Proton Made From Three Quarks is a White Lie

From Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler's
What is a Proton, Anyway?

You may have heard that a proton is made from three quarks. Indeed here are several pages that say so. This is a lie — a white lie, but a big one. In fact there are zillions of gluons, antiquarks, and quarks in a proton. The standard shorthand, “the proton is made from two up quarksand one down quark”, is really a statement that the proton has two more up quarks than up antiquarks, and one more down quark than down antiquarks. To make the glib shorthand correct you need to add the phrase “plus zillions of gluons and zillions of quark-antiquark pairs.” Without this phrase, one’s view of the proton is so simplistic that it is not possible to understand the LHC at all.

This is a useful piece of information even if one doesn't necessarily agree with the notion of isolated particle balls whizzing around and colliding with each other which seems to be the only way particle physicists want to present their ideas. Even in this article Strassler literally draws a picture with symbols to represent the proton!!!! And he thinks this helps???

Matt Strassler's illustration of the Proton.  Is he kidding?? 

Even if we take the above quote at face value the questions are

Where do all these zillions of gluons and quark-antiquark pairs come from?
What are their forms and other properties???
What is their relation to all other protons and neutrons of the Universe?
Do they just appear out of thin space???

Maybe they are threads, like life lines ending on all other protons and neutrons of the Universe and this might be the reason that the motion of the atomic 'center point' is so complex. . . The atom is a centralization, a permanent bundle of gazillions of these fundamental objects with unique properties. These fundamental objects are literally fed from every single other atom of the Universe so that there is a perfect continuity and interconnection between all.  Even Pope Francis said in his recent encyclical, Laudato Si:

It cannot be emphasized enough how everything is interconnected. . . not even atoms or subatomic particles can be considered in isolation.

If every single atom is always taking on a succession of locations(motion) then this would instantaneously influence every single other proton or neutron of the Universe. The proton or neutron has to constantly adjust itself or shift itself or reform itself to maintain its inherent connection to all others via the fundamental object which is probably thread-like. And it uses these inherent constituents as axles of atomic motion.  This is to some degree unpredictable. And its not like these threads are ever going to literally annihilate or be created. They are always there.  Just impossible to detect individually unless there is a collision of protons where all these threads fight for a single location.  When the threads are all bunched and crunched together, superposing to a critical maximum number we have a degeneracy reaction, a push. . . hence the repulsion when protons and neutrons are .7 femtometers from each other.

Modern physicists tend to think too much in an isolated vacuum.  If the atom were isolated from all others perhaps motion would be impossible.  Modern physics is also lost in abstractions.  Look again at the picture above.  We don't need equations of motion, differential geometry, or symbols to understand and appreciate the complexity of the proton and neutron.  As enough data is fed in everyday to last until the Sun explodes, all we need do at this point is stand back and think about it. . .  

Electron Quotes!!!

Have fun parsing this wild list. . . 

* "The electron is a theory we use; it is so useful in understanding the way nature works that we can almost call it real." --- Richard Feynman, From Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman, p. 70

* "Everything is still vague and unclear to me, but it seems as if the electrons will no more move on orbits" ---Heisenberg in a letter to Pauli after conceiving Matrix Mechanics, June 9th 1925

* "There is one simplification at least. Electrons behave ... in exactly the same way as photons; they are both screwy, but in exactly in the same way... — Richard P. Feynman 'Probability abd Uncertainty—the Quantum Mechanical View of Nature', the sixth of his Messenger Lectures (1964), Cornell ------ (I wonder if he intended that pun)

* "… we may think on an electron as always being surrounded by a cloud of virtual photons. If the electron is violently accelerated by some external means, some of this cloud may be shaken loose and given enough energy to become real photons" ---Frank Shu, The Physical Universe, 1982

* "One possibility in this direction is to regard, classically, an electron as the end of a single Faraday line of force. The electric field in this picture from discrete Faraday lines of force, which are to be treated as physical things, like strings. One has then to develop a dynamics for such a string like structure, and quantize it.... In such a theory a bare electron would be inconceivable, since one cannot imagine the end of a piece of string without having the string.  ---Paul Dirac, Bombay Lectures (1955)

* "the electron and proton are not really independent, but just two manifestations of one elementary particle." ---Paul Dirac, (1930)   

* "There was a time when we wanted to be told what an electron is. The question was never answered. No familiar conceptions can be woven around the electron; it belongs to the waiting list." — Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature Of The Physical World (1928), 290

* "For most practical purposes, an electron is a structure-less particle that possesses an intrinsic angular momentum, or spin." ---Frank Wilczek, What is an Electron?

* "Electron degeneracy pressure results from the same underlying mechanism that defines the electron orbital structure of elemental matter. Freeman Dyson showed that the imperviousness of solid matter is due to quantum degeneracy pressure rather than electrostatic repulsion as had been previously assumed." (Wiki Quote, Electron Degeneracy Pressure, citing three of Freeman Dyson's papers)
* "The inner equilibrium of an extended electron becomes . . . an insoluble puzzle from the point of view of electrodynamics.  I hold this puzzle (and the questions related to it) to be a stochastic problem. . . The electrons are not only indivisible physically, but also geometrically.  They have no extension in space at all [so they are a concept???].  Inner forces between the elements of an electron do not exist because such elements are not available.  The electromagnetic interpretation of the mass is thus eliminated."---Yakov Frenkel, 1925

* "As advertising always convinces the sponsor even more than the public, the scientists have become sold, and remain sold, on the idea that they have the key to the Absolute, and that nothing will do for Mr. Average Citizen but to stuff himself full of electrons." — Anthony Standen, In Science is a Sacred Cow (1950), 26. 

* "Firm support has been found for the assertion that electricity occurs at thousands of points where we at most conjectured that it was present. Innumerable electrical particles oscillate in every flame and light source. We can in fact assume that every heat source is filled with electrons which will continue to oscillate ceaselessly and indefinitely. All these electrons leave their impression on the emitted rays." ---Pieter Zeeman, 'Light Radiation in a Magnetic Field', Nobel Lecture, 2 May 1903.)

* "It is structure that we look for whenever we try to understand anything. All science is built upon this search; we investigate how the cell is built of reticular material, cytoplasm, chromosomes; how crystals aggregate; how atoms are fastened together; how electrons constitute a chemical bond between atoms. We like to understand, and to explain, observed facts in terms of structure. A chemist who understands why a diamond has certain properties, or why nylon or hemoglobin have other properties, because of the different ways their atoms are arranged, may ask questions that a geologist would not think of' formulating, unless he had been similarly trained in this way of thinking about the world." — Linus Pauling
‘The Place of Chemistry In the Integration of the Sciences’, Main Currents in Modern Thought (1950), 7, 110. 

* "Most American homes have alternating current, which means that the electricty goes in one direction for a while, then goes in the other direction. This prevents harmful electron buildup in the wires." — Dave Barry, In The Taming of the Screw: How to Sidestep Several Million Homeowner's Problems (1983), 12

* "The chemist in America has in general been content with what I have called a loafer electron theory. He has imagined the electrons sitting around on dry goods boxes at every corner [viz. the cubic atom], ready to shake hands with, or hold on to similar loafer electrons in other atoms." — Robert Andrews Millikan, 'Atomism in Modern Physics', Journal of the Chemical Society (1924), 1411.

* "The energy of a covalent bond is largely the energy of resonance of two electrons between two atoms. The examination of the form of the resonance integral shows that the resonance energy increases in magnitude with increase in the overlapping of the two atomic orbitals involved in the formation of the bond, the word ‘overlapping” signifying the extent to which regions in space in which the two orbital wave functions have large values coincide... Consequently it is expected that of two orbitals in an atom the one which can overlap more with an orbital of another atom will form the stronger bond with that atom, and, moreover, the bond formed by a given orbital will tend to lie in that direction in which the orbital is concentrated." — Linus Pauling, Nature of the Chemical Bond and the Structure of Molecules and Crystals (1939), 76.

