Forces, or Farces?

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Forces, or Farces?

Postby James S Saint » Mon Sep 22, 2014 12:10 am

Long ago just prior to Newton's fame, the enlightenment era crew, now called "scientists", proposed that objects of mass (weight and inertia) were attracted to each other by a mysterious "force" to be called "gravity". Newton became famous by forming a means of measuring the effect of this "force of gravity" so that it could be tested with a variety of mass objects. And after doing such testing, it was discovered that sure enough, masses did seem to behave as though there was a mysterious force attracting them and related to the amount of mass of each object.

A superstition is a concept superimposed onto an observable physical event so as to "stitch together" the event and the cause of the event. In more ancient times such superstitions were called "gods", an invisible controller of events and the forces were the "magic" due to them being invisible yet causing sometimes surprising events. And not being visible or understood by the common people, they were "super-natural", forces that are not themselves physical yet govern physical events.

The "force of gravity" was in fact one of these "superstitious, supernatural forces". And because the cause and the event of mass attraction could be reliably measured, it was accepted that the "force of gravity" was in fact a certain physical existence, even though never directly seen or see-able.

A few other "philosophy of physical science" types had an issue with this proclamation of the "Law of Gravity". The proposed certain law seem to be suggesting that two objects that had absolutely nothing between them would magically reach out and affect the other. Einstein referred to such things as "spooky action at a distance". It seem inconceivable that two things could have truly nothing touching and yet affect each other. And Hendrick Lorentz with a few others tried to come up with a more reasonable explanation for why masses would behave in such a way as to imply some magic force.

But it seemed to be beyond their collective imagination as to how this mass attraction behavior could work unless there was some kind of spooky action at a distance. So over the past 200 years or so, the entire world has accepted that the magic force actually, physically exists, it just can't be seen or explained, "magic".

Rational Metaphysics: Affectance Ontology is a particular understanding of affects, all and any affects. And what we call "mass attraction" or "the effect of the force of gravity" is certainly an affect to be understood. And we all know that such an affect really does occur. It is objectively testable and very observable. So what is the understanding concerning how that magic force works?

Science is all about finding the reasons behind anything and everything through independent investigation and study. And as it turns out, that magic force, spooky action at a distance, "force of gravity" is found in RM:AO to not actually exist at all. The behavior akin to mass attraction certainly happens, but there is no actual force involved. The "Force of Gravity", that "spooky action at a distance", doesn't actually exist as a real entity, merely an aberrant effect of other formerly not explained nor imagined events. In that regard, Einstein, Lorentz, Maxwell, and others were right. The Force of Gravity, the god of mass attraction, is a superstition cast into the world due to reliable correlation data rather than complete rational thinking.

Very briefly, what is actually happening (provably so) is that each and every mass is a concentration of the very same substance that exists between every mass and other masses. In modern physics terms, that substance could be called "ultra-minuscule electromagnetic pulses". In RM:AO, it is referred to as simply "Affectance" (meaning "subtle influence") and is measurable and explainable as to why it exists and precisely how it behaves. What is called a "sub-atomic particle" is merely a concentration of that substance and is constantly reconstituting itself by releasing and absorbing tiny portions of Affectance ("ultra-minuscule electromagnetic pulses").

If one could see Affectance in the seemingly "empty space", it might look something like this (an emulation of such a substance);
Image


The releasing and absorbing of affectance causes a buildup of affectance surrounding each and every particle. That buildup is nearly impossible to actually see although it can be measured merely by watching what happens when anything passes through it. And what happens when another particle of mass passes through it, is that the concentrations of affectance, the "particles", migrate toward each other as though they were being attracted by an invisible force. And they do that because as the reconstitute themselves from their own surrounding, the concentration becomes higher toward the other concentration that has been surrounded by a higher field of affectance. In short, the particles merely migrate together as they constantly reconstitute themselves from their surrounding.

The animated graph below displays a particle of affectance/"mass" as it grows and diminishes in accord with its surroundings.
Image

And the following emulation (using the principles involved) display what such a particle you look like if one could see a particle growing and see the affectance ("ultra-minuscule electromagnetic pulses") from which is constitutes itself.

