My Kidney Challenge

[SkyWriting]

I thought this was going to be one of those "how long do you think I can hold it in" challenge threads.

 

[katerinah1947]

Tell me one of the things you proved in those years.
Or today.

Hi,

There is this thing called a Schottky Diode.

The conducting voltage is supposed to be, .27 Volts.

The Diodes are made by evaporating aluminum on a silicon surface that is light doped with Phosphorous.

I was told that when that metal was shiny, the voltages, the forward voltage, would go as high as .33 volts, they did not know why, tons of material cannot be shipped to the customers until they know precisely what is at fault.

The first team had failed to find the cause. I was sent in against my will, and eventually with God's help, found the cause was due to the solidified grain size, which allowed a greater or lessor amount of the silicon to move into the aluminum than single crystal for smaller and larger grain sizes.

First I had to prove that indeed, the shiny metal was amorphous rather than larger crystaled aluminum.

A preferential acid, etch proved that. Acids are used on metals to determine grain size, which is crystal size. (All metals are crystals)

Later, when the concept of the solid solubility of silicon in aluminum at an interface (two different materials touching), was shown to me and I objected, the Ph.D.'s proved to me that, the movement is not diffusion oriented like I thought, but rather in between the crystals called grain boundaries.,

Instantly, I knew that was the mechanism. I would still have to prove it.

Interestingly enough, when I reported in that I would be done in ten days, I was told I had to present my findings in a few hours.

I objected. "I don't have the proof. I won't have it till next week."

Present anyway. I was over ruled.

2:00 PM came, the room is filled, but it's small. Only about 20 people are there.

I present. I cite my work and that of the two Ph.D.'s that helped me with a portion of the work.

A member of the audience disagrees with my findings. THERE IS AND WAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING I COULD SAY.

I DID NOT HAVE THE PROOF YET. The guy who forced me to present eventually spoke up from my poor state. He said, that he saw something like this back in Russia where he was trained.

Still I had nothing. I was mortified.

Next week came. I took a whole silicon wafer with some shiny Diodes on them.

The test department told me what the forward breakdown voltage of a single diode was.

I only wanted and needed one.

It was high.

I put it into the furnace, slowly. That allows the maximum amount of silicon to move into the aluminum.

I then pulled the wafer out very fast and cooled it as quickly as I could on what is called a cooling plate.

The voltage was then measured by the test department. .27 Volts.

I put the wafer back into the furnace, let it heat, and this time pulled the wafer out very very slowly.

That allows the maximum amount of silicon to come out of the aluminum, and redeposit itself, where it originally came from, where the two materials meet.

The voltage was measured. It was .4 or higher.

I then repeated the fast cool, and again on the very same diode, it was .27.

I could give them any voltage they wanted, for amorphous( small or no crystal grain size) aluminum.

My proof was done, but there is more. The next was controlling the grain size. I told them how to do that.

I asked to write a paper on that, meaning the function of grain size on the amount of silicon, in numbers of atoms called mass, that move in that process. I was not allowed to for trade secret reasons, in 1990 or so.

The proof showed, that metal cooling, was too rapid, if the interfacial oxide layer was too thin on the silicon as silicon is transparent to the heating lamps and the oxide is not, thus it has a higher temperature, resulting in slower cooling times, and thus forming larger aluminum crystals.

Instantly, I was given another project. All anyone asked later, is how to fix it, and then no one spoke again.

That kind of one to one proof, for cause and effect and the mechanism involved.

That is just one example.

What do you call that proof, in your own words?

LOVE.

 

[katerinah1947]

Tell me one of the things you proved in those years.
Or today.

Hi,

There is this thing called an ion implanter. In 1969 this primitive technology only had beam currents in Th 10's of micro amps, Today they are in the 10's of milliamperes.

Increasing the current was needed.

Mean free path, a concept of how far an atom travels in a vacuum before hitting another atom, was calculated to be around 5 or 10 feet, for the vacuum levels in the 50 foot beam line.

