Supplements to the Ontology Article (Object--Concept)

I have researched and found what I think are some valuable add-on notes to the Ontology article I wrote a few weeks ago (and have continued to add on and edit):

Ontology: Object, Form, First Form, Existence, Concept, Referrent

The first is a brief note on Gottlob Frege.

From Philosophy of Language and Logical Theory by Khatchadourian (p.309-11)

A concept-word, according to Frege, is predicative; it is a possible grammatical predicate of a range of otherwise different sentences. To predicate a concept-word of a grammatical subject is to relate a concept to a logical subject, i.e. to an object. Another way of saying this is that to predicate a concept of an object is to state that the object falls under the concept. The predicative character of concepts is what Frege calls “incompleteness” of concepts. In terms of this the difference between a concept and an object is that an object falls under a concept but that the converse is impossible. “An equation is reversible; an object’s falling under a concept is irreversible” (p. 44) [note that Frege never figured out why: objects have form, concepts lack form; they are relations between two or more objects worked out in thought]. It seems to follow from this that “completing” a concept can be regarded as stating that a given object falls or does not fall under the concept. We “complete” ‘() conquered Gaul’ by ‘Julius Caesar’, when we state that Julius Caesar falls under the concept conquered Gaul, i.e. when we make the statement ‘Julius Caesar conquered Gaul’.

Concepts are attributes. Hence what we have said about the “incompleteness” of concepts, put in terms of this notion, is that attributes are “incomplete” in isolation from objects. Another way of saying this is that attributes, in order to be attributes at all, have to be attributes of objects. An attribute is “completed” when it is related to an object, is thought of as attributed to the object [objects precede concepts]. Relations [also concepts], which are in a similar position, are functions with two arguments, i.e. are doubly “incomplete”, and so require two objects to be “completed”. Speaking about concepts Frege says:

It is clear that a concept cannot be represented independently as an object can but that it can occur only in combination. One can say that a concept can be distinguished out of it. All apparent contradictions which one can come upon here result from treating a concept as an object, contrary to its incomplete nature. (Uber die Grundlagen der Geometrie)

Black says that this suggests that Frege’s contention that functions (and so concepts) are “incomplete” is that “it is logically impossible to make a function the subject of an assertion” (p. 246).

Concepts are a relation of two or more objects.  Frege took a sort of negative approach and never completely solved the problem, see my article above.  Gaede on the other hand came up with a perfect definition of 'object' and built an entire philosophy and physics off of this insight. 

The second add-on is a very valuable set of quotes taken from Thought and Language by Vygotskii, considered to be a landmark in cognitive science.  I found it most interesting and will post the notes in the next blog because of length.

Concept Formation in Children by Vygotskii  

I cannot stress enough how important it is to discern between objects and concepts in discourse.  This simple practice has so many implications for philosophy, physics, and even theology and Sacred Scripture interpretation.  

The god words

". . . we really ought to get free from the seduction of words!” -- Friedrich Nietzsche (BGEI.16)

I call the names that refer to these poorly understood and undefined ideas:

god words

Here are some examples of god words:

Space
Time
Energy
Consciousness
Force
Field
Particle
Universe
Mind
Wavefunction
Quantum State
Absolute
Infinite
Big-Bang
Cause

Evolution
Mass
. . .
there are more


Words hold a sort of power, so to speak.  And Nietchze was right. Words can be seductive.  And this has nothing to do with the words, and everything to do with us.  If I see anyone using these names listed above without a clear, consistent, crisp, unambiguous and non-contradictory definition I get suspicious.  And you should too.  I am at the point now where I think we no longer need the idea space.  Space is no longer a word concept, it is a European god that doesn't exist, like Zeus.

Just think of a word such as consciousness.  They say that this word is undefinable.  So much time and money have been spent in service to this word alone.  So much language has been spit out in service to this 'god' word.  It is staggering and astonishing how people are in awe of such a petty word that wasn't even used as today until Locke came along and gave an irrational definition of it. Some few lost souls today think that this concept, consciousness, is a fundamental property of Universe, another concept.  What stupendous folly!  And they are sincere in this belief.

god words

They are undefined, misunderstood, misconceived, misused, overused, abused, confused, reified, deified, mythologized and ultimately WORSHIPED.

We live in an age when concepts are worshiped.  This is called figurative idolatry.  

