Cosmological Mental Constructs

[Native]

OP: How to impress the scientific society . . .

Video Abstract
Dialect Channel:
What is the ultimate nature of motion? Two influential physicists famously debated this question, invoking a bucket-and-water thought experiment to do so -- but they arrived at starkly different conclusions. Can we determine which one of them was right? Join us on a journey that spans centuries of metaphysical thought, books worth of controversial literature, and twenty-minutes of bad attempts at animating water spinning in a bucket.

Contents:
00:00 - Intro
01:05 - Newton's Absolutes
04:15 - The Bucket Experiment
07:31 - Round 1: Mach
11:14 - Round 2: Newton
13:06 - Round 3: Sudden Death

My comments:
Ernst Mach: 2:31 “Newton has grown unfaithful to his resolve to investigate only actual facts”.

In 2:50 Ernst Mach accuses Newton´s “Three Absolutes” of producing “pure mental constructs”.

Me: Ernst Mach´s discussion on Newtons ideas and Mach´s own scientific ideas, later on inspired Albert Einstein to form his gravitational ideas of “Bending Space-Time” motion.

Apparently, Einstein simply adopted some of Newton’s ideas and some of Ernst Mach´s ideas – and got it personally mixed up by the same method as Ernst Mach accused Newton for: By “pure mental constructs”.

Just like Newton, Einstein had NO scientific explanation by what means his force should work. It was all in all “pure mental constructs” completely disconnected from any relative internal or external influences.

It´s very amazing indeed! If a person deliver sufficient “high flying cosmological word salads”, most scientists and lay persons believes firmly in such “pure mental constructs”.

Regards
Native

BTW: Its very much the same case as with the mental word salad construct of "a Big Bang" - which luckily and logically now is on it´s way out of the Modern Cosmology.

 

[exchemist]

Readers (if there are any that don't have @Native on Ignore) ), this seems to be more ballocks from a resident ballockophile. The big bang model is about as far from word salad as it is possible to get, seeing as it is clearly and unambiguously expressed and is supported with quantitative measurements. And it is, of course, not on its way out of modern cosmology. Like any model in science, it could be said to be a "mental construct", but the point is it is one that fits observational evidence, which roots it firmly in reality.

Mach's highlighting of the weaknesses of Newtonian absolute frames of reference is a classic, but then Einstein resolved that issue with general relativity - which underpins the big bang model.

 

[Altfish]

Never seen a video of Newton debating before.

 

[exchemist]

Never seen a video of Newton debating before.

I'm always slightly amused - and then rapidly bored - by people on discussion forums who say Einstein got it wrong with relativity. Such people are two a penny on science forums. (A disproportionate number are engineers, usually electrical, but that's another story.)

Almost always it is some crank that can't hack the maths (which is in truth difficult) arbitrarily deciding if he (it is never a she) can't understand it, it must be wrong - and then setting up some gimcrack alternative scheme that falls apart the moment it is seriously examined.

It's a form of arrogance: trying to reduce the world to concepts he, personally, is familiar with, instead of acknowledging that his own area of expertise is not the only, or the most important, one there is.

 

[Altfish]

I'm always slightly amused - and then rapidly bored - by people on discussion forums who say Einstein got it wrong with relativity. Such people are two a penny on science forums. (A disproportionate number are engineers, usually electrical, but that's another story.)

Almost always it is some crank that can't hack the maths (which is in truth difficult) arbitrarily deciding if he (it is never a she) can't understand it, it must be wrong - and then setting up some gimcrack alternative scheme that falls apart the moment it is seriously examined.

It's a form of arrogance: trying to reduce the world to concepts he, personally, is familiar with, instead of acknowledging that his own area of expertise is not the only, or the most important, one there is.

The same people can't grasp the 'on the shoulders of giants' concept

 

[Yerda]

It´s very amazing indeed! If a person deliver sufficient “high flying cosmological word salads”, most scientists and lay persons believes firmly in such “pure mental constructs”.

I enjoyed the video, thanks.

Would you agree with Einstein then that space, time and motion are not "absolute"?

 

[gnostic]

Readers (if there are any that don't have @Native on Ignore) ), this seems to be more ballocks from a resident ballockophile. The big bang model is about as far from word salad as it is possible to get, seeing as it is clearly and unambiguously expressed and is supported with quantitative measurements.

Many of Native’s videos are pseudoscience and were created by hacks, hence more bullockophiles.

 

[gnostic]

Never seen a video of Newton debating before.

I did even know that Newton and Mach were contemporaries!