Everything That is Wrong With Modern Science

[altonhare]

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.

Anyone can define any word however they want, as long as they make their definition clear and then use it consistently.

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.

Since when did I say that objects are only what you observe? Why do you keep equivocating? Shape doesn't mean observable, it just means shape. It could be so tiny nobody has any hope of seeing it, but still have shape! it could be .00001 angstroms, but still have shape.

If I cannot point to it, I have to point at a model of what I propose it looks like.

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".

Because you don't define particular objects, you point at them, or a model of them (if they are, for some reason, not seeable, like being extremely tiny).

The "common" definitions and methods have failed to physical explain even the simplest phenomena. It is what has led to the current state of "physics".

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.

Newton and Einstein cannot tell you how the earth physically binds you to its surface. They both simply mathematically described this observed motion.

Gravitational attraction, an action, has a border? Actions can have borders? Could you show me 'a' action that has a border?

Can you actually show me anything that you're talking about or do you just string strongly associated words together?

[StevenO]

Anyone can define any word however they want, as long as they make their definition clear and then use it consistently.

Sofar you have not made it clear and used it consistently.

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.

Since when did I say that objects are only what you observe? Why do you keep equivocating?

I have highlighted where you state that in red.

Shape doesn't mean observable, it just means shape. It could be so tiny nobody has any hope of seeing it, but still have shape! it could be .00001 angstroms, but still have shape.

If I cannot point to it, I have to point at a model of what I propose it looks like.

A model is not the same as the real thing. How would you model the "shape" of an electron?

The "common" definitions and methods have failed to physical explain even the simplest phenomena. It is what has led to the current state of "physics".

I would say that physics is actually highly succesfull. So succesfull that virtually everybody has an opinion about it.
Astronomy is a different topic.

Newton and Einstein cannot tell you how the earth physically binds you to its surface. They both simply mathematically described this observed motion.

Gravitational attraction, an action, has a border? Actions can have borders? Could you show me 'a' action that has a border?

Newton says it is through the gravitational force, Einstein says the gravitational field, you say "ropes", I would say through three dimensional scalar speed. However you want to model it, what we call "force" is mediated by something invisible.

Can you actually show me anything that you're talking about or do you just string strongly associated words together?

Yes I do. That's what people do on a forum.

[altonhare]

Anyone can define any word however they want, as long as they make their definition clear and then use it consistently.

Sofar you have not made it clear and used it consistently.

You have yet to understand, which is beyond me. Even a child knows that, if you use a new word, you'll have to point at what you're referring to (or a model of it).

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.

Since when did I say that objects are only what you observe? Why do you keep equivocating?

I have highlighted where you state that in red.

I said the object you see is exactly what you see before you. You have a problem with that?

Shape doesn't mean observable, it just means shape. It could be so tiny nobody has any hope of seeing it, but still have shape! it could be .00001 angstroms, but still have shape.

If I cannot point to it, I have to point at a model of what I propose it looks like.

A model is not the same as the real thing. How would you model the "shape" of an electron?

[url2=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmE11_E-rdE]Like this[/url2]

Unfortunately there are just some things Nature has precluded us from seeing with our own eyes. For these we can only imagine/hypothesize their shape.

The "common" definitions and methods have failed to physical explain even the simplest phenomena. It is what has led to the current state of "physics".

I would say that physics is actually highly succesfull. So succesfull that virtually everybody has an opinion about it.
Astronomy is a different topic.

Newton and Einstein cannot tell you how the earth physically binds you to its surface. They both simply mathematically described this observed motion.

Gravitational attraction, an action, has a border? Actions can have borders? Could you show me 'a' action that has a border?

Newton says it is through the gravitational force, Einstein says the gravitational field, you say "ropes", I would say through three dimensional scalar speed. However you want to model it, what we call "force" is mediated by something invisible.

Yes, it's invisible. The first step in the sci meth is to propose WHAT it is. This is the step everyone skips. They wanna go straight to describing (forces, velocities, etc.) before they have even presented WHAT they are describing. You can play with equations until they match observations accurately all you want, you cannot explain a single phenomenon of Nature until you present something on the big screen for all to see.

Can you actually show me anything that you're talking about or do you just string strongly associated words together?

Yes I do. That's what people do on a forum.

