Could some of our conceptions about the physical universe be wrong? [closed]

Question

I managed to create cold fission by placing a carbon crucible into a polysyrene cut out, put a few small sticks of glow stick stuff from the dollar store, put the lid on and generated a 5 meter field with both negative and positive polarities and videoed it and sent it to multiple people. Light also effected this contraption. I also have managed to reduce the mass or increase the mass of this contraption and measure it using wood planks. Please review the following experimentation results and denial of truth. There have been several attempts to try and silence me on this subject and I have no idea why: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/306649/has-anyone-tried-to-simulate-an-atomic-structure-using-electromagnets-and-curren

Would you rather stay on earth than travel faster than the speed of light and reach sirius in a matter of no time?

I believe that our current view of the universe is inconsistent with the scientific method due to the fact that evidence is being directly ignored with two seperate fundamentle principals being created to explain the clearly presented conclusive evidence, and that there must be previous misconceptions in the scientific models when some of the deductions were made to cause this phenomena. Causing some of the evidence produced in the modern age to being falsified due to inaccuracies with calculations based on characteristics of interactions within specific scenarios rather than any physical evidence. Assumptions could include the fact that we thought an atom was the smallest particle until subatomic particles were found, and we thought those were the smallest possible particle until quarks were found and their constituants were theorized.

Perhaps stating that the conclusion that has been arrived at is one of various different possibilities when something has not been proven conclusively and quantifying that fact using a value?

I reference the following theory as proof on this in a way to help theorize on how to improve the accuracies of the scientific method.

Answer 1

The answer to your title question would be an unequivocal "yes." Its absolutely possible that some of our conceptions about the physical universe may be wrong. In fact, I believe that most scientists are rather confident that some of our conceptions are wrong.

However, the goal of rectifying this issue may be out of scope of mere mortals. One famous phrasing of the issue is the Münchhausen trilemma. It argues that all efforts to "prove" anything logically must end in one or more of the following:

• The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other
• The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
• The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts

While the trilemma, paradoxically, cannot be proven, it is worth considering as a point of discourse. Science has traditionally been very adverse to circular arguments. Regressive arguments would be literally infinitely difficult to prove out in a human lifetime. That leaves axiomatic arguments. However, for what you seek to prove, the question of "what is an acceptable axiom" is difficult. Your whole goal is to uproot any assumptions your predecessors may have made. What is "good enough" for assuming an axiom?

You may have more luck taking up the age old approach of science. In the comments you mention having a visualization of electromagnetism that you have refined for a while. Can you use that approach to identify tests that can be done to distinguish your visualization from the currently accepted scientific cannon? If there are such tests, are they tests you can perform?

If you cannot perform the tests needed to distinguish them (perhaps they call for a particle accelerator), that may form a seed from which you can engage in the unraveling process you describe. Perhaps you can find questionable assumptions which have been made which would influence someone's decision regarding "which model is best." That assumption might be testable.

Do remember that science is designed to falsify hypotheses. It never actually states what is "true," but rather is merely a very powerful approach for weeding out weak hypotheses through experimentation. Just because there is a standard way of looking at things does not mean it is the only way. However, do realize that the "standard way of looking at things" is heavily beaten on by thousands upon thousands of scientists. You may find that your approach has been effective for you merely because it has not been tested as hard. Or you may find that your approach is actually just a rephrasing of the current standard theory, in which case it is equally valid.