| Author | Message | ||
     Sami |
I see 7 responses so far (5 from Aesquire, 1 from Court, 1 from H0gwash). It will take me some time to respond to each in detail. I will try to answer them within a week. Sometimes life gets in the way, I'm currently busy with painting some wood. The sky is not chaos, it is order. Try this: 1. Observe the sky on a cloudless night. 2. Remember the scene as best as you can (do not use a camera, make use of your memory). 3. Observe the sky on another cloudless night. 4. Remember the scene as best as you can (do not use a camera, make use of your memory). 5. Compare the two. What do you see? You see order, beauty, supreme consistency. The universe is not chaos, the universe is order. | ||
| Sami |
Patrick, I didn't understand you correctly, my apologies. "Sound is a Pressure phenomena. Light is not the same." I beg to differ. Light and sound are similar in that both are pressure differences within a medium. Take sound for example. What makes you hear sound? You hear sound, because air pressure differences make the ear drum vibrate and let you hear sound. Light, similar to sound, is a pressure difference within a medium. You see light because the cones and the rods in your eyes are activated by radiation pressure. Both light and sound are pressure effects within a medium. No medium, no sound and no light. (Message edited by Sami on April 03, 2021) | ||
| Sami |
Court, drag demons are words, not facts. I have mentioned facts, you have missed them. Gerard, watch the sky tonight. Report back on what you see. Take notes if needed. | ||
| Sami |
Court, you want facts, then watch the sky tonight as I asked Gerard. Watch the sky for half an hour to an hour. Take notes and report back. | ||
| Aesquire |
Solar sails are driven by 2 types of particles. Solar wind, in reality a flow of charged particles, strike the sail, & stick, imparting their momentum. Photons, that bounce off, imparting some of their energy. We have insufficient data on frequency shifts of the photons thanks to lack of Experimental data, so I don't have that equation handy. Drag Demons are absolutely real, if sarcastically named and given anthropomorphic motivation, and design to placate them has given each generation of flying machine improved performance as we better understand them. Those equations are well known. If deliberately stripped of theological rhetoric to not offend the soulless bureaucracy. If I win the Lotto I'm ordering a S-12. https://www.stemmeusa.co Note how the designers hide the propeller from the drag demons in gliding flight, and the extremely high aspect ratio of the wings to reduce the percentage of lift lost to the tip vortexes. ( a swirling purgatory for the Lift Angels ) Unless I do beat incredible odds, and win the Lotto, I'm more likely to buy the Phi Symphonia, or Tenor. https://phi-air.com/project/symphonia/ | ||
| Aesquire |
You see light because the cones and the rods in your eyes are activated by radiation pressure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cell Photons. Energy packets. Chemical changes. Particle to particle conversion. With chemistry! No medium, no pressure is inaccurate, as seen in the solar sail example, as particles in motion impart their momentum. What's the medium for light? Dim matter? | ||
| Sami |
With chemistry, but also with physics. Chemistry and physics are like siblings, they are related. The medium for light is space. Space is not an empty vacuum as we now know. Atomism/Materialism, the pretension underlying much of modern science, is hence false. | ||
| Aesquire |
No medium, no pressure is inaccurate, as seen in the solar sail example, as particles in motion impart their momentum. No, that's like throwing rocks at a box to move it. Air, no air, no different. The rocks in air are slower but if I'm in a space suit, so would my arm be. | ||
| Aesquire |
Radiation pressure is sum total of photon and/or charged particles hitting. Tiny rocks, true, but thrown rocks. Don't feel too bad, English is full of metaphors that sometimes obscure the facts. It's like asking how a wing flies. Bird, plane, glider, same, just different propulsion modes. Grade school explanations include deflecting the airstream, which you can feel with the hand out the window of a moving car. And Bernoulli's principle. High & low pressure zones. It's not totally wrong, but it's Massively incomplete. | ||
| Aesquire |
