James, I know there's no play button for 10K, but congratulations on getting there, when you do. I think you only had 350 or so subscribers when I subscribed.
Are you trying in part to revive the verificationalist philosopies of the vienna circle that Popper so strongly objected to. How is something "proved" in physics? Presumably you will give examples in you forthcoming book.
I have not studied verificationalists, but my guess is that my views are not like theirs. Rather, I am an inductivist, in the tradition of Aristotle, Bacon, Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff and Ron Pisaturo.
Aristotle and ayn Rand...:))) people will see... u have no idea what u r talking about.. That s obvious for me and everyone will get this :))) u clown. @Inductica
14:21 so I would have agreed with you a couple days ago (before reading the last chapter in the the Copernican revolution, by Thomas Kuhn) that Newton discovered the cause of planetary motion, but now I’m not so sure-I think Newton’s predecessors made that conclusion, where there is something intrinsic about things that cause a distant attractive force, but not Newton. Newton believed, according to what he wrote in Opticks, that his universal law of gravitation was only a descriptive model. He believe there had to be some local mechanism causing gravitation which is described by his law of gravitation. He conceded defeat in finding the causal mechanism and concluded someone else will find it. I believe I have found the local causal mechanism as he predicted someone would.
I look forward to reading your paper in detail to find out if you are right about that, but let me point something out: if Newton thought he had not figured out any underlying causes involving gravity, he would be wrong. There are many elements to the cause of gravity, some discovered by Copernicus, some by Newton, some that have yet to be discovered (or perhaps discovered by you.) Copernicus found that planets which were closed to the sun moved faster, thus he identified that the sun conditions planetary motion. This is part of the cause, not all of it, but part. Newton identified another part, that it was mass, causing a central force, which caused planetary motion. You believe you have found an understanding of the nature of the local action which causes matter to attract matter; this would be another part of the causal nature of gravity.
@@Inductica I agree with what you’re saying. I think Newton was right that mass affecting a force at a distance describes the effect we see, but couldn’t be the full explanation. His writing suggests he anticipated a more fundamental explanation that would close the distance between the distant action and the mass of the object causing it. He anticipated intermediary causes. My discovery explains the local action, but the connection between mass and this local action is not complete, and requires further investigation. My work points out where to focus those investigations.
There are two other examples I've heard of in which mathematics was supposedly pursued with ends disconnected from reality whose pursuits proved fruitful. The first was with imaginary numbers. I've read that a few mathematicians took an interest in them and developed the field to a small degree, while most mathematicians dismissed the field as meaningless. Later it was discovered that complex numbers had application in what we might call vector mathematics. The second example I've heard about is knot theory. Apparently the field originated with no practical applications in mind, but it was later discovered that the field helped virologists understand how viruses propogate and the means by which they insert their DNA strands into host cells. I don't have the same initial aversion to the plausibility to these claims that you do, and I don't know if the above accounts I shared are accurate. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts if you look into this idea further.
I’d be interested in understanding the details of these cases to see if they truly were spawned without connection to reality. However, like I said, even if it was the case that some mathematicians got lucky with their flight of fancy, it remains the case that you are more likely to find practical applications and fulfillment by deriving your investigations from motivated observation rather than random whimsy.
Then you are saying that it is unnecessary to identify the underlying causes of the phenomena we see around us. By that same token, the atomic theory of matter was unnecessary when we already understood how to calculate the mass ratios of chemical reactions.
@@Inductica The underlying causes of relativity are simple and well-understood. There is no underlying cause in any aether theory. I never made a claim that we shouldn't search for more fundamental physics, indeed that is what we do. However, the aether theory is the opposite, an inexplicable and unnecessary complication.
@@Inductica Relativity is a bookkeeping system that keeps track of events (when and where things are). The causes of relativity is that physical objects are some place at some time. It's essential to keep in mind that there are no physical effects with regard to relativity, that all physics is local and the same for all inertial observers.
@@Inductica Many Worlds is an attempt to explain quantum measurements. The metaphor I've seen is that the worlds are like radio waves existing in the same space but at different frequencies. Each measurement causes a wave to branch out into several waves, one for each possible result of the measurement, so the total number of worlds keeps increasing exponentially. The Multiverse is an attempt to connect the chaos of the Big Bang with the much more ordered state of the Universe as we currently observe it. The metaphor for this one is that what we see around us is an orderly island in a sea of chaos, and there are lots of other island universes out there somewhere. The universes are separated from each other spatially, so the size of the overall Multiverse is mind-boggling, even compared to the size of our individual island.