Newton on the Medium of Gravity

It is inconceivable that inanimate Matter should, without the Mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual Contact…That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thro' a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an Agent acting constantly . .. ; (Newton Letters to Bently 1692-3)

That Agent/Medium acting constantly is of course also the unique 3D physical medium of light phenomenon:  our supposed twined threads consistent with Schrodinger's wavefunction and described by c squared in Newton's gravitational equation and Einstein's relativity equation.  All the atoms of the U are interconnected by a twined entity:  one to all others.  The ying thread and the yang thread, the x & the y, the E & the M are intrinsically tied to all atoms of the Universe.  In supposition they converge upon all atoms and fork out at the atomic perimeter to form the magnetic electron skin and the electric proton star.  The protons at the edge of the U are configured a little differently.

Light is torsion of 'medium' and gravity is tension of one and the same 'medium'.

The EM Ropes torque in two directions:  to and from every atom of the Universe.  Atoms pump.  As they pump, they reel in (in expansion) or release (in contraction) links of EM Rope.  

Gravity generates strength by number of tensions multiplied when the distance between any two objects comprised of two or more atoms decreases.  As distance decreases, more and more atoms tug on one another at increasingly steep angles via the EM Ropes that connects all atoms.        

Critical Thinking and Rational Analysis Tools

I've got nothing new today, but I've been harping about critical thinking and rational analysis in my past few articles. Here is a list of conceptual tools that you can begin learning and applying this very moment. Its not difficult, it just takes a little discipline. Everyone needs these tools to help parse through and destroy all the endless b.s. on the internet:

* unambiguously define all key terms in your argument so that they can be used consistently in your dissertation. The term is limited and restricted for crisp, clear and consistent use throughout presentation. Adjectives are used to qualify nouns and adverbs to qualify verbs. This avoids the Fallacy of Equivocation. A does not equal A.

* avoid contradictions; avoid Law of Identity, A is A, is contradictory

* learn to identify and associate synonyms not only in definitions but while parsing discourse.

* continually ask yourself the question "who cares?" to avoid irrelevant issues

* avoid Authority Arguments, i.e. do not appeal to authority

* identify prejudice, bias, propaganda, self-deception, distortion, misinformation, etc.

* avoid the Fallacy of Reification: explain why we cannot reify concepts into objects and why we cannot attempt to ascribe motion/actions to concepts.

* skillfully raise relevant questions so as to creatively solve problems.

* When parsing sentences resolve the ontological context of the referent. Which of the two fundamental categories does a word fall into: 1. object or 2. concept? If the referent has shape it is an object. If not it is a concept.

* avoid confusing nouns of syntax with nouns of reality. (Ordinary speech vs. Scientific language).

* do not perform verbs on concepts; do not use concepts to perform verbs

* kill the observer (an expression to be taken in context. It means make observer independent assumptions or be objective)

* avoid limiting your conceptual realm of reasoning by NOT using tautological systems (such as math and logic) that confine your premises by locking them into axioms and cripple your mind. Tautological systems such as math and logic are artificial, and only solve derivational type problems. Mother Nature could care less about formal logic, mathematics and physical laws coming out of Mankind.

* Provide an “explanation” as to WHY an event occurred the way it did; it’s mechanism, who were its mediators, etc.....and not just a petty “description” of what happened. Logic is especially bankrupt in assisting with this formidable task.

*Objects and explanations must be conceivable.

* Rational explanations should be able to be visualized, illustrated, and can be put as a movie on the big screen as a movie without any missing frames. If it cannot be visualized, then it cannot be understood because it contradicts reality.

* DO NOT convert hypothesis and theory into a facts of the Universal Movie

* Intellectual honesty in a debate requires that you directly quote the statements that you are addressing in your arguments. (do not misrepresent another's position)

* avoid premises and assumptions derived from analogy. Do not infer from analogue assumptions. Rather use analogy to illustrate rational premises and assumptions.

* be critical about your own attempts at criticism. Refutations are rarely final, and more often a prelude to further refinements.

* recognize that assumptions and explanations stand or fall on their own merit.

* marshal sufficient data, observations and evidence for brainstorming before committing to hypothesis, theory and conclusion.

* discard irrational hypotheses and theories

* adapt oneself to reality

* Dispositions: realize human irrationale and error. Have an open-minded outlook. Refuse to think that your desires shape Mother Nature (God and Mother Nature doesn't care about your desires). Be tentative.