Entropy is a concept. The "stuff breaks down" aspect of my experience inclines me to "believe" in entropy, but lacking any explanation for how it all works, I just provisionally accept it... Ditto, that perpetual motion machine don't work. I'm perfectly willing to believe the speed of light is variable in ways we either haven't experienced or can't. ( because local conditions are different in some way from elsewhere ) I generally accept that subatomic particles exist. Cloud chambers are mesmerizing. The next level is the quarks and leptons and a menagerie of stuff with different spins, charges, flavors, etc. That's still fuzzy in the edges, so I'm not convinced we're at the basic "Stuff" yet. My current favorite "Turtles, all the way down" idea is that everything from galactic formation to seashells to positrons are spinny things. Vortices in space time, whatever. | ||
| Sami |
I didn't say air. I said space. Air is a medium, but so is space. Space is the medium between the Sun and the Earth. And that space is not empty, it is not a vacuum. This is what modern science has got wrong, namely the erroneous belief that space is empty, void, vacuum. Space is none of these. What is falsely called "empty space" is far from empty. Like all medium, space is made of something or other. There is no such thing as a medium made of nothing. Impossible. So the basic question is, what is space made of? Regarding entropy, I agree it is a concept. I don't believe in the concept, but I agree that stuff breaks down. However, stuff breaking down has nothing to do with entropy as a concept. Stuff breaking down has to do with one thing acting upon another, such as oxygen and iron acting upon each other and resulting in rust on your motorcycle. The speed of light is variable and has been measured as such. The GPS satellites are proof that the speed of light is variable. Ask any GPS engineer worth his salt whether or not the speed of light is programmed as a constant or as a variable within the GPS system. They will tell you that it's a variable. "Spacetime" does not exist. Sure, it exists as a concept, but it has no correspondence to reality. Space and "spacetime" are two different things altogether. Space is not empty. Whereas "spacetime" is empty, or at least mostly empty. That is the main difference between space and "spacetime", namely how empty they are. Einstein's blunder with Special Relativity was to assume that space is empty. The problem with an "empty space", or "spacetime", is that it removes the possibility of travel. How do things such as light get to the Earth if space is empty? It is simply not possible. Einstein realised his blunder later on and tried to fix it with General Relativity. As he explained in his letter (paraphrasing here), empty space is inconceivable. In other words, space is not empty. | ||
| Aesquire |
...such as oxygen and iron acting upon each other and resulting in rust... You miss the point of Entropy. Rust doesn't turn into steel and oxygen. All rivers flow downhill. Time's Arrow goes One Way. ( for non Quantum stuff... Just add Quantum to everything and you've got a Marvel Movie ) Entropy is observed phenomena. You want an explanation? That I don't got. AFAIK, it's much like other Aphorisms, Obvious things... ...That is the main difference between space and "spacetime", namely how empty they are. I'm unaware of such distinction. "spacetime" is just space, 3 dimensional Plus Time, a mathematical construct of 4 dimensions. How "empty" it is isn't part of the idea at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime You insist there must be a medium for Light to travel in space, but just saying "Space" is the medium is recursive, zero meaning, circular thinking. Why? What do you think light is? If I make a really bright laser flashlight, I get a basic reaction drive that doesn't throw propellant in the normal manner, the photons are "created" by electrons dropping energy states and photons come out. No noticeable matter destroyed, or thrown overboard. Admittedly you need a lot of Megawatts to get gnat's wing push, but other than a gigawatt laser turning the air in the room into plasma and dissolving the laser, it doesn't care if it's in cislunar space or downtown Dublin. ( Dublin folk might care ) Vacuum isn't perfect in any quantity we've measured. But that's not your assertion, you are saying there is "Space" which is some kind of stuff. mysterious, undefined, stuff. Dark Matter? Particle/anti particle spontaneous creation/destruction events? Casmir effect? Vacuum Energy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect | ||
| Sami |
Patrick, I can turn rust into steel and oxygen. It will take me some effort (read: NOT energy!), but I can do it. "Energy" and "entropy" are concepts having no correspondence to reality. What is referred to as "energy" and "entropy" is simply one thing acting upon another thing given a particular setting. You cannot derive a "constant" from "energy" or "entropy" from a particular setting and extrapolating that to something outside that setting. Photons come out, but how do those photons reach their destination if "spacetime" is empty? This was Einstein's greatest blunder, to assume that "spacetime" is empty. He came to regret that assumption later in his life, very few people know this. | ||
