What Do We Know For Certain?

[webolife]

Nice, gamma ray. Follow the Google document link on the "WeboCentric" thread, if you are interested in some similar discussion I am having there with Lloyd. You have made several points in common with my view, and I take several of your comments further, and some in a different direction. I would be interested in your feedback. For now I am uncertain how a Google document works exactly, so feel free to respond on the WeboCentric thread if you so desire.
That way we can avoid sidetracking Michael's thread here.
Interesting alternative list --
1. The "somehow structured" phrase I answer with "Centropic Pressure".
3. I might question whether in fact, since all we have are "effects" if that is ALL we CAN KNOW about the causes, a slightly different statement from yours.
5. All is interconnected -- a premise in my view as well -- not sure how much we can state it as a certainty.
7. Not convinced about the Lichtenberg patterns, although I understand the fractalism you are implying.

[mjv1121]

gamma ray,

Since you have hitched your wagon to the clown wave theory, do you have any explanation of how these waves operate. LaFreniere openly admits that despite the detailed and extensive wave theory there is absolutely no physical or mechanical basis within the aether field that is being utilised - that is to say there is no explanation or even the faintest hint of an idea, of as to how the aether waves. In my opinion such archaic ideas belong firmly with the flat earth society and the unicorn tamers association. I would much rather put my premised faith in mechanical motion as primarily defined by Newton's first Law.

Your frequent mention of "energy" also implies I certain lack of understanding. Energy does not exist, it is merely a mathematical abstraction from momentum and force, and force is simply the process of transfer of momentum.

1) agreed - the universe is basically a Newton's cradle - but this is more theory than certainty
2) supposition based on your own point of view - theory
3) agreed - the fundamental "causes" of the universe are not observable
4) obviously - the universe must be infinite
5) a repeat of 1
6) back to observation of the unobservable - or try to ascertain the unobservable by inference from the observable - into theory here rather than certainty
7) utter theory
8) bleeding obvious, since the medium of consciousness is the brain - no you do not have a soul, so don't go there.

I must confess to being uncomfortable with the neo-hippy obsession with fractals - pretty patterns generated by computer programs, so what? That said, if you understand chaos theory please explain it to me. It always struck me as a non-theory.

I have to agree with you regarding the state of modern science - it makes me sad and furious in equal measure. But don't put too much faith in present electromagnetic theory, it is as corrupt and wrong as the black holes and dark matter that it seeks to replace.

Michael

[reblak]

What we know for certain is that matter exists and has always existed. All matter, at any time in any place, whatever form it may take, including light, though convertible is indestructable and additional matter can be neither generated nor created. There is no known state of matter which is without an atomic structure. A true state of stasis or immobility is equally utterly impossible, matter is in constant flux, so collision and catastrophy, are inevitable. They are integral, basic universal factors. Momentary 'effects' or 'resonances' must also be reflections of atomic control. Unfortunately our experimental science cannot as yet, reveal the atomic 'DNA', the how and the why. We live in hope. This being so it is not suprising that, for example, Quantum Theory must be, to at least some extent wrong, its mathematics requiring - no matter how briefly - the creation and destruction of matter. If the theory is right, undetected matter must be already present. You cannot produce something from nothing.

[mjv1121]

reblak,

I am in general agreement with your post.

Two points for argument:
1)

There is no known state of matter which is without an atomic structure.

How about photons, EM fields and gravity.

2)

Quantum Theory must be, to at least some extent wrong,

Quantum Theory as in QED/QCD is complete and utter bollocks, shite to the Nth degree, there is almost nothing to recommend it to a scientific mind.

Michael

[tayga]

What we know for certain is that matter exists and has always existed.

I think that's a bad start. How the heck do we know that matter has always existed??? That's a huge assumption.

[mjv1121]

tayga,

I am as queasy as you about the wording, but if you re-word it to say that "Matter cannot be created or destroyed", I would say that it becomes acceptable.

Michael

[webolife]

I'm agreed here. Whether we believe we live in a "steady state" or "expanding" universe says nothing about how the universe may or may not have originated, only presumptions about its current status, stasis, or equilibrium as the case may be.

