I am working on the promised content for the site, I have merely as I indicated I might, experienced some delays. Keep tuned this week, as there is stuff on the horizon! In fact, tomorrow I will have a video for you to watch as preperation for an important foundational post (though some of you will have seen it at least once before)! I did not create the video, however the speaker provides important information which I fully agree with, that helps you understand the premises I work upon, which I intend to further expand upon. Here are some musings I have had, some old, some slightly newer formulations. Some of you will have heard this before, some of you will not know why I am saying some of this, but it I hope you will find it an interesting preview of the sort of things I consider worth the site talking about. Consider them teasers of the sort of thing I like to think about. If you disagree with any of the musings here, feel welcome to point out how and why you disagree. I assure you, I have reasons for all of the musings here, and I beleive I can give good reasons for al of my thinking here, which I would be happy to share. ------------------------- "Dear scientists, computer models are not replacements for experimental observations. No matter how valid the principles employed by your computer simulations, they cannot form a basis for valid theories and facts. One cannot decide that observation is undesirable / infeasible, and then decide that a computer simulation replaces the need for observation. Computer simulations are merely a formalized form of thought experiments, and thus at best provide systematic means by which one can hasten the process of reasoning about the possible implications of certain ideas. If they to have any proper use in scientific pursuits it is in the sense that that are useful in analyzing the meaning and implication of existing ideas, and to help identify possible avenues of investigation. But turning inward and doing science purely by making rationalistic arguments, while refusing to open ones eyes and study reality is the method of Kant and his followers. It is not the means by which a scientist studies makes valid claims about reality. Just as a thought experiment is not a valid substiution for observation, neither is a computer simulation. One cannot claim that an assertion based purely on ones mental processes is true, indepedent of observed facts to validate those claims. Computer models do not validate any scientific claim, they merely indicate the end result of a given line of thought. ---------------------------- "One day I am going to ask a physicist for the alleged proof of the claim that quantum mechanics forced Identity to be abandoned as an invalid idea. I know that such is not possible, the observation of *anything* presupposes the observation of something *with Identity*. However, I would love to see the look on his / her face as he / she tried to justify this fairy tale. In reality of course, the founders of quantum mechanics had ALL abandoned identity, causality and in general reality years before quantum theory even existed. So besides the fact that no observation could ever validate the fundamentals of quantum theory, the claim that quantum theory required the abandoning of reality is an outright lie. The philosophies of its founders required the rejection of reality, not the other way around. Most modern physicists do not have the explicit, rabid anti-reality philosophy of the founders of quantum theory. They simply passively accept the ideas of its founder, while rejecting philosophy as useless, or worse than useless. They accept that quantum theory requires that they abandon reason, while never accepting that it is in fact the philosophical notions they passively accept that leads them to abandon reason and mindlessy undermine and destroy it." ---------- You know what, I have to agree with phycisists such as Harriman. Relativistic mass, as stated by the theory of relativity, is an unjustified idea. It may be possible to argue on some rational grounds that it is a valid concept, however I do not consider that relativity theory, or any development from it establishes the validity, or necessity of this concept. I know, it is considered pure heres these days. But I am guilty of much greater "heresy" than that, I beleive that very broadly speaking, there must be some sort of aether out there, even if not exactly as formulated by people like Lorentz. Assuming "aether" is used broadly enough to refer to some "stuff" which fills the otherwise "empty space" which would constitute large parts of the universe if this was not a physical impossbility. The possibility of the propogation of waves through space requires that it propogtate through *something*. No, do not ask me what that something is, I have no idea, only that it *is* something." ------------------- "The fourth dimension of time is basically a mathematically complex version of the allegory of Platos cave. There is no reason whatsoever to postulate the actual existence of the fourth dimension of time, it has purely a mathematical analogy made in order to try explain the subjective behaviour of entities in motion relative to one another. The problem is that it is entirely baseless and explains nothing, it simply makes the theory even more irrational by pretending that observed effects are strange because they are the imperfect reflections of a higher reality which we are unaware of. What is needed is to provide an objective physical explanation for the apparent implicaitons of the contraction of length and time. An explanation that does not depend on the subjective motion of observers, but explains the apparent effects in terms of objective properties of the entities in relative motion. What is *not* needed is an attempt to justify the seemingly strange behaviour in terms of a mystical, unobservable higher realm which "explains" the effects in terms of invoking the unobservable and hence completely incomprehensible and unexplicable. Also, on another note ; what is not needed is an attempt to explain gravity as the distortion of spatial relationships. The distortion of *what*? Relationships cannot distort, distortion presupposes entities with properties that lead to the observation of apparent distortion. By asserting "space distorts", one claims that *abstractions* distort, while treating the abstraction of space as a physical, irreducible primary that requires no explanation. This is a perfect example of how a given attempt at an explanation is worse than no explanation at all. An explanation, such as defining gravitation as the curvature of an abstraction, cuts off attempts to identify the true nature of the thing. As long as we are ignorant of what something like gravity is, and how it works, we are willing to try find out. But the moment we accept an arbitrary assertion as true, we are not willing to find out the true nature of the thing, will stop trying to find out its true cause, and we will not be able to discover it."
Posted on: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 01:19:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015