* resist the notion that some authority, a great philosopher or physicist has captured the whole truth.

* be willing and able to follow an explanation to the only conclusion to be had---possible, or not possible.

* think for oneself

* be detached emotionally

* avoid ad hoc hypothesis fallacy: do not add hypothesis to a theory in order to save it from being discarded

* avoid Rationalization: do not make excuses or bellyache

* use adjectives (static concepts) to describe nouns of reality.  Adverbs (dynamic concepts) describe verbs (dynamic concepts) performed by nouns of reality.  Physics is a study of nouns, adjectives and verbs.  Math is a study of adverbs.

* apply Occam's Razor: 'shave away' unnecessary assumptions. The Medieval saying is "plurality should not be posited without necessity". Newton: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."

* Identify and associate the fact vs. statement of fact dichotomy:

Fact, true fact, truth: Every minute detail of what actually is, was, happens, or happened irrespective of witnesses or observers; A detailed film clip of an actual event that conceptually includes every frame for that interval of the Cosmic Movie.

Assumption, statement of the facts, scientific fact: A subjective statement from a witness concerning an event or an object. A statement of the facts is either a description of an object or a narrative, an objective listing (usually chronological) of a series of events. A particular interpretation of the evidence or of an observation. (synonyms: an opinion, a lie)

* Physics is the study of causes and objects.  Philosophy is the study of reasons and concepts.

I also have previous blog posts on Cognitive Biases and Informal Fallacies.  

The Solution to Red Shift

The first corporeal form . . . is in my opinion light.  All things are one by the perfection of one light. (Robert Grosseteste, De Luce) 

... both incline to the opinion, however, that if the red-shift is not due to recessional motion, its explanation will probably involve some quite new physical principles [... and] use of a static Einstein model of the universe, combined with the assumption that the photons emitted by a nebula lose energy on their journey to the observer by some unknown effect, which is linear with distance, and which leads to a decrease in frequency, without appreciable transverse deflection. . . (Edwin Hubble, Two Methods of Investigating the Nature of the Nebular Redshift, Astrophysical Journal, 1935)

Thank you for the introduction Hubble. Indeed it turns out that the solution to redshift is deceptively simple. It was never to be found in a mythical and impossible expansion of this concept called spacetime. It was always hidden within the architecture of the physical mediator of light phenomena. Physicists of the 20th century dropped the ball on light and the electron. They failed to discard irrational assumptions and models so as to brainstorm new ideas and new models of light as well as it's intrinsic relation to the electron. Instead they turned to an exclusive focus on describing the behavior of light and the electron via mathematics. These blunders will be featured in my next article, however in this article let us focus on Redshift.

The Physical Mediator of Light      

Redshift and blueshift is a natural mechanism of the twined DNA like mediators interconnecting all the atoms of the Universe. A fundamental assumption of Thread Theory is that all the atoms of the Universe are connected by Electromagnetic Ropes. These DNA like entities converge and bifurcate to form all the Hydrogen atoms of the Universe which consistent with modern thought fuse or combine to form heavier atomic elements or molecules. These of course serve to build stars, galaxies and us. Here is a simple model of two Hydrogen atoms:

The physical mediator of Light, the EM Ropes, furnishes the principle of continuity in nature, as the first physical form it is common to all things in the Universe from the lowest of the elements to the stars and galaxies. 

EM Ropes converge and fork out to form the electron shell and proton. All atoms are induced to pump like a heart (i.e. Bohr's quantum jumping). As they pump they torque the EM Ropes extending radially to all the atoms of the Universe. The composite friction of the Electric Threads and Magnetic Threads rubbing as the atom pumps is what is detected as charge. Light resolves to a phenomena collectively mediated by all atoms and the torque signals moving rectilinearly along the taut EM Ropes connecting all atoms one to another. All atoms torque signals to and from each other consistent with the c squared concept.  Tension between all EM Ropes is maintained by the continuous torquing of the EM Ropes in quantum jumping (as well as vibration), a motion which is unceasing.  Here is a model of a type of quantum jump:







