What is Physics?

[StefanR]

Standard Disclaimer: It's the voices in my head what make me do it.

No it isn't. (You set 'em up, I'll knock 'em down).

I see, than you will understand.

These concepts can (and do) exist independently of the basketball. In fact the concepts can exist without any physical balls. [No jokes please, I'm British]

Bollocks!
Your English.

[Grey Cloud]

You're English

I used to be but I don't think I'm allowed to be anymore. It's okay to be Welsh, Scots or Northern Irish but we formerly-known-as-English folk have to be British. It's something to do with political correctness I think. I am a stranger in a strange land.

[altonhare]

But then why are you insistent on the linear sequence of noticing the object FIRST?

I do not hold dominion over anyone's thinking. My argument is purely about the presentation of a scientific theory via the sci meth. In the scientific method the hypothesis (assumptions) come before the theory (conceptualizations, actions). In the hypothesis the presenter says "Let's assume atoms exist..." and points to one or more models of an atom. THEN the presenter can talk about the atom expanding, colliding, exploding, etc. To go the other way is unscientific because the presenter has not made his/her assumptions clear from the outset. This is absolutely vital for a theory to be falsifiable. This is why quantum mechanics and relativity fail. Quantum points at a particle, then explains everything with waves. A wave is not a something, it's what something does. For their wave they have no something, no hypothesis. They are talking about thinging without the thing. This makes the theory unfalsifiable because anyone who does the experiment can see their needle going back and forth in an up down oscillatory pattern. They are merely describing observations! This is why, in science, we absolutely must present the things first. Obviously relativity cannot present us with a model of space-time. This reduces the theory to simply describing motions. Again anyone can look at the sky and see how the earth moves around the sun along with the other planets. We can all describe it with varying degrees of quantitative accuracy.

The question of physics is: What object/entity is responsible for this observation? Physics first and foremost studies these objects. Philosophy deals first with concepts. I think perhaps I mixed discussion of the formal sci meth with philosophy in this thread.

Note the action of "come on" (action) stage (state or place of being). And "shapes (objects) are the stars" ... ever notice that "be" (and its conjugates) is a verb?

The stage and play was a metaphor for the sci meth.

I have some difficulty with "exist" and "be" because I formally consider "exist" to be static like GC said. On the other hand I'm not in the habit of saying my consciousness doesn't exist even though consciousness is dynamic. I think I (we?) need one word to express static existence (shape and location) and dynamic existence (successive locations of shapes).

From the top quote box, it can as easily be said that, "There simply cannot be an object without a motion (vibrating, spinning, rotating, going, coming, condensing, contracting, evaporating, expanding, orbiting, appearing, disappearing, birthing, dying, etc, etc ... in other words becoming or changing).

There's no provision for motion in the definition of object (shape). Shape is static. It's also true that, by the definition of motion (two or more locations of an object) that when I move my pinky I compel every other object in the U to move by definition. So if God exists (shape and location) then, when I move my pinky, I compel It to move.

If you're going to be strictly scientific in this, then answers like my house, the tv, the lamp, blah blah blah don't cut it because if an object is resting relative to the Earth, by scientific standards it is at least in macro scale motion with the Earth around the sun, not to mention it's own micro scale internal motions. Unless, of course, you cohabit the extra dimensional worlds with Kevin and Lizzie as they perceive them to be.

I'm not talking about what IS, I'm talking about how we convey a theory or idea. specifically via the sci meth. The audience simply cannot be clear on what the presenter is saying unless s/he presents the object(s) first. If s/he does not, the theory is unscientific and unfalsifiable. I can write equations that correlate the motion of my oscilloscope with other parameters, or correlate the location of the earth relative to the sun etc. These are not scientific theories, these are descriptions. We state the assumptions FIRST in a theory, not in retrospect. If we don't state them first then we end up designing experiments around proving assumptions (the existence of space-time, etc.) which leads to the state we're in now. Specifically, we cling to a theory no matter what, instead of making new assumptions (and formulating a new theory). Instead the same theory just gets revised over and over, perpetually altering assumptions and contorting interpretation of the experiment to fit the theory!

If Einstein wants to present a theory of gravity, he must first point to the object/entity responsible! If s/he cannot show us a picture/model of space-time he's full of it. He just derived a successful mathematical correlation of a phenomenon he does not understand physically.

It would be more accurate to describe a ball as something which belongs to the class of things which can bounce, or are elastic, etc. There are also numerous types of ball. The word 'ball' also applies to a type of formal dance gig.
The, e.g. basketball is a particular manifestation of the concepts 'bounce' et al.

I agree, but this classification is a *human* activity. Without humans around to classify things into some kind of hierarchy, the thing is just itself. It doesn't matter that humans use the word "ball" to refer to a basketball, a dance gig, or a testicle. The thing itself does not recognize these classifications. It is just itself. And it is itself whether it ever performs some specific action.

