Does Doppler shifting violate energy conservation?

This was still in my drafts even though I thought I published it, it said 2024 January 28 in the draft

I am publishing it as is and plan to look over it later

Copyright Carl Janssen 2024 January 28

I will call the object emitting the light or sound wave a source and the object receiving or being hit by the light or sound wave a receiver

If a medium is stationary from the point of view of a reference frame then 

if a source is moving the frequency of light or sound waves emitted that are going parallel and in the same direction that the object is moving will increase in frequency and their period and wavelength will decrease

if a source is moving the frequency of light or sound waves emitted that are going anti-parallel and in the opposite direction that the object is moving will decrease in frequency and their period and wavelength will decrease

If from the reference frame in which the medium is stationary a object that is being hit by the light or sound wave

The energy per photon for light is equal to it's frequency times a constant.  One must then ask if light was Doppler shifted would this violate conservation of energy because the 

There are four answers I have read which are similar to answers I have thought of on my own prior to reading it except number 3 which I thought of as a factor to consider but did not solve it to come up with a solution as someone else has claimed to

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=doppler+shift+and+conservation+of+energy&ia=web

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15279/conservation-of-energy-and-doppler-effect#15280

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/428810/doppler-shift-in-terms-of-energy

https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0407077

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13577/photons-in-expanding-space-how-is-energy-conserved

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/392147/how-to-work-out-conservation-of-energy-and-doppler-shifts

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/545464/doppler-shifts-appear-to-violate-conservation-of-energy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure

Point number 1

Some photons gain energy but this is undone by photons going in a different direction that lose energy.

Point number 2 

Energy is conserved in each non accelerating non rotating reference frame but different for different reference frames so there can be different amounts of energy in each reference frame.

Point number 3 

An idea I had was that we need to think about the changing momentum of light as caused by a source or observer that is moving relative to a medium and or reference frame and how this moment of light is involved in collisions and it's relation to the frequency, period and wavelength of photons as related to things like the Compton effect, the reverse Compton effect, Thompson scattering and so on.  For now I will simply post what someone else who has put more thought into it than me has said about something he called radiation pressure which is also related to the momentum of photons and his explanation of how radiation pressure solves the issue of conservation of energy and doppler shifting.  I will not comment on whether or not what he said really solves the issue for now.

Point number 4 

When the power of the light that is emitted by the source is increased it's duration that it hits the receiver will be decreased so that the amount of energy expended by the source is the same as the amount of energy received by the receiver.  This is a oversimplified because the light might interact with other objects and transfer energy to them before it effects the receiver but each of those objects can be modeled as a receiver and the same principle would be true for energy being conserved when you consider every receiver it hits combined so this is oversimplification being solved shall not be mentioned again. 

Point number 1 does not work 

If the source emits two photons that would have been the same frequency before shifting in opposite directions the one photon will gain an amount of energy from the shift equal to the amount of energy the other photon would have lost so someone might argue that perhaps if photons that would have all been the same frequency are launched in a radially symmetric pattern that includes at least one photon parallel and at least one photon anti-parallel to the direction the source is moving then the energy lost by all the photons from the  shift would be equal to the energy gained by all the photons from the shift and cancel out.

But it is possible to only send light in one direction or to send more photons in one direction than another direction so this is no solution to the problem, perhaps this could be accomplished simply by putting a mirror on one side of a light source but not the other side or by using a laser pointer that only shines light in one direction and does not shine light outside of itself in a radially symmetric manner or by using a flashlight that does not shine light outside of itself in a radially symmetric manner and if photons are only emitted in a source in one direction than this point number 1 would not solve this problem.

Point number 2 does not work

If you have two different reference frames that are moving relative to each other at a constant velocity with no rotation or acceleration of one relative to the other

If in one reference frames all the objects are still it will have zero kinetic energy and zero momentum but in another reference frame it will have a kinetic energy equal to the mass of all the objects added together squared then next divided by two and a momentum equal to the mass of all the objects added together then next multiplied by the velocity since they are all moving at the same velocity having a total non zero kinetic energy and a total non zero momentum.  So different reference frames can have different amounts of total energy and different amounts of total momentum.

Side Note

On a side note this is why if the universe has non zero mass then all so called scientific models that do not assume the universe eternally existed and eternally had non zero mass are self contradictory because otherwise there would be a non accelerating non rotating reference frame in which the universe changes it's amount of momentum from zero momentum to a non zero amount of momentum which would violate the conservation of momentum.  This is why all so called scientific models which acknowledge conservation of momentum that also claim the universe was created out of nothing many of which are supported by so called creation scientists are self contradictory.  This does not disprove that the universe was created out of nothing because the universe could have been created out of nothing in violation of all scientific models that include conservation of momentum which would be called a miracle by religious people.

End of side note

Different energy in different reference frames is not the issue, having different energy in different reference frames does not necessarily violate conservation of energy.  The issue is the problem of the total energy in the same non accelerating non rotating reference frame changing over the passing of time or in other words being different between two different times as measured in the same reference frame that would be the violation of conservation of energy if such a thing occurred.

Imagine there is a light source like a flash light or laser pointer that is powered by a chemical battery and which is constantly on and sends a beam of light at a receiver that is completely opaque and does not let light reflect from it or pass through it and none of the light misses the targeted receiver and that 100% of the light that hits the targeted receiver becomes heat which would increase the temperature of the receiver and that none of the light interacts with the medium in such a way as to transfer energy to it before it would have reached the receiver in order to simplify things.

The Chemical concentrations of different chemicals in the battery times the efficiency indicates how much energy is spent 

Switching reference frames should not change chemical concentration of the bttery

Even with switching reference frames the amount of chemical concentration in a battery transferring energy to a light source producing a beam of light hitting a receiver the temperature of the receiver and the chemical concentration and temperature of the battery and the temperature of the light source should be the same for the same event or in other words the same for the same time ( if time is measured by the order of events rather than the reading on a clock label ) for all reference frames.  Someone can try to make an excuse that the light wound be at a different frequency and therefore have different energy if you are observing it in a different reference frame but this excuse is potentially problematic when you consider that the chemical concentration of the chemicals used to operate the battery should be the same for all reference frames for the same event since the chemical concentration is an indication of how much energy has been expended by the battery and since the temperature of the receiver should be the same for all reference frames for the same event since the temperature of the receiver is an indication of how much energy had been transferred from the battery in the source to the receiver hit by the source's light beam because if the amount of energy gain in the receiver indicated by the temperature change of the receiver is different than the amount of energy expended to produce the light beam by the battery which can be got from the sources efficiency and it's chemical concentration than the conservation of energy is violated in spite of arguments that it does not matter that the energy of the light that has left the source but has not yet reached the target is different in different reference frames because the emitted photons that have not yet hit their target and are still traveling toward it appear to be different frequencies in different reference frames.

I will use a simplified example with a single reference frame and no reference frame switching in which the medium is measured as stationary in that reference frame and in which the receiver is not moving relative to the medium but the light source is a chemical battery powered laser pointer that is moving relative to the receiver to examine the question at hand.