| Aesquire |
You can turn iron oxide into iron, sure. When was the last time you saw that just happen? Life is anti-entropic, organization increases locally & briefly. You might say a creation of a diety. But entropy, that state of increasing disorder, affects life too. Age wounds all heels. Urine doesn't become lager. Feces doesn't become bread. In our limited understanding, in a macro level, Time goes one way. Rocks erode. Entropy, an observed fact, with a fancy Greek title. Feel free to believe or not, It Still Moves. The Moon gradually changes orbit, tides slow rotation of the Earth. Entropy exists. Why? That's a Great Question. "Universal Law" or "God Wills It" just moves the Question without answering. The difference between Science and Philosophy. Or reality and imagination. If you can't be wrong, if you can't admit ignorance, you aren't doing science, you're bullshitting. That's how I can tell Climate Cultists are crooks. They can't be wrong, so they are bullshitting. And since they want my stuff, to take my earnings and order me to obey them, they are criminals. Or wannabe dictators. ( or favored minions of ) You cannot derive a "constant" There, fixed that for you. Now it's a very probable principle. Instead of A specific and unexplained complaint. A good rule of thumb, if not an organized hypothesis. Just like Entropy. You observe it to be so, you can state it's how reality appears to work, but the hidden mechanism behind it? File not found. I still don't see why a photon or a thrown rock REQUIRES a medium to pass through. Both travel at different speeds through air, water, and glass. But are independent of the medium they travel through. There's a fundamental difference between a thrown rock and a photon. Besides scale. A thrown rock loses energy passing through air, water, & glass by mechanisms I can describe and show mathematical equations that tell me how much energy it loses. And after passing from one to the next, air to water to air, for example, it does Not Speed Back Up. ( entropy! ) Light, photons, do speed back up as they change mediums. That's how lenses work, and you can read this. I'm perfectly willing to admit I don't fully understand the mechanism of that, but it does happen. How the speed of light is constant, can't be under or over a speed, is observed Local phenomena. That may not apply exactly over at Wolf 359. Or Proxima Centari, we haven't measured that yet. The assumption that it's a Universal Constant may not be valid. Photons come out, but how do those photons reach their destination if "spacetime" is empty? Why wouldn't they reach their destination? Anything material between a light source, campfire or thermonuclear fusion explosion, will absorb a certain percentage of photons. An industrial grade vacuum, very few, since there's very few gas atoms, ( compared to the soup we walk though daily ) 50 feet of Gold? Almost All. But a monomolecular layer of gold applied to an U.S. Apollo space helmet visor absorbs or reflects only some photons, and selectively by frequency/energy state. So you Still Haven't Explained Why you think light has to have a medium. It might be so, I don't completely reject the possibility, but you're at the "light goes through air, because it's air" non-explanation. | ||
| Aesquire |
If you guys think this discussion gets wonky, try asking a scientist how airplanes fly.  and this Light "thing" isn't an argument, it's an attempt to understand. I might argue later. Flight, otoh, is a fitting analog for all physics. Layers on layers. It's not that Newton was "wrong",it's that he didn't have answers to questions not yet asked. Newtonian physics is perfectly adequate for most daily life. There's quantum shite going on in the Nuclear Reactor that recharges my phone, and in the interface between your tire and the road. But you can see and more easily understand heat boiling water and that your tires have a certain amount of traction, depending on temperature and texture. That sub-molecular stuff is the Cause of your tires slipping, or the steam to spin a turbine, which are human scale things we experience. If you run a nuclear power plant you should understand what's going on, just as a tire designer should have an understanding of traction. Us consumers only need to grasp how the lights are on & how hard can you brake, corner, & accelerate. Alas, many don't understand even that level of reality well, or we wouldn't have loss of control crashes, and political idiots. Things like... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_forc e This touches on the Casimir effect ( link in article ) and Zero Point Energy ( ditto) and what Sami might be talking about. The ancient concept of Aether may be what they now call https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vacuum_sta te According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space".