[gamma ray]

Webolife,

Thanks. I have been reading the "WeboCentric" thread with interest but still trying to understand the concepts. Takes me a while to understand new concepts but at least initially I find the centropic pressure and especially your simple interference experiments very intriguing. Will reply on that thread if I get more confident to discuss.

For now though I am focusing my thoughts on what is matter and motion, and completely avoiding gravity and light. I really do not understand them except to think of light as energy transfer - nothing more. There is so much speculation and disagreement anyhow, not to mention heaps of voodoo math, that I try not to even think about them anymore and I get no sense of certainty as to our understandings of what they are or even how they behave. I care more about observing what matters as a way to shed some light, all puns and double meanings are intended

My "somehow structured" was mainly to acknowledge that there is a general shape to how things move, and for that matter shape in appears of things in general. When discussing what "we" know for certain I thought it would be more likely to be successful if we begin with a simple agreed-upon observation. And do be honest I did not want to rock the boat too much while just myself getting on-board.

For the #3 effects, I would maintain that effects are all we can know. Speculations of internal workings are great for proposing hypothesis about observations and then setting about proving or disproving them. But what I see so much in science is this blurring between what we think we may know and what we actually know, with assumptions piled so deep you cannot tell fact from fiction. I prefer to say that all we "know" are effects, and all else is uncertain and must be demonstrated or observed in some way.

[mjv1121]

gamma ray,

all we "know" are effects

I think this statement is incorrect - and I am setting myself up as a target here (but I don't mind because I am correct) - the only things we can know for certain do not involve observation or experiment, and in fact, as a matter of "certainty", we cannot trust observation and experiment, because that must by definition involve interpretation. To be certain, it must be self-evident and cognitively demonstrable with no observation involved. Of course, cognitively chasing logic round your synapses is also at risk from illogic - thought experiments are just as open to (mis)interpretation and real experiments. Simple is the best we can do.

I really do not understand them except to think of light as energy transfer - nothing more.

This statement is not necessarily wrong as such, just inaccurate. What do you think you mean by the term "energy transfer"? or more specifically the word "energy"?


Bearing in mind all the bleeding obvious caveats regarding the nature and uncertainty of existence, the nature and uncertainty of observation, the nature and uncertainty of consciousness and thought, only then, if I choose to regard the following premises to be true and accurate: I exist and I can be certain that I do actually exist; The universe exists; Motion is real. Then, and only then, I am able to say that the following are self-evident:

1) Space and time are infinite.
2) All effects must have a cause.
3) Anything that can affect the physical universe, and thus is capable of motion, must be considered to be physical (this is really just a statement of definition so as to include light and fields and aethers in a broader definition of physicality, although it may conflict with some people's semantic ).
4) Fundamentally all existence is particulate.
5) A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force.
6) All actions have an equal and opposite reaction.
7) Momentum cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred.
8) Momentum can only be transferred by contact, that is, by collision (i.e. contact = collision).
9) Force can only be generated by collision. This might also be stated as force is the act of collision.
10) Force is a transfer of momentum. Thus force can only be generated by mass and a change of velocity (F=ma).
11) Action at a distance is impossible. This is in an absolute sense as opposed to a mediated sense.
12) All forces are a push. Mechanical attraction is not possible.
13) Energy is a mathematical abstraction from momentum and the transfer of momentum (i.e. force).


Michael

[Goldminer]

gamma ray,

Since you have hitched your wagon to the clown wave theory, do you have any explanation of how these waves operate. LaFreniere openly admits that despite the detailed and extensive wave theory there is absolutely no physical or mechanical basis within the aether field that is being utilised - that is to say there is no explanation or even the faintest hint of an idea, of as to how the aether waves. In my opinion such archaic ideas belong firmly with the flat earth society and the unicorn tamers association. I would much rather put my premised faith in mechanical motion as primarily defined by Newton's first Law.

