tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post169920558202961155..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Lawrence Krauss: another physicist with an anti-philosophy complexUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger224125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-4607998818916410572013-02-16T08:57:09.049-05:002013-02-16T08:57:09.049-05:00Main-stream physicists are misleading the ignorant...Main-stream physicists are misleading the ignorant people as the very paradigm of physics they know is already shown to be fundamentally incorrect & baseless because the very space-time concept has been mathematically, theoretically & experimentally shown as fundamentally incorrect & baseless in the article " Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe" published by a peer-reviewed Indian Journal of Science & Technology available on www.indjst.org March 2012 Issue (first article). Thus Special Theory of Relativity, General Theory of Relativity, E=mc^2 & Big Bang Theory being correct is out of question. Now those who believe that these theories have an iota of truth should first attend to the open challenge which is at<br />http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=Display&id=6476&tab=2<br /> and<br />http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4018<br /> I would like to inform that Open challenge to Einstein's Theories of Relativity is now the 'The Science News' on <br />http://www.facebook.com/TheScienceNews?fref=ts (January 23) and also on University of Dhaka at https://www.facebook.com/pages/University-of-Dhaka/18673582593?ref=ts&fref=ts<br /> Now main-stream physicists have no alternative but to face this open challenge or leave their jobs, if they have any conscience left with them. Now Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, Neil Tyson & others should face this open challenge before promoting atheism on the name of fundamentally incorrect physics.Mohammad Shafiq Khanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00417818495085985885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-131352435340758182013-02-16T08:52:27.866-05:002013-02-16T08:52:27.866-05:00Those who know little physics; Aristotle considere...Those who know little physics; Aristotle considered time & space are absolute (by absolute we mean that it was always there & it will be always there and it is same for all; irrespective of place & state of motion) and this perspective was held by Newton & Maxwell also. Newton rejected the aether of Descartes and adopted space contains nothing but is simply vacuum whereas Maxwell reintroduced aether. Einstein rejected them all and introduced emergent & relative time & space, the so-called space-time concept and also rejected the existence of aether. Now there could be just four possiblities<br /> 1. Both space & time are absolute<br /> 2. Space is absolute & time is not absolute<br /> 3. Space is not absolute & time is absolute<br /> 4. Both space & time are not absolute<br /> <br />Now consider Doppler Effect and apply possiblity 1 (both space & time are absolute) to the wave-equation of light/electromagnetic wave which perfectly describes the wave phenomena of light, in the moving coordinate system there has to be a different velocity of light and there is shift in only frequency of the light/electromagnetic wave. But actually there is shift of wave-length besides the shift of frequency in the relatively moving coordinate system. Thus space & time are absolute fails to explain the very well known Doppler Effect. Now consider possibilty 3 (space is not absolute & time is absolute) and apply it to the wave motion of light/electromagnetic wave and the result is that space contracts & expands such that there is absolutely no motion in nature which is against rationalty & physical observation as we see motion all around us.<br /> <br />Thus we are left with just two alternatives that is possibility 2 (space is absolute & time is not absolute) and possibilty 4 (both space & time are not absolute) both of these possibilities are mathematically valid and under which Doppler Effect could be qualitatively explained. But under possibilty 4 (both space & time are not absolute) there has to be Transverse Doppler Effect but experiments show that the Transverse Doppler Effect of light/radiation is absent thus there is the experimental proof that the possiblity 4, which Lorentz & Einstein proposed, is incorrect. Einstein's article 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' simply was meant for derivation of the Lorentz factor through the trickeries which I have shown in 'Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe' on link http://www.indjst.org/archive/mar-2012/1-mar%20khan.html.<br /> <br />Hence we are left with one & only one alternative and that is space is absolue & time is relative and the transformation derived for relativity of time in the above-mentioned article is consistent with all experiments till date. The important facts against theories of relativity are that TILL DATE THERE IS NOT A SINGLE DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE OF SPACE CONTRACTION & absence of Transverse Doppler Effect which possibility 4 (Einstein's perspective) predicts. <br />I am sure that you are qualified enough to do all the calculations at your level and if you want I will prepare the calculation sheet and send it to you.<br /> <br />Physicists of the world just cannot have any answer to this.Mohammad Shafiq Khanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00417818495085985885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-5689311020237757162012-11-28T20:07:02.022-05:002012-11-28T20:07:02.022-05:00Krauss is particularly infantile.
