Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Expert Opinion is the Worst Evidence
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 04. 2023
- Expert opinion is the lowest form of scientific evidnce and in many cases isn't evidence at all. When the consensus has been unable to solve important problems for decades the consensus is wrong. New ideas are probably wrong too. So trust, or not, but verify when an expert talks.
If you would like to support my research you can also donate at paypal.me/rayflemingphysics or patreon.com/rayfleming
Einstein's Infinitely Divisible Aether is Nonsense • Einstein's Infinitely ...
Einstein's Spacetime can't expand • Einstein's Spacetime c...
Ship7 Review US to Philippines • Ship7 Review US to Phi...
JWST & the Tolman Test Disprove Expansion • JWST & the Tolman Test...
Vegetable Oils Make Us Fat, Coconut Oil Doesn't • Vegetable Oils Make Us...
No Expansion Means No Dark Energy • No Expansion Means No ...
The Space in Galaxies Doesn't Expand PBS Space Time Reaction Video • The Space in Galaxies ...
JWST High Redshift Galaxies Disprove the Big Bang • JWST High Redshift Gal...
Matter Can't Move or Expand Faster Than Light Invalidating The Big Bang • Matter Can't Move or E...
Big Bang Believers Don't Want to Know How Matter is Produced • Big Bang Believers Don...
The Big Bang Redshift Model Fails • The Big Bang Redshift ...
To learn more about quantum field theory look for future videos or buy one of my books on Amazon.com
The Zero-Point Universe
www.amazon.com/Zero-Point-Uni...
The 100 Greatest Lies in Physics
www.amazon.com/100-Greatest-L...
Goodbye Quarks: The Onium Theory
www.amazon.com/Goodbye-Quarks...
God Hates Science
www.amazon.com/God-Hates-Scie...
![The moment we stopped understanding AI [AlexNet]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UZDiGooFs54/mqdefault.jpg)
I don't think people really understand how much modern physics is actually resting on shoddy foundations. Pretty much everything we know is based on Newton's 3 laws of motion, which themselves are actually indiscernable and questionable on close inspection. The first law defines inertia and momentum in terms of motion. But all motion is relative and these two things are highly conflated because they're interchangable depending on your frame of reference. There's no such thing as an "inertial frame of reference". I'd argue that the first law should actually be two separate laws, and both should be preceded by a zeroth and negative oneth law that define an observer and relative motion.
"modern physics as actually resting on shoddy foundations" Yes. A "house of cards" as someone once professed to me.
Yes peer review scientists aught have rooms reserved in looneybins.
It would be nice if there was a place where people like Ray could come together and discuss fundamental flaws in theoretical physics and help each other hammer out the weaknesses or vagueness in their ideas. The Chapelle society of Natural Philosophy seemed like it would serve that role rather well, but the site design is unfortunately awful and it's simply too difficult to have a real time conversation.
Dave has ruined Chapelle by insisting that there is no medium in space and silencing those of us who work in quantum field theory. There are also far to many true crackpots associated with it. I went to an excellent conference in 2019 in Prague and hope to get invited to more like that.
@@rayfleming2053 His g-particle theory was interesting and all, but I find that trying to reduce the laws of nature to nothing but bumping particles is just as illogical and unproductive as asserting the universe has divine origins while simultaneously asserting that the origin of God is unknowable.
You can't have inertia/momentum or a rate of inductance without a medium, you can't manifest something from nothing, and there's no such thing as randomness; so the existence of universal constants, independent of some combination of naturally numbered quantities, is completely nonsensical and untenable. There's also proof after proof that light is a wave in such a way that it cannot be reduced to particles without postulating the existence of alternative universes. We may not be able to comprehend the substance of the universe, but no matter how you define it, that substance can only be mathematically quantified in terms in fields.
@@bitskit3476 "I find that trying to reduce the laws of nature to nothing but bumping particles is just as illogical and unproductive.." I agree. A kinetic or collision based medium is inoperative - it will simply dampen the signal.
@@bitskit3476 Yeah agreed kind of. I see particles not as particles as such but as quite literally quanta of waves. Envelopes of fields with identifiable thresholds that we can call particles simply for the purpose of calculating partitions of energy and the properties that are associated with those partitions. Hmm. Not sure my wording is right but effectively a transmission of light or any Emag radiation from a nuclide is a spheroid wave and why the surface area of that sphere equates to the inverse square of the energy distributed in that single wave. It also then allows for the inductive responses of the dipoles to communicate and affect each consecutive wave proportionally to the wavelength at any given moment. Lazy Redshift type phenomena etc. Cool subject to ponder on. And yeah universal constants should be called out for local conditions. They were fine when we were tinkering on smaller scales but as we start moving into larger exponents then the accuracy of the constants will need to be adjusted in various environments of, say higher gravitational, higher thermal, higher environmental conditions that may be offering an extreme variance on the very nature of the stuff that allows the communication of stuff to happen. :)
General/special relativity is an unobservable theory. No one has ever observed space itself, much less space itself bending, warping, twisting, or contorting in non-Euclidean geodesic manifolds.
