Everything That is Wrong With Modern Science

[altonhare]

Define "material"?

You say you start with observations, but I will never bend on this point: Your presuppositions determine your conclusions; where observations fail, this is all you have.

I do start with observation. I have never seen 'anything' without shape. There are no presuppositions here. If I happen to observe 'something' without shape one day, I will immediately alter my conclusion.

Vectors are conceivable, and measurable [both in direction and magnitude]. Both are invisible, so we must depend on our premises, plus logic, to make a sensible conclusion.

Where is this vector 'thing' that you measure? Here on earth we can only measure objects, what planet are you from?

So, what would you say about the movement of a compass needle...

I would say,"HOW is the needle affected so that it moves this way?" Then to answer the question I would formulate a hypothesis and theory to explain the motion of the needle.

Or an even simpler example: the wind blowing in your face. Since you can't see it's shape it does not exist? What about heat or cold, smell or sound?

This equivocation is made over and over and over and over. Shape has nothing to do with whether one can SEE it. An object exists independently of your (or anyone's) personal ability to see it. The word shape has nothing to do with visible/invisible. All shape means is shape, i.e. a boundary.

When I feel the air on my face, I ask,"HOW is my face/body affected so that I feel this way?" Then I formulate a hypothesis and theory to explain what I experience. Same with heat, cold, smell, and sound.

The hypothesis consists of imagining an object/entity/shape while the theory illustrates how the postulated object behaves to produce an effect such as the movement of a needle.

[StevenO]

Vectors are conceivable, and measurable [both in direction and magnitude]. Both are invisible, so we must depend on our premises, plus logic, to make a sensible conclusion.

Where is this vector 'thing' that you measure? Here on earth we can only measure objects, what planet are you from?

So, what would you say about the movement of a compass needle in the Earth's magnetic field? <...>

I would say,"HOW is the needle affected so that it moves this way?" Then to answer the question I would formulate a hypothesis and theory to explain the motion of the needle.

You are avoiding the question. My specific questions are:
1) Why do you state a "vector 'thing'" is not an "object"?
2) Would you say a magnetic field is "immaterial" or "material"?
2) Do you agree the compass needle measures a magnetic field vector?

Or an even simpler example: the wind blowing in your face. Since you can't see it's shape it does not exist? What about heat or cold, smell or sound?

This equivocation is made over and over and over and over. Shape has nothing to do with whether one can SEE it. An object exists independently of your (or anyone's) personal ability to see it. The word shape has nothing to do with visible/invisible. All shape means is shape, i.e. a boundary.

That is because you are the one stating:

"I have never seen 'anything' without shape. There are no presuppositions here. If I happen to observe 'something' without shape one day, I will immediately alter my conclusion."

So, did you change your conclusion then?

[altonhare]

Vectors are conceivable, and measurable [both in direction and magnitude]. Both are invisible, so we must depend on our premises, plus logic, to make a sensible conclusion.

Where is this vector 'thing' that you measure? Here on earth we can only measure objects, what planet are you from?

So, what would you say about the movement of a compass needle in the Earth's magnetic field? <...>

I would say,"HOW is the needle affected so that it moves this way?" Then to answer the question I would formulate a hypothesis and theory to explain the motion of the needle.

You are avoiding the question. My specific questions are:
1) Why do you state a "vector 'thing'" is not an "object"?

Because 'it' doesn't have shape, at least as "vector" is conventionally defined.

2) Would you say a magnetic field is "immaterial" or "material"?

If it's pushing on my needle, it has shape and is material.

2) Do you agree the compass needle measures a magnetic field vector?

Nope! The compass needle just sits there. Sometimes it moves when I move the compass. That's all the little hunk of metal does.

Or an even simpler example: the wind blowing in your face. Since you can't see it's shape it does not exist? What about heat or cold, smell or sound?

