You might be interested in the work of Bill Gaede and/or Alton Hare. Anyway, good video. Nice to see someone thinking independently. And I had to laugh at the nonsense comments like "But you're using a computer; that proves Quantum!". Eh? Technology & Science are unique approaches entirely. I absolutely guarantee that my Mac is made of 3d atoms, not of magical contradictory wave-packets or 0d electrons!!
Space and time do not exist. Therefore neither does motion because motion requires the travelling through space. Inertia is only the "interactions" that are happening, there is no motion!
How's that for a philosophy!
Space is a concept like "red" or "zero". You can not travel through "red" or "zero" because they have no physical presence! You can not travel through space, because it has no physical presence!
Time, like "green", does not flow or exist, other than our perception of it.
You seriously need to study at least a little SR,GR,&QM. You're missing simple high school stuff. Photons have no mass. But they do have an energy E = hf, where h is Planck's constant and f is frequency. That translates to a mass equivalent, via E=mc^2, or m=E/c^2. QED. You miss the fact that the Schrodinger equation is deterministic. (Although the translation step to the physical world is not.) The predictions of QM are incredibly accurate. And within its domain has never been observed to fail.
Mr Cropper, you have studies lot of history and philosophy, but not enough mathematics and physics. You believe you can handle your lack of knowledge about math, because you know that you don't know math. It is a false belief.
If you are serious about the philosophy of science, you must study math. If you do, you will understand your past mistakes later in the future. I promise.
new concept to you...it took hundreds of years for science to be where it is now, go and study, then talk! there are no easy concepts anymore, they take years to understand...sorry...that's the universe...you can complain about it...it's complicated...
@brunodvsapopt The reason that is, is that they have been made complicated. So you say go study something so you can not understand the issues like we don't understand them and you'll see how you don't understand them enough that you can't understand.
It's like trying to understand a computer program either by looking at the uncompiled code, or by trying to comprehend the binary instructions. One is easy, the other is not. Both are valid. You say only the initiated may know the secret knowledge
Don't be harsh on the fellow. Independant thought and questioning everything is how progress is made. I may not agree with everything he said, but I have loved astronomy and cosmology for years and years. I myself have certainly had no training or college courses on the sbuject, however. In short, I believe that humanity has an infinite supply of things yet to discover about our universe and quantum physics. Its very exciting I think....
Philosophy is a conclusion, doesn't come first. So there goes you objectivity.
To dismiss some of Einstein's theories or call modern cosmology bankrupt is reasonable, but to diss Relativity all together and call it ridiculous is....ridiculous, as is blaming world wars on it. Stick to history and philosophy Cropp.
I assume this is on the level, and not a parody. MrCropper obviously has little understanding of the issues here, philosophical as well as scientific. The same goes for the "theorists" in these clips. Quackery.
Relativity does not say perception creates reality. To put it as briefly as I can, in special relativity space and time are but a continuum and intrinsically connected. The measurement of movement in space or time isn't the same in all reference frames, but what is objectively constant is the spacetime interval. The interval is the same for all observers. But what is different between observers is how much one moves in either space or time.
Where did you get these weird notions of modern physics? Have you ever studies physics seriously? Your distinction that relativity explains a perception of reality but not reality itself is a gross misunderstanding of the theory. It explains reality, and explains it rather well. In fact, the union of special relativity and quantum mechanics gave birth to quantum electrodynamics, the most accurate theory EVER.
No, neither quantum mechanics nor relativity predict light to have mass. In both theories light is massless. Your characterization of quantum mechanics is misleading, too. Quantum mechanics makes precise predictions, the most accurate theory ever created in science, but it lacks an explanation of what happens in between measurements (the Copenhagen Interpretation).
This clip is an okay documentary of how one thinking person is reacting to the dissonance between the 20th century mystery religion of relativistic and quantum mechanical paradoxes on one hand, and reason and up-to-date science such as plasma cosmology on the other. It's not a complete argument, and even if it were, it would still draw cries of "ignorance" from those who believe whatever they're told by big media, who would believe astrology if that was the big media promoted "science."
