Our Modern Scientific Philosophy.

[socratus]

Our Modern Scientific Philosophy.
=.
The simplest atom hydrogen consists of electron and proton.
Question.
Where did electron and proton come from?
Answer.
Electron and proton came from big bang.
Question.
Where the did big bang come from?
Answer.
The big bang was created when all electrons and protons
and all another particles were pressed into a singular point.
==..
If you don’t believe in such philosophy – you are ignorant man.
=.

[Impenitent]

Our Modern Scientific Philosophy.
=.
The simplest atom hydrogen consists of electron and proton.
Question.
Where did electron and proton come from?
Answer.
Electron and proton came from big bang.
Question.
Where the did big bang come from?
Answer.
The big bang was created when all electrons and protons
and all another particles were pressed into a singular point.
==..
If you don’t believe in such philosophy – you are ignorant man.
=.

rather circular

-Imp

[Cerveny]

The contradiction between the “time arrow” experience and the rising elaboration/complexity of Universe lead us to consider that Universe is encapsulated in some higher system (let us call it “Future”) that draws the entropy from (delivers information into) our Universe. From this point of view the BB is a relative calm phase transition in global/whole (cooling) system, in the “Future”… (I understand the information as an imaginary energy :)

[jinx]

So you physicists believe the universe and all the mass in it, sprung into existence from nowhere, with no cause, 13.75 bya huh.

http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/The- ... Fields.pdf

In 1983, on the basis of Scriptures implying the original created material of the earth was water, I proposed that God created the water with the spins of its hydrogen nuclei initially aligned in one direction (Humphreys, 1983). That would produce a strong magnetic field. After 6,000 years of decay, including energy losses from magnetic reversals during the Genesis Flood, (Humphreys, 1986a, 1990c) the strength of the earth's magnetic field would be what we observe today. In 1984 I extended the theory to the other planets of the solar system, the Sun, and the Moon (Humphreys, 1984). The theory explained the observed magnetic field strengths of those bodies very well. It also correctly predicted the field strengths of Uranus and Neptune measured by the Voyager 2 spacecraft several years later, (Humphreys, 1986b, 1990a, b) as well as magnetizations of surface rocks on Mars (Humphreys, 1999). In this paper I improve the theory and apply it to updated solar system data, meteorites, and the larger moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Then in a brief survey I apply it beyond our solar system to ordinary stars, magnetic stars, white dwarf stars, pulsars, “magnetars,” galaxies, and the cosmos itself. The theory appears to be able to explain the magnetic fields of all heavenly bodies for which we have magnetic data. In contrast, the origin of cosmic magnetic fields is still a great mystery to uniformitarian theorists (Langer, Puget, & Aghanim, 2003).

[socratus]

So you physicists believe the universe and all the mass in it,
sprung into existence from nowhere, with no cause, 13.75 bya huh.

http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/The- ... Fields.pdf

In 1983, on the basis of Scriptures implying the original created material
of the earth was water, I proposed that God created the water with the spins
of its hydrogen nuclei initially aligned in one direction (Humphreys, 1983).
That would produce a strong magnetic field.

Water.
1
7/10/2006
Water, Energy, and Life: Fresh Views From the Water's Edge.

Dr. Gerald Pollack, UW professor of bioengineering, has developed
a theory of water that has been called revolutionary.

http://www.uwtv.org/video/player.aspx?mediaid=16213809
2.
June 30, 2008
The traditional picture of how liquid water behaves
on a molecular level is wrong,

http://phys.org/news134058290.html
3.
December 8, 2011,
Scientists investigate water memory

http://odewire.com/170441/scientists-in ... emory.html
======.
Conclusion:
We don’t have theory of water.
=.

[jinx]

Interesting. Hey Socratus what is a good FREE (if there are any) physics journal database? Most seem to cost $$$

Heres the abstract of it

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1408005745

[socratus]

How the Quantum Theory was started ?
=.
Planck was founder of QT ( quantum of action / energy)
Did he discover the quantum experimentally ?
No, it wasn’t any empirical evidence.
Then, what did Planck do?
=.
Many years Planck was attracted with the
absolutely black body problem.
If quantum of light falls in an area of absolutely black
body and does not radiate back, then " thermal death" comes.
In 1900 Planck decided: there is only one way to save
the quantum of light from ‘ thermal death’ -- it must radiate
with unit: h=Et.
This unit doesn’t come from any formulas or equations.
Planck introduced this unit from heaven, from ceiling.
Sorry. Sorry.
I must write: Planck introduced this unit (h) intuitively.
I must write: Planck introduced unit (h) phenomenologically.
=.
Many years Planck tried to chance his intuitive discovery into
more realistic basis but unsuccessful.
=.
Socratus
=.

[socratus]

Alice in Quantumland
=.
The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd
from the point of view of common sense.
And it agrees fully with experiment.
So I hope you accept Nature as She is — absurd.
/ QED : The Strange Theory of Light and Matter
page. 10. by R. Feynman /

‘ Many believe that relative theory tells us that ours
is a kind of Alice-in-Wonderland universe; that this
revealed by the mathematician Einstein who discovered
that there is a fourth dimension, . . . .. . . that, in short,
everything is relative and mysterious. ‘
/ Book ‘Albert Einstein’ , page 4. By Leopold Infeld ./

We still don't know that negative 4-D is. (!)