* "There can never be two or more equivalent electrons in an atom, for which in a strong field the values of all the quantum numbers n, k1, k2 and m are the same. If an electron is present, for which these quantum numbers (in an external field) have definite values, then this state is ‘occupied.’ — Wolfgang Pauli

* "[The chemical bond] First, it is related to the disposition of two electrons (remember, no one has ever seen an electron!): next, these electrons have their spins pointing in opposite directions (remember, no one can ever measure the spin of a particular electron!): then, the spatial distribution of these electrons is described analytically with some degree of precision (remember, there is no way of distinguishing experimentally the density distribution of one electron from another!): concepts like hybridization, covalent and ionic structures, resonance, all appear, not one of which corresponds to anything that is directly measurable. These concepts make a chemical bond seem so real, so life-like, that I can almost see it. Then I wake with a shock to the realization that a chemical bond does not exist; it is a figment of the imagination that we have invented, and no more real than the square root of - 1." --- — Charles Alfred Coulson, Quoted in his obituary, Biographical Memoirs of the Fellows of the Royal Society 1974, 20, 96

* “Although Thompson came to accept the electron as an electromagnetic particle, his view was different from that held by Lorentz and the German electrodynamicists. In a little known work of 1907 he pictured aether as an “ethereal astral body” glued to electrical particles and thought that these were “connected by some invisible universal something which we call aether . . . [and that] this aether must possess mass . . . when the electrified body is brought into motion.” Thomson concluded his 1907 discourse on matter and aether with a formulation that illustrates how little his thoughts had changed since the 1870s when he first encountered The Unseen Universe: “We are led to the conclusion that the invisible universe, and the natural phenomena that we observe are pictures woven on the looms of this invisible universe.” From Histories of the Electron: The Birth of Microphysics by Jed Z. Buchwald p. 212 (J.J. Thomson, “Die Beziehung zwischen Materie un Ather im Lichte der neureren Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der Elektrizitat” (This paper was the Adamson lecture of 4 November 1907)

* "Electrons are the final realities of matter, electricity then the material of which the atoms of our elements are constructed. . . But what is electricity itself?  Light ether in a certain state . . . the light ether is thus the universal primary matter." ---Richard Ehrenfeld, (German chemist and historian of science), 1906

* "the electron is to simple of a thing for the question of the laws governing its structure to arise." ---Paul Dirac, Classical Theory of Radiating Electrons, 1938 

* Mists
where the electron behaves and misbehaves as it will,
where the forces tie themselves up into knots of atoms
and come untied;

Mists
of mistiness complicated into knots and clots that barge about
and bump on one another and explode into more mist, or don't,
mist of energy most scientific -
But give us gods!

Look then
where the father of all things swims in a mist of atoms
electrons and energies, quantums and relativities
mists, wreathing mists,
like a wild swan, or a goose, whose honk goes through my bladder. 
---D.H. Lawrence poem titled Give Us Gods

last but not least:
 
* "So, what is an electron? An electron is a particle, and a wave; it is ideally simple, and unimaginably complex; it is precisely understood, and utterly mysterious; it is rigid, and subject to creative disassembly. No single answer does justice to
reality." ---Frank Wilczek, From What is an Electron?, 2013

After reading this we might as well make electron synonymous with God.

Bonus

* "The more I think about the physical portion of Schrödinger's theory, the more repulsive I find it...What Schrödinger writes about the visualizability of his theory 'is probably not quite right,' in other words it's crap. ---(Heisenberg, writing to Pauli, 1926)

Monoculture

Monoculture: use of land for growing one type of crop which results in desertification and disruption of a local ecosystem. Monoculture is a secret destroyer of not only the soil, native plants and animals, but also of human civilizations.

Geoff Lawton, a master of permaculture has an inspired three minute video teaching about monoculture:

Today, monoculture, specifically corn and soy monoculture spreading across the landmasses is a perfect set up for a world wide famine. What else can I possibly say?

Monoculture is not only prevalent in agriculture but also in the sterilized societal relations imposed on us by bank, state, and corporation, the same of which most freely hold onto it. Cultural diversity, uniqueness, symbiotic human relationships, niche creativity, original thinking, small farms, fine arts, artisanship, unbiased and unconventional education, decentralization, independence, and so on are discouraged and ultimately crushed. The human spirit dies like the soil beneath the cloned corn terraformer bathed in toxic sludge. . .  Monoculture forever. . .

Agricultural monoculture is a powerful symbol and reflection of our human spirit in our age.  

Is the Universe Infinite?

The physicists talk about space

Like it was a thing with a body and face

It expands and contracts

(And these are the facts)

Yet no outline of it can be traced

--- Mike Huttner

O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space—were it not that I have bad dreams. 

---From Hamlet by Shakespeare

Infinite

Infinite comes from the word finite. Finite is a relation which describes objects . . . an adjective. Objects have limits or bounds. Finite is almost synonymous with form. All objects have this primal quality called form.  Form relates to what is bounded or contained from an immediate surrounding. All objects necessarily have form. And they are finite. Infinite means without bounds or limits, however strictly speaking infinite serves as an adjective, a modifier of objects. So here we have a linguistic contradiction, or an oxymoron as we say. An object without bounds or limits is impossible.

Concepts on the other hand lack this property called form. Two such concepts are Universe and space. Universe and space refer to a Concept Category. Universe and space have no boundaries or limits but we treat them as if they do anyway. In other words we reify them (convert a concept into an object) and we do this so as to name and consummate higher order abstractions via our brains.

Space refers to that which lacks form. Or we could define space as a static separation between objects, sort of similar to distance. Space has no limits or boundaries because we think space when we relate or compare two or more objects. Space is a brain-work! So we could also describe space as infinite, but strictly speaking this is rhetoric, because infinite is an adjective and space is not an object.

Universe also lacks form. Universe is a high order abstraction nesting together the notions of space and all existing objects (matter). What happened is one day a Greek or a Roman got bored. He related all the stars, and all the trees and the Earth, and all peoples and all animals, and all rocks, all things and space . . . then Eureka! He thought and named Universe or cosmos. Universe is an idea! But in modern times people started to treat Universe as if it were a finite object like a belly of a pregnant woman swelling. But if Universe is an object what contains space? More space? What is the edge of this object made out of and what is outside of it? And how does the belly swell? What object is constantly being added or created so that the belly can swell? And where does that come from?

These problems are easily solved by assuming a fundamental object that mediates light and gravity between all atoms. In this conception both the atoms and the fundamental object have form, are finite, and contain each other. Atoms contain the fundamental objects, and the fundamental objects contain atoms. They set limits or boundaries to one another. The fundamental object has form of itself. It is the finest form and has some singular qualities such as the ability to superpose, intersect or overlap up to a critical density exemplified when two protons collide. This fundamental object doesn't need human ideas such as space to retain its form. It simply is.  It acts and reacts in accord with Newton's Law. It is topologically invariant if you want. This fundamental object never increases in length, width or height. Its just there. It imparts form to the atoms (in other words the atoms derive their form from these fundamental objects).  This is something that space cannot possibly do. And these mediate light and gravity to and from all atoms, again a work which space cannot possibly do.  Concepts, such as space cannot possibly perform causal relations such as containment or impart form or serve as the nexus of gravity or radiation. We need a form, a finite object to do such things. And we need to brainstorm it's qualities.  This is what sanity calls for!The fundamental objects are like life lines beginning and ending on all protons and neutrons of the Universe and this might be the reason that the motion of the atomic 'central point' is so complex. . . If every single atom is always taking on a succession of locations(motion) then this would immediately influence every single other proton or neutron of the Universe. The proton or neutron has to constantly adjust itself or shift itself or reform itself to maintain its inherent connection to all others via the fundamental object which is probably thread-like. Its like hair.  Its not like these threads are ever going to literally annihilate or be created. They are always there, just impossible to detect individually unless there is a collision of protons where all these threads fight for a single location when the threads are all bunched and crunched together. . . hence the repulsion when protons and neutrons are .7 femtometers from each other.

One cannot possibly trace a beginning or an end to a proton or a neutron (or all H atoms) because the fundamental object that converge to impart form to a single proton or neutron . . . weave all protons and neutrons continuously. There is an underlying closed circle of this fundamental object. And this object is finite.