In between stars and galaxies is a mesh of countless EM Ropes extending to and from the atoms of all galaxies and this constitutes the so called Background Radiation that they have spent billions to measure. Consistent with century old observations, the fine microscopic EM Ropes comprised of the fundamental, non-composite, 3D physical entity (the Thread) are able to converge, superimpose, and pass through another similar unimpeded, without hindrance . . . without destruction to their structure . . . without interruption to their torquing motion . . . without disturbance. This unique property of the EM Ropes, and the Thread has been a stumbling block to many, e.g. the particle physicists.  Even so, it has been recognized by many that light can pass on light. Everyone can confirm this by taking two lasers and passing their rays right through the other. Indeed this is why the EM Ropes DO NOT tangle on their way to and from all atoms.  For appeals to authority both Maxwell and Huygens have recognized this unique property of the physical medium of light:

Maxwell: “ Equation (361) for the electromagnetic field is linear in the field,… this means that two waves can travel through each other without disturbing each other” (J. Maxwell, On Physical Lines of Force, Philosophical Magazine 21 (1861))

Huygens: “ Another property of waves of light, and one of the most marvelous, is that when some of them come from different or even from opposing sides, they produce their effect across one another without any hindrance…the waves do not destroy nor interrupt one another when they cross one another” (C. Huygens, Treatise on Light (1678) trans. S. Thompson (1912) p. 22) 

Please note that both Huygens and Maxwell were stuck in the old assumption of waves.  This assumption has never been dropped to this day even though transverse waves cannot simulate all the static and dynamic properties of light.  A rope like architecture is a standing wave and can simulate all the dynamic and static properties of light with flying colors.  A twirling rope is able to apply pressure to an atom inducing it to pump due to the unique bifurcation architecture of the EM Rope in relation to the atoms. A rope-like configuration can even be used to explain the famed EPR experiment (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) which the quantum mechanics have never been able to offer an even remotely rational explanation for to this day.

Redshift  

Now suppose we have two galaxies separated by a great distance. Every single atom of galaxy A is connected to every single atom of galaxy B by EM Ropes.  Suppose you are in galaxy A looking at galaxy B at night.  Galaxy B appears to you as a dot.  The reason is that over a great distance the EM Ropes connecting all the atoms of the two galaxies converge and superimpose. Light propagates rectilinearly, so light “rays” have no choice but to converge together as they propagate from their source to their target object when the distance between them increases.  Distance is really the length of an EM Rope connecting any two atoms.  

When the atoms of galaxy A and galaxy B are connected at great lengths the links of EM Rope should become longer, i.e. there frequency decreases (in quantum/relativity lingo lose energy) as we move further away from the light source, that is the atoms.  Indeed, as the twisting light signals extend outward from the atoms of galaxy A toward the atoms of galaxy B (or vice versa) the link-lengths (corresponding to frequency and color: see picture below) should 'shift' becoming longer (corresponding to lower frequencies and change of color or redshift).  As signals move further from the ends of the rope, the atoms, and unto the center the links become longer and longer.  All rope entities exhibit this 'unravelling' architecture around their center.    

This mechanism is static: it invokes no momentum or motion or collision because this is what a rope like architecture exhibits at rest!!!  It matters not whether galaxies A & B are moving toward or away from one another and the age of the galaxies is irrelevant. There will always be a central location along EM Ropes of great length where the twisting signals over-extend.  This is because of the architecture of the physical mediator of light which is configured like a rope. This is why all distance galaxies exhibit redshift in relation to others.

As a corollary it stands to reason that the greater the distance, i.e. the greater the length of the EM Ropes connecting that atoms of any two galaxies, the more opportunity there is for the twisting light signals originating in the atoms to 'shift' toward ever longer link-lengths (corresponding to lower frequency and change of color to the left of the EM spectrum).

Now suppose galaxy A and galaxy B are moving away from each other.  The links of EM Rope will simply dynamically redshift, i.e. the same links connecting the two become longer as they move away from their atomic sources.  And when galaxy A and galaxy B move toward one another the atoms will slightly compress the EM ropes in the direction of motion in what they call 'blueshift' (decrease in link-length, increase in frequency, change in color toward right of EM spectrum).  And by the way, some of these ideas were experimentally confirmed by the Harvard Tower Experiment performed by Rebka-Pound.  They simply could not conceive of the correct mediator of light to work Mother Nature's magic tricks. It seems that the scientists gave up on light a long time ago in favor of mystical creation and annihilation of photons and a gooey stretchy spacetime.

an atom of galaxy A is connected to an atom of galaxy B by a single EM Rope

But of course we try to live by critical thinking and rational analysis.  A rope like entity is a rational supposition for the mediator of light and gravity.  A magical photon suddenly appearing or disappearing, to and from nowhere (in gazillions of creation and annihilation events happening at all electrons) and then stretching as a transverse wave due the metric expansion of this mystical concept called space is impossible, not to mention ridiculous.

