@rexacoracofalipitorius I meant the Hubble Telescope (which I think you already knew, and I’d mentioned the date anyways). I’m aware of how capacitors and electricity works, and I’ve worked as an electronic technician for many years, and I’m fully aware of what you need to do to charge and discharge a capacitor in a circuit using resistors, timers and other means. I know what electric and magnetic fields are too, and how they’re generated.
I’m still waiting for a response from the scientist about the details of his experiment concerning the oscillating capacitor, though the purpose of the experiment was to verify an absolute speed. When I get a full answer then I’ll post it here.
His point concerning Muons was the fact that when objects move at higher velocities, their characteristics can change. The fact is that time was a human construct, and one of pure logic using numbers long before Relative Time became accepted in science. We use mechanisms to record these timing values, such as clocks and timers. We depend upon these devices and their mechanics to record time for us. When we reset the timing on our satellites by a few hundred microseconds each day, or when clocks on moving jets give off a different time, the timing is obstructed due to electromechanical reasons, not due to a literal change in time itself. The time dilation formula will never acknowledge this because it only takes light speed, object speed and the numerical values concerning time itself into consideration. Of course your watch will slow down if you’re moving faster, because the mechanisms that record the manmade values known as time have to work harder. The mechanical parts responsible for recording time would work harder as well in a stronger gravitational field.
The concept of ‘primaries’ consisting of positive and negative mass ‘matter’ is purely analytical at this point, but it’s justified to me because it gives me a better understanding of what dark energy might really be, and like I’d said above this concept predicted the problem with the cosmological constant 6 years before Hubble Telescope discovered this. Do String Theories and the Multiverse explain the above problem/s any better than my idea? I’m not getting into these primaries here since a post about these would be rather technical and lengthy. I don’t want to get too far off topic here either, since the question was about nothingness, something which nobody really has the answer to at this time.
Apparently this guy had attempted to do what you’ve stated above, to either support or debunk a theory through experimentation and observation, concerning his proposed experiments, but he could never get the funding for them because he claimed that mainstream institutions were only interested in supporting Relativity Theories. If you want you can debate him yourself, one on one if you would like. Just let me know and I’ll give you the link since you seem so knowledgeable about this topic.
Science is a term which basically means knowledge, and this can extend to more than just what we consider to be the natural sciences. I don’t think that science is limited to any dogmatic pattern, as long as knowledge about how something works is acquired, and the process can be demonstrated and repeated. I’m pretty certain that I use the scientific method myself on a regular basis in my line of work. There are some very serious problems concerning reuniting Relativity with Quantum Theories. There are serious problems concerning the Big Bang Theory too, which I’d mentioned above. I’m not anti anything, but just trying to learn for myself.
The fact is most people don’t have the technical ability, including even many scientists, to understand just the basics of most fields of science. When most people state that they support evolutionary theories, the big bang theory, quantum theories, special relativity, general relativity, etc they are likely doing so on faith themselves, not knowledge. How many people are knowledgeable enough to truly understand why science supports the idea of humans evolving from lower life forms? Quantum theory itself requires a working knowledge of difficult maths, vectors and knowledge in other fields just to understand the basics.
What about the other theories I’ve mentioned too? Does the average person really know the pros and cons of each theory they claim to support? I’m an electronic technician, and I’ve worked with engineers who are only proficient to a certain extent. My entire rant here is to point out the fact that most people simply are not knowledgeable to make the statements that they make, including even on here, but we still ‘go’ with something regardless. I guess that in my somewhat limited ability to understand everything concerning science, that I just try to understand anyways.
Composing members:
0