Although it is true that different reference frames can have different amounts of total energy this does not solve the problem because imagine a flashlight or laser pointer that has a chemical energy source such as a chemical battery.  The concentration of chemicals in the flash light should be the same for any event that is at any moment in time not as measured by the label on a clock but as measured in terms of the order of events.  As energy is transferred to create light the concentration of chemicals should change through the chemical reaction involved to provide the energy to create the light.  As the receiver is hit by the light it would heat up or increase electron energy levels and so on, I will just simplify this and call it receiving a certain amount of heat when it is hit equal to the amount of energy from the light that hits it.  I will over simplify and assume it is a perfectly opaque and non reflective object and that all of the light that touches it heats it up instead of reflecting or going through it and refracting like could happen for a transparent object or other ways for the energy not to transfer to the receiver.  In any reference frame at the same moment in time the chemical concentration of the flashlight battery will be the same as any other reference frame in the same moment of time ( as measured by order of events ) but if the amount of energy that the receiver hit by the light from the source changes as a result of the receiver or the source moving then this violates conservation of energy.  Someone might say that the amount of energy the light appears to have changes as the reference frames change but that does not solve the problem.  The amount of heat the receiver receives from light and the amount of chemical concentrations in the battery and the temperature of the battery and the temperature of the receiver and the temperature of the source should be the same for the same moment in time as measured by the order of events for all reference frames and if it is not that is a violation of the conservation of energy.  If the battery does not change the rate at which chemical concentrations run when the source and or receiver moves at different velocities relative to the medium  then conservation of energy would be violated because the amount of heat the receiver receives might be different than the amount of energy equivalent to that which would be transferred into the light beam from the change in chemical concentrations for running the chemical reactions depending on what velocity the source and or the receiver moves at relative to the medium.  If it would take the same amount of time for the battery to be depleted no matter how fast and in what direction the flash light or laser pointer moves but depending on how fast and in what direction the flash light or laser pointer moves the receiver would receive a different amount of heat then conservation of energy would be violated.  There is also a issue of imperfect transfer from battery chemical energy to light directed toward the receiver some possibly producing heat but this does not change my main point.

Point Number 3

"The top answer is correct but incomplete; even within a "bystander" reference frame, it is easy to observe that photons impart more energy onto the recipient when the emission source is moving towards, as opposed to away from, said recipient. Energy is indeed gained or lost by the photons.

This occurs due to radiation pressure. The emission source loses kinetic energy to photons emitted in the direction of motion while gaining kinetic energy from photons emitted in the opposite direction. Similarly, the photons impart kinetic energy onto the recipient, causing loss of kinetic energy if the recipient is moving towards the emission source or gain of energy if the recipient is moving away from the source. As photons always move at the speed of light, the gained / lost energy is observed as a change in wavelength."

https://web.archive.org/web/20231003205320/https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15279/conservation-of-energy-and-doppler-effect#15280

Some of the math in my posts is wrong

Copyright Carl Janssen 2024

Some of the math in my posts is wrong

Is wrong or are wrong? 

So I try to work on math problems related to ideas I have

I write the math problem down and try to solve it

As I make progress I change my posts with these problems over time

Sometimes I leave the post unsolved or solved incorrectly or with incomplete and possibly wrong attempts at solving the problems

Sometimes the solutions are correct

Some of my posts most likely have wrong information that I just have not got around to correcting for years

I have to be willing to try different things and possibly put down wrong information to be able to get to the right answer

When you solve a problem in  textbook you should try to do it on your own writing steps on paper and then check the back of the book to see if it is write.  You have to be willing to put down many wrong answers to learn how to get write answers.  Later you can check the back of the book.  Most people do not post all their mistakes practicing for the public to see but only show their attempt where they finally found the steps to get the write answer.  My blog is different in at least two ways.  First in real life science there is no back of the book one can only make a model and then test it to see under what circumstances it works with real life experiments, some models are good at predicting things under some circumstances but not others.  Second, I am willing to show the potential errors I make while I am doing work to practice towards solving a problem,  I kind of use this blog like a public notebook where I brainstorm ideas and then try to practice solving them.  I want something publicly available that I can find where I lift up with my work to complete it later because when I practice writing problems on paper I might lose the paper or it might get damaged, also because there is a public record I can get the ideas there for other people to think about and maybe even if I set up a problem and solve it wrong someone else will look at it and get the correct solution and society will advance more than if I kept it there by myself until I got it right.  Sometimes when I think something is wrong I change it, but a lot of this material is archived with early mistakes on web.archive.org

Sometimes I might leave posts up that I abandoned because it shows a starting place for the thinking, sometimes I might leave the old stuff but start on a whole new post at a different link that is better done.  Sometimes I might plan to do so but never get around to it.

So do not assume the math here is right check it yourself.  It is put here to think about the problems which might lead to the correct answer later down the road but not to necessarily show the correct answer.

Waves in a moving medium as an alternative to special relativity

Copyright Carl Janssen 2024 January 18

Title : A theory about waves in a moving medium being influenced by the velocity of the medium and not the velocity of the observer nor reference frame as an alternative to special relativity

I am not claiming that what I am about to say is true nor am I claiming that it is false

Some of the things I am about to say are contrary to mainstream physics

What I present are simply ideas to think about whether or not they are true and possibly ideas to test with future experiments

What I am saying is a oversimplified ideal model that would not match real life conditions and thus an experiment would not match the results of the oversimplified model perfectly because of deviations from ideal assumptions such as mentioning of materials with physical properties that do not exist in real life and so on and so forth

Perhaps this might be called a thought experiment which involves assuming a different set of laws of physics than claimed by mainstream physics

I have mixed and matched various pieces, ideas or calculations from physical theories I have heard over the years some of which contradict with each other.  I do not claim to be the original creator of this new theory in the sense that I am combining ideas from other theories of physics.  I might or might not be the original creator of this new combination in which some parts of them are accepted and combined and other parts are rejected.  I might or might not be the original creator of some of the specific objections of specific ways in which this theory disagrees with special relativity.  I could potentially have novel and unique calculations in this but it is possible that perhaps I do not other than in my selection of which parts to reject and which to accept compared with other physical theories and even the selection of which parts to reject and which to accept might not be unique to my choice but others might have also chosen likewise in making physics models

I simply want to get the idea written down which is hard enough before trying to search for if other people did this before me or not

To put more simply I have not seen anyone combine this in this unique way so I am writing it down while I can think of it or before I forget it but I would not be surprised if other people combined these ideas in this way before and perhaps much better than in the matter that I have

Possible credit to unknown people for starting me on this path of thinking but not for my final model or theory that came as a result of starting on this line of thinking

Sometime after 2002 and before 2008 there were two physics students who I saw as far as I know only one time in my life ( although I could have seen them other times without knowing it ) and 1 or both of them told me something similar to that they were doing experiments involving sound traveling through a vacuum and that sound can actually travel through a vacuum because it is not a perfect vacuum.  They might have mentioned something about Aether and light which I might have ignored because I did not believe in Aether.  They or someone else might have given a presentation on another topic that as far as I know was not related to what they were telling me about sound in a vacuum and possibly also light and or Aether.  They did not to the best of my knowledge so me any calculations, data, or equations involving whatever they were telling me about sound and possibly also how light and or Aether and the Lorenz Ether Transformation and the Special Theory of Relativity and the Michelson-Morley experiment might conceptually be related to sound traveling through a vacuum because it is not a perfect vacuum.  If I saw any calculations, data or equations presented by them then as far as I know it was on a presentation of something else possibly a very expensive experiment on gravity waves and how it relates to cosmological or astronomical observations of stars but my memory is fuzzy and unclear and that was a very long time ago and I could be scrambling different events together in my mind.  Years later, I thought that light never actually travels through a perfect vacuum, thinking about what they said about sound traveling through a vacuum might have influenced me to think that there is a third option other than light traveling through aether or a perfect vacuum and that is that light always travels through a medium because perfect vacuums have not been found, however I am not sure if that thought came to my mind in the past before I ever heard them say about sound traveling through a vacuum or if it would have come to my mind anyway later even if they never said that.

Sometime before 2002 I vaguely remember a physics teacher telling me a story that there was someone who did lots of experiments involving light but insisted on keeping the windows open because he thought interfering with the air or maybe the Aether or the vital force ( I do not remember which ) by closing the windows would interfere with the experiment, however unfortunately by opening the windows it prevented good temperature control for the experiment.  This might have potentially influenced me to think about if the movement of air or wind effects the velocity of light and or sound or maybe I thought or would have thought of that question on my own anyway.  Although I know who this physics teacher was, I do not know who the person who that teacher said did the experiments with the open windows was.  My model shall likely be different because it shall involve closed not open windows to result in a moving medium for the thought experiment although I doubt that such an experiment could be done in real life as described in the thought experiment with the current technology

Assumptions

Let us assume there is no rotation or acceleration but only movement in straight lines at constant speed.  This model is not designed to work for rotating objects or for objects that accelerate.  This is similar to the criteria for when special relativity may or may not be used to the best of my knowledge even though this is a different theory.