The sealing o rings were Viton, or N-butyl neoprene. The vacuum level was roughly 10e-6 Torr.

I decided to change those as they have a slight porosity. I changed them to indium coated metal rings.,

The vacuum level went to 10e-7 Torr. A Torr is 1/760 of a standard atmosphere or 1 millimeter of mercury.

The mean fee path was 50 feet at that pressure.

Beam current increased.

Easily, that is reversible.

What would you call that in your own words.

Also, no one centered the ion beam in the beam line. Again with God guiding me, only, I made targets with cross hairs, and centered the beam by rotating the sections of the beam line, while under vacuum. That is reversible.

There was a theory, that ions were neutralized in a high pressure section, thus they didn't move under voltage as normal ions do. The equipment manufacturer put a bend in what are called scanning plates, to deflect the ions away from a straight path. When the silicon was measured there was no longer a high concentration of unaccounted for atoms in the center of the wafer. That is reversible.

That was in 1970 or do. It is a long time, that this concept of proof was used.

Again, what do you call those things in your own words?

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,

In and about 2008, I found out that with Soldiers and others who have PTSD, having them listen to the details of another person like them, causes an almost full remission of PTSD, like symptoms for 90 days. And, major items like drinking to cope, are nearly instantly gone.

I started testing that on others with PTSD. In each case so far it works. If I keep a person away from that interaction long enough, and don't tell them what I am doing, when tested on myself, I do go what I call ballistic, in about 27 months. It's not really. It's just really really tough.,

In the maximum security and the minimum security section of the mental health ward in town, I would use the technique on two patients, and try and teach the staff there, how it is done.

In each case it worked, as it has worked on perhaps 10 or more others. For those patients they are fully informed on what is being done, so upon exiting, they can maintain that.

The guy in the maximum security ward, went from catatonic, to smiles and normalcy in 24 hours. It did take me, two or three days, to figure out that he had PTSD. It only took twenty minutes for me to use the standard therapy on him.

The girl in the minimum security, really self admitting people, was depressed during June only. I found out her best guess and ran the PTSD routine on her.

She was all smiles and left the next day. She also was told how to maintain that state.

The above is maybe harder to prove, as I would not want to find a way to put them back into a PTSD state again. And, good experiments are never ever shut down but left running.

Also, it would be immoral to not cure them, but if need be, it is still easy to prove by the before and after results.

All of my PTSD people respond the same way.

What would you call always getting the same answer, like that called in your own words?

It's like the theory of gravity, in a way.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,

Good bye for awhile.

LOVE,

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi,

There is this thing called an ion implanter. In 1969 this primitive technology only had beam currents in Th 10's of micro amps, Today they are in the 10's of milliamperes.

Increasing the current was needed.

Mean free path, a concept of how far an atom travels in a vacuum before hitting another atom, was calculated to be around 5 or 10 feet, for the vacuum levels in the 50 foot beam line.

The sealing o rings were Viton, or N-butyl neoprene. The vacuum level was roughly 10e-6 Torr.

I decided to change those as they have a slight porosity. I changed them to indium coated metal rings.,

The vacuum level went to 10e-7 Torr. A Torr is 1/760 of a standard atmosphere or 1 millimeter of mercury.

The mean fee path was 50 feet at that pressure.

Beam current increased.

Easily, that is reversible.

What would you call that in your own words.

Also, no one centered the ion beam in the beam line. Again with God guiding me, only, I made targets with cross hairs, and centered the beam by rotating the sections of the beam line, while under vacuum. That is reversible.

There was a theory, that ions were neutralized in a high pressure section, thus they didn't move under voltage as normal ions do. The equipment manufacturer put a bend in what are called scanning plates, to deflect the ions away from a straight path. When the silicon was measured there was no longer a high concentration of unaccounted for atoms in the center of the wafer. That is reversible.

