The nature of "Technological Discovery"



     Humans are ingenious; we make use of every physical phenomenon that we discover. Most discoveries are accidental, then scientists figure out how they can use whatever phenomenon they have discovered. It is inherent in our nature to recognize usefulness and exploit every utility of its potential.  We learn about the usefulness of things by trial and error.

Electricity was discovered when humanity noticed lightening from the sky hitting the ground, or a static shock from stroking animal hair. Since that time, millions of humans have wondered about and experimented with electricity in every way they could imagine. In the last 300 years, experimenters discovered and utilized many interesting effects such as static charge, electromagnetic induction, electric current, magnetism, motors, and electrons stimulating atoms to generate photons, etc... They did not know what electricity was made of, or why it did what it did; they only knew what it did and made use of that. Trial and error was their only guide. From trial and error, we achieved radios, TVs, computers, and rockets.

     These amazing things give us the impression that science has a firm understanding of the fundamental elements of nature. However, they are misleading; these things are superficial impressions of technological knowledge. Science has no idea what electrons or photons are actually made of, or why they do what they do. Scientific knowledge is limited to describing and measuring what things do and building devices through trial and error that utilize their specific behavior.

Humanities accomplishments in these areas are not because we understand what is actually going on, but because we are very ingenious. Humanity exploits what things do; it is not necessary to know why something works to make use of it. Most people cannot tell you how a computer actually works, but they can tell you what computers do, how to use them, and produce incredible illustrations, animations, and data processing without knowing how they work. We learn about the usefulness of things by trial and error. Wheels under loads, water turning wheels, and wheels turning other wheels; we integrate multiple useful things to potentially create and exploit effects that are even more constructive. It is inherent in our nature to recognize usefulness and exploit it in every way we can imagine.


     In chemistry, scientists experiment by putting atoms and molecules together to see what they do, when something interesting happens, science exploits every possible utility of its characteristics. The world believes that chemists intentionally engineer new compounds, but the truth is that most new and old compounds are accidental discoveries that are expounded upon. Plastics, nylon, synthetics of all types were accidental discoveries that occurred when two or more chemicals were mixed together. 

Chemistry is trial and error, looking for useful reactions, then mapping and cataloging "what does what." Pharmaceutical chemistry is a prime example of trial and error looking for drugs that have useful biological effects. Scientists search the world over looking for new exotic chemicals and compounds in animals and plants, to test and see what they do in our biological processes. Chemistry has become an invaluable productive science, but fundamentally, its achievements are based solely on trial and error.

     Biology is another science where trial and error was built upon until we were able to replace hearts, kidneys, and pharmaceutically control some biological processes. However, biologists cannot tell you what initiates biological functions. They can tell you what cells and organs do, and some things about metabolic chemistry, but they cannot tell you how DNA self-replicates or directs atoms and molecules into the formations that compose life. Advances in medical knowledge and procedures are systematically developed through experimenting with animals and people.

     With all the technology that exists around us, it seems impossible that modern science could be built upon trial and error. We take for granted that science has a more profound understanding of the elemental constructs underlying our technology than it actually does. Our technology is based on heat, electrons, chemistry, electromagnetic energy, and mechanical devices, which does not require an underlying understanding of what something is (its causation,) only what it does, and making use of its utilities. Like a caveman using fire, but, not knowing what fire is, or how and why it does what it does. They only knew that fire cooked their meat, warmed their caves, lighted the night, and kept animals at a distance. Our TVs and computers are a modern version of the fire. We use what we see, but we do not know what the matter and energy composing them is ultimately made of, or why it is able to perform as it does. Trial and error is a protracted process of inadvertent discoveries, often augmented or redirected by invested interests.

                                       Subjective mathematics:

     Mathematics is a good example of scientific pretension. Scientists offer mathematical theorems as a simulation of facts to support and elusively prove elaborate theories of cosmological architecture.  However, mathematics is only a symbolic representation of values in an event. Math is not a physical fact in-of-itself. Math can be applied to any concepts whether they are real or not. Two angels plus two angels equals four angels; the math works but does not prove angels exist.  Not all the equations in the world can prove angels exist.  When math is applied to physical measurements, it is an invaluable tool. When math is applied to simulated concepts, it becomes speculative theorizing, inherently superphysical.  Anytime mathematics exceeds physical measurements, it morphs into superphysical equations of simulated facts. Alice-in-Wonderland equations do not make Alice real. 

Mathematics can be just as subjective as words, for all the same reasons.  The validity of mathematics is solely dependent on the structure of the equation.  What components are included or omitted, how they are intergraded or quantified, and the integrity of the data itself, all contribute to the validity of an equation; if any of these are wrong, then the sum is also wrong.  Mathematics used to quantify physical measurements has infinite utility; mathematics used as simulated proof is deceptive across the board.  Mathematics is an ingenious tool for measuring and quantifying multiple values such as size, density, motion, force, and energy, but when math is used to speculate outside of physical measurements, it becomes superphysical mechanics. (Superphysical means a simulation of fact without factual data, based solely upon suppositional criterion.)

