Everything That is Wrong With Modern Science

[StevenO]

Gaede asserts that physics has the definition of motion wrong so I'm trying to understand your definition of motion.

The website says:

motion: More than one location of an object (synonyms: verb, movement, vector, displacement)

How can an object occupy two locations without invoking time as a parameter?

Why does an object need to carry a parameter around with it in order to move? I thought it just moved.

How does an object occupy more than one location in Gaedean physics then? Entanglement? Teleportation? Multiple universes?

Positionis conceptually the ‘volume’ of space 'occupied' by an object.

How can "position", a 1-dimensional point in a reference system be equivalent to "volume", a 3-dimensional space?

It can't.

So you agree that it is nonsense?

Location is the set of distances that separate one object from one or more others. Location is conceptually a photograph (i.e., static)

According to this definition, if I take a photograph of an object from another object, it's location is defined? As is well known, one cannot determine a distance this way...

Bill said that it is *conceptually* a photograph, i.e. this is a way to understand it. He didn't say location is *literally* a photograph, like one you take with your camera.

So what is a photograph *conceptually* then in Gaedean physics?

Motion consists of two or more locations of one object. Motion is conceptually a movie (i.e., dynamic).

I have to assume that a "movie" is a succession of photographs. What seperates one frame from the other? Must be time, or is it one of your "objects"? If it is time then you have a problem: harmonic motions repeating at rates that are multiples of the frame rate are not visible, as are all motions that are faster than half the frame rate.

Bill said nothing about a frame rate or separating frames. You threw all that in yourself

Every location of every object is in every frame. There are none missing. Humans might miss some of the frames or sometimes fail to account for them, but Nature doesn't.

Every location of every object in every frame is not a meaningfull description if you do not describe what separates locations, objects and frames. What about objects that rotate, so don't change position, only orientation?

From an observer’s perspective, motion requires memory of the object’s previous location. However, an object moves by definition irrespective of observers: if it occupies two or more locations. The
difference between motion and time is that time absolutely requires an observer.

Motion does not need time, but needs memory?

Bill is saying time is motion+observer. A human being remembers the (locations of objects and compares them to current ones, defining a concept "time". Inanimate objects don't engage in this activity.

Any physics property needs an observer, you can't say some are more equal than others. So, you do agree that time is an integral part of motion?

I have to give up. From all the humbug it is clear that Mr. Gaede cannot even correctly represent the basic definitions of physics, like space, time, state or coordinate system.

But he disagrees with them and is trying to build a stronger, more rational, more unbiased science. It is of course difficult to assimilate all at once, or even over a few cups of coffee.

I don't think what Mr. Gaede is doing has anything do with physics. It's ontology.

You have'nt explained how a physical field can be represented in your definition of object since it would blend with space.

You assert: Fields blend with space

Justify this.

Please study a physics textbook first before trying to redefine it.

No way Steven, don't pawn this off on authorities and textbooks. YOU made a specific claim, the ball is in YOUR court, now define field and space so that I know what the claim means.

You are the one claiming fields are not physical, against mainstream knowledge (especially on an EU forum). But for sake of expedience I could quote the knowledge that you are refusing to study for you:

A field in physics is a physical quantity associated with each point in space-time. For example, the gravitational field is a vector field that represents the magnitude and direction of the force exerted on a mass in this field.

[Plasmatic]

I don't think what Mr. Gaede is doing has anything do with physics. It's ontology.

This is one thing I can say I agree with Steven on. Bills definitely addressing philosophical problems. But its not true that ontology " has nothing to do with physics", physics rest upon its foundation.

[StevenO]

I don't think what Mr. Gaede is doing has anything do with physics. It's ontology.

This is one thing I can say I agree with Steven on. Bills definitely addressing philosophical problems. But its not true that ontology " has nothing to do with physics", physics rest upon its foundation.

I can agree with that, although it probably closer to metaphysics than physics. The philosophical "problems", that Bill is adressing are however self-invented ones. A physics object is well defined:

A physical body is an object that exists at a particular time and place and which is extended in the world of physical space, e.g. as studied by physics.

as well as is space and position:

Space is the boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction. Physical space is often conceived in three linear dimensions, although modern physicists usually consider it, with time, to be part of the boundless four-dimensional continuum known as spacetime.