These concepts can (and do) exist independently of the basketball. In fact the concepts can exist without any physical balls. [No jokes please, I'm British]

The existence of concepts is dependent on the existence of man, or some other conscious entity. Without any of us around, the ball just does what it does. There is no concept "bouncey". It just is, and it just does.

Of course the concept "bouncey" can exist without any balls, but it cannot exist without some object which is being described as bouncey, or which itself bounces.

I would argue that your 'apple existing' says nothing, it is static.

I agree with this, pretty strongly. We do not add to the essence of a thing, when we say that it "is". In science, we just define "exist" and something exists or not pursuant to the definition, not because you or I believe it.

'appling' implies that the object is doing something (at the very least it is already existing), it is dynamic.

Agreed again! Appling I would translate something like "An apple acting in accordance with its identity". Do you use different words to refer to the static and dynamic conceptualizations of exist?

What do you mean by you used to be English but now you have to be British???

Nuts, balls, and goats oh my. More WoO, oh my!

Thanks arc and GC for keeping up the humor and light-hearted atmosphere . Do you like feeling cheap arc-us? Maybe talk some in PM?

[junglelord]

Your mind is a machine. If you only operate it a certain way, you will get determined results.
A austic savant can see pi.
We are all savants.
You merely need to learn how to run the machine properly.
That way words are not needed. Your minds eye is the real picture.
Synesthesia, savants, psychic, we all the ability.
This concept that the audience cannot understand a speaker without every word analyzed and scruitnized is BS.
The latent powers of your mind are latent, because you focus on words, not the minds eye.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi arc-us,
Alton wrote:

Do you like feeling cheap arc-us? Maybe talk some in PM?

My advice would be to take him up on the offer, it's cheaper than a premium rate phone number (and it wont show up on the phone bill ).

[altonhare]

I've been reading some Aristotle (as per GC's suggestion) and came across this tidbit:

there cannot be motion of motion or becoming of becoming or in general change of
change.

From: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.5.v.html

Exactly! We can only have motion of an object or, in general, a change of something. This is why, in a theory of physics, before we can talk about dynamic concepts like momentum and fields, we must first point to that which is moving. If the presenter of a theory is talking about a dynamic concept but insists s/he cannot show you that which is moving, the presenter is full of it. They are merely describing actions, which is an unfalsifiable enterprise.

[altonhare]

Some Poincare that echoes my thoughts:

Mathematicians do not study objects, but the relations between objects; to them it
is a matter of indifference if these objects are replaced by others, provided that the
relations do not change. Matter does not engage their attention, they are interested
in form alone.

From Henri's book "Science and Hypothesis"

This is why the equations come last in the sci meth, if they come in at all (i.e. the presenter decides to use them). As far as a mathematician is concerned, the relationships are all that matters, and the equation expresses those relationships. They do not care for what is related to what. In physics, the what matters the most! The "what(s)" justify(ies) the relationship(s) and the conclusions follow naturally from the assumptions.

This is why mathematically-based theories have not been able to answer or even address simple questions like "What is light?" and "What is the electron?". As far as these questions are concerned, we still have Newton's corpuscle and Rutherford's planetary model, respectively. The equations of the theory do not care if light and the electron are actually particles, so long as treating them like particles leads to accurate correlative relationships.

No theory of physics can be founded upon mathematics. To do so is to, as they say, "put the cart before the horse".

[tangointhenight]

You guys are right, let's get right to the theory. All the info's on Bill Gaede's site and in his book anyway.

So, the theory is that every atom in the universe is connected to every other atom via twined, double stranded, taut electromagnetic rope. The electric thread of the rope terminates at the center of an atom and the magnetic thread wraps around the center like a ball of yarn. When the magnetic ball expands it must do so at the expense of a few links of rope. This compresses the rope near the atom, thus decreasing its "wavelength" (fewer links per length). This torsion wave propagates along the rope to the next atom and so on and so forth. This is why light always travels rectilinearly but also has a finite velocity. It also explains why light always retraces its path, torsion waves propagate in both directions. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NB5vg7woM.

This also explains universal gravitation and why it appears to act "instantaneously". Fundamentally, every body in the U is connected to every other body, so there is nothing to transmit! The connection is already there. The reason gravity acts more strongly at close distances is because of angles. If you imagine two large spheres close to each other, the ropes connecting them criss-cross each other with a very small region in the center where most are intersecting. There is a very large aggregate angle between all the atoms. At long distances the ropes lift and the angle aggregate becomes smaller and smaller. The ropes are effectively superimposing on each other. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7QmsngMRpE.