This equivocation is made over and over and over and over. Shape has nothing to do with whether one can SEE it. An object exists independently of your (or anyone's) personal ability to see it. The word shape has nothing to do with visible/invisible. All shape means is shape, i.e. a boundary.

That is because you are the one stating:

"I have never seen 'anything' without shape. There are no presuppositions here. If I happen to observe 'something' without shape one day, I will immediately alter my conclusion."

So, did you change your conclusion then?

I still have not observed that which does not have shape. Does the earth's atmosphere extend out indefinitely? Is there no border to it? Is there no border to its constituents?

[webolife]

but I will never bend on this point:

Plasmatic said,
O.K. since you wont define/contrast the words your using, I cant begin to communicate as to their meaning. And given the above refusal to keep an active mind,there's nothing left to say.

Neither you nor Altonhare have yet given me a reason to "bend on this point"... all right, I admit "never" is a long long time, but you both postulate that until you see [something that is beyond the scope of your mental framework], you will not change your minds! "Blessed are they who believe, yet do not see." This in no way dissolves science, just limits its contribution to our knowledge of the "truth". I'm sure there's plenty left to say

[junglelord]

It has always been this way with those two, your wasting your time.

[Plasmatic]

Neither you nor Altonhare have yet given me a reason to "bend on this point"... all right, I admit "never" is a long long time, but you both postulate that until you see [something that is beyond the scope of your mental framework], you will not change your minds! "Blessed are they who believe, yet do not see." This in no way dissolves science, just limits its contribution to our knowledge of the "truth". I'm sure there's plenty left to say

Is that a retraction then? When someone says " I will never", never precludes changing ones mind based on "reason". Irrelevant comments from the peanut gallery notwithstanding!

So if youve "plenty left to say" could you start by answering my questions then?
By the way. On one hand we have one refusing to eccept arbitrary assertions without evidence. And on the other hand we have one refusing to accept something under any circumstance[never]. Theres a big difference!

[StevenO]

1) Why do you state a "vector 'thing'" is not an "object"?

Because 'it' doesn't have shape, at least as "vector" is conventionally defined.

So, in your definition apparently an "object" has "shape" while a "thing" has not? Are you following the common definition that "an object is a tangible and visible entity that can cast a shadow" or "something material that can be perceived by the senses"? How would that rhyme with your statement "An object exists independently of your (or anyone's) personal ability to see it."

2) Would you say a magnetic field is "immaterial" or "material"?

If it's pushing on my needle, it has shape and is material.

So, how would you describe the size and direction of this pushing force without using vectors?

2) Do you agree the compass needle measures a magnetic field vector?

Nope! The compass needle just sits there. Sometimes it moves when I move the compass. That's all the little hunk of metal does.

Yeah, and this is not a post but just a collection of dots on a screen since that's all a computer screen does...

You just said magnetic fields are material and have shape. Would you say then that the little hunk of metal measures the "shape" of a magnetic field? How would you be able to describe this "shape" then?

Or an even simpler example: the wind blowing in your face. Since you can't see it's shape it does not exist? What about heat or cold, smell or sound?

This equivocation is made over and over and over and over. Shape has nothing to do with whether one can SEE it. An object exists independently of your (or anyone's) personal ability to see it. The word shape has nothing to do with visible/invisible. All shape means is shape, i.e. a boundary.

That is because you are the one stating:

"I have never seen 'anything' without shape. There are no presuppositions here. If I happen to observe 'something' without shape one day, I will immediately alter my conclusion."

So, did you change your conclusion then?

I still have not observed that which does not have shape. Does the earth's atmosphere extend out indefinitely? Is there no border to it? Is there no border to its constituents?

That's a triple negation, a bit confusing to me. You say: Until now I have NOT seen NO shape? For me that translates to: "sofar I have only seen things with shape", which has as much meaning as "I can see", since to perceive shape and color is what eyes do.

These futile wordgames have little to do with physics. Vectors are well defined concepts, that's why they are used in science.

[altonhare]

1) Why do you state a "vector 'thing'" is not an "object"?

