Remember the scientific method? but they ignore it when it is not convenient?

[strateguy632]

in high school we learnt about testing guesses. we guess to explain stuff. then we PREDICT if the explanation is right, predict something we can test. then test to confirm or reject.

"Write a testable statement describing the expected outcome" what you expect if the explanation is correct. then test if prediction is correct!

to make the creation explanation seem plausible they use marketing words like 'model and standard' as if common and standard model not just a guess but...

the standard model does predict stuff!

in science: predict & test or else it isn't real science. turns out the standard model predicts "The model predicts equal amounts of matter and antimatter (opposite magnetic charge) materialized which should have destroyed called annihilation.' the "expected outcome.' that did not occur. but...

That is the 'test' but instead of admitting the expectation showed the model is false they ignore the 'scientific method' to keep their blind faith. and despite the method led to the 'claim being not science' they have blind faith that it is the past events!

so why do they promote something that science itself defined is false? and why promote this 'wrong guess' as a model as if it is the accepted standard model?

[RavVid]

I think the test is the model be falsifiable. I don't know enough to comment on matter and antimatter other than there seems to be a healthy balance of positive matter in our solar system.

[strateguy632]

in simple terms it is falsifiable. if the expected prediction did not happened. it did not. tuh da!
for your mention 'positive': i added in question the der? finition: "antimatter (opposite magnetic charge' for example the antimatter of a proton is a negative proton.

[strateguy632]

oops *definition

[RavVid]

I'm not going to pretend I am sufficiently knowledgeable. For us hydrogen has a -ve electron around a positive proton. Presumably a positive electron around a negative proton would be viable but put the two together and all you may have is energy.

So that would cause me to think if there were equal quantities of both types nothing would endure which it clearly has. I just don't know enough

[strateguy632]

precisely. you said the idea of annihilation in simple terms.
and precisely the
refutation of standard model if we would stop ignoring the scientific method.

[strateguy632]

humility is great. but you are allowed to do critical thinking.

[strateguy632]

what you @RavVid wrote is the 'expectation' that can be tested - quote 'if there were equal quantities of both types nothing would endure ' the only way a remainder is possible is asymmytry= more of matter. but that only disproved the 'model' as quoted in journal 'As long as the temperature was high enough for pair creation to occur, matter and antimatter were present in almost equal amounts, with particles and antiparticles being continuously created and annihilated.'
that is the model with word PAIR.. see?
and they admit the existence of a huge remainder (like one human body with millions of atoms) is a problem becuase randomly 'pairs' that randomly collided.
the next step in 'scientific method' would be reject the hypothsis. . but that would leave only one possibility 'the unnatural' (a word we call miracle) the fancy words in the journal: 'asymetry created by the known forces of the standard model of particle physics (SM), concluding that this is very unlikely. '
falsfiabale is good but also falsified.

[RavVid]

:) It does indeed seem to be falsified. There was that meteor explosion over Russia that was conjectured to be antimatter hitting earth - the 1908 Tunguska explosion. It is conjecture upon conjecture. It would seem to be reasonable to assume, for our purposes, that matter is matter and antimatter is rare. Our mere existence is refutation.

Part of my humility is a fairly pragmatic assessment that I don't need to know. With quantum entanglement I'm inclined to take the same attitude even though it may significantly affect my profession.

[strateguy632]

👍 🙂😉

[exitseven]

if the outcome is the opposite of what in in the narrative it could be embarassing.

[strateguy632]

but about 'embarassing' we outside of the department: in other departments. would never know about 'pairs'. those 'informed' professors do and know it is a problem but keep: the guess that they know is not the explanation.
we say 'they will explain it with nature
and we will say that is HOW god created'
but they know nature 'doesn't work it is a bigger shame to keep something you and all the students know is bad. but those professors know and keep.

[exitseven]

Thanks for the MHO