Sklar on Newton's Force

Here is an excellent quote I found in the library last week:

From Philosophy and the Foundations of Dynamics by Lawrence Sklar (2013)

For Cartesians Newton’s force is, of course, a terrible Aristotelian throwback. It is an “occult quality” that objects possess in and of their nature. For example, all objects, merely by virtue of having their inertial mass, also have what would now be called “active gravitational charge.” They possess the property of affecting the motion of other objects by exerting a gravitational force upon them. (p. 93)

The invocation of the notion of force in the Newtonian sense immediately leads to controversy over what such an element of the world ought to be taken to be. Is force some primitive quality of things? How do we grasp its nature in the world? What is the status of the term used to refer to? Here we see the continuation of a long-ongoing puzzle about fundamental theories. How do we interpret those concepts of the theory that are introduced in its explanatory apparatus in a manner that is internal to the theory, not imported into it from pre-existing language. The concepts relating to the position of things and their variation in time seemed to most of the physicists to be unexceptionable – at least until their “absoluteness” is claimed! But how do we grasp the meaning of “force” as used in Newtonian dynamics, where it has ceased to be merely some measure of a quantity of motion? (p. 115)

The question Sklar poses at the end has never really been answered, at least not in mainstream established physics. In physics force is a verb meaning push or pull. So we always have to ask ourselves what physical entity is doing the pushing or the pulling? What is mediating the push and pull between atoms? We can describe push or pull in an infinite number of ways and this is obvious with all the descriptive forces coming out of the physicists since Newton, e.g. nuclear force, Lorentz force, Van Der Waals force, etc. But we always come back to the fundamental question: WHAT is doing the pushing or the pulling in between. What object is mediating gravitational force between atoms? Electromagnetic force??? Without a hypothesized object doing the pushing or the pulling it is impossible to explain force.  And so the forces are fittingly described as occult, and so can particle physics, quantum mechanics, physical cosmology, relativity, etc. be described as occult.  They do not understand what they are describing.
   

The Thread of Thread Theory

One cannot detect the twined EM Threads, directly, with the eye since 1. they are microscopic & 2. they are supposed to mediate light phenomenon to and from the atoms of the eye. Also, the EM Ropes and even more fundamentally the Thread can intersect, converge, superpose, or pass through another similar without any hindrance to their motion. This idea has been a stumbling block for some, but it is consistent with observation and experiment, e.g. pass two lasers through one another.

Something similar has been noted by renown scientists of the past and up to this day; only we assume that a unique fundamental object intersects and performs without disturbing another similar. So for example EM Ropes can cross right through other EM Ropes or the arced Magnetic Threads of the Electron can pass through one another as they spin around the nucleus. It is only when we have an intersection or overlap of so much thread at a location that another moving thread may get disturbed, hindered, stopped, redirected, reformed, etc. This critical overlap is exemplified by the proton which is a crisscrossing convergence of gazillions of taut and straight electric threads fed by the EM Ropes coming from all atoms. Protons of course are very powerful and durable.

The critical density can also be exemplified by the arced magnetic threads of heavier atomic elements. The tips of a gazillions magnetic threads could briefly converge as they spin.  This would temporarily render that location impenetrable. This may have something to do with the magnetic moment. And then when we consider the human body obviously the skin is composed of a high density of thread and so alpha (a helium ion) easily gets stopped.

Here are some quotes (but note Maxwell and Huygens are stuck in wave mentality):

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)

Grosseteste: "Corporeity, therefore, is either light itself or the agent which performs the aforementioned operation and introduces dimensions into matter in virtue of its participation in light, and acts through the power of this same light. But the first form cannot introduce dimensions into matter through the power of a subsequent form. Therefore light is not a form subsequent to corporeity, but it is corporeity itself.

Furthermore, the first corporeal form is, in the opinion of the philosophers, more exalted and of a nobler and more excellent essence than all the forms that come after it. It bears, also, a closer resemblance to the forms that exist apart from matter. But light is more exalted and of a nobler and more excellent essence than all corporeal things. It has, moreover, greater similarity than all bodies to the forms that exist apart from matter, namely, the intelligences (i.e. Angels). Light therefore is the first corporeal form." (Robert Grosseteste, De Luce)

The medieval philosopher Robert Grosseteste was onto something here. Notice how he compares this first corporeal form---which for us is basically synonymous with the EM Ropes---with angels and God. These are his believed supernatural forms that exist apart from the network of matter.

So what is obvious to me is that the Thread is unique.

lasers pass through each other unimpeded

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?