Image


I haven't emulated the migrating of particles together in such a display yet (although I have done so in a far less display-oriented program), but once seen and understood along with similar understandings concerning "charge" or "electric potential" and "magnetic" behavior, ALL of the "forces" proclaimed in modern physics and science in their Standard Model can be seen to certainly be merely superstitions, modern day "inexplicable gods" governing the behavior of sub-atomic particles and thus all material objects.

The Modern Science concept of "Forces" is merely a Modern Science superstition stemming from the Newtonian era. Such "forces" do not exist at all, except as an aberrant after-effect (as Einstein, Lorentz, Maxwell, and others suspected), much like the gods of Rome or Greece; "Helios is the cause of the Sun rising". One can say, "it is as though the forces exist", just as one can say, "It is as though the god Helios raises the Sun". And the justification given that "We know it exists because it reliably performs" is no different than the once given justification, "We know he exists because he relaibly raises the Sun for us each and every day".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Forces, or Farces?

Postby Wizard » Mon Sep 22, 2014 5:50 am

You're right, and I hope Ben JS, Lev Muishkin, and the other atheists apologize to you soon since they were and are wrong.
phyllo wrote:Before the internet, there were these things called books. There were special buildings full of them.

James S Saint wrote:It is the mostly blind builders struggling against the entirely blind destroyers in an effort to find the light.
"The light is here"
"No it isn't"
"The light is there"
"I don't see it"
"The light exists"
"No it doesn't"

... on and on ...
User avatar
Wizard
Thinker
 
Posts: 880
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: Forces, or Farces?

Postby James S Saint » Mon Sep 22, 2014 10:38 pm

Wizard wrote:You're right, and I hope Ben JS, Lev Muishkin, and the other atheists apologize to you soon since they were and are wrong.

Well, thank you, but I wouldn't hold my breath for that one around here. :lol:


{{only good people apologize for anything}}
Last edited by James S Saint on Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Forces, or Farces?

Postby Mowk » Mon Sep 22, 2014 11:31 pm

Just to clarify, what is the difference between a "force" and a force?
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2285
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm
Location: In a state of excessive consumption

Re: Forces, or Farces?

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:30 am

I find it interesting that James denies gravity. I would love to see some peer reviewed
papers agreeing with James on his denial of gravity. No credible scientist has denied gravity, ever.
Of course James will create one or twist something someone once said, but really this makes you no
better than those clowns who deny evolution. so please show us the peer review papers that
agree with you.

Kropotkin
PK IS EVIL.....
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8905
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: Forces, or Farces?

Postby zinnat » Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:43 am

James S Saint wrote:{{only good people apologize for anything}}


Only good and brave people can apologize for anything.

It takes a lot of courage to accept mistakes openly. The biggest enemy of a person is none other than his ego and everyone cannot beat it.

Either an innocent/ignorant can apologize for his mistakes or a truly wise one. But, it is quite difficult thing to do for those who fall between those two categories
.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3699
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Forces, or Farces?

Postby zinnat » Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:49 am

Peter Kropotkin wrote:I find it interesting that James denies gravity. I would love to see some peer reviewed
papers agreeing with James on his denial of gravity. No credible scientist has denied gravity, ever.


Kropotokin,

I do not think that you paid enough attention to the post.
He is not denying gravity either but merely offering an explanation for it.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3699
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Forces, or Farces?

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:14 am

James S Saint: Long ago just prior to Newton's fame, the enlightenment era crew, now called "scientists", proposed that objects of mass (weight and inertia) were attracted to each other by a mysterious "force" to be called "gravity". Newton became famous by forming a means of measuring the effect of this "force of gravity" so that it could be tested with a variety of mass objects. And after doing such testing, it was discovered that sure enough, masses did seem to behave as though there was a mysterious force attracting them and related to the amount of mass of each object.

J: A superstition is a concept superimposed onto an observable physical event so as to "stitch together" the event and the cause of the event. In more ancient times such superstitions were called "gods", an invisible controller of events and the forces were the "magic" due to them being invisible yet causing sometimes surprising events. And not being visible or understood by the common people, they were "super-natural", forces that are not themselves physical yet govern physical events.