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)

Where does the CMBR fit into all this? We also need a source and mediator of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Assuming all the atoms of the Universe are connected by these fundamental objects, they would eventually end at the most distant Hydrogen atoms located at the "edges of the Universe" so to speak. These Hydrogen Atoms, call them the Omega Atoms, would assume an exotic form. Their form would not be spherical as an H atom located in the Milky Way Galaxy, since they are not fed fundamental objects from all directions of the sky. They would perhaps assume a sort of shallow angled pyramidal form. In other words these Hydrogen atoms would only have a "line of sight" or direction inwards and not outwards. They would supply fundamental objects to each and every atom located within a sphere which they themselves form. And because of their exotic form, if follows they would behave in a different mode then your run of the mill H atom in the Milky Way.  Perhaps these would emit in exotic electron transitions in a consistent manner.  Following from form, there signals could be more frequent, as if from the surface of a star.  There is nothing dull or prosaic about these hypothesized atoms.  There is nothing like them in the Universe.  So with this basic idea I suggest there is no need to assume a fake black body.

Instead of a dense ball of Hydrogen fog that cools and is expanded by a concept (such as space, dark energy or whatever) we would have a thin fog of exotic H atoms, where all the fundamental objects which mediate light and gravity as well as constitute all the atoms . . . end in all directions.  There are no atoms beyond the Omega Atoms.  Consequently no light can pass this wall, since the nexus object which mediates light is not only inherent to all atoms, but also can only begin and end on all atoms.  Thus the idea that there is a "last scattering surface" is supplanted by simply hypothesizing these exotic Omega Atoms.

These Omega Atoms are more or less evenly distributed, encircling all the stars and galaxies. These could be in a plasma like state because of their exotic form.  They could be emitting in forbidden electron transitions, by way of the fundamental objects which all converge on the Planck Telescope or any other object of the Universe. The distances and density of these Omega Atoms would vary pending direction in the sky. There would still be redshift due to the exceedingly great lengths as well as nature of the unique fundamental objects interconnecting all atoms.  Along these great lengths of EM Rope, the signals are less and less frequent in the way to all atoms of the Universe, including the Omega Atoms on the opposite side.  And there would still be anisotropies.  Galaxies would still move toward and/or away from each other via inertia.

And some of these so called Omega Atoms may be there vibrating for trillions of years.  Who knows?  Atoms are separated at great distances, thus there is (and was) never a threat that they would all contract into a single ball since gravity is clearly a function of distance.  Due to the nature of these fundamental objects, constituting and interconnecting all atoms, gravity forcibly works in an inverse square regime. In terms of a graph there is a steep downward slope to Newton's equations. If stars or interstellar clouds are separated by great distances they will never mutually work enough pull to bring them together in a 'contraction'. It doesn't matter how large their masses are! The so called energy density thins out so to speak.  In terms of gravity, stars separated by great distances work each other as if they were single hydrogen atoms with a net tug of the lowest possible ratio, namely Big G. And this is balanced out by about the same from radially all other directions. Einstein never had to add a hypothetical cosmological constant to maintain equilibrium.  

With the Omega Atoms, perhaps every once in a while some are lead within the conceptual sphere of the stars and galaxies. They would reform from a sort of half spherical form to a full spherical form. And on the same token perhaps every once in a while a group of atoms within the Omega Sphere are pushed out by exotic stars or galaxies, so that they make their way out to help form it, thus becoming Omega Atoms and helping to form what we could call the Omega Wall.  If we mapped out the CMBR billions of years from now perhaps it would look a little different. The so called CMB structure on the maps would appear differently because of unpredictable shifts and reformations of the Omega Wall.  So I put forward this experiment.  13.8 billion years from now, launch another satellite and remeasure the CMBR.  Oops I forgot . . . we won't make it that long.

If you haven't yet noticed my suggestion is like turning the Big Bang concept on its head. Its like we are in an immense spherical wall of exotic H atoms and they supply the web of zillions of these fundamental objects along which the signals are conveyed.  And these converge on the satellites that study CMBR as well as all stars and galaxies, since all are interconnected, each to the other by a single fundamental object (an EM Rope).  So I don't think there is any need to question the validity of the CMBR data, or redshift. All that is needed is a purge and rethinking of basic ideas.

Conclusion

It is like Nietzsche said. We really ought to get over the seduction of words! Infinite is a "god word" Undefined, misunderstood, misconceived, misused, overused, abused, confused, reified, deified, mythologized, etc. Infinite is an ontological contradiction. An oxymoron. We could use it to describe concepts since all concepts lack bounds or limits, but this is cheating and missing the point. One day some guy was fooling around with prefixes and out comes rhetoric and poetry. The physicists from a few hundred years ago pick up on this and start messing around with this word without thinking things through.

Universe is just an high order abstraction. Just an idea. Universe nests together the notions of space and of matter. Its sort of a binary conceptual system used throughout history. Universe refers to a concept category and lacks the primary quality of all objects, namely, form. And Universe, let alone space cannot possibly impart causal relations or undergo change effects such as expand, contract, accelerate, perform, inform, and so on. 

The Principle of Explosion (Critical Thinking Fallacy)

My new favorite critical thinking fallacy.

"The principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso quodlibet, "from a falsehood, anything follows", or ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet, "from a contradiction, anything follows"), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus, is the law of classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction. That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (or its negation) can be inferred from it." (Wiki)

Abstract from Ex Contradictione Sequitir Quodlibet by Walter A. Carnielli , João Marcos

"We summarize here the main arguments, basic research lines, and results on the foundations of the logics of formal inconsistency. These involve, in particular, some classes of well-known paraconsistent systems. We also present their semantical interpretations by way of possible-translations semantics and their applications to human reasoning and machine reasoning. 1 1. Do we need to worry about inconsistency? Classical logic, as we all know, cannot survive contradictions. Among the principles that were gradually incorporated into the “properties of correct reasoning ” since Aristotle, the Principle of Pseudo-Scotus (PPS), also known since medieval times as ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet (and also called the Principle of Explosion by some contemporary logicians), states that in any theory exposed to the enzymatic character of a contradiction A and ÏA one can derive any other arbitrary sentence B, so that the theory would turn out to be trivial."

I think we should apply this one to Big-Bloated-Bang.  

Einstein's Telescope

Above is a picture used in the video from the link.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/62332/einsteins-telescope

All I see in this picture are two inverse square regimes! One inverse square regime originates in the star that goes supernova, and the other originates in the Earth. The only way to reasonably explain an inverse square regime for light is by assuming that all the atoms of the Universe are connected by a tense and rectilinear ray that mediates light. Why else would the rays spread out in a 1/distance squared??? (see: The Inverse Square Law of Light)

All the atoms of the three objects in this picture are already connected by an invisible, tense and rectilinear rays that signal light. When the star explodes these rays enacts signals and these are relayed or reflected by a set of atoms at the edges of the galaxy or of it's halo, rectinlinearly, or straight to the Earth or telescope stationed around Earth. The rays of light never bend, and little balls don't roll around space like in a roulette table. We don't need a concept called gravity, enacting a causal relation BEND on another concept called space which undergoes a change effect and then somehow influences rays of light in order to explain the signals of the star going supernova.

Proof is subjective. They say that this proves Einstein's explanation but to me this proves someone else's explanation.

Brainstorm On Neutrons

A few months ago I had this thought that the neutron must have a tiny charge. Even the standard model of particle physics predicts a tiny charge separation leading to a permanent electric dipole moment. But the value is well below sensitivity of experiments. And besides they say the net electric charge is zero, the net average. Whatever this all would mean in reality.

I think of a neutron as a baby hydrogen atom. A hydrogen atom and a neutron have about the same calculated mass.  But for some reason this baby neutron has not grown out its electron threads to lengths of 53 picometers and beyond.  Or perhaps it's electron threads have been crushed and shortened at the center of a star.  In some decays perhaps it gets a substantial feed of EM Ropes, which work to twist out the electron threads to greater lengths so they would align and superpose with the converging EM Ropes and thus actively charge, effectively making it like a hydrogen atom (which it always was), or in a figurative manner, an adult atom.

