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?
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Saturday, April 25, 2015
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.
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!
'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?
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?
Sunday, February 8, 2015
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."
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
--- 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
Thursday, January 15, 2015
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
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)