Bill's tries to bend philosophy back to the time of Leibniz. That this relational philosophy cannot hold was shown by Newton:

Leibniz and Newton

In the seventeenth century, the philosophy of space and time emerged as a central issue in epistemology and metaphysics. At its heart, Gottfried Leibniz, the German philosopher-mathematician, and Isaac Newton, the English physicist-mathematician, set out two opposing theories of what space is. Rather than being an entity which independently exists over and above other matter, Leibniz held that space is no more than the collection of spatial relations between objects in the world: "space is that which results from places taken together". Unoccupied regions are those which could have objects in them and thus spatial relations with other places. For Leibniz, then, space was an idealised abstraction from the relations between individual entities or their possible locations and therefore could not be continuous but must be discrete.

Newton took space to be more than relations between material objects and based his position on observation and experimentation. For a relationist there can be no real difference between inertial motion, in which the object travels with constant velocity, and non-inertial motion, in which the velocity changes with time, since all spatial measurements are relative to other objects and their motions. But Newton argued that since non-inertial motion generates forces, it must be absolute. He used the example of water in a spinning bucket to demonstrate his argument. Water in a bucket is hung from a rope and set to spin, starts with a flat surface. After a while, as the bucket continues to spin, the surface of the water becomes concave. If the bucket's spinning is stopped then the surface of the water remains concave as it continues to spin. The concave surface is therefore apparently not the result of relative motion between the bucket and the water. Instead, Newton argued, it must be a result of non-inertial motion relative to space itself. For several centuries the bucket argument was decisive in showing that space must exist independently of matter.

[altonhare]

Gaede asserts that physics has the definition of motion wrong so I'm trying to understand your definition of motion.

The website says:

motion: More than one location of an object (synonyms: verb, movement, vector, displacement)

How can an object occupy two locations without invoking time as a parameter?

By moving. The "parameter" is location, although parameter is a bad word to use because it generally refers to quantitative measurements. Hopefully the moon moves whether we measure it or not.

Why does an object need to carry a parameter around with it in order to move? I thought it just moved.

How does an object occupy more than one location in Gaedean physics then? Entanglement? Teleportation? Multiple universes?

Nature doesn't know anything about "more than one location". The moon looks at herself and says,"I just have location." The moon doesn't "remember" where it was, or guess about where it will be. This is a human activity. Nevertheless we need to define the word "motion" so that it doesn't require a human observer for verification, hopefully the moon moves even when we are not "looking". If an object WAS at more than one location, it moved by definition. Now, the moon moved whether we looked at it or not.

Positionis conceptually the ‘volume’ of space 'occupied' by an object.

How can "position", a 1-dimensional point in a reference system be equivalent to "volume", a 3-dimensional space?

It can't.

So you agree that it is nonsense?

Absolutely! 1D points are quite the joke. But can you believe that some "physicists" actually say that position (and sometimes location) are 1D points? I have trouble believing it myself. Maybe they just don't think carefully before they speak.

Location is the set of distances that separate one object from one or more others. Location is conceptually a photograph (i.e., static)

According to this definition, if I take a photograph of an object from another object, it's location is defined? As is well known, one cannot determine a distance this way...

Bill said that it is *conceptually* a photograph, i.e. this is a way to understand it. He didn't say location is *literally* a photograph, like one you take with your camera.

So what is a photograph *conceptually* then in Gaedean physics?

It is used to express that the concept we are referring to is static, i.e. it doesn't involve motion. Nothing has to move for us to define or understand this concept.

Motion consists of two or more locations of one object. Motion is conceptually a movie (i.e., dynamic).

I have to assume that a "movie" is a succession of photographs. What seperates one frame from the other? Must be time, or is it one of your "objects"? If it is time then you have a problem: harmonic motions repeating at rates that are multiples of the frame rate are not visible, as are all motions that are faster than half the frame rate.

Bill said nothing about a frame rate or separating frames. You threw all that in yourself

Every location of every object is in every frame. There are none missing. Humans might miss some of the frames or sometimes fail to account for them, but Nature doesn't.

Every location of every object in every frame is not a meaningfull description if you do not describe what separates locations, objects and frames. What about objects that rotate, so don't change position, only orientation?