And so it is.  Redshift is easily explained by EM Rope Hypothesis and Thread Theory.  The underlying mechanisms of Mother Nature are elegant and beautiful just like any sane physicist of the centuries supposed.  The only wonderful and breathtaking mystique is the incomprehensible and inexplicable ability of light rays (EM ropes) to pass through light rays (EM ropes).  I hope to share additional thoughts on this unique behavior of the medium of light in future articles.  Suffice it to say that the fundamental entity is non-composite thus it stands to reason that in this radical microscopic context it would be able to pass through any similar without touching.  EM Ropes are the most durable and wonderful physical entity of the Universe. What else could be responsible for the wonderful work of heat and energy?  
 

Stellar Transformation Hypothesis by Abruzzo

I seemed to have accidentally deleted my endorsement of Stellar Transformation Hypothesis. A few years ago a philosophy major out of New York by the name of Anthony J. Abruzzo comes up with the stunning fundamental assumption that planets are the end products not the byproducts of stellar evolution. In other words stars naturally evolve into planets. Planet Earth and all the planets of our system and of all systems are old stars. This assumption is rational and consistent with observation, ESPECIALLY in light of all the new Kepler data of the exoplanets.  The Nebular Hypothesis is IMHO dead.  It is a irrational bloated hypothesis.  But the planetary scientists have put a lot of work into that artifice.  So it will die a slow death.

Here is the link to his series of research papers:

Papers Written by Anthony J. Abruzzo

Some quotes from his papers:

From:  Are Planets the End Products Rather than the By-Products of Stellar Evolution?

Article Summary:

This article presents a new hypothetical framework for planet formation that utilizes a transformation rather than a derivation mechanism. Since this transformation mechanism takes a different approach to planet formation, it radically departs from orthodoxy in this field, an orthodoxy whose foundation, in my view, is built on the inherently unstable ground of the  nebular or accretion hypothesis in all of its permutations.

From:  Interpretations of Solar System Phenomena according to the Transformation Hypothesis

Introduction

A previous paper presented a framework whereby planets can be viewed as end products rather than by-products of stellar evolution. It was pointed out that Descartes first proposed this hypothesis in the 17th century but for reasons also briefly discussed therein, his idea was lost to all but historians of science. Nonetheless, I suggested that the central idea animating Descartes’ planetogony – what is being called the “transformation hypothesis” - holds the key to understanding how planets form. Unlike the nebular or “derivative hypothesis,” as I call it, in all of its permutations, which proposes that planets form from material derived from proto-stars in one process, the transformation hypothesis views individual planets as later stages in the evolution of individual stars. Thus, the transformation hypothesis can be viewed as the natural history of stellar objects as they evolve through various stages. While the purpose of the previous paper was to lay the general groundwork of the transformation hypothesis, this paper will interpret specific phenomena in our own Solar System according to it.

From:  The Formation and Age of the Solar System

In conclusion, it can be stated that the Solar System is as old as the time when the Sun began to acquire planets, since by definition a solar system is a central stellar object that has at least one planet in orbit around it. However, at this time of acquisition, the planet or planets that gave rise to the “system” were already in existence and were not formed in the same process from which the Sun was formed. This condition of preexistence is, in essence, the negation of the derivative hypothesis. It is just as likely as not, that the Sun formed in a region of space that was already populated by non-stellar objects and that some of them, by their relative proximity to the forming Sun, were attracted to it and subsequently captured. But it should be clear that the sequence of capture events and the chaos that must have prevailed during each of these events cannot be determined with any degree of rigor at this time. Inventing a capture event scheme now would amount to sheer guesswork. Nonetheless, as our knowledge of the Solar System continues to grow, the time may come when the delineation of such a scheme will become possible with some degree of certainty.

