Examples are invalid to you? Lol.
Noted that you can’t refute the examples I gave.
Already have. Feel free to counter.
First all off, this is not “extraordinary evidence”:
- “There is no ether, no universal medium”
Source? If you’re going to put up a strawman, you have prove it exists.
- “photons travel along the dimension of warped space time, like a fabric that bends with gravity”
As far as I can tell, that’s an analogous means of conceptualization indicated by the word “like”.
“Physics abandoned reason and logic long ago.”
Nice leap to conclusion via failed attempt to push down a non-existent strawman. Notice the irony in abandoning reason and logic 
Try again. If at first you don’t succeed, keep sucking 
I have trouble with some claims in physics, but I’m not going to find the dumbest physicist to pull out of context and then go out on the limb of blanketly proclaiming that physics has abandoned all reason and logic in order to salvage some hare-brained theory I concocted and then call the whole assessment reasonable and logical and extraordinary evidence. Wake up man!
Just some trivia: (If you’re not interested, ignore it)
Three studies have found that people who fall for investment scams are better-educated than the average person but don’t seek advice because they think they’re immune to making mistakes. In one study, researchers found that 94 percent of college professors think their work is superior to their peers’. These fellows fail to realize that intelligence doesn’t always translate to real-world ability, and thus they tend to overestimate the quality of their work. tysonadams.com/2012/04/05/why-b … art-sucks/
Financial distress, such as problems paying bills, going bankrupt or reaching credit card limits, is related to IQ scores not linearly but instead in a quadratic relationship. This means higher IQ scores sometimes increase the probability of being in financial difficulty. sciencedirect.com/science/ar … 9607000219
I’m not sure. Crowds are really dumb. In the stock market, money flows from the masses to the individual. Also, herd animals are dumber than their solitary hunters.
That is why the markets confound the wise and the advantage goes to the lemmings who stupidly chase momentum until the slaughter at the end. The smart person knows there is no value and watches the price climb ever-higher while companies producing solid earnings languish in comparison to those with negative value.
In a chess game, it’s straightforward to predict what Garry Kasparov will do because he endeavors to do the most sensible thing, but no one can predict what a chimp will do. Stupidity has no limit. So, the smarter you are, the more predictable you are and the converse is true. So, in the market, the smarter you are, the more sense you’re going to try to make out of a senseless market and the more you try to do that, the more you’re going to lose.
Value is an arbitrary price/earnings ratio ranging from 5 or 10 to 1000. Price/sales, price/book are other means of valuing as well as simple expectations based on chart patterns. Add to that the fact that most trade decisions are made by algos which are often front-running other trades. The stock market is best at stating what the value is not because it is never correct.
I see what you’re saying.
Valuing life is not the same as assessing the value of life. Valuing life is not a decision, but a given, while assessing value of life is.
Do you value your life = Does your life have value? It is not asking what that value is or to quantify it.
This reminds me of the thread where the guy says freedom is lack of laws. We have to state clearly the concept we are trying to covey and I think you’re conflating terms in this example. That is why I am pushing hard to stop being concerned with labels, but focus on the concept being conveyed. Most disagreements on here seem to be about semantics. This seems less a place about philosophy and more of a linguistics board where we spend our days arguing about what words mean.
Why is what there? If there is nothing there, then what are you asking? Obviously there is something more than what reduces to nothing or there wouldn’t have been something coming from nothing in the first place.
If 2-2+1-1=0, then why not just put 0? Where did the 2s and 1s come from? There is more than what reduces to zero.
If you’re not familiar with even the most basic claims of modern physics, then I can’t help you.
Keep feigning ignorance, I know it’s a nice excuse for you to not put in any effort or actually say anything.
You’re a radical skeptic at heart, thus someone who uses “ideas” against ideas in a bid to never do any real thinking; but you’re just a shade too aware to be able to do that without also making it look as if you are engaged in the ideas. It’s quite disgusting, your disturbed psychology. But hey, if the shoe fits…
Now not only hiding behind feigned ignorance, but behind feigned semantic confusion? Lol.