That was in 1970 or do. It is a long time, that this concept of proof was used.

Again, what do you call those things in your own words?

LOVE,

You have a theory of what is happening and why.
The theory can be tested many ways and many
times. As long as you continue to get the expected
results, the theory remains supported. But if
you challenge your theory and discover that
neoprene sealing rings outgas and contaminate
the chamber, this may become the reason that
the coated metal rings worked better.

It may not have been due to higher vacuum,
but instead due to less contamination.

At this point, what you thought you had proved
....is no longer proved.

So
evidently it was never "proven" in the first place.

Evidently, the previous state had "current support"
going for it. But it was falsified and now is discarded
for a new theory. This assumes the falsification
procedure remains supported. Because it was never
"proven" either.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi,

In and about 2008, I found out that with Soldiers and others who have PTSD, having them listen to the details of another person like them, causes an almost full remission of PTSD, like symptoms for 90 days. And, major items like drinking to cope, are nearly instantly gone.

I started testing that on others with PTSD. In each case so far it works. If I keep a person away from that interaction long enough, and don't tell them what I am doing, when tested on myself, I do go what I call ballistic, in about 27 months. It's not really. It's just really really tough.,

In the maximum security and the minimum security section of the mental health ward in town, I would use the technique on two patients, and try and teach the staff there, how it is done.

In each case it worked, as it has worked on perhaps 10 or more others. For those patients they are fully informed on what is being done, so upon exiting, they can maintain that.

The guy in the maximum security ward, went from catatonic, to smiles and normalcy in 24 hours. It did take me, two or three days, to figure out that he had PTSD. It only took twenty minutes for me to use the standard therapy on him.

The girl in the minimum security, really self admitting people, was depressed during June only. I found out her best guess and ran the PTSD routine on her.

She was all smiles and left the next day. She also was told how to maintain that state.

The above is maybe harder to prove, as I would not want to find a way to put them back into a PTSD state again. And, good experiments are never ever shut down but left running.

Also, it would be immoral to not cure them, but if need be, it is still easy to prove by the before and after results.

All of my PTSD people respond the same way.

What would you call always getting the same answer, like that called in your own words?

It's like the theory of gravity, in a way.

LOVE,

It's called a supported theory or a supported procedure, or an accepted procedure
or an accepted practice. It may be that the flowered hat you wear makes them
laugh for days in their sleep. The laughter and lack of sleep gets you the same results
each time. Or the aroma therapist who sees them right after you is making the difference.

 

[SkyWriting]

The proof showed, that metal cooling, was too rapid, if the interfacial oxide layer was too thin on the silicon as silicon is transparent to the heating lamps and the oxide is not, thus it has a higher temperature, resulting in slower cooling times, and thus forming larger aluminum crystals.

Or the larger crystals formed on sunny days when your
lab was hotter by 10 degrees. There may always be an
alternate explanation for your results. So the original
theory is not supported. There never was any proof.

Only supporting data.

 

[Kylie]

No one in science falsifies. Science proves. Falsify is not scientific. Rather it seems to be an intrusion into science by the Philosophers. Proofs are used in science. Proofs can prove something in incorrect. They can be used to prove something is correct. Thesis are verified by proofs. Tests are generally done for proofs. The outcome, of those tests, is a summary of the data.

Rubbish. Science uses falsification all the time. And if it is impossible to falsify something, then it is not science.

Consider Einstein's theories. His theories allowed us to predict that strong gravity would bend light. If we saw cases where such bending should have happened, and yet it did NOT happen, then his theories would have been falsified. There have been many cases where science HAS falsified ideas. The idea that subatomic particles, like electrons, protons, neutrons etc are single points, for example. The point particle idea was falsified ages ago, and it is no longer used.

Since I knew of no tests then, I called God, really the theory of God. (I do not know how to translate easily from my science world/background to the non scientific world easily. I suppose theory is not the way non scientists use the idea of a unproven question. To me an unproven question is a theory, and theory is used in other ways, also, in the field that are more similar to questions than any proven work. That is an also, not the only way that word is used.)

