Forces, or Farces?

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
21

It seems an appropriate word. There are more ways to bully then a physical attack.

Whether I am projecting is not in question, I don’t know a human that doesn’t. Are you claiming you don’t? And are you human? It is a pleasure to have your introduction.

“What I get instead of questions, is attempts at “bullying”; “You are wrong. End of story. You’re a crackpot” on and on.”

Now don’t be a whiner, or join the crowd. I am sorry, I thought I had adequately couched the reference in language that might assure you that in my wildest imagination I thought I could come from a place where I have some remote sense of where you come from. I admit this could be projecting, man you/I can be too sensitive.

An example, your presumption regarding the you who you refer to in this quote “something of which you know so little about (physics)” then I go on to give examples of how I am aware of some, likely more than a little, but that’s a cluster fuck in itself. Little would be relative to what you think you are aware of, not an amount of awareness more or less, I’ve managed to come across while in this experience. Yeah, I’d call that being an intellectual bully. You think you are the owner of the playground and it is apparent in your contempt for anyone else playing on the playground.

Mowk: “First I don’t claim to know anything, but I have an awareness of what a great many others have stated they believe.”

JSS: “As do we all.”

You haven’t provided any evidence that you do. To include yourself in “we” evidences a complete lack of introspection or honesty.

I am aware of only what others think they know. But it works. I can apply it every day. I can sit at a computer and run simulations of how a foil will behave and when the model is constructed and flown it glides as far as the calculations say it will. When I calculate the forward speed fall off into the wind sailing it fairly predicts my ability to sail into the wind. Without the “force” gravity exerts on the column of atmosphere it does the calculations wouldn’t work.

Really? What is true is I am here questioning what works, philosophy is simply the ride to get to the destination. But I do like gears. That is simply a statement not a solicitation, and you can’t tell the two apart?

22

So here’s a question. The “emulations” you posted as support of your theory, what data did you feed into what model of calculations and what out put rendering rasterization method did you use to create the images? What data was used and what formula’s generated the graph you presented to support your theory? And again in the final “emulation”, what data was fed it to what formulas and what method was used to rasterize the data?

But you are of the opinion that “Why do you think it requires mathematics?” What is your definition of emulation?
If gravity as a force is so wrong how can so much accuracy of prediction result from it consequences?

23

Let me propose for your reconsideration that it appears to you as bullying because you ignored the explanation given and felt merely pressure against what you believe that you know. You felt it as pressure (being bullied) because you didn’t follow through the reasoning presented, and obviously gave no retort to it but instead, because of your response (or lack of), it was clear that a serious understanding of physics was NOT in your mind, hence my comment that you felt as further pressure (bullying).

I suspect that you are feeling the bullying merely because you are ignoring the reasoning details and feel uncomfortable because of it. If I had offered no reasoning at all, you would probably feel less bullied, but that would make it more of an actual act of bullying by presuming that you are to take my word without explanation. (not that such would really constitute bullying anyway).

Realize that You are the one offering no explanation for your position on the OP other than “those smart people say there are forces” (which btw, they are beginning now to change their wording, leaving out “forces” and calling them “interaction”). So as anticipated, the more I explain how wrong they are, the more they change the wording to become more right. In the long run, they will alter their wording so completely as to completely agree with me.

Why would I or anyone make a post explaining that a commonly understood concept is incorrect if that person didn’t know it to be commonly understood in the first place?? Isn’t it a rather ridiculous conclusion to presume that I didn’t know that people think in terms of forces when I made a post explaining that they don’t actually exist? Why would I explain it if I didn’t think anyone had that understanding and didn’t even understand it myself? I explained what “force” means and I explained why it doesn’t actually exist except as a mis-perception of a different underlying occurrence, which I also explained.

Who is really doing the “Whining” here.

And that is one of those details that you obviously ignored in the OP. I explained why it appears to work and I even explain that it is okay to use the false notion if extreme accuracy of truth is not necessary, as is usually the case. Using the Helios god theory was sufficient for their times. They didn’t need to know of nuclear fission.

And that is the false logic that I explained. “If Helios didn’t raising the Sun, you wouldn’t see it every day. So obviously Helios exists.” Quantum mechanics uses an entirely different truth model than the most common physics of the day and they get good results TOO. There can be very many truth models that come close enough to make good approximations, “rules of thumb”.