The language of science, especially physics, is visualization. If I cannot see WHAT you're talking about, I cannot possibly understand your explanation. I may deceive myself into thinking I understand, especially if many of the same words are used over and over in "science" classes from an early age. Unfortunately just stringing strongly associated words together is not science. A scientific theory consists of a physical explanation that we can all visualize and illustrate. Now we can understand what we're talking about.

[StevenO]

You have yet to understand, which is beyond me. Even a child knows that, if you use a new word, you'll have to point at what you're referring to (or a model of it).

So you actually do agree with me that you better define NEW words to avoid ambiguity?

Or why don't you use the unambiguous definitions of science instead of layman's language?
Just compare the definition of "object":

• In physics, a physical body (sometimes called simply a body or even an object) is a collection of masses, taken to be one. For example, a cricket ball can be considered an object but the ball also consists of many particles (pieces of matter).
• In mathematics, a category is a fundamental and abstract way to describe mathematical entities and their relationships
• In philosophy, an object is a thing, an entity, or a being. This may be taken in several senses.
• a tangible and visible entity; an entity that can cast a shadow; "it was full of rackets, balls and other objects"

Not very clear, except that in physics it might be interpreted as something with mass.
With that of "vector":

• In elementary mathematics, physics, and engineering, a vector (sometimes called a geometric or spatial vector ) is a geometric object that has both a magnitude (or length) and a direction.

No ambiguity, just two well defined attributes.

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.

Since when did I say that objects are only what you observe? Why do you keep equivocating?

I have highlighted where you state that in red.

I said the object you see is exactly what you see before you. You have a problem with that?

I hate running around in circles...for me pointing to a model of an object is not the same as pointing to an object. Pointing to a picture of a TV is not the same as pointing to a TV. It lacks the sound and moving pictures

Yes, it's invisible. The first step in the sci meth is to propose WHAT it is. This is the step everyone skips. They wanna go straight to describing (forces, velocities, etc.) before they have even presented WHAT they are describing. You can play with equations until they match observations accurately all you want, you cannot explain a single phenomenon of Nature until you present something on the big screen for all to see.

The scientific method starts with observations, then a hypothesis is developed that makes falsifiable predictions and these are rigorously tested for repeatable results. There are a million theories for the big screen, but most of them already fail to simply predict the repeatable results of mainstream physics. If they can't do all of that and make new predictions they simply stand no further chance than some casual presentation and discussion in a corner of the web.

To say it differently: the "Grand Unified Theory " is mission impossible at best and should be considered to be nothing more than entertainment. But it is great entertainment. Many people dedicate their time or even lives to it.

The language of science, especially physics, is visualization. If I cannot see WHAT you're talking about, I cannot possibly understand your explanation. I may deceive myself into thinking I understand, especially if many of the same words are used over and over in "science" classes from an early age. Unfortunately just stringing strongly associated words together is not science. A scientific theory consists of a physical explanation that we can all visualize and illustrate. Now we can understand what we're talking about.

Humans have a strong liking for visualization since 80% of our brain is dedicated to the visual function.
As that function is hardwired for survival it is just not always that objective. That is why formal mathematical models are the language of science. This method is unfortunately orders of magnitude slower than some nice pictures, but it fulfills the requirements for falsifiable results. A picture of a rope is entertaining but not very useful for predicting the heat capacity of copper.

[Plasmatic]

...for me pointing to a model of an object is not the same as pointing to an object. Pointing to a picture of a TV is not the same as pointing to a TV. It lacks the sound and moving pictures

It seems to me that this debate can be simplified to this:


Alton is trying to say one thing. If there's an effect an entity is the cause. Entities are causal primaries,and the most essential characteristic of entities is shape/boundedness. If you cant see the causative entity and you claim to have deduced its attributes from observation you have to start by conceptualizing the entity.The way this is best communicated to others is through a drawing. Now the main problem between this and the theories Alton is combating is the causative "entities" are all concepts of action/relationship. These are called "non-material entities" by those who don't understand that even mental/hypothetical entities must have shape, and actions do not have shape because actions are done by entities, not entities themselves..

Material causation vs non-material causation boils down to what one can validly claim as an entity.

Geometric entities such as vectors are all understood to not be metaphysical entities, but concepts of action.