Yes I’m quite sure you’re unable to understand the meaning of a claim simply because of the inclusion of the word ‘like’ in a sentence.
Sad, man. You’re sick psyche disgusts me to the point where this will be my last post to you. Go get help; read a philosophy book and start doing some real thinking, you silly charlatan clown.
I don’t waste my time on non-entities.
More feigned ignorance of how physics is not about logic or philosophy, but rather about empirical measurement and statistical predictive modeling. You actually don’t even know what philosophy is, do you? Get out of here already, clown.
Trash.
I’m afraid that it is in fact logically provable that there really is a type of “aether” medium. Evidence to the contrary was greatly exaggerated (due to presumption of how to measure it).
And “fabric” is merely the wrong word, implying woven strings. The word was used to avoid Maxwell’s “aether”, which wasn’t defined precisely right, but was substantially true. Affectance, very precisely defined, is the actual, logically required medium and is what forms all matter and energy.
Matter is self-valuing clustering of… more matter. It’s turtles all the way down, unless one posits a ‘god’ at the bottom.
It seems I am not familiar.
The Higgs field is an energy field that is thought to exist everywhere in the universe. simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field
I’m not feigning. I never heard anyone claim there is no universal medium. I need proof that the claim exists. If it is so elementary, then it should be easy for you to supply.
You’re claiming physics is garbage and I am the radical skeptic?
The universe is said to have a fabric of spacetime to make gravitational interactions easier to imagine. Whether empty space is a substance or not, I don’t know. But I do know that nearly every physicist on earth says spacetime is a thing and describes it as a fabric. I’m not aware of anyone who claims there is no universal medium.
If you want to question something, question that goofy dark matter and energy baloney they incessantly carry-on about. I can sink my teeth into that.
Can you do a “no true scotsman”? I’ve never seen one of those in live performance 
I’m sorry. I just felt like everyone jumped on me. There is no sense to this bickering.
Nice guess, but …
… not really.
Serendipper, you cant be this absolutely ignorant of several centuries of debate in physics.
i must think tou are trolling.
Saying spacetime is a fabric is simply using metaphorical language but the important thing is spacetime itself and not how it is described in non scientific terms
It could simply be referred to as spacetime without any superfluous adjectives and that would be entirely acceptable so dont get too hung up on language here
What is “matter”? What appears solid and weighty to us is the result of electrons resisting each other; electrons in a book, along its outer edge (surrounding all outer edge atoms that make the book) come into proximity with electrons along our hand’s outer edge, and those electrons electromagnetically resist each other. The atoms cannot merge through each other, despite the atoms being mostly “empty space”, therefore a force develops between the two objects, in this case the book and our hand.
That force is what allows us to pick up the book, and what causes it to feel heavy (because it takes force (energy) for our own hand/muscles/bones etc. to compensate for the force buildup between the book and our hand, in so far as we are in contact with the book) and thus pick up the book and move it around. You don’t need a “Higgs field” to explain why matter has mass, all you need is to understand that the atoms of separate matterobjects cannot merge within/through each other, therefore a resistive force (negative on negative) develops between them (between their respective edge-electrons), therefore this resistive force will need to be overcome for the two matterobjects to be able to relate/move around together (for one object to move the other).
“Mass” is just the density of how many atoms there are in a given volume, including the density of those atoms themselves (i.e. whether they are made of larger nuclei or smaller nuclei). No mystery here, no “Higgs particle” or “Higgs field” needed.
Weight is not caused by gravity. If you are out in empty space far away from any planet or sun, and you try to move an object floating nearby, that object will still have weight to it: namely, it will be harder to move a more massive object than a less massive object. Objects do not have “zero weight” in zero gravity. What gravity does is simply add more momentum to an already weighty object, thus causing it to have more force behind it, thus causing it to take more force for you to resist that object or move it around.