Your frequent mention of "energy" also implies I certain lack of understanding. Energy does not exist, it is merely a mathematical abstraction from momentum and force, and force is simply the process of transfer of momentum.

1) agreed - the universe is basically a Newton's cradle - but this is more theory than certainty
2) supposition based on your own point of view - theory
3) agreed - the fundamental "causes" of the universe are not observable
4) obviously - the universe must be infinite
5) a repeat of 1
6) back to observation of the unobservable - or try to ascertain the unobservable by inference from the observable - into theory here rather than certainty
7) utter theory
8) bleeding obvious, since the medium of consciousness is the brain - no you do not have a soul, so don't go there.

I must confess to being uncomfortable with the neo-hippy obsession with fractals - pretty patterns generated by computer programs, so what? That said, if you understand chaos theory please explain it to me. It always struck me as a non-theory.

I have to agree with you regarding the state of modern science - it makes me sad and furious in equal measure. But don't put too much faith in present electromagnetic theory, it is as corrupt and wrong as the black holes and dark matter that it seeks to replace.

Michael

Michael, while both of us have admitted to being AH's, I suggest you tone down your borderline ad hominem. We all already know what you think by simply reading this thread. For example your latest post:

gamma ray,

all we "know" are effects

I think this statement is incorrect - and I am setting myself up as a target here (but I don't mind because I am correct) - the only things we can know for certain do not involve observation or experiment, and in fact, as a matter of "certainty", we cannot trust observation and experiment, because that must by definition involve interpretation. To be certain, it must be self-evident and cognitively demonstrable with no observation involved. Of course, cognitively chasing logic round your synapses is also at risk from illogic - thought experiments are just as open to (mis)interpretation and real experiments. Simple is the best we can do.

I really do not understand them except to think of light as energy transfer - nothing more.

This statement is not necessarily wrong as such, just inaccurate. What do you think you mean by the term "energy transfer"? or more specifically the word "energy"?
Bearing in mind all the bleeding obvious caveats regarding the nature and uncertainty of existence, the nature and uncertainty of observation, the nature and uncertainty of consciousness and thought, only then, if I choose to regard the following premises to be true and accurate: I exist and I can be certain that I do actually exist; The universe exists; Motion is real. Then, and only then, I am able to say that the following are self-evident:

1) Space and time are infinite.
2) All effects must have a cause.
3) Anything that can affect the physical universe, and thus is capable of motion, must be considered to be physical (this is really just a statement of definition so as to include light and fields and aethers in a broader definition of physicality, although it may conflict with some people's semantic ).
4) Fundamentally all existence is particulate.
5) A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force.
6) All actions have an equal and opposite reaction.
7) Momentum cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred.
8) Momentum can only be transferred by contact, that is, by collision (i.e. contact = collision).
9) Force can only be generated by collision. This might also be stated as force is the act of collision.
10) Force is a transfer of momentum. Thus force can only be generated by mass and a change of velocity (F=ma).
11) Action at a distance is impossible. This is in an absolute sense as opposed to a mediated sense.
12) All forces are a push. Mechanical attraction is not possible.
13) Energy is a mathematical abstraction from momentum and the transfer of momentum (i.e. force).
Michael

Bolding text that you have already posted is getting unbearable. What is next?

[mjv1121]

Goldminer,

Not a bad idea, thanks for the suggestion. Also, it looks quite seasonally festive, which is nice.

As for "ad hominem"...not sure where you getting that from - you must have miscontorted your apprehension.

Michael

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,
Not a bad idea, thanks for the suggestion. Also, it looks quite seasonally festive, which is nice.
As for "ad hominem"...not sure where you getting that from - you must have miscontorted (sic: your effort at new words leaves some wanting) your apprehension.
Michael

I'll have to rub your nose in it! Your treatment of "gamma ray" is despicable, and deserves apology:

gamma ray,

Since you have hitched your wagon to the clown wave theory, do you have any explanation of how these waves operate. LaFreniere openly admits that despite the detailed and extensive wave theory there is absolutely no physical or mechanical basis within the aether field that is being utilised - that is to say there is no explanation or even the faintest hint of an idea, of as to how the aether waves. In my opinion such archaic ideas belong firmly with the flat earth society and the unicorn tamers association. I would much rather put my premised faith in mechanical motion as primarily defined by Newton's first Law.

