocean faster they are pushed to the ocean. 

 

It is my understanding that after World War Two, they no longer taught the masses the actual scientific method as well as other basics. But I realize now that they taught only a handful of people the actual scientific method. The reason was that they had announced that they would hide the secret of the atom and atom bomb from the citizens of the earth after dropping the Hiroshima bomb. They introduced the neutron a known imaginary particle and claimed it existed by forces of cohesion which do not exist as they have never been demonstrated. When the scientists trying to prove the neutron attempted to demonstrate attraction forces it ended with two scientist making hugging gestures behind each others backs proving even they believed it required a pushing force to cause two particles to move towards each other. The government went with the unproven neutron to help cloud the simplicity of the atom and our universe. They later hid how they made the atom bomb as well as no longer teaching how to make kelvin-bombs which can be a factory accident—just some food for thought. 

1997578740_HiroshimaBomb-vvs.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hello, fellow science lovers! I was just rather shocked when I went to look for the current scientific method procedures. I have had arguments on science forums for decades, and I had assumed eve

Meanwhile, back at the batcave...

I am of the school that standard means a correct way of doing something that most or all will follow by an agreed-upon successful demonstration of it being correct, sustainable, and good for the whole

Posted Images

59 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

I was just rather shocked when I went to look for the current scientific method procedures. I have had arguments on science forums for decades, and I had assumed everyone was discussing the same scientific method.

There is no single scientific method. 

Sometimes the observation/experiment comes before the hypothesis. Sometimes it’s after. Sometimes you can do an independent experiment. Sometimes you can’t.

Quote

The government went with the unproven neutron to help cloud the simplicity of the atom and our universe.

That would be a topic for discussion in speculations

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

I knew that only honor students received Universal Science training. It incorporated weapons of mass destruction from ordinary materials for factory safety purposes; some teachers felt that teaching kids to make small handheld disintegrative devices out of children's toys was too dangerous for all but honor students. A mistake, in my opinion, but what has passed has passed.

Meanwhile, back at the batcave...

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, swansont said:

There is no single scientific method. 

Sometimes the observation/experiment comes before the hypothesis. Sometimes it’s after. Sometimes you can do an independent experiment. Sometimes you can’t.

That would be a topic for discussion in speculations

There was a single scientific method, and so far from what I can tell, it lays out the proper order to prove something. I am not sure if you read my article attached to the post? If your observation skill is spot on, you are a great detective, and you know the actual history at the time, you may be able to see how they did something out of order there. They blew up a bomb that did weigh under a half-ton, 886 pounds to be exact, and it was made with standard industrial products. In fact, in the seventies, they had a PBS special with women in shower caps making them, with the old gung-ho World War Two war effort music playing as they showed how they were made. My uncle took us to see the duplicate of it at West Point the day they were removing the display for "Cold War purposes" in the sixties. They are so simple to make that the government, not being made up of men of great spiritual virtue, honesty, or good conscience, in a somewhat paranoid move decided that citizens would not be allowed to know the secret of the atom. Many citizens were already well aware by accidentally creating limited atomic explosions. One of the first such blasts happened in Germany in a liquid carbonic plant before World War One. Germany tried to warn the world, and they were told: "shut up and get back to work."  

My school still taught the taboo pre-World War One history and science classes to honor students for factory safety training; that is how I learned of such things in an educational setting. I had learned or heard about them before from older engineers that were well aware of the accident in Germany. 

My point to all this is that an experiment could prove or disprove the same hypothesis if you do not first state what the experiment is supposed to prove by demonstration of your hypothesis. My vacuum cleaner example shows the folly of doing an experiment without first demonstrating the hypothesis. 

By detonating the bomb and claiming cohesion forces without demonstrating them makes for poor science. No one has ever demonstrated an attraction force in this universe. But they have done out-of-order experiments and claimed that the experiment had proven something they cannot demonstrate. That is like a witch doctor curing a patient with a new flower extract and proving his hypothesis that the flower Gods cured the patient.  I don’t think there is anything speculative about that analogy. The witch doctor certainly could not produce or demonstrate the flower God to other scientists and therefore would have to look for another hypothesis to prove. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, swansont said:

There is no single scientific method. 

