What is Physics?

[junglelord]

LIke I already asked you, take a break with your dictionary and PLEASE tell us what YOUR definition is....
pretty please with sugar on top...

[altonhare]

LIke I already asked you, take a break with your dictionary and PLEASE tell us what YOUR definition is....
pretty please with sugar on top...

Physics is the study of objects.

[GaryN]

From Earth, Inc. by Buckminster Fuller:

Science has found no 'things';only events. Universe has no nouns;only verbs.

To each human being, environment is 'all of Universe that isn't me.' Our macrocosmic and microcosmic 'isn't me-ness' consists entirely of widely dissynchronous frequencies or repetitions of angular changes and complex interactions of waves of different lengths and frequencies of repetition. Physics has found a Universe consisting only of frequency and angle modulations.

[kevin]

Much even to my own amazement, I can dowse light bulbs, the spotlights show this best as they produce a flow out from them that matchs the angle of the beam of light.
I was very excited when I first did this, like a little boy with a new toy walking about the house dowsing light bulbs, my better half is convinced I need locking up?
I assume they give off signals that hit the aether and create light, I think it was rayleigh that showed why the sky is blue because of that part of the spectrum scattering most?
kevin

[bboyer]

From Earth, Inc. by Buckminster Fuller:

Science has found no 'things';only events. Universe has no nouns;only verbs.

Alan Watts states this as well. After learning from his talks on it ages ago, I agree. I am only monolingual (English) so can't verify by direct experience with any others, but I've heard it said that many languages have no noun constructs. Offhand, I think I've at least heard it said of American Indian languages (some, if not all) and Chinese (the non-pinyin or non-anglicized, original tongue(s)). Possibly Sanskrit?

[Grey Cloud]

Arc-us wrote:

I am only monolingual (English)

Redundant speech old boy.

[bboyer]

Arc-us wrote:

I am only monolingual (English)

Redundant speech old boy.

Duh. Comes from hangin' out with Alton too much.

[altonhare]

From Earth, Inc. by Buckminster Fuller:

Science has found no 'things';only events. Universe has no nouns;only verbs.

To each human being, environment is 'all of Universe that isn't me.' Our macrocosmic and microcosmic 'isn't me-ness' consists entirely of widely dissynchronous frequencies or repetitions of angular changes and complex interactions of waves of different lengths and frequencies of repetition. Physics has found a Universe consisting only of frequency and angle modulations.

Alan Watts states this as well. After learning from his talks on it ages ago, I agree. I am only monolingual (English) so can't verify by direct experience with any others, but I've heard it said that many languages have no noun constructs. Offhand, I think I've at least heard it said of American Indian languages (some, if not all) and Chinese (the non-pinyin or non-anglicized, original tongue(s)). Possibly Sanskrit?

Now, if anyone could just show me a single example of "not an object" I would have some reason to believe this. Can someone illustrate a verb without an object for me? I've never seen it nor experienced it. However I constantly see examples to the contrary.

[Grey Cloud]

Can someone illustrate a verb without an object for me?

'thought'.

[altonhare]

Can someone illustrate a verb without an object for me?

'thought'.

I see a series of objects, a t, then a h, then o, u, g, h, and t. I don't see how this series of objects illustrates a verb without an object.

[Grey Cloud]

Can someone illustrate a verb without an object for me?

'thought'.

I see a series of objects, a t, then a h, then o, u, g, h, and t. I don't see how this series of objects illustrates a verb without an object.

I 'thought' you had said that 'thoughts' were not objects? (Because they had no shape or somesuch).

[altonhare]

Can someone illustrate a verb without an object for me?

'thought'.

I see a series of objects, a t, then a h, then o, u, g, h, and t. I don't see how this series of objects illustrates a verb without an object.

I 'thought' you had said that 'thoughts' were not objects? (Because they had no shape or somesuch).

thought <---- This is a series of symbols, objects (they have shape).

What are you trying to refer to with this series of symbols? If you propose that it refers to an object, what does the object look like? If it does not refer to an object you call 'a' thought, but rather to an action (as I think you propose), can you illustrate this action without objects?

[Grey Cloud]

Alton,
If that is an attempt at humour then it failed. If it is an attempt to clutch at straws then it also failed.

[altonhare]

Alton,
If that is an attempt at humour then it failed. If it is an attempt to clutch at straws then it also failed.

Can you illustrate for me, as evidence, a single instance of motion/action (verb) without an object?

I am not grasping at straws or making an attempt at humor. Can you show me 'a' thought, which you propose is a verb without objects? It doesn't have to be 'an' actual bona fide thought, a sketch is fine.

[Grey Cloud]

Alton,
You are now becoming pathetic. Have you not a thought of your own you could use? Or, put another way, have you never had a thought? Why does it require motion?