I would love you to tell me step by step how to build an electrical computer using no scientific theories. Once again I think you are confused at what a science theory is.
Senior Member
I would love you to tell me step by step how to build an electrical computer using no scientific theories. Once again I think you are confused at what a science theory is.
Last edited by pete311; 12-05-2015 at 06:51 PM.
Just Me
Who's being daft? You mean because you can't stick to a topic and deflect all over the place? Let's see, AFTER I spent 21 years as a Marine I spent 15 as an electrician. Where you want to go with this one, junior? I know moare about eletricity than you got coming in the plug in your wall.Originally Posted by pete311
Which has WHAT to do with your theories?
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke
Senior Member
Why do I need to spell this out for you. We need to understand the theories of electromagnetism in order to build computers. You claimed no theory has ever produced anything or something like that. If we didn't understand the theories of electromagnetism you computer would not work.
Just Me
You aren't intelligent enough to spell anything out for me. I built my computer, dipstick. Jim built his. There are a few others on here that did the same. What I claimed is that YOUR theory violated scientific law. Get your shit straight, boy. You don't get to pick and choose. Unless you're a damned Democrat. Scientific theory is nothing but geeks trying to disprove God by violating their own laws.
Where you get into this electro-crap is beyond me.
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke
Drummond thanked this post
Senior Member
No you didn't build your computer, you just put the pieces together. I'm talking about the physics and mathematics behind microprocessors, LED screens, RAM. That is all designed using the theories that make up the foundation for electromagetism. That is scientific theory in action. Tell me what law does the big bang violate?
Smitten Senior Admin
Nice sidestep there. You should be honest and address the point that these theories you are willing to bet your eternal life on as being rock-solid true, change.
I would not choose to put faith in something so changeable, and neither should you. Would you build your house on shifting sands?
After the game, the king and the pawn go into the same box - Author unknown
“Unfortunately, the truth is now whatever the media say it is”
-Abbey
Senior Member
pete311, you seem to be claiming to have some kind of advanced physics degree, but you are being out-argued by Gunny and Drummond. In the quote here, you claim that Drummond only arrives at conclusions because he doesn't understand how anything works. That's the standard blowhard's claim: "anyone that doesn't agree with me, it's only because they can't comprehend things as well as my incredible brain does." What crap. With that rationale, you can go through life thinking you know more about everything than everybody. That's what you'll be thinking, but that doesn't make it so.
You also seem to think you know better than God, whom you probably don't believe in anyway. You think that because pete311 wouldn't create a universe and fill it up with 99.9% nothing, then God wouldn't have done that either. Maybe God didn't consult pete311 when creating the universe? Did that ever occur to you? Maybe God knows something that pete311 doesn't? Did that ever occur to you?
Stop wallowing in your own hubris, pete311.
Last edited by Russ; 12-05-2015 at 09:20 PM.
Conservative Libertarian
The laws of electromagnetism are not theories, and haven't been since the invention of the electromagnet 1824, which confirmed the theory of electromagnetism, turning it into laws as we were to replicate the effects of electromagnetics for full peer review.
No *theories* are used to build computers, only laws. You are giving directly incorrect scientific information.
"Government screws up everything. If government says black, you can bet it's white. If government says sit still for your safety, you'd better run for your life!"
--Wayne Allyn Root
www.rootforamerica.com
www.FairTax.org
revelarts thanked this post
Conservative Libertarian
That's a sidestep. The Big Bang Theory has no empirical data supporting, and uses made up matter and energy to force itself to work. How was it empirically tested, when both dark energy and matter are made up things? Empirically, the theory of relativity is incorrect, as the expansion, again is occurring at a much faster rate than theory allows for.
Empirical data on dark energy and matter don't exists, because to quote the definition of empirical, "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."
Please show me where any scientist has observed dark matter or energy, and is not theorizing, rationalizing, or just positing it's existence.
And again, quantum foam has, in no way been empirically proven, it's yet another theory, and scientists have been unable to confirm the space-time fluctuations that would begin to prove it's existence. Until it's proven to exist, it's another gap.filling theoretical matter being used to explain things in only a hypothetical manner. It's not even truly a theory at this point.
"Government screws up everything. If government says black, you can bet it's white. If government says sit still for your safety, you'd better run for your life!"
