What is Space? ...and other topics. By David Harriman

[lukeev]

The guy at the end didn't make sense when he said, "They sure look like lines of force to me." WTF?! Really, 'cos all any sane person sees is a magnet and filings. They sure as hell don't see "lines" of "force". This is the entire problem in the first place. What IS the PHYSICAL mechanism here? Anyone who says "oh, derp, well it's FORCE" is either insane or invoking mythical angels." FORCE is descriptive at best. To do physics & EXPLAIN rationally, we need to hypothesize an OBJECT of some sort!

[aWdioth1]

Too bad for this bozo that Gravity Probe B gave us a good indication that Einstein was right, that space is indeed "something" in that it can, for example, be bent. You can't bend NOTHING.

[tonyfalca]

still, im kind of left unsatisfied. is a place, or a location, not in space?? i mean... what is height, width, depth, and distance??

[tonyfalca]

what is space.......

[tonyfalca]

@tonyfalca what is place, what is location...... (sorry for the spam of messages)

[SymbolicSoliloquy]

I think it is important to understand the difference between representations surfaces and actual surfaces. We can develop abstract symbols (sum of smaller choices) as spatial surfaces of their own, even go into the development of mathematical surfaces, both geometric and mechanical... but science is and should be the study not of how our representations dictate our choices, but what mechanics if any can help us form sequences of and models for the values that actually exist on the real surfaces.

[JohananRaatz]

Oh my goodness, what an idiot. Has this Harriman guy ever heard of gravitational microlensing? All you have to do is google image search "gravitational microlensing" and you can see bent space with your own eyes.

[fiesta181]

Does space exist? No one seems to be able to answer this question.

[EpicYarnEM]

Sorry, I'm ThePallidor. And also sorry that I forgot which video I was posting on, so was assuming some common background. Check out the Einstein's Idiots series of videos to see where I'm coming from and why it'd be impractical to answer your questions here. I'm sure Bill Gaede would love to answer them, though he'll be abrasive about it.

[JohananRaatz]

@EpicYarnEM You know Bill Gaede is a crank right?

[EpicYarnEM]

Which one of us gets to ask questions? It'd take too long to explain this all, but the base point is that Einstein's theory is not clearly communicated, and that it is not an explanation of physical mechanisms, only a description. The mainstream has never gotten past Newton's "hypothesi non fingo" so they gave up trying...and that is why they'll never find a grand unified theory until they scrap it all and try again from scratch. Youstupidrelativist com looks crankish, but is not.

[justintempler]

@EpicYarnEM Gaede is still a crank regardless of which side of Harriman's debate you are on. Gaede's explanations are contradictory, he rejects all forms of validation and proof. He replaces the mysticism of Einstein with Gaede mysticism.

[SBRslacker00]

Is this guy a comedian? There's a lot of laughter in the audience.

My favorite part is around the 10:00 mark, when he 'wishes' that the world was fundamentally understandable as 'physical'. I'll admit that this notion is pretty funny. Unfortunately for him (or his comedic effect), human understanding is fundamentally 'conceptual' rather than 'physical'. 'physical' is an intuitive 'conceptual' notion which modern physics has fairly rigorously demonstrated isn't reasonable all the way down.

[JamesMorlan]

You confused placement with movement in your magnet example. Fields are static in nature. Someone had to introduce movement to shake out the iron filings until they aligned themselves in the pattern that you see, which only emerges as a result of the iron filings interacting with the field. You cannot see the field itself, and the "lines" do not actually exist - the pattern of the iron filings shakes out as a result of how physical iron interacts with the non-physical field.

[drunkagnostic]

Infinity = no specific # of marbles.

So what? Is that anything approaching an actual argument? It's an open question whether there's a specific # of 'marbles' or an endless array. 'Stuff I've seen can be numbered so everything can' is fallacious.

Field = numbering space-points, so it's nonphysical / unreal.

Who says only the physical is real / true? Physics/math/logic laws are just tendencies we've observed, but that doesn't mean they aren't universal or even physical in a sense.

[adammcguk]

Do you have any more of David Harriman's lectures available?