6:30- "I used to think x about this and listen to the informed opinions of scientist but then I got a religious tract from the cult I follow and now I reject it and you should do the same"... rubish
Mr. Cropper when you say relativity does not refer to reality what do you mean? I am not very conversant with the specifics of the theory... however from my intro to physics class several years back I do remember learning that relativity had powerful predictive power. I don't think any anyone argues the theory is complete... but it is certainly a good working model... because of its predictive power.
In your video you make a distinction between realities and how "we perceive reality". "The theory does not refer to reality only how we perceive reality". If reality = what we perceive then you should have no problem with relativity and QM by your own definition.
the idea that Einstein couldn't explain light is funny... I mean, perhaps, but he explained it better than anyone else so far... E=mc^2 proves there IS NO CONTRADICTION between "being mass" and "being energy". The ancient dichotomy falls from fundamental to incidental.
"Orgasmic surge of Kantianism"? "An orgasmic surge of Skepticism and irrationality"? Kantianism, Skepticism, and irrationality are not ordinarily things I find sexually enticing. :-P
The problem for QM is that no experiments are necessary to disprove it. It's like religion: one cannot reductio ad absurdum something which is already absurd! Interpretations of QM are not based on experiments; these interpretations are supposed to be taken as scientific conclusions, yet they are metaphysical postulations: postulations which are incidentally Kantian. 18th-century coincidence? I think not.
Wait...did you just try to convince me that basing a philosophy on reality is somehow backwards? You're sounding very religious in your claim that a philosophy must be developed before real experience and research is taken into account.
Cropper would never say that "basing a philosophy on reality" is backwards. The opposite would be "basing reality on a philosophy", which is what quantum mechanics is. It is the taking of Kantian principles into the realm of science, independent of physical, experimental, and empirical evidence.
"Philosphy is a primary. First of all you have a philosphical idea. Then you use that philospohical idea to investigate reality, i.e. in order to make sense of the information coming from your senses."
"You cannot go out in the world.....then come home and set down and try to figure out your philosophy. Do you see how backwards it is? Do you see how backwards it is?"
With the pretentious guy that he is, and his unquestioning Randianism, I could imagine him doing this.
Does anyone else find MrCropper's pretentiousness and pompousness all too fitting of this hilarious criticism of one of history greatest scientists? Lmao...
The Plasma Theory of the universe is at least as old as Relativity, but I think specifically began with Hans Alfven. At any rate, plasma theory better predicts the observed structures of the universe, eliminates the contradiction of singularities. Low emission plasma eliminates the need for dark matter. There are others good things about this theory.
Unfortunately the biggest living proponent of this theory is a big, whacky socialist.
Said cosmology has made possible our ability to watch this video in the fashion we are. Perceptions of time and space simply change. Consider -Until the late 19th century the standard for time keeping was based on the sun reaching the meridian. Railroad travel alone changed that. Trains travel fast enough that a difference of several minutes in local time was problematic. Today's instant communications demand ever smaller and more accurate units of time. (Atomic time)
Personally I would certainly be willing to admit that. BUT I would not blame myself for this misunderstanding, because everything I have seen from the physicists themselves demonstrates that they don't even understand what they are talking about. Attempting to integrate their theories without contradictions, something that they don't attempt, is impossible.
This is a real trainwreck of a video. I know the concepts being discussed are not the easiest to wrap one's head around, but the level of ignorance, arrogance, misunderstanding, and just plain craziness on display is really astounding. I mean, it takes a real effort to get nearly everything wrong.
You do realize that by subscribing to these beliefs you're pretty much in the same class as young earth creationists, right? I suggest you stop getting your information from the Ayn Rand Institute.
