The scientific explanation

It is about two true truths. Where one truth is a person who is scientifically educated and puts all their trust in the education gained when the person argues for what is right and wrong. The second truth is a person who has been metaphysically / spiritually trained and thus uses that base when the argumentation technique about right and wrong is to be dealt with.

Therefore, there are occasional discussions of model hotter nature when both sides consider themselves right, which they have also are based on the conceptual reality on which they base their assumptions. Where one is based on Newton's physics as the basis and the other uses quantum physics and perhaps even physics beyond that which cannot yet be observed and therefore not defined.

The ever-unresolved part has been the ability to rationally explain how the parts (the different physical perspectives) both parties use are actually linked together in a whole (that physics and quantum physics as well as those realities that possibly exist beyond these are two equally real puzzle pieces). Which means that it can be easy to bring about feelings when both parties want to prove that their partiality is the truth that represents the whole. Which, of course, is not true because the divide can never be the whole. It is about why two sides who argue for their respective truths never find a common platform to communicate on.

From the beginning of August 2003 at the age of 37, I myself became more interested in the possibility that there could be something more than what I had learned in school, I intensified my studies in November 2004. 2020 I could logically explain how two so widely differing perspectives originate in one and the same source. Here's what that explanation looks like.

The conceptual world you are in is what you can use when defining what you call reality. This is how we have been taught to formulate what is real and what is not.

Imagine listening to a radio station. To listen to another radio station you need to change frequency. From a scientific point of view a model is needed that scientifically can explain what it is that is going on. How it is possible to switch between different frequency bands.

For science to work, a framework is needed to work within. Without the framework, the opportunities to create measurements that are needed to create a repetitive measurement system that can reproduce the same measurement result are lost regardless of how many times the measurement is performed. A standard that must be met in order for it to pass the needle-eye for what is scientifically verifiable or not.

The framework that science uses is four-dimensional. Three of the dimensions are length, width and height, which allows for a physical universe. The fourth dimension is time which allows for the movement of physical mass in the three-dimensional space / universe. The four dimensions allow for scientific measurements. Measurements that only work when made within the four-dimensional model.

It is when a discussion involving more dimensions than four that the four-dimensional model falls. It falls because it has no scientific evidence other than within the 4D model. This means that the measurements cannot be performed because the rules of the game 4D physics depend on only function in a 4D concept world.

Therefore, the thesis falls that one wants from within a four-dimensional model evidence of "truths" that exist outside that model but which the four-dimensional model will never be able to answer because it will always be bound to a four-dimensional reality anchor.

This is the link so many have been looking for. In quantum physics, the dimension of time does not exist. In quantum physics, a particle can be in two or more places simultaneously. Newton's physics and quantum physics speak different dimensional languages. They use different dimensional perspectives. Therefore, Newton's physics cannot explain quantum physics because time must exist for Newton's physics to function. The dimension languages ​​are simply not compatible with each other.

Another even more fundamental thesis, which is also the model linear four-dimensional science based on Newton's physics uses, is when an experiment should be repeated time and time again with the presentation of exactly the same results in order to be validated as credible in its information content. Without this evidence, the whole thesis falls. You need to get the same measurement result over and over, no matter how many times the experiment is performed in order for it to be approved.

Time is the moving constant in everything that has to do with movement in the physical four-dimensional universe. What happens when you measure something within a four-dimensional model is that time is constantly repeated in the experiment. Thus, time becomes the factor that constantly changes when the experiment that has been considered to be fixed in its measurement form isn´t. Since time is constantly adjusted along the experiment's time axis. This is therefore an impossibility. This is an impossibility because the basic structure of the experiment designed around has time that one of the dimensions the experiment needs to be able to carry out.

This proves that no scientific experiment that claims to be scientifically rooted in the evidence model it refers to is actually so. Instead, it is anything but repeatable as each new measurement is performed in a whole new time reality. Where one of the four pillars of the experiment is dependent on even functioning all the time, everything is adjusted as time goes on in the experiment.

Therefore, there are no scientifically validated experiments based on repeated similarity. All the evidence that exists and which has time as one of the factors is therefore a falsarium. The evidence is untrue thanks to the design of the construction. The model the evidence model uses is based on a misconception when it was constructed. Which should be proven.

Share and Enjoy !

0 0