RM:AO isn’t about close approximations of truth, but rather unquestionable truth, “inerrant truth”.

24

If you are still interested (or finally interested) I can go through every single detail of that emulation and its program. I created all of it myself, so I know every detail. NONE of it is beyond your ability to fully understand and you need very little mathematics.

All the program does is apply the basic principles of AO to 64,000 minuscule portions (called “afflates”) of a cloud of minuscule electromagnetic impulses. The program calculates the vector for each afflate individually without any consideration of consequences, move each one a small amount, then takes a picture, and does it again. It begins with random sizes and vectors being assigned to the array of afflates and ends up with a particle forming (intentionally seeded in the center of the screen so it can be seen).

25

“Let me propose for your reconsideration that it appears to you as bullying because you ignored the explanation given and felt merely pressure against what you believe that you know. You felt it as pressure (being bullied) because you didn’t follow through the reasoning presented, and obviously gave no retort to it but instead, because of your response (or lack of), it was clear that a serious understanding of physics was NOT in your mind, hence my comment that you felt as further pressure (bullying).”

Proposal considered. Lacking. How do you know I ignored the explanation given, and if you don’t know, and you admitted earlier not to, then what of the rest?

“I suspect that you are feeling the bullying merely because you are ignoring the reasoning details and feel uncomfortable because of it. If I had offered no reasoning at all, you would probably feel less bullied, but that would make it more of an actual act of bullying by presuming that you are to take my word without explanation. (not that such would really constitute bullying anyway).”

I suspect you just aren’t aware of any better method of reply. As projection has been mentioned, it could be considered. But a bully wouldn’t. It is not in its nature. LOL.

“Realize that You are the one offering no explanation for your position on the OP other than “those smart people say there are forces” (which btw, they are beginning now to change their wording, leaving out “forces” and calling them “interaction”). So as anticipated, the more I explain how wrong they are, the more they change the wording to become more right. In the long run, they will alter their wording so completely as to completely agree with me.”

My position on the OP has been explained. The math works, It is predictive of a result. Planes fly and pilot compensate for the variation in density air pressure at different altitudes produces. Where does air pressure come from as a force?

Apparently I am. Funny how that always works out for you? “A bully will always deflect blame.”

Bully.

And I don’t need to feed a troll.

Bye

26

That’s what I expected. You are not actually interested in the program. I explained the error in your reasoning (twice), so you bail out entirely with accusations.

And as is so typical, you are guilty of your own accusation, Troll.

:icon-rolleyes:

27

Simply post the data. You can craft a program to do anything. What force causes the particles to move?

Shit,

You are such a putz.

somebody has got to be worth it.

28

You’re not interested in it at all. Just go away and feed your pathetic ego elsewhere.

And btw, this is a snap shot of the program. It was being developed for a much more complex task but having the video files missing, got far to sluggish and complex, so now I am just using it for these simple, crude emulations.

29

Good shit, but I am dumb, so what? Planes still haven’t fallen from the sky.

The notion of changing procedure of canning based on altitude doesn’t change. The effects of pressure differentials still affect weather. Draw the line between these events, changes over time or space, that can be predicted to what ever extent that they are, with any better function your theory could be extended too.

30

Like I said, you don’t really care. There are endless practical theories that work fine for the detail they were invented to handle. That doesn’t make any of them true. In mathematics, imaginary numbers are used in order to get physically real predictions. That doesn’t mean that the imaginary numbers physically exist. Quantum Mechanics is entirely about mere calculation methods, having nothing at all to do with physical reality, yet produces very accurate, although not perfect predictions. Relativity is similar in that it is a practically true and true enough for the degree of accuracy they need modeling of reality, but it is not an accurate truth model. It is a "broken ontology, a “cracked-pot” and disagrees with the Quantum Physics cracked-pot.

That particle forming from the chaos (high entropy) motion of afflates is another example of the fact that “The Second Law of Thermodynamics” is merely another myth in science, yet still taught as a “law” and a “truth”. They keep rewording that “law” as well in an effort to make it at least sound like something that is probably true. The second law was practically true in that in most common cases it was pretty much true. But when getting down to the inerrant truth, the second law is a myth, just like Newtonian forces.