[Philosopher2087]

Excellent!

[amse]

SO Good!! I love Objectivists!!!

[papisNY]

I agree that the world are both..but depends on your grade of knowledge..

could you give you opnion on he

What was the world before the big bang or how a space could be created out of nothing? I hope you understand my question, becouse i like your view.thanks

[Virtueman1]

Thanks I really needed this for physics class.

[DantesObjective]

Anyone who liked this video should look into Plasma Cosmology

[7NTM61Ic]

"Acceleration" was misspelled in the graphic.

[nine9s]

Haha, unfortunately, it was the only decent graphic I could find on the topic of mass and force. And I'm not computer literate enough to make my own.

[SuperFinGuy]

It brings the point home that space/time is a relationship among quantities, that is why they are relative and not absolute.

[Nelapidae]

My cosmology in simple terms: Matter exists and is in motion and never has this not been so. Space is merely the observation that matter exists as seperate entities; it literally is an "isn't".

[JohananRaatz]

@Nelapidae "Matter exists and is in motion and never has this not been so."

How does it exist before the Planck epoch before space-time has emerged for it to be moving in?

[Nelapidae]

@JohananRaatz Spaced-time is a fantasy construct. Space is merely the relation between seperate entities; time is merely the observation of motion concerning two or more entities. We know that matter cannot go out of existence, therefore it is silly to think that at some point in the distant past it wasn't in existence. Big bang = creationism. Physicists need to stop masturbating with their math and get back to observing and studying reality.

[JohananRaatz]

@Nelapidae Those two sets of relations (between locations and events) are also related to each other via Lorentz invariance. This is the basis of space-time, and it's demonstrable science not a fantasy.

"matter cannot go out of"

Of course it can. All you have to do is cancel out positive energy with negative energy. Since the universe's net energy content is zero having matter not exist is no problem: watch?v=SJmT15fDJ5Y

"Big bang = creationism."

Dude that's crap and you know it.

[nine9s]

@Nelapidae "We know that matter cannot go out of existence" It can, actually. If an electron and a positron come into contact, they obliterate each other and their mass turns into energy. We could argue that this means energy and matter are essentially the same thing in different forms, and *that* cannot go out of existence. Maybe. But the form known as matter can be destroyed.

[Nelapidae]

@nine9s Worded as such, I have no issue with that. The basic constituency of existence, call it matter that has energy, matter that is energy, energy that can become matter, etc...whatever it is called doesn't go out of existence. Works for me :)

[L1ber8ted]

@Nelapidae Well said!

[lukeev]

@Nelapidae Bingo! Space = that which lacks shape. Space does not exist. Space is a conceptual placeholder we use in language to identify and relate objects. So refreshing to meet a rational person! :)

[SuperFinGuy]

I totally agree that true void doesn't exist and couldn't exist if things are to be. I have a video on this deconstructing the false idea that space (and time) exist on their own without matter or energy /watch?v=EhlJzrXJ910

The only thing I don't quite agree here is about infinity. The universe is a not a plenum, it a continuum, it is not a container of things, it is a flow of energy and matter.

[Newton1692]

nonsense. I respect your channel but this video is unfortunate.

[qtronman]

"nonsense. I respect your channel but this video is unfortunate."

What specifically do you disagree with in this clip?

[Nelapidae]

How in the hell did your question get spam status?

[qtronman]

"How in the hell did your question get spam status?"

N - Someone is marking all my comments as spam. Probably I hurt his feelings somehow :-).

[nine9s]

How about some reasons for your opinion? I really couldn't care less if someone disagrees, unless I have something to learn from them.

[Newton1692]

From 0.0-0.23, the speaker claims there is no such thing as space in

the Einsteinian sense. At the very least, He is saying that Einstein is wrong.

However, Einstein's theory about space is supported by the perihelion of Mercury,

the behavior of binary pulsar 1913+16, observations of stars during a solar eclipse ,gravitational lenses, gravitational redshift and even black wholes.