[altonhare]

You have yet to understand, which is beyond me. Even a child knows that, if you use a new word, you'll have to point at what you're referring to (or a model of it).

So you actually do agree with me that you better define NEW words to avoid ambiguity?

Or why don't you use the unambiguous definitions of science instead of layman's language?

The mainstream definitions are all ambiguous and/or circular. The defs Gaede and I propose resolve this.

Just compare the definition of "object":

• In physics, a physical body (sometimes called simply a body or even an object) is a collection of masses, taken to be one. For example, a cricket ball can be considered an object but the ball also consists of many particles (pieces of matter).
• In mathematics, a category is a fundamental and abstract way to describe mathematical entities and their relationships
• In philosophy, an object is a thing, an entity, or a being. This may be taken in several senses.
• a tangible and visible entity; an entity that can cast a shadow; "it was full of rackets, balls and other objects"

Not very clear, except that in physics it might be interpreted as something with mass.

Yay synonyms! Object=mass. So what's mass? A relationship (vis a vis gravitation?). A relationship amongst what, objects? But an object is mass. Circularity.

With that of "vector":

• In elementary mathematics, physics, and engineering, a vector (sometimes called a geometric or spatial vector ) is a geometric object that has both a magnitude (or length) and a direction.

No ambiguity, just two well defined attributes.

Vector: Length and direction

Length: extent of an object

Object: mass

Mass: Relationship amongst objects

This is the problem with defining objects. It always results in circularity. The word object refers to whatever has shape, i.e. a boundary. That is why we POINT to objects, it is the only way to avoid circularity.

*points* THIS is what I'm talking about. Done.

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.

Since when did I say that objects are only what you observe? Why do you keep equivocating?

I have highlighted where you state that in red.

I said the object you see is exactly what you see before you. You have a problem with that?

I hate running around in circles...for me pointing to a model of an object is not the same as pointing to an object. Pointing to a picture of a TV is not the same as pointing to a TV. It lacks the sound and moving pictures

Yes, it's invisible. The first step in the sci meth is to propose WHAT it is. This is the step everyone skips. They wanna go straight to describing (forces, velocities, etc.) before they have even presented WHAT they are describing. You can play with equations until they match observations accurately all you want, you cannot explain a single phenomenon of Nature until you present something on the big screen for all to see.

The scientific method starts with observations, then a hypothesis is developed that makes falsifiable predictions and these are rigorously tested for repeatable results. There are a million theories for the big screen, but most of them already fail to simply predict the repeatable results of mainstream physics. If they can't do all of that and make new predictions they simply stand no further chance than some casual presentation and discussion in a corner of the web.

Wrong, you confuse science with brainstorming. Brainstorming, pondering, contemplating, researching, etc. may start with observation. Until you have formulated a hypothesis, you do not have a scientific theory, you have not begun the sci meth, and you're not doing science. Until then, you're just guessing, conjecturing, trying to find inspiration, finding patterns, collecting clues, etc. You're a detective at this point.

When you feel like you've done enough detective work and have developed a rigorous theory and convincing evidence, you formulate your hypothesis. NOW you're doing science. You point at something, THIS is what I'm talking about when I say "electron". Then you explain some phenomenon, like how the electron "quantum jumps" or how it jumps from atom to atom in a circuit.

Science has nothing to do with predictions, sorry. That's what fortune-tellers and astrologists do. Nobody knows what will happen in the future. Science *exclusively* explains consummated events. When someone takes a guess and it turns out right, we call it intuition, a hunch, a good guess, etc. If we sit you on a hill for 20 years and you guess things all day long the whole time, chances are at least one will happen. Are you doing science?

To say it differently: the "Grand Unified Theory " is mission impossible at best and should be considered to be nothing more than entertainment. But it is great entertainment. Many people dedicate their time or even lives to it.

It is entertaining because it mostly sells science fiction and fantasy. What it puts on the screen, in order to sell the theory, has zilch to do with the actual "theory" and is practically all supernatural or even irrational. String theory has no hypothesis. The supposed "theory" dies right there in the cradle. They cannot show us their "1D string", nor even a model of it, so we have absolutely no idea what they're talking about when they try to explain some phenomenon. It's a complete non-starter.

