MisterSwig

Recommended Posts

Has anyone here listened to the Dissident Science podcast hosted by David de Hilster? He popped up in my recent YouTube searching, and in an episode on Dark Matter a viewer named "sciencethinker" recommended a David Harriman video to him. Hilster didn't seem to know about Harriman, though both are very critical of modern theories in physics.

Here is the video on Dark Matter. (The exchange with "sciencethinker" begins at 35:20.)

Also, Hilster and his father are publishing a book about their Particle Model. The book's website has some info and additional links about it.

Based on a few videos I've watched so far, Hilster sounds pretty reasonable, so I'm curious how many other Objectivists listen to him and what they think.

Incidentally, the first video I watched from Hilster was this one about special relativity.

So if you have any criticism of his brief explanation for why Einstein was wrong, I'm interested in hearing it. His main point is that SR predicts mass increase approaching the speed of light, yet particle accelerators do not detect such a phenomenon. Thus, SR is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

So if you have any criticism of his brief explanation for why Einstein was wrong, I'm interested in hearing it.

Here's a resource, if you are interested in some extended explanations with a few physics notations. As I understand it, the intrinsic mass cannot change with velocity -- but the energy needed to accelerate that mass increases as it gets closer to the speed of light constant. 

Particle accelerators are bound by this relation -- enormous amounts of energy are needed to come closer to the constant. E = mc²

special relativity - Why does the (relativistic) mass of an object increase when its speed approaches that of light? - Physics Stack Exchange

More intrigue from Hister:  (18) Weaponizing the Flat Earth Movement - YouTube

Edited by william.scherk
Intriguing YouTube link added
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That man is a crackpot. He doesn't seem to understand the difference between rest mass and relativistic mass. Relativistic mass is a somewhat outmoded concept. It is related to the total energy E of a particle, (mrel = E / c2 )and therefore dependent on the velocity with regard to the observer. If the particle approaches the speed of light the energy and therefore also the relativistic mass increase without bound. Today we prefer to use the rest mass (the energy of the particle at rest, divided by c2), which does not increase with its velocity. It is just a different definition, the calculated effects remain exactly the same.

He also seems to think that the neutrino doesn't exist, claims that it has no mass and no spin. Well neutrino's do exist, do have mass (even if it's very small) and certainly do have spin, and they can also be detected. So listening further to this man is wasting your time if you want to learn something meaningful, because he really has no clue.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2020 at 10:19 AM, Max said:

He doesn't seem to understand the difference between rest mass and relativistic mass.

I get the impression that he understands the difference, but he thinks the concept of relativistic mass is junk. Here are a couple short videos he did on that specific topic.

You say that relativistic mass is dependent on its velocity with respect to the observer. But I don't understand why that should make a difference. Isn't it dependent on the quantity of matter? How does relative velocity affect the quantity of matter? Or do you have a different concept of mass?

On 12/12/2020 at 10:19 AM, Max said:

He also seems to think that the neutrino doesn't exist, claims that it has no mass and no spin.

I've read that the neutrino was originally described as a massless particle and only recently thought to have near-zero mass because oscillations were finally detected. Hilster argues that the massless particle doesn't exist and whatever is being detected shouldn't be called a neutrino. So it seems his view is more nuanced than that initial video might have suggested. Here are a couple on neutrinos.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2020 at 5:30 PM, MisterSwig said:

Has anyone here listened to the Dissident Science podcast hosted by David de Hilster? He popped up in my recent YouTube searching, and in an episode on Dark Matter a viewer named "sciencethinker" recommended a David Harriman video to him. Hilster didn't seem to know about Harriman, though both are very critical of modern theories in physics.

Swig,

I don't have time to look at the videos right now, but I will get to them. Just from looking, I am sure I will resonate with him.

I tend to be less dogmatic about science than many others. One of my criteria is evaluating when I ask a simple question and the people who claim to represent science not only have no answer (or, at least they refuse to give one), their certainties harden on issues no one can be certain of. When that happens, I see dogma, faith, not science.

For example, I like mulling over the questions Rupert Sheldrake raises. But mention his name to the people who claim to represent science and out comes condescending snark vested in killing knives. 

Here's an example of one such question. What if scientific laws vary over time?

It's a good question.

But not for all people who rest their worldview on their own understanding of science. It's obvious they never check their worldview. They never check their premises.

An opinion I evolved over a lifetime is that humans only understand reality when the part of reality they observe is human size, either through direct observation, observation through instruments (that bring greater reality to human size), or abstract projection (through manipulating measurements or expanding on cause and effect, etc.). In other words, most of reality is much larger and much smaller than human size, so much so that we can only make guesses the further we move away from human size. Ditto for time.

From that frame, take a look at your guy with the neutrino.

Can anything be said with absolute certainty about that? Can any of this be validated through observation of some sort? Or is the process models on top of models on top of models?

I'm not trying to belittle scientists who work on neutrinos (of which, I know little), or their work on neutrinos. But I am belittling dogma about it. Science is supposed to be open-ended with knowledge building on knowledge and sometimes correcting errors. Not capped against any new knowledge that is different than the party line, especially when you get to the root of the party line and the best explanation is "that's just the way it is." 

