Scientists fail to accurately measure imaginary objects

Nature reports that physicists can’t seem to get straight what the measurements are of the invisible objects they invented. I’ve disproved the existence of subatomic particles here, and I demonstrated the desperate dishonesty of the scientific establishment here. Unfortunately the latter link no longer contains a working video; it’s very likely that Harvard ordered it taken down due to my bringing attention to the scandal.

Notice that, on the assumption that my thesis is correct, there is no longer any mystery about the measurement of protons, because there are no protons to measure.

We should be very grateful for the work of Ingo Sick and John Arrington, the whistle-blowers cited in the Nature piece.

Update: Hamish Johnston has written a nice piece on how the Nature report radically undermines quantum mechanics.

About these ads

5 thoughts on “Scientists fail to accurately measure imaginary objects

  1. Pingback: Gun Advocates Heckle Newtown Victim, Evangelicals Use Jesus as Mace | The Freethought Police (formerly the Nightly Citizen)

  2. Dear sweet Tomato,
    As NS “proved” in an two earlier posts, there is no infinity, and “infinitely close” doesn’t mean equal.

  3. Tomato man actually makes an interesting point. And he didn’t invoke the concept of “infinitely close” so the subsequent criticism by “NS is a Daft Ninny” doesn’t apply, just doesn’t apply.

    Cheers,
    NS

  4. You proved nothing. You’re really reaching here. Saying that just because you think subatomic particles reminds you of stories about fairies is your opinion. Using some video clips of something popular to help teach people about something else is analogy and a good way to keep people’s attention sometimes, not “desperate dishonesty”. (If I misunderstood your post about the Star Wars clips, I apologize; as you noted the video is down, though I think I got your point.)

    Before making claim that you proved that the subatomic is not real, why not actually follow the scientific method? You could present your idea and show actual evidence that others can duplicate for themselves. If its truly your wish to have your theories recognized, respected, and accepted, I would think you would go about that in a logical manner that would reach the scientific community at large. If you’ve published any papers, I’d be very glad to read them and please feel free to use my email address, if you are able to view that, to point me in the right direction! :)

Type your comment(s) into the computer screen

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s