I don't see what your issue here is. First off location is conceptual, so asking "what" (implying what object) separates locations is nonsensical. A wall cannot separate love and hate. As for objects, two objects are separate by definition because they have different shapes. If they were not separate they would have one shape and would be one object. I don't see why anything has to separate the frames, this makes perfect sense to me without invoking something else.

A rotating object's position does change!

From an observer’s perspective, motion requires memory of the object’s previous location. However, an object moves by definition irrespective of observers: if it occupies two or more locations. The
difference between motion and time is that time absolutely requires an observer.

Motion does not need time, but needs memory?

Bill is saying time is motion+observer. A human being remembers the (locations of objects and compares them to current ones, defining a concept "time". Inanimate objects don't engage in this activity.

Any physics property needs an observer, you can't say some are more equal than others. So, you do agree that time is an integral part of motion?

The FIRST thing we do is kill the observer. Hopefully Nature operates the way She operates even when we're not looking. So we need to define words like motion and object so that they don't require a human to come by and verify whether 'it' is moving or 'it' is an object. Objects are objects whether we're observing or not and they move whether we're observing or not.

Time is explicitly an observer-defined concept. Just like information. Objectively, the DNA, sequence of letters, crop circles, etc. are just themselves. They are what they are. Information, messages, etc. are what an external observer understands or "gets out of it".

In science we need to be careful about confusing what something does all by itself, and what we get out of it. Put another way, we need to distinguish clearly and unambiguously between what's happening out there (in Nature) and what we, personally, derive (in our mind) from what's happening "out there". Time is a result of memory, a property of our mind. It is what an external observer *derives* when they see motion.

I have to give up. From all the humbug it is clear that Mr. Gaede cannot even correctly represent the basic definitions of physics, like space, time, state or coordinate system.

But he disagrees with them and is trying to build a stronger, more rational, more unbiased science. It is of course difficult to assimilate all at once, or even over a few cups of coffee.

I don't think what Mr. Gaede is doing has anything do with physics. It's ontology.

You have'nt explained how a physical field can be represented in your definition of object since it would blend with space.

You assert: Fields blend with space

Justify this.

Please study a physics textbook first before trying to redefine it.

No way Steven, don't pawn this off on authorities and textbooks. YOU made a specific claim, the ball is in YOUR court, now define field and space so that I know what the claim means.

You are the one claiming fields are not physical, against mainstream knowledge (especially on an EU forum). But for sake of expedience I could quote the knowledge that you are refusing to study for you:

A field in physics is a physical quantity associated with each point in space-time. For example, the gravitational field is a vector field that represents the magnitude and direction of the force exerted on a mass in this field.

A quantity? A number on a page? I've never seen one of those "blend with space" i.e. "become nothing", disappear, lose shape, etc.

[altonhare]

I don't think what Mr. Gaede is doing has anything do with physics. It's ontology.

This is one thing I can say I agree with Steven on. Bills definitely addressing philosophical problems. But its not true that ontology " has nothing to do with physics", physics rest upon its foundation.

I can agree with that, although it probably closer to metaphysics than physics. The philosophical "problems", that Bill is adressing are however self-invented ones. A physics object is well defined:

A physical body is an object that exists at a particular time and place and which is extended in the world of physical space, e.g. as studied by physics.

as well as is space and position:

Space is the boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction. Physical space is often conceived in three linear dimensions, although modern physicists usually consider it, with time, to be part of the boundless four-dimensional continuum known as spacetime.

That definition is okay inasfar as it mentions "extent", but the rest is awful.

First, body and object are synonyms, so that adds nothing new. Then exists begs the question of the definition of exist. Not all objects exist. Then for some reason the def invokes "time", as if a person had to look at their watch and note what time they noticed something exists in order for it to exist. The def then goes on to mention place (i.e. location), which is a prerequisite for exist, not object. Finally it gets around to "extended" i.e. shape, bounded, etc. but then says "in the world of physical space". Physical is a synonym for object, making "space", as used here, an object. So the definition defines an object as having extent in another object. This is circular.

Now with the def of space the original descriptor of space as "physical" is contradicted, by describing it as "boundless". It then contradicts this in the very next sentence by saying that space has extent. Which is it?

These definitions are far from precise. The first is question-begging (exist means..) and circular, and the second is contradictory.