Sometimes the observation/experiment comes before the hypothesis. Sometimes it’s after. Sometimes you can do an independent experiment. Sometimes you can’t.

That would be a topic for discussion in speculations

If you read that article, I posted you will also see that they are doing away with Daltonian theory. The government-owned scientists are replacing it with Du Fay's theory of electricity. That theory is almost three hundred years old. It was proven wrong and discarded by the Royal Society after Benjamin Franklin flew a kite in an electrical storm at their dare to do so and he had working lightning rods installed up and down the east coast of the American colonies. The Royal Society awarded Benjamin Franklin the Copley award their highest honor. The Du Fay theory had young boys going to church bell towers to ward off lightning by ringing the Church bell. So if you do your due diligence, which is no easy or fun task, you might see things may not be as they appear. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bill McC said:

No one has ever demonstrated an attraction force in this universe.

And yet we orbit the sun.

6 hours ago, Bill McC said:

If you read that article, I posted you will also see that they are doing away with Daltonian theory. The government-owned scientists are replacing it with Du Fay's theory of electricity. That theory is almost three hundred years old. It was proven wrong and discarded by the Royal Society after Benjamin Franklin flew a kite in an electrical storm at their dare to do so and he had working lightning rods installed up and down the east coast of the American colonies. The Royal Society awarded Benjamin Franklin the Copley award their highest honor. The Du Fay theory had young boys going to church bell towers to ward off lightning by ringing the Church bell. So if you do your due diligence, which is no easy or fun task, you might see things may not be as they appear. 

Your article is from 1945, so the use of the present tense is not well-founded. And “government-owned scientists” is quite a phrase.

I see where the article mentions Dalton, but not Du Fay.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bill McC said:

There was a single scientific method, and so far from what I can tell, it lays out the proper order to prove something.

You have not demonstrated that there is a single scientific method. Scientific methodology ( a composite term for a suite of approaches and attitudes) is organic and pragmatic. That is to say, it has grown/developed/evolved in response to the success or failure of detailed aspects of how scientific investigation has been implemented. What we call the scientific method is a post hoc attempt to succinctly describe that range of techniques used by (successful) scientists. Your perception of the method is a cartoon version of reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bill McC said:

There was a single scientific method, and so far from what I can tell, it lays out the proper order to prove something

Science doesn't generally prove things.

It sometimes proves that things are wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Area54 said:

You have not demonstrated that there is a single scientific method. Scientific methodology ( a composite term for a suite of approaches and attitudes) is organic and pragmatic. That is to say, it has grown/developed/evolved in response to the success or failure of detailed aspects of how scientific investigation has been implemented. What we call the scientific method is a post hoc attempt to succinctly describe that range of techniques used by (successful) scientists. Your perception of the method is a cartoon version of reality.

I would add that the OP is an example of the violation of scientific methods, which decry anecdotal data. There is an example of one method given, but proper science calls for a comprehensive look at methods, lest we have biased results.

I'm sure there are numerous examples of someone coming up with an hypothesis and then (possibly someone else) devising an experiment to test it; for that narrow example one might use Einstein's theory of relativity. If you only look for examples that support this notion you won't get accurate results. Because there are also a number of examples of someone puttering away in a lab, or gazing out into space, and noticing something. They gather the data and look for the pattern and only then do they formulate an hypothesis. Pretty much all of classical astronomy has followed that playbook. Early E&M was like this - the equations came later. A lot of early chemistry was just finding a new substance (e.g. coal tar) and sciencing the heck out of it to see what happened.

And then you have the method of using established science models and going to look for phenomena that it predicts (or perhaps the combination of models), even if the originator of the model had no thought on that particular detail.

The bottom line is that there is more than one path (method) to doing science. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swansont said:

The bottom line is that there is more than one path (method) to doing science. 