You got some balls to equate the theory of relativity to the WW's and communism. I suggest you cut them off in the interest of evolution or to address the problem directly shoot your self in the head
Perception doesn't *create* reality, but we can never know reality but from our perspective. How would you propose we get out of our bodies to view the world from nowhere?
It is basic biology, you see what your nervous system has evolved for you to see. You don't see what is out there independent of your particular way of perceiving.
because without my perspective, I don't exist. To understand something, first I have to exist, and then I have to understand it from my point of view.
"Existence is a primary. Saying philosophy is a primary is rather confusing at least it is to me."
I mean within the realm of science. As far as science goes, do we experiment first, or read our Aristotle first? Clearly experimentation depends on the ideas we accept as true before we begin to experiment - like can we know anything, can contradictions exist, etc.
But existence has primacy or consciousness, that is true.
we experiment first... as soon as we open our eyes, we collect data on our experiments, otherwise known by default as experience, saving "experiment" for very carefully carried out and repeatable experiences.
"Existence is a primary. Saying philosophy is a primary is rather confusing at least it is to me."
I mean within the realm of science. As far as science goes, do we experiment first, or read our Aristotle first? Clearly experimentation depends on the ideas we accept as true before we begin to experiment - like can we know anything, can contradictions exist, etc.
But existence has primacy over consciousness, that is true.
I wont even waste a retort on this moron he does not even understand e=mc2.
ash31311 5 days ago
You might be interested in the work of Bill Gaede and/or Alton Hare. Anyway, good video. Nice to see someone thinking independently. And I had to laugh at the nonsense comments like "But you're using a computer; that proves Quantum!". Eh? Technology & Science are unique approaches entirely. I absolutely guarantee that my Mac is made of 3d atoms, not of magical contradictory wave-packets or 0d electrons!!
L1ber8ted 2 months ago
Space and time do not exist. Therefore neither does motion because motion requires the travelling through space. Inertia is only the "interactions" that are happening, there is no motion!
How's that for a philosophy!
Space is a concept like "red" or "zero". You can not travel through "red" or "zero" because they have no physical presence! You can not travel through space, because it has no physical presence!
Time, like "green", does not flow or exist, other than our perception of it.
wavyinfinity 5 months ago
You seriously need to study at least a little SR,GR,&QM. You're missing simple high school stuff. Photons have no mass. But they do have an energy E = hf, where h is Planck's constant and f is frequency. That translates to a mass equivalent, via E=mc^2, or m=E/c^2. QED. You miss the fact that the Schrodinger equation is deterministic. (Although the translation step to the physical world is not.) The predictions of QM are incredibly accurate. And within its domain has never been observed to fail.
sbergman27 6 months ago
Mr Cropper, you have studies lot of history and philosophy, but not enough mathematics and physics. You believe you can handle your lack of knowledge about math, because you know that you don't know math. It is a false belief.
If you are serious about the philosophy of science, you must study math. If you do, you will understand your past mistakes later in the future. I promise.
jostpuur 7 months ago
i liked this ;) its like watching some of the earliest hominids trying to figure out how to use a basic tool :D
Medhiv83 8 months ago
new concept to you...it took hundreds of years for science to be where it is now, go and study, then talk! there are no easy concepts anymore, they take years to understand...sorry...that's the universe...you can complain about it...it's complicated...
brunodvsapopt 1 year ago
@brunodvsapopt The reason that is, is that they have been made complicated. So you say go study something so you can not understand the issues like we don't understand them and you'll see how you don't understand them enough that you can't understand.
It's like trying to understand a computer program either by looking at the uncompiled code, or by trying to comprehend the binary instructions. One is easy, the other is not. Both are valid. You say only the initiated may know the secret knowledge
doltBmB 2 months ago
Don't be harsh on the fellow. Independant thought and questioning everything is how progress is made. I may not agree with everything he said, but I have loved astronomy and cosmology for years and years. I myself have certainly had no training or college courses on the sbuject, however. In short, I believe that humanity has an infinite supply of things yet to discover about our universe and quantum physics. Its very exciting I think....