But anyway perhaps a neutron has tiny little loops of thread that emanate around a few picometers or maybe even on a fentometer scale. Maybe this is why they are able to fit through or even make pathways between and through some atoms, effectively falling on protons. These tiny loops of electron thread perhaps enable a neutron to sort of clamp onto a proton or cacoon the proton of an 'adult' atom so that they remain bound together rather strongly.

But when I had this thought I tried to find any sort of evidence or information that the neutron might have charge which to me means it has twisted out at least one set of threaded electron signals sideways from the crisscrossing convergence of EM Ropes.

I found this article:
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1167106quotes:

"We have found that a neutron actually carries a negative charge at its inner and outer edges, but has a positive charge in between" said Gerald Miller, a University of Washington (Seattle) physics professor.

The idea that neutrons were actually composed of subatomic layers of charge that cancel to zero can be traced to speculation made in 1947 by Nobel laureate Enrico Fermi. However, Fermi speculated that neutrons had a positive charge at their core, which was offset by a negative charge on its outer surface. The uncertainty of his speculations, however, relegated them to historical footnotes not deemed worthy of including in textbooks.

"We believe this is a clear fact of nature that we didn't know before," said Miller. "It is significant because nobody realized this was the case until now."

Gaede on the Thread

Here is an excellent quote from Gaede's WGDE. It is extremely useful for conceptualizing Thread Theory. It's not easy at first because it is different:

In Thread Theory, the word light embodies both structural and behavioral aspects of a rope. Therefore, we have to specify whether we are alluding to an entity or to a signal, to the rope or its motion, to a noun or to a verb. Unlike in Classical and Quantum Mechanics where both waves and particles are outgoing mechanisms, in Thread Theory the rope does not travel from the Sun to the Earth. The rope already interconnects an atom in the Sun and an atom on Earth. The torque signal is the alleged ‘transverse wave’ or ‘particle’ that the mathematician believes ‘travels’ from one point to another. I put the word travel in quotes because actually this is an observer-related phenomenon. Each link of the rope actually rotates in place. Torsion is essentially a standing wave. Verify this yourself. Ask two people to hold the ends of a stretched out rope and to twist it. Has any link gone anywhere? Are the participants receiving any new links at their respective ends as the rope rotates? Only you – the lateral observer – can see waves. The rope as a whole and each link looks at itself and says that it is just twirling in place. Yet, despite that the rope twirls in place, the torque signal causes pressure on the surface of the electron shell where it ends. Torque a rope while someone holds the opposite end. Although the rope twirled in place, the other person feels a force. This phenomenon explains why light ‘travels as a wave’ and ‘arrives as a particle’. The pressure that Hertz and Lebedev (Ch. 3, § 2.4) observed in their experiments has to do with this attribute of the rope. It is this pressure that the mathematicians detect as a ‘particle’. The rope also differs from the wave and particle models of Quantum in that it necessarily ends in another atom. The mechanics believe that waves and particles travel to infinity if there is no atom present to absorb the ‘energy’. (Pages 198-199)

Professor Richard Muller on Gravity

Richard Muller, Professor of Physics, Berkley, California
Lecture 03: Gravity and Satellites
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdoU2YQJvOg

At 25:00 He says:

"What is the force of gravity on me? Well, its the pull of the Earth on my body. That is what we call the force of gravity. Newton figured out that the force of gravity is actually a force of attraction between mass. So, for example if you have the Earth, its a big mass here, and you have you, with your little mass here, that every atom of the Earth is pulling on every atom of you . . . you are also pulling on it. Ah you are pulling it up. You may say you don't have much mass, so you don't pull very much, but there are a lot of atoms here, and you are pulling on all of them. The amazing thing about gravity is that it goes RIGHT THROUGH THINGS; more effectively than even neutrinos. You are pulling, RIGHT NOW, on the atoms of the other side of the Earth. They're far away, so its not very strong, in fact your force of pull depends on the distance. The rule is given here. The force of pull is 1/r2, so we say the force of pull for gravity is a bunch of constants, G, mass of the first object, mass of the second object, divided by r2. . . . There is gravity between my two hands right now, the masses of first hand and second hand are kind of small, [not a lot of connections] when you plug in the constant here and so the force isn't very big. G is 6 * 10 to -7. But if you have enough fists and a whole Earth made of fists, then it all adds up. So we're being pulled in every which direction by ??? (he says gravity) and because the Earth is a sphere it feels as if, I mean the sideways forces cancel, that thing over there and over there are pulling me in opposite directions but they cancel each other. But the net effect is AS IF I am being pulled straight down.

Let me show you that again. Here is the Earth, here am I. Every bit of mass is pulling me in its own direction. These forces are weaker than these cause this is closer, its 1/r2, go twice as far away the force is 1/4, 100 times away 1/100the squared times, so most of the force is coming from nearby stuff and most of it is pulling me straight down. Now suppose the Earth is not a completely uniform sphere like this, and suppose there is a hole over here. What do we fill that hole with? Well we could fill it with vacuum (conceptually) but those don't really EXIST. Lets fill it with something light. Lets fill it with oil. Now look at the gravity on me. The rock over here is pulling me down this way, but the oil over here is pulling me, but not very much. They no longer cancel. So if I have a very accurate meter I can search for oil using the gravity anomaly."

The String Theorists

Every once in a while I like to see what madness the Stringers (those who adhere to String Theory) are up to. Today, at the book store I found them selling this mother called

The Shape of Inner Space: String Theory and the Geometry of the Universe's Inner Dimensions

Yeah. Well I started to cringe when I opened the cover to find:

SPACE/TIME

Time, time
why does it vanish?
All manner of things
what infinite variety.
Three thousand rivers
all from one source.
Time, space
mind, matter, reciprocal.
Time, time
it never returns.
Space, space
how much can it hold?
In constant motion
always in flux.
Black holes lurking
mysteries afoot.
Space and time
one without bounds.
Infinite, infinite
the secrets of the universe.
Inexhaustible, lovely
in every detail.
Measure time, measure space
no one can do it.
Watched through a straw
what’s to be learned has no end.

Shing-Tung Yau
Beijing, 2002

Cringe, cringe, cringe. Scratching your nails against the chalkboard couldn't make me cringe more than that piece of idolatry.

What else did I find? Of course, the author shamelessly preaching the nihilistic religion of Geometry with oodles of sugar. He even compared Euclid's writings to the Sacred Books of religion like the Bible. And of course he doted on himself and his colleagues, in subtle and not so subtle manner.

BUT, but, but that is not what I was looking for. You see I have this 'hypothesis' and it goes something like this. All geometers, seemed to have lacked any sort of healthy relationship with women in their time of undergraduate studies, thus they become fascinated with perverted ideas like curves. They say I have to practice what they call Science, and so I have to collect evidence in support of my hypothesis and then have it peer reviewed to make sure there are valid correlations (never mind about causation). Someday I'm hoping my hypothesis will be sanctified into a theory.

And lo and behold I didn't have to go far and Yau delivered for me. I have evidence!

p. X

I still recall the thrill I felt during my first year of graduate school, when—as a twenty-year-old fresh off the boat, so to speak— I was struck by the notion that gravity and curvature could be regarded as one and the same, as I’d already become fascinated with curved surfaces during my undergraduate years in Hong Kong. Something about these shapes appealed to me on a visceral level. I don’t know why, but I couldn’t stop thinking about them.

Fascinated with curved surfaces . . . visceral . . . something about these shapes appealing . . .

Um yeah. Not only are those Stringers mad, they are degenerate.

Naming Our Brain Works

We have the ability to name objects (that which has form) or relation between objects that our brain has worked out.

In assumption each and every name first and foremost refers to concept. Once we think beyond (or transcend) this assumption then we realize that these nominal conceptions either reference an object (whether real, imaginary, hypothetical, and so on and so forth)  . . . or they reference some sort of relation or comparison between objects that our brain has worked out (for example love, gravity, number, etc.) and we decided to label by the act of naming. The act of naming always relates the human who named to the object named or the conception conceived and so this is a sort of primal concept. And the criteria for figuring out whether or not a human named an object or a concept is form. This Gottlob Frege never figured out when he said "the concept horse is not a concept". He had his own complex categories, but his investigations are still useful to borrow from.

