Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Modern Science Has Brought Us.....eh......nothing


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#18 Ryndanangnysen

Ryndanangnysen

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 05 March 2015 - 09:46 AM

Some people here like to say tings without any investigation at all!

 

 

Really, the transistor was invented before the quantum hoax theory!



#19 Ryndanangnysen

Ryndanangnysen

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 05 March 2015 - 09:50 AM

Here ya go...

 

 

Lilienfield Acknowledged As Pioneer

 

In an address to the American Institute of Physics in 1988, Bardeen acknowledged the great credit due Lilienfeld for his pioneering efforts to make the semiconductor amplifier. In the 1920s, Lilienfeld could not have understood the physics of the field-effect semiconductor amplifier, as the quantum theory of solids was still several years away. Nevertheless, he had a good intuitive feel for a new approach to electronics. In Bardeen’s own words, “Lilienfeld had the basic concept of controlling the flow of current in a semiconductor to make an amplifying device. It took many years of theory development and material technology to make his dream a reality.”

 

http://www.ieeeghn.o...id_State_Device

 

Hence, the Nobel price was NOT deserved. like the rest of them.


Edited by Ryndanangnysen, 05 March 2015 - 09:52 AM.


#20 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 05 March 2015 - 10:10 AM

Um, what part of " It took many years of theory development and material technology to make his dream a reality" don't you understand? An amplifier is a long way from a transistor which can not just amplify but turn on and off the flow of electricity is fundamentally different application. Just because they used the same materials doesn't mean it's "the same thing."

 

Your argument about not deserving a Nobel prize is akin to saying that because of Michelson and Morely, Einstein does not deserve his Nobel either.

 

 

Against logic there is no armor like ignorance, :phones:

Buffy



#21 Ryndanangnysen

Ryndanangnysen

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 05 March 2015 - 11:57 AM

And then there is the non-neccesity of relativity for the gps:

(really relativty is one big joke!!)

 

To offset these two effects, the GPS engineers reset the clock rates, slowing them down before launch by 39,000 nanoseconds a day. They then proceed to tick in orbit at the same rate as ground clocks, and the system "works." Ground observers can indeed pin-point their position to a high degree of precision. In (Einstein) theory, however, it was expected that because the orbiting clocks all move rapidly and with varying speeds relative to any ground observer (who may be anywhere on the Earth's surface), and since in Einstein's theory the relevant speed is always speed relative to the observer, it was expected that continuously varying relativistic corrections would have to be made to clock rates. This in turn would have introduced an unworkable complexity into the GPS. But these corrections were not made. Yet "the system manages to work, even though they use no relativistic corrections after launch," Van Flandern said. "They have basically blown off Einstein."

 

 

 

http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/

 

 

 

And so it is with the rest of the more then ridiculous `Modern Science´, an oxymoron if you dig deep enough.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ( I am wandering what Buffy is doing, it looks like she is defending her very wrong religious beliefs, but who cares?)


Edited by Ryndanangnysen, 05 March 2015 - 12:02 PM.


#22 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 05 March 2015 - 12:47 PM

Oh so you're a Tom Van Flandern disciple, eh? That explains a thing or two. He's the guy who was absolutely sure the Face of Mars was made by aliens. How "scientific"....

 

Tom Bethell is an enabler of charlatans too, so just about anything that comes out of his pen is probably of questionable substance.

 

Now the "fact" you're quoting here is based on the supposed "unworkable complexity" of performing the calculations in real time. What's so stupid about this--and what is actually referenced in the quote you've used--is that because the satellite has a known orbit, the computation is done, yes, not "after launch," but BEFORE launch. You can read up on this computation here. (Actually some computations are done after the fact to adjust for eccentric orbits, but computational complexity is not really the issue that Van Flandern breathlessly claimed).

 

Redefining a problem so that it's insoluble is the most common modus operandi of conspiracy nuts.

 

For those of you who'd like an entertaining expose of what a charlatan Van Flandern (sadly) became, here's a great article.

 

 

I should get one of those signs that says "One of these days I'm gonna get organezized" :phones:

Buffy



#23 Ryndanangnysen

Ryndanangnysen

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 05 March 2015 - 01:17 PM

"Modern Physics" is obsolete

 

 

“It is a strange thought, but I believe a correct one, that twenty or thirty pages of ideas and information would be capable of turning the present-day world upside down, or even destroying it. I have often tried to conceive of what those pages might contain, but of course I am a prisoner of the present-day world, just as all of you are. We cannot think outside the particular patterns that our brains are conditioned to, or, to be more accurate, we can only think a very little way outside, and then only if we are very original.”
—Fred Hoyle, Of Men and Galaxies

 



#24 Ryndanangnysen

Ryndanangnysen

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 05 March 2015 - 01:24 PM

And, again, optics is NOT because of "Modern physics" far far far from it:

 

Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham (Arabic: أبو علي الحسن بن الحسن بن الهيثم, Latinized: Alhacen or (deprecated) Alhazen) (965 – 1039), was an Arab[1] or Persian[2] Muslim polymath who made significant contributions to the principles of optics, as well as to anatomy, astronomy, engineering, mathematics, medicine, ophthalmology, philosophy, physics, psychologyvisual perception, and to science in general with his introduction of the scientific method.

 

 

 

http://www.newworlde.../Ibn_al-Haytham

 

As you can see, "Modern science" has Hijacked a lot of things and called it her own, so in reality she is a THIEF



#25 Ryndanangnysen

Ryndanangnysen

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 05 March 2015 - 01:32 PM

and the list goes on and on and Buffy or whatever her name talked about cars, well they also have nothing to do with 

; modern physics' Nothing at all!

 

let's just see:

 

Turbocharging:

 

The idea of turbo-compressing seems to come from the 1890s and became widely known in less than a decade, starting around 1900. By about 1905, centrifugal compression was in use in marine engines and other heavy-duty applications. That same year, Swiss engineer Dr. Alfred Büchi patented an exhaust-driven turbocharger in what we’d consider a modern configuration. - See more at: http://blog.hemmings...h.tOeejhAT.dpuf

 

 

See, Nothing to do with "modern science'!

 

Hybrids:

1900-Elektromobile-System-Lohner-Porsche

 

This is my favorite early technology, and, no mistake, it is very early. The 1900 Lohner-Porsche petrol-electric – which had a Mercedes or Panhard four-cylinder connected to a dynamo, powering two front-wheel hub motors – is certainly the most famous, but despite repeated efforts, hub motors have yet to see practical production. But there were innumerable others with other solutions, one of which, Rambler, had what seems to have turned out to be THE solution: Integrated motor assist. - See more at: http://blog.hemmings...h.QshI3Qx6.dpuf

 

 

 See, Nothing to do with "modern science'!

 

 

Power brakes:

 

 

 
. Power brakes

When you drive an early car for the first time, the weak brakes make themselves known immediately. You’re forgiven for thinking they were an afterthought, but the issue was actually the tires. Even a skimpy contracting band could lock up slick three-inch-wide rubber, but that didn’t mean there weren’t inventors thinking up better solutions than rods and leather belts.

Like hydraulic power brakes.

Master-cylinder-700x449.jpg

That there is the master cylinder from John Unser’s 1904 patent (#794,382) for hydraulic brakes. “Hydraulic,” in this case, meant “operated by the pressure of air or other similar fluid”; his pump and reservoir could be adapted for liquids. For traction engines, there was even an outlet at the end to hook up to your trailer, like you do with a Perterbilt today. This stuff doesn’t spring up out of whole cloth, and I could undoubtedly find someone discussing the use of some rail-braking mechanism for road trains, but you get the idea.

  - See more at: http://blog.hemmings...h.QshI3Qx6.dpuf

 

 

 

 See, Nothing to do with "modern science'!



#26 Ryndanangnysen

Ryndanangnysen

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 05 March 2015 - 01:35 PM

 

Disc brakes

 


Lanchester-disc-700x1077.jpg

 

 

 

Because clutch disc brakes were in common use, it’s been very tricky to pin down the first application of wheel disc brakes. However, the earliest version is acknowledged to be the F.W. Lanchester’s 1902 patent, and by 1903, it was being used very successfully in Lanchester automobiles. Given Fred Lanchester’s background and track record of startling invention, it entirely possible he came up with the idea.

Metzmultiplediscbrakes-700x326.jpg
Metz multiple disc brakes

Argyl-front-wheel-drums-700x814.jpg
Argyl front-wheel drums

By 1915, Metz was offering a hub-mounted version of multiplate disc clutch brakes, and Scottish make Argyl had four-wheel internal expanding drums. Lanchester’s experment didn’t last long, but French automakers started playing around with discs again in the Twenties.

- See more at: http://blog.hemmings...h.QshI3Qx6.dpuf

 

 

 

 See, Nothing to do with "modern science'!



#27 Ryndanangnysen

Ryndanangnysen

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 05 March 2015 - 01:36 PM

 
Fuel injection

Blown-fuel-injected-experimental-automob
Blown, air-cooled, fuel-injected, two-stroke experimental automobile, 1908

Because there was continual interest in oil-burning engines, fuel injection and direct injection were known quantities. The trouble, as manufacturers relearned in the Fifties, is that mechanical fuel injection requires precise timing and metering, and expensive, close tolerance machining. It was first developed in European stationary engines in the early 1890s, and developed for automobiles and other vehicles around the turn of the century – the Wright brothers rather famously made it work in 1903. In America, it was really limited to a small number of independents at the time; however, as there wasn’t enough money in the industry to support a sufficiently developed field of inquiry. In France, M. Levassor had running fuel-injected automobiles by 1903, and may even have sold some for road use.

Fuel-injection-diagram-1908.jpg

That was no longer true a few years later, and by around 1907, there were experimental fuel-injected cars running. To address the troubling issue of preignition, many, if not all, were two-strokes, and alcohol was often used; this was much less of a problem in the already well-established kerosene (Diesel) engines. By 1910, fuel injection was widely discussed even among laymen, and everyone expected that the problems would be ironed out soon. But it really wasn’t until the Thirties that it became widely available in the U.S., and then only as speed parts.

  - See more at: http://blog.hemmings...h.QshI3Qx6.dpuf

 

 

 

again

 

 See, Nothing to do with "modern science'!



#28 Ryndanangnysen

Ryndanangnysen

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 05 March 2015 - 01:37 PM

 
Rotary and turbine engines

 

Rotaries of every possible configuration abounded in the 1800s; the idea had been around for centuries, and Pecquer’s self-propelled 1828 steam wagon was a rotary, probably turbine style. They were, in fact everywhere. Most were rotaries in the sense that, familiar from rotary piston aircraft, the pistons revolved around the crankshaft while reciprocating; the other class were turbines.

Single-rotor steam engines were, if not common, at least a known line of inquiry. Adding combustion to a rotating chamber was something else. But in the 1890s a few played around with the idea of abandoning pistons altogether, for a Wankel-style rotor. All of these inventors are obscure to the point that I have no idea who they were, but the 110-plus-year-old combustion engines of Chaudin, Garnder and Sanderson, Batley, Vernet, Dodement and Beetz are recognizably non-reciprocating rotaries.

Beetz-rotary-700x321.jpg
André Beetz’s rotary

Gardner-Sanderson-turbine-rotary-700x424
Gardner-Sanderson petrol turbine rotary

Some experts saw the reciprocating piston gas engine as a stopgap, assuming that within a few years the problems with turbines – the same ones as with fuel injection – would be ironed out and soon become the automobile powerplant of choice.

- See more at: http://blog.hemmings...h.QshI3Qx6.dpuf

 

 

 

 

 See, Nothing to do with "modern science'!



#29 Ryndanangnysen

Ryndanangnysen

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 05 March 2015 - 01:37 PM

 
Automatic transmissions

The earliest automatics were more properly CVTs, some form of variable ratio transmissions, often using belts or flywheels. An automatic tension belt design from Europe, using a belt and spur gears, appeared in 1900, and there were numerous friction-drive vehicles available right along, where power was transmitted through the action of one wheel to another at right angles. So from a “you don’t have to shift” perspective, automatics are as old as the car.

1901-Shattuck-Variable-Gear-700x480.jpg

But in 1901, the patented Shattuck Variable Gear transmission debuted in Minneapolis. The driver did still need to shift, but the actual gear change was theoretically automatic – no clutching needed. At the same time, planetary transmissions, as popularized by the Model T, were well along in development. All that was needed was the torque converter, which was 20 years away.

1914-Entz-electric-transmission-700x305.
1914 Entz electric transmission

So interest turned to electric transmissions. As in some of the hybrids, a motor-generator was placed behind the engine in the drivetrain, and a magnetic clutch was often used to further simplify operation. The simplest systems, like the R.M. Owen unit above, didn’t use large accumulators; they were designed to be driven solely by the engine, but without the need for shifting; all you had to do was flip the switch to disengage it at a stop. A very similar system was used in the production 1907 Columbia gas-electric.

1923-Lavaud-automatic.jpg
Lavaud automatic transmission

- See more at: http://blog.hemmings...h.QshI3Qx6.dpuf

 

 

 

 

 

 See, Nothing to do with "modern science'!



#30 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 05 March 2015 - 01:40 PM

"Modern Physics" is obsolete

“It is a strange thought, but I believe a correct one, that twenty or thirty pages of ideas and information would be capable of turning the present-day world upside down, or even destroying it. I have often tried to conceive of what those pages might contain, but of course I am a prisoner of the present-day world, just as all of you are. We cannot think outside the particular patterns that our brains are conditioned to, or, to be more accurate, we can only think a very little way outside, and then only if we are very original.” —Fred Hoyle, Of Men and Galaxies

 

Um, is there a point you're trying to make here? I mean if you want to build your proof on quotes without comment, here's a counter quote:

 

If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

 

So what? Are you saying that all science really is just meaningless because Ogg, inventor of the wheel, is responsible for all knowledge and everyone else is a "thief?"

 

Seriously?

 

As advertising blather becomes the nation's normal idiom, language becomes printed noise, :phones:

Buffy



#31 Ryndanangnysen

Ryndanangnysen

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 05 March 2015 - 01:40 PM

And so it is with the WHOLE of technology that is so-called because of "Modern Physics"

 

NOTHING is because of "Modern Physics" and it can't be because the whole foundation of physics is very very wrong,

 

 

it is time to stop that shite!


Edited by Ryndanangnysen, 05 March 2015 - 01:44 PM.


#32 Ryndanangnysen

Ryndanangnysen

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 05 March 2015 - 01:44 PM

Someone doesn't get the point,

 

Do just simply this. take ANY, and I mean ANY technology that is so called because of "modern Physics" and go looking for

an earlier version of it. In nearly ALL cases you can.

Don't believe me on my word I never asked for that.

 

You will find that the following was here, long before 'mopdern physics' arrived.

 

mri, nmr, submarines, telescope, computers, transistors, x-rays, light, radio, wireless technology, mobile phone,

anesthesia and so on and so forth

 

 

Just simple proof it to yourself. Very easy to do and fun, because you may be in for a few surprises!!

 

 

Enjoy!



#33 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 05 March 2015 - 01:46 PM

 

 See, Nothing to do with "modern science'!

 

 

Without any definition of what you call "modern" all the previous examples you're citing are meaningless.

 

Is "modern science" since 1900? Since 1800? Since the Renaissance? Are you going to draw a line?

 

Do you find no incremental improvements discoveries at all? Has nothing been discovered since Ogg the caveman?

 

The sad thing is that you seem to think that you're proving something here with your Silly Claims (which is where we're moving you for posterity).

 

 

No man is exempt from saying silly things; the mischief is to say them deliberately, :phones:

Buffy



#34 pgrmdave

pgrmdave

    Lurking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts

Posted 05 March 2015 - 02:52 PM

Do just simply this. take ANY, and I mean ANY technology that is so called because of "modern Physics" and go looking for

an earlier version of it. In nearly ALL cases you can.

Don't believe me on my word I never asked for that.

 

You will find that the following was here, long before 'mopdern physics' arrived.

 

mri, nmr, submarines, telescope, computers, transistors, x-rays, light, radio, wireless technology, mobile phone,

anesthesia and so on and so forth

 

Wait, is this your entire argument? That inventions are based on inventions before them?  That...might be the *worst* argument I've ever heard regarding modern physics.  At least the time cube guy is entertaining.


  • Buffy likes this