Quantum proposes the particle, a ball. But it only pays lip service to the particle.

The language of science, especially physics, is visualization. If I cannot see WHAT you're talking about, I cannot possibly understand your explanation. I may deceive myself into thinking I understand, especially if many of the same words are used over and over in "science" classes from an early age. Unfortunately just stringing strongly associated words together is not science. A scientific theory consists of a physical explanation that we can all visualize and illustrate. Now we can understand what we're talking about.

Humans have a strong liking for visualization since 80% of our brain is dedicated to the visual function.
As that function is hardwired for survival it is just not always that objective. That is why formal mathematical models are the language of science. This method is unfortunately orders of magnitude slower than some nice pictures, but it fulfills the requirements for falsifiable results. A picture of a rope is entertaining but not very useful for predicting the heat capacity of copper.

Again, prediction has nothing to do with science. Nobody predicted the cp of copper. Researchers MEASURED it, then someone found an equation that CORRELATED it. This equation may have happened to work well for other metals too. Good job. That's not science. At best that is research, i.e. detective work. It may give us a clue, i.e. it appears that all metals behave similarly in this respect. This implies to the detective that they have similar structures, and other clues may help the detective propose this structure. When the detective is confident s/he presents the hypothesis: *THESE* are metal atoms, and s/he points to atoms that are malleably joined in some kind of extended balloon structure. The detective-turned scientist now explains how the metal interacts with other objects/atoms to produce the observed behavior, such as cp, conduction, etc.

At the end, the scientist presents all the evidence s/he collected while in detective-mode. All metals follow this basic pattern *presents equation*. The scientist then points out particular aspects of the equation that led him/her to posit the extended structure. The scientist presents data showing how metals all behave similarly in this respect, and all have the same maximum cp. Perhaps s/he can even show how the equation corresponds in some what to an extended structure, further convincing the audience.

The evidence gathered can be interpreted in many ways, its main purpose is to convince people that your theory is Right, by making it look like the evidence is best interpreted your way. The evidence comes last however, because science first cares if your theory is rational. If it's irrational all the evidence in the world can't save you! If your theory is that love binds the electron to the proton, it doesn't matter how much data you gathered or how many equations you developed. Your supposed "theory" dies in the cradle.

[StevenO]

...for me pointing to a model of an object is not the same as pointing to an object. Pointing to a picture of a TV is not the same as pointing to a TV. It lacks the sound and moving pictures

It seems to me that this debate can be simplified to this:

Alton is trying to say one thing. If there's an effect an entity is the cause. Entities are causal primaries,and the most essential characteristic of entities is shape/boundedness.

I'm not so well educated in ontology, but I have to disagree. Effects can only be caused by the interaction of at least two "entities". "Entities are causal primaries" does not convey much meaning to me. That would mean the same as the previous sentence: "entities are the cause of effects"? Does that mean "entity" and "cause" are identical? Why not just state "effects have a cause" without putting this "entity" in between?

Why is the "essential characteristic" of "entities" "shape" or "boundedness"? Shape and boundedness of what?

If you cant see the causative entity and you claim to have deduced its attributes from observation you have to start by conceptualizing the entity.The way this is best communicated to others is through a drawing.

From this I understand that for you this "causative entity" is what others would call a "hypothesis" or "theory"?

Now the main problem between this and the theories Alton is combating is the causative "entities" are all concepts of action/relationship. These are called "non-material entities" by those who don't understand that even mental/hypothetical entities must have shape, and actions do not have shape because actions are done by entities, not entities themselves..

Unfortunately, "concepts of action/relationship" does not convey much meaning to me. For me, "action" is an attribute of a physical system, but "relationship" means that you would agree with me that at least two "entities" must be involved for physical action? Since you use a different term "action" means something else than "effect"?

Material causation vs non-material causation boils down to what one can validly claim as an entity.

The "hypothesized" entity can only be validated through its effects anyway, so why the metaphysics?

Geometric entities such as vectors are all understood to not be metaphysical entities, but concepts of action.

How is a vector "a concept of action"?

[altonhare]

...for me pointing to a model of an object is not the same as pointing to an object. Pointing to a picture of a TV is not the same as pointing to a TV. It lacks the sound and moving pictures

It seems to me that this debate can be simplified to this:

Alton is trying to say one thing. If there's an effect an entity is the cause. Entities are causal primaries,and the most essential characteristic of entities is shape/boundedness.

