Modern physics is not science

[rupol2000]

Ringtone
You don't understand the meaning of positivism

 

[flacaltenn]

It would be desirable if they directly said that their theoretical physics is only guesswork. Then there would be no questions.

You're ignoring the fact that a LOT of "guesswork" pays off in terms of PREDICTING quantum mechanics and atomic theory and even CELESTIAL mechanics. See for instance :

A Brief History of Quarks - JSTOR Daily

Understanding the history and future of quarks.

daily.jstor.org

A Brief History Of Black Holes From 1784 To 2021.

To our day, other than being fascinating objects of study, full of grandeur, whose impact, despite the astronomical distances separating us from black holes,

www.secretsofuniverse.in

Quantum Entanglement Between Widely Separated Atoms

Scientists have demonstrated a method of heralding entanglement between spins of two single rubidium-87 atoms trapped independently 20 meters apart, paving the way towards quantum communication over large distances. At present, theoretical and experimental physicists think of quantum networks as

scitechdaily.com

That LAST one is a mind blower. Really a RUSH internationally to capitalize on this discovery for instantaneous remote communication, guidance, computing.

The Black Hole theory ORIGINATED in the late 18th century. ALL of these are STILL NOT PERFECT -- but the framework of THEORETICAL Physics is solid -- because all of things EXIST.. A "framework" of understanding is better than REJECTING things outright - simply because they cannot be completely described.

What;s your purpose here? Are you getting a science grant from the Kremlin
to DISCOURAGE physics in the WEST so that Russia can catch up????

 

[Colin norris]

I'm no scientist, but I would assume no one can change the qualities and equations of physics.

Unless you're a DementocRat.

Grow up you fool

I looked up what #freecain is...........

#FREECAIN

 

[Colin norris]

Natural science is that which adheres to scientific methodology.
Scientific methodology was put forward by the positivists as a counterbalance to the speculative dogmatism of the church.

The first requirement is that a scientific law is not a dogma, but a pattern derived from experience - a generalization of experience.

Modern physics is not based on the scientific method.

This is from wiki. It explains it better than any of us.

Physics is the natural science that studies matter,[a] its fundamental constituents, its motion and behavior through space and time, and the related entities of energy and force.[2] Physics is one of the most fundamental scientific disciplines, and its main goal is to understand how the universe behaves.

 

[Ringtone]

Ringtone
You don't understand the meaning of positivism

Nonsense!

NOUN

1. philosophy
   a philosophical system that holds that every rationally justifiable assertion can be scientifically verified or is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and that therefore rejects metaphysics and theism.

 

[Ringtone]

Natural science is that which adheres to scientific methodology.
Scientific methodology was put forward by the positivists as a counterbalance to the speculative dogmatism of the church.

The first requirement is that a scientific law is not a dogma, but a pattern derived from experience - a generalization of experience.

Modern physics is not based on the scientific method.

By the way, POST #18 should read:

Positivism, in the sense that you are using the term, is the philosophical school of thought that holds that every rationally justifiable assertion can be scientifically verified or can be logically/mathematically proven, howbeit, as if metaphysics were preceded by science. That's silly. Once again and more accurately, the imperatives of logic and mathematics, and the first principles of metaphysics necessarily precede and have primacy over science. Empirical data does not interpret itself; minds interpret empirical data! Positivism would have scientists stupidly beg the question, presuppose ontological naturalism, and thereby arbitrarily limit the scope of scientific investigation and justification.

I typed and posted too fast and missed a couple of typos.

 

[Ringtone]

Metaphysics, like astrology, has no primacy over science.

I wrote the first principles of metaphysics.

 

[rupol2000]

I wrote the first principles of metaphysics.

speculations?

 

[Ringtone]

speculations?

First principles as in the fundamental facts of reality presupposed to be necessarily true in order to do science in the first place.

 

[rupol2000]

First principles as in the fundamental facts of reality presupposed to be necessarily true in order to do science in the first place.

What are the criteria of truth in metaphysics?

 

[Ringtone]

What are the criteria of truth in metaphysics?

Why the hell are you asking me. Study the matter for yourself. LOL!

 

[Hollie]

First principles as in the fundamental facts of reality presupposed to be necessarily true in order to do science in the first place.