No.

A theory, used in the scientific sense, is an explanation for something which is built on a large foundation of real world observation. There is little to no non-contradictory real world observation about God.

Although called a proof, and not a falsification, that is correct as far as I know.

No, that is a falsification, since it showed the Lamarkian evolution was false.

Falsification is any situation where we say, "If Idea A is true, it says Event B must happen in the case of Circumstance C. When we make Circumstance C happen, Event B does NOT happen, therefore Idea A is false."

That is from me. Since God is not a fact for me back then, and not for anyone I knew back then in a way that I understood them, I called it a theory. I tested the theory of God.

Not a theory in the scientific sense of the word.

I am stating, that in my work, I could not prove anything in the Bible was Scientifically wrong, with a proof that would stand up, in scientific circles.

Noah's Flood contains many things which are impossible according to science. And how can you explain the parting of the Red Sea if you don't violate the laws of science?

Further I am stating that then, and briefly after that work was completed, no one else had come up with a proof that the Bible is wrong, scientifically.

The numerous contradictions between the Bible and reality are enough to do this, not to mention the number of times the Bible contradicts itself.

And, I am stating that with a proof that will stand up in science, no one still has proved the Bible is wrong scientifically.

This is not proof. It is you making this claim.

I could not prove that book wrong, and I tried. No one else has proved that book is wrong who has tried either. No one.

Again, you are just making a claim. You haven't even told us HOW you tried to prove the Bible was wrong.

Tell me, how did you try to prove the Creation Story in Genesis chapter 1 was wrong?

What is out there is all circular logic of one form or another so far. Scientifically what is out there is mistaken science.

Give a specific example of this please.

Mistaken science is done by some even with full Credentials. Cold fusion is one of those occasions. Nicotine is not habit forming is another one. There are more examples.

And relativity, germ theory of medicine, electrical theory and a whole bunch of others...?

No. The data looked at is generally not old data, except if I look at someone's proof. If a proof does not exist, one way or another, then I might generate new data.

Please explain to me how you generate new data from the Bible.

It my case, all new data was generated.

The data you used is the Bible, and it has been around for at least hundreds of years.

This will be hard. It was ignored but noted. I will try and remember. A presence, undefined, was sensed and felt, outside and inside of me, while testing. Thus rather than being exhausted, bored out of my mind, it was as though I was more than I normally was, when testing.

This does not answer my question at all. It is also subjective, not objective. You can't go with your emotional conclusions and then call them objective fact.

The data is neutral. It is just data. The data was summarized only. Five controlled experiments were designed by me. It is something that I do, when I need to. I ran the five controlled experiments.

The first one was to compare a known, how my parents were faring with my inputs, and an unknown, how they would fare using a comparable Statement in The Bible and following it, because it is written in there. And of course, telling no one ever that this was being done.

When I used that comparable statement, Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother, as it was written, and because it was in there, the results were always good. Prior to running that test, I was al ready doing that. I compared the difference.

And what were your inputs? Do you think you are able to get a valid result using such a small sample size? How did you control for any biases towards or against religion your parents may have had? How did you measure their responses in each case? Did you repeat the tests?

Actively, I try and find fault in me, and my data collection. I will use others. I do everything in my power, to prove that I am making a mistake in my data collection. And if I find one, that data is eliminated.

And how do you find faults? Did you repeat your test? Did you use a large sample group size? Did you ask others to repat your experiment?

With that process, whether it is weather, medicine, sleep problems, anger, bias, inaccurate calibration of a piece of equipment, incorrect calibration of a person, the data is looked at to find faults. Normally, that is done by others if need be. Normally, weekly meetings are had, to have someone else try and prove that I am making a mistake. It is called Devil's Advocacy by some.