I'm not so well educated in ontology, but I have to disagree. Effects can only be caused by the interaction of at least two "entities".

You are correct that motion/action is always a relationship between two objects. Plasm didn't mean to insist that it must be a single entity, he was emphasizing that there must be entities, however. There is no action without that which is acting.

"Entities are causal primaries" does not convey much meaning to me. That would mean the same as the previous sentence: "entities are the cause of effects"? Does that mean "entity" and "cause" are identical? Why not just state "effects have a cause" without putting this "entity" in between?

In the most essential language one would simply say:

Entities act.

Perhaps even just "Entities move".

Why is the "essential characteristic" of "entities" "shape" or "boundedness"? Shape and boundedness of what?

Substance ontologists from Aristotle onward thought of the most essential/intrinsic characteristic of a thing as "That which is left over when all else is stripped away". This begs the question: WHAT is left over?

Try to imagine 'a' thing that is not bounded. When you strip all other characteristics you associate with objects, such as hardness, weight, color, etc. what are you left with? What if you strip away shape? Are you still left with something?

If you are honestly interested in understanding where I'm coming from, then you will save us both a LOT of time by reading a thorough discussion of it:

http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/04Ex ... Exist.html

You do not yet understand quite what I'm saying. I know this not because you're disagreeing with me, but because of how you're disagreeing.

[StevenO]

The mainstream definitions are all ambiguous and/or circular. The defs Gaede and I propose resolve this.

• In elementary mathematics, physics, and engineering, a vector (sometimes called a geometric or spatial vector ) is a geometric object that has both a magnitude (or length) and a direction.

No ambiguity, just two well defined attributes.

Vector: Length and direction

Length: extent of an object

Object: mass

Mass: Relationship amongst objects

This is the problem with defining objects. It always results in circularity. The word object refers to whatever has shape, i.e. a boundary. That is why we POINT to objects, it is the only way to avoid circularity.

*points* THIS is what I'm talking about. Done.

You create the circularity yourself by equating equivocating a geometric object with a physical object. You can avoid the word object anyway by just acknowledging that length is a quantity of space, no objects needed.

I took a few minutes to waste my time to browse through the insults on Gaede's website and found some clues: apparently these are the definitions you are using:

The ‘property’ that all objects have in common, whether real or imaginary, irrespective of observers, is shape:

• shape: the inability to blend or to be continuous with space; possessing a surface
  or boundary; potential to have location. (syn.: discrete, finite, bound, outline, figure,
  form, contour, mold, configuration, cut, silhouette, carving, sculpture, cast).
• object: that which has shape. (Synonyms: exhibit, thing, physical, something, entity,
  stuff, body, structure, architecture, substance, medium, particle, figure, essence,
  element, point, item, it, island, statue, bulk., encased, contained, enveloped.)

By shape, I mean that the word under scrutiny represents that which lacks the potential to blend with space or,
conversely, that space does not interfere with it (Fig. 1). Shape is a static concept. The word refers to what we
would see in a single frame of the Universal Movie.

Unfortunately this definition of shape disallows all forces described by fields, since they blend with space. At least for me the discrepancy is clear. If Mr. Gaede would have studied physics to learn for instance what a reference frame is he would know that such a thing as a Universal Movie is an impossible proposition.

Wrong, you confuse science with brainstorming. Brainstorming, pondering, contemplating, researching, etc. may start with observation. Until you have formulated a hypothesis, you do not have a scientific theory, you have not begun the sci meth, and you're not doing science. Until then, you're just guessing, conjecturing, trying to find inspiration, finding patterns, collecting clues, etc. You're a detective at this point.

When you feel like you've done enough detective work and have developed a rigorous theory and convincing evidence, you formulate your hypothesis. NOW you're doing science. You point at something, THIS is what I'm talking about when I say "electron". Then you explain some phenomenon, like how the electron "quantum jumps" or how it jumps from atom to atom in a circuit.

You say I'm wrong, but you describe the same process as I do only with more words and the absurd notion that one has to fingerpoint at a theory.

