Bill McC

I dispute the experiment to prove the light bends because of gravity. I believe that the bending of light near a heavenly body is due to the ramping pressure and density gas around any heavenly body. If you could take the gas away and match the ambient pressure of deep space, near the heavenly body there would be no refraction of light. My views of how light is transmitted goes against all current teachings but was taught many decades ago here on Long Island, N.Y. but I do not want to get into trouble my first day.

There was a single scientific method, and so far from what I can tell, it lays out the proper order to prove something. I am not sure if you read my article attached to the post? If your observation skill is spot on, you are a great detective, and you know the actual history at the time, you may be able to see how they did something out of order there. They blew up a bomb that did weigh under a half-ton, 886 pounds to be exact, and it was made with standard industrial products. In fact, in the seventies, they had a PBS special with women in shower caps making them, with the old gung-ho World War Two war effort music playing as they showed how they were made. My uncle took us to see the duplicate of it at West Point the day they were removing the display for "Cold War purposes" in the sixties. They are so simple to make that the government, not being made up of men of great spiritual virtue, honesty, or good conscience, in a somewhat paranoid move decided that citizens would not be allowed to know the secret of the atom. Many citizens were already well aware by accidentally creating limited atomic explosions. One of the first such blasts happened in Germany in a liquid carbonic plant before World War One. Germany tried to warn the world, and they were told: "shut up and get back to work." My school still taught the taboo pre-World War One history and science classes to honor students for factory safety training; that is how I learned of such things in an educational setting. I had learned or heard about them before from older engineers that were well aware of the accident in Germany. My point to all this is that an experiment could prove or disprove the same hypothesis if you do not first state what the experiment is supposed to prove by demonstration of your hypothesis. My vacuum cleaner example shows the folly of doing an experiment without first demonstrating the hypothesis. By detonating the bomb and claiming cohesion forces without demonstrating them makes for poor science. No one has ever demonstrated an attraction force in this universe. But they have done out-of-order experiments and claimed that the experiment had proven something they cannot demonstrate. That is like a witch doctor curing a patient with a new flower extract and proving his hypothesis that the flower Gods cured the patient. I don’t think there is anything speculative about that analogy. The witch doctor certainly could not produce or demonstrate the flower God to other scientists and therefore would have to look for another hypothesis to prove.