MrBillHerring 1 year ago
Philosophy is a conclusion, doesn't come first. So there goes you objectivity.
To dismiss some of Einstein's theories or call modern cosmology bankrupt is reasonable, but to diss Relativity all together and call it ridiculous is....ridiculous, as is blaming world wars on it. Stick to history and philosophy Cropp.
WonderBread006 1 year ago
General relativity doesn't apply mass to photons under any circumstances what so ever. I have no fucking clue where the hell you got that from.
That is not quantum mechanics. You have no damn clue what the hell you're talking about.
SpazzzDog 2 years ago
This guy in the vid just didn't get the point of what your genius Einstein was saying. Stupid earthling.
keepthefunk 2 years ago
I assume this is on the level, and not a parody. MrCropper obviously has little understanding of the issues here, philosophical as well as scientific. The same goes for the "theorists" in these clips. Quackery.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
Relativity does not say perception creates reality. To put it as briefly as I can, in special relativity space and time are but a continuum and intrinsically connected. The measurement of movement in space or time isn't the same in all reference frames, but what is objectively constant is the spacetime interval. The interval is the same for all observers. But what is different between observers is how much one moves in either space or time.
SpazzzDog 2 years ago
Where did you get these weird notions of modern physics? Have you ever studies physics seriously? Your distinction that relativity explains a perception of reality but not reality itself is a gross misunderstanding of the theory. It explains reality, and explains it rather well. In fact, the union of special relativity and quantum mechanics gave birth to quantum electrodynamics, the most accurate theory EVER.
SpazzzDog 2 years ago
No, neither quantum mechanics nor relativity predict light to have mass. In both theories light is massless. Your characterization of quantum mechanics is misleading, too. Quantum mechanics makes precise predictions, the most accurate theory ever created in science, but it lacks an explanation of what happens in between measurements (the Copenhagen Interpretation).
SpazzzDog 2 years ago
Using a computer to say quantum mechanics is nonsense -> ironic!
teddyplusplus 3 years ago 4
This clip is an okay documentary of how one thinking person is reacting to the dissonance between the 20th century mystery religion of relativistic and quantum mechanical paradoxes on one hand, and reason and up-to-date science such as plasma cosmology on the other. It's not a complete argument, and even if it were, it would still draw cries of "ignorance" from those who believe whatever they're told by big media, who would believe astrology if that was the big media promoted "science."
SonnyMoonie 3 years ago
Long story short: science doesn't agree with your personal ideology (not philosophy, look up the difference) so you have to throw out science.
ensrifraff 3 years ago
"Long story short: science doesn't agree with your personal ideology (not philosophy, look up the difference) so you have to throw out science."
Yes, that is exactly what Einstein did.
MrCropper 3 years ago
*Einstein
qtronman 3 years ago
It takes some nerve, Cropper, to attack Eistein! Not to say you're wrong.
qtronman 3 years ago 2
you have no fucking clue what you are talking about
eternalundylnglove 3 years ago 8
6:30- "I used to think x about this and listen to the informed opinions of scientist but then I got a religious tract from the cult I follow and now I reject it and you should do the same"... rubish
thexjib 3 years ago
Mr. Cropper when you say relativity does not refer to reality what do you mean? I am not very conversant with the specifics of the theory... however from my intro to physics class several years back I do remember learning that relativity had powerful predictive power. I don't think any anyone argues the theory is complete... but it is certainly a good working model... because of its predictive power.
thexjib 3 years ago
RE 2:10...how do you get a picture of reality outside what "we" perceive?
thexjib 3 years ago
"RE 2:10...how do you get a picture of reality outside what "we" perceive?"
You can't. We perceive reality. Problem solved.
MrCropper 3 years ago
In your video you make a distinction between realities and how "we perceive reality". "The theory does not refer to reality only how we perceive reality". If reality = what we perceive then you should have no problem with relativity and QM by your own definition.
thexjib 3 years ago
The disagreement is between those who say we perceive reality and those who say we CREATE reality. You clearly don't grasp the problem.
