What does the existence of aether say about black holes? I am sure it sheds light about the nature of black holes and what happens when you get sucked in.
An ether might support the "frozen star" theory of black holes. General relativity says the BH is empty except for a singularity at the center, and there have been "firewall" theories that all the mass is at the surface. In a frozen star, it would be the ether itself that's frozen. So matter would be distributed throughout the BH, frozen in place because the mechanisms inside the ether have slowed down to a halt.
If it is waves that somehow constitute the particles we know, such as protons, then don’t waves in turn have to be made out of some more elementary particles or substance-because, as you say, something must be waving? Then an interesting question is whether we can ever isolate and observe the particles that constitute these waves-or that constitute the ether itself. Another question is whether the particles we currently know and the particles of the ether are two disjoint sets of particles, or whether some particles can sometimes be part of the ether and sometimes distinct from the ether.
These are all good questions. We should think about whether contemporary evidence sheds light on any of these. What must come first however is a reformulation of these pieces of evidence in an inductive narrative.
With an ether, the simplest explanation would be that there's no such thing as particles. Quantum field fluctuations would just be waves in the ether. Apparently they're similar in structure (dispersion relation) to a phenomenon called "spin waves" that occur in some solid materials.
@@Inductica@Inductica actually there could be a way via the "axis of evil". However, there shouldn't be an aether wind - it would be aether waves (which would be recognised as gravity waves on a large scale🎉).
Good question: I strongly agree with Peikoff’s characterization of induction as a cumulative process, especially the way he concretely describes the history of physics. However, Peikoff and I strongly disagree about how to actually prove a generalization. Peikoff thinks that one must grasp a causal connection to make a generalization. I do not think that is necessary. Further, I think our most basic generalizations which lead to our identification of causal connections are not themselves made through causal connections. I have a radically different way of proving generalizations than Peikoff. To read my theory of induction those interested can support me on Patreon: patreon.com/inductica.
@@Inductica Oh that's interesting. I can certainly see how a generalization can be based on causality and that Peikoff's method is valid, and I always wondered if it would be difficult to prove if it were the only inductive method. Has Peikoff said it's the only way, or just a way to validly induce? I don't recall myself, but I took it as just a way to validly induce. Also, do you have one example of inducing a generalization without grasping a causal connection? It should only take one example, right, to show that Peikoff's method doesn't completely span the space of valid inductive methods.
@@CausalDiscoveries Peikoff does say that it is the only way to generalize in the first lecture of "Induction in Physics and Philosophy." He says something like: the only way to know that every member of a class is a certain way is to grasp a causal connection between what that class is, and what it must do as a result. I do think this is one way to make an induction, but it pre-supposes some things that Peikoff does not cover. I cover these pre-requisites in my book. As an example of a valid generalization made without a causal connection, I'll refer you to my book, which can be found on my Patreon page.
One of the best epistemological presenters/thinkers currently on youtube. Bravo, as usual.
Thanks Diego!
"mixing an illogical field with a logical field?" I thought you meant physics was the illogical field for a second there and I was confused.
@@LaF0rge_ hahah! An easy mistake to make nowadays.
Very clear and also stimulating of thoughts and questions.
What does the existence of aether say about black holes? I am sure it sheds light about the nature of black holes and what happens when you get sucked in.
An ether might support the "frozen star" theory of black holes. General relativity says the BH is empty except for a singularity at the center, and there have been "firewall" theories that all the mass is at the surface. In a frozen star, it would be the ether itself that's frozen. So matter would be distributed throughout the BH, frozen in place because the mechanisms inside the ether have slowed down to a halt.
If it is waves that somehow constitute the particles we know, such as protons, then don’t waves in turn have to be made out of some more elementary particles or substance-because, as you say, something must be waving? Then an interesting question is whether we can ever isolate and observe the particles that constitute these waves-or that constitute the ether itself. Another question is whether the particles we currently know and the particles of the ether are two disjoint sets of particles, or whether some particles can sometimes be part of the ether and sometimes distinct from the ether.
These are all good questions. We should think about whether contemporary evidence sheds light on any of these. What must come first however is a reformulation of these pieces of evidence in an inductive narrative.
With an ether, the simplest explanation would be that there's no such thing as particles. Quantum field fluctuations would just be waves in the ether. Apparently they're similar in structure (dispersion relation) to a phenomenon called "spin waves" that occur in some solid materials.
@@Raging.Geekazoid that’s interesting, what makes you say they are similar in structure to spin waves?
@@Inductica They both have a parabolic dispersion relation: w = A k^2
@@Raging.Geekazoid Something worth looking into. Thank you!
If there are different degrees of ether wind in different reference frames, is there an “absolute” reference frame that has no ether wind?
Yes, there should be. However, given the currently known physics there is no way to identify what that frame is.
@@Inductica@Inductica actually there could be a way via the "axis of evil". However, there shouldn't be an aether wind - it would be aether waves (which would be recognised as gravity waves on a large scale🎉).
How does your theory of induction deviate from Peikoff's theory of induction?
Good question: I strongly agree with Peikoff’s characterization of induction as a cumulative process, especially the way he concretely describes the history of physics. However, Peikoff and I strongly disagree about how to actually prove a generalization. Peikoff thinks that one must grasp a causal connection to make a generalization. I do not think that is necessary. Further, I think our most basic generalizations which lead to our identification of causal connections are not themselves made through causal connections. I have a radically different way of proving generalizations than Peikoff.
To read my theory of induction those interested can support me on Patreon: patreon.com/inductica.
@@Inductica Oh that's interesting. I can certainly see how a generalization can be based on causality and that Peikoff's method is valid, and I always wondered if it would be difficult to prove if it were the only inductive method. Has Peikoff said it's the only way, or just a way to validly induce? I don't recall myself, but I took it as just a way to validly induce. Also, do you have one example of inducing a generalization without grasping a causal connection? It should only take one example, right, to show that Peikoff's method doesn't completely span the space of valid inductive methods.
@@CausalDiscoveries Peikoff does say that it is the only way to generalize in the first lecture of "Induction in Physics and Philosophy." He says something like: the only way to know that every member of a class is a certain way is to grasp a causal connection between what that class is, and what it must do as a result.
I do think this is one way to make an induction, but it pre-supposes some things that Peikoff does not cover. I cover these pre-requisites in my book.
As an example of a valid generalization made without a causal connection, I'll refer you to my book, which can be found on my Patreon page.
So did Einstein make any positive contribution?
Many, but many of them are integrated around these philosophical errors.
well somebody likes listening to themself 👇
❤