Forces, or Farces?

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.

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: 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

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.

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.

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”.

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.

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”.

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.

[size=200]I will challenge any scientist or priest on Earth[/size] (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”.

My impression of you hasn’t changed. You are nothing but a bully and you are and will be where you are as result.

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.

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

“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.

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)… ?

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”.

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?

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?

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?

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”.

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).

“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

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ok