@@Raging.Geekazoid I haven't heard of this second multiverse idea. I consider both hypotheses to be invalid. Just because a story is consistent with the observations so far does not mean that it should be entertained. Example, the planets move because there is a powerful invisible being pushing them. Consistent with the observations, but invalid. Hypotheses must have evidence other than just that they are consistent with the observations. Example: the earth, sun and Jupiter all cause a nearby object to orbit around it. What do all three of these things have in common? They are bodies with mass. Hypothesis: perhaps mass attracts mass. Notice how this hypothesis has evidence based on what these three kinds of entities have in common, the hypothesis does not just rely on the fact that it is consistent with the results.
@@Inductica Level I and Level II in Max Tegmark's classification system. Roger Penrose discusses them in his book Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy.* * "... in the New Physics of the Universe". Long title.
Is the following a good analogy to the attitude of many modern physicists?: We know that about half of newborn children are boys. We don't need to know why. Or: There is no why.
I like the approach you're aiming for of going right back to the start and revaluating everything and redeveloping the scientific models, in regards to that specifically I'd like to request you give special attention to the supposed Electron particle *theory* that is so heavily pushed, the electrical pioneers (Tesla, Steinmetz, Heaviside, Faraday, Thomson, etc) all rejected the elementary unit (particle) model of it that is pushed today, Thomson himself considered it to be the terminal ends of a dielectric (electrostatic) field lines, or corpuscles of Aether, the footprints of the invisible man left in the snow if you will, others of todays word like Eric Dollard and Ken Wheeler also reference them when this topic comes up. If we take what the pioneers understood as face value about this it throws the Electron particle (not the phenomena) out the window and again requires revaluating our understanding of not just electrical phenomena but matter itself, if you can find the time to deeply look into that I'd say it'd be worth it, I may be a bit biased against the particle model of it myself due to a general mistrust of published science and how far removed it is from the work of the pioneers so seeing someone with your attitude towards this whole thing cover that would be nice.
I will find it interesting to see if my inductions prove the electron to be a particle. I think Thompson’s own Cathode ray experiment proved it to be a particle, but I would have to re-induce that with my fully developed theory of induction. As it stands, I treat that issue in broad strokes in my “Inductive Summary of Physics” which can be found on my Patreon page.
Everything in this video is wrong. The underlying physics of relativity is perfectly well-understood. Not so for the aether as there's never been and mechanism of action as to how the aether interacts with matter to give its magical properties.
There have been many models of the ether, including Maxwell's which is what allowed him to make his famous discoveries in electromagnetism. Setting that point aside, how do you explain the existence of waves where nothing is waving?
@@Inductica Sure, discoveries can be made by starting with false assumptions. If you want to give a specific example of where you imagine there's waves with nothing waving I will address the specific case.
@@KaiVieira-jj7di I'm saying that to believe there is no ether is to believe that waves exist (gravitational and EM waves to name a couple) where there is nothing waving.
@@Inductica Gravitational waves are waves in the gravitational field (spacetime ripples) and electromagnetic waves are waves of the electromagnetic field. There's nothing for an aether to do.
Hello Inductica, You have selected (26: 25) a totally misguided mission: to "reprove QM and Reltivity", while what humanity needs is to "find the MEANS to sustain EVIL FREE LIFE OF ALL BEINGS ON THIS EARTH".
There is a sense in which I agree: our moral progress is more important than our technological progress (if that’s what you mean.) However, I think one key to our moral progress is to think the right way about reality. If I can show people that quantum mechanics and relativity, philosophically flawed theories, are wrong and that there is a better way, it will strengthen man’s confidence in reason, which is the key to our moral development.
@@Inductica I posted 4 comments, but 2 of them are missing. Probably deleted by your admin. In those comments I explained rather elaborately the possible solution to the problem you mention here. Read also my other comment still available, regarding the Michelson- Morley experiment and the Copernican assuption. And if you are interested in my other 2 comments, deleted by your admin, where I elaborated on possible practical solution, I can post them once more. Do let me know.
Not sure how art took over the conversation at the end there, but I feel like some people forget that bad art exists. Good art depicts something. Bad art does not. Good math describes something. Bad math does not. That shouldn't be controversial. I need art to show me what is possible, in particular, what the best things in life are or could be. We need math for similar reasons. Like James was trying to remind us, the purpose of science is to learn the underlying causes of phenomena and to gain control in the universe, so anytime our formulations neglect to depict real cause and effect, or real phenomena for that matter, that's when we have to remodel.
James, I know there's no play button for 10K, but congratulations on getting there, when you do. I think you only had 350 or so subscribers when I subscribed.
Thanks for being one of the first subscribers! You watched the "Radical Mathematics" series too!
Are you trying in part to revive the verificationalist philosopies of the vienna circle that Popper so strongly objected to. How is something "proved" in physics? Presumably you will give examples in you forthcoming book.