Bill's tries to bend philosophy back to the time of Leibniz. That this relational philosophy cannot hold was shown by Newton:

Leibniz and Newton

In the seventeenth century, the philosophy of space and time emerged as a central issue in epistemology and metaphysics. At its heart, Gottfried Leibniz, the German philosopher-mathematician, and Isaac Newton, the English physicist-mathematician, set out two opposing theories of what space is. Rather than being an entity which independently exists over and above other matter, Leibniz held that space is no more than the collection of spatial relations between objects in the world: "space is that which results from places taken together". Unoccupied regions are those which could have objects in them and thus spatial relations with other places. For Leibniz, then, space was an idealised abstraction from the relations between individual entities or their possible locations and therefore could not be continuous but must be discrete.

Newton took space to be more than relations between material objects and based his position on observation and experimentation. For a relationist there can be no real difference between inertial motion, in which the object travels with constant velocity, and non-inertial motion, in which the velocity changes with time, since all spatial measurements are relative to other objects and their motions. But Newton argued that since non-inertial motion generates forces, it must be absolute. He used the example of water in a spinning bucket to demonstrate his argument. Water in a bucket is hung from a rope and set to spin, starts with a flat surface. After a while, as the bucket continues to spin, the surface of the water becomes concave. If the bucket's spinning is stopped then the surface of the water remains concave as it continues to spin. The concave surface is therefore apparently not the result of relative motion between the bucket and the water. Instead, Newton argued, it must be a result of non-inertial motion relative to space itself. For several centuries the bucket argument was decisive in showing that space must exist independently of matter.

The quote you gave is very biased. Many people presented convincing arguments againt the "bucket" experiment. Additionally, relationist viewpoints were actually dominant later on as Mach espoused them, and continued to influence many physicists including Einstein. The relationist perspective inspired Einstein in his work and the failure to fully incorporate it into GR was considered, by him, to be a failure.

[StevenO]

The website says:

motion: More than one location of an object (synonyms: verb, movement, vector, displacement)

How can an object occupy two locations without invoking time as a parameter?

By moving. The "parameter" is location, although parameter is a bad word to use because it generally refers to quantitative measurements. Hopefully the moon moves whether we measure it or not.

By moving? How is that for a circular argument ? Moving is "occupying more than one location" and occupying more than one location is done by "moving"?

How does an object occupy more than one location in Gaedean physics then? Entanglement? Teleportation? Multiple universes?

Nature doesn't know anything about "more than one location". The moon looks at herself and says,"I just have location." The moon doesn't "remember" where it was, or guess about where it will be. This is a human activity. Nevertheless we need to define the word "motion" so that it doesn't require a human observer for verification, hopefully the moon moves even when we are not "looking". If an object WAS at more than one location, it moved by definition. Now, the moon moved whether we looked at it or not.

Since two objects from your definition cannot share the same location I think nature does care about "more than one location". This description you give appears to me as Einsteinian relativity that says: "every observer's frame of reference can be viewed as the motionless center of the universe". So, what's new?

Absolutely! 1D points are quite the joke. But can you believe that some "physicists" actually say that position (and sometimes location) are 1D points? I have trouble believing it myself. Maybe they just don't think carefully before they speak.

So, you don't believe in one dimension, but you are fine with three?

So what is a photograph *conceptually* then in Gaedean physics?

It is used to express that the concept we are referring to is static, i.e. it doesn't involve motion. Nothing has to move for us to define or understand this concept.

That's a contradiction. You cannot prove with a "photograph" that an object is not moving.

Every location of every object is in every frame. There are none missing. Humans might miss some of the frames or sometimes fail to account for them, but Nature doesn't.

Every location of every object in every frame is not a meaningfull description if you do not describe what separates locations, objects and frames. What about objects that rotate, so don't change position, only orientation?

I don't see what your issue here is. First off location is conceptual, so asking "what" (implying what object) separates locations is nonsensical. A wall cannot separate love and hate. As for objects, two objects are separate by definition because they have different shapes. If they were not separate they would have one shape and would be one object. I don't see why anything has to separate the frames, this makes perfect sense to me without invoking something else.

Location is not conceptual, as it is defined by your "objects", which have "shape", so they are real and separated by "not shape" (I have to assume, otherwise there would be another object there). By the same logic something will have to separate frames, otherwise they are the same, so what is it?

A rotating object's position does change!

What if it is perfectly spherically symmetrical?