Magnetism can be visualized intuitively and simply under this theory. When the atoms spin their magnetic threads also spin. When many close atoms spin in the same direction their magnetic threads spin in the same direction (either CW or CCW). In a single block of a magnetic material the threads are spinning predominantly CW or CCW. When the "north" end of the material is brought near the "north" end of another the ropes collide with each other. In the alternate scenario, the ropes twist around each other and pull. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8.

Electricity occurs when an atom spins its magnetic thread faster, inducing adjacent atoms to spin faster and in the same direction, and so on. It's much like "a drill bit spinning in place".

That's the theory in a nutshell.

"This is why light always travels rectilinearly"

Light does NOT always travel in a straight line. It is affected by gravity, and can be bent. Gravitational lensing a a very powerful technique
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens


"This also explains universal gravitation and why it appears to act "instantaneously"."

Gravity doesn't act instantaneously As near as they can tell today, the speed of light is the speed of gravity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity
Definitely not instantaneous at the very least.

"Electricity occurs when an atom spins its magnetic thread faster"

Please show us some proof that the spin rate of an atom causes electricity.

Take a cylinder of oxygen gas. The molecules (and hence the atoms) will collide with one another, and those collisions, cause the molecules to spin. And yet the cylinder doesn't spontaneously create electricity. Spin and yet no electricity.

[altonhare]

"This is why light always travels rectilinearly"

Light does NOT always travel in a straight line. It is affected by gravity, and can be bent. Gravitational lensing a a very powerful technique
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

Objectively all we know is that frequencies shift when we observe light near objects such as the sun, and the light takes a little longer to get here than we expected.

Thunderbolts itself has alternate explanations for these phenomena besides gravity. I am not very familiar with them but I'm sure it has something to do with the interaction of light with the sun's corona in addition to other electrical/plasma oriented effects.

Additionally in TT the (otherwise straight and taut) ropes between A and B can be displaced outward by an intervening massive object. This displacement would bend the ropes causing any torsion signals propagated to take longer than expected, to "curve around" the intervening object. This compellingly resembles the lensing effect.

There are also compelling arguments that experimental investigations of light deflection by the sun do not have sufficient accuracy to test this phenomenon:

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/ECLIPSE/Eclipse.html

"This also explains universal gravitation and why it appears to act "instantaneously"."

Gravity doesn't act instantaneously As near as they can tell today, the speed of light is the speed of gravity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity
Definitely not instantaneous at the very least.

You are very convinced by wikipedia and what is taught in orthodoxy. The actual experiments which investigate the so-called "speed of gravity" show speeds so far in excess of c that it is probably experimentally indistinguishable from "instantaneous":

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/s ... ravity.asp

"Electricity occurs when an atom spins its magnetic thread faster"

Please show us some proof that the spin rate of an atom causes electricity.

You misunderstood. The atom itself does not have to spin to generate electricity and magnetism, its magnetic thread is spinning. The atom is spinning its magnetic thread.

[junglelord]

Additionally in TT the (otherwise straight and taut) ropes between A and B can be displaced outward by an intervening massive object. This displacement would bend the ropes causing any torsion signals propagated to take longer than expected, to "curve around" the intervening object. This compellingly resembles the lensing effect.

How do ropes lengthen?
Serious question.
When lengenthen, the process of lengthing, does it transmitt to both ends as a force?

[altonhare]

Additionally in TT the (otherwise straight and taut) ropes between A and B can be displaced outward by an intervening massive object. This displacement would bend the ropes causing any torsion signals propagated to take longer than expected, to "curve around" the intervening object. This compellingly resembles the lensing effect.

How do ropes lengthen?
Serious question.

It's important to remember that the thread is a single piece, the fundamental primordial entity. In our everyday macroscopic experience we typically understand how things act the way they do by analyzing their constituents. So we understand why metals are malleable by understanding the result of putting many individual metal atoms together, which we summarize in bloch functions, band structures, etc.

However the thread has no constituents, it is just itself. Therefore we cannot understand its behavior in the same way we are used to. It is the last constituent and behaves how it does because it has that identity. We can infer how it behaves from observation and experiment.

When lengenthen, the process of lengthing, does it transmitt to both ends as a force?

The thread doesn't really have "ends". There is a single continuous thread that comprises the entire U, there are no dangling or "free" ends.

However, based on the observations that I know of in combination with my own logic/reason, it seems that the thread is stretching longitudinally at the expense of its lateral size/thickness. A decrease in thickness means a decrease in G in TT.

The cause for the stretching of the thread is an interesting question. The rope has a characteristic flexibility so, when stretched too far, it will contract back inward. After contracting too far it's possible that the universe becomes so dense it again explodes outward, repeating the cycle. This could be similar to a gigantic fusion process. As all of the atoms collapse inward the electron shells overlap, pushing and jostling for their optimal positions (as I described in the Thread Theory thread), until eventually the thread density becomes so great that a massive outward push occurs.