K: right after the first paragraph which is explaining things, we have the second paragraph which
suggest that the first paragraph is a superstition. As the first paragraph is about gravity, this suggest
he is calling gravity a superstition.

J: The "force of gravity" was in fact one of these "superstitious, supernatural forces". And because the cause and the event of mass attraction could be reliably measured, it was accepted that the "force of gravity" was in fact a certain physical existence, even though never directly seen or see-able.

K: now he is hiding behind the word "force". As gravity is considered a force, he is calling gravity a
superstition. Not my words, his words.

J: A few other "philosophy of physical science" types had an issue with this proclamation of the "Law of Gravity". The proposed certain law seem to be suggesting that two objects that had absolutely nothing between them would magically reach out and affect the other. Einstein referred to such things as "spooky action at a distance". It seem inconceivable that two things could have truly nothing touching and yet affect each other. And Hendrick Lorentz with a few others tried to come up with a more reasonable explanation for why masses would behave in such a way as to imply some magic force.

K: here he has Einstein calling gravity "a spooky action at a distance" without any reference to where
this quote is from and where can we find this quote. This quote also seemingly discounts magnetic actions also because they are also not touching and yet affect each other. In other words, James is discounting the science of the last 500 years which explains wizard atheist comments. The war on science continues by
the religious right in other words.

J: But it seemed to be beyond their collective imagination as to how this mass attraction behavior could work unless there was some kind of spooky action at a distance. So over the past 200 years or so, the entire world has accepted that the magic force actually, physically exists, it just can't be seen or explained, "magic".

K: and once again, we are discounting science and gravity.

J: Rational Metaphysics: Affectance Ontology is a particular understanding of affects, all and any affects. And what we call "mass attraction" or "the effect of the force of gravity" is certainly an affect to be understood. And we all know that such an affect really does occur. It is objectively testable and very observable. So what is the understanding concerning how that magic force works?

Science is all about finding the reasons behind anything and everything through independent investigation and study. And as it turns out, that magic force, spooky action at a distance, "force of gravity" is found in RM:AO to not actually exist at all. The behavior akin to mass attraction certainly happens, but there is no actual force involved. The "Force of Gravity", that "spooky action at a distance", doesn't actually exist as a real entity, merely an aberrant effect of other formerly not explained nor imagined events. In that regard, Einstein, Lorentz, Maxwell, and others were right. The Force of Gravity, the god of mass attraction, is a superstition cast into the world due to reliable correlation data rather than complete rational thinking.

K: and once again saying gravity doesn't exist. I would like to see peer reviewed papers agreeing with you.

J: Very briefly, what is actually happening (provably so) is that each and every mass is a concentration of the very same substance that exists between every mass and other masses. In modern physics terms, that substance could be called "ultra-minuscule electromagnetic pulses". In RM:AO, it is referred to as simply "Affectance" (meaning "subtle influence") and is measurable and explainable as to why it exists and precisely how it behaves. What is called a "sub-atomic particle" is merely a concentration of that substance and is constantly reconstituting itself by releasing and absorbing tiny portions of Affectance ("ultra-minuscule electromagnetic pulses").

If one could see Affectance in the seemingly "empty space", it might look something like this (an emulation of such a substance);
Image


The releasing and absorbing of affectance causes a buildup of affectance surrounding each and every particle. That buildup is nearly impossible to actually see although it can be measured merely by watching what happens when anything passes through it. And what happens when another particle of mass passes through it, is that the concentrations of affectance, the "particles", migrate toward each other as though they were being attracted by an invisible force. And they do that because as the reconstitute themselves from their own surrounding, the concentration becomes higher toward the other concentration that has been surrounded by a higher field of affectance. In short, the particles merely migrate together as they constantly reconstitute themselves from their surrounding.

The animated graph below displays a particle of affectance/"mass" as it grows and diminishes in accord with its surroundings.
Image

And the following emulation (using the principles involved) display what such a particle you look like if one could see a particle growing and see the affectance ("ultra-minuscule electromagnetic pulses") from which is constitutes itself.