Let us assume that there are two types of time.  The first type of time is the order in which events occur.  The second type of time is the measurement that a clock reads.  Let us assume that the order in which events occurs is the same in all reference frames.  Let us assume that the order in which events are observed occurring can be different for different observers because for example if sound is emitted from a source the sound wave can reach the observers ears at different times if they are at different locations, even if the sound wave is emitted at the same time in terms of order of events from all reference frames.

A clock is not the same thing as an observer who is reading the value on a clock and a observer is not the same thing as a frame of reference 

Let us assume that if the reading from the same clock is observed by two different people at the same time in terms of order of events ignoring the delay in time for the light to reach their eyes that the clock would be read or ignoring the delay in time for the sound of the clock to reach the ears then the two different people will read the same time value on the clock when the same event occurs in terms of the order of events.  If there are two different clocks then the two different clocks can measure two different times for the same event, but each observer would read the same time value when looking at each specific clock.  If there is clock 1 and clock 2 and there is observer 1 and observer 2 then both observer 1 and observer 2 would read the same time value for clock 1 as each other and would also read the same time value for clock 2 as each other but they could potentially read different time values from clock 1 and clock 2 all for the same event.  This might be fundamentally different than the assumptions in special relativity in which different observers in different reference frames would measure different times for the same event.  

Let us assume that if all clocks are working properly and all clocks are set to measure 0 seconds when event A occurs that if event B occurs before event C occurs then any clock compared with itself will list event B occurring at a later or higher or greater time quantity than event A and also that any clock compared with itself will list event C occurring at a later or higher or greater time quantity than event B but that two different clocks can list event B occurring at two different time quantities and also two different clocks can list event C occurring at two different time quantities.  Time quantities measured can not decrease when going from earlier events to later events if clocks are working properly.  Which event occurs 1st, 2nd and 3rd are the same for all clocks even though different clocks might list different times for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd event.  The 1st event will always have a lower time value than the 2nd event and the 2nd event will always have a lower time value than the third event for the same clock.

The shape and size of an object is always the same for all observers in all reference frames for the same event ignoring things like photographic blur for fast traveling objects or optical illusions that make an object of the same shape and size and location appear to be in a different, shape, size or location than it really is.  Let us assume that the shape and size of a object is a function of the distribution of the magnitude and direction of pressure on all parts of the object and that the shape of a object can not change as a result of an object moving as long as the distribution of the magnitude and direction of pressure on all parts of the object remain the same and that the shape of an object is the same in all reference frames at the same moment in time in terms of order of events.  Note that there can be many sources of pressure including force from gravitational fields, electric fields and magnetic fields.  Note that an object accelerating would mean the existence of a force which could change the distribution of pressure which could change the shape and size of a object.  Note that an object can move at a constant speed in a straight line without accelerating and therefor an object could have the same distribution of the magnitude and direction of pressure on all parts and thus have the same shape and size while traveling at a different velocity.  Note that because the force from a B field or magnetic field is a function of velocity the same object moving at a different velocity in the same reference frame in the same surrounding environment might experience a different distribution of the magnitude and direction of pressure among it's parts thus resulting in a different shape or size for the object even if it is moving at a constant velocity without accelerating.  Note that because of friction or other factors I have not listed the same object moving at a different velocity in the same reference frame in the same surrounding environment might experience a different distribution of the magnitude and direction of pressure among it's parts thus resulting in a different shape or size for the object even if it is moving at a constant velocity without accelerating.  This is fundamentally different than the special theory of relativity in which the length of an object can be different for different observers and or reference frames during the same event.

Let us assume that perfect vacuums do not exist so light or sound waves are always traveling in a medium that is not a perfect vacuum nor Luminiferous aether

Let us assume that if light or sound is said to be traveling in a vacuum that it is not actually traveling through a perfect vacuum but through a very low density substance of greater than zero density

Let us assume that no model needs to be developed to explain light traveling through a perfect vacuum because light never travels through a perfect vacuum and always at best travels through a low density medium

Let us assume that Luminiferous aether does not need to be used to explain light traveling through a perfect vacuum because light never travels through a perfect vacuum

Let us assume that if light is treated as a photon particle instead of a wave that the photon particle would travel the same velocity that the wave would travel

Let us assume that if sound is treated as a phonon particle instead of a wave that the phonon particle would travel the same velocity that the wave would travel 

Let us assume that when a medium is stationary relative to a reference frame that the speed of both light and sound are the same in all directions that it can travel in that medium as measured in that reference frame.  Let us call that the wave speed it would be measured as traveling when the medium is stationary relative to the reference frame the Unmodified Wave Speed for that medium.  This would be the same speed for a particle if light is treated as a photon instead of a wave or if sound is treated as a phonon instead of a wave.  This is an oversimplification because anisotropic medium can exist but this model is for isotropic mediums only.  

This model does not presume that the speed of light is necessarily the same as the speed of sound in a medium

Variables that would normally be lowercase might sometimes written in upper case or vice versa in this article to make them easier to see

When a medium is moving at a constant velocity of positive V as observed in a reference frame than let us assume that the light or sound wave or particle would move at a velocity of the Unmodified Wave Speed plus V for the medium in the same direction that the medium it is traveling inside of is moving and at a speed and that a light or sound wave or particle would move at a velocity of the Unmodified Wave Speed minus V in the opposite direction of the medium that it is traveling inside of.  I will not go into calculations for waves or particles moving in other directions in this model.  This is different than special relativity in which light travels at the same speed in all reference frames.

If a light or sound source does not send a light or sound signal when it is off but sends a signal when it is on and it turns on and then immediately off again then the velocity of the source does not change the velocity at which the light or sound wave travels but it may effect how frequently the observers receives the signal or the time period between the signals the observer receives.  If a light or sound source sends a continuous light or sound wave then the velocity at which the light or sound source travels does not change the velocity at which the light or sound wave travels but it may effect the frequency and wavelength.  

The velocity at which some person observing a light or sound signal is moving as measured in a reference frame does not effect the velocity at which the light or sound signal is measured as moving in that same reference frame but may effect the wavelength, period, or frequency that the person observes the light or sound signal to be.

One Way Non Trivial Examples  

Let us call C the speed of light in a almost perfect vacuum and assume it is close enough to the speed of light in air to use the same quantity as the Unmodified Wave Speed in the examples below.

The two examples shall be with someone standing inside a train and someone standing outside a train such that light travels through two different mediums made of the same material but with each medium that the light goes through traveling at a different speed relative to the other medium

The person standing outside the train shall be called the Light Watcher

The person standing inside the train shall be called the Light Shiner

The Light Shiner turns on and off a light signal every 1 second from the frame of reference in which the Light Shiner is stationary and aims the light signal at the Light Watcher through a train window either in the front or back of the train depending on which example

The Light Shiner is stationary relative to the following objects, the train, the train window, and the medium of air inside the train 

The Light Watcher is stationary relative to the ground and train tracks either in front of or behind the train and stationary relative to the medium of air outside the train

The train is moving either towards or away from the Light Watcher relative to the Light Watcher depending on which example

The examples below are oversimplifications because different sections of air outside the train would move in different velocities and directions in response to the train moving through where the air was prior to it being displaced by the moving train.  These examples are oversimplifications because they ignore the refraction of light as it goes through a train window, the train window is assumed as an oversimplification to have no effect on the light and only exists in the example to separate the two mediums of air so that they are moving relative to each other.