[1][2] According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of the quantum field.[3][4][5] Start following that through https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy And you're starting down the rabbit hole.  Anyhoo... Back to Flight as a physics analog. The first diagram is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodynamics#/medi a/File%3AAeroforces.svg Then you go through "wing deflects air down" - " faster flow causes lower pressure in a venturi" - "air gets shoved and pulled in a complex 3 dimensional way with F$%#tons of math" - "the sum total vectors of the flow field" and you're back to the simple picture above. I skipped some steps, ( you're welcome ) but you get the idea. None of the above is complete, all together it's closer. Good enough in practice to have airplanes. | ||
| Sami |
Patrick, things change, no doubt about it. I am not suggesting in any way that rust turning into iron just happens. That is why I said that I can do it, I didn't say that it just happens. The mechanistic approach to nature is false. Nature is not mechanistic, it is much more than that. This was one of Darwin's errors, the false belief that nature, including life, is mechanistic. The mechanistic approach or method to nature is ridden with contradictions. If nature is a mechanism, then you are a mechanism. But we know that you are not a mechanism. You are a living being. So we can say for certain that Darwinism is false. If photons are independent of the medium they travel through, then they would have the same speed in every direction. However, photons do not have the same speed in every direction. Therefore, photons are dependent on the medium they travel through. | ||
| Aesquire |
You can certainly say Darwin was incomplete. He didn't get everything right, either, but he's no Lysenko. What do you mean Light doesn't have the same speed in all directions? You mean up & down hill? And I'm still waiting for a description of your "medium". Personally I'm at "if Light is particles aka Photons I don't see how it needs a medium" and "the underlying fabric of reality is poorly understood and I don't think I agree that it's Nothing. But golly gee folk get upset while arguing about it." Also physicists have assigned terms like spin, charge, and flavor to characteristics of sub-atomic particles. I'm waiting for smell. | ||
| Aesquire |
Back to Entropy... it's obviously related to our perception of time being directional. Stuff goes downhill. Metaphorically and literally. As a principle it makes sense in the macro world we live in. Where thermodynamics is simple. At a quantum level? Ask Ant Man. | ||
| Sami |
I see that you have linked to Wikipedia. I do not trust Wikipedia, the moderators/editors there are far-left socialists. Give me one good reason why I should trust far-left socialists when it comes to science, religion and politics. If entropy is a principle, then turning rust into iron would be a violation of that principle. Darwin got the most important thing wrong. It doesn't matter that he got some things right. The same can also be said of Einstein, he got the most important thing wrong. And Fauci, he got the most important thing wrong. The most important thing is the study of being. Modern science has completely ignored that. Up and down hill, and east and west. Not so much north and south. If there is no medium, then there is nothing between two particles. Nothing does not exist. Therefore, there is a medium. | ||
| Aesquire |
I do not trust Wikipedia, the moderators/editors there are far-left socialists. Give me one good reason why I should trust far-left socialists when it comes to science, religion and politics. Good! & correct, & nope! But even a stopped clock.... If you want to reference the Dogma, Wiki has it. If entropy is a principle, then turning rust into iron would be a violation of that principle Yes! Life is anti-entropic, temporarily. Intelligence is anti-entropic, temporarily. Your smelting of rust to iron is an act of will & chemistry where you CHOOSE to add energy. Without your interference in the flow of going to dust, rust stays rust. There's no spontaneous change from rust to iron. Darwin got the most important thing wrong. It doesn't matter that he got some things right An assertion without explanation or details of reasoning. Opinion without foundation or compromise. Zero credibility. Go argue Darwin when you can use any rational basis. The same can also be said of Einstein, he got the most important thing wrong. Again, zero reasoning, just opinion without facts or logic. And Fauci, he got the most important thing wrong. Ok, you might be dead solid on this