• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why is our 'modern physics'/technology so retarded and got it all backwards?

psikeyhackr said:
LOL

Half a century after the Moon landing and our scientists do not talk about the Planned Obsolescence of cars.

But wait, we are supposed to worry about the economy pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. :lamo
Click to expand...

??????
 
Belieth said:
well the best way is to show you the way to the works of Victro Schauberger. Yes Newton had a lot wrong. Just like einstein had it wrong, heisenberger had it all wrong. I mean the whole of physics is dead wrong. There are no black holes, it is sheer impossible. relativity theory has it all very wrong. quantum physics is actually quantum quackery, There never was a black hole. and so forth..
Click to expand...

Really? How did your post "show you the way to the works of Victro Schauberger.". It has no links , just rambled opinions.

One could say this work is based on known physics. He just using the principles differently.
 
zyzygy said:
What has it gotten wrong?
Click to expand...

It's a feeling. If I knew what it was, I'd get a Nobel.

Feynman got the Nobel for realising that the visual effect of precession was causing them to misinterpret experimental results. I think something like that is going on at a fundamental level.

The way our minds or perception works is interfering with figuring something out. On the chance I am wrong, it's also why I think we should invest a lot more heavily in astronomy. If we knew more about the Universe, that might make things clearer.

But we've gone way past my pay grade.
 
late said:
It's a feeling. If I knew what it was, I'd get a Nobel.

Feynman got the Nobel for realising that the visual effect of precession was causing them to misinterpret experimental results. I think something like that is going on at a fundamental level.

The way our minds or perception works is interfering with figuring something out. On the chance I am wrong, it's also why I think we should invest a lot more heavily in astronomy. If we knew more about the Universe, that might make things clearer.

But we've gone way past my pay grade.
Click to expand...

Feynman got the Nobel prize for his work on quantum electrodynamics. There is nothing about visual precession in this lecture on the subject.
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html
 
late said:
It's a feeling. If I knew what it was, I'd get a Nobel.

Feynman got the Nobel for realising that the visual effect of precession was causing them to misinterpret experimental results. I think something like that is going on at a fundamental level.

The way our minds or perception works is interfering with figuring something out. On the chance I am wrong, it's also why I think we should invest a lot more heavily in astronomy. If we knew more about the Universe, that might make things clearer.

But we've gone way past my pay grade.
Click to expand...
My penny has dropped. You were referring to this.

In his eccentric collection of autobiographical stories (see reference), Richard Feynman recounts: "I was in the cafeteria and some guy, fooling around, throws a plate in the air. As the plate went up in the air I saw it wobble, and I noticed the red medallion of Cornell on the plate going around. It was pretty obvious to me that the medallion went around faster than the wobbling. I had nothing to do, so I start figuring out the motion of the rotating plate. I discovered that when the angle is very slight, the medallion rotates twice as fast as the wobble rate—two to one. It came out of a complicated equation! I went on to work out equations for wobbles. Then I thought about how the electron orbits start to move in relativity. Then there's the Dirac equation in electrodynamics. And then quantum electrodynamics. And before I knew it… the whole business that I got the Nobel prize for came from that piddling around with the wobbling plate." A replica of the Cornell plate is now part of an exhibit marking the centennial of the Nobel Prize.
 
zyzygy said:
My penny has dropped. You were referring to this.

In his eccentric collection of autobiographical stories (see reference), Richard Feynman recounts: "I was in the cafeteria and some guy, fooling around, throws a plate in the air. As the plate went up in the air I saw it wobble, and I noticed the red medallion of Cornell on the plate going around. It was pretty obvious to me that the medallion went around faster than the wobbling. I had nothing to do, so I start figuring out the motion of the rotating plate. I discovered that when the angle is very slight, the medallion rotates twice as fast as the wobble rate—two to one. It came out of a complicated equation! I went on to work out equations for wobbles. Then I thought about how the electron orbits start to move in relativity. Then there's the Dirac equation in electrodynamics. And then quantum electrodynamics. And before I knew it… the whole business that I got the Nobel prize for came from that piddling around with the wobbling plate." A replica of the Cornell plate is now part of an exhibit marking the centennial of the Nobel Prize.
Click to expand...

That's it, I read that book about 30 years ago, must have remembered it wrong.
 
mike2810 said:
Really? How did your post "show you the way to the works of Victro Schauberger.". It has no links , just rambled opinions.

One could say this work is based on known physics. He just using the principles differently.
Click to expand...

This means you haven't read and thus haven't understood him, at all!
 
Belieth said:
This means you haven't read and thus haven't understood him, at all!
Click to expand...

It is no longer interesting how you dodge and fail to answer questions. You are wrong again regarding what I have read or understand.

I gave you a couple of chances to explain. You have failed.
 
mike2810 said:
It is no longer interesting how you dodge and fail to answer questions. You are wrong again regarding what I have read or understand.

I gave you a couple of chances to explain. You have failed.
Click to expand...

you like 'science' I guess!? Most telling, eh?!

I really don't care what you 'give' me. You won't understand anyway. I have given enough pointers for people who are genuinely interested. so, good riddance.
 
Belieth said:
Tesla, Schauberger, Walter Russel and others are way better at explaing nature, then contemporary physics does.
Click to expand...
Can't think for yourself eh?

Pin dÁr said:
Well, To really understand it you have to study the work of some real geniuses, like Nikolai Tesla, Victor Schauberger, and a lot others.
Click to expand...

Or.....
 
Belieth said:
you like 'science' I guess!? Most telling, eh?!

I really don't care what you 'give' me. You won't understand anyway. I have given enough pointers for people who are genuinely interested. so, good riddance.
Click to expand...

Pointers? Links to crackpot sites. Say hello to Pin d'Ar from me.
 
Too bad the doofus got banned because I'd love to hear an explanation for why Einstein was totally wrong and yet his equations predicted so much perfectly. What are the odds that relativity is entirely wrong but just happens to be wrong in precisely the fashion required to also be right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom