Alternative physics

[GestaltO]

Hi All,

This is my first post here and depending on what sort of response i am greeted with will depend if its my only post. You all seem to be an open minded bunch so i'm going to throw a few theories in the mix.

I am currently researching hydrogen energy and cold fusion, I will not go into any further detail yet, but will say that i have found some useful information on here so far, although i find that many people here are just replicating other peoples designs and research in order to improvie their fuel effeciency.

I have noticed you appear to all be open minded however people quote far too often things like thermodynamics and calculations based on modern science, which i find perplexing considering you are such open minded people.

For example i noticed 1 person state that water is not an energy source and at best is only an energy carrier. I would like to hear what anyone on here defines as "energy" a reference from wikipedia or scientific study to me is not an explanation.

ok so now bear with me because i propose that for example when splitting water into HHO we are not splitting molecules into it's individual atoms, in fact i believe the whole concept of an atom as a physical thing to be ridiculous and i propse that there is no such thing as an atom, but rather everything is made up of electrical signals which are in turn interpreted by the human brain. Think about it logically and based on modern science before you decide to jump on me. don't forget people used to think the world was flat.

People are quick to believe things that are "proven", but what is proof? to me proof is a design by which you are looking for a certain answer and you progress until you get that answer, now does that mean your answer is right or just the tools designed to measure these experiments are eventually giving you the answer you want?

I understand this all may seem a little odd and difficult to belive but i belive that science is limiting bright, open minds by it's limitations of new physics and modern science in general. Do you realise to have a scientific theory these days it has to be reviewed before it is classified by the "scientific community" as a valid theory?!? the whole idea of a theory is that...well...its a theory. nobody questions einsteins theory of relativity...except tesla, who realistically did not limit himself by the laws of science. Scientists also contradict themselves, hindering open minds whilst they build the LHC to try and prove the existence of higgs-boson, which would essentially shatter modern physics laws.....but would it, or are these laws just an illusion anyway. The LHC was built to try and PROVE the god particle exists, does that mean if they find it that it does exist or does it mean the machine they built is telling them what they "want" to hear. Science used to be about invention and free thinking, now it is about balanced equations that are applied to way too many things of similarity that they (in my eyes) no longer make any real logical sense, unless mathematics is the only thing that makes sense to you i guess.

Thoughts welcomed.

[HeairBear]

I agree with you whole heartedly. I find using any math equation to explain or understand reality or physics is just another form of art. We can make mathematical approximations but it always seems the equation never fully equates to what happens in reality.  As a musician, I can read music notation but I can reproduce any music or sound when I can hear and see the making of the sound.  Math is digital and I prefer analog!

[alan]

Good points.
To keep it short:
I see science as proving yourself (or your hypotheses being) wrong.
If you cant prove it wrong, it is correct, at least for the time being.
This demands dicipline.

[PhiScience]

 Hi,

It is often stated that the function of science is to make observations and measurements and to find correlations between the observed facts.
That such pursuits belong properly to the realm of science is not limited to purely empirical or inductive methods of investigation.
Any procedure by which the facts of nature can be ascertained or surmised or rendered more intelligible and less mysterious deserves to be recognized as a truly scientific pursuit.

  Modern physics is devoted largely to the use of mathematical symbols and equations, but the success of this method does not justify us in condemning the use of geometric forms and models as unscientific.
Mechanical and hydromechanical models are based primarily on geometric or space relationships, and geometry, even solid geometry, is a branch of mathematics a fact too often ignored by the exponents of the “new physics.”
These considerations are especially pertinent in the field of atomic structure where geometric relationships must be presumed to be of primary importance although hidden from direct view and in many cases not easily expressed by mathematical equations.

  Physicists may be correct in their assertions that nothing is truly scientific unless it can be expressed mathematically, but I believe that no system of atomic structure is truly scientific unless it can be expressed geometrically by pictures or diagrams that must have geometric form.

  There has been much philosophical argument over whether the external world really exists, and whether the expression “physical reality” has any meaning.
If we adopt the idealistic view that matter does not exist as an objective reality but only as a product of the mind, then the primary purpose of theoretical physics should be to study the mental processes rather than physical phenomena so as to ascertain the clearest and most satisfactory symbolic representations of the facts of nature by means of mathematical formulas and equations.
This is exactly the attitude taken by the leading physicists of today, with the result that nearly all recent books on quantum mechanics and atomic structure are couched in such language that it is impossible to tell where the world of physical reality ends and where the world of mathematical fancy begins.
If we ask any exponent of “the new physics” whether the electrons actually move in orbits about the atom, we will probably get a lesson in Jesuitism for a reply, but never a direct answer of “yes” or “no”.
  On the other hand if we adopt the materialistic view of the general public that matter does exist of its own accord, then the primary purpose of theoretical physics should be to ascertain the true facts of nature, regardless of whether or not they will readily lend themselves to mathematical treatment.

[GestaltO]

Good points.
To keep it short:
I see science as proving yourself (or your hypotheses being) wrong.
If you cant prove it wrong, it is correct, at least for the time being.
This demands dicipline.

Fantastically put, i think along the same lines...something is only proven until a better explanation comes along. The world WAS flat until it was proven it was spherical, someday it may be proven that its more egg shaped than properly spherical.

Thanks for your comments so far guys. It seems i'll be able to make myself comfortable here without people thinking i'm insane  .