But the sort of furtive act in all this is naming our conceptions. We work out a relation or comparison between objects and name this relation or comparison. So naming sort of works an affinity between us and our brain-work. We reify our brain-work (that is convert concept into object) and establish a sort of false relation in this. We cannot literally relate to a work our brain consummated so we do a trick by reifying, that is imagining that it is an object and ourselves relating to it. This is sort of a transcendental if you want. And this is what is confusing I think. Its easy to imagine Adam waking up, and naming that which has form (objects). But then Adam went to retire for the day and started working out relations between all these objects he named and then he named or traced these relations. The way we can resolve whether or not a word concept relates back to object or concept is form.  Does the referent have form?  Yes or no?

Blah

I have this concept. . . I call it blah blah blah. Blah, blah, blah, is not a thing.  Blah has no form, but I treat blah like a thing in the act of naming, thinking and communication. I reified. I converted this idea into an object. But I just ignore the fact I reified blah blah blah. Now I literally think that blah is an object that performs verbs and is involved in causal relations and undergoes change effects with the Earth, the Sun, the Moon, the stars and all atoms. Blah does it all. Blah is real. And with blah we can work miracles like travel back in time! Blah will take us to new galaxies. With blah we will inhabit new worlds!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

But remember blah is just an idea I thought so don't take me too seriously. This is just for shits and giggles, and we make millions off of this concept. And besides we need another trillion dollars to validate this concept.

What is Real?

Real is about as Latin of a word as one can find.
It comes from the Latin realis.

Re is a variation on the Latin word res
alis just means: of, related to, connected with, belonging to

So realis is literally that which is related to things.

Res was a Roman staple, e.g. res publica literally public matter or public things.

In the dictionary they also try a trace Res back to Sanskrit:

"From Proto-Italic *reis, from Proto-Indo-European *reh₁ís (“wealth, goods”). Cognate to Old Persian [script needed] (rāy-, “paradise, wealth”), Avestan (rāy-, “paradise, wealth”) and Sanskrit रयि (rayí, “property, goods”)."

And note that in Latin the spelling RES is the same for singular and plural. So its like res are your things. Your land, your house, your bike, your car, your husband or wife, your body, your children, your money, your clothes, your food supply, and any relation in regards to your things. Your stuff! A very simple down to earth word and much less technical than the other Latin word: Existentia

There are hundreds of English words that use RES, e.g. resurrection, residue, reservoir, residence, etc.

The way the Romans used the word is similar to how people use the English word 'thing' or 'matter' or 'stuff'. In English 'thing' or 'matter' is basically used as a placeholder for any word in an ordinary conversation. But in physics and philosophy these words are used differently and people will be trying to figure this stuff out until the Sun explodes.

If we are to use the word REAL in physics and philosophy then we have to define it.

The Latin is literally that which belongs to things. Thing is just synonymous with object, entity, body, etc. What belongs to all things I ask? Form. Form is the primary quality of all things. So real has a lot to do with form. Form refers to that which is bounded or contained from the immediate surrounding. Then if you want you can add the idea of location. So this form has a location. That star you see every morning has form and location. And guess what? Your act of observing it or thinking about it doesn't determine this. The Sun is just there. It stimulates the atoms in your body and forces you to wake up. Very profound!!! So in real there is this sense that the thing is independent to your thought or act of perception.

Your wife you wake up to every morning has form and location. Once you tie the knot you can't escape her. Your car or bike or skateboard has form and location, that magnet you used in science class has form and location, as do all the atoms that constitute these. HOWEVER that woman you dreamed about last night seemed to have a form but no location. If you look around you will not find her. You can think about her, but you can't relate TO HER. Your brain just generated a picture and made a movie of her. Or that triangle you traced in geometry has a form but no location. Or those spacetime lines your curved don't seem to be found. These forms are not real. They have no relation to all the atoms of the Universe.

So its very simple. The Romans were no fools. They conceived and used words like REALIS and EXISTENTIA because some of their Greek neighbors were insane. These are static concepts used to describe objects.

In philosophy and mathematics they start messing around with the word real and for thousands of years this word is never resolved or defined. And then we have mentally ill philosophers, mathematicians and so called physicists preaching to the masses about the word real. And then they build trillion dollar devices to decide what is real or what is not real because they are confused about how the philosophers use the word real.

All these imaginary problems could be resolved in an instant if the philosopher, physicist or mathematician defined the term REAL and used it consistently in his presentations. Simple as that.

so in summary for physics and philosophy I would define

Real: that which has form (object) and location independent of any human action whether thinking, perceiving, observing, measuring, dreaming, hallucinating, etc. Not all objects qualify as real.

Location & Real vs. Existence

Location refers to a static concept (a picture imaged by the brain). Where form is a primary quality of objects used to resolve the ontology of the word referent, location refers to a sort of secondary quality sometimes used to resolve whether or not an object is real and/or exists.

Real and existence are often used to mean the same, however they are strictly speaking a little different. Real is more down to Earth. A sober concept and has to do more with that which has form independent of any sort of human intervention. Existence is more technical. Existence literally refers to that which STANDS OUT and seems to imply the three classic dimension (length, width, and height). So one could argue that existence implies a human observer. But on the other hand if one has a perfect understanding of the crucial word 'Form' and takes into account mercurial assumptions, I think one can do away with need to toy around so much.

But location can be defined more or less in an observer independent manner so as to resolve whether or not an object is real and/or exists

Location refers to the set of static distances from an object to all other objects.

If an object is described by real or exist, one should hypothetically be able to measure its distance to all objects of the Universe. So if superman is real and/or exists he should be located X distance from the Sun, Y from the Moon, Z from the Earth, A from you and so on. One doesn't have to do the measuring but the basic concept is powerful. It serves as a sound conceptual exercise.

Location can tell you right away whether or not some form is imagined or traced. For example a triangle. A triangle is an object. It has form, HOWEVER. does it have location? And even more 'what' could we possibly imagine bounded or contained of a triangle? In between the boundaries all one does is conceptualize space or some other imaginary forms. Space lacks form. So obviously a triangle is an abstract or imaginary form used in some context of utility. A triangle has nothing to do with reality and/or existence and all to do with a human brain conceptualizing. Similar with all concepts such as love, justice, gravity, etc. These concepts have no form, and neither to they have location. Where are you literally going to find love? Love is what an object does.

Really once one takes on some mercurial assumptions all one needs is Form. But now one can make a list of objects and ask whether or not they have location so as to help resolve whether or not they are real or exist. And so it becomes clear that humans imagine objects, hallucinate objects, project objects unto their environment, trace objects on paper and via computers, dream objects, abstracts objects, idealize objects, hypothesize objects, etc. However none of these can be located and strictly speaking they have no form. Their form also has to be described with the same modifiers. They have imaginary form and so on. We thought of them, we pictured them via our brain and used them to think, but there is no what contained, or bounded from immediate surrounding, no essence, no three classic dimensions, etc. You will never be able to locate a triangle or the ideal woman or superman. None of these objects stand out, none have three dimensions, none of them are connected to all the atoms of the Universe much less constituted by atoms. None of them are qualified in the abstract nest called matter. These imaginary objects have no foundation.

Are Memories Real?

Memory is a brain capacity. The brain or neural objects move to re-image an object of the past or imagine objects collectively mediating an event which happened in the past. The objects used in memory are not real since they lack location or a 'foundation' object from which they derive their form. They are imaginary objects or objects of memory. Just like dream objects or objects in hallucination. In this scenario we could just assume the brain and neural objects or human performing an act of memory are real.

Memory refers to a concept about what an object (brain) is able to do. Memory or memories lack form. There aren't any objects called memories constituting one's brain. Strictly speaking, real describes object. Memory lacks form and so relates back to a concept that we worked out about what our brain is able to do. Thus memory is not object and cannot be described by a static comparison called real. Similar with event. Event lacks form.