one, but how can I tell? Do you mean honesty? Authoritarian impulse? A dimensionless opinion. Dimensionless numbers, like the Reynold's Number, a term used in aerodynamics, ( basically the viscosity of air/fluid ) can be very useful. Dimensionless opinions have no foundation. You need more than assertion things are so. You could be right or wrong, how can I tell? My agreement doesn't matter to truth. You skipped a step. The most important thing is the study of being. Modern science has completely ignored that. Elegantly phrased, opinion asserted. If there is no medium, then there is nothing between two particles. Nothing does not exist. Therefore, there is a medium Circular logic. You can do better. It's entirely possible I agree with your opinion, but it's very poorly defined, so I can't tell. And the Wiki article on Vacuum agrees with your assertion that there ain't no nothing. ( see Stopped Clock Cliche & also the possibility that you need to find truth in dross... The normal state of being, IMHO ) Up and down hill, and east and west. Not so much north and south. Ah! Close! E & W & N & S are human defined directions. They are based on observed reality, living on a lumpy ball. Up & down doesn't need our observation or definition, stuff fall down, if we're there, or not. (Message edited by Aesquire on April 19, 2021) | ||
| Sami |
Iron doesn't spontaneously turn into rust, there has to be a cause for it to happen. So yes, there is no spontaneous de-rusting, but there is also no spontaneous rusting. The universe is orderly, things don't just happen spontaneously without a cause. The rational basis for Darwin, Einstein, and Fauci being wrong is their mechanistic approach to nature. If nature is not mechanistic, then it follows logically that their mechanistic approach is false. This is not an opinion, this is a logical conclusion derived from given premises. What part do you disagree with? Ignoring the study of being, or metaphysics, has resulted in modern science losing its rational basis and credibility. What is rational and credible about Darwinism, or Relativity, or man-made climate change, or the lockdown? They are not rational and credible, they are Dogma. Everything known is human defined. We don't know something until we define it in a sensible way. That is one thing that separates us from the animals, we define, they do not. The Dogma that there is no direction to the universe has proven to be false by the CMB map of the universe. This is not an opinion, this is a fact. There is a universal direction whether we like it or not. A medium is necessary, because the lack of a medium is unthinkable. This is not my opinion, that is paraphrase from Einstein. Indeed, the lack of a medium is unthinkable, because without a medium light cannot travel. There can't be just nothing between particles, there has to be something. Einstein's blunder was thinking that there is nothing between particles. | ||
| Aesquire |
but there is also no spontaneous rusting. You must live in a very dry desert or alternate universe where the laws of nature differ considerably. Unless you're claiming God causes all action thus spontaneous isn't. In which case, please ask Her to stop rusting all my stuff! THanks. . If nature is not mechanistic, then it follows logically that their mechanistic approach is false. This is not an opinion, this is a logical conclusion derived from given premises. What part do you disagree with? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tautolo gy Ignoring the study of being, or metaphysics, has resulted in modern science losing its rational basis and credibility. Pure opinion, but I agree there's some merit to it. What is rational and credible about Darwinism, or Relativity, or man-made climate change, or the lockdown? They are not rational and credible, they are Dogma Darwin's theories are rational if based on woefully incomplete knowledge. DNA hadn't been discovered, genetics was in it's earliest days, he was a contemporary of Gregor Mendel, & I don't recall if he knew that work. Darwinism! There you do get Dogma and authoritarian suppression of dissent. Yep. Relativity is arguably rational. The Establishment Dogma? Anthropogenic Global Warming and Coronapanic Exploitation are both political tools. Both use old theories ( greenhouse effect ) or conventional practical experience ( quarantine the sick ) to claim legitimacy. Keep in mind, Greenhouses work! And quarantines predate germ theory. ( although ancient Greek miasma and Babylonian humours were accepted guesses before lens grinding was invented ) Heck, there may still be a village in the New Guinea jungles that kills all intruders free from Pooh's Breath. The head of the UN Climate Con has openly stated science has nothing to do with Global Warming. It's about power. Theft of. And the Coronapanic? We have a whole thread on that. Everything known is human defined. We don't know something until we define it in a sensible way. That is one thing that separates us from the animals, we define, they do not.  