--Wayne Allyn Root
www.rootforamerica.com
www.FairTax.org
Senior Member
Off the top of my head isn't it Mainly Newton and not Einstein? And it's not "BECAUSE" of , it's since we're aware of the of the LAWS of motion, and waves etc ? But I'm ready to be corrected or embellished here if i'm off.
Pete, part of your problem here is it seems you fail to acknowledge that
some things are LAWS largely establish by experiment and use,
That some theories are well established with good data, some very solid aligned observations and some contemporary experimental evidence supporting them.
While some theories have little but hypothetical crap, thin observations slapped together (contradictory observations are ignored), little to zero experimental evidence and folks with Phds and calculators nodding at each other giving those that don't join in the nodding the evil eye.
Here are a few former scientific theories taught by the majority of the scientist.
Spontaneous Generation
miasmas theory of Disesase (bad air)
Phlogiston theory (a combustion theory)
Recapitulation theory (evolution replayed in the womb)
Stress theory of ulcers
Expanding Earth (instead of plate tectonics)
there are many more.
just because something's called a "theory" doesn't mean it has a pedigree that makes it equal in weight as all other ideas that have the LABEL "theory"
a 69' Volkswagen Beetle with broken windows, rusted exterior, balled tires and an engine with 2 piston rods through the block and a Brand new 2015 Mercedes-AMG GT are both "German Cars" but to say they are basically the same, or should be valued the same is a real mistake.
Last edited by revelarts; 12-05-2015 at 11:54 PM.
It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God. 1 Peter 2:16
Senior Member
From other threads where this subjects come up
A few things that show the Big Bang is wrong (things that the Big Bang don't explain) are
the spiral arms of galaxies.
Based on gravity and the billions of years ago when these galaxies supposedly formed there should be no spiral arms left.
In only millions of years the spiral arms would have wound up like clock springs and we'd only see disk like masses of stars.
but there they are.
no early galaxies seen.
recently the Hubble telescope looked at a tiny patch of "black" to see as far as possible away and as far back in time as possible.
they expected to find "young" galaxies. but what they found where galaxies that looked "mature". The same as all of the other galaxies we know of. including our own.
So the assumption/prediction of the big bang and it's dates were wrong. The observation does not bare out the big bang timeline.
Star formation is unexplained by the big bang and gravity theory of the cosmos.
Gas does not coalesce in space to form stars, as the story we are told goes.
Temperature and pressure would push the gas particles away from each other before gravity could form stars.
population 3 stars (-original big bang H He stars-) have not been discovered or seen in space.
Stars forming from stars that are already here has more evidence. but the origin of stars in the 1st place has no evidenced based or workable theory via the big bang or accepted physics.
a- The Big Bang predicts that the universe should have a lot of magnetic monopoles.
Fail. there are none found in the universe.
b- The Big Bang predicts that the universe's microwave background should be different than it is.
Fail. the observed microwave background is asymmetrical and there are problems with the tempture. the big bang model could not have caused whats observed.
c- The Big Bang predicts that the universe should have a deep curve of some kind.
Fail. the observed universe is flat. what we observe is mathematically impossible if the big bang is true.
those are considered fatal flaws
d- The Big Bang doesn't predict the fine tuning we see in the universe. link also see doc "the privileged planet".
e- the Red Shift = distance view that's been one reason the Big Bang was accepted initially has been found not to be the only way to read it or the only reason for Red Shift. There are confirmed stars and quasars that have different red shift but are in the same general area. as well as other red shift anomalies unexplained.Unpredicted and brings into question the "expanding universe".
f- some new galaxy observations show that brightness indicates that the galaxies are not expanding and again the red shift must indicate something else. link . that's Unpredicted and brings into question the "expanding universe of the big bang" as well.
g- The Big Bang predicts that the most distance galaxies we observe with our new telescopes will look young since they are close to the big bang.
Fail. Observational data shows the most distance galaxies look the same as the ones near by. that is they look "old".
h- The Big Bang predicts that the universe's cosmic microwave background will have "shadow" of the big bang.
Fail. observations doesn't find one where it should be. link
i- The Big Bang predicts that the universe should have as much anti-matter as matter.
Fail. they've been looking for it and have basically concluded it anti there. link link
j- The Big Bang predicts that the universe should have a certain amount of lithium-7.