Hello, fellow science lovers! I was just rather shocked when I went to look for the current scientific method procedures. I have had arguments on science forums for decades, and I had assumed everyone was discussing the same scientific method. I had presumed because of the outcomes of specific experiments that they were applying it incorrectly or were disingenuous in their results. However, after a thorough search of the internet, I found that the current scientific method is missing a much-needed procedure to ensure 99.99 percent accuracy. In fact, without this one line of code, I am pretty sure that I could round up some scientists to sign off on my experiment and prove or disprove anything I wish within reason. Universal Scientists developed the scientific method, and it stood the test of time and created just about everything cool we have today. However, after World War Two, some American schools and Universities started teaching and training teachers, professors, and students to use the modified, abbreviated, or hacked version of the scientific method. This scenario is my theory as I could not be there to see what most others learned. Having contacted individuals about the subject, I found that my education included the Universal Science scientific method, and theirs did not. I received lectures from Universal Scientists, and apparently, they did not. Even honor students in other states and other counties in New York did not receive the same education. I knew that only honor students received Universal Science training. It incorporated weapons of mass destruction from ordinary materials for factory safety purposes; some teachers felt that teaching kids to make small handheld disintegrative devices out of children's toys was too dangerous for all but honor students. A mistake, in my opinion, but what has passed has passed. My point is that I was under the impression until recently that many scientists understood the scientific method and were not applying it. But now I have enough evidence to state that is not so. The universal scientific method was rather simple and concise. It was a six-steep basic procedure that was pretty hard to mess up if you followed it to the letter. Form a Hypothesis that you wish to prove with an experiment. Perform a simple demonstration of your hypothesis in front of peers, using words, hands, bodies, or objects. List all variables in the experiment. Example: The temperature, the humidity, the weather sunny or cloudy, rain or snow, all known electrical storms near the time of the experiment, and their locations. The moon's location and tide levels. Seismic activity, manmade electromagnetic effects with distances to transmitting towers, transformers and power lines, plane traffic, and distances, satellite locations at the time. Building equipment, HVAC, lighting, alarm systems, sensors, and their effects on ambient temperature and pressure. Remove all variables possible and list those that cannot be. Experiment making a record of the experiment. Remove new variables that arise in the experiment and list them with the old already know variables. Repeat process to 99.99 percent accuracy. You might say step two sounds like something for a child to have to do. The truth is that step protects the experimenter and the world from bad science and actual catastrophic disaster. Enrico Fermi would have been wise to use the standard Universal Science Scientific Method before he heated a nuclear pile to destruction. But on a more standard day-to-day use of the scientific method, if you take the current scientific method, you are supposed to research and then form a hypothesis. Which was kind of a given back in the day. But it is a good thing to do if what you research is accurate. If your research is filled with incorrect data by some chance, a very severe error or catastrophic accident could occur. If you follow the Universal Science Scientific Method, you will find that demonstrating your experiment to your peers will highlight such shortcomings in the proposed experiment. For example, lets use something that many might get wrong, but experts understand—a simple household vacuum cleaner. Using the current scientific method, I could research a vacuum cleaner and find things like "dirt is sucked into a vacuum.", "Objects are drawn to the vacuum with cyclonic action" or "The vacuum creates a powerful attraction force that sucks dirt into it." Now I might be working on a propulsion system that I believe will pull a ship forward in space. So I do an experiment with a vacuum cleaner and show the powerful force of attraction. I have a lot of money, and I get a lot of scientists that work for me to sign off eagerly for a little bonus. Now that I have proven an attraction force, I can get that grant from the government. If I used the Universal Science Scientific method, I probably would not get past step two. When I attempted to demonstrate a sucking force or an attraction force, I would not be able to do so. I could ask everyone on earth to demonstrate an attraction force, and no one would be able to do so because there are no attraction forces in our universe. At about this time, I might try the vacuum cleaner manufacturer who would get a kick out of my hypothesis and then explain that a vacuum cleaner moves air with pressure alone. He would explain that a vacuum does not move air; only air pressure moves air. The pump in the vacuum compresses air in the veins of the pump and then expells the compact pressurized air back into the room. When the partially evacuated pump veins are exposed to the vacuum canister, the air pressure in the canister pushes air into the pump veins. Subsequently, the air pressure in the room pushes air and dirt near the pickup port of the vacuum cleaner into the partially evacuated vacuum canister. There is no sucking or pulling action at all, just pushing forces. Our minds have been subjected to very unscientific terms in life. When a plane at high altitude suffers structural cabin failure, a person is not sucked out of the plane; he is blown and pushed out of the plane. When you pop an inflated balloon with a pin, the pin does not suck the air out of the balloon; the air is pushed out of the balloon. When you have a small diameter hose, water is running through and moving a short two-inch piece of the same hose to the larger hose, keeping it in line and parallel to the larger hose; apparently, it will be pulled to the larger hose as it moves closer and closer. In reality, the short hose is pushed to the larger hose by the water now exiting the shorter piece of hose. Magnets work just like that when opposing poles face one another; a flow of particles is set up between them, negating the ambient pressure between them, and they are pushed together. When the tides go out and the level of the ocean drops the rivers are not sucked to the ocean faster they are pushed to the ocean. It is my understanding that after World War Two, they no longer taught the masses the actual scientific method as well as other basics. But I realize now that they taught only a handful of people the actual scientific method. The reason was that they had announced that they would hide the secret of the atom and atom bomb from the citizens of the earth after dropping the Hiroshima bomb. They introduced the neutron a known imaginary particle and claimed it existed by forces of cohesion which do not exist as they have never been demonstrated. When the scientists trying to prove the neutron attempted to demonstrate attraction forces it ended with two scientist making hugging gestures behind each others backs proving even they believed it required a pushing force to cause two particles to move towards each other. The government went with the unproven neutron to help cloud the simplicity of the atom and our universe. They later hid how they made the atom bomb as well as no longer teaching how to make kelvin-bombs which can be a factory accident—just some food for thought.