And what if the problem was with your own incomplete knowledge preventing you from seeing an error where the errors existed? You've already demonstrated a lack of understanding of how science works, and you have not come close to being specific as I asked you to.

Two things are compared, after you cannot prove the Bible wrong. By then, you actually will know how to read the Book apart from all the false information out there on that book.

Unfortunately, you have not demonstragted that you can't prove the Bible wrong. You've only claimed that you proved it, and since you have told us nothing about how you did it, I don't see why I should believe your claim.

I am not asking you to accept anything. I am presenting what I have done.

You have made vague claims. I asked you for specific examples.

I was not studying the Bible. I was investigating claims by some people. The motivation was very high. They made statements of veracity, that captured two of my family members.

Yes you were studying the Bible. You said so, and the result of your study was that you couldn't prove the Bible was wrong.

I wanted to know if they were right or not. They would tell me virtually nothing, but they kept talking.

They wouldn't tell you things, but they told you lots? How does that work?

They said they followed the Bible.

There are lots of things in the Bible that no one follows. People don't follow the Bible. They pick and choose the parts they like and follow that, while ignoring all the parts they don't like. If you like, I will provide a list of Biblical instructions that nobody follows (or you can just read Leviticus and see how many of those laws we ignore today).

As a scientist, then engaged in Research to solve manufacturing problems in something called semiconductors, and by myself, I was the only one they had to do that work, I took on the Bible in the only way I knew how.

On an unrelated note, how long do you think it will be before they can make processors smaller than 20 nanometers?

I did not know if the book is fake or not. I decided to see if I could prove it was a fake. If it is man made, there should be one mistake in there, that I can find from my background, which was some, not all science.

The bit with Noah's Flood contains many things which are incompatible with reality.

I chose proving the Bible false, as my method. No one prior to me had done that. In 8 1/2 years I could not. If I could prove the Bible is man made, then that would be a great service to all of mankind. And, that was on my mind. It was no matter what answer I got, even if I got no answer, it would be useful.

Here you go.

The Bible says that all animal populations were reduced to less than twenty individuals during the time of Noah's flood, when they were taken on the Ark and all other members of those species were left to perish in the Flood.

If all animal populations were reduced to such low numbers, this would have an effect on genetic diversity in the current populations of those animals.

When we examine to DNA of modern animals, we find no evidence of the DNA indicators that would show such small populations in recent history (recent being within the last several thousand years).

Thus, the Biblical claim that all animal populations were reduced to less than twenty individuals within the last several thousand years is wrong.

There you go, there's a mistake in the Bible. And when the Bible contradicts reality, you have to conclude that the Bible is wrong, because you sure can't make reality wrong.

Even if I got no answer, that would be reported. I Curtis/Mary P.... Heimberg, could not prove the Bible is wrong; has anyone else yet, proved it wrong?

Care to provide links detailing how these people attempted to show the Bible was wrong?

Real is not arbitrarily there. It is just the definition that was used, in this instance.

Your attempt to redefine a word was arbitrary. Please try to properly read what I am saying.

This book acts like a person. I was not expecting that. It did in testing. It acted like a person.

In what way does the Bible act like a person?

Does it eat? Emote? Experience cognitive decline as it gets older? Suffer from arthritis?

 

[katerinah1947]

You have a theory of what is happening and why.
The theory can be tested many ways and many
times. As long as you continue to get the expected
results, the theory remains supported. But if
you challenge your theory and discover that
neoprene sealing rings outgas and contaminate
the chamber, this may become the reason that
the coated metal rings worked better.

It may not have been due to higher vacuum,
but instead due to less contamination.

At this point, what you thought you had proved
....is no longer proved.

So
evidently it was never "proven" in the first place.

Evidently, the previous state had "current support"
going for it. But it was falsified and now is discarded
for a new theory. This assumes the falsification
procedure remains supported. Because it was never
"proven" either.

Hi,

You are totally clueless in science. Totally clueless.

