SoAMadDeathWish

Highly Advanced General Relativity for the Layman 101

Recommended Posts

Oh, you can separate them. You'll be left with ignorance. Put them together and you'll have the conceit of knowledge until the conceit is destroyed by the actual physics and a new conceit is born (made). The only salvation for this scientific vanity is making stuff that doesn't bump into the actual physics, whatever that really is. We commonly confuse the tentativeness of epistemology with the absolutism of metaphysics (physics) by mixing them up, which we have to do if we are scientists--I'm not--creating the current, dominant, conceit, which is Einsteinian physics. That may be a conceit that will never be invalidated and replaced, but it will always be a conceit.

--Brant

metaphysics is not philosophical metaphysics which is what different philosophers say it is and who are all wrong unless it's a correct axiomatic statement ("A is A and . . . .")

I said not one thing here that contradicted what Bob said above, however it might appear, for his separation and mine are not the same separations; his is one step higher while mine is more basic, only involving the axiomatic relationship, and insofar as I understand him I agree with his post, and the conceit of knowledge is my add on which he did not discuss and may object to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest things CAN move faster than light.  Light may be a hardly interacting particle, that when viewed on a greater scale is actually interacting most with other powerful objects perhaps outside of the visible universe, and since it's speed  is so fast, we cannot measure discrepancies due to gigantically powerful force sources

here's a thought experiment: you are traveling in space next to a source of energy that sucked into a converter which accelerates you.  what happens when you get to that particle that accelerates you to or past the speed of light?  if you don't accelerate to or past it (I forget which one is said to be the limit), haven't you broken the law of thermodynamics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2015 at 11:20 AM, Brant Gaede said:

Oh, you can separate them. You'll be left with ignorance. Put them together and you'll have the conceit of knowledge until the conceit is destroyed by the actual physics and a new conceit is born (made). The only salvation for this scientific vanity is making stuff that doesn't bump into the actual physics, whatever that really is. We commonly confuse the tentativeness of epistemology with the absolutism of metaphysics (physics) by mixing them up, which we have to do if we are scientists--I'm not--creating the current, dominant, conceit, which is Einsteinian physics. That may be a conceit that will never be invalidated and replaced, but it will always be a conceit.

--Brant

metaphysics is not philosophical metaphysics which is what different philosophers say it is and who are all wrong unless it's a correct axiomatic statement ("A is A and . . . .")

I said not one thing here that contradicted what Bob said above, however it might appear, for his separation and mine are not the same separations; his is one step higher while mine is more basic, only involving the axiomatic relationship, and insofar as I understand him I agree with his post, and the conceit of knowledge is my add on which he did not discuss and may object to

No objection.  All theory is subject to verdict of fact.  In physical science Facts Rule  and Theories Serve (sometimes).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...