A prima facie critique that stood out to me was the application of a "universal" p-value to every scientific study would seem ignorant to the fact that the multitude of data types, statistical methods etc. have a mind boggling array of sensitivities, assumptions, nuances, etc. A p-value of 0.01 could be meaningless (looking at you, GWAS) or impossible to achieve dependent on your particular hypothesis, data and analysis method. The whole advent of p hacking demonstrates how a one-dimensional approach to hypothesis testing is problematic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Arete said:

A prima facie critique that stood out to me was the application of a "universal" p-value to every scientific study would seem ignorant to the fact that the multitude of data types, statistical methods etc. have a mind boggling array of sensitivities, assumptions, nuances, etc. A p-value of 0.01 could be meaningless (looking at you, GWAS) or impossible to achieve dependent on your particular hypothesis, data and analysis method. The whole advent of p hacking demonstrates how a one-dimensional approach to hypothesis testing is problematic. 

Fun fact: I have never used a p-value. It’s not really physics terminology; I don’t think I’ve run across it in any physics papers. (seems to be a life sciences thing) We tend to use use standard deviations, and cite them as such. The number of them considered significant depends on the area of physics. Sometime we break it down is a straight percentage; for some experiments 10% agreement is OK, 1% is better. A lot of this depends on your statistics and how noisy your data are, and how well you can determine the contributions of that noise.

Bottom line: there is no “one size fits all” approach.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, swansont said:

I would add that the OP is an example of the violation of scientific methods, which decry anecdotal data. There is an example of one method given, but proper science calls for a comprehensive look at methods, lest we have biased results.

I'm sure there are numerous examples of someone coming up with an hypothesis and then (possibly someone else) devising an experiment to test it; for that narrow example one might use Einstein's theory of relativity. If you only look for examples that support this notion you won't get accurate results. Because there are also a number of examples of someone puttering away in a lab, or gazing out into space, and noticing something. They gather the data and look for the pattern and only then do they formulate an hypothesis. Pretty much all of classical astronomy has followed that playbook. Early E&M was like this - the equations came later. A lot of early chemistry was just finding a new substance (e.g. coal tar) and sciencing the heck out of it to see what happened.

And then you have the method of using established science models and going to look for phenomena that it predicts (or perhaps the combination of models), even if the originator of the model had no thought on that particular detail.

The bottom line is that there is more than one path (method) to doing science. 

The scientific method was not a tool to make you demonstrate your hypothesis for experimenting with moving your telescope to a secluded wooded area where there are fewer lights. The scientific method is only a test to ensure that you submit your find as truth to the best of your knowledge. It provides that you ran your hypothesis through a demonstration to make sure it is a provable hypothesis with or without evidence. But you must demonstrate your hypothesis, or else your evidence and or experiment is just random information without explanation. You need to demonstrate your hypothesis to understand how it is tied to the experiment done or experiment you plan to do. If you cannot demonstrate your hypothesis, you are out of order by lending importance to an experiment already done or an experiment to be done before demonstrating a workable hypothesis.

The scientific method does not care if you did an experiment and now form a hypothesis. It looks at that scenario as "Now you have a hypothesis that you wish to prove, first demonstrate the hypothesis to your peers" if they fall over laughing, and you are sure you are correct, you may have to do what Benjamin Franklin did. But if they show you where you are mistaken, you can laugh at yourself and move on. The demonstration of your hypothesis can also highlight your ignorance of reality and save your life, planet, and your effort. That is why the government paid any sum to remove the line "demonstrate your hypothesis to your peers" from the scientific method. In 1973 by law, no school receiving Federal Tax Breaks or grant money could teach the scientific method that demanded you demonstrate your hypothesis. I am very friendly about this subject because I realize most have gone through their lives, having never heard this "demonstrate the hypothesis theory," which was at one time the standard Universal Scientists method of testing a hypothesis. 
Universal scientists had the universe at a basic level figured to one unknown variable, which was "why particles repel one another." There was no doubt they do, but because you can never see one particle as it requires billions of particles to create an image in your eye or test equipment, it is listed as an unknown variable. 
I have seen countless industrial accidents, and I am sure demonstrating a hypothesis for changing procedures in a plant would save many industrial plants and individuals.