I have not studied verificationalists, but my guess is that my views are not like theirs. Rather, I am an inductivist, in the tradition of Aristotle, Bacon, Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff and Ron Pisaturo.
Aristotle and ayn Rand...:))) people will see... u have no idea what u r talking about.. That s obvious for me and everyone will get this :))) u clown.
@Inductica
14:21 so I would have agreed with you a couple days ago (before reading the last chapter in the the Copernican revolution, by Thomas Kuhn) that Newton discovered the cause of planetary motion, but now I’m not so sure-I think Newton’s predecessors made that conclusion, where there is something intrinsic about things that cause a distant attractive force, but not Newton. Newton believed, according to what he wrote in Opticks, that his universal law of gravitation was only a descriptive model. He believe there had to be some local mechanism causing gravitation which is described by his law of gravitation. He conceded defeat in finding the causal mechanism and concluded someone else will find it. I believe I have found the local causal mechanism as he predicted someone would.
I look forward to reading your paper in detail to find out if you are right about that, but let me point something out: if Newton thought he had not figured out any underlying causes involving gravity, he would be wrong. There are many elements to the cause of gravity, some discovered by Copernicus, some by Newton, some that have yet to be discovered (or perhaps discovered by you.)
Copernicus found that planets which were closed to the sun moved faster, thus he identified that the sun conditions planetary motion. This is part of the cause, not all of it, but part.
Newton identified another part, that it was mass, causing a central force, which caused planetary motion.
You believe you have found an understanding of the nature of the local action which causes matter to attract matter; this would be another part of the causal nature of gravity.
@@Inductica I agree with what you’re saying. I think Newton was right that mass affecting a force at a distance describes the effect we see, but couldn’t be the full explanation. His writing suggests he anticipated a more fundamental explanation that would close the distance between the distant action and the mass of the object causing it. He anticipated intermediary causes.
My discovery explains the local action, but the connection between mass and this local action is not complete, and requires further investigation. My work points out where to focus those investigations.
Thank you for a clear presentation describing your important work.
There are two other examples I've heard of in which mathematics was supposedly pursued with ends disconnected from reality whose pursuits proved fruitful. The first was with imaginary numbers. I've read that a few mathematicians took an interest in them and developed the field to a small degree, while most mathematicians dismissed the field as meaningless. Later it was discovered that complex numbers had application in what we might call vector mathematics. The second example I've heard about is knot theory. Apparently the field originated with no practical applications in mind, but it was later discovered that the field helped virologists understand how viruses propogate and the means by which they insert their DNA strands into host cells.
I don't have the same initial aversion to the plausibility to these claims that you do, and I don't know if the above accounts I shared are accurate. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts if you look into this idea further.
I’d be interested in understanding the details of these cases to see if they truly were spawned without connection to reality. However, like I said, even if it was the case that some mathematicians got lucky with their flight of fancy, it remains the case that you are more likely to find practical applications and fulfillment by deriving your investigations from motivated observation rather than random whimsy.
Aether wasn't abandoned because of the MMX, but because it's unnecessary.
Then you are saying that it is unnecessary to identify the underlying causes of the phenomena we see around us. By that same token, the atomic theory of matter was unnecessary when we already understood how to calculate the mass ratios of chemical reactions.
@@Inductica The underlying causes of relativity are simple and well-understood.
There is no underlying cause in any aether theory.
I never made a claim that we shouldn't search for more fundamental physics, indeed that is what we do. However, the aether theory is the opposite, an inexplicable and unnecessary complication.
@@KaiVieira-jj7di How would you summarize the causes of relativity?
@@Inductica Relativity is a bookkeeping system that keeps track of events (when and where things are). The causes of relativity is that physical objects are some place at some time.
It's essential to keep in mind that there are no physical effects with regard to relativity, that all physics is local and the same for all inertial observers.
@@KaiVieira-jj7di but what place and what time? Apparently it is different for different observers. That’s not an objective causal account.
Why are you confusing Many Worlds with the Multiverse? Is that some kind of intentional slam?
Can you explain the difference?
@@Inductica Many Worlds is an attempt to explain quantum measurements. The metaphor I've seen is that the worlds are like radio waves existing in the same space but at different frequencies. Each measurement causes a wave to branch out into several waves, one for each possible result of the measurement, so the total number of worlds keeps increasing exponentially.
The Multiverse is an attempt to connect the chaos of the Big Bang with the much more ordered state of the Universe as we currently observe it. The metaphor for this one is that what we see around us is an orderly island in a sea of chaos, and there are lots of other island universes out there somewhere. The universes are separated from each other spatially, so the size of the overall Multiverse is mind-boggling, even compared to the size of our individual island.