He is so devoid ...Krauss is particularly infantile.<br />He is so devoid of any real learning and is the complete opposite of a well rounded human being.<br /><br />What many dont understand is more than a few of these specialists have social deficiencies and it is those deficiencies, for some, that allow them to obsess about one and only one subject. So they have elite skill in one area--but at the cost of all others.<br /><br />There is no way to reason with such a person because of this very fact. Krauss gets caught in so many amateurish errors in logic and has to back peddle and pretend he meant something else--the mark of a dishonest man whose arrogance prevents him from growing.<br />His pretend wisdom might be enough for internet flocks with tin foil hats but he's a cheap salesman to anyone knowledgeable.John Burgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06021462296956618398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-27509357050562515122012-11-27T19:19:59.183-05:002012-11-27T19:19:59.183-05:00You keep saying things like:
>>> This cl...You keep saying things like:<br /><br />>>> This clearly shows two things: first, that Krauss does not understand what the business of philosophy is (it is not to advance science<br /><br />>>> Second, once again, the business of philosophy (of science, in particular) is not to solve scientific problems — we’ve got science for that<br /><br />>>> and more importantly just doesn't get the idea that philosophy of science is NOT in the business of answering scientific questions<br /><br />But I don't see any statement from Krauss where he seems to be confused on that point. Perhaps you can enlighten me.<br /><br />Let's look at your argument closely:<br /><br />>>> let’s get to the core of Krauss’ attack on philosophy. He says: “Every time there's a leap in physics, it encroaches on these areas that philosophers have carefully sequestered away to themselves, and so then you have this natural resentment on the part of philosophers.” This clearly shows two things: first, that Krauss does not understand what the business of philosophy is (it is not to advance science, as I explain here);<br /><br />He says the advance of science encroaches on "AREAS" that philosophers wish to claim. He DOES NOT say that it is the scientific studies, experiments and results that conflict. This seems accurate to me. Furthermore, this isn't specifically about philosophers of science but seems a much more general swath of philosophers. So I'm wonder how you make the leap from "AREAS" to your inference. I suppose one can infer anything they wish but you do seriously deny that the progress of practical science over the past 300 years has encroached on many areas once considered the exclusive purview of philosophers?<br /><br />I think that the meat of Krauss' argument is that we don't have even a hint that such a thing as 'Nothing' makes sense in reality. It seems a simple thing to contemplate but the physical and theoretical evidence seems to go against it.Dark Starhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04356850749159919331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90282858917614342232012-11-26T05:23:07.460-05:002012-11-26T05:23:07.460-05:00Well, you didn't seem to like my previous comm...Well, you didn't seem to like my previous comment, so here's another one:<br />"These days it is much more likely to encounter physicists like Steven Weinberg or Stephen Hawking, who merrily go about dismissing philosophy for the wrong reasons, and quite obviously out of a combination of profound ignorance and hubris (the two often go together, as I’m sure Plato would happily point out). The latest such bore is Lawrence Krauss, of Arizona State University."<br />OK, if you consider Steven Weinberg and Stephen Hawking to be "bores", let me tell you that these two physicists have done more to enrich human knowledge than all the philosophers from the time of Aristotle put together. Had we relied only on philosophers, we would still be believing in a geocentric Universe! <br />And something else: Richard Feynman went also merrily dismissing philosophy, and Alfred North Whitehead thought that" science repudiates philosophy".<br />Now I don't give a damn whether you publish this comment or not! Georges E.Melkihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15108048163412101065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-2021477533592975792012-11-24T04:14:22.971-05:002012-11-24T04:14:22.971-05:00This debate reminds me about a saying by the great...This debate reminds me about a saying by the great physicist W.Pauli:"Man muss nicht so viel reden!"(One should not talk so much!)However, I would like the proponents of philosophy to consider what humans would have missed had there been no philosophers since the time of Aristotle, and compare this to what humans would have missed had there been no scientists in that same period...Georges E.Melkihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15108048163412101065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-23669298989896175792012-08-29T01:14:15.666-04:002012-08-29T01:14:15.666-04:00I know this is way off subject, but I was wonderin...I know this is way off subject, but I was wondering why you havent posted any new videos on youtube? I love watching your debates against creationism. Jeremiahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03130782751220580243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-51872156002949736522012-08-09T03:36:28.812-04:002012-08-09T03:36:28.812-04:00"Popperian