OK.
I have spent no small part of my life doing actual experiments to show the validity (and failings) of the mathematical models called "physics." They are incredibly well verified. I have spent decades in that endeavor in various fields. I do not think physics is truth, but it is incredibly accurate as presented within the domains it is intended. The specific models that you say "are all wrong" are actually incredibly good at predicting the outcome of events, i.e. the theory fits the facts.
If you think I haven't spent any time looking for facts that don't fit those theories, then you don't understand what physics research is. Physics research is nothing but trying to find flaws in the theories. I have spent far more time than you in that endeavor, I guarantee it.
I have even spent a fair bit of time (years) looking at evidence in the more fringe areas, the ones you espouse. Some I agree with (cold fusion has massive evidential support e.g.). For others, I present counter arguments to their "evidences" all the time and I invariably hear crickets in response. At best I get the response, "Your education is a fraud." That is not a direct address of the argument, but an ad hominem attack. And that's the best I get in response to my reasoned arguments.
To suggest I must be wrong because I don't share your beliefs is the ultimate hubris. I am willing to engage in earnest debate, but you are not. There is nothing wrong with your decision, but please recognize what is going on. You are unwilling to engage in direct debate, I am willing.
Which one of us cares more about pursuing a deeper understanding of the Truth?
HAHAHA
OK.
I have spent no small part of my life doing actual experiments to show the validity (and failings) of the mathematical models called "physics." They are incredibly well verified. I have spent decades in that endeavor in various fields. I do not think physics is truth, but it is incredibly accurate as presented within the domains it is intended. The specific models that you say "are all wrong" are actually incredibly good at predicting the outcome of events, i.e. the theory fits the facts.
If you think I haven't spent any time looking for facts that don't fit those theories, then you don't understand what physics research is. Physics research is nothing but trying to find flaws in the theories. I have spent far more time than you in that endeavor, I guarantee it.
I have even spent a fair bit of time (years) looking at evidence in the more fringe areas, the ones you espouse. Some I agree with (cold fusion has massive evidential support e.g.). For others, I present counter arguments to their "evidences" all the time and I invariably hear crickets in response. At best I get the response, "Your education is a fraud." That is not a direct address of the argument, but an ad hominem attack. And that's the best I get in response to my reasoned arguments.
To suggest I must be wrong because I don't share your beliefs is the ultimate hubris. I am willing to engage in earnest debate, but you are not. There is nothing wrong with your decision, but please recognize what is going on. You are unwilling to engage in direct debate, I am willing.
Which one of us cares more about pursuing a deeper understanding of the Truth?
HAHAHA
OK.
I have spent no small part of my life doing actual experiments to show the validity (and failings) of the mathematical models called "physics." They are incredibly well verified. I have spent decades in that endeavor in various fields. I do not think physics is truth, but it is incredibly accurate as presented within the domains it is intended. The specific models that you say "are all wrong" are actually incredibly good at predicting the outcome of events, i.e. the theory fits the facts.
If you think I haven't spent any time looking for facts that don't fit those theories, then you don't understand what physics research is. Physics research is *nothing but trying to find flaws in the theories." I have spent far more time than you in that endeavor, I guarantee it.
I have even spent a fair bit of time (years) looking at evidence in the more fringe areas, the ones you espouse. Some I agree with (cold fusion has massive evidential support e.g.). For others, I present counter arguments to their "evidences" all the time and I invariably hear crickets in response. At best I get the response, "Your education is a fraud." That is not a direct address of the argument, but an ad hominem attack. And that's the best I get in response to my reasoned arguments.
To suggest I must be wrong because I don't share your beliefs is the ultimate hubris. I am willing to engage in earnest debate, but you are not. There is nothing wrong with your decision, but please recognize what is going on. You are unwilling to engage in direct debate, I am willing.
Which one of us cares more about pursuing a deeper understanding of the Truth?