@@Raging.Geekazoid I haven't heard of this second multiverse idea. I consider both hypotheses to be invalid. Just because a story is consistent with the observations so far does not mean that it should be entertained. Example, the planets move because there is a powerful invisible being pushing them. Consistent with the observations, but invalid.
Hypotheses must have evidence other than just that they are consistent with the observations. Example: the earth, sun and Jupiter all cause a nearby object to orbit around it. What do all three of these things have in common? They are bodies with mass. Hypothesis: perhaps mass attracts mass. Notice how this hypothesis has evidence based on what these three kinds of entities have in common, the hypothesis does not just rely on the fact that it is consistent with the results.
@@Inductica Level I and Level II in Max Tegmark's classification system. Roger Penrose discusses them in his book Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy.*
* "... in the New Physics of the Universe". Long title.
Is the following a good analogy to the attitude of many modern physicists?: We know that about half of newborn children are boys. We don't need to know why. Or: There is no why.
i've written a bunch of papers about the aether. all inspired by you. you might want to take a look at them. i'll email you the links.
Thank you very much! I saw the email. I’m super busy and have many papers by other people to follow up on, so please be patient.
I like the approach you're aiming for of going right back to the start and revaluating everything and redeveloping the scientific models, in regards to that specifically I'd like to request you give special attention to the supposed Electron particle *theory* that is so heavily pushed, the electrical pioneers (Tesla, Steinmetz, Heaviside, Faraday, Thomson, etc) all rejected the elementary unit (particle) model of it that is pushed today, Thomson himself considered it to be the terminal ends of a dielectric (electrostatic) field lines, or corpuscles of Aether, the footprints of the invisible man left in the snow if you will, others of todays word like Eric Dollard and Ken Wheeler also reference them when this topic comes up.
If we take what the pioneers understood as face value about this it throws the Electron particle (not the phenomena) out the window and again requires revaluating our understanding of not just electrical phenomena but matter itself, if you can find the time to deeply look into that I'd say it'd be worth it, I may be a bit biased against the particle model of it myself due to a general mistrust of published science and how far removed it is from the work of the pioneers so seeing someone with your attitude towards this whole thing cover that would be nice.
I will find it interesting to see if my inductions prove the electron to be a particle. I think Thompson’s own Cathode ray experiment proved it to be a particle, but I would have to re-induce that with my fully developed theory of induction. As it stands, I treat that issue in broad strokes in my “Inductive Summary of Physics” which can be found on my Patreon page.
👍
Everything in this video is wrong.
The underlying physics of relativity is perfectly well-understood.
Not so for the aether as there's never been and mechanism of action as to how the aether interacts with matter to give its magical properties.
There have been many models of the ether, including Maxwell's which is what allowed him to make his famous discoveries in electromagnetism.
Setting that point aside, how do you explain the existence of waves where nothing is waving?
@@Inductica Sure, discoveries can be made by starting with false assumptions.
If you want to give a specific example of where you imagine there's waves with nothing waving I will address the specific case.
@@KaiVieira-jj7di I'm saying that to believe there is no ether is to believe that waves exist (gravitational and EM waves to name a couple) where there is nothing waving.
@@Inductica Gravitational waves are waves in the gravitational field (spacetime ripples) and electromagnetic waves are waves of the electromagnetic field.
There's nothing for an aether to do.
@@KaiVieira-jj7di my next video will implicitly address this objection. I keep getting it.
Hello Inductica,
You have selected (26: 25) a totally misguided mission: to "reprove QM and Reltivity", while what humanity needs is to "find the MEANS to sustain EVIL FREE LIFE OF ALL BEINGS ON THIS EARTH".
There is a sense in which I agree: our moral progress is more important than our technological progress (if that’s what you mean.) However, I think one key to our moral progress is to think the right way about reality. If I can show people that quantum mechanics and relativity, philosophically flawed theories, are wrong and that there is a better way, it will strengthen man’s confidence in reason, which is the key to our moral development.
@@Inductica
I posted 4 comments, but 2 of them are missing. Probably deleted by your admin.
In those comments I explained rather elaborately the possible solution to the problem you mention here.
Read also my other comment still available, regarding the Michelson- Morley experiment and the Copernican assuption.
And if you are interested in my other 2 comments, deleted by your admin, where I elaborated on possible practical solution, I can post them once more.
Do let me know.
Not sure how art took over the conversation at the end there, but I feel like some people forget that bad art exists. Good art depicts something. Bad art does not.
Good math describes something. Bad math does not. That shouldn't be controversial. I need art to show me what is possible, in particular, what the best things in life are or could be. We need math for similar reasons.
Like James was trying to remind us, the purpose of science is to learn the underlying causes of phenomena and to gain control in the universe, so anytime our formulations neglect to depict real cause and effect, or real phenomena for that matter, that's when we have to remodel.
@@poet.in.flight I could not have said it better myself!