You mentioned the sun and implied the earth is drawn to the sun by never demonstrated forces of attraction. Kind of like vampires could draw their victims to them against their will "come to me." 

I have stood next to non-metal-cased explosives. I was looking at the explosive and facing it. Right before the blast, there was a push from behind me towards the bomb. This occurred as the core of the bomb raises in voltage and then pushes me towards the bomb. We have done this many times, and each time, multiple people not knowing when the bomb would go off could tell the moment the ignition system was successful. It takes about a second before the blast occurs. It is highly alarming to feel the pressure pushing you to an explosive device when you know the explosion is imminent. I have also heated a very small piece of tungsten to over 5,000 degrees and found that it created artificial gravity as well. Universal Science explains it as a traffic jam of incoming particles slowed by the repulsive voltage of the bomb core. As the particles are slowed, they impart electrical repulsion to objects in their path towards the bomb. 
Space offers a place for ambient radiation to travel through that is near 99 percent space. Tungsten and other dense elements are 90 percent space. When these ambient radiation particles that cross the universe in the blink of an eye meet a planet, it creates a bottleneck, a traffic jam of particles. As they slow, they have more time to impart an electrical effect on objects in their path, at least according to Universal Scientists. I can demonstrate this phenomenon as well. 
As most are aware, the best insulators on earth transmit voltage faster than conductors. They can only stop electricity after the insulator develops a ramping charge through its mass because only electricity can stop electricity. The insulator must charge as a capacitor does in order to stave off the flow of electricity. The common single contact style home light switch is just an air capacitor that charges and discharges 120 times a second to hold off a 60 hertz AC current. Air does not stop the flow of electricity; it just limits it to the pico farads that the air capacitor needs to charge in order to stop the flow of electricity. But that principle applied to gravity and how a planet slows down the ambient radiation to impart a repulsive force on objects near the planet is connected. If you have ever fired a BB through identical aluminum cans, one with a high power BB gun and one with a lower power BB gun, you can note that the higher power BB gun passes through the can, both walls, without moving it. The lower velocity round creates two holes, one in one out but knocks the can off whatever it is on. That is a good analogy of how ambient radiation is harnessed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bill McC said:

I have also heated a very small piece of tungsten to over 5,000 degrees..

How?

How did you measure that temperature?
 

2 hours ago, Bill McC said:

and found that it created artificial gravity as well

How did you measure that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2021 at 11:30 PM, Bill McC said:

For example, lets use something that many might get wrong, but experts understand—a simple household vacuum cleaner. Using the current scientific method, I could research a vacuum cleaner and find things like "dirt is sucked into a vacuum.", "Objects are drawn to the vacuum with cyclonic action" or "The vacuum creates a powerful attraction force that sucks dirt into it." Now I might be working on a propulsion system that I believe will pull a ship forward in space. So I do an experiment with a vacuum cleaner and show the powerful force of attraction.

I could ask everyone on earth to demonstrate an attraction force, and no one would be able to do so because there are no attraction forces in our universe.

 

What a shame you have started with a reasonable observation that many do get wrong.

I agree that it is very difficult to apply a pulling force to a material object without also applying a pushing force.

But it is not impossible.

This is because most pulling forces (tension) are internal forces.

However the rest of you postings appear to me to become increasingly fantastical and outlandish.

John Cuthber has asked a couple of exceedingly perceptive questions, to which I look forward to reading your answers. +1

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

How?

How did you measure that temperature?


I would add the following one to these

What did you contain your tungsten sample in given that the melting point of tungsten is about 3500 degrees and the boiling point about 5500 degrees ?

