Scientific Research & Self-Development Activism
So dear I-power community,
After being send to a video called 'Athene's theory of everything' i was kinda impressed by the first part.. that totally made sense.. Because that was the researched part..
Now the second part where 'athene's theory' comes in .. is kinda really a booster to reach the masses.. they called it athenes theory cause many people would watch it
Anywayz .. any1 could create theories on the way they are creating it.. C =hf Give C a name ... give H a name and F a Name ..
Hf leads back to C And C is the the theory.
I took this to the test.
So : C is representing christ... H is Holyness F = Father
H.F = Holyness and the father (GOD) Made a product ... Christ.
God made christ perfect in his vision.
SO C = hf
Christ = Product of the holy father.
In this theory.. god is actually in the neurons right :D
What i'm trying to say... anyone could take 3 letters .. use it in a mathematical way and give names to it to proof some theory without any scientific proof.
Link to the video:
The C = hf .. is being explained around
That idea may only make sense to him - I'm an atheist and his logic is confusing the life out of me.
Shiznit .. i don't believe this should have been moved to Off-topic.. since Athene's theory of everything also isn't based on scientific research....
"C=hf is a fundamental mathematical equation" - Reese
And Reese is defending it in this topic:
While this topic does a C=hf breakdown..
on a sidenote: Why is Reese answering with the scientific answers in the topic he started. And chiren isn't involving himself anywhere on the physics board. I think it's clear that chiren hasn't anything to do with this 'science' of his.
Therefore.. i think this topic is also a perfect scientific discussion...
We are discussing the reliability of Athene's 'fundamental mathematical equation'
So this is kinda On-Topic.
I kinda miss what you are trying to say, really. Do you want to proof they were wrong, or what is the purpose of this?
Could you please clarify your point? What exactly do you want to discuss?
Because it really sounds like a simple offtopic discussion to me, not like anything that has to do with actual science.
What i'm trying to say is that Athene's Theory of everything isn't any science neither.
Maybe if you put some effort into understanding something (science) before talking about it...
Just a tip bro.
on the chatbox at the right bottom corner .. we agreed that Athene's theory of everything makes no sense at all... and i'm just pointing it out.
Here's the thing: I'm not the one talking about it. So technically that is irrelevant. But I'll humor you.
If you want to dispute a scientific theory, then use science. The fact that there is no experimental evidence doesn't mean it's all random. Science is about finding patterns that make sense (you need the theory to know what to test, or do you suppose one starts constructing a building 'just to try it out' before the blueprint is finished as well?) with everything else we know to be true so far. h for instance is the constant of planck (which has a background in physics, mind you), C is their own representation of consciousness which they shifted from the original E=hf. Just because the only thing that is different is the C instead of the E does not mean they just made something up, it represents a new idea. There is nothing unscientific about it. This is how theoretical physics work. Only time will tell whether it is correct or not.
The reason consciousness (the C) is potentially valid and scientific in nature is because he already defined consciousness as the collective neurological processes in the entire human brain. All that activity in any one single moment, is a moment of conscious experience, thus it can be described as C=hf.
Now obviously, I could've missed or gotten something wrong, because I'm not a scientist, yet. But I find no sense in your (Michael V's) statement that the theory is unscientific.
It's not scientific at all because it doesn't follow any methodology. Science is NOT just about finding patterns that "make sense." Conducting science has a methodology of induction and or deduction that adhere to strict rules of logic. They indeed simply made something up out of thin air without a formal theory or even a prediction. There was no experimental conditions or even set of assumptions fundamental to the theory. This is surely NOT how theoretical physics works or even how ANY science is conducted. You cannot simply "define" a term into existence and say it's science. For more information on the methodology of science read Hemple, Popper, and Duhem on the philosophy of science.
1. "In theoretical work, the development of paradigms satisfies most or all of the criteria for methodology. A paradigm, like an algorithm, is a constructive framework, meaning that the so-called construction is a logical, rather than a physical, array of connected elements." - Wikipedia
2. I know the documentary was a bit hard to follow perhaps, but having listened to many hours of Chiren discussing his theory, he does indeed have a formal theory and predictions. Experimental conditions? No, not yet, I think. Set of assumptions? I believe so.
The main issue I'm having with all of you is that you seem to lack a lot of information about the theory. Maybe you should watch this and see if it completes it.
Instead of reading a wikipedia article try actually studying philosophy of science. It was hard to follow because it Chiren doesn't understand the mathematical foundations of what he is talking about.
Chiren didn't rely solely on Wikipedia. He read books and scientific papers. Also, if I had a penny for every person that don't understand Wiki sourcing... Where do you think the information from Wikipedia comes from? Books.
Books? Ok. Let's have books.
"The verification of Laws ultimately involves an appeal to experience but this appeal may be indirect. That is to say the appeal may be first to laws of less generality and only through them or through a whole series of laws back to experience." - Scientific Method: An Inquiry into the character and validity of natural laws, page 155, Arthur David Ritchie.
But of course, if one doesn't know the steps in-between, it sure does sound like nonsense. Because clearly, what you don't know cannot be known without a PhD right? This magical PhD unlocks hidden knowledge than no ordinary mortal can conceive of, right? That's the type of mentality which isn't very benefitial to scientific progress, And precisely why you should be having informed discussions instead of thinking with your emotions like your ancestors have for thousands of years.