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.

closed as unclear what you're asking by Conifold, virmaior, Mozibur Ullah, Not_Here, Artem Kaznatcheev Jan 24 '17 at 17:00

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • I'm not sure if I quite understand the question - I mean the body of the text rather than the title; however there is no consensus opinion on what Dark Energy or Dark Matter is, so it seems quite likely that this is the case; though, I should add, not 'wrong', but rather incomplete. – Mozibur Ullah Jan 24 '17 at 1:03
  • This question is shorter than the linked one but almost as incomprehensible. The answer to the title question is "most definitely". "Evidence is being directly ignored with two seperate fundamentle principals being created to explain" or "Causing some of the evidence produced in the modern age to being falsified due to inaccuracies with calculations based on characteristics of interactions" are completely obscure. As is this is not an SE answerable question, if it is a question. Pick an example of what you are talking about, a short one, and illustrate your criticisms on it. – Conifold Jan 24 '17 at 1:05
  • 1
    @goldberg: thats a hell of a job, I don't think Feynman or Einstein did as much; good luck! – Mozibur Ullah Jan 24 '17 at 1:07
  • 1
    Ok, but that is not a question, it is a research program. What do you want us to answer here (and remember about size constraints)? – Conifold Jan 24 '17 at 1:08
  • 1
    Since you said that you want to test each assumption by going back; you should go really back by reading some history of science...try looking up Lucretious; to be honest, I don't Feynman knew this, otherwise he certainly would have said this in his lectures. – Mozibur Ullah Jan 24 '17 at 1:58

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.

  • I totally agree and have been coming up with several thought experiments, which I have investigated and am designing in order to try and falsify this theory. I also believe this theory is built upon all current and previous knowledge of science in order to explain descrepancies between calculations and perceptions and rectify the difference. – Greg Goldberg Jan 24 '17 at 3:48
  • Proven philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/40592/… I also assume you know about this now: youtube.com/watch?v=xWfeE7l1Wxo – Greg Goldberg Jan 27 '17 at 14:46
  • Cort ammon, I have proven light is a variable condition with my experimentation that you can reproduce for $10 at home. The speed of light was broken by NASA recently. Just try make the conditions I said. Additionally I have videos antigravity and cold fission and sent it through to various researchers, my friends colleagues at NASA, I tweeted the formula to Elon Musk with the cold fission reactor design, contacted a university (Of which I am an Alumni) as well as various other measures. Your attempt to discredit me is miserable and please stop messaging me in chat. – Greg Goldberg Jan 28 '17 at 15:25
  • Read the peer reviewed paper published by NASA before you open your mouth about string theory or any other unmovable theory to try discredit me and show your ignorance and belief in the mystical such as the recently falsified string theory rather than reproducible, recorded factual evidence that has been open sourced to the greater community. – Greg Goldberg Jan 28 '17 at 15:28
  • 1
    @GregGoldberg What I am trying to do is most definitely not trying to discredit you. In fact, you will find I am giving you far more benefit of the doubt than most people will. If you think this is trying to discredit you, wait until you see what people who actually try to discredit you will do. Those people will be far less kind than I have been. To be honest, given the quality of the content of your claims, I have been downright cordial. I've even avoided correcting your attempts to put words in my mouth regarding what I believe and do not believe. – Cort Ammon Jan 29 '17 at 1:26

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.