a priori physics

nuck fewton!

Bill Gaede's info:

http://www.youstupidrelativist.com
http://www.youtube.com/bgaede

irrational objects/explanations: 4D space-time, warped space, higher dimensions, 0D particles, 1D strings, infinitely dense singularities, singularity, black holes, event horizon, wormholes, space expanding, space expanding into nothing, virtual particles, wave-particle duality, wave-packet

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• isaac
• newton
• michael
• faraday
• albert
• einstein
• physics
• general
• relativity
• quantum
• mechanics
• charge
• electron
• atom
• magnet
• poles
• attract
• repel
• opposites
• priori
• deductive
• gravity

[ba11in41ife]

You ask how can you explain gravity / charges attracting / etc but at some point you have to have something that just is, something that is the ultimate nature of reality. Theories have two purposes: explanation and prediction. Current physics seems to make really good predictions. You say that it doesn't actually explain anything, but things can only be explained in terms of some other model, because the ultimate nature of reality simply is and cannot be explained.

[junior00bacon00chee]

@ba11in41ife

to some extent i agree. the notion of "ultimate nature" is beyond rationalizing. so, as far as im concerned, the best you can do is create an objective presentation of the shapes of hypothetical objects, of definitions, and of the initial scene. this method stands on its own epistemological feet. theories can be developed from what is presented in the hypothesis, and are explanations which make use of physical objects.

[junior00bacon00chee]

whether or not a theory is "true" seems like an entirely different matter. i think what is being developed is a physical model that deals with the only objective and inherent thing you can ascribe to an object - shape. the explanation follows from the shape.

so i think maybe i agree w/you if you mean that there is a sort of gap between the physical model and reality. one is something developed in the mind, the other is what is actually out in the world.

[junior00bacon00chee]

but as far as understanding the causal mechanism behind observed phenomena, i think this method is the only one available to human beings b/c the very notion of a physical explanation presupposes the category of shape.

and i think some things will have to just be taken at face value, and can't be explained, like if or why objects maintain their separateness when they collide.

[HugNow]

I've always considered the curving of space time to be nonsensical garbage, despite several expert physicists believing it as their dogma. Tesla considered it to be garbage science. It's more of a cute mathematical metaphor since Einstein was more of a numbers person than an inventor of actual physical things.

[junior00bacon00chee]

@HugNow

absolutely.

i believe einstein towards the end of his days began to really question his own ideas, and he never could accept quantum mechanics.

but yeah, curving space is inconceivable.

[45means45]

bgaede?

[TheApollo81]

I agree with everything that you've said. You've done a great video. You're points have been spot on, and many point just accept what science as if it's gospel. You've pointed out the empirical problems (relying on things we don't observe). You've pointed out theory laden observation. You've pointed out some of the fictional aspects (the AS IF way of science). Not to mention science relies on the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Hence, science isn't getting at hidden causes. It can't.

[Jcolinsol]

@Surhotchaperchlorome

The only way that you can see reality as consistent is to excise information from your model. As far as I can see, reality is inherently contradictory.

[infinitesimotel]

If an object was two feet, would it need shoes?

[infinitesimotel]

@HugNow LoL, I could never get my head around how the curving of space time explaineds what it is supposed to explain. It's just created from logical concepts not what is actually happening in life. I can see in concept but concept is just... concept

[infinitesimotel]

All scientific concepts are assumptions made to the best understanding by the mind at the time. I love the way the "scientists" have dominion over reality when they intrinsically have no idea at all, just a logical asssumption. And all logic is constructed by the mind. Yes youre right, no scientisct can show you waht charge looks like, or what gravity actually is, because the physical world is the effect of something that we cant perceive. Id love to have a conversation over skype .