I was just talking with a smart friend about the human tendency to think they are the center of the Universe. Duh, of course humans have a human perspective. We define to communicate. We may see the color green very differently, but by agreement, define that... And today have more scientific definitions involving wavelength, in Addition to passing around a material object with the label "green" so everyone knows. We still distribute books with color chips to communicate what we agree to call Seafoam and Prussian Blue, for example. I was a Metrology tech for a Precision machining company. Heck yes, humans define and definitions are human. Don't think you can automatically assume cats, dolphins, etc. don't define things in their minds. Communication of complex concepts with critters is not that advanced. Another example of human ego? Assumed superiority. The Dogma that there is no direction to the universe has proven to be false by the CMB map of the universe. Oooh! Cooool! Reference? Of course, we humans have to label the map or it's just a pretty picture. Is there a symmetry we can use? Locally, we use spin axis and orbital paths. It is more elegant to use existing symmetries, & makes the math easier. It's an arbitrary choice, imposed with our perspective. "Meet me at the West Pole" is nonsense, because it isn't a defined place. Also I never argued that the Universe is directionless. I have days where I am. I keep insisting that Time is directional, because I'm limited by my feeble perceptions of it. That's integral to my opinion on Entropy. Again with an undefined imaginary medium? Any clue at all as to it's nature? Beyond the elliptical logic/Magik you keep repeating and saying over and over? Repetition doesn't make anything real, it's one basis for indoctrination and memorization, but it's not proof or Magic. Btw, you somewhat derail your thesis by claiming Einstein was all wrong, AND quoting him. Darwin & Einstein & Hawking were not all wrong. They aren't all correct. Human incomplete understanding was advanced by all three. It's entirely possible that, to use Darwin as an example, most of their ideas may be disproved. Survival of the Fittest is a logical conclusion based on observation, but it you adopt a theological interpretation of the Universe, that Everything is God's Will, then you can claim that, say, birds have pretty colors not to attract mates but because God has style. I do recommend the movie Arrival for an interesting fictional & cinematic attempt at conveying an idea. I suggest watching it from the beginning & just observing until the end. Popcorn optional. Plus, Amy Adams is always lovely to look at, & a great actress. | ||
| Aesquire |
Entropy, imho, is an artifact of time. It is observed phenomena. It may not be a Universal Law or Principle but sure seems to be based on our perspective. Light requiring a medium to exist? Perhaps, but I need more than assertion that it is so. A mechanism? Why? And I agree it's a difficult task to convey such subtleties of reality. | ||
| Aesquire |
If nature is not mechanistic, then it follows logically that their mechanistic approach is false. This is not an opinion, this is a logical conclusion derived from given premises. What part do you disagree with? If X, then Y is wrong. But what if X is wrong? Or only partly right? The logical conclusion is based on faulty logic. If your premises are in doubt, so are the results. The first sentence is true, even if the assumption is wrong. If this is the way it is, then thinking this isn't the way it is, is wrong. Neat and logical package. The second sentence is, I guess, intended to claim intellectual rigor. Also technically? true, but a bit dishonest, IF your opinion is the premise. It's saying "my opinion isn't opinion, because I wrapped it in a package marked Facts" As to what I disagree with, it must be your premise. Which, when you strip away the extra words & complaint that others don't share your premise, is all you actually state. So... Let's address the premise! Is the Universe a clockwork that runs by rules we are still exploring? !mechanistic. If not, how does it work? When you let go of your cell phone in your bedroom, on Earth, you expect it to fall. There's that pesky gravity and it fell before. We aren't to the level of Determined fixed events and choice here, just mechanical response to you letting go, gravity, and your location on a big damp ball spiralling through a galaxy. So, yeah, it seems mechanical, at that level. Iron, moisture, temperature and Oxygen, in the right combination causes a chemical reaction and you get