Anti Trust University Lawsuits

 https://blackstudentfund.org/anti-trust-and-financial-aid/

https://web.archive.org/web/20230106104555/https://blackstudentfund.org/anti-trust-and-financial-aid/

Atrocities in Davey and Goliath

Atrocities in Davey and Goliath

Davey poisons a well water supply by pouring red paint in it

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3IP02c0lmK8&t=660s

Davey And Goliath | Episode 45 | The Caretakers | Hal Smith | Dick Beals | Norma MacMillan

http://web.archive.org/web/20220206130104/https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3IP02c0lmK8

Low Gun Ownership United States Revolution

Most people did not initially own effective firearms nor were they skilled in firearms during the United States revolution

They took the British or English military's own gun supply located in the United States, to fight the British or English military

The revolutionaries would have had less casaulties on their own side if they had more guns, more ammo, better guns and better training

Communities can regulate to ensure that competant and ethical people have better firearm aiming training and firearm safety training and firearm manufacturing training and better access to firearms and ammo if they wish to prevent tyranny by unethical and or incompetant and or recklessly careless firearm owners

The alternative is for communities to regulate that no bad guys with guns enter the border of their community but regulating that people do not smuggle guns into your community requires guards with guns to use guns to stop gun smugglers.  In such a case those guards must be regulated to ensure they are both ethical and competant and sufficiently armed and in sufficient numbers to prevent the smugglers getting guns to bad guys

The low percent of firearms in the revolution gives hope for beneficial cultural change in spite of the higher percent of military and police grade weapons by the military and police than the civilians if  the civilians on the right side of a cultural disagreement either persuade the military or police to the right side, seize the military and police weapon stockpiles, persuade the military and police weapon manufacturers to the right side, seize the weapon manufacturing facilities or build their own weapon manufacturing facilities

Copyright Carl Janssen 2022 October 4

Most Americans Did Not Own Guns at the Start of the American Revolution

March 31, 2020

Armies, British, Colonial, Strictly Military, Weaponry & Munitions

Harry Schenawolf

https://www.revolutionarywarjournal.com/contrary-to-myth-most-americans-did-not-own-guns-at-the-start-of-the-american-revolution/

http://web.archive.org/web/20210113172706/https://www.revolutionarywarjournal.com/contrary-to-myth-most-americans-did-not-own-guns-at-the-start-of-the-american-revolution/

You can not see satellites without equipment

There are pictures online of a star that can be viewed in such a manner that it must be in front of the moon and not behind the moon if the moon is an opaque sphere like object that does not change shape during different stages such as new moon, crescent, half moon, gibbous and full moon.

People have claimed those are not pictures of a star but a satellite.  However, others might have claimed such pictures existed in artwork, religious symbols, photographs and or astronomers' notes prior to the launching of satellites.

If such a star can be seen without a telescope  then this is problematic for the mainstream narrative because satellite are too small to see without a telescope according to mainstream narrative data.  Without a telescope or equivelent magnification such as a zoom feature common in modern electronics that is

This could mean one of several possibilities that all contradict the mainstream narrative

That the sections of the moon you do not see really are not there during certain stages of the moon.

That those sections are there but switch from opaque to transparent during certain stages.  

That stars or non man made luminaries can exist in front of the moon

That satellites existed were made before we were told they were made, possibly from alien or earlier human societies

That the moon is not a solid opaque or reflective object but instead generates it's own light

Satellites are lower or bigger than we are told or the human eye can see smaller angles than we are told

I will show that satellites would be too small an angle to be seen without telescopes for their longest dimension and distance.  I will do this using the largest dimension listed instead of using the pythagorean theoreom and tsking the square root of the longest dimension squared plus the second longest dimension squared.  At most this will result in that the length I list should actually be multiplied by the square root of 2 which is between 1.4 and 1.5 but even doing so these objects should not be seen

I will assume the longest straight length of any satellite can be treated as a arclength with rounding to get a close enough result for these purposes

Arc Length / Radius = Angle in radians

2 Pi radians = 360 degrees

I will assume any satellite less than 0.0003 radians can not be seen by the naked human eye without equipment

The resolving power of the human eye is 0.0003 of a radian

http://web.archive.org/web/20150113004721/https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/smallest-visible-object/

http://web.archive.org/web/20220613132429/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit

Copyright Carl Janssen 2022 September 20

Myths about rockets in outer space

Myths about rockets in outer space

Two myths will be debunked.  The first myth is that rockets can not work in the vacuum of outer space.  The second myth is that NASA provides camera footage to the public of rockets that reach outer space and do not fall back down to "planet" earth in less than 1 hour

First myth : Rockets can not work in the vacuum of outer space

It has been claimed by some people that rockets can not work in a vacuum and therefore rockets can not work in outer space because outer space is a vacuum

The claim is that in a perfect vacuum there is no medium or material for the rocket gas to push against to move the rocket

It has been claimed by others that rockets would work in a perfect vacuum because of conservation of momentum even if there is no medium for the rocket gas to push against

In reality the gas could push against the solid rocket itself even in a perfect vacuum

Some  of the gas could rebound against the solid rocket and then travel in the opposite direction of the rocket in an elastic collision, contributing to rocket speed

Some of the gas could hit the solid rocket and continue moving in the same direction and speed as the rocket in an inelastic collission, contributing to rocket speed

Some of the gas might move in the same direction as the rocket but in a slower speed than the rocket and never hit the rocket, that gas would not directly contribute to rocket speed

Some of the gas might stay still and not directly contribute to rocket speed

Some of the gas could move away from the rocket.  This gas would be argued by some to contribute to the momentum of the rocket an equal amount of impulse to the impulse it experiences leaving the rocket but in the opposite direction.  Others might say but that is impossible without a medium or object to push against or off of or to collide or come in contact with.  But some of this gas might have collided against other portions of gas in a chain of collissions leading to collissions of gas against the rocket.  Those other portions of gas might have pushed this gas away from the rocket while being pushed by this gas towards the rocket.  These other portions of gas would have come from the rocket fuel just like this portion of gas even before considering the medium of the "vacuum" of outer space not being a perfect vacuum

Gas that does not directly contribute to rocket speed might still indirectly contribute to rocket speed through interaction with or elastic collission with some of the gas that does contribute to rocket speed.  Gas "molecues" can interact with other gas "molecues" through other means then elastic and inelastic collissions according to some theories.  These interactions theoretically occur when one "molecue" attracts or repels another "molecue" at a distance without being close enough to touch the other molecue.  The gas that does not seem to contribute to rocket speed provides a medium for the gas that does contribute to rocket speed to push against through elastic collissions and or interaction

In reality a perfect vacuum has never been observed in outer space or anywhere else according to educated mainstream scientific sources.  So, there would always be a medium, other than the rocket, for the gas ejected from a rocket to push against, as long as the rocket is not in a perfect vacuum

According to sources outside the mainstream scientific community outer space does not exist at all.  If those sources are correct there still would be no perfect vacuum in outer space for a rocket to travel in because outer space would not exist

Liquid, gas, and plasma states of matter are fluids

A rocket can also work through using a liquid and or plasma instead of or in addition to a gas and not a gas alone through similar principles

Another claim is that rockets can not work in a vacuum because rocket fuel uses oxygen and there is no oxygen or not enough oxygen in outer space, but oxygen in the O2 form, can be mixed into rocket fuel, along with "molecues" made of carbon and or hydrogen and or other elements that would combust or chemically interact with the Oxygen.  There are also other types of fuel that do not rely on chemical reactions with oxygen that can be used.  For example, any sufficiently hot exothermic chemical reaction that produces a fluid as a product without oxygen.  For another example, heating a fluid hot enough should work to contribute to rocket speed without a chemical reaction at all.  But that begs the question, how do you heat the fluid without a chemical reaction

Can a Rocket Fly in a Vacuum Chamber?

The Action Lab

 youtube.com/watch?v=T8MOoUuLnug

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T8MOoUuLnug&t=294s

http://web.archive.org/web/20200614150440/youtube.com/watch?v=T8MOoUuLnug

Second myth : NASA provides camera footage to the public of rockets that reach outer space and do not fall back down to "planet" earth in less than 1 hour

Even though rockets should be able to work in imperfect vacuums, the footage of NASA launching rockets I have seen show the rockets going on arc shaped trajectory that would lead back down to "planet" earth instead of traveling at escape velocity toward outer space.

