0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Do you have an inexplicable experimental result?
Quote from: alancalverd on 29/11/2022 23:46:32Do you have an inexplicable experimental result?Just watch this video and tell me how you would explain the experimental results presented in it (pay attention especially to the later part of the video)//www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu_7uG6KlsUThe experiments in this video strikingly contradict all you know, actually, you believe about light.The video deserves billions of views. Everyone interested in light and its mysteries should analyze it from the beginning to the end.The author of the video has even more results which are not presented in the video, but at his website.
The point of a properly designed experiment is to make the outcome obvious.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 30/11/2022 14:02:01My experiments on diffraction contradict Huygen's principleIn what way?
My experiments on diffraction contradict Huygen's principle
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 30/11/2022 14:02:01My experiments on refraction using microwave contradict Fermat's principle.In what way?
My experiments on refraction using microwave contradict Fermat's principle.
Some materials show apparent refractive index less than 1
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 30/11/2022 23:02:55Some materials show apparent refractive index less than 1It's only "apparent" to a guy working with toy equipment in his kitchen as long as his wife isn't using it.Specifically, a guy who has repeatedly shown a lack of understanding of both the facts, and the practice of science.On the other hand, there's practically the whole of science.Which should I believe?
The experiments in this video strikingly contradict all you know, actually, you believe about light.
Your argumentation shown above is at level 2 in Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.
04:13 Level 7: Refuting the central point
On the other hand, there's practically the whole of science.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/11/2022 11:22:37Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 26/11/2022 04:48:00When we disagree, it would be helpful to identify the level of our disagreement.The problems is that you do not reliably recognise a refutation of your ideas when it is presented to you.Point one.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 26/11/2022 04:48:00When we disagree, it would be helpful to identify the level of our disagreement.The problems is that you do not reliably recognise a refutation of your ideas when it is presented to you.
When we disagree, it would be helpful to identify the level of our disagreement.
he doesn't give any explanations.
It seems you can't count.
If you were right, practically the whole of science would have to be wrong, and that's clearly impossible.For example, your computer would not work.So, I refuted your whole point, but you didn't understand that I had done so.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 01/12/2022 13:55:51If you were right, practically the whole of science would have to be wrong, and that's clearly impossible.For example, your computer would not work.So, I refuted your whole point, but you didn't understand that I had done so.Humans used tools while not understanding the accurate model of their working principles.Ancient humans had been using fire before even understanding it.They also built boats before understanding correct theory for buoyancy.They also used arrows effectively before understanding the correct theory of mechanics.Alchemists produced useful chemical reactions while having wrong theory of chemistry.The Mayans can predict the position of planets without understanding universal gravity.Newton wrote Optics and successfully built mirror telescope while using the wrong model of light.
It seems like you don't understand English.
My experiments on diffraction contradict Huygen's principle.
Humans used tools while not understanding the accurate model of their working principles.Ancient humans had been using fire before even understanding it.They also built boats before understanding correct theory for buoyancy.They also used arrows effectively before understanding the correct theory of mechanics.Alchemists produced useful chemical reactions while having wrong theory of chemistry.The Mayans can predict the position of planets without understanding universal gravity.Newton wrote Optics and successfully built mirror telescope while using the wrong model of light.
Yes, Hamdani Yusuf, That is very true.
I have shown that this science doesn't even understand what is the physical reality behind the "one" and "zero" in digital electronics