falsificationism fails for three p..."Popperian falsificationism fails for three primary reasons: (1) particular quantifier statements [e.g. (∃x)Fx] are not falsifiable," <br /><br />This is not a failure of Popper, but a triviality one can read already in Popper's "Logik der Forschung". (3) is also a point you can find in Popper's "Conjectures and refutuation" where he rejects Quine's holism as going too far, but accepts that a particular experiment falsifies only a combination of several theories. <br /><br />Lakatos' theory may be of interest for a scientific bureaucracy to distribute money, but not for scientists themself. Popperian falsification clarifies what are the open scientific problem, but remains silent about the direction where one has to look for solutions. <br /><br />Most of the criticism of type "real scientists do not behave as prescribed by Popper" are combinations of sociology (of cource, they have errors too) and misunderstandings what they should do: Of course, until a better theory is found, one prefers the best available theory, even if it has been falsified.<br /><br />So there remains his rejection of Bayesian probability interpretation.Ilja Schmelzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05344206562643658764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-189814959378686372012-07-30T18:21:08.157-04:002012-07-30T18:21:08.157-04:00>I don't blame him, I was merely pointing o...>I don't blame him, I was merely pointing out that there are huge areas of science that don't make progress, and may even be dead ends<br /><br />Please, that's just not credible. You tried to zing him by knocking on String Theory as if he was somehow vested in it, when in fact he's an outspoken critic of it. It's clear you barely researched Krauss before attacking him.Vitriolixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09815315567899405227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-21623080092250091142012-07-27T08:29:04.163-04:002012-07-27T08:29:04.163-04:00@massimo, "As for his book, it has nothing to...@massimo, "As for his book, it has nothing to do with this issue. Nobody, as far as I know, is criticizing him for writing bad physics"<br /><br />have you actually read his book to make such an inference?maffew87https://www.blogger.com/profile/06477907846431744595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-12268368524665702232012-07-27T08:26:30.588-04:002012-07-27T08:26:30.588-04:00@massimo, "As for his book, it has nothing to...@massimo, "As for his book, it has nothing to do with this issue. Nobody, as far as I know, is criticizing him for writing bad physics"<br /><br />have you actually read his book to make such an inference?maffew87https://www.blogger.com/profile/06477907846431744595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-47233087786410615692012-07-12T19:50:56.348-04:002012-07-12T19:50:56.348-04:00Massimo,
A couple of (relatively minor) correctio...Massimo,<br /><br />A couple of (relatively minor) corrections to your essay:<br /><br /><< Okay, to begin with, it is fair to point out that the only people who read works in theoretical physics are theoretical physicists, so by Krauss’ own reasoning both fields are largely irrelevant to everybody else (they aren’t, of course). >><br /><br />Not actually true. Philosophers of physics (e.g. David Albert, Tim Maudlin, John Earman, etc.) and historians of physics (e.g. Stephen Brush) also read works in theoretical physics. In fact, it's pretty essential to their philosophical work. <br /><br /><< (And incidentally, how’s progress on that string theory thingy going, Lawrence? It has been 25 years and counting, and still no empirical evidence...) >><br /><br />Maybe you're unaware of this, but Krauss is actually highly critical of string theory, and doesn't even regard it as science (he thinks it's philosophy).<br /><br />Other than that, I fully agree with all your other points.maanelihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08870457696505902837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-21292665616868234472012-07-12T12:15:08.715-04:002012-07-12T12:15:08.715-04:00There are some good points here but I'm still ...There are some good points here but I'm still a fan of Krauss. He is helping to create new interest in science and that is a good thing. <br /><br />As a PhD student in pure mathematics I can attest to the vast differences of thought and approach between pure and applied mathematics. I feel we should all be willing to bridge this chasm between philosophy and science so that we can find a bit of what we are all looking for; truth, beauty, and a better understanding of reality.