Why are astronauts weightless (so called) in orbit around Earth, when the Earth’s gravity extends way beyond where those astronauts are orbiting? This is because our weight on Earth is not caused by simply “the Earth’s gravity pulls on us”, it is caused by the fact that we are constantly falling into the earth and that the ground resists this falling: the Earth draws us in due to its much more massive valuing-pull (what we call “gravity”, which is just a logical extension of ontological-relational self-valuing), but because of that resistive force I mentioned above that develops between the outer electrons in matterobjects, there develops this “weight” that we feel when we want to move ourselves around on the ground, because we must overcome this resistive force between us and the ground.
When it comes to astronauts in orbit, they are not “weightless” at all, rather they are in free fall. There is no difference between an astronaut floating out in space and a rock free-falling to the earth, except that the astronaut is falling around the earth at such a velocity that his fall is matched with his forward velocity, thus he stays a more or less constant distance from the earth far below him. Satellites and other shit in orbit that is “floating” there is simply falling around the earth at such a rate that its forward velocity matches the rate of falling, thus it is constantly falling but never actually hits the ground.
So “gravity” doesn’t really exist (what exists is raw self-valuing attraction (matterobjects logically attempting to value each other in the most basic analytic-linear terms before more complex systems of valuing-relations develop)), it is not what causes weight, matterobjects in space are not “weightless”, and there is no “Higgs field/particle” needed to explain mass.
This is why nothing in the Universe can ever touch anything else even though it may appear so. Touch is therefore an illusion and absolutely so too
The other great illusion that you alluded to is that of the solidity of matter since nearly all of it is empty space as that is what atoms basically are
Why can I not?
Now we have two unsupported claims:
- Physics collectively asserts there is no universal medium
- There is a raging debate spanning centuries.
I’ve seen no evidence of either. All I see is ad homs. Let me see if I can illustrate the situation for the audience:
Claimant: Giant pink unicorn is the origin of the universe.
Reply: Proof?
Claimant: If you are not aware of what is absolutely obvious, I can’t help you.
Reply: Proof?
Claimant: You must be trolling because it’s too hard to believe you’re so ignorant of what has been known for centuries.
Therefore giant pink unicorns are the origin of the universe… oh and physics has abandoned reason and logic.
Right. It’s like a finger pointing to the moon. Don’t look at the finger or you’ll miss the point.
An object being pulled by gravity into a black hole or the black hole pulling spacetime in with the object going for the ride doesn’t make much difference. The fabric is an artifact of the fact that the speed of light must remain constant, and in order to achieve that, space and time must bend. That’s not saying that it is necessarily a fabric, but only that it helps to think of it in that way.
So there is no claim that the spacetime is necessarily a fabric and there is no claim that the universe does not a have a universal medium (the Higgs field is a sort of universal medium). Conjecture that those claims exist is conjecture for the purpose of producing a strawman for the purpose of showing physics is irrational for the purpose of undermining everything I said previously that hinged upon physics. Why anyone would need to do that, I know not.
Touch is the encounter of those forces I mentioned, the reactive forces of electrons against other electrons. This force is literally what touch means, and why touch is even possible. Touch isn’t an illusion, it is simply not as clear cut as would naively appear to be.
I already said that atoms are mostly empty space.
Why don’t you try reading something before you respond to it?
It’s not electrons, but net charge of the atom. Na is +1 and Cl is -1 so they form an ionic bond yielding table salt. Also, mass doesn’t come by virtue of charge.
What about nuclear fusion?
Correct, touch is not actually touching but the sensation of force.
But they can.
So what gives the atoms mass?
No no, weight is force which = mass x acceleration. Pounds is a unit of force while grams is a unit of mass. Objects in space will not have weight, but they will have mass.
Astronauts are weightless because the centrifugal force balances the gravitational force.
I don’t see how you concluded that.
Touch is the van der waal’s force (absent other forces) and it has to do with the whole atom rather than just the electrons. See the video I posted.
If no other forces are present, the point at which the force becomes repulsive rather than attractive as two atoms near one another is called the Van der Waals contact distance. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force
I do even though I do not think that the best way to demonstrate touch is to show how there is still space between two molecules when they are
supposedly touching each other. Touch it would seem means something entirely different at the classical level than it does at the quantum level
But I still enjoyed the video and I shall be watching more of that channel. It was interesting but more importantly for me it was also educational