Assumption : I will assume NASA videos of rockets were taken from less than 230 miles away because you can not see a object the size of a Saturn V rocket or smaller from more than 230 miles without zoom or magnification.  If the rocket smoke or exhaust is wider than the rocket is long and you are viewing the smoke but not the rocket this assumption might not be reasonable.  If intense light from burning the fuel somehow results in a way to see things at a farther distance than you should be able to based on this type of calculation then this assumption might also not be reasonable.  Nonetheless, it is reasonable to assume footage of NASA rocket launches is from less than 230 miles away because 230 miles is the width of the entire State of Georgia. That would mean less than 230 miles away horizontally because it is 230 miles at a diagonal formed by a horizontal and vertical distance component.  

When you consider that the longest dimension is viewable from about 230 miles but the second longest dimension is not the viewable distance should actually be much shorter than 230 miles if at least 2 dimensions of the rocket must form a large enough angle for the human eye to see without zoom or magnification.  

I am aware the cameras might have a different minimum angle an object must be to be recorded as a pixel but if people have seen the downward arc of rocket paths live in person without electronic devices, telescopes, or other means of magnification than my argument I will be making that NASA rockets never reach an altitude as high as 230 miles before going back down to the "planet" earth in less than an hour still holds

The sagital plane is composed of the directions up, down, forward and bavkwards.  The coronal plane is composed of the directions, left, right, forward and backward.  I believe that some sources have claimed the smallest angle the human eye can see is different in the sagital plane than the transverse plane, but I do not have access to those sources at the time of writing this article.  Similar math could be done getting different results using a different smallest viewable angle.  But ultimately the main points of the argument that the rockets in certain NASA videos are coming back down to "planet" earth in less than an hour will still hold with different quantities.  

Width 230 miles

http://web.archive.org/web/20120525092633/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(U.S._state)

Height 363.0 feet (110.6 m)

http://web.archive.org/web/20130602200458/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V

NASA launched 13 Saturn Vs from the Kennedy Space Center, Florida with no loss of crew or payload. It remains the tallest, heaviest, and most powerful rocket ever brought to operational status and still holds the record for the heaviest launch vehicle payload.

http://web.archive.org/web/20130602200458/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V

The resolving power of the human eye is 0.0003 of a radian

http://web.archive.org/web/20150113004721/https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/smallest-visible-object/

Arc Length / Radius = Angle in radians

2 Pi radians = 360 degrees

Assume the straight length of the rocket can be treated as a arclength with rounding to get a close enough result for these purposes

363 feet / X = 0.0003 radians

X = 363 feet / 0.0003 radians = 1210000 feet

1210000 feet / 5280 feet per mile = about 229 miles

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%3D+(+363+%2F+0.0003+)+%2F+5280&ia=calculator

Assumption : The earth has a claimed radius of approximately 4000 miles and a claimed approximate shape of a sphere

Assumption : The difference in angle the velocity vector of a rocket in polar coordinates appears to be going in radians by two different viewers is adjusted by the arc distance between the viewers divided by the radius of the earth in cases similar to the example

Imagine two people are viewing a rocket.  One person is directly below the rocket amd the other is a camera person far away from the rocket.  Both are standing at sea level.

If each individual used a polar coordinate system in which positive 90 degrees is up and negative 90 degrees is down and 0 and 180 degrees are horizontal.  Where down is the direction toward the center of the earth from where they are standing.  Each person would have a different down direction.  The difference in angles between there down directions in radians would be the arclength between them and the other observer divided by the radius of the earth.  That would be the difference in angles between their two coordinate systems for measuring the velocity of objects in polar coordinates. 

The origin of these two different polar coordinate systems when used for measuring position could be at the feet of each observer being different for each one or alternatively they could both use the center of the earth for an origin or perhaps something else, the chosen origin would matter for measuring position of objects but not for measuring velocity of objects in such a case.

Assume the arc length between the two viewers or observers can be treated the approximately the same as the straight horizintal distance between them after rounding so you do not have to worry about which of those two distances are being used when measuring the distance between observers based on a map or computerized map

Arc Length / Radius = Angle in radians

2 Pi radians = 360 degrees

The camera person is standing at a different angle than the person standing under the rocket. 

If perpendicular to the ground is 90 degrees and vertical for the camera person than for the person under the rocket that same direction will be 90 degress plus or minus the Arc Length / Radius in their polar coordinate system

Example

The direction down for two viewers standing 230 miles apart is different by less than 4 degrees.

There is less than a 4 degree difference in polar coordinate systems when measuring velocity of objects they observe for two viewers 230 miles apart.  

230 miles arc / 4000 miles radius = 0.0575 radians

0.0575 radians = about 3.29 degrees < 4 degrees

For a camera person standing at sea level 230 miles horizontally away from the rocket

And a second person standing at sea level 0 miles horizontally away from the rocket

If a camera person views the velocity vector of the rocket at 90 degrees then the second person below the rocket would view it somewhere between 86 and 94 degrees

If a camera person views the velocity vector of the rocket at 0 degrees then the second person below the rocket would view it somewhere between negative 4 and positive 4 degrees

If a camera person views the velocity vector of the rocket at 45 degrees then the second person below the rocket would view it somewhere between 41 and 49 degrees

Conclusion from assumptions

NASA rockets downard arc can not be explained as an illusiom caused by the "curvature" of the earth 

This is because that would change the velocity vector of the rockets as expressed in polar coordinates by less than 4 degrees which is too little.  If the rockets look like they are going a direction that would be down then they probably really are going down unless an adjustment of less than 4 degrees is enough to not make them look like they are not going down.

A counter argument to this is that objects at the same height viewed from farther away look like a lower angle which can create the illusion of a lower height from the perspective of an observer.

NASA rockets downward arc can not be explained by the spin of the earth.

Whether or not the earth is spinning or what speed and direction it is spinning is not relevant to whether or not the rockets are getting closer or farther away from the center of the "planet" earth

If the rockets have a downward component to their velocity from the point of view of the observer directly below the rockets then the rockets are going closer to the center of the earth no matter what direction or speed the earth is spinning or not spinning

If the rockets have a upward component to their velocity from the point of view of the observer directly below the rockets then the rockets are going farther away from the center of the earth no matter what direction or speed the earth is spinning or not spinning

Rocket Downward Arcs showing the fakeness of NASA

A saturn V rocket can not be seen from more than 230 miles therefore the angle of the velocity in polar coordinates is below 0 degrees after compensating for the less than 4 degrees difference in measured angle between two viewers as described earlier.  This indicates the rocket is traveling down closer to the earth from the point of view of someone standing below the rocket.  This is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this rocket did not go into orbit nor achieve escape velocity and will return to the "planet" earth within less than 1 hour after launch.

http://web.archive.org/web/20150905102757/http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1509/launchMUOS4_deep.jpg

Atlas V Rising

Image Credit & Copyright: Mike Deep

Explanation: Early morning risers along Florida's Space Coast, planet Earth, were treated to a launch spectacle on September 2nd. Before dawn an Atlas V rocket rose into still dark skies carrying a US Navy communications satellite from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station into Earth orbit. This minutes long exposure follows the rocket's arc climbing eastward over the Atlantic. As the rocket rises above Earth's shadow, its fiery trail becomes an eerie, noctilucent exhaust plume glinting in sunlight. Of course, the short, bright startrail just above the cloud bank is Venus rising, now appearing in planet Earth's skies as the brilliant morning star.

http://web.archive.org/web/20150905120625/https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap150905.html

Counter Argument

There is a counterargument the mainstream narrative supporters might make.  If the rockets are traveling "horizontally" away from the viewer at a constant height such as if they were in orbit then as they got "horizontally" farther away from the viewer as an illusion they might appear lower down due to a change in angle even though they are at the same height or altitude.  

