Two bombshell quotes you'll find below:
"It is important to note that much of our understanding of the physical world is based on theoretical models that are supported by indirect or circumstantial evidence."
"While there is indirect evidence and theoretical arguments supporting the idea of space being a vacuum or partial vacuum, there is no direct evidence of it and no other examples of it occurring in nature."
--ChatGPT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I asked ChatGPT to write an introductory paragraph for this series. This is what he wrote:
This series of posts aims to use the Socratic method and deductive logic to examine the truth and validity of mainstream scientific arguments. ChatGPT is an AI language model with a vast knowledge base and impressive ability to understand complex concepts. However, its learning is limited by its programming and the data it has been trained on. While ChatGPT may initially seem persuadable, this is not an accurate characterization of its capabilities. It can recognize logical fallacies and evaluate arguments based on their merits, but it cannot override its algorithms on its own. When presented with arguments that contradict mainstream positions, it may cite the preponderance of evidence supporting those positions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to state from the beginning, nearly my entire understanding of this topic, was garnered from the YouTube channel "Witsit Gets it". Without that channel the ability to understand enough to ask relevant questions on this topic would be impossible, and Witsit deserves credit for information distributed in this post.
I do not claim to be an expert on this and it's possible I could have gotten something wrong. Nonetheless links and citations of all sources are provided below.
This is what scientists today are claiming about Quantum Mechanics...
They claim that a single photon goes through two slits (double-slit experiment) at the same time, then collides with itself. That it changes it's essence when you decide to observe it, and some even claim that it is able to transcend time and change events retroactively.
This post presumes some things that we have established in previous articles that ChatGPT has pointed out have no direct evidence or proof of existence, which without that prior information, this will be more challenging to understand.
The major problem is that science tells us that outer space is a vacuum, and GPT will assert this idea over and over. However, when I press and inquire about it, he cites all these independent studies that, he will also admit all individually have problems, yet the algorithm won't allow him to suggest anything other than the collective preponderance of evidence is proof of the concept's validity.
The things GPT has previously agreed are, that atoms, electrons and subatomic particles are not any observed phenomena that have been proven to physically exist.
Additionally, GPT has also pointed out, outer space, described as being a vacuum is also something that has never been proven. That it is merely a theoretical concept and no direct evidence exists of this either. To suggest that a partial vacuum exists is an oxy-moron, as the definition of a vacuum is a place completely devoid of anything. Calling something a 'partial vacuum' is a fallacy by definition.
We begin with some questions about the process involved in conducting the double-slit experiment.
He says, "it can be inferred...". There are no logical conclusions arrived at deductively. There's always some assumption snuck in there that was made via inductive logic, and often with at least one fallacious presupposition.
I get that I am skipping addressing these examples it gives, this comes back up later.
,Again, the tire is made of rubber, the rubber is the container. We are looking for incidences where high pressure exists next to no pressure without any barrier.
If anyone would like to prove that outer space exists in the way physicists describe it, all one would need to do is go to the store and buy some propane, then bring it home. However, one would need to do that without a tank to carry it. For outer space to be real, as defined, this must be possible.
His previous examples were attempting to "illustrate the concept", meaning the conceptual idea of what it would look like. This is a strawman fallacy, having to do with switching the question I asked to one slightly different in order to maneuver towards a different line of discussion.
For every true phenomena we observe, there are always multiple examples of the same thing occurring in numerous situations. That's a big clue when trying to ascertain the truth, nature uses the same processes over and over: things like the golden ratio we see in seashells, in many different plants, in hurricanes, and spiderwebs. Fractals we find in rivers, in branch and root structures of trees, in highways, in our artery systems.
Moving forward...
This is a common theme you'll find with ChatGPT, and with most physicists who revere the peer review process. All this indirect, circumstantial evidence proves it must be true, even though, yes, each individual instance he discusses as proof, he admits each one has fundamental problems.
"It is important to note that much of our understanding of the physical world is based on theoretical models that are supported by indirect or circumstantial evidence." -Chat GPT.
Let that sink in.
First time through I missed this little trick he used here. Did you catch it?
He goes on citing more theories and studies that have no direct evidentiary support. I move back to the analogy I used a few messages prior.
For a better grasp of these concepts, I recommend watching Witsit's full video on the Photon. You can find that here.
To try to wrap this up, the basic conclusion, which Witsit derived from those in the field of academia and who have written books on this subject, is that, light does not travel, it propagates.
Meaning the light is always there, what causes it to be visible to the human eye is that it becomes excited by means of a light bulb, or a match, or the sun. The light never goes anywhere, it doesn't travel anymore than a wave in the ocean travels. There are two states, one in which the light is visible to your eyes, and one in which it is not. The same is stated to be true for electricity, that it does not travel through wires, that it propagates when excited.
For further clarification, a series of quotes from "A Standard Reference for Quantum Optics"...
"The Maxwell/Thomsom concept of the Electric Induction, and the concept of the Ether which engenders this Induction, comes from experimentation and observation - not from "thought experiments" mind you - and considers the Dielectric Lines of Force, and the Magnetic Lines of Force, as concrete, physical realities. These lines can be considered "tubes of force", a hydro-dynamical model of the ether as given by James Maxwell. Finally, Nikola Tesla, Oliver Heaviside, and Carl Steinmetz turned this into today's electrical technology."
"A photon is not a thing, it is the crossing point of magnetism and dielectricity, like two spaghettis crossing paths. You wouldn't call that a point either, it is an event. A PHOTON is an event, and events evolve in time."
"As for the electron, Thomson considered it to be the terminal end of one unit line of Dielectric Induction. Like the end of a spaghetti: you can point at it, you can describe it, measure it, but it has no independent existence, it is an aspect of another reality, the spaghetti."
So this text suggests the interference pattern in the double-slit, is caused by the "electrons", or, the events occurring within the gaps of this dielectric field that are being mistaken for photons.
Opmerkingen