Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:40 pm
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:34 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:34 pm...while I am always bashing physics for contradictions it is right about alot. They contradictions I point out are only because of its current religious stance.

The religious beliefs of physicists are entirely their own business, but they make no difference to how the universe behaves. Ultimately, physics is the study of what the universe and its constituents, broadly speaking matter and forces, are observed to

*do*. If there is any disagreement about that, physicists can do the experiments and measurements themselves. The disagreements and contradictions start when people argue about what the universe, matter and forces

*are* and

*why* they do what they do. Any theory that isn't ruled out by the evidence could be true, and as any physicist worth their salt knows, there are a lot of different theories. For example:

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:34 pmInformation may in fact be encoded in the event horizon of black holes.

The point being that if that were so, what difference would it make to what physicists observe? If none, then it is simply a philosophical position that some physicists will find interesting, others will think ridiculous and not a few think a waste of time.

It is simple, they are right because the definitions they provide are contexts and contexts are always right and wrong.

Right "and" wrong.

Do you see where I am going?

I think it would help if you broke down physics into its main constituents.

1. Observation/measurement.

Some behaviour stirs the interest. One or more physicist examines it. In this context, physicists don't really define anything; they just explain the behaviour fairly literally - what happens and how much.

2. Mathematical modelling.

Having done a load of measurements, they look for patterns to see if there is some general rule. If they find one, they may be able to define it in mathematical terms which are already broadly accepted; force, energy, charge, mass, spin and so on.

Or:

3. Physical/philosophical modelling.

Having decided that there is no current context in which the mathematical model can be explained, they may introduce a new concept to account for some variable or constant that pops up in the mathematical model. Quite often though, they will skip this part, because it makes no difference to the accuracy of the mathematical model.

I suspect it is the 3rd part you take issue with. It is very confusing because if you take every model literally, it does lead to contradictions. Notoriously Einstein's model of empty space is contradicted by his model of a homogeneous spacetime, which in turn is contradicted by the particulate model of quantum mechanics. This gets armchair philosophers hopelessly befuddled and shooting off batshit theories they believe can reconcile the contradictions, or railing at 'physics' for being so contrary. While they do that, physicists get on with using relativity and quantum mechanics, because they work.