''First principles'', (''first principles of metaphysics'' is a favorite of the hyper-religious), because magic and supernaturalism is not of science. Metaphysics is as useful as tarot card reading when introduced into the realm of science. It produces nothing of any real utility for investigating the natural world and ultimately, because it is a philosophical argument, no requirement to be true or factual.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Here is an article that might help explain the op.

IQ, Inbreeding and Clannishness

1300 words The effects of inbreeding have an effect on IQ, as well as the amount of clannishness that leads to more inter-group violence. According to one of my favorite researchers, Linda Gottfred…

notpoliticallycorrect.me

 

[Ringtone]

''First principles'', (''first principles of metaphysics'' is a favorite of the hyper-religious), because magic and supernaturalism is not of science. Metaphysics is as useful as tarot card reading when introduced into the realm of science. It produces nothing of any real utility for investigating the natural world and ultimately, because it is a philosophical argument, no requirement to be true or factual.

You're a rank imbecile of a drooling 'tard. Your post is mindless drivel. Athiests—that is to say, myth mumblers, nature botherers, magic whisperers—are notoriously bad thinkers.

 

[Hollie]

You're a rank imbecile of a drooling 'tard. Your post is mindless drivel. Athiests—that is to say, myth mumblers, nature botherers, magic whisperers—are notoriously bad thinkers.

Oh, dear. I hurt your tender sensibilities.

The first principles of angry, hyper-religious God botherers would suggest the juvenile, saliva-slinging rant you offered.

 

[Ringtone]

Oh, dear. I hurt your tender sensibilities.

The first principles of angry, hyper-religious God botherers would suggest the juvenile, saliva-slinging rant you offered.

Nature whisperer. LOL!

 

[Hollie]

Nature whisperer. LOL!

Botherer of the gods, LOL!

It is comical though that propagandists of metaphysics insist on magic and supernaturalism as explanations for existence when they're unable to offer a supportable case for their magical, supernatural gods.

 

[Grumblenuts]

"Modern physics is not science"
Disagree - science being nothing more than the study of.. (something), it doesn't matter how wrong the institution of "modern physics" may be at any given moment, the attempt to further study physics remains clearly implied and unsettled nonetheless.

"Modern physics is not based on the scientific method."
Somewhat arguable, so interesting. But I'd much rather skip the usual, desperate "metaphysics" tangents and attempt drilling down on a nice, concrete example that will hopefully reveal the true idiocy of atomist thinking in no uncertain terms.

But first, I feel compelled to add that I definitely share the frustration many have felt with their related educational and media experiences. I was both fascinated and quite angry throughout my physics training. Still got A's. Understood the dogma very well, but I always "knew" there was something fundamentally wrong with practically everything being taught, yet no satisfying alternative explanations were offered. All was atomistic and remains vastly so to this day. Most frustrating is knowing that my own indoctrination has caused me to repeat some of the same BS here multiple times over the years.. Still trying to be helpful, but I'd like to think also mostly for lack of ready, alternative language exposure.

Okay, my example examines the so-called "propagation of light" from two distinct perspectives, atomistic (or "modern physics") vs. Aetheristic (which is not even a word according to my online dictionary). I'll share two YouTube video presentations done by two very arrogant SOBs, then attempt to summarize each's position starting with the shameless atomist, but then simply allow them to speak for themselves otherwise for now:



And now for the somewhat understandably angry / amused retort:



Summaries coming in next post..

 

[Ringtone]

Botherer of the gods, LOL!

It is comical though that propagandists of metaphysics insist on magic and supernaturalism as explanations for existence when they're unable to offer a supportable case for their magical, supernatural gods.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
magic molecules botherer

 

[Grumblenuts]

So, continuing from above, the first video is interesting in that it apparently offers an alternative to the two explanations that have usually been offered for how "light propagates" within and through a plate of glass. Those two being that it slows down due to ping ponging around, striking lots of atoms -or else- it gets absorbed and reemitted by said atoms, then magically emerges from the glass in a coherent beam. The guy says no. Each of those old explanations would logically produce a diffused (blurry) mess of sorts. Then he offers that the electrons within the glass are actually disturbed by the passing light enough to produce a reactive electric field which magically slows and redirects the light without diffusing any of it until it emerges, voila, and inexplicably speeds back up to c while bending back to its original angle.

The second guy says no. Light never propagates at all. It "perturbs" the Aether medium, perfectly analogous to how air gets "perturbed" by our spoken words, and the medium then propagates that perturbation through itself. Okay, go.