Science and the scientific method: Definitions and examples

[admin]

Science is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work.

Science and the scientific method: Definitions and examples : Read more

 

[Onemetertwometer]

Observations can be made at any frequency between -∞ and +∞ in terms of the wavelength of light, measured in any conceivable unit of space or time.
The visible light spectrum of any given observer can never be objectively quantified, because any "unit" of space or time exists as a symbolic representation of a shared experience, not as an objectively valid measurement of the experience itself.
In other words, you can describe the visible spectrum of light in accordance with demonstrable and reproducible data. However, that data will always be a representation of the fact that reality itself can't be described with objective accuracy in discrete finite terms.
If you assume that the mass of a planet can be measured with objective accuracy in terms of kilograms, that assumption will embed fundamental inaccuracies in all resulting conclusions, because any conceivable unit of space is infinitely divisible.
If you assume the age of the Universe can be measured with objective accuracy in terms of years, that assumption will embed fundamental inaccuracies in all resulting conclusions, because any conceivable unit of time is infinitely divisible.
If you assume that the speed of light in a vacuum can be measured with objective accuracy in terms of meters and seconds, that assumption will embed fundamental inaccuracies in all resulting conclusions, because any conceivable unit of space or time is infinitely divisible.
There is only one truth: the Universe is Infinite.

 

[Hayseed]

The scientific method is not the problem. And they always use this to assure us. The problem is trying to fit nature(physicality) into human math concepts. This has stymied us for one hundred years. Nature knows nothing about math or information. It knows nothing about pi.

Abstract math concepts can not be applied to physicality. The result is cartoon science.

The common and simple act of reflection demonstrates absolute time and length. 99% of vision is reflected light. Maybe I should say use to be, with all the digital screens now.

Believing that a waveform collapse, results in a probable physical result of an experiment.......is the most ignorant statement I've ever seen, heard or read from a educated person.

Absolute time and length, creating a RELATIVE velocity of light, is the world we live in. All the motion in this reality, has relative velocity. But our modern science can not measure it. Because, one can not measure light with a cartoon equation.....and a cartoon experimental setup. And you get the same cartoon result, over and over.

All visible light is a flux. Like trying to measure one drop from a shower head. Learn to emit one photon at a time...one drop...and then one can measure it. If you emit one photon at a time, you will see a relative velocity. You will also see, that light is NOT a wave. It has an instant emission duration. This means that the relative velocity of light, comes from the velocity of the absorber only, not the velocity of the emitter. However, once you see the true dynamic of light, one can measure the velocity of the emitter. If we learn to filter one photon of starlight, how convenient it would be, to be able, to measure the velocity of a star, and the velocity of our star, separately, with starlight from any star? It would give the us a different reference for relative motion of the universe.

EM radiation is an intermittent strobe, with a duty cycle, it is not a wave.

 

[Onemetertwometer]

The scientific method is not the problem. And they always use this to assure us. The problem is trying to fit nature(physicality) into human math concepts. This has stymied us for one hundred years. Nature knows nothing about math or information. It knows nothing about pi.

Abstract math concepts can not be applied to physicality. The result is cartoon science.

The common and simple act of reflection demonstrates absolute time and length. 99% of vision is reflected light. Maybe I should say use to be, with all the digital screens now.

Believing that a waveform collapse, results in a probable physical result of an experiment.......is the most ignorant statement I've ever seen, heard or read from a educated person.

Absolute time and length, creating a RELATIVE velocity of light, is the world we live in. All the motion in this reality, has relative velocity. But our modern science can not measure it. Because, one can not measure light with a cartoon equation.....and a cartoon experimental setup. And you get the same cartoon result, over and over.

All visible light is a flux. Like trying to measure one drop from a shower head. Learn to emit one photon at a time...one drop...and then one can measure it. If you emit one photon at a time, you will see a relative velocity. You will also see, that light is NOT a wave. It has an instant emission duration. This means that the relative velocity of light, comes from the velocity of the absorber only, not the velocity of the emitter. However, once you see the true dynamic of light, one can measure the velocity of the emitter. If we learn to filter one photon of starlight, how convenient it would be, to be able, to measure the velocity of a star, and the velocity of our star, separately, with starlight from any star? It would give the us a different reference for relative motion of the universe.

EM radiation is an intermittent strobe, with a duty cycle, it is not a wave.

Instead of insisting their measurements constitute objective facts, the reality is every measurement is a mistake of relative proportions.
So if I claim the Earth has diameter x
in terms of lightyears, and conclude that my claim is accurate because "I say so" my flawed assumption acts as the basis for potentially infinite inaccurate conclusions.
Then I stubbornly insist my assumptions are infallible, because "science, facts, Democrats".
The scientific method is extremely valuable, when properly observed.
However, the scientific method is objectively incapable of producing factual conclusions about objective reality.