 

Further your version of what Science and the Scientific Method is about is woefully inadequate.
Since we are using melting and boiling points as examples,
Here is a random page from my Lange's Handbook of Chemistry, which contains thousands of such pages.

data1.jpg.c0ddffdaa048adc7fea6878c10cd3a24.jpg

 

How on earth do you suppose all this data got measured, verified, collated and presented ?

Science is not all about hypotheses
Between every two hypotheses lies amountain of dedicated scientific infill work, far less glamorous that say gravity or electromagnetism, but equally necessary and often unsung.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bill McC said:

you must demonstrate your hypothesis

Yes. The point is that there are a number of ways to do this, and a number of paths to arrive at an hypothesis. You describe only one path.

Quote

The scientific method does not care if you did an experiment and now form a hypothesis.

Your list has "form hypothesis" at step 1, and "do experiment" at step 5. The implication is we do these steps in order. If you don't have to, then describing it as a single method is erroneous.

 

Quote

In 1973 by law, no school receiving Federal Tax Breaks or grant money could teach the scientific method that demanded you demonstrate your hypothesis.

Citaton needed. Or, in context of this discussion: provide evidence to back up your assertion.

 

Quote

You mentioned the sun and implied the earth is drawn to the sun by never demonstrated forces of attraction. Kind of like vampires could draw their victims to them against their will "come to me." 

Yes, and you have done nothing to explain how we can move in a circle about the sun without an attractive centripetal force. This isn't an issue of a model of an atom or nucleus, it's simple Newtonian physics. You may substitute a heavy object on a rope, swung in a circle, if you wish. The circular motion is the focus here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

How?

How did you measure that temperature?
 

How did you measure that?

Warning: do not try this at home. I used a thoriated tungsten rod which creates a rather large amount of ionizing radioactive gas in seconds. Thorium was used because Thoriums half-life is so much shorter than, Uranium or other trace elements used for melting metals in an electric ARC. Pure Tungsten Rod, although rather pure, can contain other trace radioactive elements with much longer half-lives and can manufacture them in the 35,000 degree-ARC they are used to create in the noble gas that shields them.  

I used an exact mix of oxygen and acetylene that is capable of heating parts to 5,000 degrees. The flame itself burns at 6,332 degrees Fahrenheit, which I may have heated the Tungsten to nearly that temperature. Because it was so small in diameter 1/16", the tip of the tungsten rod was completely engulfed in the flame at the flame's hottest point. The flame is rated for 5,000 degrees when heating larger parts. But as you say, how did I measure the temperature?  I relied on the rating of experts who know by testing the flame with known materials and their known melting points that have set known standards. 

As far as measuring the gravity created by the tungsten rod, it "apparently" pulled nonmagnetic substances to it. I have built electromagnets that lift silver, gold, and aluminum, from rare plans I bought on E-bay comically enough. Those magnets create a limited, precise central spot of less repulsion and a surrounding area of repulsion. The object, when in the right place, is repulsed into the area of less repulsion. And "apparently" attracted to the magnet, I can demonstrate no force of attraction to make that conclusion, though. So my answer would be that the Tungsten was causing rays inbound to it to slow and push all objects in close proximately to it. I did this many, many years ago. 

I have to do something today so I will not respond till this evening in my timezone. 

gaslight.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bill McC said:

I have also heated a very small piece of tungsten to over 5,000 degrees and found that it created artificial gravity as well.

 

1 hour ago, Bill McC said:

As far as measuring the gravity created by the tungsten rod, it "apparently" pulled nonmagnetic substances to it. I have built electromagnets that lift silver, gold, and aluminum, from rare plans I bought on E-bay comically enough.

Trying to understand you claim and its implications: are you claiming that you created gravity* that did the lifting or was your "gravity" and electromagnetic effect?

As far as I can tell a device** capable of artificially generating enough gravity to move or affect a small, (low-mass) object would also have an effect on large objects (with large mass). How does this match your observations?  