Fail.
k- The Big Bang predicts that we should be able to see stars forming. called "population 3 stars".
Fail. we don't see any. (plus gas in vacuum-near vacuum of space will not coalesce by gravity it will dissipate. so star formation from scratch is a mystery)
There are several more fails to see.
Part 2.
Unobserved particles and forces
Inflation
the above problems are well known and physicist have proposed a solution to a b and c above with "inflation".
inflation asserts a time at the beginning of the universe where it moved at MANY times the speed of light. But that is unobserved and impossible by known standards. Also no one has an solution -in physical reality- for why it started or why it stopped. Plus the "Inflaton" is not an observed particle/force. some say "they are exponentially unlikely".
Dark Matter and Dark Energy
Added to the theory when it failed to predict certain observed phenomena (they're not foundational to the theory it seems but added to the math to adjust the Big Bang to fit the observations), . but it seems neither will ever be observed link.
But other theories to explain the phenomena they cover are not allowed. Former Chair of Physics at Yale said "dark energy is just code for 'we don't have clue'"
Part 3
Breaks known laws of physics and goes outside of science
- Violates 'conservation of mass energy' 1st law of thermodynamic, the Big Bang says matter and energy came from nothing.
- Big Bang has no cause. no laws, no nothing.
- Multiverses are by their nature are unobservable can't EVER be confirmed or falsified and there are "no laws" in these other universes that must be adhered to so why in ours?.
....................
that's the outline of it
....................
none of the above information detail is OUTSIDE of mainstream at all. The only issue is looking at the combination of these and other observations and concluding the obvious. That it brings into question the validity of the whole big bang theory. That's what's radical. And causes the name calling and denials. Scientist are believers and strong defenders of the faith and paradigms die hard among the lay people as well.
Look up problems with the big bang in an internet search see what you find.
Here one,
a conference notes held by some physicist on the "Crisis in cosmology"
Here's another,
"In an article in 2004, Eric Lerner, who is president of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics in West Orange, New Jersey, noted: “Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method” (p. 20). He continued:Big bang theory relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities—things that we have never observed. Inflation, dark matter, and dark energy are the most prominent. Without them, there would be fatal contradictions between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory. But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors (p. 20, emp. added)." https://www.newscientist.com/article...-the-big-bang/
Here's another,
"...The arguments against the Big Bang theory are different from those given to reject theories such as relativity or quantum mechanics. While the latter theories have seen some refinements over the years, no major additional hypothesis was added. Both theories have had their predictions confirmed to a very high accuracy.
In contrast, the Big Bang theory has failed repeatedly to produce predictions that agreed with observations. Instead of rejecting the initial assumption of an initial hot, dense state of the universe, a large number of additional hypotheses are used to hide the inconsistencies. Today, more than 95% of the universe is claimed to be made of a substance which has never been seen...."
It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God. 1 Peter 2:16
Senior Member
A theory where the vast majority of hundreds of thousands of bright scientists agree on is one I put my money on. The big bang theory is not just some random idea someone thought in their basement while smoking weed.
Your BB fail thread is full of myths and misconceptions. A simple google search debunks most of these. Most importantly I must stress this one final time. The big bang theory does NOT describe the trigger. It is a theory that describes the expansion and evolution of the universe. NOT it's moment of creation. I'm sick and tired of that coming up.
Senior Member
electromagnetic laws are founded on the theories of Maxwell and Einstein
We have quantum computers. You don't think quantum theory come into play?
Last edited by pete311; 12-06-2015 at 01:46 AM.
Senior Member
No doubt we are in the beginning stages of understanding dark matter but all signs are it's a real thing
A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407
UA Astronomers Report First Direct Evidence For Dark Matter
https://uanews.arizona.edu/story/ua-...or-dark-matter
How do we know Dark Matter exists?
http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2013/0...-really-exist/
Quantum foam on a space scale is mathematical, but the existence of random emergence and annihilation of virtual particles at the quantum level is well understood especially with the Casimir effect.
Just Me
"Dark matter" is BS. The same people that scoff at God speculate on all kinds of crap that has as much proof to it as the Bible. Calling a religion by any other name is STILL a religion. There is ZERO evidence to prove scientific theory where the origin of life is concerned.
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote