The Inductive Physics Project 

Thank you so much @poet.in.flight, there will be a lot more in store for you :).

Her lectures will teach you a lot about the deeper nature of mathematics. I recommend them.

Do you know any book that can help explain mathematics from an inductive viewpoint just like Harriman’s Inductive physics?

@@hansfrancsco71 This is actually pretty much the exact question which led me to my particular view on induction! The answer is a resounding no. It would be great to have a work which showed us what the mathematicians were thinking at each stage of the historical development, and how their prior thinking led them to new problems and solutions to them, but it does not exist. The work of Morris Kline and Issac Asimov on the history of math is a step in the right direction, but nowhere near what you are looking for.

I don't think that a theory making correct predictions is sufficient to prove the truth of a theory. Think of the theory of epicycles. I think a different approach to these phenomena, perhaps more akin to the Lorentz Ether Theory, will be more successful at producing a proven theory, and producing one which gives us a causal understanding of the phenomena.

You mean his understanding of GR and QM or his reasoning against them?

@@Zack_Raheem both

I used to be a community college professor, but that job did not give me the chance to learn higher level physics, so now I tutor physical chemistry, 3D calc, thermo and linear algebra.

I will answer this question some time in a Q&A video.

My second question is if electromagnetic fields are the undulations or vibrations of this aether substance does that mean to say that electric fields and magnetic fields are the deformation of this aether substance?

The latter makes the aether an all continuous medium

The latter makes the aether an all continuous medium instead of discrete particles.

Some cars have a control that causes a constant speed.

Because a photon is a self-propagating quantum oscillation between the magnetic field and the electric field and the permittivity and permeability of free space interact at a constant speed of c, and light is one example of those fields acting as such with nothing but the little stuff that exists where nothing isn't as a medium

If you end up agreeing with my theory of induction then I invite you to use it to prove the modern theories of GR and QM and show me your argument.

Hi guys, please put it for me in lay person's terms if possible. How could the physical interpretation of things such as "space-time curvature" and wave-particle duality or uncertainty principle be literally, metaphysically correct? The former reifies space and time, the latter two directly seem to contradict the law of identity. I understand if they're thought of as models that help us make strong predictions, just don't see how it can be literally true.

@@YashArya01 There is no wave-particle duality, everything is waves, particles are just what we see as humans. It's like color doesn't exist, humans see different ranges of waves as different colors, but its all the same "light" with different waviness. The uncertainty principle is that physical properties that you cannot have nothingness, you have to have somethingness and if you turn one property of the object down to nothing the other parts turn all the way up, this is tied to the fact that quantum things can act non-locally. If you think about consciousness as a quantum system you can make sense of this by noting that you can move your consciousness from sensations on your head to sensations in your feet without traveling downward mentally, you just pop your consciousness where you need it, non-locally.

@@YashArya01 Anyone that tells you these things are wrong and violate reality didn't understand a lick of physics or didn't take any classes at all.

@@YashArya01 There is no way. The layman can see that the law of identity is true and that things can't be a particle and a wave at the same time. Now, it is worth nothing that very few modern physicists actually think it is a particle and a wave at the same time, they admit that they don't know what it is really, but they have also automatized a scientific method which does not enable them to find out what these entities are really, only to confirm that a theory is consistent with experiments. As for space and time, they aren't entities, they aren't a thing that can bend, they are only relationships between entities. So General relativity can't be literally true either. I know Existence University disagrees with me here, so perhaps this would be a good opportunity for him to explain why he thinks that view is literally true.

What kind of entity do you think it is? Second, if it’s an entity separate from the relationships of space and time, shouldn’t it be called something else? Third: don’t modern physicists treat it as though it were both a relationship and an entity, so they don’t understand the distinction between “spacetime” as an entity and space and time as relationships?

@@Inductica I'll answer your first question with another question. What allows for light to travel through space? Or the same question worded differently. Why are the sun and earth not touching? What is between them? For your second question, no, it is spacetime, you move in spacetime not simply space and time. For the third, I would simply say you misunderstand what spacetime is and how causality requires it as it is described.

@@Inductica By your definition of entity: an existent having particular properties, spacetime is an entity, as it is an existent, it exists, and has properties which are causality itself. The speed of light is the speed of the spacetime interacting with itself at the maximum speed of causality. Motion of mass through it cannot go the speed of c because of other particular properties it has as the kind of existent it is.

@@Inductica Well I was expecting more to this conversation lol, I'll move onto my next point then: What do you mean science is stagnating? Since the discovery of special relativity and general relativity, we have boomed, we invented indoor lighting, computers, smart phones, GPS, rockets to space, Mars Landers, voyager space craft. From -350 to +1905 we invented the arclamp light. 1905 to 2024 we have quantum computers solving problems so hard our last computer would have taken 70 years to solve. What stagnation?

@@ExistenceUniversity I'm finishing up the first draft of my theory of induction so I'm very busy right now. To answer the first question you asked me: I would say the ether lies between the earth and sun, and the ether is what waves when light travels. It is wrong to call this stuff spacetime (if that's what you're getting at) it should be called the ether because space and time are relationships and not an entity like the ether. You said that spacetime is an entity which is a property which is causality itself. I don't know what this means, but taking a guess you are saying that all entities are a part of spacetime and that spacetime is the medium through which all entities interact and therefore spacetime is what makes all causality possible. If this is the case, then what you are calling spacetime should still be called an ether, space and time would then be an aspect of this ether which governs the relationships between entities which are a part of this ether. Calling the entity spacetime is confusing since space and time are relationships, relationships which still exist and need to be separately identified from the ether once (and if) what you are saying was ever confirmed. You'll notice that I've never said that there is general stagnation in physics. What I will say is that all the examples you have given above, and all those I'm aware of, are examples of applications of existing principles, not the discovery of fundamentally new principles. I believe that existing theories are halting the progress of new discoveries. This has not halted the application of existing discoveries to new cases.