The Bankruptcy of Modern Cosmology, 1 of 3
Uploader Comments (MrCropper)
Top Comments
-
you have no fucking clue what you are talking about
-
Using a computer to say quantum mechanics is nonsense -> ironic!
Video Responses
All Comments (66)
-
I wont even waste a retort on this moron he does not even understand e=mc2.
-
@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
-
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.
-
i liked this ;) its like watching some of the earliest hominids trying to figure out how to use a basic tool :D
-
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...
-
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.
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
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