[Newton1692]

Furthermore it is insufficient to criticize the field concept because it is not reified(force isn't either by the way). The scientific use of fields is a result of mathematical elegance and empirical adequacy -- not groundless speculation.Lastly, if you claim or suggest Einstein's theories on space and time to be wrong, then provide physical evidence to support such claims or suggestions.

[ThePallidor]

@Newton1692

That "elegance and empirical adequacy" hasn't been adequate for physicists to discover the mechanism behind gravity, or anything else really. Your mere stating that it is adequate is odd, since that is exactly the issue in contention.

[Newton1692]

@ThePallidor "...adequate for physicists to discover the mechanism behind gravity.": Gravity is adequately explained by Einstein's theory of general relativity, since it is testable, it makes novel predictions and it's scope extends beyond Newtonian mechanics. What exactly is your contention with adequacy? Is it that adequacy requires testable theories? That it requires predictions? That it requires surpassing previous theories?

[Newton1692]

@ThePallidor

Firstly, you say "most of them"

are confirmation basis. Which ones?

You say Einstein is suspected to

have fudged the numbers? Suspected

by whom? you?

[Newton1692]

@ThePallidor Since I can't upload a chapter from a text book, see Reflections on Relativity, which has a discussion of the calculation (It's an e-book). Furthermore, other scientists have confirmed this result (see Reflections on relativity above). To only depend on the findings of a single scientist is not how academic science proceeds. "The other planetary perihelion shift do not SEEM to support his theory." Which ones?

[Newton1692]

@ThePallidor There was a posting error: The second response (starts with firstly) should be first; the last response (starts with "since")should be second; the first response (starts with "..adequate") should be

be third.

[nine9s]

Unfortunately, there's only so much that can be explained in a two-hour lecture, much less a ten-minute video. In his "Philosophic Corruption of Physics" video he explains a bit more about how Einsteinian physics could be revamped both without physical paradoxes and without denying observation.

[nine9s]

More to the point, to assume that if a theory is true if it makes good predictions, is to put circumstantial evidence above logic. It is to say "If P then Q; Q, therefore P." But Q could be caused by something other than P.

Another problem is that everything, even in science, is interpreted through one's philosophical framework. Just as a Christian will see remitting cancer as evidence of God, a doctor will see a mystery yet to be solved. I see QM and Einsteinian physics the same way.

[JohananRaatz]

@nine9s "I see QM and Einsteinian physics the same way."

But there is no mystery here -at least not with relativity. The explanation is simply that space-time has physical properties that allow it to be curved. This makes sense when you realize that space can not exist without objects to have locations. When we really boil down the idea of "space" it must have physical properties, since it can not exist without physical objects.

[JohananRaatz]

@nine9s "interpreted through one's philosophical"

Ok, the problem here -even from a philosophic perspective- is that space thought of as a "void of emptiness" is actually an incoherent concept. On close inspection, the concept of locality breaks down when you think of space like that. And you can't have space without locality: watch?v=iLvAxyzOIs0

Our observations of locations (of fields etc.) "in space" is in reality what constitutes/defines space. Bend the underlying field and you bend space.

[ThePallidor]

@Newton1692 So the authorities tell you. Look closer into those "observations" and you'll notice that most of them are simply physicists seeing what they want to see (confirmation bias). As for Mercury's perihelion shift, Einstein is suspected to have fudged the theory to fit that specifically, and the other planetary perihelion shifts do NOT seem to support his theory.

In any case, "there is no such thing as space in the Einsteinian sense" is right, and it must be right. It is pure silliness.

[ThePallidor]

@JohananRaatz

This is a conceptual issue: space=nothingness. "Curved nothingness" is incoherent, regardless of what observations are imputed to such incoherence by hapless "experts."

[JohananRaatz]

@ThePallidor The problem with this is that the concept of space as nothingness when examined closely is actually incoherent. Without stuff to define locations, the concept of space as a continuum becomes internally contradictory. If you move the relative locations in the fundamental quantum field that we think of as "in space" you are in reality actually moving space. Observation of locations defines space.

And we also know in quantum gravity the space itself breaks down: watch?v=iLvAxyzOIs0