REAL is a word that describes and helps to discern objects in our act of understanding and communication.

Naming Our Brain-work

We have the ability to name objects (that which has form) or relation between objects that our brain has worked out.

So in assumption each and every name first and foremost refers to concept. Once we think beyond (or transcend) this assumption then we realize that these nominal conceptions either reference an object (whether real, imaginary, hypothetical, and so on and so forth) or they reference some sort of relation or comparison between objects that our brain has worked out (for example love, gravity, number,) and we decided to label by the act of naming or even tracing. The act of naming always relates the human who named to the object named or the conception conceived and so this is a sort of primal concept. And the criteria for figuring out whether or not a human named an object or a concept is form. This Gottlob Frege never figured out. He had his own complex categories, but his investigations are still useful to borrow from.

But the sort of furtive act in all this is naming our conceptions. We work out a relation or comparison between objects and name this relation. So naming sort of works an affinity between us and our brainwork. We reify our brainwork (that is convert concept into object) and establish a sort of false relation in this. We cannot literally relate to a work our brain consummated so we do a trick by reifying. This is sort of a transcendental if you want. And this is what is confusing I think. Its easy to imagine Adam waking up, discerning that which has form and naming it. But then Adam went to retire for the day and started working out relations between all these objects he named and then he named these relations. The way we can resolve whether or not a word concept relates back to object or concept is form.  Does the word referent have form?  Yes or no?

Motion and Time

Consider Motion

Motion refers to an object or a set of objects taking on a succession of locations. Notice right away that object (syn. thing, entity, etc.) is essential to the definition of motion. Without an object or set of objects motion is inconceivable. All objects of the Universe, all stars including all atoms are always taking on a succession of locations in relation to one another. They induce one another to move. A basic manner in which they accomplish this feat is by way of the fundamental object that connects them all and inheres to all atoms. Without this fundamental object motion, in terms of physics, would be impossible. Objects do not rely on an idea called space in order to move. We use the concept of space to conceive motion.  But in terms of reality, in a most basic analysis objects, specifically atoms, rely on a fundamental object always and everywhere, in order to assume a succession of locations.

We observe or imagine some of these objects and conceive thousands of modes in which they take on a succession of locations. This is a brain work, a conception, a thought, an intellection, (insert your synonym). A category we use to file our names for various modes of motion we conceived is called verb. Some examples of verbs are wave, jump, orbit, thrust, light, electricity, dilate, etc. A synonym for ‘verb’ is ‘moving relation’ or ‘dynamic concept’ or ‘event’ or ‘phenomenon’ ‘incident’ ‘happening’.

Consider that sense organs and brain, together working out a manner in which an object or set of objects assume two or more locations . . . references a motion performed by nerves, neurons, and ultimately atomic body and brain activity. We can call these activities perception and conception. And perhaps we could call an abstract ‘super’ verb which includes perception and conception happening via a set of organs working together in harmony: consciousness. Perception and conception is ultimately traced back to all the living objects of the body completing these motions in harmony. A central object harmonizing all the organs involved in the super verb called consciousness could be rooted somewhere in the brain

But, regardless of whether or not a human conceives motion, the stars, the moon, all atoms and fundamental objects mediating activity between all atoms . . . took on locations in relation to one another. Their collective succession of locations does not rely on our act of perceiving via sense organs or conceiving via brain or measuring or any other human activity. The stars, the Moon, all atoms had form, existed, had location and assumed countless locations in reference to one another prior to the arrival of the first human.

Consider Time

And once upon a time humans came along and they became infatuated with their own conceptions. Humans come and they conceive thousands of motions. And they begin to recall, forecast as well as rate successions of locations taken on by objects. This process is called time. Time refers to a brain process in which a human recalls or forecasts an object (or set of objects) taking on a succession of locations. The human may or may not choose to rate this succession in comparison to other motions in a variety of pre-defined scalar quantities and aid of tools. So we can also include the act of tracing and all sorts of other human tools in an abstraction of time.

But notice that time is of human origin. Before humans there were a collection of objects. They were always assuming locations in relation to one another. But after Adam and Eve there is suddenly this abstract concept called time. And worse, there creeps up inconsistent, confusing and contradictory philosophical systems about this notion called Time. Time is one of the great whores of the philosophers and of weak minds (space serving as the other one). If you don’t mind me using the figure of speech, space and time are like two breasts which the intellectual charlatans continually feed on. In the world we have a breed of baby men who have never undergone intellectual maturation. They are desperate to make adults take them seriously, so much so that they spend billions of dollars of other people’s money to verify irrational ideas.

But anyway, time refers to an abstraction which nests together concepts of motion and the act of memory. A human recalls an object or set of objects succession of locations. He may also conceptually forecast an object’s succession of locations. Each location is a still frame. And these are rapidly related together by the brain in a harmonious series of neural motions. Then a human may use various concepts and tools to rate this motion. And quite frankly he confuses the hell out of himself. And now there are devices to keep track of an object’s motion in relation to these pre-conceived scalar quantities such as year, day, hour, minute, etc. Even the atom is used to trace motion. But time is subjective. Add a human . . .he or she has the ability to conceive an object’s location in a still mental picture and then recall these together in a series. And then use an atom to rate. Yet, time refers to a process of the brain aided and abetted by pre-conceived scalar quantities, tracings, devices, etc. Time is subjective.

Time references our brain’s ability and complex to trace an object's succession of locations. One can recall or even forecast an object's (or set of objects) succession of locations via brain, sense organs, etc. That is all. Time is subjective. Maybe if one was moving at the speed of light (and miraculously remain alive) then one's brain would conceive an object's succession of locations differently than at the speeds we presently move on Earth. But this is all subjective. This subjective conception does not influence the objects in motion extraneous to the subject working this all out through his brain.

If an atom moves a little differently closer to the Earth than when it is further away from the Earth this has nothing to do with our subjective conception of Time. This has to do with a stated fact in assumption that at a location closer to Earth’s surface there is a greater numbers of fundamental mediators of light & gravity converging pursuant to inverse square laws. . . as opposed to further away from Earth’s surface, for example in orbit. These fundamental objects which serve as mediators of light and gravity may serve to increase the probability that a light or an electrical event will be turned out by the atom.  Or there may be a little more resistance to motion of the atom closer to the Earth's surface than further away.  However these incidents have nothing to do with a concept Time and everything to do with a fundamental object interconnecting and inhering to all atoms, as well as it's mechanics. This hypothetical object is not called time or space. Space and time or spacetime refer to abstract conceptions used by humans not objects in reality.

With the modern era a human’s conception called time is refined so much so that he or she may become confused over that which time refers to. Time refers to an abstract concept. Objects are constantly taking on two or more locations and the human works like a dog to recall or forecast these locations and rate them. So in the analysis of time we see a synthesis of two motions: motion of the brain and a motion of any or all objects of Mother Nature used by the brain in a conception. The objects used by the brain to work a memory are extraneous to the brain yet no less fundamentally connected. However thinking about them cannot possibly influence them other than in a basic manner of relaying light or electrical signals radially to encircling objects.

Because time refers to an abstract notion nesting together a series of motions performed by the human, time cannot possibly

a. move

To think or state that time moves is akin to thinking or saying that “motion moves”, “run jumps”, ‘fly walks”, “orbit thrusts”, “radiation radiates” etc. This sort of ontological contradiction can be called matterless motion.

and because time already references two motions time cannot possibly

b. induce a motion in relation to another object. Time cannot cause stars or atoms to move . . . nor can stars or atoms cause time to move. Time does not refer to an object. Time has no form, has no location, etc. Time refers to a higher order abstract concept come out of humans. Time began when Adam and Eve came along. Prior to Adam and Eve there was no time unless you are talking God and angels thinking about objects taking on a succession of locations.