Science has nothing to do with predictions, sorry. That's what fortune-tellers and astrologists do. Nobody knows what will happen in the future. Science *exclusively* explains consummated events. When someone takes a guess and it turns out right, we call it intuition, a hunch, a good guess, etc. If we sit you on a hill for 20 years and you guess things all day long the whole time, chances are at least one will happen. Are you doing science?

You very well know yourself that here again you are equivocating theoretical predictions with telling the future.
A scientific prediction is "if I drop a mass A from X meters height it will hit the ground with Y m/s speed and dissipate Z Joules of energy at impact".

[StevenO]

"Entities are causal primaries" does not convey much meaning to me. That would mean the same as the previous sentence: "entities are the cause of effects"? Does that mean "entity" and "cause" are identical? Why not just state "effects have a cause" without putting this "entity" in between?

In the most essential language one would simply say:

Entities act.

Perhaps even just "Entities move".

Ah! Now we are talking. Would you agree to state that all physical objects are an expression of movement?

Why is the "essential characteristic" of "entities" "shape" or "boundedness"? Shape and boundedness of what?

Substance ontologists from Aristotle onward thought of the most essential/intrinsic characteristic of a thing as "That which is left over when all else is stripped away". This begs the question: WHAT is left over?

Try to imagine 'a' thing that is not bounded. When you strip all other characteristics you associate with objects, such as hardness, weight, color, etc. what are you left with? What if you strip away shape? Are you still left with something?

Does a vibration have shape in your opinion?

If you are honestly interested in understanding where I'm coming from, then you will save us both a LOT of time by reading a thorough discussion of it:

http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/04Ex ... Exist.html

You do not yet understand quite what I'm saying. I know this not because you're disagreeing with me, but because of how you're disagreeing.

Apparently this page comes down to "The word exist means 'physical presence.'". That relegates the definition to the physicists and would not resolve our discussion.

Furthermore he states: Real objects have location (in a Static Universe). A static universe cannot exist however since only motion can define both space and time.

[altonhare]

"Entities are causal primaries" does not convey much meaning to me. That would mean the same as the previous sentence: "entities are the cause of effects"? Does that mean "entity" and "cause" are identical? Why not just state "effects have a cause" without putting this "entity" in between?

In the most essential language one would simply say:

Entities act.

Perhaps even just "Entities move".

Ah! Now we are talking. Would you agree to state that all physical objects are an expression of movement?

What does this even mean? An expression of movement? How is that different than "objects move"?

Why is the "essential characteristic" of "entities" "shape" or "boundedness"? Shape and boundedness of what?

Substance ontologists from Aristotle onward thought of the most essential/intrinsic characteristic of a thing as "That which is left over when all else is stripped away". This begs the question: WHAT is left over?

Try to imagine 'a' thing that is not bounded. When you strip all other characteristics you associate with objects, such as hardness, weight, color, etc. what are you left with? What if you strip away shape? Are you still left with something?

Does a vibration have shape in your opinion?

It has nothing to do with my opinion or your opinion. You are either using the word "vibration" to refer to that which has shape, or you're not. If you are, just show us the shape that you call vibration.

If you are honestly interested in understanding where I'm coming from, then you will save us both a LOT of time by reading a thorough discussion of it:

http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/04Ex ... Exist.html

You do not yet understand quite what I'm saying. I know this not because you're disagreeing with me, but because of how you're disagreeing.

Apparently this page comes down to "The word exist means 'physical presence.'". That relegates the definition to the physicists and would not resolve our discussion.

Furthermore he states: Real objects have location (in a Static Universe). A static universe cannot exist however since only motion can define both space and time.

That is the two word definition but does not automatically mean you UNDERSTAND the definition. That's why he spends several pages discussing the issue. He did not state that the universe is static, either. You need to read. It's easy to just quote him and criticize without understanding. It's much harder to actually read the full discourse, think about it, and then make cogent points that indicate understanding.

[StevenO]

In the most essential language one would simply say:

Entities act.

Perhaps even just "Entities move".

Ah! Now we are talking. Would you agree to state that all physical objects are an expression of movement?

What does this even mean? An expression of movement? How is that different than "objects move"?

You say "entities define/create movement", I say "movement defines/creates entities". Now, who is right?

Does a vibration have shape in your opinion?