 

*) As modelled by mainstream physics
**) No such device exists. Artificial gravity=having a significantly different gravitational pull than what is modelled by m1*m2*G/r^2. Hope this is enough precision for this discussion 

Edited by Ghideon
spelling, clarity
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, swansont said:

Yes. The point is that there are a number of ways to do this, and a number of paths to arrive at an hypothesis. You describe only one path.

Your list has "form hypothesis" at step 1, and "do experiment" at step 5. The implication is we do these steps in order. If you don't have to, then describing it as a single method is erroneous.

 

Citaton needed. Or, in context of this discussion: provide evidence to back up your assertion.

 

Yes, and you have done nothing to explain how we can move in a circle about the sun without an attractive centripetal force. This isn't an issue of a model of an atom or nucleus, it's simple Newtonian physics. You may substitute a heavy object on a rope, swung in a circle, if you wish. The circular motion is the focus here.

As of 1973, my teachers had to stop teaching the cathode ray tubes we had learned about and had to introduce the new cathode ray tube with reveres markings on it. He explained that he would be teaching the wrong cathode ray tube and the wrong markings for electrical pressure from now on. He cried that day after tossing it down. At the time, I didn't care much about him because he was sacrificing education for a paycheck. Looking back, it took guts to say that to a class about his love in life. They had reversed battery markings during the war years. At one time, colleges bragged about their decision to do so. Claiming Benjamin Franklin couldn't have known which way electricity was flowing, which is a little comical because he invented the experiment to prove it. He invented the pointed and flat electrode experiment and burned his face, arms, and body badly with UV rays doing it. 

I will include a link to a video you should check out; it shows how Benjamin Franklin's test demonstrated the direction of electricity. And it also highlights how particles of electricity are anything but negative. They repel other particles of electricity and matter; matter was taught in American schools as being made of particles of electricity up until 1973. Particles of electricity have absolutely no negative traits. When something is negative, either air pressure or fluid pressure, it always flows from a positive pressure to negative pressure. For whatever reason, the government gave colleges grant monies to change that. Today, electricity flows from the terminal marked "-" mistermed negative on a modern car battery to the "+" terminal of a modern car battery mistermed positive. Many manufacturers would not incorrectly put those new symbols on their equipment during the war years and long after. Welding companies in particular refused. Instead, they called the terminal creating positive pressure "Straight Polarity, DC current," which means that the current flows from the electrode straight to the workpiece. If you wanted to ARC (Anode, Rectified, Cathode) weld, you would switch the machine to "Reverse Polarity, DC current. "
In the latter state, Reverse polarity, the current flows to the electrode from the workpiece and then creates a liquid diode very much like a mercury rectifier or lightning clouds surface. The molten surface of the electrode reciprocates with a cathode ray against the flow of the power supply that created it and beams back to the workpiece.  

The problem is that when people that know this by actually using it for decades are told by people fresh out of college/counterintelligence centers something unreal, they often lose their cool. They may let that person ruin tens of thousands of dollars worth of stuff rather than say something; I tend to chuckle and explain some of the histories behind it, if they act crazy, I go to the boss, and at that point, I can watch something be ruined without worry as I have done all I can do. 

In this video, the first demonstration shows particles of electricity leaving the tungsten electrode charged "-" as on a modern car battery and beaming directly to the workpiece, taking the shortest distance possible between the two objects. Next, I show what happens when I send AC current to the workpiece. Finally, I send a reverse polarity current from the workpiece to the electrode, and you can see what Benjamin Franklin saw as he hit the pointed electrode but with lightning voltage from a storm cloud and burned his face. In this case, the torch is charged "+" as on a modern car battery. This polarity creates a high voltage ARC a cathode ray that is steerable with heat, electrical current, or magnetism because it is not an A to B communication of electricity. It is an A to B to any place of lesser voltage which is often back to its source of creation, like lightning. I have to go and weld a race car part for a friend so I will not be back till late tonight. I hope this finds you healthy wealthy and wise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

As of 1973, my teachers had to stop teaching the cathode ray tubes we had learned about and had to introduce the new cathode ray tube with reveres markings on it. He explained that he would be teaching the wrong cathode ray tube and the wrong markings for electrical pressure from now on

Having two opposite conventions for the direction of current flow is a problem. Standardization seems to be what you are describing.