rust. Too hot or too cold and the energy isn't right to initiate the chemical reaction. No Oxygen, and the ingredients are not there. Water has the hydrogen and oxygen to feed the reaction. https://sciencing.com/rust-form-4564062.html Turning rust into iron and oxygen is simple, add energy until the rust melts and the oxygen is driven off. ( to get useable iron you need extra steps, or it will turn back into rust ) That does happen, "spontaneously" but usually deep underground where stuff is really hot and we can't directly witness the process, so it's fair to say it doesn't happen spontaneously in our daily lives. So, on the macro level we seem to be in a mechanistic world. Gets funky at subatomic scales. The alternative to a clockwork world is one driven by the will of an unknown magician. Traditional Biblical story iirc is that God sees the sparrow fall, but doesn't choose to kill the sparrow. Correct? Thus the Creator made everything, set the rules, wound the clock and set it in motion, ( reserving the power to tinker... See Noah ) and so it goes. The nature of the Creator, creation, and darn near everything else is up for further discovery and speculation. Mostly speculation. And a lot of that by people who lived long before it was accepted the Earth was a lumpy damp ball spiralling through space. So feel free to have your own opinions on those unknowns. | ||
| Aesquire |
Are people mechanical? In one sense, yes. Biochemistry even influences thought a great deal. But not completely, imho. People are too crazy. That's just my opinion, stated poorly, and I'm one of the mechanisms thinking I'm more than that, so very biased. Not sure if I can call that proof, since that very conceit may be part of the programming. But if I'm wrong, that's programmed, too. So I don't worry about it. | ||
| Sami |
I agree that repetition doesn't make something real, that is one reason why I don't believe in Relativity, Darwinism and Man-Made Climate Change. They are wrong, but because they are repeated they *appear* to be true. Call it peer pressure, group thinking, whatever you call it, people believe them because they are repeated over and over again. I didn't say that Einstein was all wrong, so my "thesis" is not derailed. Rust doesn't form spontaneously. Oxygen has to be present along with iron. No oxygen, no rust. Or we could say that it is in the nature of iron to form rust in presence of oxygen. Nothing spontaneous about it. Just common sense and observation. There are no spontaneous things in nature. Things happen for a reason, for a cause. Rust is no exception. Remove one or more causes, then rust will not form. Speaking of tautology, you say: "Is the Universe a clockwork that runs by rules we are still exploring? !mechanistic." That is tautological. In what sense does the universe run like clockwork? Does the universe make a sound like "tick tock tick tock"? That is what analog clocks sound like. Or is the universe like a digital clock? Does the universe need a battery to run? You might say that a clock is just a metaphor. In that case, I can use the clock metaphor for my "thesis": If nature is not like clockwork, then it follows logically that the mechanistic approach is false. Clocks do not tell us how the universe runs. Clocks are useful to tell us what time it is, but that's about it. | ||
| Aesquire |
Rust doesn't form spontaneously. Oxygen has to be present along with iron. So, spontaneously on a planet with chlorophyll, like mine. I'm not sure about yours. There are no spontaneous things in nature. Things happen for a reason, for a cause. Yeah, like chemicals and energy existing in proximity. If you want to declare the battle cry of the Crusader in that movie with Orlando Bloom, "God Wills it!" Feel free. Don't go half way with obvious false excuses, since Iron, Oxygen, and a titanic nuclear ball of star stuff exists, in the real solar system, and Rust Happens. Heck, we got a whole Planet covered in rust. But sure, remove our atmosphere, and Rust is greatly reduced! Move Earth to intergalactic void, and after it cools to, say, the freezing point of Argon, rust is slowed a lot. I suppose vaporizing all the rock and dispersing the gasses in the Solar wind will stop noticeable rusting, after an initial increase. None of the above strikes me as desirable or within our capabilities, so consider it both rebuttal and sarcasm. Asking if the Universe is a mechanical one, isn't a tautology. It's a question. However, If nature is not like clockwork, then it follows logically that the mechanistic approach is false. Is a tautology. If A, then A. And duh. Of course "clockwork world" is a metaphor. Don't act stupid. As to you not believing in Darwin, Einstein, or Marxist Scams, good! In the case of Marxist Scams, belief indicates indoctrination, ignorance and dishonesty in varying degrees. Feel free to argue Darwin, Socrates, Sun Tsu, or whoever, was wrong about something. Be specific, have some facts you think disprove them. You certainly have a valid point that repetition has no relationship with truth. I'll grant without looking over your posts you didn't claim Einstein was All Wrong. I don't claim he was All Correct. But redefining spontaneous to exclude observed reality, isn't how you win a debate, or learn anything new. It's a cheat. You know better. So... What Is The Hypothetical Medium? Aether? | ||