Image


I haven't emulated the migrating of particles together in such a display yet (although I have done so in a far less display-oriented program), but once seen and understood along with similar understandings concerning "charge" or "electric potential" and "magnetic" behavior, ALL of the "forces" proclaimed in modern physics and science in their Standard Model can be seen to certainly be merely superstitions, modern day "inexplicable gods" governing the behavior of sub-atomic particles and thus all material objects.

The Modern Science concept of "Forces" is merely a Modern Science superstition stemming from the Newtonian era. Such "forces" do not exist at all, except as an aberrant after-effect (as Einstein, Lorentz, Maxwell, and others suspected), much like the gods of Rome or Greece; "Helios is the cause of the Sun rising". One can say, "it is as though the forces exist", just as one can say, "It is as though the god Helios raises the Sun". And the justification given that "We know it exists because it reliably performs" is no different than the once given justification, "We know he exists because he relaibly raises the Sun for us each and every day".[/quote]

K: I do not believe I misread James work of fiction. He wants us to discount 500 years of science and
replace it with something I have never heard of before, RM/AO whatever the hell that is. I want
peer review papers talking about this. Offer up evidence of your theory with researchable papers.

Kropotkin
PK IS EVIL.....
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8905
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: Forces, or Farces?

Postby James S Saint » Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:01 am

Mowk wrote:Just to clarify, what is the difference between a "force" and a force?

The lettering >"force"< indicates what something is called, as in quoting someone using the word (whether using it properly or not). Without the quotes, the lettering is indicating the concept to which the word refers.

In the case of a force, the concept is something either pushing or pulling. And the OP was expressing that there is actually nothing pushing or pulling, yet it is called a "force".

And as Sanjay properly pointed out, the OP is not denying gravitation or mass attraction as an occurrence.
James S Saint wrote:And what we call "mass attraction" or "the effect of the force of gravity" is certainly an affect to be understood. And we all know that such an affect really does occur.

What is being denied is that a "force" is involved, the "force of gravity", not gravitation itself.

What was being pointed out was simply that there is no pushing or pulling involved as the concept of "force" would indicate. And beyond that there is no force at a distance also as the concept of "the force of gravity" would imply, eg. The Earth holding the Moon in orbit at 250,000 miles away.
force (fôrs, frs)
n.
.
7. Physics: A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application.

There is nothing being "applied" from one mass to another such as to dictate a direction. And by attending to what is actually going on, one can cause the behavior to be very different, because there is no true "force" there. It is merely an aberrant appearance.

If you ask a physicist "Why is it that negative particles are attracted to positive particles", he can only respond with "it is just what they do, a fundamental fact of reality" (ie. No explanation. "It is just the way it is")

If you ask a religious person "Why (or how) did God create the universe", he will respond in a similar manner, "It is just what God does, a fundamental fact of reality".

Both proclaim the inexplicable fundamentals of reality. Both proclaim inexplicable magic at the base of understanding, "that which cannot be known". Yet Science is all about explaining that which was formerly not known. But seems to have decided to stop with the idea of "forces", never to be explained, "just fundamental" (and often declared arbitrary).

From where did those "forces" come? They cannot explain other than to say that they just magically popped out of nowhere or in rare cases, they are said to have always existed. "By what means do they work?" Forget it. You will not get a coherent answer to that one.

And such religious responses are reflected in this thread, "until the prophets of science declare something, it is meaningless, crackpot, insanity". Yet the very notion of Science was canonized in the motto, "Nullius in Verba", "take no ones word".

Do I hear questions as to details? No. I hear the frenzy of religious fanatics. Is there even one scientist among you? Even anyone who knows what a scientist is?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Forces, or Farces?

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:22 am

Peer reviewed papers is all I am looking for, do you have any or not, proving your point.


Kropotkin
PK IS EVIL.....
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8905
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: Forces, or Farces?

Postby James S Saint » Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:49 am

Peter Kropotkin wrote:Peer reviewed papers is all I am looking for, do you have any or not, proving your point.


Kropotkin


Oh. Did Galileo have "peer review papers"?
Obviously, as I said, you only believe what your worshipful authorities have instructed you to believe, no ability to think for yourself, and thus not qualified to be a scientist, nor even know one if you encountered one. You have to be told by the elite and must take their word (very religious and anti-science).

When I or anyone presents a new idea, solution, or even worthy proposal, you have no means to assess it other than ask Wiki, TV, or a popular magazine. It is a typical socialist mindset.

