The Bankruptcy of Modern Cosmology, 1 of 3

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

1. The people here who are quick to comment that Cropper is ignorant of physics do realize that the philosophical ideas shaping a culture, including the schools in which the physicists were educated, influence their worldview and how they interpret data, right? Continental philosophy was in full swing at this time and to deny that Kant had an influence on the thinking of these men is a stark evasion. How do you get multiple interpretations of the same data, as in the various (Copenhagen, etc.) "interpretations" of quantum theory? We knew hos to reason and understood the scientific method before Kant came along with his wrecking ball and tried to demolish it. You guys also realize smart people can be mistaken, don't you? There are not mutually exclusive yet equally correct interpretations of the same data. That's nonsense.
2. You are just another idiot spouting off about that which you do not understand. Repeat. You do not understand Physics. You are an idiot.
3. Good article! It is right that "The Big Bang theory" has been collapsed! There are too many controversies on that theory, such as: "interpretation" of accelerating expanding, hypothesis of dark matter hates "The Big Bang theory" itself, limitation of speed of light for all matter (because only ordinary matter obeys that statement!).
4. light have mass? you kidding?
5. Yes philosophy is a primary. However proper philosophy does not conflict with relativity or quantum mechanics anyway.
6. The first 44 seconds are enough for me to know you need to study harder pal. General Relativity never tried to explain the nature of light, just to expand special relativity to gravitational fields, which led to many conclusions, such as one that confuses you: Light (or any electromagnetic radiation) is affected by gravity because without mass it follows the curves of space. You should study Maxwell to understand nature of light as of dual nature particle / wave. (This is highschool stuff kid)
7. Accept the science? Quantum uncertainty is only that because people have interpreted the results from a certain philosophical viewpoint (Kantian), and just assumed that the SEEMINGLY unexplainable could only be explained through the idea that things are in constant flux. You are building circles on top of circles just like your philosophic fore-bearer, Ptolemy. You've built on bad assumptions, that's about it.
8. What do you mean by physics tells us? I have never witnessed this telling of time as an undergraduate engineer, I'm sure for good reason. This "theory", if you want to call it that, is no more arbitrary than string theory. You are basically telling me that something can instantaneously go from A to non-A. Complete nonsense. 
9. See your error is in assuming that water molecule at a time 1 shares an identity with a water molecule at a time 2. This only works if one holds to an A-theory of time, but physics is telling us that a B-theory is correct. And B-theory doesn't necessitate that it be the exact same particle at two different times: watch?v=QLo-ZvUoTsA I don't know if you know this, but this is actually how some physicists are thinking of indeterminacy now. Look up "Julian Barbour" for instance.
10. So the fact that a water molecule IS a water molecule, i.e. it is slightly polarized, does not say anything about how it would interact with other molecules? The fact that something is something does not imply its behavior? This is a concrete absurdity of saying that "identity does not imply causality." 
11. FYI, identity does not imply causality.
12. FYI (and this is a common myth) causality does not follow from identity. To get there you must also make certain assumptions about the nature of time. (And actually there's a scientist named Julian Barbour who explains quantum indeterminacy by using the Wheeler-DeWitt equation to reject that particular assumption about time) ""collapse of the wave function" dominate as describing physical phenomena." That's a real phenomenon though. They've shown that with the Zeno effect.
13. Not shoehorning causality, but taking the laws of identity, causality, etc... seriously prior to analyzing experimental data. So that when you try to formulate theory you are not allowing ideas such as the "collapse of the wave function" dominate as describing physical phenomena.
14. Except that it's been shown that no model for QM can exist that reduces to a more fundamental theory. (at least not a more fundamental theory that doesn't saying something like "God fixed all of the quantum states in the universe to test the atheists faith in determinism and materialism") With what we know today, attempts at shoehorning causality into QM are incredibly contrived.
15. The disregard for causality and the lack of motivation to integrate the results of quantum experiments and the rest of known physics, is what is wrong with quantum mechanics. You can crunch numbers all day, find patterns that you can exploit, but at the end of the day you have done no real science, nothing like Newton. Quantum mechanics, in an analogy, is Ptolemy's epicycles on crack. They could predict the movements of the planets, roughly, but they had it entirely wrong. 
16. I wont even waste a retort on this moron he does not even understand e=mc2.
17. @brunodvsapopt The reason that is, is that they have been made complicated. So you say go study something so you can not understand the issues like we don't understand them and you'll see how you don't understand them enough that you can't understand. It's like trying to understand a computer program either by looking at the uncompiled code, or by trying to comprehend the binary instructions. One is easy, the other is not. Both are valid. You say only the initiated may know the secret knowledge
18. Space and time do not exist. Therefore neither does motion because motion requires the travelling through space. Inertia is only the "interactions" that are happening, there is no motion! How's that for a philosophy! Space is a concept like "red" or "zero". You can not travel through "red" or "zero" because they have no physical presence! You can not travel through space, because it has no physical presence! Time, like "green", does not flow or exist, other than our perception of it.
19. Mr Cropper, you have studies lot of history and philosophy, but not enough mathematics and physics. You believe you can handle your lack of knowledge about math, because you know that you don't know math. It is a false belief. If you are serious about the philosophy of science, you must study math. If you do, you will understand your past mistakes later in the future. I promise.
20. new concept to you...it took hundreds of years for science to be where it is now, go and study, then talk! there are no easy concepts anymore, they take years to understand...sorry...that's the universe...you can complain about it...it's complicated...