Because 'it' doesn't have shape, at least as "vector" is conventionally defined.

So, in your definition apparently an "object" has "shape" while a "thing" has not? Are you following the common definition that "an object is a tangible and visible entity that can cast a shadow" or "something material that can be perceived by the senses"? How would that rhyme with your statement "An object exists independently of your (or anyone's) personal ability to see it."

An object is a thing is material is physical is an entity etc. Synonyms.

Of course I'm not following the common def, I'm following the definition that I repeat over and over: that which has shape.

2) Would you say a magnetic field is "immaterial" or "material"?

If it's pushing on my needle, it has shape and is material.

So, how would you describe the size and direction of this pushing force without using vectors?

2) Do you agree the compass needle measures a magnetic field vector?

Nope! The compass needle just sits there. Sometimes it moves when I move the compass. That's all the little hunk of metal does.

Yeah, and this is not a post but just a collection of dots on a screen since that's all a computer screen does...

You just said magnetic fields are material and have shape. Would you say then that the little hunk of metal measures the "shape" of a magnetic field? How would you be able to describe this "shape" then?

Nope. The little hunk of metal just sits there, sometimes it moves to the side. As far as the shape of 'a' field goes, I assume a shape (such as a rope/thread). Then I try to explain the apparent motion of the needle with the entity hypothesized. The shape hypothesized by Gaede and I is [url2=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8]like this.[/url2]

Or an even simpler example: the wind blowing in your face. Since you can't see it's shape it does not exist? What about heat or cold, smell or sound?

This equivocation is made over and over and over and over. Shape has nothing to do with whether one can SEE it. An object exists independently of your (or anyone's) personal ability to see it. The word shape has nothing to do with visible/invisible. All shape means is shape, i.e. a boundary.

That is because you are the one stating:

"I have never seen 'anything' without shape. There are no presuppositions here. If I happen to observe 'something' without shape one day, I will immediately alter my conclusion."

So, did you change your conclusion then?

I still have not observed that which does not have shape. Does the earth's atmosphere extend out indefinitely? Is there no border to it? Is there no border to its constituents?

That's a triple negation, a bit confusing to me. You say: Until now I have NOT seen NO shape? For me that translates to: "sofar I have only seen things with shape", which has as much meaning as "I can see", since to perceive shape and color is what eyes do.

These futile wordgames have little to do with physics. Vectors are well defined concepts, that's why they are used in science.

Since we use words to communicate our ideas in science and physics, and these disciplines distinguish themselves by rigor, clarity, and logic, science is first a "word game". We have to define our words unambiguously and then use them consistently.

Sorry for being confusing. I have not observed an object which lacks shape. Everything I observe has a border, none of it extends indefinitely. If you disagree could you please show me that which lacks a border? It doesn't have to be the actual thing, a model of what it looks like is fine. Like I said, I don't have to be able to actually see it, but if it has shape I can visualize it.

[webolife]

I have actually described the shape of my "vectors" numerous times... also their colors, direction and function.
I have compared them with "beams", related their structure to cones, and explained their "pressure" function.
I have related these to observable physical phenomena, and contrasted them with traditional views... what else do you want?????

[altonhare]

I have actually described the shape of my "vectors" numerous times... also their colors, direction and function.
I have compared them with "beams", related their structure to cones, and explained their "pressure" function.
I have related these to observable physical phenomena, and contrasted them with traditional views... what else do you want?????

I am visualizing essentially a rod between every atom in the U, which is pushed back and forth. The rod is continuous and there is no delay between pushing at one end and this push being "felt" at the other. Perhaps there is a delay before the other end pushes back, I think there must be, but this is your theory.

How does the atom fit in? Are the rods connected to each atom? What is the shape of the electron and how does it interface with the "vector rod"?