In the other words:
Physicists show us the absurd and mysterious existence
of nature as a real fact which ‘agrees fully with experiment.’
I cannot believe that nature is absurd and mysterious.
I think that their interpretations in relative and
quantum electrodynamics theories were wrong.
==..
' But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice.
'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
/ Lewis Carroll.
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. /

[socratus]

I think that it is possible to understand the universe
using usual common logical thought.
We need only understand in which zoo (reference frame )
physicists found higgs-boson and 1000 its elementary brothers.

socratus

[socratus]

I think that it is possible to understand the universe
using usual common logical thought.
We need only understand in which zoo (reference frame )
physicists found higgs-boson and 1000 its elementary brothers.

socratus

It is impossible using particle accelerators to understand
god-particles and the ultimate truth of nature as physicists hope.
=.
To create particle accelerators is needed reference frame of vacuum.(!)
It means that physicists take vacuum as a reflector of the real (!)
structure of nature: the space between billions and billions galaxies.

But on the other hand, today's physicists refuse to take vacuum
T=0K as real fundament of Universe.
‘ It is true . . . there is such a thing as absolute zero; we cannot
reach temperatures below absolute zero not because we are not
sufficiently clever but because temperatures below absolute zero
simple have no meaning.’
/ Book : ‘Dreams of a final theory’ Page 138.
By Steven Weinberg. The Nobel Prize in Physics 1979 /
=.
Question:
Does one physicist hand know that the other hand makes?
=.
( maybe without vacuum the CERN is good place for formula-I
competition . . ? ! )
=.
Socratus

[socratus]

Alice in Quantumland
an allegory of Quantum Physics

(Below is a sample from the publisher's blurb)

This story is physics told through a fantasy allegory.
Alice falls through the screen of her television set and finds herself
in Quantumland. This is a place where she encounters unusual characters
who demonstrate to her the basics of quantum physics.
She meets electrons, whose positions must be uncertain unless they are
moving rapidly
She visits the Heisenberg Bank and sees particles get short term energy loans
She talks to the Uncertain Accountant who cannot make his books balance
because of energy fluctuations.
She meets the Quantum and Classical Mechanics at the Mechanic's
Institute and sees demonstrations of interference in their Gedanken room.
At the Fermi Bose Academy she is told how the Pauli Principle deals
with hundreds of identical electron students.
From the Mendeleev Pier she explores the energy levels within an atom.
She visits Castle Rutherford, the home of the nuclear Family.
The three Quark Brothers explain the composition of strongly
interacting particles.
In all of this there is only one equation.

http://www.phy.bris.ac.uk/allegory/Alice_book.htm


The Use of Allegory
Modern physics has given rise to some strange and marvelous concepts.
They are not only strange, they are difficult to believe.
We cannot understand them, in that we cannot make them fit
with our previous beliefs.
In that sense no one understands quantum mechanics.
We are forced to take on board new and initially unbelievable facts.

http://www.phy.bris.ac.uk/allegory/allegory.htm


=======.

[socratus]

How to describe Alice's Quantumland ?
How to describe the Universe as it really is ?
=.
In his " Scientific Autobiography" Max Planck wrote :
' The outside world is something independent from man,
something absolute, and the quest for the laws which apply
to this absolute appeared to me as the most sublime scientific
pursuit in life. '

What are these ' laws which apply to this absolute ' world ?
==..
In the beginning Planck wrote, that " From young years....
the search of the laws, concerning to something absolute,
seemed to me the most wonderful task in scientist’s life."
And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
" the search for something absolute seemed to me the
most wonderful task for a researcher."
And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
“ the most wonderful scientific task for me was
searching of something absolute."
==..
And as for the relation between “relativity and absolute”
Planck wrote, that the fact of " relativity assumes the
existence of something absolute" ;
"the relativity has sense when something absolute resists it.”
Planck wrote that the phrase " all is relative " misleads us,
because there is something absolute .
And the most attractive thing was for Planck
“to find something absolute that was hidden in its foundation.”
3.
And Planck explained what there is absolute in the physics:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy,.
b) The negative 4D continuum,
c) The speed of light quanta,
d) The maximum entropy which is possible
at temperature of absolute zero: T=0K.
==.
I think that these four Planck's points are foundation of science.
=.
socratus

[Bernard]

http://aquakeys.com/toltec/fire-from-wi ... emanations

[socratus]

http://aquakeys.com/toltec/fire-from-wi ... emanations

The Fire From Within. ©1984 By Carlos Castaneda.
Chapter 03 - The Eagle's Emanations.
==.
Suddenly I realized that a nagual did have one point to
defend - in my opinion, a passionate defense for the
'description of the Eagle', and 'what the Eagle does'.

"But what kind of a force would the Eagle be?"

"I would not know how to answer that.
The Eagle is as real for the seers as gravity and time
are for you, and just as abstract and incomprehensible."

Those are abstract concepts, but they do refer to real phenomena
that can be corroborated. . "

He said that the Eagle's emanations are an immutable
thing-in-itself, which engulfs everything that exists;
the knowable and the unknowable.

"There is no way to describe in words what the Eagle's emanations really are,"
. . . . . . etc . . .
http://aquakeys.com/toltec/fire-from-wi ... emanations

======..
Their dialogue is a good example for description
the situation in ' philosophy of physics'.
As somebody wrote: the stupidity is ruled in physics.
=.