Did you question how I knew of anything relating to it, why I had such confidence concerning any part of it? Of course not. You need only ask what someone else thinks, not having such a faculty of your own.


You merely meme mainstream and have no other compass.
Science is "Nullius in Verba", as is all philosophy.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Forces, or Farces?

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Tue Sep 23, 2014 8:21 am

clearly you have no peer reviewed papers to read. Which leads me
to know that you are blowing smoke out of your ass when talking anything
about science.

Kropotkin
PK IS EVIL.....
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8905
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: Forces, or Farces?

Postby James S Saint » Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:49 am

Peter Kropotkin wrote:clearly you have no peer reviewed papers to read. Which leads me
to know that you are blowing smoke out of your ass when talking anything
about science.

Kropotkin

And if you were talking to Galileo, you would be telling him how you know that he is just "blowing smoke out his ass". Clearly your opinion is irrelevant when talking about science (and as far as I can tell, about pretty much everything else you preach about). I don't have any papers from the Pope either. Not even a note from my mommy.

Some people's lives are embedded in your distant future. Such people have no "peers", despite inviting them to take a glimpse at their future and destiny. But you can't tell them from any other. Unlike you and even most of them, I actually know how to know when it is that I know ("inerrancy"). One can learn from others, but one cannot know from others.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Forces, or Farces?

Postby Mowk » Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:39 pm

Hello James,

Thanks for your rather JSS like reply.

An adjective modifies the verb, such that the verb does not get modified without it. Forces do exist. Perhaps, and I don't think anyone will argue, our knowledge of what we call a gravitational force is incomplete but I continue to see that the mathematics that applies the concepts can still calculate the required energy to escape it's "grasp" (perhaps 'grasp' isn't appropriately descriptive either, as it seems to evoke an effort or force that maintains it).

But the theoretical model works in an effort to predict how much energy is required to propel a mass into space and to determine return methods that counter its effects to prevent the result of a rather bug like splat against the windshield earth on the return trip. The theory has a functionally applicable component. It remains useful. Your choice might be to present something as or more useful.

Another way a scientist might respond without invoking "magic" is to simply state the obvious, they don't know; which any scientist will admit. They aren't claiming they know it is magic. If you wish to change the circumstance of that lack of knowledge go for it, but I doubt that vector will take place arguing theories on an internet philosophy forum. I certainly don't have the mathematical background to argue with you regarding 'your' theory.

What I do have is an opinion, that the way you argue it, gives me, at least, the impression of a crackpot, and that is no insult, most of those who think they see what others do not have been viewed as crackpots. Many of the crackpots have remained crackpots because they continually argue with an ineffective crowd.

Take it to a more effective crowd or don't, depending on whether you are getting what you want out of the discourse. You might consider publishing a book of your Rational Metaphysics. It seems like a fairly ripe field, you have only this sort of competition: http://rationalmetaphysics.blogspot.se/, or this site http://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t3 ... etaphysics of which you are already aware and contributing to, and here at ILP, none of these are an example that seems an appropriate platform to role out a Rational Metaphysics theory, but perhaps you have a different reward in mind for your efforts of which I can only imagine.

Good luck.
M
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2285
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm
Location: In a state of excessive consumption

Re: Forces, or Farces?

Postby James S Saint » Tue Sep 23, 2014 10:25 pm

Mowk wrote:An adjective modifies the verb, such that the verb does not get modified without it.

What "adjective" are you talking about? A "force" is a noun, not an adjective. "Gravitational" is an adjective of that noun, although "gravitation" is a noun.

Mowk wrote:Forces do exist. Perhaps, and I don't think anyone will argue, our knowledge of what we call a gravitational force is incomplete but I continue to see that the mathematics that applies the concepts can still calculate the required energy to escape it's "grasp" (perhaps 'grasp' isn't appropriately descriptive either, as it seems to evoke an effort or force that maintains it).

And here you state something of which you know so little about (physics) as though you had proof. Why do you believe that forces exist? You believe it because someone told you they do. And they told you that because they have a reliable predictive formula which they have demonstrated. That certainly is evidence of the possibility of something's existence. But it has not been falsifiably proven (a demand within science). Many predictive theories can be formulated out of complete non-sense. Something can't be falsifiably proven to exist until there is no other option left but for the entity to exist.

