#61
|
|||
|
|||
Bert:
The fallacy of that argument is that the scientists set forth the mathematical theory of the curvature of space, which is a 3D graphical representation of the gravitational flux of gravitational existents that is radiated from all matter according to the amount of mass. They set forth that theory as an idea, that is, as an epistemological existent, and they then claimed that the curvature of empty space, was a physical thing, that is, a metaphysical existent. That is impossible and is a fallacy of logic, specifically, a non-sequitur. They also reject Aristotelian logic and the requirement of logical proof, and that is quite convenient for them. They have not proved the physical existence of the existent that they claim is the curved spacetime, and the mathematical entity that they claim is real has never been found in physical matter. Some scientists actually claim that the empty space that has no physical existents has the property of gravitational curvature and is thus energetic. But, nothing can have no properties, and that is impossible. What the modernist scientists refuse to acknowledge is that there may be actual physical existents that are radiated from matter, and that traverse the universe causing the dimensional accelerations of matter towards matter. They have never discovered the actual cause or mechanism of gravity, only the measurements of the amounts of the mass and accelerations, for example. They refuse to accept the axiom of science that physical existents exist, and that physical existents have functioning properties, e.g., that cause gravity. Instead, they want to promote a mystical explanation that says that nothing causes the mutual gravitational attraction of matter. Or that non-physical mathematical relationships cause the mutual gravitational attraction of matter. Ralph Hertle G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote: The void of space is the most important part of the universe(Einstien said that) Casmir proved waves are intrinsic to space. QM theory uses the word "fabric" of space. We have spacetime geometry . There is no gravity free region of spacetime. Minkowski had much to say how spacetime influences the motion of objects. In spacetime it takes away a straight line for space will curve slightly all objects going through it.That is the reason its said to be "geodesic" Space and time fit so well in our minds. There is a sameness. Bert PS It is gravity that creates "spacetime" imagine me almost forgeting to mention that??? |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Halstead wrote:
Can any one define "nothing"? The dictionary defines it, but in reality we don't even have a concept of nothing unless some one can come up with a definition I've not seen. OK - After following this thread for a week or so, I'll toss in my two cents. The answer depends upon whether we are talking *physically* or *metaphysically*. The correct interpretation of the big bang is that the *universe* itself is expanding as opposed to an explosion expanding into the universe. Since the universe is everything that *is*, *nothing* is what is outside the universe, ie, nothing. That is the *physical* interpretation. Now let's look at the question *metaphysically*. Even *nothing* is "something* (ie, nothing), so no thing (two words) is *nothing*, since we can label it! Therefore, there is no such thing as *nothing*. We can't talk about things that aren't since if we can talk about them, they exist is *some* way. All of which begs the question - Will there ever be a Grand Unified Theory linking physics and metaphysics? I leave that answer for minds greater than my feeble one... TBC I hope. -- # I prefer GNU/Linux to Windows because # I prefer self-empowerment to slavery. # Make the switch to open source and free # yourself from the Microsoft monopoly. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Halstead wrote:
Can any one define "nothing"? The dictionary defines it, but in reality we don't even have a concept of nothing unless some one can come up with a definition I've not seen. OK - After following this thread for a week or so, I'll toss in my two cents. The answer depends upon whether we are talking *physically* or *metaphysically*. The correct interpretation of the big bang is that the *universe* itself is expanding as opposed to an explosion expanding into the universe. Since the universe is everything that *is*, *nothing* is what is outside the universe, ie, nothing. That is the *physical* interpretation. Now let's look at the question *metaphysically*. Even *nothing* is "something* (ie, nothing), so no thing (two words) is *nothing*, since we can label it! Therefore, there is no such thing as *nothing*. We can't talk about things that aren't since if we can talk about them, they exist is *some* way. All of which begs the question - Will there ever be a Grand Unified Theory linking physics and metaphysics? I leave that answer for minds greater than my feeble one... TBC I hope. -- # I prefer GNU/Linux to Windows because # I prefer self-empowerment to slavery. # Make the switch to open source and free # yourself from the Microsoft monopoly. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Roger:
See my post regarding something and nothing of 9-30-03, with the subject line, " Define Nothing [defn. of something]". Roger Halstead wrote: On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 05:36:02 GMT, [ text omitted ] From a philosophical approach nothing when *within* our universe has been pretty well defined.. The problem comes in trying to define it outside our universe. [ text omitted ] But we have to go outside the universe to really gain an idea as to nothing. It's not empty space...it's less than that...or is it another dimension? [ text omitted ] To me, it seems as if philosophy does a better job at defining in this case than does science. [ text omitted ] I clipped out the text of mine that you had replied to. I infer that there are questions in what you say, and I'll attempt some answers or at least some relevant discussion of the topics that you mention. The important focus for life, philosophy, and for science is to focus upon existence, that is, the existence of existents. To preface my remarks I want to say that the universe, or existence, is, of course, a continuing plurality of existents. There is only existence. That's all there is. Get rid of the double negative in the conceptual identifications that you use, for example, you can say that existence is existing. However, it makes no sense to say that nothing is not existing, however true that statement is in the realm of ideas. Keep your focus on the something, not on nothing. It is also impossible to have a concept of something that exists only because it is not nothing - only something(s) exist because they exist. By the same token it is impossible to get outside of the universe, that is, outside of everything that exists. To be outside of existence is to not exist. It is impossible to be both an existent and a non-existent at the same time, place, or respect (Law of Contradiction, Aris.). It is impossible for an existent to not exist. There is no origin for the universe, and there are no temporal or spatial boundaries for the universe. There is not 'outside' - there is only existence that continues to exist. Existence is existing. That's all there is. Existence continues to exist, and all the science and activities of man that have ever existed prove the fact of the existence and of the continuity of existence. Existence just keeps on being, and it keeps on being what it is. Every existent has the properties of existence, substance, continuity, the potentials of change according to the properties and nature of the entity, relationships to other entities, and also, location. Things are what they are where they are. To reiterate. The only focus that one can have is upon existence. One cannot conceive of anything that has no existence or that has no facts. The reason why science, notably the cosmological and sub-atomic sciences, have faltered is that they have given attention to what does not exist, nothing, rather than to what exists, something. Some scientists, for example, claim that light is a result of waves of nothing produced in a non-existing space. They reject the idea that actual existents may be the cause of light. That philosophical disposition prevents them from doing further work and also discovering the cause of gravity. Some scientists believe, for example, that gravity is the result of curvatures in a mathematical but not physical ether called spacetime. They reject the idea that actual physical radiant entities are produced by matter and that collide with other matter and that cause mutual accelerations. The discovery of gravity may take a thousand years. It may take that long for those scientists to recognize that only actual existents exist in the universe, and that the entities have knowable and causal properties that result in the dimensional translations of the positions of the entities. The mathematical ethers of spacetime are epistemological existents, that means ideas, and they are not metaphysically (same as physically) existing entities. To focus on the ideas that identify things is just fine, however, to claim that the ideas of spacetime are physically existing entities is to claim that nothing has properties, and that actual existents do not, or that the properties of physical entities will be selectively ignored. Science has faltered because it has attempted to focus on nothing, has focused on epistemological existents claiming their physical reality, and because it has not focussed upon, and identified, the actual properties of physical existents. Science has its carrot: the discoveries of the natures of substance, light, and gravity, however, it has focussed instead upon nothing, inappropriate ideas, incorrect logic, and upon non-physical mysticism. (Btw, other sciences, e.g., biology, medicine, chemistry, and more, do not have all the same problems as do the cosmological sciences and sub-atomic physics. The causes are psychological and moral, however, that is for another post.) The philosophical issue is the opposition of the notion of 'nothing' against the 'something', that is, the metaphysical ideas of Plato versus those of Aristotle. All of the above discussion is philosophy, not physics, and philosophy, that is, that of Ayn Rand's Objectivism and of Aristotle's basic concepts, is a science. (Other philosophies, e.g., religions, may not claim to be sciences.) Existence is the continuation of the being of all existents. The universe is everything. Ralph Hertle |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Roger:
See my post regarding something and nothing of 9-30-03, with the subject line, " Define Nothing [defn. of something]". Roger Halstead wrote: On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 05:36:02 GMT, [ text omitted ] From a philosophical approach nothing when *within* our universe has been pretty well defined.. The problem comes in trying to define it outside our universe. [ text omitted ] But we have to go outside the universe to really gain an idea as to nothing. It's not empty space...it's less than that...or is it another dimension? [ text omitted ] To me, it seems as if philosophy does a better job at defining in this case than does science. [ text omitted ] I clipped out the text of mine that you had replied to. I infer that there are questions in what you say, and I'll attempt some answers or at least some relevant discussion of the topics that you mention. The important focus for life, philosophy, and for science is to focus upon existence, that is, the existence of existents. To preface my remarks I want to say that the universe, or existence, is, of course, a continuing plurality of existents. There is only existence. That's all there is. Get rid of the double negative in the conceptual identifications that you use, for example, you can say that existence is existing. However, it makes no sense to say that nothing is not existing, however true that statement is in the realm of ideas. Keep your focus on the something, not on nothing. It is also impossible to have a concept of something that exists only because it is not nothing - only something(s) exist because they exist. By the same token it is impossible to get outside of the universe, that is, outside of everything that exists. To be outside of existence is to not exist. It is impossible to be both an existent and a non-existent at the same time, place, or respect (Law of Contradiction, Aris.). It is impossible for an existent to not exist. There is no origin for the universe, and there are no temporal or spatial boundaries for the universe. There is not 'outside' - there is only existence that continues to exist. Existence is existing. That's all there is. Existence continues to exist, and all the science and activities of man that have ever existed prove the fact of the existence and of the continuity of existence. Existence just keeps on being, and it keeps on being what it is. Every existent has the properties of existence, substance, continuity, the potentials of change according to the properties and nature of the entity, relationships to other entities, and also, location. Things are what they are where they are. To reiterate. The only focus that one can have is upon existence. One cannot conceive of anything that has no existence or that has no facts. The reason why science, notably the cosmological and sub-atomic sciences, have faltered is that they have given attention to what does not exist, nothing, rather than to what exists, something. Some scientists, for example, claim that light is a result of waves of nothing produced in a non-existing space. They reject the idea that actual existents may be the cause of light. That philosophical disposition prevents them from doing further work and also discovering the cause of gravity. Some scientists believe, for example, that gravity is the result of curvatures in a mathematical but not physical ether called spacetime. They reject the idea that actual physical radiant entities are produced by matter and that collide with other matter and that cause mutual accelerations. The discovery of gravity may take a thousand years. It may take that long for those scientists to recognize that only actual existents exist in the universe, and that the entities have knowable and causal properties that result in the dimensional translations of the positions of the entities. The mathematical ethers of spacetime are epistemological existents, that means ideas, and they are not metaphysically (same as physically) existing entities. To focus on the ideas that identify things is just fine, however, to claim that the ideas of spacetime are physically existing entities is to claim that nothing has properties, and that actual existents do not, or that the properties of physical entities will be selectively ignored. Science has faltered because it has attempted to focus on nothing, has focused on epistemological existents claiming their physical reality, and because it has not focussed upon, and identified, the actual properties of physical existents. Science has its carrot: the discoveries of the natures of substance, light, and gravity, however, it has focussed instead upon nothing, inappropriate ideas, incorrect logic, and upon non-physical mysticism. (Btw, other sciences, e.g., biology, medicine, chemistry, and more, do not have all the same problems as do the cosmological sciences and sub-atomic physics. The causes are psychological and moral, however, that is for another post.) The philosophical issue is the opposition of the notion of 'nothing' against the 'something', that is, the metaphysical ideas of Plato versus those of Aristotle. All of the above discussion is philosophy, not physics, and philosophy, that is, that of Ayn Rand's Objectivism and of Aristotle's basic concepts, is a science. (Other philosophies, e.g., religions, may not claim to be sciences.) Existence is the continuation of the being of all existents. The universe is everything. Ralph Hertle |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Instantaneous Creation of Infinite Space | Perfectly Innocent | Astronomy Misc | 3 | June 28th 04 09:13 PM |
Pluto, Sedna and Quaoar are planetiods... | Vencislav | Astronomy Misc | 29 | March 21st 04 10:14 PM |
How To Decode The MER Image Filenames | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 7 | March 13th 04 01:21 AM |
newbie qsn, what do u define universe as? | asger | Misc | 10 | September 15th 03 02:46 AM |
How do you define eye relief these days? | Larry Brown | Amateur Astronomy | 4 | September 11th 03 09:42 PM |