[webolife]

OK, now we're getting somewhere... your "rod" actually sounds like one of your ropes, except your ropes recoil and a rod presumably doesn't? That is not my theory. My vectors, while the solid rod analogy has some merit, are not rods. They are simply quanta of force, derived from universal convergence and measurable as gravitation, voltage, and, yes, light. Readdress this question on the RA Smith thread, would you?

[StevenO]

An object is a thing is material is physical is an entity etc. Synonyms.

Of course I'm not following the common def, I'm following the definition that I repeat over and over: that which has shape.

Which then brings us back to the discussion: what is "shape"? Common definition is "something with spatial attributes or arrangement" and then a vector is an excellent example of an object: it has a very well defined shape: a line with a specific origin, a specific length and a specific direction. No confusion possible.

2) Do you agree the compass needle measures a magnetic field vector?

Nope! The compass needle just sits there. Sometimes it moves when I move the compass. That's all the little hunk of metal does.

Yeah, and this is not a post but just a collection of dots on a screen since that's all a computer screen does...

You just said magnetic fields are material and have shape. Would you say then that the little hunk of metal measures the "shape" of a magnetic field? How would you be able to describe this "shape" then?

Nope. The little hunk of metal just sits there, sometimes it moves to the side. As far as the shape of 'a' field goes, I assume a shape (such as a rope/thread). Then I try to explain the apparent motion of the needle with the entity hypothesized. The shape hypothesized by Gaede and I is [url2=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8]like this.[/url2]

You think just repeatedly denying 160 years of EM theory validation will make a point for thread theory? You'll first have to show that EM theory, that predicts the exact movement of the needle by magnetic field vectors, is wrong.

These futile wordgames have little to do with physics. Vectors are well defined concepts, that's why they are used in science.

Since we use words to communicate our ideas in science and physics, and these disciplines distinguish themselves by rigor, clarity, and logic, science is first a "word game". We have to define our words unambiguously and then use them consistently.

Science is not "first" a word game, philosophy is. All symbols and formula's in mathematics are well defined. Physical constants are well defined. The problem is making sure the assumptions that go into the equations are correct. An assumption is for instance "no speeds greater than the speed of light are possible" or "the mass of an object depends on its speed".

Sorry for being confusing. I have not observed an object which lacks shape. Everything I observe has a border, none of it extends indefinitely. If you disagree could you please show me that which lacks a border? It doesn't have to be the actual thing, a model of what it looks like is fine. Like I said, I don't have to be able to actually see it, but if it has shape I can visualize it.

The pattern of wind speeds in the atmosphere has no well defined border (like most objects that are described by fields), though the pattern definitely has shape.

But what would be the border of the earth's gravitation? (Actually I know where it is, but that's another pet theory )

[altonhare]

An object is a thing is material is physical is an entity etc. Synonyms.

Of course I'm not following the common def, I'm following the definition that I repeat over and over: that which has shape.

Which then brings us back to the discussion: what is "shape"? Common definition is "something with spatial attributes or arrangement" and then a vector is an excellent example of an object: it has a very well defined shape: a line with a specific origin, a specific length and a specific direction. No confusion possible.

Again, the common definition is wrong. Shape is primitive. You don't define objects, you point at them. They exist independent of our observation or identification, which is why they are primary/primitive. There is no confusion possible, the object is exactly what you see before you.

2) Do you agree the compass needle measures a magnetic field vector?

Nope! The compass needle just sits there. Sometimes it moves when I move the compass. That's all the little hunk of metal does.

Yeah, and this is not a post but just a collection of dots on a screen since that's all a computer screen does...

You just said magnetic fields are material and have shape. Would you say then that the little hunk of metal measures the "shape" of a magnetic field? How would you be able to describe this "shape" then?

Nope. The little hunk of metal just sits there, sometimes it moves to the side. As far as the shape of 'a' field goes, I assume a shape (such as a rope/thread). Then I try to explain the apparent motion of the needle with the entity hypothesized. The shape hypothesized by Gaede and I is [url2=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8]like this.[/url2]

You think just repeatedly denying 160 years of EM theory validation will make a point for thread theory? You'll first have to show that EM theory, that predicts the exact movement of the needle by magnetic field vectors, is wrong.