It has nothing to do with my opinion or your opinion. You are either using the word "vibration" to refer to that which has shape, or you're not. If you are, just show us the shape that you call vibration.

Apparently this page comes down to "The word exist means 'physical presence.'". That relegates the definition to the physicists and would not resolve our discussion.

Furthermore he states: Real objects have location (in a Static Universe). A static universe cannot exist however since only motion can define both space and time.

That is the two word definition but does not automatically mean you UNDERSTAND the definition. That's why he spends several pages discussing the issue.

He did not state that the universe is static, either. You need to read. It's easy to just quote him and criticize without understanding. It's much harder to actually read the full discourse, think about it, and then make cogent points that indicate understanding.

I've read the pages. It's typical for cranks to claim that others don't understand while they are not even capable of simply representing mainstream science correctly . The burden is on Mr. Gaede, not the other way around.

Now please explain how in a static universe you would define space and define object?

[altonhare]

In the most essential language one would simply say:

Entities act.

Perhaps even just "Entities move".

Ah! Now we are talking. Would you agree to state that all physical objects are an expression of movement?

What does this even mean? An expression of movement? How is that different than "objects move"?

You say "entities define/create movement", I say "movement defines/creates entities". Now, who is right?

Wrong. I said entities move. That's it. You just stuck the define/create thing in there.

Does a vibration have shape in your opinion?

It has nothing to do with my opinion or your opinion. You are either using the word "vibration" to refer to that which has shape, or you're not. If you are, just show us the shape that you call vibration.

I see little humps moving. When you say "vibration" are you referring to the humps themselves, or the motion of the humps? Is vibration a photograph or a movie? A movie is a series of photographs, a series of shapes from which we infer movement. Is vibration a hump, or a series of humps at different locations (indicating movement)?

Apparently this page comes down to "The word exist means 'physical presence.'". That relegates the definition to the physicists and would not resolve our discussion.

Furthermore he states: Real objects have location (in a Static Universe). A static universe cannot exist however since only motion can define both space and time.

That is the two word definition but does not automatically mean you UNDERSTAND the definition. That's why he spends several pages discussing the issue.

He did not state that the universe is static, either. You need to read. It's easy to just quote him and criticize without understanding. It's much harder to actually read the full discourse, think about it, and then make cogent points that indicate understanding.

I've read the pages. It's typical for cranks to claim that others don't understand while they are not even capable of simply representing mainstream science correctly . The burden is on Mr. Gaede, not the other way around.

Now please explain how in a static universe you would define space and define object?

It's typical of arrogant mainstreamers to think they understand a lot more than they do, and to discredit ideas that differ from their own without ever knowing what they're discrediting.

I don't use the word "space" in scientific discussions, except insofar as I have to because others like it so very much. So the onus is not on me to define this word.

Object: shape, form, bounded, finite

[StevenO]

You say "entities define/create movement", I say "movement defines/creates entities". Now, who is right?

Wrong. I said entities move. That's it. You just stuck the define/create thing in there.

Too bad, I thought I was beginning to understand you. If movement is not defined/created by your "entities", then what does?

I see little humps moving. When you say "vibration" are you referring to the humps themselves, or the motion of the humps? Is vibration a photograph or a movie? A movie is a series of photographs, a series of shapes from which we infer movement. Is vibration a hump, or a series of humps at different locations (indicating movement)?

A vibration is an harmonic motion or oscillation around an equilibrium point. I would'nt know what photographs or movies have to do with it. I just like to know if it is covered by your definition of shape and object since a vibrating "object" has variable "shape" and "position".

It's typical of arrogant mainstreamers to think they understand a lot more than they do, and to discredit ideas that differ from their own without ever knowing what they're discrediting.

Calling mainstreamers "arrogant", "stupid" or "idiots" is not going to serve any cause. Mainstream theories did'nt get that status for nothing. Mr. Geade is discrediting theories he cannot even represent accurately and does not present any scientific prediction.

I don't use the word "space" in scientific discussions, except insofar as I have to because others like it so very much. So the onus is not on me to define this word.

Object: shape, form, bounded, finite

You are using the word in your very own definition: "Shape: the inability to blend or to be continuous with space."

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

[StevenO]

How to become a bad theoretical physicist