LOVE,

Rubbish. Science uses falsification all the time. And if it is impossible to falsify something, then it is not science.

Consider Einstein's theories. His theories allowed us to predict that strong gravity would bend light. If we saw cases where such bending should have happened, and yet it did NOT happen, then his theories would have been falsified. There have been many cases where science HAS falsified ideas. The idea that subatomic particles, like electrons, protons, neutrons etc are single points, for example. The point particle idea was falsified ages ago, and it is no longer used.



No.

A theory, used in the scientific sense, is an explanation for something which is built on a large foundation of real world observation. There is little to no non-contradictory real world observation about God.



No, that is a falsification, since it showed the Lamarkian evolution was false.

Falsification is any situation where we say, "If Idea A is true, it says Event B must happen in the case of Circumstance C. When we make Circumstance C happen, Event B does NOT happen, therefore Idea A is false."



Not a theory in the scientific sense of the word.



Noah's Flood contains many things which are impossible according to science. And how can you explain the parting of the Red Sea if you don't violate the laws of science?



The numerous contradictions between the Bible and reality are enough to do this, not to mention the number of times the Bible contradicts itself.



This is not proof. It is you making this claim.



Again, you are just making a claim. You haven't even told us HOW you tried to prove the Bible was wrong.

Tell me, how did you try to prove the Creation Story in Genesis chapter 1 was wrong?



Give a specific example of this please.



And relativity, germ theory of medicine, electrical theory and a whole bunch of others...?



Please explain to me how you generate new data from the Bible.



The data you used is the Bible, and it has been around for at least hundreds of years.



This does not answer my question at all. It is also subjective, not objective. You can't go with your emotional conclusions and then call them objective fact.



And what were your inputs? Do you think you are able to get a valid result using such a small sample size? How did you control for any biases towards or against religion your parents may have had? How did you measure their responses in each case? Did you repeat the tests?



And how do you find faults? Did you repeat your test? Did you use a large sample group size? Did you ask others to repat your experiment?



And what if the problem was with your own incomplete knowledge preventing you from seeing an error where the errors existed? You've already demonstrated a lack of understanding of how science works, and you have not come close to being specific as I asked you to.



Unfortunately, you have not demonstragted that you can't prove the Bible wrong. You've only claimed that you proved it, and since you have told us nothing about how you did it, I don't see why I should believe your claim.



You have made vague claims. I asked you for specific examples.



Yes you were studying the Bible. You said so, and the result of your study was that you couldn't prove the Bible was wrong.



They wouldn't tell you things, but they told you lots? How does that work?



There are lots of things in the Bible that no one follows. People don't follow the Bible. They pick and choose the parts they like and follow that, while ignoring all the parts they don't like. If you like, I will provide a list of Biblical instructions that nobody follows (or you can just read Leviticus and see how many of those laws we ignore today).



On an unrelated note, how long do you think it will be before they can make processors smaller than 20 nanometers?



The bit with Noah's Flood contains many things which are incompatible with reality.



Here you go.

The Bible says that all animal populations were reduced to less than twenty individuals during the time of Noah's flood, when they were taken on the Ark and all other members of those species were left to perish in the Flood.

If all animal populations were reduced to such low numbers, this would have an effect on genetic diversity in the current populations of those animals.

When we examine to DNA of modern animals, we find no evidence of the DNA indicators that would show such small populations in recent history (recent being within the last several thousand years).

Thus, the Biblical claim that all animal populations were reduced to less than twenty individuals within the last several thousand years is wrong.

There you go, there's a mistake in the Bible. And when the Bible contradicts reality, you have to conclude that the Bible is wrong, because you sure can't make reality wrong.



Care to provide links detailing how these people attempted to show the Bible was wrong?



Your attempt to redefine a word was arbitrary. Please try to properly read what I am saying.



In what way does the Bible act like a person?

Does it eat? Emote? Experience cognitive decline as it gets older? Suffer from arthritis?