From:  Brown Dwarf Stars – The “Missing Link”

Conclusion

It is hoped that the foregoing analysis has provided the reader with an insight into the confusion that currently exists in conventional stellar and planet formation theories. The misapplication of the “missing link” concept demonstrates that the line separating stellar objects from planetary objects is no longer clear. But, hampered by their adherence to outdated notions regarding the evolution of stars and planets, conventional theorists will continue to stumble over the mounting anomalous data that observational astronomers are dropping in their path. On the other hand, the missing link concept makes perfect sense within the context of the transformation hypothesis. The brown dwarf object is but one link in an evolutionary chain that extends from the hottest and heaviest stars to the coolest and lightest spherical dwarf planets.

From:  The Transformation of Gas Giant Planets into Rocky Planets

Introduction

This is the fifth in a series of papers whose purpose has been to introduce and explore the implications of the transformation hypothesis. In brief, the transformation hypothesis views planets as the end products rather than the by-products of stellar evolution. Put more simply, stars evolve into planets.  Although the subject of this paper has already been touched upon in the previous papers, its purpose is to examine further the processes that transform gas giant planets into rocky planets and highlight an external mechanism to which some gas giants are subjected that accelerates this transformation process.

From:  The Planet Migration Hypothesis - Saving the Paradigm

Conclusion

While the observed resonances existing amongst the various bodies in the Solar System, with one or two exceptions, are empirically verifiable, there is no theoretical justification to use them as the foundation upon which a “new and improved” derivative hypothesis can be erected. And, since the resonances, at least those obtaining with respect to the gas and ice giants, stand on the shaky footing of the planetesimal mechanism, for which there is no empirical evidence, the planet migration hypothesis reveals itself as merely another “epicycle” whose sole purpose is to save the appearances, which, in this case, is how the nebular or derivative hypothesis adequately accounts for the Solar System’s formation and current constitution.

Indeed, some of the more candid researchers in this field view their work as nothing more than imaginative exercises that seek to account for some elements of the Solar System’s initial formation and further evolution to its present overall configuration. In fact, one particular research team that has done work on the formation and migrations of the gas and ice giant planets actually includes “Fairy Tale” in the title of one of its papers.  In the introduction to this paper, the team unabashedly observes, “Our model…contains elements that are probably wrong in detail. However, large portions of it may be correct and it illustrates the lengths to which we must go in order to understand the formation of these planets.”  Implicit in this statement is the team’s adherence to the underlying paradigm of the planetesimal-type derivative hypothesis.

In general, the planetesimal version of the derivative hypothesis is the unquestioned premise from which all of the planet migration hypotheses spring. It is obvious that without the formation of these small, solid bodies from the dust and gas of the primordial disk surrounding the proto-Sun, not only would no planet migrations have occurred, but also no planets would have formed. The entire edifice is based on the presumed existence of planetesimals.  And, it is so firmly entrenched as a premise beyond dispute that a perusal of the relevant literature will yield a diversity of opinions bearing on the possible mechanisms operative during the planetesimal formation process itself.

However, no amount of patching and tinkering can save this paradigm from its inherent flaws. Nonetheless, one wonders to what lengths the advocates of the derivativehypothesis would go to save appearances if an Earth-like planet were discovered orbiting the Sun in the far reaches of the Kuiper Belt or further out in the scattered disk? Such a discovery – certainly within the realm of possibility – would surely result in the production of new and “enhanced” computer-simulated “fairy tales” seeking to explain why and how such a large object could exist so far from the Sun, within the context of the planetesimal paradigm.

Summing up, it is clear that the planet migration hypothesis fails as a building element in the Solar System’s “final” architecture because it is incorporated into the derivative hypothesis, which views the Solar System as having formed from one unitary evolutionary process. The transformation hypothesis, on the other hand, views the Solar “System” as essentially a work in progress, wherein the architecture is continually subject to change. Sometimes these changes are gradual and virtually unnoticeable, while at other times, they are abrupt and “catastrophic.” Conventional planetology will remain trapped in its theoretical dead end until this reality is grasped and accepted.

From:  The Origins of the Nebular Hypothesis - Or the Genesis of a Theoretical Cul-de-sac


Although the nebular hypothesis has risen to a paradigmatic status within the corpus of the conventional astrophysical sciences, it is still just a hypothesis. And, as such, it is subject to eventual supersession, as are all outmoded hypotheses, if it cannot support the incorporation of new data that proves inconsistent or “anomalous,” in the Kuhnian sense, with its theoretical architecture. In previous papers, I have endeavored to present these inconsistencies, as they relate to both established facts about the Solar System and new facts about it and exo-solar systems, and reinterpret them within the framework of the transformation hypothesis.

