The Scientific Method?

[Bill McC]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

We were expecting this, too. So far you've spouted mostly nonsense, and unsupported nonsense at that. If that doesn't change soon (i.e. you need to provide support for claims) then you will find that you don't have a platform for any discussion at all here.

 

For example: you claimed "In 1973 by law, no school receiving Federal Tax Breaks or grant money could teach the scientific method that demanded you demonstrate your hypothesis." and I asked for a pointer to the actual law. Where is it? What is the federal statute that says this? Or are you making it up?

 

The curriculum was mandated in that year 1973. Before that, teachers could teach what they learned and what they had done in life. My teachers, some of whom were Universal Scientists, like Benjamin Franklin and other German and foreign scientists, were scientists that adhered to the scientific method as I outlined. Even though the Universal Scientists won the debate over the neutron fair and square, the government still backed and funded the “neutron scientists,” as I call them, after the war. The neutron scientist quickly moved to hide much of the work of Universal Science. They used Enrico Fermi, a poor Universal Scientist who still wanted to bridge the gap between the two bodies of scientists, to kill Universal Science. His hypocrisy and flawed science gave Universal Science a bad name publically. Most Universal Scientists went around lecturing after that, and if you were lucky enough to catch a lecture, there was no doubt who the scientists were and who were con artists selling garbage. Once the government got involved, it was like selling drugs. The government rewarded teachers for pushing garbage on kids instead of creating a quality, demonstrable curriculum for kids.  

Even the American economic system could not be taught after 1973 in any school receiving federal funding or tax breaks even though it played a major part in our breaking away from England. We used to be taught how the Founding Fathers when sure war was imminent, all agreed that they needed to understand all the systems needed to run a country. When it came to tying money to gold, they did not know how England did it; they just accepted the fact it needed to be done and assumed they needed to do it too. They had just fought a war against the French and the Indians with no food, clothes, weapons, or shoes because England said they did not have enough gold to back money to give them. The tax at the time was a 50 percent stamp tax on money spent on goods. So the founding fathers sat down to demonstrate the existing system of money. Benjamin Franklin printed the first money, and George Washington brought gold from his rich wife. They made the exchange Ben acting as the government they began the demonstration. George Washington bought 100 dollars worth of farm equipment from Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin put out his hand and asked for fifty dollars tax. He looked down at the gold and the fifty dollars and declared, “we are rich” he instantly saw the sick game. He had already debunked slavery as nothing but a poison pill for the colonies. If you do not condone slavery, you cannot be made a slave, was his conclusion. That is why they condemned slavery at the start of the revolution. 
They realized that England had been keeping them poor, and some of the strange events reported were all true. Like the English buying up all the bacon in the colonies to a point colonists were going hungry, and dumping it at sea before reaching England to keep the price of bacon high in England and the craftsmen poor. As the founding fathers were now sure, they could lower the tax. They demonstrated their system, but with just a penny tax on the dollar spent, and to their amazement, a penny tax collected every dollar in circulation and returned it to the government. Immediately, many of the treasonous souls planing the revolution wanted to hang the lords and governors outside their homes. George Washington and Benjamin Franklin had a better idea; they wanted to build homes in Virginia and greet the British regulars on the beach with overwhelming numbers and offer them a home to live in or a sudden death. Unfortunately, when England canceled all taxes, one loyalist tea company decided they were going to collect a three pence on the pound tax because they wanted to, not because they had to. This infuriated the colonists, and the Boston Tea Party became a reason for British troops to arrive in numbers, immediately messing up the amazing plan they were working quickly to accomplish. The three pence on the pound tax would be equivalent to 1.27 cents tax on the dollar. The rest is history. Even if you are in an armchair in the clouds with no foundation, you can see how money is just a tool to trade goods. A penny tax alone would collect all the money in circulation and return it to the government, making tying it to gold scientifically impossible. George Washington left standing orders to take up arms against the government if they ever levied more than a penny tax on the dollar federal income tax. The government can print any amount of money for the infrastructure or people in need, which costs no one anything—inflation as taught in school slams Germany for printing money and building great cities quickly. The education system claims that is why bread in Germany rose to 200 marks a loaf. Yet scientifically, if you examine that claim, any currency in Germany, any commodity traded for bread would be equally devalued as there was no bread. Before you can be objective about science, you need to face the pressure on science created by your government. 

[swansont]

14 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

The curriculum was mandated in that year 1973.

And I am asking you, once again, for evidence of this, because you have not provided any. For this, or your other fanciful claims.

 

[Bill McC]

18 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Thanks for your reply. 

Since your description deviates from the predictions of Newton's law of universal gravitation (and also general relativity) can you provide the mathematical equations used in your model that predicts the results you claim? What scientific method did you use?

I know about models for gravity and a few things about applying such models. As an engineer I find Newton useful for low relative velocities and masses. Einsteins model predicts bending of light and is supported by experiments. What experiments and observations support your idea?