Hi,

I am going to try and remember that you are incompetent, as any form of a scientist.

You have amply demonstrated that here.

No, your ideas are not even close to reality.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

Or the larger crystals formed on sunny days when your
lab was hotter by 10 degrees. There may always be an
alternate explanation for your results. So the original
theory is not supported. There never was any proof.

Only supporting data.

Hi,

You are more than clueless here.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

It's called a supported theory or a supported procedure, or an accepted procedure
or an accepted practice. It may be that the flowered hat you wear makes them
laugh for days in their sleep. The laughter and lack of sleep gets you the same results
each time. Or the aroma therapist who sees them right after you is making the difference.

Hi,

Totally clueless here also.

LOVE,

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi,
You are more than clueless here.
LOVE,

That was a fictional example of how a theory many not hold up.
If you don't understand that then.....as you like to say

 

[SkyWriting]

The numerous contradictions between the Bible and reality are enough to do this, not to mention the number of times the Bible contradicts itself.

Zero contradictions. Though more than one author.

 

[SkyWriting]

The Bible says that all animal populations were reduced to less than twenty individuals during the time of Noah's flood, when they were taken on the Ark and all other members of those species were left to perish in the Flood.

If all animal populations were reduced to such low numbers, this would have an effect on genetic diversity in the current populations of those animals.

The animals were picked by God to have the correct diversity.

 

[SkyWriting]

There are lots of things in the Bible that no one follows. People don't follow the Bible. They pick and choose the parts they like and follow that, while ignoring all the parts they don't like. If you like, I will provide a list of Biblical instructions that nobody follows (or you can just read Leviticus and see how many of those laws we ignore today).

It's true. We don't follow laws written by and for other government systems.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi,
You are totally clueless in science. Totally clueless.
LOVE,

Well no. I've been in chemical and adhesive research and development for a couple decades.
I've missed working on some patents, but co-workers names have been published.
One can do 1000's of designed experiments and still be incorrect on what is really happening.
There is no such thing as proof, in Science.

 

[Dave-W]

"No one in science falsifies. Science proves. Falsify is not scientific. Rather it seems to be an intrusion into science by the Philosophers."

Rubbish. Science uses falsification all the time. And if it is impossible to falsify something, then it is not science.

Consider Einstein's theories. His theories allowed us to predict that strong gravity would bend light. If we saw cases where such bending should have happened, and yet it did NOT happen, then his theories would have been falsified. There have been many cases where science HAS falsified ideas. The idea that subatomic particles, like electrons, protons, neutrons etc are single points, for example. The point particle idea was falsified ages ago, and it is no longer used.

"Falsification" would be if the people doing the measuring on whether the light was bent or not "tweaked" the numbers to show the light had been bent when it actually had not; or vice versa.

i.e. falsifying the data.

 

[SkyWriting]

"Falsification" would be if the people doing the measuring on whether the light was bent or not "tweaked" the numbers to show the light had been bent when it actually had not; or vice versa.

That is true.
Falsifiability is the term more used more often in Science on theory testing rather than "Falsification".

 

[katerinah1947]

Well no. I've been in chemical and adhesive research and development for a couple decades.
I've missed working on some patents, but co-workers names have been published.
One can do 1000's of designed experiments and still be incorrect on what is really happening.
There is no such thing as proof, in Science.

Hi,

You are wrong.

Have you never done a 1:1 Correlation?

Have you, solo, never been the one to save the day?

That is their and my life sometimes. I am called in when no one else can fix the problem.

Sure it is God and I. They don't need to know that normally.

I am sought out. And, I don't even normally work for the money. So, that motivation is not there.

I and others like me, are the ones called in, when all else fails.

My employers care about one thing. Surviving.

Proofs is all I use. You are so incredibly inaccurate.

One day, Anatoly Rabinovic was talking to someone outside of my dual office/experimental cubicle. He was outside of John Anderson's similar cubicle.