This paper will examine the origins of the nebular hypothesis. It is generally believed that the nebular hypothesis was developed during The Enlightenment, but its roots can be traced back to a few Renaissance thinkers and ultimately to the speculations of several ancient Greek philosophers. It is hoped that the historical sketch to follow will help to shed light for the reader on how the nebular hypothesis has become so firmly entrenched in contemporary science even though its central conception has no bearing on the formation of solar systems.

However, it will not examine the several varieties of catastrophic hypotheses for the Solar System’s formation that have been promulgated over the past two and a half centuries, whose lineage can be traced back to 1745, in the work of Buffon. Nonetheless, as was pointed out in the first paper of this series, these catastrophic hypotheses are classified as “derivative” hypotheses in the sense that the material from which the planets are formed comes from the debris that is blasted from the Sun, either by another passing star or a very big comet after a collision or interaction has occurred.

Some Notes on Robert Grosseteste

As a warm-up to my upcoming articles on the fundamental entity of physics, neutrons, and neutrinos I decided to parse a little of the medieval thinker Robert Grosseteste. He was an Englishman and a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. He wrote a treatise 'On Light', did work in optics, wrote other little treatises on physics. He was very much preoccupied with light. His thought was unique in that it split from the stodgy Aristotelianism of the day. In spite of the impoverishment of his mind due to his time some of his ideas are interesting. Grosseteste seems to have gotten close to conceiving the fundamental physical entity out from light (though not it's shape)

Here is the first line of his work called De Luce:

Formam primam corporalem quam corporeitatem nominant lucem esse arbitror 

The first corporeal form which some call corporeity is in my opinion light

He was close and onto something. Unfortunately I parsed through most of his works and he failed to define his key terms and really develop his fundamental notion in terms of physics. In any case he had some neat ideas and these are encapsulated in an Introduction written by a translator of his works named Clare C. Riedl. Here are my notes from her.  I highlighted in bold what I thought was important:

For an understanding of the treatise On Light it will be necessary to consider some of the characteristics of Grosseteste's doctrine of matter and form, although his terminology is Aristotelian, the ideas which he expresses in that terminology are often decidedly un-Aristotelian in content. The chief point of divergence is that for Grosseteste matter is not pure potency, as it was for Aristotle, but possesses in its own right a certain minimal reality. Thus Grosseteste speaks of matter as a substance, 'Both corporeity and matter are in themseIves simple substances.'; 

'It is clear that every higher body, in virtue of the light which proceeds from it, is the form (species) and perfection of the body that comes after it.' In connection with this theory of interaction in virtue of which 'in a sense each thing contains all other things', it is interesting to note the dynamic aspect which Grosseteste assigns to form. Form, that is to say, the first corporeal form, or light, is in his view more than the 'form of corporeity,' the principle of extension, it is also a principle of activity. Every body, he believes, has a motion or activity which is natural to it, because it proceeds from an intrinsic principle. The intrinsic principle from which this motion or activity proceeds must be the form . . . 

The subject matter of the treatise is indicated in brief in its opening sentence, where Grosseteste sets forth his thesis that light is 'the first corporeal form.' The remainder of the treatise is occupied with explanation and attempted proof of this proposition together with a detailed analysis of the process by which this first corporeal form united with primordial matter to produce the material universe.
Grosseteste bases his 'light metaphysics' on the consideration of the properties of light and of the nature of material substance. He finds as a characteristic note of corporeity the requirement of extension, 'the extension of matter in three dimensions is a necessary concomitant of corporeity.'  

Light furnishes therefore the principle of continuity in nature, for as the first corporeal form it is common to all things in the universe from the lowest of the elements, earth, up to and including even the firmament. Thus 'all things are one by the perfection of one light.' It is also the principle of distinction and multiplicity since the 'things which are many are many through the multiplication of light itself in different degrees.'''

One other interesting I learned from Clare is about the lux/lumen dichotomy in Genesis 1. To quote her:

There seem to be no suitable English words to convey the distinction between lux and lumen. For this reason I have translated both by 'light': indicating parenthetically the Latin word used in each case. The distinction appears to be this: lux is light in its source, whereas lumen is reflected or radiated light. (all above quotes taken from Robert Grosseteste On Light, Introduction Clare C. Riedl)