And btw, for that program to produce even one frame of the anime takes 128,000 afflates, each of 40, 64-bit floating point variables. So printing it out is out of the question. Even storing it is out of the question because merely placing it on disk would at least double the processing time for each of hundreds of frames. And that means that when my power went out last night, the data that had accumulated over the past 4 days of running was lost - start all over. I’ll show you the resultant pictures and even the program itself, but you’ll have to run it yourself to see the data.

31

Ok

32

No. An adjective modifies a substantive (noun), and an adverb modifies a verb.

You don’t want to insult James, want you?

Although I would have some questions for you, James, concerning “RM:AO”, I mostly agree with that what you are saying about the relationship between science and “RM:AO”. Scientists have problems when it comes to argue against “RM:AO”. For example: It is in fact impossible to show or even prove respectively disprove with physical means and methods what physics is; that is only possible with language and with philosophy. (This is roughly that what Heidegger once said in an interview.) “RM:AO” is a kind of metaphysics, a kind of ontology. ILP is a philosophy forum, thus the ILP members should be happy, if someone had such a “RM:AO”. But what is the ILP reality? James S Saint introduces “RM:AO” but for many ILP members he seems to be a “burglar”, a “housebreaker”, and his “RM:AO” his “machinegun”. This ILP members are not fair and also not typical for a philosophy forum.

Philosophy has also to be a realm of science, yes, but science has also to be a realm of philosophy. It is the interdependence which makes both successful - otherwise both become dictatorships, religions, new religions with new dogmas and new bondages which have been increasing for so long.

33

The “moral” to the OP is simply that the universe itself doesn’t work by coercion, “force”. It works by everything shifting in accord with its immediate opportunities. Conscious entities, such as people, use their perception of hope and threat (also known as thinking in terms of “good and evil”). And because human’s do that and are clever, they fall into the trap of using and falling for false perceptions of hope and threat, “false-flags” and presumption, the serpent in the garden. A “holy man” doesn’t do that but has a hell of a time trying to get anyone to understand it.

When people begin to attend to (with verification) and act on the immediately surrounding opportunities such as to form their own social anentropic molecules (by the same means that sub-atomic particles do), the entire world of Man begins to change and grow to be far, far more harmonious, just as the universe itself displays (unless they create too much chaos, then they burn out of control).

34

To this day, the existence of ‘ether’, the logical foundation of math, etc, has not found resolution. The best bet is that it is most probable that, because of the way it acts, etc. Certainty has disappeared, and function is the best desription why things behave
the way they do.

35

To the general public, yes, but not for me. Not if the logic is examined properly and rationally by those capable. All of it is resolved and certainty is 100%.

36

James, I have peripherally read Your comments on Planks’s constant, as it relates even such absolutes as the velocity of light. Even here, the special relativity applies, as does in sound, albeit in very different situations. If, the photon has any extension, above zero, then the light velocity will not be absolutely constant. Since the varience reflects

indeterminancy, should not the current adaptation of math, and further, the logical principles underlying
them also be suspect? (In extremely high states)

For practical purposes, it serves well heretofore models, as did Newton’s before relativity. For those above a certain threshold, would not a 99.999999999…be more likely?

37
38

I don’t relate those two. I don’t believe in Plank’s constant, but I am certain of the fixed speed of light in an ideal vacuum.

SRT tends to fall apart near the speed of light (as shown by The Stopped Clock Paradox).

I don’t “suspect them”, I reject them as ontologically coherent. The principles of SRT are useful for fast moving things, not extremely fast nor extremely small things.

I don’t understand what you mean by “would not a 99.9999999 … be more likely”…? What more likely than what?

39

Than 100 % certainty, referencing Gib’s thread on the 'prove to me that non material objects do not exist. 99.999999% or in another context 99%. My take is cross referential, toward other blogs in other concurrent forums, and as i am trying to see repetitions within exclusive content, as a challenge , in artificial/human intelligence, as they seem to occur almost in simultanious contexts. I may be able this with time, bear with me, I am working within a very challenging and limited situation. Thanks for Your indulgence. I am not even sure i am capable to bring it together, whatever develops out of it, may or may not turn on something worth the effort.

40

Even .0000000000001 % chance that a minute particle exists, as a particle as opposed to having wave-like behaviors, may be enough to demonstrate the possibility of it’s verification. Simultanious occurences as in some of the veryimprobable occurances, may be demonstrative of such ‘mysterious’ events, as is described in the psychology of Jung. None more mysterious, as the total reduction of matter into the minutest particles, which can not even be desribed either/or as wave or particle.