So in summary time refers to an abstract concept. There is no existing object called time. Time has no form, no nature, no presence, etc. Time has never assumed a succession of locations. Time has never imparted a causal relation to another object or undergone a change effect from another object. Time is not a mediator or a medium. Time is not fundamental to all atoms. Atoms are not physically connected by this abstract concept called time. There is no arrow of time. This is make believe. Objects taking on a succession of locations precede concepts of motion and of time. Time is a higher order concept a motion of extraneous objects and a motion of our brains. Time refers to a mental construct. Time is ALL IN YOUR HEAD.  Time is all about thinking.  One can manipulate the hell out of an atom, but with time there is nothing to work with.

If I were to give advice I would say enjoy the idea and use it well. I enjoy songs about time, looking forward to a better future, science fiction, etc. But I don't let intellectual charlatans make me feel ignorant, dumb or lowly with their irrational, inconsistent and impossible descriptions of time. And I don't let others enslave me with their notions of time. When one comes to understand the difference between an object and a concept, an awakening occurs and then one begins to see how humans use concepts to enslave and manipulate others.

The English Word 'Consider'

The English word 'consider' may not seem like much and yet its word origin is pretty neat! The Latin is considerare. You break it up into 'con' + 'sider'.

'Con' is variation from the Latin 'com' or 'cum'. Literally: together, with, jointly, etc.

'Siderare' or 'sider' ultimately stems from the Latin 'sidius' meaning star group or constellation. The Latin 'sidereus' means star. And you get another English word 'sidereal' from this stem which literally means 'belonging to the stars'.

You mix 'con' and 'sider' so to get literally 'with the stars' or 'with the star group'.

So the idea is that when one performs the verb to consider, one thinks in a manner from above 'with the stars'. As if looking down from your majestic, lofty and detached brain!

Well hopefully!

Ontological Contradictions in Physics Communication (featuring Gravity)

An ontological contraction embodies a phrase or a statement in which the communicator unwittingly converts a concept into an object and assigns motion, causal relations or change effects to that concept. Unfortunately one finds many ontological contradictions in mainstream physics communication.

A classic example is the phrase "gravity pulls". Gravity pulled the apple to the Earth. What an innocent statement! And yet what an unlearned tongue! Gravity is a name referencing a relation between two objects namely the Earth and the apple. Our concept is worked out by the brain. Earth and apple both refer to objects. They have form. And they, i.e. Earth and apple are in a singular relation we conceived and named gravity.

Gravity refers to a concept, a relation of two or more objects: worked out by the brain. And we assume that all the atoms of the Universe are in an inseparable relation called gravity. This is why we modify gravity with 'universal'. But gravity does not refer to an object that could possibly perform causal relations or undergo change effects. There are no objects out there called gravity pulling on other objects such as Earth or apple. The Earth and the apple pull on each other. They are in a constant tension with one another that exponentially increases as their distance decreases. As an explanation it would seem that they do this by way of an assumed object or thing or entity that is inherent to all the atoms of the Universe. We can call this object a mediator or a nexus. We assume that it is there connecting Earth and apple, even all atoms to each other so that Earth and apple and all stars can complete this universal relation called gravity. This object is not discrete to the atom or a background to the atom, rather it is inherent, intrinsic, inseparable, fundamental, essential, constitutional (choose your synonym) TO THE ATOM AND ALL ATOMS. So much so that the atom literally takes on its form or derives its form from this SAME OBJECT. This object has many unique properties and behaviors that we could describe for example it is continuous, tense, rectilinear, the finest object in existence (tiniest width and height), inordinately long, has the ability to superpose while retaining its form. And this is somewhat a mystery. How an atom is held together and constantly reforms itself via this object is a great mystery described by fiendishly difficult mathematical ideas.

But the aim of this post is that only objects can enact causal relations such as gravity. In terms of Mother Nature and reality, gravity has never pulled a single object in the entire history of the Universe! Gravity refers to a causal relation between objects which perform the work via an assumed object which serves as mediator or nexus. The fact that so many use this redundant ontological contradictions such as "gravity pulls" reveals a lack of understanding. And there are many other examples. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Now you might smile and say that I am playing semantics games. However this use of language is alarming since we have no other way of reading minds. How else am I suppose to know what is happening in another person's brain unless I use his language and possibly his illustrations as criteria?

Meaning and Definition

Here are some interesting quotes I've collected over the past year or two in regards to meaning and definition. The word meaning originates in the German Language, from the word meinen which is still used today. It is translated as thinking or intention. It almost seems synonymous with 'intentional thinking'. The word 'definition' has its roots in Latin.  Both names refer to ideas and have to do with a human's relation to his own thought, or what is happening in via his brain.

From Thought and Language (1986) by Lev Vygotskii

"The meaning of a word represents such a close amalgam of thought and language that it is hard to tell whether it is a phenomenon of speech or a phenomenon of thought. A word without meaning is an empty sound; meaning, therefore is a criterion of “word,” its indispensable component. . ." [note: in other sections he equated "word" with concept. All words first and foremost reference concepts and then, secondarily refer to an object or a concept).

"The adolescent will form and use a concept quite correctly in a concrete situation but will find it strangely difficult to express that concept in words, and the verbal definition will, in most cases, be much narrower than might have been expected from the way he used the concept. The same discrepancy occurs also in adult thinking, even at very advanced levels."

From The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism (1923) by Ogden and Richards

"Firstly, do we define things or words? To decide this point we have only to notice that if we speak about defining words we refer to something very different from what is referred to, meant, by 'defining things.' When we define words we take another set of words which may be used with the same referent as the first, i.e., we substitute a symbol which will be better understood in a given situation. With things, on the other hand, no such substitution is involved. A so-called definition of a horse as opposed to the definition of the word 'horse,' is a statement about it enumerating properties by means of which it may be compared with and distinguished from other things."
. . .
"They [definitions] are relevant to some purpose or situation, and consequently are applicable only over a restricted field or 'universe of discourse.' For some definitions, those of physics, for instance, this universe is very wide."
. . .
"And here we pause at the very pertinent question: "What then from the psychological point of view is this MEANING?" The answer is given without hesitation and in italics-" From the psychological point of view, MEANING is context." To explain: In every perception, or group of sensations and images, "the associated images form as it were a context or 'fringe' which binds together the whole and gives it a definite MEANING," and it is this "fringe of MEANING that makes the sensations not 'mere' sensations but symbols of a physical object."

From Ontology of Language: What is a Concept? by Fattie
"Furthermore, these objects of our environment are also used in associations which explicitly define and provide some intended meaning, like a type of motion. In the above example[the ball fell to the floor.], the word “fell” is a dynamic concept which describes and gives meaning to the relation between 2 objects, specifically, the motion between the ball and the floor. It is impossible to define the word “fell” without associating at least 2 objects. For example, you CANNOT define “fell” by simply referencing the ball by itself without any other relation. You cannot even imagine a lone ball falling in a Universe that is comprised of a single lonely ball. Even the dynamic concepts of energy, mass, time, field or force cannot even be imagined or conceptualized on a lonely object. Not even God Almighty can conceptualize them! Now you should be able to understand exactly why ENERGY, MASS, TIME, FIELD and FORCE do not exist, they never have....and they never will."

"Meaning is what WE explicitly define in the relation within each concept. Concepts don’t magically self-acquire meaning nor are they devoid of meaning, despite what some people will have you believe."

From Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong (1998) by Jerry Fodor

"Chapter 3 remarked that it’s pretty clear that if we can’t define “doorknob”, that can’t be because of some accidental limitation of the available metalinguistic apparatus; such a deficit could always be remedied by switching metalanguages. The claim, in short, was not that we can’t define “doorknob” in English, but that we can’t define it at all. The implied moral is interesting: if “doorknob” can’t be defined, the reason that it can’t is plausibly not methodological but ontological; it has something to do with what kind of property being a doorknob is. [FORM, form, form!!!] If you’re inclined to doubt this, so be it; but I think that you should have your intuitions looked at.
. . .
It’s sometimes said that doorknobs (and the like) have functional essences: what makes a thing a doorknob is what it is (or is intended to be) used for. So maybe the science of doorknobs is psychology? Or sociology? Or anthropology? Once again, believe it if you can. In fact, the intentional aetiology of doorknobs is utterly transparent: they’re intended to be used as doorknobs. I don’t at all doubt that’s what makes them what they are, but that it is gets us nowhere. For, if DOORKNOB plausibly lacks a conceptual analysis, INTENDED TO BE USED AS A DOORKNOB does too, and for the same reasons. And surely, surely that can’t, in either case, be because there’s something secret about doorknobhood that depth psychology is needed to reveal? No doubt, there is a lot that we don’t know about intentions towards doorknobs qua intentions; but I can’t believe there’s much that’s obscure about them qua intentions towards doorknobs.