MrCropper 3 years ago
We are not perceiving reality we are tricked into believing that what we see is reality. When in fact it is all Maya.
Reality 90% illusion 10% Confusion.
Albert Einstein
whitenightf3 3 years ago
so, time warp... it's only that it apears warped? no... it really does get warped, this has been demonstrated. It's not JUST appearance at all.
I have a feeling you can't even deal with Galilean Relativity, why not start there? Relative velocity, or do you propose something else?
pyrrho314 3 years ago 2
the idea that Einstein couldn't explain light is funny... I mean, perhaps, but he explained it better than anyone else so far... E=mc^2 proves there IS NO CONTRADICTION between "being mass" and "being energy". The ancient dichotomy falls from fundamental to incidental.
pyrrho314 3 years ago 2
hmmm interesting
Aristotle100 3 years ago
"Orgasmic surge of Kantianism"? "An orgasmic surge of Skepticism and irrationality"? Kantianism, Skepticism, and irrationality are not ordinarily things I find sexually enticing. :-P
legendre007 3 years ago
Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and Bohr did, which is why modern physics is so philosophically corrupt.
brockomundo 3 years ago
jesus christ... do you have any experiment to take down what their experiments established? Or is this just your intuition on the subject?
pyrrho314 3 years ago 2
The problem for QM is that no experiments are necessary to disprove it. It's like religion: one cannot reductio ad absurdum something which is already absurd! Interpretations of QM are not based on experiments; these interpretations are supposed to be taken as scientific conclusions, yet they are metaphysical postulations: postulations which are incidentally Kantian. 18th-century coincidence? I think not.
brockomundo 3 years ago
there is nothing absurd about it. please demonstrate.
pyrrho314 3 years ago
If you don't think QM is absurd, I refer you, as does Mr. Cropper, to David Harriman's lecture from the Ayn Rand Institute.
brockomundo 3 years ago
well, skepticism and irrationality are sexy, but Kant, I think not.
pyrrho314 3 years ago
Wait...did you just try to convince me that basing a philosophy on reality is somehow backwards? You're sounding very religious in your claim that a philosophy must be developed before real experience and research is taken into account.
adjohnson916 3 years ago
Cropper would never say that "basing a philosophy on reality" is backwards. The opposite would be "basing reality on a philosophy", which is what quantum mechanics is. It is the taking of Kantian principles into the realm of science, independent of physical, experimental, and empirical evidence.
brockomundo 3 years ago
I'll quote him:
"Philosphy is a primary. First of all you have a philosphical idea. Then you use that philospohical idea to investigate reality, i.e. in order to make sense of the information coming from your senses."
"You cannot go out in the world.....then come home and set down and try to figure out your philosophy. Do you see how backwards it is? Do you see how backwards it is?"
With the pretentious guy that he is, and his unquestioning Randianism, I could imagine him doing this.
adjohnson916 3 years ago
no, QM is a model to explain things that the classical model could in no way explain.
QM is based on experimental evidence and prediction.
I don't recall Kant doing any two slit experiments at all.
pyrrho314 3 years ago 2
Does anyone else find MrCropper's pretentiousness and pompousness all too fitting of this hilarious criticism of one of history greatest scientists? Lmao...
adjohnson916 3 years ago
I find your pretentiousness and pompousness in treating these scientists as demigods--refusing to question them--all too fitting.
brockomundo 3 years ago
please, when you question them, understand the question.
pyrrho314 3 years ago
Too asinine theories. Are you mental? Look up the definition of asinine in that OED that you have. Devoid of intelligence? I think not.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
EDIT: Too=Two
Mjhavok 3 years ago
The Plasma Theory of the universe is at least as old as Relativity, but I think specifically began with Hans Alfven. At any rate, plasma theory better predicts the observed structures of the universe, eliminates the contradiction of singularities. Low emission plasma eliminates the need for dark matter. There are others good things about this theory.
