allegorical explanation to physically describe the nature of relativity
Nicely put. Since we are compartmentalized (not infinitely seeing) we make up shit beyond our veil to affirm our "understanding" of reality. One of the tell tale signs is mixing notions of "curve" and "straight", or even worse fusing concepts that are exclusive such as "space" and "time".
but we’ve measured what appear to be its effects in several ways, so it can’t really be denied.
The italicised word "appear" is important. It can't be denied, but can it be really "confirmed"? The act of forcing a conclusion is a mental deconstruction, and is really a pre-cursor to getting someone to believe in even more stupid shit.
I’m totally open to “relativity” being a farce and a new framework being put in place to describe observations over distance at speeds above 0.14c. I was careful in my wording to describe only what we’ve seen experimentally, not to subscribe to a specific interpretation like ‘relativity.’
Hell, we still don’t have a grand unified theory. If we can’t account for gravity in our calculations, why should we assume the calculations are universally correct?
I was careful in my wording to describe only what we’ve seen experimentally,
I did notice that, and appreciated. Being careful to say "no more than we should" is the only way to untangle the damage done by sorcerers. I can see you walk the line ... it's hard to stay on it for sure.
If we can’t account for gravity in our calculations, why should we assume the calculations are universally correct?
This nails the reason why "good" scientist refer to it as a "theory" and "bad" scientists refer to it as "true". It's a tough walk, because nowhere in the journy really feels satisfying.
Nicely put. Since we are compartmentalized (not infinitely seeing) we make up shit beyond our veil to affirm our "understanding" of reality. One of the tell tale signs is mixing notions of "curve" and "straight", or even worse fusing concepts that are exclusive such as "space" and "time".
i see no problem with making up shit since that's the best we can do - we approximate and re-iterate. as of now GR and SR are the "best" approximations we have in the mainstream (I don't trust GR and SR personally).
The problem is big academia and institution-level idiots not willing to let go and embrace new ideas once we've gone beyond and re-iterated past GR and SR. So now we've been stuck and running circles trying to plug all the holes in these theories for the better part of 100 years almost.
I see no problem with making up shit since that's the best we can do
The idea of modeling requires us to make an assumption, and then test it to determine fitment. Or, more commonly, Assume the antithesis of the model, and reject it (think null hypothesis). In a sense you can say it's like making up shit. It becomes an issue when shit is made up and there's no threshold of acceptance, i.e "stupid" shit.
The problem is big academia and institution-level idiots not willing to let go and embrace new ideas
The people in academia will accept and prostletize ANYTHING they are paid to. If it pays well, they'll embrace new ideas and contribute to them. The problem then is "who prints the money?"
So now we've been stuck and running circles trying to plug all the holes in these theories for the better part of 100 years almost.
Or even longer. While it is presented as the birth of modern science, I suspecting it goes back to "scientific revolution" itself. For me, it become maddening and I had to really consider "how do we know what we know?" ... not just a pondering on a Sunday walk, but for every single subject.
Now, I see that ALMOST everything is proven "fake" and most probaly "gay".
Nicely put. Since we are compartmentalized (not infinitely seeing) we make up shit beyond our veil to affirm our "understanding" of reality. One of the tell tale signs is mixing notions of "curve" and "straight", or even worse fusing concepts that are exclusive such as "space" and "time".
The italicised word "appear" is important. It can't be denied, but can it be really "confirmed"? The act of forcing a conclusion is a mental deconstruction, and is really a pre-cursor to getting someone to believe in even more stupid shit.
I’m totally open to “relativity” being a farce and a new framework being put in place to describe observations over distance at speeds above 0.14c. I was careful in my wording to describe only what we’ve seen experimentally, not to subscribe to a specific interpretation like ‘relativity.’
Hell, we still don’t have a grand unified theory. If we can’t account for gravity in our calculations, why should we assume the calculations are universally correct?
I did notice that, and appreciated. Being careful to say "no more than we should" is the only way to untangle the damage done by sorcerers. I can see you walk the line ... it's hard to stay on it for sure.
This nails the reason why "good" scientist refer to it as a "theory" and "bad" scientists refer to it as "true". It's a tough walk, because nowhere in the journy really feels satisfying.
i see no problem with making up shit since that's the best we can do - we approximate and re-iterate. as of now GR and SR are the "best" approximations we have in the mainstream (I don't trust GR and SR personally).
The problem is big academia and institution-level idiots not willing to let go and embrace new ideas once we've gone beyond and re-iterated past GR and SR. So now we've been stuck and running circles trying to plug all the holes in these theories for the better part of 100 years almost.
The idea of modeling requires us to make an assumption, and then test it to determine fitment. Or, more commonly, Assume the antithesis of the model, and reject it (think null hypothesis). In a sense you can say it's like making up shit. It becomes an issue when shit is made up and there's no threshold of acceptance, i.e "stupid" shit.
The people in academia will accept and prostletize ANYTHING they are paid to. If it pays well, they'll embrace new ideas and contribute to them. The problem then is "who prints the money?"
Or even longer. While it is presented as the birth of modern science, I suspecting it goes back to "scientific revolution" itself. For me, it become maddening and I had to really consider "how do we know what we know?" ... not just a pondering on a Sunday walk, but for every single subject.
Now, I see that ALMOST everything is proven "fake" and most probaly "gay".