[Mitko Gorgiev]

Do 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)

The 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.

[Bored chemist]

Do 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)

The 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.

Have you come back to explain why you got everything wrong last time?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81758.msg630258#msg630258

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The point of a properly designed experiment is to make the outcome obvious.

What makes the difference? Mechanical waves can also be transversal.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

My experiments on diffraction contradict Huygen's principle

In what way?

How do you explain non-diffractive slit?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

My experiments on refraction using microwave contradict Fermat's principle.

In what way?

Some materials show apparent refractive index less than 1. Fermat's principle suggests that light propagates faster there compared to vacuum.

[Bored chemist]

Some materials show apparent refractive index less than 1

It'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?

[alancalverd]

There are various metamaterials that appear to exhibit anomalous refraction of microwaves, but this is done by creating a matrix of absorbers and retransmitters - what comes out is not directly related to what goes in!

I've been quite impressed  with HY's experimental ingenuity, less so with his willingness to believe that his inability to rationalise the result is because everyone else has got it wrong.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Some materials show apparent refractive index less than 1

It'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?

Your argumentation shown above is at level 2 in Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. Which is surprisingly low for someone who declared to be a scientist.

[alancalverd]

The experiments in this video strikingly contradict all you know, actually, you believe about light.

No, they just demonstrate a lack of understanding on the part of the narrator.

[Bored chemist]

Your argumentation shown above is at level 2 in Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.

It seems you can't count.

04:13 Level 7: Refuting the central point

On the other hand, there's practically the whole of science.

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.

As I said.

When 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.

[Bored chemist]

he doesn't give any explanations.

Nobody said he did.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It seems you can't count.

It seems like you don't understand English.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

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.

[Mitko Gorgiev]

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.

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.

But the advocates of the fake science, in a lack of any real arguments, say: the machine is functioning, that is a proof that our explanations are valid.

Poor them!
This guy doesn't know to say anything other than "your computer is working".

I have shown that this science doesn't even understand what is the physical reality behind the "one" and "zero" in digital electronics.

[Bored chemist]

It seems like you don't understand English.

Well... one of us can't understand that this

On the other hand, there's practically the whole of science.

is a refutation of this

My experiments on refraction using microwave contradict Fermat's principle.

and of this

My experiments on diffraction contradict Huygen's principle.

because science actually works.

[Bored chemist]

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.

And not a jot of that has any influence on the fact that modern electronic devices are designed and built using science, does it?

Just because a cave man made a stone axe without understanding geology does not mean that the man who made a computer does not understand quantum physics.

How did you imagine that it might?

[Bored chemist]

Yes, Hamdani Yusuf, That is very true.

No, it's not, and you are, as usual, very wrong.

[Bored chemist]

I have shown that this science doesn't even understand what is the physical reality behind the "one" and "zero" in digital electronics

No, you have not. You just think you have.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

On the other hand, there's practically the whole of science.

You mean the whole science that you understood, or rather, misunderstood. If observable facts contradict your model's predictions, you can either change  your model, or find flaws in the observation. You can't just dismiss  the facts and be wilfully ignorant while declaring that your model is flawless.
You can consult these cases with some more competent physicists that you know, and hear what they think. It's possible that they know something that you don't.
It's ridiculous to assume that all scientists have the same level of understanding as you about every scientific problems.

[alancalverd]

Please present an observation that has been independently repeated and cannot be explained in terms of what we already know. That's how great discoveries are made.

Note: this is how Calverd's Hierarchy works - instead of sniping at one another we are looking for the Critical Experiment.