| Aesquire |
Personally, I just speculate that Aether, Fabric of Spacetime, Vacuum Energy, and all the other Cosmic Stuff motions are incomplete ( a safe assumption, usually ) parts or views on the same thing. There's been a normal trend in scientific research. The low hanging fruit ( metaphor ) may not be all picked over, but the obvious branches are pretty bare. Thus the hardware to do experiments has undergone an inflationary cost increase. The cyclotron you hand wire in your garden shed can still makes pretty patterns in your fog chamber made from a window pane and cardboard. But you apparently need one the size of a city to get a decent neutrino beam or make the more exotic Bosons. ( low hanging fruit & more expensive research ) I'm sure there's a theoretical physicist with an experiment he needs a Type II supernova within a dozen light years to perform. ( that it might sterilize our ecosystem isn't relevant to the energy flux required to see the theoretical particles, just relevant to our extinction ) But I'm somewhat optimistic that there's still some fundamental principles we don't understand yet, that some guy in a garden shed or with a backyard telescope might glimpse. | ||
| Sami |
My thesis is not a tautology since I made the distinction between the universe on the one hand and the approach on the other hand. The latter depends on the former, but the latter is not identical to the former. I have been specific in case of Einstein. To his credit, Einstein did admit in his letter that he was wrong regarding the existence of the aether, so I am not saying anything that he did not say himself. There is nothing hypothetical about the aether insofar as its existence is concerned. We know that the aether exists, in fact, science is unthinkable without it (paraphrase from Einstein). I am less concerned about what the aether is made of, but current science states that the aether is made of Planck particles. But these two questions, namely the existence of a thing and the nature of a thing, are separate. For example, I know for a fact that you exist, that is beyond question. For me to question your existence would be foolishness on my part. But what is not beyond question is who or what you are, that is to say, your nature. You could be a man, or a woman, or an angel, you could be a beggar, or a king, or etc. My knowledge of your existence is complete, but my knowledge of your nature is incomplete. Regarding spontaneity, it's more an appeal to ignorance than a principle. Similar to how "chaos" is an appeal to ignorance than it is a principle. The universe is neither chaotic nor spontaneous, things don't just happen without rhyme or reason. There is always an explanation, even if we don't know what that is. | ||
| Aesquire |
So, If the house is blue, then saying the house is pink is in error. Duh. & a Fallacy. If not a Tautology, then what is the term for an assertion followed by a declaration that those who disagree are wrong? Besides Male Cow Patties. https://www.logicalfallacies.org circular reasoning? Thank you for your definition of aether. I certainly accept "I don't know" as part of any discussion between honest people. It's close to my limited understanding/guess. And the term "aether" has the advantage of being both Classical Philosophy and highly annoying to closed minded dogmatics. However, I question the idea that nothing happens spontaneously. I grasp the idea that all things are the Will of a Cosmic Puppeteer, but think that's more an evasion of responsibility for one's own choices than a viable Physics theory. Flammable materials & air & ignition source = ( maybe fire, depending on multiple factors ) Iron + water + oxygen = rust ( at a range of temperature near STP or "human survive with t-shirt for a few minutes"... "Spontaneous rusting" may be too slow to notice if the CO2 has snowed out of the air or even colder. And I'm not certain it's still rusting if it's incandescent. ) Thus spontaneous seems to be a real thing in a real world. A friend sells jewelry at renaissance fairs. Part of his display are crystal balls, they sell well and attract customers. He had his table catch fire one day when the sunlight through a crystal ball focused on the table cloth. Spontaneous? Or the Will of Landru? |