Response to counter argument :  Objects seen up to the point of illusionarily or really down  have low credibility of having reached low earth orbit altitudes in order to go into low earth orbit or launch another object into low earth orbit

I will make an assumption that a satellite would be smaller than a rocket that launches a satellite and if a satellite or rocket is seen that means it is at or below the height at which it is too high to be seen.  If the object is seen throughout it's entire movement arc until it starts going down then the maximum height or altitude it achieved is less than it's maximum viewable distance.  This can create a limit on the credibility of how high NASA claimed to launch certain objects that can be seen going down.

longest object dimension / maximum viewable distance =  0.0003 radians

for the person standing below the object the maximum viewable distance is the maximum vuewable height or altitude

but for the cameraman the maximum viewable distance is lower based on the pythagorean theoeom

This is problematic because satelites in low earth orbit have a longest dimension much smaller than the Saturn V rocket's world record longest dimension and are so small they can not be seen by the naked eye at low earth orbit.  Yet objects are clearly seen in pictures going downward, and if those objects whether rockets are satellites are small enough their visibility indicates they never achieved a sufficient height for low earth orbit

The Saturn V rocket loses pieces becomong shorter in stages so even a rocket that started out large enough to be seen by the naked eye at low earth orbit altitude, might not be visible at low orbital height after part loss is considered

Maybe they will say the rockets do indeed come back down but launch a satelite off them into orbit before coming back down and the launched satellite is not seen because it is too small and goes higher than the rocket but the rocket is seen because it is larger and does not go at as high an altitude as the satellite it launches

But, this explanation can not solve the problem if rockets that allegedly escape orbit, allegedly exceeding escape velocity, also have paths that make them look like they will come right back down to earth.

http://web.archive.org/web/20220613132429/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit

Bonus Question : Do NASA rockets based on video footage appear to travel slower than the fastest military aircraft in air show videos?  I am not talking about the "official" published speed which you can not confirm by observation.  I am talking about what you could estimate with your eyes looking at the position of objects relative to landmarks at different time stamps on video recordings.  Do the fastest military rockets travel faster than the fastest NASA rocket launches?  Is it plausible that military rockets and or military aircraft designed for combat travel faster than NASA rockets that travel to the moon, but the military rockets and vehicles are not accidentally ejected from the earth never to come back?

Bonus estimate of the rockets location : At that time the rocket is at it's highest height it will have traveled approximately half the distance it will travel horizontally ignoring air friction.  This assumption is unimportant to the main point and might not be true due to the variability in the direction and amount of force provided by rocket fuel as a function of time and due to force being provided by rocket fuel after the rocket is launched and not just to produce initial starting velocity.  If you assume the rocket fuel produces less force at any moment in time after it's highest height than before reaching it's highest height and produces no force sometime before it lands then the rocket fuel might produce enough force to exceed terminal velocity from air resitance in the earlier parts of the trajectory, but not at the later parts of the teajectory.  So, the rocket will travel faster and therefore farther horizontally before reaching it's highest height than after reaching it's highest height.  The rocket might travel farther than I mentioned with the use of a deployed parachute but that is unlikely because the parachute would slow down it's horizontal velocity not just it's downward vertical velocity.

  

Copyright Carl Janssen 2022 September 20

Statistics is not Evidence based medicine

 

"Evidence based medicine" refers to medicine that uses certain statistical methodology.  However, this statistical methodology is in conflict with good scientific methods and is not a proper use of evidence.

Copyright Carl Janssen 2022 September 2

Limitations and criticism

There are a number of limitations and criticisms of evidence-based medicine.[71][72][73] Two widely cited categorization schemes for the various published critiques of EBM include the three-fold division of Straus and McAlister ("limitations universal to the practice of medicine, limitations unique to evidence-based medicine and misperceptions of evidence-based-medicine")[74] and the five-point categorization of Cohen, Stavri and Hersh (EBM is a poor philosophic basis for medicine, defines evidence too narrowly, is not evidence-based, is limited in usefulness when applied to individual patients, or reduces the autonomy of the doctor/patient relationship).[75]

http://web.archive.org/web/20220823161227/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine

What Makes You You? By Tim Urban

You are not your brain or your body by Tim Urban 

https://qz.com/500566/what-makes-you-you/

http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://qz.com/500566/what-makes-you-you/

bitchute.com/video/Z2i9VQNktYs/

http://web.archive.org/web/20220828042142/https://www.bitchute.com/video/Z2i9VQNktYs/

What Makes You You?

By Tim Urban

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/12/what-makes-you-you.html

http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/12/what-makes-you-you.html

Statistics is Neither Math Nor Science when probability is invoked or evoked

Dark Mathematical Magicians, Statistical Sorcery and Superstition

If there is one most important lesson to get from this article it is that you can know fake science is being used if you see the phrases "statistically significant," or "not statistically significant."  

When you look at what percentage of articles have these phrases in peer reviewed scientific journals, however unscientific you thought the majority viewpoint scientific establishment was you will realise it is much faker then that.  

Take the wildest mainstream science denial theories of fake globe earth, fake moon landings, fake pictures of space, fake spinning earth, fake gravity, fake dating of fossils, rocks, manuscripts and artifacts, fake dinosaurs,, fake billions and millions of years, fake big bang, fake nukes, fake discovery of the atom, fake theory of special relativity, fake DNA, fake vaccine theories and fake global warming theories add them all together and they do not add up to even 1% of the amount of fakery there would be in the mainstream scientific establishment if this one claim is true.  Although I am not saying whether or not those mainstream science denial theories are true by putting them in this list, simply comparing the triviality of even the combination of all of them when compared with the hoax of the legitimacy of using statistical significance as part of science.

Not all statistics is unscientific.  There is a field of statistics called descriptive statistics in which quantities are directly measured.  This field can be scientific or used as part of a legitimate scientific method when probability is not involved.

Descriptive Statistics may give you a frequency without a probability meaning that it can be potentially legitimate

A frequency can be directly measured but a probability can not

For example if Cathy the Cat Lady has 7 black cats and 3 white cats and no cats with both black and white fur in her house's cat room right now and she has no other cats anywhere else in the world.  Someone can personally count how many cats are in that room of each type and get a number of each type without assigning a probability.

From the numbers they personally observed they can calculate frequencies that 70% of her cats are black and 30% of her cats are white.  

Inferrential Statistics is where the line between fantasy and reality is magically conjured into existence through the use of probability and guessing.  Inferrential statistics are where you try to guess what quantities are that you never measured based on information you have actually measured in your descriptive statistics.  

One extremely common problem with inferrential statistics is infering that data you never measured would be a normal distribution curve if you actually measured it based on the descriptive data you did measure and can objectively know is not a normal distribution curve.

The most common and most serious problem, however, is believing you can know the probability of a meaurement at all.  The entire foundation of any and every statistical test that can get a result of either, "statistically significant," or "not statistically significant" is that probabilitiy exists and can be a quantity other than 0% or 100% which it can not and therefore might as well not exist as will be explained much later in this article.

 In the infiltrated academic fields of so called biology, sociology, psychology, pharmacy, exercise physiology, healthcare and industrial engineering "statistically significant," or "not statistically significant" is used as the standard for knowing "the truth" about the results of an experiment.  But this standard has not been used  to arrive at any hard science by competant people who know what they are doing. 

Although Isaac Newton's work on gravity and astronomy has never beem confirmed by the common person, the rest of his laws are very useful, and he never arrived at them using tests to see if they were, "statistically significant," or "not statistically significant."

The force of Local Gravity can be measured by dropping an object in front of a ruler and filming it without testing for if it is  "statistically significant," or "not statistically significant" because the object will be exactly where it is supposed to be based on the model if you adjust for air friction

 But the force of gravity in outer space has never been proven to the non space ship affording commoner and the Universal Gravitational constant is a fraud.  The mass of large objects like buildings and walls right next to the testing equipment is always ignored making the whole thing a big joke. 