One of my favorite quotes about science comes from Terence McKenna, and it is usually paraphrased. It goes something like this. "Science says give us one free miracle and we will explain the rest."

It always boils down to that, too. At least in everything I have looked at so far.

Even with Ayn Rand. She called this miracle "the given" and simply didn't deal with it further. But, boy. did she go about explaining the rest....

:) 

I also hold the opinion that there are elements of reality humans are probably not aware of due to lack of sense organs to detect them. Since I believe humans are still evolving and have not reached the pinnacle of evolution and become static development-wise (in fact, I think such a belief is stupid :) ), I imagine the human species is evolving such sense organs this very minute. That would mean these organs are not fully formed yet. Which would explain why different humans experience certain things the same way across many different cultures and times, but there is no way to prompt such experiences with predictability under controlled conditions.

Examples are near death experiences, and mental communications, and remote viewing, but there are many others. They flop when subjected to controlled conditions, but there are way too many anecdotes from too many people from different cultures and times that are essentially identical to ignore and pass off as mere delusion or coincidence.

There is one other element involved in science nobody likes to talk about, but I don't mind. (Ain't I awesome? :) )The element is the character of scientists when it comes to money. When the money people (generally the government) say we want the science to prove xxx, otherwise you don't get the money, hoards of scientist get to work and out comes tons of doublespeak proving xxx, often outright fraud.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

For example, I like mulling over the questions Rupert Sheldrake raises.

First time I've heard of morphic resonance. It sounds unlikely, but I'm always curious about paranormal claims and ideas. I like listening to radio shows like Coast to Coast and Ground Zero. People with weird stories aren't always lying. Sometimes they're just confused about what they experienced, and sometimes they know something you don't.

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

What if scientific laws vary over time?

I hope they vary very slowly. I'm not sure I could handle another crisis this year.

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

From that frame, take a look at your guy with the neutrino.

Can anything be said with absolute certainty about that? Can any of this be validated through observation of some sort? Or is the process models on top of models on top of models?

You can find articles announcing that scientists have produced direct evidence for neutrinos. But there's usually some speculation involved, like they are reporting or showing the effect of a neutrino collision, not an image of the neutrino itself. Hilster pointed out that the image used for the Wikipedia article literally labels an area "invisible neutrino." See this Fermilab video for info on how they detect neutrinos.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

 

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

What if scientific laws vary over time?

I hope they vary very slowly. I'm not sure I could handle another crisis this year.

Swig,

:) 

We can do it this way, too.

Q. What if human beings vary evolve over time?

A. I hope they evolve very slowly. I'm not sure I could handle another crisis this year.

:) 

(Right... Tell that to the eugenics transhumanist people.)

Think about it.

Look at the mess the transhumanist gods (as they think of themselves) made with a wonderful invention like social media.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

First time I've heard of morphic resonance. It sounds unlikely, but I'm always curious about paranormal claims and ideas.

Swig,

Sheldrake goes way beyond claims. He looks at things--scientific things--and then draws his what ifs from those. Since he has a doctorate in biochemistry from the University of Cambridge, he drives the people who speak in the name of science nuts because they can't use peer pressure on him and all their attempts (starting with Dawkins) to shut him down in the scientific community have ultimately failed.

More and more people are looking at his questions in peer reviewed articles.

The following book of his gives a pretty good overview of his ideas, the evidence he looks at and how he interprets it, how other preeminent eminences try to ignore it (and ultimately end up failing to expel him from science because they won't look while others do), and so on. (btw - The following is a referral link. I'm not saying that to make a few pennies from a book, but Amazon requires it and I want to keep my Amazon account for other sites.)

Science Set Free: 10 Paths to New Discovery

I don't know what to make of some of his stuff, but, frankly, I find the idea of morphic resonance no more unlikely than the big bang. And I love reframing familiar things, even if only for a little while. (I'm working on turning myself into a fiction writer and without a sense of wonder at the unknown, I, for one, can't get there, that is, make up my own people and places, etc. I have to be in awe of what is coming without yet knowing to fall in love with my fictional people. Also, I guess I have some feisty rebel in me when I encounter puffed-up-edness. :) )

btw - In what I have seen of your writing, I like your approach, at least my impression so far of your approach. You're not afraid to question and look, you're not afraid to be wrong, and you don't lord over others as one of the anointed when you are right.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Swig,

:) 

We can do it this way, too.

Q. What if human beings vary evolve over time?

A. I hope they evolve very slowly. I'm not sure I could handle another crisis this year.

:) 

(Right... Tell that to the eugenics transhumanist people.)

Think about it.

Look at the mess the transhumanist gods (as they think of themselves) made with a wonderful invention like social media.

:)

Michael

To quote the mutant villain Magneto from the X-MEN films, "God works too slow." (Referencing his plan to alter the DNA of non-mutants...)

  • Smile 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I don't know what to make of some of his stuff, but, frankly, I find the idea of morphic resonance no more unlikely than the big bang.

I used to think the Big Bang was the most hilarious thing, then I found cat vibing videos.

 

16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

btw - In what I have seen of your writing, I like your approach, at least my impression so far of your approach. You're not afraid to question and look, you're not afraid to be wrong, and you don't lord over others as one of the anointed when you are right.

Thanks. I'm just a soul whose intentions are good.*

*May not apply to some socialists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now