Mowk wrote:But the theoretical model works in an effort to predict how much energy is required to propel a mass into space and to determine return methods that counter its effects to prevent the result of a rather bug like splat against the windshield earth on the return trip. The theory has a functionally applicable component. It remains useful. Your choice might be to present something as or more useful.

Certainly true. But something being "practical" does not make it true. Newton's laws were practical only to later be stated as wrong. It was practical to calculate very many things throughout society based upon the theory of the gods of Rome, Greece, and Egypt. How practical something is at that moment depends upon how much precise detail is required concerning the specific subject. The Roman gods theory was of little use in predicting the path of a cannon ball. And the forces theory is of no use in explaining why the universe exists, why protons stick together, or why charged particles separate. They merely declare these things as "fundamental", just as the Roman gods theories used to do, "it is just the way it is", or in the Abramic religions, "I am that I am".

Mowk wrote:They aren't claiming they know it is magic.

They claim that it is inexplicable (ie "magic"), at least until THEY can explain it in such a way as to make it appear as though they were right all along, no one else can for sure, nor is allowed to.

Mowk wrote:If you wish to change the circumstance of that lack of knowledge go for it, but I doubt that vector will take place arguing theories on an internet philosophy forum. I certainly don't have the mathematical background to argue with you regarding 'your' theory.

Why do you think it requires mathematics? Because they use mathematics? I made one single post on Physics Forums merely introducing the concepts and what I did to substantiate them because someone asked me of "your theory". The post was immediately deleted and I was immediately banned for life for "arguing an alternate theory". Is that the kind of forum you are recommending? All of the other "Science" forums do basically that same thing although usually with far less hysterical reaction. They do not permit controversy. They are there to preach THEIR gospel, not listen to alternatives. They have been invited to come here. Where are they?

On a philosophy forum, one would expect for a theory to be questioned in an inquisitive way. When I say, "It works like this", there are three basic responses;
1) Why do you think it works that way (concerning some detail perhaps).
2) No, it works this other way instead (your response).
3) You are just demanding faith from us.

Philosophical thinking people, including scientists, would be expected to respond with option (1). Eugene Morrow did it (so as to defend his own theory), Sanjay did it (only contending with my definition of "conscious"), Mechanical Monster did it, Arminius did it. None of them have questioned it to my satisfaction and thus I know that none of them fully grasped it, but none of them could find anything contrary, logically unsound, or evidence to be otherwise. Science cannot argue with it. And thus on Science forms, it isn't even allowed to be mentioned (I have asked ahead of time. They say "NO!" without even seeing it), the exact same treatment one would expect from a defensive Church; "Doubting us is not allowed. You are the Devil".

Mowk wrote:What I do have is an opinion, that the way you argue it, gives me, at least, the impression of a crackpot

When have You seen me argue it? What made it a "crackpot argument"? Is it a "crackpot argument" merely because you know that it isn't true without thinking through it? I don't believe those who have listened to my explanations to their proper questioning of it think it is a "crackpot argument", whether they think it is true or not.

"Crackpot" and "not knowing your ass from a hole in the ground" refers to unsound logic. Newtonian forces, Relativity, and Quantum Physics are crackpot ideas, all of which I can shoot down even without my own theory. It takes a good philosopher to understand what the physicist is talking about and yet can't actually comprehend.

I will challenge any scientist or priest on Earth (and even those floating above it). And they will not win based upon logical soundness. I go easy on the priests because they are honest in admitting that theirs is an issue of faith. I understand and respect that, although every priesthood needs a higher group who truly understands beyond mere faith, else they have no Godly leadership. But if they cross that line of mere faith and proclaim certain knowing and yet contrary to me, I will tear them down as well, just as any faithful scientist who denies that he is merely of faith.

In an all out logic based competition with all theories ever proposed throughout the history of Mankind, Affectance Ontology will be the "Last Truth Standing".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Forces, or Farces?