 If Isaac Newton really existed he has been the most important scientist and mathematician in all of history because of what Newtonisn Physics teaches about, Torque, Work, Force, Mass, Acceleration and Momentum which is a prerequisite for all work in all other fields of science that use those measurements.  Not even one theory Isaac Newton arrived at was achieved by testing for being "statistically significant," or "not statistically significant," every correct theory he ever had are confirmed because they make correct predictions which is how real science works and not because of something labeled as being "statistically significant," or "not statistically significant," occured which is not how real scientists do research only how people who are paid lots of money to pretend to be doing science do research.

In inferrential statistics someone might say there is a 70% chance a cat will be black and a 30% chance a cat will be white because the probability is assumed to be the same as the frequency.  But, this is magical thinking

In reality zero of her cats have a 30% chance of being white and zero of her cats have a 70% chance of being black.  7 of her cats have a 100% chance of being black with a 0% chance of being white and 3 of her cats have a 100% chance of being white and a 0% chance of being black.

That is where I am wrong.  Pulling a rabbit out of a hat is much less likely to get you bitten than pulling a cat out of a hat [ citation not needed . ]  If a magician pulled a cat out of a hat and they personally did not know what color the cat was until they pulled it out of the hat there would be a 70% chance it was black and a 30% chance it was white.

But I am not wrong at all.  Just because the magician does not see the cat before he pulls it out does not mean it is not a black or white cat.  If the cat is black there is a 100% probability the cat he pulls out will be black and a 0% chance it will be white.  If the cat is white there will be a 100% chance it will be white and a 0% chance it will be black.

If he pulls out each cat exactly one time then the frequency he pulls them out will be 70% black and 30% white but there will be no probability of a 70% chance of being black nor a probability of a 30% chance of being white each time he pulls a cat out as I already explained.

The scientific method involves proposing a possible mechanism by which things work and making a measurable mathematical model to make future predictions based on what would happen under experimental circumstances if that mechanism genuinely existed and followed that mathematical model.   The model is then tested based on experiment.

There are three types of mechanisms

1 A physical mechanism

2 A chemical mechanism

3 A mechanism of choice - Something that explains why someone will choose something based on their goals and the information they have access to

None of these types of mechanism can be based on probability 

1 Physical and Chemical mechanisms

 There is either a 0% or 100% chance any claim about a specific object at a specific location, at a specific time is true and those are the only two probability values that can exist in reality.  There is never a probability that is less than 100% and greater than 0% such as 50% of something being true.  Just like not knowing the cats color did not mean there was a probability a cat has a certain fur color other than 0% or 100% in reality

2 Choice mechanisms

Although what goals and knowledge someone else  has is unknown there can likewise be only a 100% chance or 0% chance any claim about their goals or knowledge is true at any specific time and not any value other than those two values such as 50% for similar reasons

No legitinate mechanism of explanation therefore can be based on probability theory

A legitimate scientific model has a mechanism of explanation

There is then no scientific basis for any model to represent reality that uses the type of inferential statistics based on probability theory, since no legitimate mechanisms are probabilistic

In Short : Inferential Statistics that are based on probability theory are not legitimate science

Statistics is Neither Math Nor Science when probability is invoked or evoked

Statistics is magic.

Statisticians can be of the spell school of geometry in which geometric bell curves and tables are drawn on paper to work mind deceiving magic on the reader 

http://web.archive.org/web/20220811075624/https://www.docdroid.net/e2GQmdw/players-option-skills-powers-rtf

Statisticians cast wild magic spells where their methods are based on occasionally arriving at the right conclusion for the wrong reason

http://web.archive.org/web/20220811075323/https://www.docdroid.net/4adfMyZ/the-complete-wizards-handbook-rtf

Statistics is evocation magic because it calls to mind people to imagine things that are not true 

transitive verb To call to mind, as by suggestion, association, or reference.

transitive verb To create anew, especially by means of the imagination.

transitive verb To summon by magical or supernatural power; conjure.

http://web.archive.org/web/20220707094055/wordnik.com/words/evoke

Statistics is of invocation magic because it is a religious act of imploring aid from a belief in the higher power of probability theory

late 14c., "petition (to God or a god) for aid or comfort; invocation, prayer;" also "a summoning of evil spirits,"

http://web.archive.org/web/20211023090227/etymonline.com/word/invocation

Of the spell school of song magic in which word are used like magic spells to trick people into believing in something that is not true

http://web.archive.org/web/20220811075624/https://www.docdroid.net/e2GQmdw/players-option-skills-powers-rtf

Statisticians  use mind effecting magic from the school of enchantment charm when people are forced or charmed into obeying stupid ideas because they are labeled as statistically significant

http://web.archive.org/web/20220811075323/https://www.docdroid.net/4adfMyZ/the-complete-wizards-handbook-rtf

Syatistics is illusionary magic in which people hallucinate reality being other than what it is caused through the suggestion of things being "statistically significant" even if they are not practically significant

Statistics is a form of necromancy.  Not necromancy in the sense of creating undead beings but in the sense of trying to foretell the future or past from the dead through ways that do not logically make sense except to someone doing magical thinking.

With statistics people imagine to get information from the dead they simply do not have access to when statistics is used instead of understanding physical and chemical mechanisms of biological causes of death and the fossilization process in forensics, paleontology, osteo-archeologists and actuarial "science."  A paleontologist with no soft tissue might use "rigorous scientific methods" to know what a dinosaurs body was like from statistical analysis of bone measurements, while ignoring the fact that no such physical mechanism of how the dinosaurs body worked could be observed without the never found muscle and connective tissue.  But, that is ok because no physical mechanism is needed when it comes to statistical science, so why should a physical mechanism like a body be needed for any biological science experiment.

A necromancer is a person who practices necromancy, a discipline of black magic used to communicate with the dead to foretell the future.

http://web.archive.org/web/20200323070613/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necromancer_(disambiguation)

Statistics is faith healing magic.  I do not know how the chemical mechanism for this medicine works but it showed "statistically significant differences" compared with a placebo, so if I just trust the science I will be healed by my faith in the scientific study, if I shut up and do as I am told.

Granted I could think that it did not work for some of the patients to heal them and some got worse after taking the medicine, and without knowing the chemical medicine I could not know which category I am in.  But if I actually knew the chemical and physical mechanism of both the medicine and my body I could know if there is a 100% chance the medicine will heal me or a 100% chance it would do nothing or a 100% chance it would make me worse. 

 But that type of thought would just be the devil trying to get me to doubt the, "statistically significant difference" and I should just take the medicine without knowing what category I am in, because I can not be healed without enough faith in statistical science

Statistics is like ancient divination in which people imagined to be able to detect things they can not know by normal means with the use of magic.  What kind of magic was this?  In ancient days people would intentionally do things that people today would consider to produce random results.  People in ancient times thought these random results could produce supernatural guidance through auspicious signs and omens. 

Using random results to get supernatural guidance would be called laughable in modern times.  But, today scientists with real credentials devote their entire career to studying randomness but instead of calling the study of randomness divination, they call the study of randomness statistics. 

 They still look for auspicious signs and omens, but today call these signs and omens, "statistically significant results" and "not statistically significant results."  

A result is said to randomly change from the omen of "statistical significance" to the omen of "no statistical significance" randomly every once in a while no matter how an experiment is set up, unless G-d forbid, they actually observe the causal mechanism and measure the data directly instead of statistically inferring it. 

 They laugh at ancient people for seeking omens from randomness, but their very admission to random false positives and false negatives shows they are still seeking omens from randomness today every time they test to find out if a result is, "statistically significant," instead of testing a mathematical model for a hypothetical mechanism.

In statistical hypothesis testing, a type I error is the mistaken rejection of an actually true null hypothesis (also known as a "false positive" finding or conclusion; example: "an innocent person is convicted"), while a type II error is the failure to reject a null hypothesis that is actually false (also known as a "false negative" finding or conclusion; example: "a guilty person is not convicted").[1] Much of statistical theory revolves around the minimization of one or both of these errors, though the complete elimination of either is a statistical impossibility if the outcome is not determined by a known, observable causal process. 

http://web.archive.org/web/20220602144427/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors

When probability theory, which is the basis for much of inferential statistics is first taught, to defenseless children held captive to the dark magicians ways in public schools, six sided dice are often mentioned a lot in calculations.  These dice trace back to the ancient divination magic of casting lots called cleromancy.  