Your frequent mention of "energy" also implies Icertain lack of understanding. Energy does not exist, it is merely a mathematical abstraction from momentum and force, and force is simply the process of transfer of momentum.

If this is what you believe, I'm sorry for you. Emphatically shouting that "Energy does not exist" is an attempt to cover your lack of understanding of it. Just as Einsteiners demand the aether doesn't exist. The whole EU paradigm is about where the energy comes from, and where it goes.

1) agreed - the universe is basically a Newton's cradle - but this is more theory than certainty
2) supposition based on your own point of view - theory
3) agreed - the fundamental "causes" of the universe are not observable
4) obviously - the universe must be infinite
5) a repeat of 1
6) back to observation of the unobservable - or try to ascertain the unobservable by inference from the observable - into theory here rather than certainty
7) utter theory
8) bleeding obvious, since the medium of consciousness is the brain - no you do not have a soul, so don't go there.

I must confess to being uncomfortable with theneo-hippy obsession with fractals - pretty patterns generated by computer programs, so what? That said, if you understand chaos theory please explain it to me. It always struck me as a non-theory.

I have to agree with you regarding the state of modern science - it makes me sad and furious in equal measure. But don't put too much faith in present electromagnetic theory, it is as corrupt and wrong as the black holes and dark matter that it seeks to replace.

Michael

It's Queens blood bleeding obvious that you have way more opinion of yourself than you have cherries vs pits in your fruit bowl.

Just because you were the OP on this thread does not require everyone who posts here to acknowledge you as the final authority here or any where else.

I should always be consulted first!















Of course!

[mjv1121]

I would like to formally extend my apologies to gamma ray and anyone and everyone else on these forums if the tone of my posts has offended.

Goldminer,

Obviously you are unaware of the responsibility of being right all the time, whilst at the same time reading lots of drivel about magic non-existent waves. Luckily I am able to maintain a sense of humour despite the tragedy of it.

shouting that "Energy does not exist" is an attempt to cover your lack of understanding of it.

You have my attention - please do explain.

Michael

[Goldminer]

I would like to formally extend my apologies to gamma ray and anyone and everyone else on these forums if the tone of my posts has offended.

Goldminer,

Obviously you are unaware of the responsibility of being right all the time, whilst at the same time reading lots of drivel about magic non-existent waves. Luckily I am able to maintain a sense of humour despite the tragedy of it.

shouting that "Energy does not exist" is an attempt to cover your lack of understanding of it.

You have my attention - please do explain.

Michael

How about I direct you to this site

Do some research here first. You might be able to cure your self. I have faint hopes of that. Just for condolences, I am recovering from a lesser infection of it.

I have over half a century of studying and reading and ruminating myself. So do many others on this forum. I'll put it up against all of yours if you want. Actually, I won't lower myself! So, please do not present yourself as some sort of genius authority! You stand in the darkest umbra of many posting in this forum.

Web Results 1 - 50 of about 238,044 for energy doe not exist

Web Results 1 - 48 of about 2,529,557 for energy were does it come from

So, I guess you are out voted by the web bots!

Incidentally, the quote function in the compose box works like this: ["x"quote="Goldminer"]shouting that "Energy does not exist" is an attempt to cover your lack of understanding of it.[/quote]
except remove the"x" from the command. It makes you post easier to follow.Do this instead of just the naked

Do ya see how I added( "Goldminer wrote) to my reposting of your post?

Use the "quote box in the upper left corner rather than the button at the bottom of the post. Then you can see how those who know about this subject do it.

[jjohnson]

Readers might be interested in the insights and warnings in the small book, On Being Certain, by Dr. Robert Burton, M.D. (The title includes the subtitle, "Believing you are right even when you are not".)

About US$16.00 plus shipping - link to title above to find it on Amazon. I think, but am not certain!

Jim