Einstein’s Idiots # 9 — The secret Law of Attraction
http://youstupidrelativist.com/06QM/10Magnet.html
Quantum that is of particles. phenomenon fails ‘predict’ is fields. fields of particles, do attract another? How gravitational ‘field’ the you the ground?
The Quantum failed continue to (attraction) discrete no of force PULL.
With Hypothesis, enormously. ‘field’ studied ago threads swung spinning atoms. hypothesis finally physical attraction repulsion.
One of the best overall packages on The Law of Attraction - Audios, interviews, e-books, seminars and it continually gets updated. If you want to learn more about the Law of Attraction this is the most comprehensive package out there.
Powered By WP Footer
1. Unless you (or wiki) begin by defining the word Science, your claim about ‘prediction’ being a part of Science is meaningless.
2. Equations have little to do with Science; Certainly, Science does not require them. The only thing an equation does is depict with symbols how something moves. The parameters are all man-made.
3. If field is not a physical entity, how can a charge (a concept) move through ‘it’? Is this what experiments proved?
Unless you can define the word Science, your ‘falsifiability’ claim is meaningless. In Science, we don’t falsify, run experiments or prove. In Science, we only explain.
youstupidrelativist(d)com/02Sci/00SumSci.html
[remove embedded space and replace (d) with a dot]
In Science, we are never sure that anyone is correct and a genuine scientist doesn’t care. And you don’t need to rely on ‘supernatural’ gnomes. Math Phyz proposes ‘irrational’ virtual particles.
Science attempts to explain a natural phenomenon rationally. To do so, a proponent must go through 3 phases: Hypothesis, Theory, and Conclusions. What the prosecutor got out of it are called conclusions. What the jurors got out of it are called beliefs and are not a part of the Scientific Method. Therefore, true, false, modify, correct, testable, and falsifiable have nothing to do with Science. You seem to be regurgitating the party line, but have yet to justify any of it.
Any scientist will confirm that making falsifiable claims is part of the scientific method. A genuine scientist does care if a model is coherent with experimental observations. And who said my gnomes are supernatural? They’re real!!! I don’t really see the difference between them and your ropes… what makes your ropes real and not supernatural?
I would say that in science, we DO make(testable) hypotheses, make observations/run experiments, and propose a theory that is consistent with the data, test this theory with more experiments etc. etc. This is at the very heart of science. How can you be sure you’re explaining something correctly if you can’t gather evidence for or against it? Mathematical physics is testable, and it seems to me that your theory does not. I thank you for this discussion, but this will be my last comment.
1. “Any scientist”
Science is not democratic. If all the ‘scientists’ on Earth vote for the flat Earth theory, it doesn’t make it so. Therefore, what ‘any’ scientist has to say will not solve whether ‘falsifiable claims’ are part of Science. Only a definition you can use consistently will.
2. “A genuine scientist does care if a model is coherent with experimental observations.”
All you need to do is define ‘Science,’ which so far you have failed to do. In Science, we don’t do experiments. In Science, we explain.
3. “what makes your ropes real and not supernatural?”
What makes them real as opposed to supernatural is the definition of supernatural:
youstupidrelativist(d)com/02Sci/03SciRel.html
If you would have taken the trouble to read, you wouldn’t have asked.
1. In Science, we don’t test hypotheses.3. Math Phyz is a religion that explains with irrational entities or by moving concepts.
youstupidrelativist(d)com/02Sci/04Hypot/00SumHyp.html
[remove embedded space and replace (d) with a dot]
2. In Science, we’re not sure and we don’t test. In Science, we explain.
youstupidrelativist(d)com/02Sci/00SumSci.html
3. Math Phyz is a religion that explains with irrational entities or by moving concepts.
youstupidrelativist(d)com/02Sci/03SciRel.html
I like it!
HEY!you should look up nikola tesla. he talked about the repulsion attraction, not like what you are saying here but he used that idea to prove relativity wrong simply by the action and reactions dont exist in realativity yet everything pretty much follows those rules!interesting to see things explained differently,but how could you explain the magnification of voltages or the addition of current in coils from this diagram,i like it though,relativity is false, tesla sent energy faster than light
1. “tesla sent energy faster than light ”
In Science, we can perhaps send a box or a table or a rock FTL. We certainly can’t send love or beauty or information FTL. If Tesla claimed that he could send a concept FTL, he didn’t understand the fundamentals of Science. Tesla was an inventor. Tesla was not a scientist.
youstupidrelativist com/02Sci/02SciIs html
2. “how could you explain the magnification of voltages or the addition of current in coils from this diagram”
These are complex subjects that require mastering yet more basic notions of the rope H. I explain current, resistors, capacitors, diodes, etc. in Ch 6 of WGDE. YouTube is simply unsuitable for such topics.
yea ok cause you dont know how that works, atleast tesla did!
Yeah, go ahead with Tesla, box. You’ll find a lot of explanations in his writings.
Okay…I have written two comments and neither has posted ????
What’s wrong with this deal???
I have spent the last few days wondering about “how a magnet attracts and repels” another magnet “without touching it”.
I know the simple “facts” that I have been taught…
This system will not let me post a comment that is within the character limits…
Hi super. YouTube is very picky. You must keep the comments within 500 characters and reply to yourself in a separate comment if you want to exceed the limit. You can’t use buzz words such as ‘dot’ or ‘point’ or some special characters that the system interprets as being part of a web address. You’ve got to play around with it a little.
I have spent the last few days wondering about how a magnet attracts and repels another magnet without touching it. I know the simple so-called facts that I have been taught…and I have spent a couple of hours looking into it on my puter and I could find nothing that gives the answer…Yes, some give a description, but none of this crap answers my question! Then I found this video…what a relief!!! But I still think there is a “natural energy” or “natural intelligence” of this cosmos…
Thanks Pushy Bill…I had “world wide web” abbreviated and it did not like it…btw, that last post was actually me…I forgot that I was logged in under my brother’s user name…I love your web site…and, you guys are right, that god does not exist…search superwhuffo1 on YouTube…lol
3. This model doesn’t ‘add’ anything to the religion of Math Phyz. In Science, we explain, and in order to explain the proponent must point to the objects that underlie his theory.
youstupidrelativist(d)com/02Sci/04Hypot/02Exhibit.html
[remove embedded space and replace (d) with a dot]
I begin by pointing to the object that underlies the phenomenon the math physicists call ‘field’: a rope.
Your turn. What will you point to? Particles? If so, how do particles produce attraction?
1. I think Wiki sums it up pretty well in its article about science. Prediction is most definitely a part of science, as is constructing and experimentally testing theories.
2. You’re right, a field is not a physical entity. It’s an abstract mathematical model, but the equations model reality very accurately shown by comparison with experimental data.
3. If a model isn’t falsifiable, it isn’t scientific. The scientific method relies on testing falsifiable models/theories. If you can’t prove something to be true or false, then how can you be sure it’s correct? Or modify it so it is correct? My gnome theory may indeed be correct, but even if it is, it’s not a scientific theory. I do think that QED provides a good (and testable!) explanation of electromagnetic interactions, and you can look into that on many places on the net.