Why do you insist that movement must be "created" by something? Entities move. Why do you require more? What do you mean by "create"? Is the statement "entities create movement" different from "entities move"?StevenO wrote:Too bad, I thought I was beginning to understand you. If movement is not defined/created by your "entities", then what does?altonhare wrote:Wrong. I said entities move. That's it. You just stuck the define/create thing in there.StevenO wrote: You say "entities define/create movement", I say "movement defines/creates entities". Now, who is right?
I agree that Bill's attitude in general is not conducive to a scientific atmosphere. I am not him, however, but his discussion of this issue is very pertinent.StevenO wrote: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".altonhare wrote: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)?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.altonhare wrote: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.
That's Bill's wording, not mine. I've never used that one and I've told Bill that I think the word "space" is completely unnecessary and actually causes undue confusion. In fact he considers the word "shape" primitive, as do I. He made that definition because people who do not understand why an object must be finite to be an object kept asking him to define shape. Since all they cared about was winning the argument then, if he could not provide a def, they walked away never having understood. I think that def is there for this reason.StevenO wrote:You are using the word in your very own definition: "Shape: the inability to blend or to be continuous with space."altonhare wrote: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
I try to steer clear of this word because it has so many different interpretations and definitions. I simply have no use for it unless someone else is using it, and I am addressing them.
"Shape" is primitive because it is ubiquitously self-evident. Not only has nobody ever seen that which lacks shape, it is impossible to even imagine that which lacks shape. So explaining a theory to someone without first telling them WHAT (as in, what object) is in your theory, is asking them to engage in pure abstraction. The proponent of the supposed "theory" juggles words (or equations/symbols) around that have an association with each other, probably by some particular rules, in some new or interesting way and everyone thinks the proponent has discovered something new and great. The new combination shoots off connections in the brain, engendering feelings of wonder and excitement (as in a fantasy book or any other activity of pure imagination), and everyone thinks it's okay because we got equations to match what our detectors said and used some rules of grammar or math rules.
Objects are unavoidable in science and physics. Without them we're doing religion and mysticism. In religion they have rules too, and they present evidence, and make people feel like the priest has said something truly deep because he has arranged words and ideas in some new and novel way that still fits in with their current paradigm. They could even develop some equations that matched some observations and say that spirits or ghosts do it. Religion has all of these things. One big difference is that religion has lost a lot of authority power because activity done under the label of "science" has produced great technological marvels. So the word "science" takes on the ring of authority instead of "God". In retrospect if the devout had spent some time doing research and developing gadgets, saying they were inspired by God or that God was working in the instrument for them, or etc. they would have been a lot better off in the long run than petty recruiting vis a vis missionaries.
What religion does not, and never will have, are rational explanations. If you can twist the theist's arm enough for him/her to present an object (statue of God), they will be unable to explain even basic phenomena without invoking the supernatural. By supernatural I mean s/he cannot explain HOW something happens, but simply states that it is made to happen by God or angels or whatever. HOW does God go from just sitting there, to creating the earth "from nothing"? How does anything come "from nothing"? Nobody can visualize this mechanism, it is supernatural, i.e. religious.
Science distinguishes itself by presenting explanations that people can visualize and understand, they are rational. We cannot avoid presenting an object in this context. We must know what the players are before we see the play, and we must see the play before we hear the interpretation of the play (the scientist presents his/her conclusions based on the theory).
You assert: Fields blend with spaceStevenO wrote: You have'nt explained how a physical field can be represented in your definition of object since it would blend with space.
Justify this.