Look, there is presumably something about doorknobs that makes them doorknobs, and either it’s something complex or it’s something simple. If it’s something complex, then ‘doorknob’ much have a definition, and its definition must be either “real” or “nominal” (or both). If ‘doorknob’ has a nominal definition, then it ought to be possible for a competent linguist or analytical philosopher to figure out what its nominal definition is. If ‘doorknob’ has a real definition, then it ought to be possible for a science of doorknobs to uncover it. But linguists and philosophers have had no luck defining ‘doorknob’ (or, as we’ve seen, anything much else). And there is nothing for a science of doorknobs to find out. The direction this is leading in is that if ‘doorknob’ is undefinable, that must be because being a doorknob is a primitive property. But of course, that’s crazy. If a thing has doorknobhood, it does so entirely in virtue of others of the properties it has. If doorknobs don’t have hidden essences or real definitions, that can’t possibly be because being a doorknob is one of those properties that things have simply because they have them."

[the single primary property he is looking for is form or shape. It is impossible to define an object, all one can do is point to it. The 'word' object references that which has form. Form is in inherent property humans have conceived so as to classify any and all objects as opposed to concepts. Meaning, definition, etc. arises from relations between objects, even if a human is relating an object to his or her self, or form or another form or idea as in the act of naming or symbolizing]

From What is a Scientific Definition? by Fattie

"A definition is simply a description of the conceptual relations between the objects invoked within the specified context of a term. Definitions place limitations on the extent or usage on the terms in question for the purposes of avoiding ambiguities, circularities and contradictions. Only then can the terms have consistent meaning in one’s dissertation. All concepts describe the relations between the objects they invoke; and this is their intrinsic meaning. As such, all concepts are necessarily defined, whether we like it or not."

Philosophers on Communication

"All life comes back to the question of our speech-the medium through which we communicate"

--- William James

"Error is never so difficult to be destroyed as when it has its root in Language"

--- Jeremy Bentham

"We have to make use of language, which is made up necessarily
of preconceived ideas. Such ideas unconsciously held are the most
dangerous of all"

--- Henri Poincaire

"By the grammatical structure of a group of languages everything
runs smoothly for one kind of philosophical system, whereas
the way is as it were barred for certain other possibilities"

--- Friedrich Nietzsche
"An Englishman, a Frenchman, a German, and an Italian
cannot by any means bring themselves to think quite alike, at least
on subjects that involve any depth of sentiment, they have not the
verbal means"

---Prof. J.S.  Mackenzie

"In Primitive Thought the name and object named are associated
in such wise that the one is regarded as a part of the other. The
imperfect separation of words from things characterizes Greek
speculation in general" [in naming we seem to establish some sort of affinity or ownership with the objects and concepts named]

---Herbert Spencer

"The tendency has always been strong to believe that whatever
receives a name must be an entity or being, having an independent
existence of its own and if no real entity answering to the name
could be found, men did not for that reason suppose that none
existed, but imagined that it was something peculiarly abstruse and
mysterious, too high lo be an object of sense" [note we name objects or concepts.  The latter case is what Mill speaks about.  Names that refer to concepts tend to take on a aura of mystery unless they are defined by the user and sender]

--- J.S. Mill

"Nothing is more usual than for philosophers to encroach, on
the province of grammarians, and to engage in disputes of words,
while they imagine they are handling controversies of the deepest
importance and concern"

---David Hume

"Men content themselves with the same words as other people
use, as if the very sound necessarily carried the same meaning"

--- John Locke

"A verbal discussion may be important or unimportant, but it
is at least desirable to know that it is verbal"

---Sir G.  Cornewall Lewis

"Scientific controversies constantly resolve themselves into differences about the meaning of words" [why?  Because scientists tend not to define their key strategic words]

---Prof. A SCHUSTER

What is the Origin of Earth's Water Supply?

Because of the recent measurements done by Rosetta Mission on Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, and a paper released a month ago; it is in vogue to debate the origin of Earth's water supply. Here is the new article:

http://www.sciencemag.org/…/early/2014/12/09/science.1261952

Abstract: The provenance of water and organic compounds on the Earth and other terrestrial planets has been discussed for a long time without reaching a consensus. One of the best means to distinguish between different scenarios is by determining the D/H ratios in the reservoirs for comets and the Earth’s oceans. Here we report the direct in situ measurement of the D/H ratio in the Jupiter family comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by the ROSINA mass spectrometer aboard ESA’s Rosetta spacecraft, which is found to be (5.3 ± 0.7) × 10−4, that is, ~3 times the terrestrial value. Previous cometary measurements and our new finding suggest a wide range of D/H ratios in the water within Jupiter family objects and preclude the idea that this reservoir is solely composed of Earth ocean-like water.

The pop views seem to be that the water supply came via comets and asteroids, or the Sun.  The measurements done on the comets seem to challenge these ideas.

Personally, I hold to assumption that Earth and perhaps most planets and moons are old dark stars, older than the currently accepted age of the Universe. They evolve from an active fusing phase of development. Over time the star sheds atoms, stops fusing and changes. This is not a popular assumption to hold to and I've already been ridiculed by a friend for holding to this. However a few thinkers have come to this idea and although I don't necessarily agree with all of their ideas, I have a listed references and quotes here in the past.

The Earth's water supply could have been homegrown, that is chemically synthesized at a certain phase of Earth's stellar evolution. Or perhaps the water supply could have been supplemented to the Earth prior to the succession of locations it assumed close to the Sun; prior to when it got locked into a gravitational relationship with the Sun (in an inverse square regime). In other words the Earth could have marched around the galaxy as a rogue star/planet, and perhaps taken in water from interstellar clouds. Or perhaps Earth could have crossed close to other stars such as TW Hydrae (a young star erupting H2O) prior to coming close to the Sun. Prior to coming close to the Sun, I think the Earth was froze over; a hodgepodge of chemicals such as water, methane, ammonia, CO2 (dry ice), carbon monoxide and other volatiles. Underneath the ice was probably a liquid water supply with more chemicals and rock. Earth would have appeared as an astonishing desert. An ice world, like Hoth from Star Wars. And the moon? Well Earth and Moon could be a binary star system. The Moon looks older than the Earth to me. Heck some Moon rocks were radiometrically dated around 12 billion years. They took a mean date. Jupiter and her moons were once a star system that crossed paths with the Sun and so on.

Now this view is not the popular or accepted view. People accustomed to nebular hypothesis and Big-Bang Universe would heavily criticize these ideas. But you know I would just shrug my shoulders. If you invoke Big-Bang I would laugh because its assumptions are ridiculous. If you invoke radiometric dating, I would say time is subjective, observer dependent. Atoms do not remember when to decay in accord with your predefined contexts. Besides how would one date lava? And decay seems random. Who is to say that decay rates would not vary pending an astronomical object's location or an atom's location? We all agree the Sun has some pretty profound effects on the Earth and her atoms. And make manifest to me the decay process. Is it billiard balls moving in and out of the atom? Are you going to invoke the mystical binding energy, again? Radiometric dating is sophisticated guesswork. If you invoke supernova theory, I will say if every star goes supernova why are there not more observed? And nebular hypothesis well I have a collection of criticisms of that bloated assumption filled with ad hoc.

And as far as current astrophysical evidence suggests we have just discovered thousands of so called exoplanets. Some of these planets are in star systems that defy nebular hypothesis. In addition there are rogue planets and moons not in inverse square gravitational relationships with younger stars. So I hold to the idea that a star is a young planet, and a planet is an old star. I think this is the future. And it is fascinating because there could be so many variables. But think of it. We could be living on something that was once a star.