Cleromancy is a form of sortition (casting of lots) in which an outcome is determined by means that normally would be considered random, such as the rolling of dice, but that are sometimes believed to reveal the will of God according to Proverbs 16:33.

http://web.archive.org/web/20220602113150/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleromancy

Statistics is like the occult school of numerology in that measured numbers are imagined to work according to patterns of statistical magic, without any need to examine mechanism of how something works.  Where as in numerology measured numbers can also magically tell you information without understanding the mechanism of the source of data you are measuring the numbers from.

Numerology and astrology are not considered to be math nor science but numerology uses math to make predictions, and astrology uses both math and astronomy to make predictions.

Statistics is neither math nor science but statistics uses math

Numerology and astrology actually are more useful than statistics.  

Numerology and astrology can have a linguistic purpose to communicate messages symbolically.  

Numerology should be viewed as a form of linguistics that uses math and numbers to communicate coded messages to other people who know numerology and not as a field of mathematics or physical science.

For example if a shoe is One foot and One inch long that does not mean bad luck but if you say a shoe is thirteen inches long someone who knows the code might know you are sending a coded signal which means bad luck.  The Number Thirteen is not an unlucky number because a shoe that is thirteen inches long is no more likely to cause you to trip than a shoe that is one and one twelth of a foot long even though they are both the same length.  Thirteen pairs of an object is the same as Twenty Six objects.  But if you want to communicate a message of bad luck you might call it Thirteen pairs of objects instead of Twenty Six objects.  If you want to make sure you do not give people less than the dozen donuts you asked for you give them a bakers dozen.  A bakers dozen is one dozen donuts plus one extra donut.  They will be happy to have an extra donut if you tell them it is a bakers dozen but do not tell them you are giving them thirteen donuts or they will freak out if they are superstitious.  There is no lucky or unlucky quantity therefore because the same quantity can be changed from considered lucky to unlucky by a change of word labeling magic.  There is no physical mechanism for numerology because when you measure real things you can assign any number you want to them by changing the units.  The purpose of changing around the number in front of the unit is therefore clearly to  change each number to a different to code word when numerology is used.   Therefore numerology clearly is not a physical science but clearly is a real linguistic tool.

Overt is the opposite of covert

If someone wishes to use the news to signal out coded messages they may chose things like fabricating numbers in news stories which are actually fiction being portrayed as non fiction.  They could for example use the code number three hundred and twenty two in order to covertly communicate the message "skull and bones" to everyone who hears the message while only people who know the number means "skull and bones" understand they are receiving the message "skull and bones" and everyone else thinks a quantity is being measured when no such quantity of whatever unit they claim to measure occured.  The number was not used as a measurement but a code word.

The most popular numbers overtly used as code words when trying to make sure the general public does know to put the public in a state of fear are triple sixes or six hundred and sixty six, and thirteen.  Culturally people are taught to fear those numbers so they are displayed on purpose not to measure a quantity but as a overtly displayed code word. 

Some people believe astrology predicts the future so choose to change their behavior based on astrological predictions.  The news cycle contains fictional events prewritten to fit astrological time tables.  Corporate and government managers of society on the top level create a timetable for what policies to set in place at what time based on astrology.  In this way astrology is a communication tool to modify people's behavior which uses math but is not a science.  Even though astrology is not a science, knowledge of astrology can be used to predict the behavior of people who are being influenced by the tool of astrology.

Probability based statistics is neither math nor science but it is used as a magical communication tool to control people's behavior.

You can look at astrology horoscopes and guess how their believers will behave even though they are not fields based on the scientific method.

The phrases, "statistically significant," and "not statistically significant," have no scientific merit.  However, like astrology and numerology which also have no scientific merit, if a scientific journal article claims something, "is statistically significant," or "is not statistically significant" you can guess how it will change the behavior of the superstitious believers.

The scale matters.  If we play make believe and pretend probability theory is true a certain percentage of articles will have the opposite result in terms of statistical significance changing from significant to not significant or not significant to significant for each alpha value.  Then the people in charge only put the one's that fit the scientific consensus on a large scale for distribution.  It is like rolling a die over and over until you get the number you like.  But in reality, data is often simply fake, and people who try to do honest studies simply do not have their work published unless it fits the agenda.  And even if they followed the proper statistics methods and did not get their work censored it is still a victory for the dark magicians because they are perpetuating the lie that inferential statistics based on probability theory is legimate science and inferential statistics is real math, when neither of those claims are true.

Copyright Carl Janssen 2022

This generally means that descriptive statistics, unlike inferential statistics, is not developed on the basis of probability theory, and are frequently nonparametric statistics

http://web.archive.org/web/20220529222853/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_statistics

The thing about social science is that it hasn’t produced much. We social scientists don’t have an inferiority complex; we really are inferior.

http://web.archive.org/web/20220519231153/statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/03/12/the-social-sciences-are-useless-so-why-do-we-study-them-heres-a-good-reason/

The past two hundred years of social science have given us nothing as useful and important as what gets produced every day in biology, chemistry, and physics.

http://web.archive.org/web/20220519231153/statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/03/12/the-social-sciences-are-useless-so-why-do-we-study-them-heres-a-good-reason/

Keep Psychology Out of the Science Club

http://web.archive.org/web/20210705160649/https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/07/keep-psychology-out-of-science-club.html

Why Psychology and Statistics Are Not Science

http://web.archive.org/web/20210705160650/https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2015/11/why_psychology_and_statistics_are_not_science.html

psychology is not a science, and statistics in and of itself is not science either. 

http://web.archive.org/web/20210705160654/https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2015/11/the_trouble_with_social_science_statistics.html

no statistic has any application to an individual

http://web.archive.org/web/20220608134204/https://public.wsu.edu/~taflinge/evistats.html

psychology is not a science, and statistics in and of itself is not science either. 

What would be missing, in a world without statistics?

Science would be pretty much ok. Newton didn’t need statistics for his theories of gravity, motion, and light,

http://web.archive.org/web/20200517144840/https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2014/07/23/world-without-statistics/

Modern biomedicine uses lots and lots of statistics, but would medicine be so much worse without it? I don’t think so, at least not yet. You don’t need statistics to see that penicillin works, nor to see that mosquitos transmit disease and that nets keep the mosquitos out. Without statistics, I assume that various mistakes would get into the system, various ineffective treatments that people think are effective, etc. But on balance I doubt these would be huge mistakes, and the big ones would eventually get caught, with careful record-keeping even without statistical inference and adjustments. 

http://web.archive.org/web/20200517144840/https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2014/07/23/world-without-statistics/

Although we use many laws and formulae in statistics but still the results achieved are not final and conclusive. As they are unable to give complete solution to a problem

http://web.archive.org/web/20211214014433/economicsdiscussion.net/statistics/8-main-limitations-of-statistics-explained/2321

Law of statistical regularity, are not as good as their science laws.

They are based on probability. So these results will not always be as good as of scientific laws. 

http://web.archive.org/web/20211214014433/economicsdiscussion.net/statistics/8-main-limitations-of-statistics-explained/2321

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=statistics+is+not+science&ia=web

Statistics is a dark art. It’s not a true math in the sense that math is discovered and inherently right or wrong. 

quora.com/Is-statistics-a-science

Statistics is not math

http://web.archive.org/web/20220812110649/https://simplystatistics.org/posts/2012-04-11-statistics-is-not-math/

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=statistics+is+not+math&ia=web

Statistics Is Not Math

http://web.archive.org/web/20150221225715/https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/3169/

Statistics uses math, but it is not math

http://web.archive.org/web/20210502115501/https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/78579/stats-is-not-maths

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=statistics+is+not+logic&ia=web