Bill is saying time is motion+observer. A human being remembers the (locations of objects and compares them to current ones, defining a concept "time". Inanimate objects don't engage in this activity.

Any physics property needs an observer, you can't say some are more equal than others. So, you do agree that time is an integral part of motion?

The FIRST thing we do is kill the observer. Hopefully Nature operates the way She operates even when we're not looking. So we need to define words like motion and object so that they don't require a human to come by and verify whether 'it' is moving or 'it' is an object. Objects are objects whether we're observing or not and they move whether we're observing or not.

The observer is what seperates physics from philosophy. No measurable quantities means no physics.

Time is explicitly an observer-defined concept. Just like information. Objectively, the DNA, sequence of letters, crop circles, etc. are just themselves. They are what they are. Information, messages, etc. are what an external observer understands or "gets out of it".

See above. Why would objects be real and move even if we don't look, while time not? If we do not observe we cannot prove anything.

In science we need to be careful about confusing what something does all by itself, and what we get out of it. Put another way, we need to distinguish clearly and unambiguously between what's happening out there (in Nature) and what we, personally, derive (in our mind) from what's happening "out there". Time is a result of memory, a property of our mind. It is what an external observer *derives* when they see motion.

Anything we communicate comes from our mind. Now, how would you prove that time is unreal and objects real or the other way around? Do you have an experiment that can decide between that?

You are the one claiming fields are not physical, against mainstream knowledge (especially on an EU forum). But for sake of expedience I could quote the knowledge that you are refusing to study for you:

A field in physics is a physical quantity associated with each point in space-time. For example, the gravitational field is a vector field that represents the magnitude and direction of the force exerted on a mass in this field.

A quantity? A number on a page? I've never seen one of those "blend with space" i.e. "become nothing", disappear, lose shape, etc.

Yeah, but luckily for us it keeps our feet on the floor, or stretches a spring if you put a weight on it. You can deny physical measurements any way you want, that does not make them less real. But hey, "truth is no match for belief

[altonhare]

The website says:

motion: More than one location of an object (synonyms: verb, movement, vector, displacement)

How can an object occupy two locations without invoking time as a parameter?

By moving. The "parameter" is location, although parameter is a bad word to use because it generally refers to quantitative measurements. Hopefully the moon moves whether we measure it or not.

By moving? How is that for a circular argument ? Moving is "occupying more than one location" and occupying more than one location is done by "moving"?

The definition is not circular. The *definition* of motion is more than one location of an object. This is a noncircular definition.

It would be circular if motion was defined in terms of location, and location defined in terms of motion. Then we would have a circular definition.

The mechanism is "circular" only insofar as "how" was an incorrect question in the first place. Instead of recognizing this immediately I just gave you the definition of motion back.

Asking how involves a theory or a description. For now we are merely defining motion in a non circular way so that we can then develop theories involving this concept. Certainly we cannot describe or explain "how", i.e. propose mechanisms and theories, until we have defined what we're talking about.

You might ask "Did this object move?" We define motion, and the object either moved (or didn't) pursuant to the definition of motion. Was my hand at more than one location? If yes, it moved by definition.

Now, you might ask "HOW does my hand move?" One might then go into a long speech about muscles and neurons. This is a theory. This question *presupposes* that your hand did, indeed, move. If one has not even defined motion then this presumption is unfounded. One cannot even rightly say that the hand moved, much less explain how it moved with a theory! If the hand didn't move then his/her theory is all a bunch of hot air.

So your "how" question is premature. We are not there yet. We have to agree on what we mean by "motion" before we start asking questions like "how do the planets move in ellipses around the sun... etc." Certainly if "move" means something different for both of us, we cannot discuss such questions productively.

How does an object occupy more than one location in Gaedean physics then? Entanglement? Teleportation? Multiple universes?

Nature doesn't know anything about "more than one location". The moon looks at herself and says,"I just have location." The moon doesn't "remember" where it was, or guess about where it will be. This is a human activity. Nevertheless we need to define the word "motion" so that it doesn't require a human observer for verification, hopefully the moon moves even when we are not "looking". If an object WAS at more than one location, it moved by definition. Now, the moon moved whether we looked at it or not.

Since two objects from your definition cannot share the same location I think nature does care about "more than one location". This description you give appears to me as Einsteinian relativity that says: "every observer's frame of reference can be viewed as the motionless center of the universe". So, what's new?