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11821104621727712853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-8430112130586310212012-06-28T11:12:46.422-04:002012-06-28T11:12:46.422-04:00I merely recommend reading his books because I fee...I merely recommend reading his books because I feel the tone towards philosophy is different. His physics books can hardly be called strictly physics. <br /><br />It seems a little presumptuous to assume his books have "nothing to do with the issue", unless we are confused about what the issue actually is :)<br /><br />I don't want to come across as a staunch supported of Krauss, because I take issue with a lot of his ideas. <br /><br />I simply find the criticism towards him and the New Atheists in general are often overly simplistic and uninformative. <br /><br />Yes, Krauss can display a pretty embarrassing understanding of philosophy at times, and often doesn't even realize when he is engaging in it. <br /><br />And yes, we should humbly admit, his book has philosophical implications that philosophers should not look past.Dyami Hayeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10870083033404046530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89866274587471265842012-06-28T05:40:49.731-04:002012-06-28T05:40:49.731-04:00Addle, you seem to know your physics somewhat. Do ...Addle, you seem to know your physics somewhat. Do you have a view whether science could tell the difference between Einstein's Spacetime, which is continually expanding within "nothing" as it is, and if it were placed entirely within a Void? <br /><br />Einstein only uses 3-D + T for his Spacetime, and the void would be infinite 3-D + T simply complementing its existence, without any interference whatsoever, being a void.<br /><br />I would say only philosophy can answer that immeasurable distinction, by allowing these pure alternatives (even if philosophy allows the idea of expanding within nothing, which it will not, in time). As you can see I opt for the existence of a complementing void.<br /><br />In fact, I would go so far as to say that the to choose Einstein's way (and Descartes' way, an ancient philosopher, not a modern scientist, whom Einstein mentions in his writing for support) is like saying the Emperor is clothed when he is in fact naked!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-64045344942961381702012-06-28T05:16:43.892-04:002012-06-28T05:16:43.892-04:00I have a vague recollection of him mentioning Desc...I have a vague recollection of him mentioning Descartes in a Schedule to one of the Relativity papers, maybe Special as it was to say space is constituted only by matter. This is a key issue, as there is no way to say whether 3-D + Time Spacetime (he only uses 3-D + T) is expanding within a void of 3-D + T complementing it. <br /><br />Thus the mention of Descartes, as there is no modern answer, just a point of view on an equivocal issue, pehaps from the misguided perspective of Parsimony. Misguided, as a void could be a great omission from existence, if ignored.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-76842121181362215692012-06-28T02:45:21.845-04:002012-06-28T02:45:21.845-04:00What I meant to imply is postmodernism might curre...What I meant to imply is postmodernism might currently be in the hands of anarchists rather than educators.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-31918906433705936142012-06-28T01:45:58.338-04:002012-06-28T01:45:58.338-04:00Philosophy can contribute logic, at the very least...Philosophy can contribute logic, at the very least. Libet's PMC flex activity built because preceding Sensory-Motor activity as an intact sequence built to create the intention before sufficiency of flow into the PMC for action. The brain serves the gross anatomy in adaptive cycle. The lag between stimulation and awareness is well known, and neither that nor Libet's experiment challenge Free Will. The subjects prepared imperceptible for half a second to poise for an exact moment of flex, whenever that may be. A scientist lacking logic.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-34285717086531602852012-06-28T01:38:56.315-04:002012-06-28T01:38:56.315-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-53342947730480826622012-06-28T01:37:34.937-04:002012-06-28T01:37:34.937-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-67909739341562240562012-06-28T01:36:15.164-04:002012-06-28T01:36:15.164-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-62513936867172564762012-06-28T01:34:26.617-04:002012-06-28T01:34:26.617-04:00Third time lucky to post this one. The other side ...Third time lucky to post this one. The other side of the coin is the experimental scientist all at sea with logic. Libet's PMC flex activity built because preceding Sensory-Motor activity as an intact sequence built to create the intention before sufficiency of flow into the PMC for action. The brain serves the gross anatomy in adaptive cycle. The lag between stimulation and awareness is well known, and neither that nor Libet's experiment challenge Free Will. The subjects prepared imperceptible for half a second to poise for an exact moment of flex, whenever that may be.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-31390648751189021132012-06-28T01:32:30.564-04:002012-06-28T01:32:30.564-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90876664902090653882012-06-28T01:24:18.485-04:002012-06-28T01:24:18.485-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89444428884827567432012-06-28T01:15:15.725-04:002012-06-28T01:15:15.725-04:00OK I will type once again for the record, let'...OK I will type once again for the record, let's hope its not deleted. To balance the other way, Libet was an true experimentalist all at sea with concepts. There is no challenge to Free Will. Primary motor for flex builds because Sensory & Premotor are building to intention (as one sensory-motor structure before PMC), then pop, we have PMC sufficiency for action.<br /><br />That build up in the S-M structure is from inputs building imperceptibly to intention over a period of half a second until sufficiency in the S-M, and then in the PMC. Th brain is serving the gross anatomy in adaptive cycles, representing it rather than mysteriously determining the build-ups.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.com