Are you going to address the other points/questions?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, swansont said:

Having two opposite conventions for the direction of current flow is a problem. Standardization seems to be what you are describing.

Are you going to address the other points/questions?

I am of the school that standard means a correct way of doing something that most or all will follow by an agreed-upon successful demonstration of it being correct, sustainable, and good for the whole. Sabotage better describes what colleges did to electricity. As I had mentioned, they threw out Du Fay's two-particle theory of electricity 300 years ago, and for a good reason, it held electricity in the dark ages. Electricity works exactly like pneumatic, hydronic, or hydraulic pressure; no difference, which is how Benjamin Franklin described and demonstrated it. And colleges for money brought back Du Fay like Frankenstein. 

What we have done to the terminology of the electrical industry is similar to changing the terminology in the elevator business to Raise it down and Lower it up instead of raise and lower it.  

As far as having to follow the Universal Scientific methods order, you must. But I believe most are not aware of what it takes to do an experiment for presentation as fact. 

As I had mentioned, you may have been doing experiments and found something amazing. But at that point, it is just an amazing thing that is unexplained. If you feel you know what it is and have a hypothesis of what causes it, you are at step two. You must, at this point, demonstrate your hypothesis with words, hand or body gestures, or objects. If you cannot easily go through the demonstration of what will happen or has happened in the experiment you have done, you do not have a hypothesis, and you do not even know what you did during your experiment or will do during your experiment; you have nothing. The Universal Scientists scientific method was a test to ensure accuracy; it was truly an amazing set of rules to do so if you were interested in truth, something that has fallen out of favor in what I call the dark ages. 

I understand they couldn't get past cohesion with the original Scientific Method. But that is no reason to keep it from young people; they need it more than you know. 

As far as why the earth is "attracted" to the sun, it is the same as all apparent attraction forces, a force of repulsion. Rays are moving through all matter from all directions in the universe. They are just particles of electricity traveling at a velocity not conceivable by a man's mind. When slowed, they create gravity, x-rays, UV, light, heat, and any other effects in our universe. They stabilize matter; matter is particles of electricity stuck in spherical shapes hydrogen protons. Higher elements are just numerical increments of hydrogen protons trapped by ambient radiation in a new structure. Matter is a filter for ambient radiation. Matter cannot exist without the bombardment of ambient radiation, and radiation cannot travel without matter to travel through. If a perfect vacuum was created, the surrounding matter would be repulsed into the void at speeds far faster than light. Matter and particles of electricity have no actual mass, which explains my previous statement; it is all an electrical effect, an illusion of sorts.
We see particles carrying information about a surface they have left. But we do not see the object. Particles of electricity are trapped in spherical shapes by the ratio of surface area to volume of a sphere. If you take the area of a sphere Pi times diameter squared and the volume of a sphere Pi times diameter cubed divided by six and look at the ratio created between them for a small sphere and a large sphere, you will see that the surface area of a small sphere compared to its volume is enormous compared to a large sphere's surface area to volume ratio. This ratio limits the size of living cells; the cell membrane of a large cell, like some cancer cells, cannot absorb enough food and expel enough waste when forced to metabolize faster or become contaminated with poison. Well, this same ratio is how particles of electricity become trapped in spherical containers we call matter. There is such a huge surface area compared to the volume inside a hydrogen proton that it is all surface; the bombardment of ambient radiation becomes all-encompassing and traps the particles in those spheres. The matter without bombardment would dissipate into particles of electricity. The matter has no stored energy. It acts only as a sail in the wind of ambient radiation. A bomb is just ambient radiation dispersing an area too high in voltage for ambient radiation to pass through. A bomb causes a bottleneck to ambient radiation and is removed/dispersed, or it would consume the universe. 
A planet and a sun both slow incoming ambient radiation to a tune similar to the rate we calculate or approximate gravity now. Like in an electrical circuit, if you create resistance, the whole circuit is instantly slowed, you get a voltage drop, you get work done, heat is produced. Well, that is what happens when ambient radiation nears a planet; it is slowed and starts delivering power. Repulsive power that pins you to the surface with a form of electrical repulsion.  