When did I say that two objects cannot share the same location?

Absolutely! 1D points are quite the joke. But can you believe that some "physicists" actually say that position (and sometimes location) are 1D points? I have trouble believing it myself. Maybe they just don't think carefully before they speak.

So, you don't believe in one dimension, but you are fine with three?

It makes no sense to "believe" in concepts, including "dimension". You simply define your concept, in this case you simply define the word "dimension". It has nothing to do with belief. What do you mean when you say this word? As long as you define it, I can follow your argument and theory. Whether I believe your theory or not is up to me.

So if the beginning of your "theory" involves 'a' 1D 'object' then you simply have to show it to me, or show me a model of it. If you can't do that I can't follow your theory. There is nothing for me to visualize, no actors in the play, no play, and no theory. You can write all the equations on the board you want and tell me about all your great experiments, as far as I can tell you got equations to match the data. This is not an explanation, it's a description.

So what is a photograph *conceptually* then in Gaedean physics?

It is used to express that the concept we are referring to is static, i.e. it doesn't involve motion. Nothing has to move for us to define or understand this concept.

That's a contradiction. You cannot prove with a "photograph" that an object is not moving.

Who said anything about proof!? Here we are talking about definitions! A static concept is one that we can visualize without motion. Bill likes to use the analogy of a photograph. Static concepts are conceptually photographs.

We haven't gotten to evidence such as polaroids yet. We're still getting the terminology straight so that we don't talk past each other and in circles for hours and get nowhere. Also so we don't end up in fantasyland with the theists.

Every location of every object is in every frame. There are none missing. Humans might miss some of the frames or sometimes fail to account for them, but Nature doesn't.

Every location of every object in every frame is not a meaningfull description if you do not describe what separates locations, objects and frames. What about objects that rotate, so don't change position, only orientation?

I don't see what your issue here is. First off location is conceptual, so asking "what" (implying what object) separates locations is nonsensical. A wall cannot separate love and hate. As for objects, two objects are separate by definition because they have different shapes. If they were not separate they would have one shape and would be one object. I don't see why anything has to separate the frames, this makes perfect sense to me without invoking something else.

Location is not conceptual, as it is defined by your "objects", which have "shape", so they are real and separated by "not shape" (I have to assume, otherwise there would be another object there). By the same logic something will have to separate frames, otherwise they are the same, so what is it?

First you say that objects are separated by nothing, by which you mean there is not an object between two other objects. This isn't quite right, as I said that objects are separate by definition (because they each have a shape). But then you insist that SOMETHING (some object) must separate frames. And you say it is "by the same logic". No, by your "same logic" we would say that nothing (no object) separates the frames.

Location is most definitely conceptual! Location lacks shape, all objects have shape, and whatever's not an object is a concept.

A rotating object's position does change!

What if it is perfectly spherically symmetrical?

Bill is saying time is motion+observer. A human being remembers the (locations of objects and compares them to current ones, defining a concept "time". Inanimate objects don't engage in this activity.

Any physics property needs an observer, you can't say some are more equal than others. So, you do agree that time is an integral part of motion?

The FIRST thing we do is kill the observer. Hopefully Nature operates the way She operates even when we're not looking. So we need to define words like motion and object so that they don't require a human to come by and verify whether 'it' is moving or 'it' is an object. Objects are objects whether we're observing or not and they move whether we're observing or not.

The observer is what seperates physics from philosophy. No measurable quantities means no physics.

I didn't say there was no observer ever. I said the FIRST thing we do is kill the observer. We can bring him (or her) back later if we need to. The point of this is to distinguish clearly and unambiguously between what is "out there" (observer independent) and what is "in here (mind)" (observer dependent). By itself, a clock just moves, it just goes "tick tock". "Time" is what an external observer derives from observing the clock. In physics the first thing we do is to distinguish between what the universe does "when nobody's looking" and what we personally derive from observing the U.

Time is explicitly an observer-defined concept. Just like information. Objectively, the DNA, sequence of letters, crop circles, etc. are just themselves. They are what they are. Information, messages, etc. are what an external observer understands or "gets out of it".

See above. Why would objects be real and move even if we don't look, while time not? If we do not observe we cannot prove anything.