In the fields of physics and cosmology, mathematics has severely misled scientists into conceptual constructs of superphysicalness. Ideas such as "parallel space, curved space-time, the big bang, inflation, quantum filaments - entanglement - holographicness, dark matter and energy, black holes, and wormholes" are solely constructed from elusive superphysical equations. They have absolutely no elemental facts on any level, that is, no tangible substance that can be seen or measured, just nonsensical notions based upon elusive superphysical equations. This is an example of trial and error in the worst extreme. Mathematics used as simulated facts has severely confounded physics and cosmology.

                                            Questioning science:

     Below is a list of five specific issues that you can talk to scientists about; do not take this paper's word for it, ask direct questions on these issues; do research for yourself to understand the validity of the answers given. What scientists will offer are suppositions of possibilities as a simulation of facts, which are only supported by a crowd of hearsay and consensus as their foundation; hearsay and consensus are not facts. Scrutinize and take apart scientific answers and you will find that they have no physical foundation, only elusive superphysical suppositions.

     *1 When you ask science; what electrons and photons are made of, ultimately, they will say energy. When you ask, what is energy made of, they can only answer with abstract suppositions such as energy is temperature, heat, vibration, motion, or the ability to do work. These are not definitions of what electrons and photons are made of or why they do what they do; they are only measurements and definitions of what they do.  Science does not know what they are made of, or why they do what they do.

     *2 When you ask science; what is matter made of, they will say atoms, made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. When you ask what a proton is made of, they say quantum constituents (quarks.) When you ask what those quantum constituents are made of, ultimately, they say energy. 

     *3 When you ask science; what is gravity made of, or why gravity has the effects that it does; scientists say that matter curves space-time, and that curved space-time bends the trajectory of objects towards a mass, and that objects fall into curved space. However, curved space-time has no physical definition other than what it does. Newton called gravity 'an invisible force or action at a distance'; he quantified the effects of gravity, but not the physical nature (cause) of gravity. Ultimately, if you press scientists for a physical definition, they can only offer what gravity does as both cause and effect, but they cannot factually tell you what gravity is made of, or factually, why it does what it does.

     *4 When you ask science; what is the volume of space made of, they postulate that it is a curved space-time continuum (a void or vacuum of volume without physical definition); or hyperphysical (dark energy/matter;) or strings (vibrating filaments of quantum energy) that collapse into a three dimensional volume. Asking what the hypothetical big bang and subsequent expansion of matter is expanding out into, science states that the expanding universe is creating space as it pushes out. When insisting on a physical definition of, expanding or pushing out into what, scientists state that it is irrational to ask the question because it is not a part of the material universe.  However, the question is not going away and science is beginning to deal with it, for the moment, in superphysical terms. It is the most important question in physics, because space/volume makes up the vast majority of the universe, and had to exist before matter or energy could exist within it.  Its importance is paramount in understanding the real nature of the universe.

     *5 Finally, if you ask science; what is magnetism made of, what constitutes its force or polarities, or why it behaves the way that it does; in essence, what causes magnetic attraction between magnets?  Scientists speculate that electric forces within atoms and molecules polarize into electric currents, causing an electrostatic field in and around magnetic materials. They answer the question with the question. To further exasperate scientists, ask them, in a vacuum, where does the electric current produced by electromagnetic induction come from, i.e. a wire coil spinning in a magnetic field? Again, when pressed for physical answers, science explains what electromagnetic induction does, but not why it does what it does. The simple truth is that science does not know what fundamentally composes magnetism, its polarities, magnetic field lines, the aligning of iron fillings in magnetic fields, or why magnetism does what it does. Most scientists admit they are at a total loss to explain magnetism.

     It seems impossible that the underlying science of technology could be so unsubstantiated, but if you scrutinize scientists with specific elemental questions, such as what is it made of, or why does it do what it does, they have no factual answers. When pressed, scientists ultimately break everything down to some form of energy, answering the question with the question.

                           Technological discovery is ambiguous:

     Why is it important to state that science does not understand the elemental constructs of matter and energy? Because if we can generate all this technology without understanding the elemental physics underlying everything, imagine what we can do if we knew exactly what matter and energy are made of, and why they do what they do. We have learned to manipulate electrons and generate photons (creating inventions like radios and TVs,) but we have no idea why they do what they do, or what they are fundamentally composed of on any level.  If science admits its errors, it can move on to finding the real answers and all the benefits of its applications.

The nature of technological discovery is ambiguous because our knowledge is based on trial and error. The truth is that we are ingenious at recognizing, measuring, and utilizing phenomenon, but very dysfunctional towards factually explaining it at its most fundamental level. How we think and what we use as facts are the blocks in which we build our bridge to the future. If those blocks are faulty, the bridge is also faulty and ultimately collapses. The growing mass of humanity is becoming critically dependent on science to supply our needs for energy and advance technology to support our weight, but our bridge is precariously built upon superphysical suppositions. The conceptualisms of our times are a direct threat to the technological future.  Conceptualisms are a primitive way of thinking.