 
I have been warning people in the chemical industry for years about the ratio of surface area to volume of a small and large sphere. The imaginary spherical shape in a cubical tank often creates a barrier that heat in a chemical reaction cannot pass through. So, although the walls of the cubical tank are big enough to absorb the heat, the imaginary spherical shape will not allow the heat to get to the walls. I have been to the site of a few runway chemical reactions; I can assure you they were not aware of this until after the accident. And these were highly educated individuals. 
Excuse some of my gramatical errors; I really cannot read this repeatedly to find them all. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bill McC said:

the government

Are you talking a bout events in a specific country or something that you suggest are applicable on a global scale?

 

33 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

As far as why the earth is "attracted" to the sun, it is the same as all apparent attraction forces, a force of repulsion. Rays are moving through all matter from all directions in the universe. They are just particles of electricity traveling at a velocity not conceivable by a man's mind. When slowed, they create gravity, x-rays, UV, light, heat, and any other effects in our universe.

I see no attempt at answering my question. Maybe your version of gravity do not adress the points I did want to discuss.

Edited by Ghideon
grammar
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bill McC said:

I am of the school that standard means a correct way of doing something that most or all will follow by an agreed-upon successful demonstration of it being correct, sustainable, and good for the whole. Sabotage better describes what colleges did to electricity. As I had mentioned, they threw out Du Fay's two-particle theory of electricity 300 years ago, and for a good reason, it held electricity in the dark ages. Electricity works exactly like pneumatic, hydronic, or hydraulic pressure; no difference, which is how Benjamin Franklin described and demonstrated it. And colleges for money brought back Du Fay like Frankenstein. 

It's ironic that you are championing the scientific method, and yet you are asserting claims without backing it up with evidence. (and no, electricity is not "exactly, no difference" like pressure)

 

1 hour ago, Bill McC said:

As far as why the earth is "attracted" to the sun, it is the same as all apparent attraction forces, a force of repulsion. Rays are moving through all matter from all directions in the universe

As I said earlier about neutrons, this is a discussion for speculations and is off-topic here. Post it there, and people will happily dismantle it as nonsense.

And, as I said, the direction of the force is simply a matter of circular motion. No fantastic details of "alternative" science is necessary. It's vector math, nothing more. For an object to move in a circle at constant speed it must experience a force towards the center. Thus the force the sun exerts on the earth is directed toward the sun. That's defined as attraction, not repulsion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2021 at 11:39 AM, Bill McC said:

Thoriums half-life is so much shorter than, Uranium or other trace elements used for melting metals in an electric ARC.

It's longer.

On 4/19/2021 at 11:39 AM, Bill McC said:

. Because it was so small in diameter 1/16", the tip of the tungsten rod was completely engulfed in the flame at the flame's hottest point.

No.

One "face" of the heated tip was connected to a length of tungsten rod that will have acted as a heat sink.

On 4/19/2021 at 11:39 AM, Bill McC said:

The flame itself burns at 6,332 degrees Fahrenheit,

I doubt that, It looks like a calculated adiabatic flame temperature, converted to the wrong units and with spurious accuracy.
 

 

On 4/19/2021 at 11:39 AM, Bill McC said:

 I relied on the rating of experts who know by testing the flame with known materials

But you didn't use one.

You didn't use tungsten, you used thoriated tungsten.

 

On 4/19/2021 at 11:39 AM, Bill McC said:

As far as measuring the gravity created by the tungsten rod, it "apparently" pulled nonmagnetic substances to it.

How did you measure the attraction?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bill McC said:

Excuse some of my gramatical errors; I really cannot read this repeatedly to find them all. 

I sympathise with you. I found it painful to read it once.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.