Let's see what 160 years of mathematical physics has done for you. Please explain how one magnet physically attracts another.

These futile wordgames have little to do with physics. Vectors are well defined concepts, that's why they are used in science.

Since we use words to communicate our ideas in science and physics, and these disciplines distinguish themselves by rigor, clarity, and logic, science is first a "word game". We have to define our words unambiguously and then use them consistently.

Science is not "first" a word game, philosophy is. All symbols and formula's in mathematics are well defined.

There is a great deal in mathematics that is not "well defined". Point, line, and plane for instance. I take issue with a great many others also.

And sorry, no this isn't philosophy. This is an issue of consistency and logic. You can't just pawn this issue off to the philosophers and get away with saying whatever you want. You have to make what you're saying clear and unambiguous in science.

Sorry for being confusing. I have not observed an object which lacks shape. Everything I observe has a border, none of it extends indefinitely. If you disagree could you please show me that which lacks a border? It doesn't have to be the actual thing, a model of what it looks like is fine. Like I said, I don't have to be able to actually see it, but if it has shape I can visualize it.

The pattern of wind speeds in the atmosphere has no well defined border (like most objects that are described by fields), though the pattern definitely has shape.

Wind speeds don't have shape because wind speeds are not objects. Speed is not a something, speed is what something does.

But what would be the border of the earth's gravitation? (Actually I know where it is, but that's another pet theory )

Could you show me the earth's gravitation, or a model of 'it', so I can verify whether 'it' has a border or not.

[junglelord]

Please explain how one magnet physically attracts another.
Aether.

[StevenO]

Which then brings us back to the discussion: what is "shape"? Common definition is "something with spatial attributes or arrangement" and then a vector is an excellent example of an object: it has a very well defined shape: a line with a specific origin, a specific length and a specific direction. No confusion possible.

Again, the common definition is wrong. Shape is primitive.

You cannot redefine common definitions without creating confusion. Better define a new word.

You don't define objects, you point at them. They exist independent of our observation or identification, which is why they are primary/primitive. There is no confusion possible, the object is exactly what you see before you.

How can an object be defined as existing without observation and only what you observe? What about objects that exist but cannot be pointed at? Take an electron for example...or an imaginary "thread" if you prefer.

You think just repeatedly denying 160 years of EM theory validation will make a point for thread theory? You'll first have to show that EM theory, that predicts the exact movement of the needle by magnetic field vectors, is wrong.

Let's see what 160 years of mathematical physics has done for you. Please explain how one magnet physically attracts another.

By the alignment of their magnetic fields, which are created by the magnetic charge of certain atoms. A magnetic charge is the two-dimensional equivalent of an electric charge.

There is a great deal in mathematics that is not "well defined". Point, line, and plane for instance. I take issue with a great many others also.

That is a self-created problem.

And sorry, no this isn't philosophy. This is an issue of consistency and logic. You can't just pawn this issue off to the philosophers and get away with saying whatever you want. You have to make what you're saying clear and unambiguous in science.

You are creating the inconsistencies yourself. Just use the scientific terms to describe your propositions instead of trying to redefine multi-purpose common language. Describe the properties of a "thread" by vector functions and path integrals for instance instead of saying it is a redefined "shape".

Wind speeds don't have shape because wind speeds are not objects. Speed is not a something, speed is what something does.

You're confusing attributes with objects.

But what would be the border of the earth's gravitation? (Actually I know where it is, but that's another pet theory )

Could you show me the earth's gravitation, or a model of 'it', so I can verify whether 'it' has a border or not.

I'm sure you have heard of Newton and Einstein? If not you should read about them...

Anyway, in my pet theory gravity is a three dimensional speed and the border of the Earth's gravitational attraction is at about 0.75 astronomical units.