Postby Mowk » Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:35 am

My impression of you hasn't changed. You are nothing but a bully and you are and will be where you are as result.
Last edited by Mowk on Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2285
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm
Location: In a state of excessive consumption

Re: Forces, or Farces?

Postby James S Saint » Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:49 am

Mowk wrote:My impression of you hasn't changed. You are nothing but a bully and you are and will be where you are as result. Like I said good luck.

And my impression of you hasn't changed either; presumptuous, prejudice, and not willing to ask the questions that would determine what is or isn't true = "religious".

And how did you get "bully" out of any of this? Am I beating someone up, breaking their arm if they don't agree with me? I don't think so. But truth isn't a priority to you, is it.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Forces, or Farces?

Postby Mowk » Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:52 am

James, it is in your discourse. The way you respond. You are a bully. Just read your posts.
Take a breath.
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2285
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm
Location: In a state of excessive consumption

Re: Forces, or Farces?

Postby Mowk » Wed Sep 24, 2014 6:06 am

"something of which you know so little about (physics)"

First I don't claim to know anything, but I have an awareness of what a great many others have stated they believe.

I am a sailor and passively curious regarding aviation. I am aware of the principles of how a sailboat can sail into the wind and how an airplane can fly, and have applied the awareness with varying degrees of success, more success than failure. Just a bit of anecdotal reference if you are interested, if someone ever has a question about a gift to buy me, if it involves gears and/or levers I am sure to like it.

From this side it is you that presume too much.
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2285
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm
Location: In a state of excessive consumption

Re: Forces, or Farces?

Postby James S Saint » Wed Sep 24, 2014 6:16 am

Mowk wrote:James, it is in your discourse. The way you respond. You are a bully. Just read your posts.
Take a breath.

Perhaps you are using the wrong word, and certainly projecting. I state my view, explain why I believe it and wait for any questions pertaining to it. When asked, I give further explanation sometimes to ridiculous extremes. What I get instead of questions, is attempts at "bullying"; "You are wrong. End of story. You're a crackpot" on and on.

Rather than you doing what you are accusing me of doing, how about give a specific example and explain how it constitutes "bullying" (or whatever actual complaint you might have)... ?

Mowk wrote:"something of which you know so little about (physics)"

First I don't claim to know anything, but I have an awareness of what a great many others have stated they believe.

As do we all. Why else would I bother to make a post explaining why I think it is incorrect? You seem to be merely proclaiming the obvious mainstream perspective as fact, "end of story".

Mowk wrote:I am a sailor and passively curious regarding aviation. I am aware of the principles of how a sailboat can sail into the wind and how an airplane can fly, and have applied the awareness with varying degrees of success, more success than failure. Just a bit of anecdotal reference if you are interested, if someone ever has a question about a gift to buy me, if it involves gears and/or levers I am sure to like it.

From this side it is you that presume too much.

And what in the hell did any of that have to do with any of this? What was I presuming other than that you knew only what everyone thinks that they know and to offer an opportunity to question and correct it or properly defend it?

Or are you saying that I presumed inappropriately that you would be at this site to discuss and question commonly accepted truths, "philosophy", when you were really only here to solicit a gift of gears?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Forces, or Farces?

Postby Mowk » Wed Sep 24, 2014 7:15 am

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?
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2285
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm
Location: In a state of excessive consumption

Re: Forces, or Farces?

Postby Mowk » Wed Sep 24, 2014 7:43 am

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?
Last edited by Mowk on Wed Sep 24, 2014 7:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2285
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm
Location: In a state of excessive consumption

Re: Forces, or Farces?

Postby James S Saint » Wed Sep 24, 2014 7:47 am

Mowk wrote: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.

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.

Mowk wrote: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.

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.

Mowk wrote:I know only what others think they know. But it works. I can apply it every day.

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.


Mowk wrote:Without the "force" gravity exerts on the column of atmosphere it does the calculations wouldn't work.

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".
Last edited by James S Saint on Wed Sep 24, 2014 8:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Forces, or Farces?

Postby James S Saint » Wed Sep 24, 2014 8:05 am

Mowk wrote: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?

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).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Forces, or Farces?

Postby Mowk » Wed Sep 24, 2014 8:19 am

"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
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2285
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm
Location: In a state of excessive consumption

Next

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users