Mad scientists do experiments

    In Science, we don't do experiments

    The worldly wisdom among mathemagicians is that experiments are an integral part of what they call
    'science'. An experiment allegedly enables them to observe the phenomenon under controlled conditions,
    confirm their predictions, and prove their theories to others.

    Unfortunately for our deluded mathemagicians, observation, predictions and proof are outside the purview
    of Science. It is the inventor, the developer of technology, who uses his hands. It is the technician who does
    the footwork, runs errands and collects data. A scientist uses his head. His job is to explain.

    What is the purpose of an experiment if not to impress the audience? The mathemagician runs an
    experiment in an attempt to persuade the crowd much like a prosecutor tries to sway the jury in his favor
    by doing a show and tell. The purpose of persuasion is to convince and the purpose of convincing is to
    recruit. The mathemagician wants the listeners to believe in his theory. This is, plain and simple, nothing
    but an attempt to change opinions. This is religion, not Science!

    Science is objective and rational. Science doesn't care about opinions. Science merely cares about
    rational explanations. What people believe after the conference is over doesn't concern Science. In
    Science, we don't run experiments. In Science, we explain them. Skeptics are welcome to run experiments
    at their labs on their own clock. When they come to the next conference, their job is NOT to electrify the
    audience with an awesome experiment. Their job is to EXPLAIN the causes behind the phenomenon.

    Gawking = experiments - explanations ....... (Gee!)

    Let's look at this matter in light most favorable to the mathemagical world. We run an experiment. We
    release a pen and verify that it falls to the ground. We repeat the experiment as many times as the
    mathemagician wants. We do it 1000 times and have it verified independently by people on the other
    side of the planet.

    Now... why does the pen always fall to the ground? Why doesn't it fall to the sky? These are the type
    of questions a scientist must answer. The mathemagicians have run millions of experiments since the
    beginning of time. Not one mathemagician on Earth can rationally explain to you the mechanism of gravity.

Faraday is a hero of Mathemagix.
The mathemagicians boast that he ran
experiments and developed the first
electric motor.
Unfortunately for them, a motor has nothing
to do with Science. The mathemagicians
mistake Technology and invention for
Science and explanation.
Faraday never understood WHAT either
electricity or magnetism were about.
Faraday could only GAWK!
WHAT physical object
causes the pen to fall
DOWN to the Earth?
Why doesn't the pen fall
upwards towards the sky?
In order to answer this question you MUST propose an
invisible entity that mediates the transaction.

    Making the invisible visible

    The mathemagicians are trying to do the impossible. They are trying to come up with an experiment to see
    the entity that mediates electromagnetism, magnetism, light and other invisible phenomena. It can't be done,
    and certainly not with an equation. 'Proof' of this is that no mathemagician can explain gravity. The only way
    to determine WHAT invisible agent is acting during gravity is to propose one through a SUPPOSITION. You
    make an ASSUMPTION and SIMULATE the event with your proposal, for instance:

    "Let us ASSUME that light is mediated by an entity that has a rope-like

    Having proposed an object we can now proceed to explain the phenomenon with this agent. That's the Way
    of Science!

    What the mathemagicians never realized is that they never PROVED that particles (photons, muons,
    electrons, etc.) mediate physical phenomena. They have always ASSUMED and taken for granted that
    what they have in front of them are particles. They passed these alleged 'particles' off as facts. The reason
    not one mechanic on Earth can draw for you a single particle of Quantum Mechanics is that the entire
    Standard Model is an ASSUMPTION. Not one mathemagician has ever seen a so-called 'particle'. They
    have ASSUMED that the spiraling lines they see in their bubble chambers are traces of particles. It never
    dawned on them that the computers that make images of these traces are already built to treat these lines
    as traces of point particles. To quote Luigi Galvani (1737 - 1798), a physician who changed his long-running
    opinion regarding why frog legs twitch when subjected to electrical stimulus:

    "...for it is easy in experimentation to be deceived, and to think one has
    seen and discovered what one has desired to see and discover"

    No experiment will ever be able to tell a human WHAT the invisible entity that is moving in Mother Nature's
    secret world looks like. The reason many people have concluded and believe that Man is not intelligent
    enough to figure out how this Universe works is that the mathemagicians have been unsuccessful in
    elucidating the nature of the invisible mediators for phenomena such as light and gravity. Once we simulate
    these phenomena with an agent that explains all phenomena, the mystery goes away.

Most people have been told and led
to believe that the Standard Model
of Quantum Mechanics has been
proven through experiment. The
reality is that not one
mathemagician on Earth can draw
or illustrate a single subatomic
particle because they have never
seen one. The mechanics ASSUME
that the mediator they are staring at
is a particle. They have built the
entire model on this ASSUMPTION.

The mathemagicians have also built
their machines and programmed
them to treat every signal as a
discrete particle. The alleged
'traces' they see in their bubble
chambers can just as well be
simulated with
threads. No
experiment can ever be designed to
elucidate the architectural nature of
an invisible entity. Indeed, it would
be quite simple for the mechanics to
calculate the radius or width of their
particles by merely measuring
across one of the curved lines on
the left. Instead, they talk about
energy and speed and tell you that
their particles are 0D!
The Particle Supposition

    Technology just confuses people more

    To make matters worse for the independent thinker, the overwhelming majority of laymen will side with the
    peer reviewers, the logic being that the technology we have today is proof that both General Relativity and
    Quantum Mechanics are, if not complete, at least more or less correct. The following are typical replies
    that you will often read in the forums:

    1. "There is much that we don't know. We are still investigating."

    2. "Man's intelligence to God's is like a snail's intelligence with respect to Man's. We will
        never be able to understand our Universe."

    3. "The Universe works rationally. It is Man who thinks irrationally."

    4. "Your computer is proof that Quantum Mechanics is correct. We built it relying on
        Quantum principles."

    5. "If General Relativity were wrong, GPS wouldn't work."

    Unfortunately, most people have grown up with the misleading notion that technology is a measure of how
    much we know (i.e., science). The typical examples that you'll hear over and over are the sophistication of
    computers and the infamous GPS. However, Science has absolutely nothing to do with technology. They
    have nothing in common. Science is about explaining a phenomenon rationally. Technology is about
    inventing and developing gadgets by trial and error.

    Science is not 'useful'

    A popular argument in the forums is that 'science' has to have a useful purpose. Science allegedly enables
    humans to invent gadgets and devices that make our lives more comfortable. Manufacturing thrives on
    inventions: "Just look at all the inventions we have patented in the last 50 years and all the money they made
    for the entrepreneurs." The notion has spread that 'science' has to have some tangible results, that it must be
    useful. Usefulness, in turn, serves as a corroboration that the presenter 'knows'. His 'theory' resulted in a
    tangible product.

    So, let's begin by memorizing the law...

    "In Science, 'useful' is useless!"

    Science is about explaining a mechanism or cause underlying a phenomenon. An explanation per se has no
    purpose other than understanding. If a theory induces someone to put two and two together and come up
    with a device, more power to him, but this segment of the process is divorced from Science. Science stops
    at explanation and understanding. What the individual in the crowd believes or whether he translates that
    idea into a workable gadget is beyond the purview of Science.

Bill's papers  or find them @  Academia
To comment on any of the pages in this website go to:

Rational Scientific Method   
             Bill's books


Mathematical Physics      
The Rope Hypothesis    

Nila and Bill      
Ye Olde You Stupid Relativist