In that hallway, they were discussing a proof that cannot be done ever.

Years later, when I proved what they said is not possible to prove, even before I started on that proof, I pretty much knew, because of something God was doing also, that I was going to be successful on that proof and it was so.

On a project in another place, when an unexpected reaction resulted in stacking faults rather than something called, saucer defects, my correlation went to 50%, rather than a 1:1 correlation.

I reported in that I had failed. My correlation was only 50%.

After the next team fixed the problem and was able to talk to me, (research rules were, if a person fails, the work is given to the next team, and the two teams, are not allowed to talk to each other, until the second team is finished. Finished failing, or finished being successful.)

The next team was successful. So, when they were done, I asked them: "Was the effect caused by what I said it was caused by?" Yes they responded.

I only failed because my proof was not 100%.

Never, have I heard of proof not being used. Never.

Those two researchers with full Credentials outside of my office, who later were proved wrong, after I was done, I wondered where they got the idea from, that what they were talking about is not provable.

That idea came from Philosophy. Somehow, two hard scientists bought into an idea, that was never science in the first place, it was thought.

If you continue to use words from Philosophy, which is the study of all human thoughts, of which falsification is that, a human thought, then you are no longer in science.

Science, shifts to what they can prove is true. And they shift to what they can prove is not true.

The methods used, are just the standard methods.

I use a few more.

To understand all is to forgive all.
One experiment is worth a thousand expert opinions.
Honesty as a tool.

Amazingly to me even, God was and is always a part of my science life.

God was actually involved in my science life, when I was 21.

Amazingly, He was involved at such a level, and I was clueless.

Most scientists have God in their lives also, and they are equally clueless.

I am no longer clueless, there in that department.

As a researcher, it is fraudulent, to claim another's work, as my own.

Citations are given always. 'This part was that person's work, I got this from them, and only this part was mine.'

We all do it. It is merely part of the job.

Now, that I know God is Real, all of my effectiveness at being brilliant beyond the wildest expectations of my peers, Has All been because God Fed me The Answers And The Methods.

I am actually only of an average IQ.

A whole Corporation, High Voltage Engineering, and one of our brightest Ph.D.'s from Stanford and his technician were unable to make that Ion Implanter, in 1970 work.

I was put on it after returning to work from an explosion, that I was recovering from. No one else was hurt. Yes, it did lead to a lot of knowledge. No one knew TEOS, was explosive. I was working on controlling the reaction, so it was useful by being uniform.

When I was put there, thing after thing was taken apart adjusted and put back together. I was bored. It was more fun to rip apart sections, and realign them, and do things to them, than doing other people's research. The machine broke every day or two anyway, so no one complained, when I told them it was broken. (Yes. I was less honest at age 21, than I am now.)

Eventually, I left and went somewhere else. The boredom was excruciating. There was nothing left to fix. I went to a new Corporation.

Bouncing, is normal with researchers. Some of us have worked for the same company twice, I am told. Others have worked for the same company up to three times. That too I was told. I have worked for more than five companies. I also bounce from division to division within a company. BOREDOM., boredom is the reason.

Even in that implanter, with proofs, I and Mary really, (looking backwards), took that machine, from breaking at the least, every three days, to perhaps once every year and a half.

No one, will say, can you falsify, that transgender girl's work, so we can know whether to seek her out and hire her or not?

They just sought me out, buried once so deep in the bowels of IBM, at a point that I am stunned, at how they found me and my proofs.

It is and was my proofs, plus Mary and God neither of which I or they were aware of at the time, that they sought out, and then LIED TO ME, to get me to work for them.

I was successful though. I though had to pick up an entirely new discipline to do that. (Self Educate).

The lie was, they knew of my proofs, and figured that to get me, they would claim that I was qualified, without a discipline, that is required for the job.

They said they figured that I would be able to pick up that discipline. I did. That is part of research also.

Proofs. Math is not about falsification. It is about proofs. So is science.

LOVE,