4 ms·

They believe that Relativity is wrong, for various counterfactual reasons. I did not have much luck with explanation.

v_lisivka 8y ago
Science is quite opposite to "believing", but if you "believe" in a theory, then, if you are looking for a word to describe me, this word is "heretic". However, I see no significant differences in position about QM between me and Mario Bunge, famous scientist. :-/
- canhascodez 8y ago
  Bunge seems to be described primarily as a philosopher, but I also see that he recently wrote a notable paper suggesting that the detection of gravitational waves implies the realism of spacetime.
  - v_lisivka 8y ago
    Yes, I'm standing at the same position. But consequences of that are much deeper. If spacetime(this word hurts me) is material, as alternative to empty space AKA void, then we can study it, and make theories about it constituents. We can measure it velocity, we can measure it fiction, we can try to cool it down, we can use it as (very light but abundant) propellant, and so on.
    - canhascodez 8y ago
      That it is real does not mean it is material. Spacetime is not mass-energy. Politely, what you are describing is science fiction.
      - v_lisivka 8y ago
        I think, it will be put in it own category, when it properties will be discovered, but it still will be on material side, not a pure energy. Everything is fiction at hypotheses generation phase. It will be science only when it will be confirmed by an experiment and reproduced by some one else and withstand critics. String theory requires extra-dimensions, which are never seen, while my theories are doesn't, so they are less fictional.
        no_identd 8y ago
        Oh geez. I like your intuition, but it seems it has led you astray. Here, have some reading material to put you on a saner track that I strongly suspect will jive more with your intuition: https://arxiv.org/abs/0902.2811 https://arxiv.org/abs/0902.2811 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=9368943224139680400 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=9368943224139680400 https://academicjournals.org/journal/AJMCSR/article-full-text-pdf/2B1923A4465 https://academicjournals.org/journal/AJMCSR/article-full-tex... https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=3459540491989485865 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=3459540491989485865 http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/PiP-2015-04.pdf#page=57 http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/PiP-2015-04.pdf#page=57 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=2136327572232256000 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=2136327572232256000

Science is quite opposite to "believing", but if you "believe" in a theory, then, if you are looking for a word to describe me, this word is "heretic". However, I see no significant differences in position about QM between me and Mario Bunge, famous scientist. :-/

canhascodez 8y ago
Bunge seems to be described primarily as a philosopher, but I also see that he recently wrote a notable paper suggesting that the detection of gravitational waves implies the realism of spacetime.
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  Yes, I'm standing at the same position. But consequences of that are much deeper. If spacetime(this word hurts me) is material, as alternative to empty space AKA void, then we can study it, and make theories about it constituents. We can measure it velocity, we can measure it fiction, we can try to cool it down, we can use it as (very light but abundant) propellant, and so on.
  - canhascodez 8y ago
    That it is real does not mean it is material. Spacetime is not mass-energy. Politely, what you are describing is science fiction.
    - v_lisivka 8y ago
      I think, it will be put in it own category, when it properties will be discovered, but it still will be on material side, not a pure energy. Everything is fiction at hypotheses generation phase. It will be science only when it will be confirmed by an experiment and reproduced by some one else and withstand critics. String theory requires extra-dimensions, which are never seen, while my theories are doesn't, so they are less fictional.
      - no_identd 8y ago
        Oh geez. I like your intuition, but it seems it has led you astray. Here, have some reading material to put you on a saner track that I strongly suspect will jive more with your intuition: https://arxiv.org/abs/0902.2811 https://arxiv.org/abs/0902.2811 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=9368943224139680400 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=9368943224139680400 https://academicjournals.org/journal/AJMCSR/article-full-text-pdf/2B1923A4465 https://academicjournals.org/journal/AJMCSR/article-full-tex... https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=3459540491989485865 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=3459540491989485865 http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/PiP-2015-04.pdf#page=57 http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/PiP-2015-04.pdf#page=57 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=2136327572232256000 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=2136327572232256000