Not only that but even if it were true, it would be inherently unobservable because of the affect it would have on our perception.
True.
We have observations of parts of it. In particle colliders we can extend the time a particle exists by moving it really fast which means that velocity leads to time dilation & then black holes show spacetime warping showing that it has other parts of it right. But I do agree that its not right due to it not mixing well with the standard model which has far more evidence than general/special relativity.
eXpErTs
High value content, thanks 🙏
Excellent work! I will be buying your book on God Hates Science
Can you make a video on the touted success of recent nuclear fusion experiments and whether they are significant or not?
Ray, totally awesome presentation, thank you! You are possibly being to kind with this statement "..particularly if it's been around say 50 years..." I'm thinking the number is more like 100 years.
Love the info you are putting out. One little thing is you could really use a better microphone setup, I think it's mainly the placement. I think you have it too far away and thus you have to really crank up the gain. The mic doesn't need to be anything fancy, there are plenty of inexpensive budget microphones that sound good and lots of youtube how-to videos on getting good 'voice' audio. Also lots of free programs to use, OBS, Audacity, Davinci Resolve (free version, thou Davinci is a fairly steep learning curve). Anyway thanks again and keep up the good work.
Thanks for your suggestions. Someone recently complained that the volume was too low so I turned up the gain at my camera, but it introduced too much noise, so I will turn it down again.
I have a decent shotgun mic 2 feet from me but there is lots of echoing off the walls, floor, and ceiling, which are all solid. Next year I might be able to afford to rent a 2 bedroom place and put together a better studio setup and buy a better mic.
@@rayfleming2053:
You should consider getting a small clip-on mic to attach to your shirt; you can get fairly inexpensive ones that work well, will probably improve audio quality a lot.
If the majority is wrong, and this is generally a correct statement, then Quantum Mechanics is wrong. Which is also a correct statement.
Does anyone believe that the Sun is a gaseous plasma?
Where's your degree?,,,, that is my favorite...
I know I got their goat when they say that, and they are questioning their own paradigms .
I meant to say but forgot that if someone argues by saying they have a PhD then you know they have lost.
we have experts for everything ... eat, sleep. academia, specialists and scientist are oftentimes a tool for manipulation, either in the hands of some corporation or even politicians
If you have a new theory that no one has any experience with then who is the expert? The best one might do is find folks with specialised tools that are most related to the content of the theory and see if their treatment of the theory can help them realise it into something useful for others to build on. Collaboration.
"I like to include first the non-evidential parts. The lowest being no theory at all, say inertia. If you don't have a theory, that's the lowest form of evidence. And the lowest form of scientist is someone who criticizes someone for coming up with a hypothesis for something like inertia. Certainly, you can criticize a hypothesis if it has weaknesses, that's part of science. But to criticize someone just for trying to come up with a hypothesis for a question that you are too afraid to touch, no that's unscientific."
For fun, let's try the topic of inertia on the grand scale?
Condition #1) A mass adrift somewhere in the universe, on a free-fall trajectory. The trajectory being the result of the interaction of all other masses (and their trajectories) in the universe.
Condition #2) The exact same mass pushed via an external force to a different location. Every single mass in the universe now on a very slight, but an undeniably different trajectory.
If we agree that the trajectories at 1 and 2 are different, then if follows that all the trajectories were in a state of change during the transition from 1 to 2.
Can we also deduce that the external force needed to push the mass was 'felt by' and 'reacted against' the other masses? Ie, the reaction force was exerted on and due to the existence of the other masses in the universe.
Is this obvious to anyone else??
Neutral and electrically charged bodies have the same speed of light limit and thus the same resistance to motion as determined by the permittivity and permeability of the quantum field. Inertia can therefore only be a self-inductive interaction with the quantum field that is similar to magnetic self-induction.
Math goes over my head.... but I knew the "experts' were full of crap.
This pretty much sums up the appeal of channels like this. "I know nothing about this subject, but this video supports my preconceived notion that every establishment is lying to me"
If I go back to school, it'll be to pursue your line of work in quantum physics. To put it diplomatically, dark energy and dark matter are total nonsense. You always follow the evidence, never consensus. Science is not politics.
Science has become political. They chase that cash now.
the alerts of new videos aren't working pn your channel Ray. for a few weeks i tried to re-set the settings again and again but no success. other channels are alerted for new videos but not yours. A
for a test i subscribed with this account as well.. will see.
.. and set all the notifications of course.
I would say the very worst evidence of all is actually God's opinion, as found in the precious Holy Books of the world.
Good point. I do try to minimize my religion bashing somewhat as to not chase away the religiously inclined. But, I wrote my book to make it clear where I stand.
@@rayfleming2053 believe me, the religious have no use for an eternal universe...they will always insist on a creator.
Christianity and the cultural background of it was fundamental in starting the scientific revolution and in fostering for hundreds of years the institutions that were at the basis of the scientific revolution
@@adamc1966 They also don't like the idea that the physical constants can and do emerge from the quantum field without any outside intervention.