In science we need to be careful about confusing what something does all by itself, and what we get out of it. Put another way, we need to distinguish clearly and unambiguously between what's happening out there (in Nature) and what we, personally, derive (in our mind) from what's happening "out there". Time is a result of memory, a property of our mind. It is what an external observer *derives* when they see motion.

Anything we communicate comes from our mind. Now, how would you prove that time is unreal and objects real or the other way around? Do you have an experiment that can decide between that?

First of all, it is a common fallacy to talk about proving existence. We don't prove "real vs. unreal". Second of all, it makes no sense to prove concepts with an experiment. You DEFINE your concepts from the get-go.

Motion: 2 or more locations of an object
Time: COMPARISON of 2 or more locations of one object with 2 or more locations of one (or more) object(s)

Motion does not require our presence. However time does. Time demands that a person make a conscious comparison between the motion of the clock hand and the motion of something else (distance-traveled to work so far?). We must make clear that Nature, by itself, does not sit around "keeping time". In Nature objects just move. A theist may believe there is some all-powerful "God" that compares motions between all objects in order to "keep time", but not the scientist. The scientist recognizes "time" as an observer-related phenomenon and motion as observer-independent.

You are the one claiming fields are not physical, against mainstream knowledge (especially on an EU forum). But for sake of expedience I could quote the knowledge that you are refusing to study for you:

A field in physics is a physical quantity associated with each point in space-time. For example, the gravitational field is a vector field that represents the magnitude and direction of the force exerted on a mass in this field.

A quantity? A number on a page? I've never seen one of those "blend with space" i.e. "become nothing", disappear, lose shape, etc.

Yeah, but luckily for us it keeps our feet on the floor, or stretches a spring if you put a weight on it. You can deny physical measurements any way you want, that does not make them less real. But hey, "truth is no match for belief

Numbers on pages keep our feet on the ground? Steven you're too funny! I'm writing this one down to keep as a joke for later.

Bill: Ropes that mediate light also keep our feet on the ground.
Steven: Numbers we write on paper keeps our feet on the ground.

Your proposal is so much more reasonable.

[Grey Cloud]

I love this thread, to me it epitomises everything that is wrong with modern science. Here we have two intelligent but over-educated humans (Steven and Alton) drowning themselves in word-soup.

[webolife]

Yeah, I'm glad Steven took over so I could come up for some air.
What got me a couple of posts back was the comment that "Not all objects exist."
This implies that there are objects that do not exist, a clearly oxymoronic statement.
Not unlike much of the blackholish stuff of "modern science."

[junglelord]

I don't even read them.


I gave up on the word soup for lunch a long time ago.
I now only eat meat.


If its not top secret, its not news.

[altonhare]

Yeah, I'm glad Steven took over so I could come up for some air.
What got me a couple of posts back was the comment that "Not all objects exist."
This implies that there are objects that do not exist, a clearly oxymoronic statement.
Not unlike much of the blackholish stuff of "modern science."

Implies? No it's a direct statement:

Not all objects exist (have presence).

The leprechaun I am imagining has shape, I can visualize it, but it does not have presence in this universe. It cannot influence anything.

[webolife]

But you would also assert that everything that exists must be an object?

[Plasmatic]

By moving? How is that for a circular argument ? Moving is "occupying more than one location" and occupying more than one location is done by "moving"?

Steven, you just asserted by implication: "A = the first letter of the English alphabet, the first letter of the English alphabet is A" is a "circular"definition. This is incorrect. The visual auditory symbol "A", represents the concept "The first letter of the English alphabet". They are synonymous. Words are their referents ,just as concepts are there referents. Their is no content otherwise.[this still requires context though!]

Web Alton and I have an ongoing discussion/debate on this topic of yours.

For all you "word" haters let me see if I can motivate you...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha_aYgHQ ... re=channel

HeHe.....

[Sovereign]

But you would also assert that everything that exists must be an object?

Haven't you guys got the hang of Altons definitions yet?

Exist = object + location

So everything that exists is an object according to him.

I think Alton should make a glossary post or something

[StevenO]

Haven't you guys got the hang of Altons definitions yet?

Exist = object + location

So everything that exists is an object according to him.

I think Alton should make a glossary post or something

He just stated:

Not all objects exist (have presence).

That puts his definition of object outside objective science, so anything he states about his "objects" is true.

"Devils don't exist, so all devils have red horns" is a perfectly true expression.

It is called "paradoxes of material implication".