     Today, scientists claim to understand the architectural mechanics and origin of the universe. They postulate parallel space, curved space-time, the big bang, inflation, quantum filaments - entanglement - holographicness, dark matter and energy, black holes, and wormholes. Yet, things that they can actually hold in their hands, such as a bar magnet, they cannot mechanically explain what its magnetic field is composed of or how it works. Scientists seem to know more about the beginning of the universe, the internal structure of stars and atoms, and the fate of the universe than they do about the 'hands on' access to things they can actually touch such as magnetism. Scientists suggest that they are better at comprehending things that they cannot see or touch, than things they can. Science has become a perilous paradigm of ideas and concepts generated by heavily invested conceptual inbreeding. In spite of the modern wonders of technology, superphysical constructs are precarious, and serve 'more' the invested interests of institutionalism, than the needs of future technology. 

     Technological discovery (science) in the past has always been 'hands on experience' in which to develop a useful application. In the last hundred years or so, since the introduction of Relativity, theoretical constructs and equations have replaced hands on experience with conceptualism.  From conceptualism, we get fantastic notions such as time travel, quantum strings, and a host of other superphysical theories, all without physical foundation other than elusive equations. Imagination, hearsay, and consensus are not facts; what is missing in modern physics and cosmology are the fundamental physical facts. Theoretical science has replaced hands on facts with mathematical conceptualism.

     The entertainment industry, using 'scientific advisers,' has promoted the conceptualism of time-travel as a real futuristic science. So strong is this induced compulsion that DARPA, NASA, DOD, and other governmental agencies, along with private institutions are investing vast resources - trying to explore and develop time-travel. Time is only a conceptualism, it has no tangible constructs to access or alter; it is a superphysical equation, a vector that has been morphed into an elusive physical construct. 

The CERN accelerator is hoping to find a particle called the "Timeon," and if not a Timeon, then another spatial dimension called time. Scientists are expecting to find "physical time" one-way-or-another in the splashes of particle collisions; they will not accept any other answer. A particle path that has a .05 deviation, and then disappears or dissolves will be interpreted as crossing into another dimension of time or space. Scientists are heavily invested into their predictions becoming reality, or they have wasted a lot of time and money.

((All scientists are really going to discover in the CERN collisions is bigger splashes; no mini big bangs, black holes, timeons, gravitons, or godons; just larger splashes of particle art. Scientists will claim to have made such discoveries, but it will be totally subjective, excluding any other explanations outside of their own expectations.  Investment has the debt of obligation.))

     In the end, technological discovery is a journey of accidental discovery and making the most out of its utility as humanly possible. The reason accidental discovery drives invention, and thus the direction of limited innovation, is that we do not know enough about the actual nature of matter and energy to intentionally create new things. The scientific pendulum of rationality swings between factual data and conceptualism. Presently, physics and cosmology are lost in the abyss of mathematical imagination. Somewhere along the way, theorists forgot about physical facts.

     Religion is a vivid example of suppositional human propensity. There is no evidence on any level to support the notions of gods, yet vast institutionalism has been built upon such conceptualizations.  Religion uses a simulation of facts, such as the Bible/Quran/Torah, Churches/Mosques/Synagogues, and consensus as proclaimed proof in describing the elusive existence of their gods. The institutions of physics and cosmology also have ambiguous simulated constructs supporting their beliefs, such as the Big Bang, Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics.  

Religion does not want you to question the presumptions of their belief anymore than theoretical physicists or cosmologists want you skeptically questioning their postulations.  After all, both have massive investments based upon suppositional conceptualizations as a simulation of proof. They cannot afford having their conceptualizations questioned for fear of exposing their elusive suppositional foundations.  Put in other words, they do not want their boat rocked for fear of being knocked overboard. Science becomes conceptualism/religion when it uses suppositions as a simulation of facts.   

     We know when we have taken the wrong path in our journey -- when we end up back where we started. Rationality is often subjective institutionalism.  We learn what we know from institutionalism; if what institutionalism teaches is wrong, then what we think we know or believe is also wrong. We can circumvent suppositional institutional propensity by scrutinizing data and thinking for ourselves. An individual mind can sometimes see more clearly than the clutter of institutional minds, as Galileo experience.

     In conclusion: Humanity is building a bridge to the future, what should the physics constructing that bridge be based upon, superphysical conceptualizations, or absolute physical facts. Where do you want your children standing?


          Additional data on 'Technology' can be found in the topics, The nature of "Light and Colors," The nature of "Time," and The nature of "Human Behavior."  As well, there is an enormous amount of data on the Internet with different perspectives.  Research and learn how different technologies came about.  All you have to lose is ignorance.

     A question never asked is worth nothing,
     An answer never given is worth even less...

     What are your opinions, comments, or questions?


Home page | About the Author | Contact info | Posting instructions | Posting Board

The origin of the "Universe" | The nature of "Light and Colors" | The nature of "Time"

The nature of "Dreams" | The nature of "Technological Discovery" | The nature of "Human Behavior"

The nature of "Morals" | The nature of "Religion"