Unfortunately the biggest living proponent of this theory is a big, whacky socialist.
Just sayin.
marneedear 3 years ago 2
Said cosmology has made possible our ability to watch this video in the fashion we are. Perceptions of time and space simply change. Consider -Until the late 19th century the standard for time keeping was based on the sun reaching the meridian. Railroad travel alone changed that. Trains travel fast enough that a difference of several minutes in local time was problematic. Today's instant communications demand ever smaller and more accurate units of time. (Atomic time)
jspen2 3 years ago
Are you willing to admit the possibility that your understanding of physics may be wrong?
spayce99 3 years ago
Personally I would certainly be willing to admit that. BUT I would not blame myself for this misunderstanding, because everything I have seen from the physicists themselves demonstrates that they don't even understand what they are talking about. Attempting to integrate their theories without contradictions, something that they don't attempt, is impossible.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
His understanding of physics is popular science books.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
This is a real trainwreck of a video. I know the concepts being discussed are not the easiest to wrap one's head around, but the level of ignorance, arrogance, misunderstanding, and just plain craziness on display is really astounding. I mean, it takes a real effort to get nearly everything wrong.
You do realize that by subscribing to these beliefs you're pretty much in the same class as young earth creationists, right? I suggest you stop getting your information from the Ayn Rand Institute.
PsychedelicRazor 3 years ago
You got some balls to equate the theory of relativity to the WW's and communism. I suggest you cut them off in the interest of evolution or to address the problem directly shoot your self in the head
Transitiving 3 years ago
I watched the google video you recommended and found it fascinating. Thanks!
jbfla2006 3 years ago
You're insane.
gonjamon99 3 years ago 2
Perception doesn't *create* reality, but we can never know reality but from our perspective. How would you propose we get out of our bodies to view the world from nowhere?
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago 2
"we can never know reality but from our perspective"
How do you know that!?!?!?!?!!?
MrCropper 3 years ago
I know that I can never know reality but from my perspective, from my perspective. ;-)
legendre007 3 years ago 3
It is basic biology, you see what your nervous system has evolved for you to see. You don't see what is out there independent of your particular way of perceiving.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago 2
This might fall under what, in physics, they call the anthropic principle.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago 2
His narrow-minded, selfish perspective tells him so.
qtronman 3 years ago
because without my perspective, I don't exist. To understand something, first I have to exist, and then I have to understand it from my point of view.
pyrrho314 3 years ago 2
How does that quote go? Blind by the fact you can see, deaf by the fact you can hear, etc....
Why is it that in order for a view of existence to be valid, it must be viewed from nowhere? Haha...Okay....if you say so....
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
Existence is a primary. Saying philosophy is a primary is rather confusing at least it is to me.
Signofthedollar 3 years ago
"Existence is a primary. Saying philosophy is a primary is rather confusing at least it is to me."
I mean within the realm of science. As far as science goes, do we experiment first, or read our Aristotle first? Clearly experimentation depends on the ideas we accept as true before we begin to experiment - like can we know anything, can contradictions exist, etc.
But existence has primacy or consciousness, that is true.
MrCropper 3 years ago
we experiment first... as soon as we open our eyes, we collect data on our experiments, otherwise known by default as experience, saving "experiment" for very carefully carried out and repeatable experiences.
pyrrho314 3 years ago 2
"Existence is a primary. Saying philosophy is a primary is rather confusing at least it is to me."
I mean within the realm of science. As far as science goes, do we experiment first, or read our Aristotle first? Clearly experimentation depends on the ideas we accept as true before we begin to experiment - like can we know anything, can contradictions exist, etc.
But existence has primacy over consciousness, that is true.
MrCropper 3 years ago
I think it was obvious given the context that he meant "primary over science."
nine9s 3 years ago 3