 

The same approximations will work approximately for the older model if you find they work well enough now. I see deviations in orbit velocity ratios of low and high orbit satellites. If you really wanted to get accurate math I believe we would need to look into considering the media the gravity is passing through before it gets to the planet. As an electrical effect that should effect it. So that a planet with a dense deep atmosphere would probably cause greater gravity than a planet with a shallow atmosphere. 

 

When I see the large sun in the morning a tiny sun in the afternoon I witness the refraction caused by the ramping density atmosphere. 

[Phi for All]

22 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

The curriculum was mandated in that year 1973. Before that, teachers could teach what they learned and what they had done in life. My teachers, some of whom were Universal Scientists, like Benjamin Franklin and other German and foreign scientists, were scientists that adhered to the scientific method as I outlined. Even though the Universal Scientists won the debate over the neutron fair and square, the government still backed and funded the “neutron scientists,” as I call them, after the war. The neutron scientist quickly moved to hide much of the work of Universal Science. They used Enrico Fermi, a poor Universal Scientist who still wanted to bridge the gap between the two bodies of scientists, to kill Universal Science. His hypocrisy and flawed science gave Universal Science a bad name publically. Most Universal Scientists went around lecturing after that, and if you were lucky enough to catch a lecture, there was no doubt who the scientists were and who were con artists selling garbage. Once the government got involved, it was like selling drugs. The government rewarded teachers for pushing garbage on kids instead of creating a quality, demonstrable curriculum for kids.  

Even the American economic system could not be taught after 1973 in any school receiving federal funding or tax breaks even though it played a major part in our breaking away from England. We used to be taught how the Founding Fathers when sure war was imminent, all agreed that they needed to understand all the systems needed to run a country. When it came to tying money to gold, they did not know how England did it; they just accepted the fact it needed to be done and assumed they needed to do it too. They had just fought a war against the French and the Indians with no food, clothes, weapons, or shoes because England said they did not have enough gold to back money to give them. The tax at the time was a 50 percent stamp tax on money spent on goods. So the founding fathers sat down to demonstrate the existing system of money. Benjamin Franklin printed the first money, and George Washington brought gold from his rich wife. They made the exchange Ben acting as the government they began the demonstration. George Washington bought 100 dollars worth of farm equipment from Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin put out his hand and asked for fifty dollars tax. He looked down at the gold and the fifty dollars and declared, “we are rich” he instantly saw the sick game. He had already debunked slavery as nothing but a poison pill for the colonies. If you do not condone slavery, you cannot be made a slave, was his conclusion. That is why they condemned slavery at the start of the revolution. 
They realized that England had been keeping them poor, and some of the strange events reported were all true. Like the English buying up all the bacon in the colonies to a point colonists were going hungry, and dumping it at sea before reaching England to keep the price of bacon high in England and the craftsmen poor. As the founding fathers were now sure, they could lower the tax. They demonstrated their system, but with just a penny tax on the dollar spent, and to their amazement, a penny tax collected every dollar in circulation and returned it to the government. Immediately, many of the treasonous souls planing the revolution wanted to hang the lords and governors outside their homes. George Washington and Benjamin Franklin had a better idea; they wanted to build homes in Virginia and greet the British regulars on the beach with overwhelming numbers and offer them a home to live in or a sudden death. Unfortunately, when England canceled all taxes, one loyalist tea company decided they were going to collect a three pence on the pound tax because they wanted to, not because they had to. This infuriated the colonists, and the Boston Tea Party became a reason for British troops to arrive in numbers, immediately messing up the amazing plan they were working quickly to accomplish. The three pence on the pound tax would be equivalent to 1.27 cents tax on the dollar. The rest is history. Even if you are in an armchair in the clouds with no foundation, you can see how money is just a tool to trade goods. A penny tax alone would collect all the money in circulation and return it to the government, making tying it to gold scientifically impossible. George Washington left standing orders to take up arms against the government if they ever levied more than a penny tax on the dollar federal income tax. The government can print any amount of money for the infrastructure or people in need, which costs no one anything—inflation as taught in school slams Germany for printing money and building great cities quickly. The education system claims that is why bread in Germany rose to 200 marks a loaf. Yet scientifically, if you examine that claim, any currency in Germany, any commodity traded for bread would be equally devalued as there was no bread. Before you can be objective about science, you need to face the pressure on science created by your government. 

!

Moderator Note

This kind of waving-hands bullshit doesn't fly here. You've made multiple extraordinary  claims with no intention of backing any of them up (not like you really could, since so many are incorrect) even after being told to do so or be in violation of our rules. We don't skimp on rigor in discussion here, and your style of making unevidenced claims as an argument against current mainstream explanations simply isn't worth the time it takes to respond to you. Nobody is learning anything from your posts except the bizarre things you believe. Evidence is the key here; if you post again on this forum, please use some to support your statements. Any more of this style will be fodder for the Trash Can.

Thread closed.