A definition is a sentence that describe the meaning of a word precisely and clearly that the word can be used unambiguously. A definition limits the meaning of a word.
A synonym on the other hand is a word with a similar meaning, a word that may be substituted for a given word. It DOES NOT clarify the meaning but just gives a word with a same or similar meaning.
There are people here in hubpages who couldn't understand this much. These people always shy away when a definition is asked and always substitute a synonym for a definition. They also seems not to understand the meaning of the word 'objective'.
Are they really morons or pretending so, that they don't have to abandon long cherished beliefs?
(This is also one area where there is no difference between a theist, atheist or agnost).
This make make some (any) sense if you had posted it as a reply to an example of whatever it is you are talking about.
Usually dishonest hubbers delete those comments where people ask them to define terms unambiguously. This is standard behavior for those morons that this post is directed at.
Synonyms can be used as a definition. They aren't strictly definitions, true, but they can offer a sort of definition. Some abridged dictionaries use single words as definitions, so those would, most likely, be synonyms.
I have never seen the point in your asking others for definitions of words when there are online dictionaries at your disposal.
So you do not know what a definition is?
"An exact statement or description of the nature, scope, or meaning of something."
A dictionary has many meanings for a given word. The purpose of definition is to restrict the meaning to a single one, that the word can be used precisely and unambiguously(or To liberate the word meaning from being contextual).
I still don't see your point in asking for definitions from others?
As Voltaire said, if you want to converse, define your terms.
Well layman do not need definition. Religious people too do not need definitions, as they are out there to cheat but scientists need definition.
And whatever they give you *is* how they define it, whether it makes sense or not.
Definitions are either proscriptive or descriptive. In either case criticizing how people define things doesn't make a lot of sense to me either.
Aren't you reading it fully? People can define any word as they please, but when two people want to do an objective discussion they should define their crucial terms before they start, to understand precisely what the other person is saying. (And it should make sense, or what will they discuss?) Otherwise they'll be simply throwing opinions at each other and trying to shout down each other instead of discussing.
So any time any two people want to talk about anything they should define all the words that they are going to use in their discussion before they even start which sounds almost like a prediscussion discussion to me. You may never actually get to talk about what you want to talk about from all the time you spend on talking about it before hand.
Is it just me or does this all seem a little superfluous (please don't ask me to define that).
If you want to be understood correctly, yes. If you just want to talk, no.
Try to read the posts above, before commenting.
I'll comment whenever I want to.
I've read your posts. I've read all your post in this thread and based on these I believe you are an internet troll.
Wesley, only the key terms need strict definitions. For example, in the following question "Do elephants rumbamumba?" the key term is "rumbamumba". If I am going to discuss this topic first I must define this strange word so that there is no room for confusion for the audience or myself, right?
In the question "does God exist?" which word is the key term? Have a guess...
I did read fully. An objective discussion can be based on a shared definition, or based on exploring definitions. You seem to be unwilling to do either.
You also seem to want to be able to call people morons while skating just under the forums rules by not specifically defining who you are talking about. Talk about having it both ways.
In a scientific dissertation we do not 'explore' definitions. The presenter define his terms in the hypothesis stage that the audience can understand what exactly he is saying. And a definition should be objective, it should not have any subjective criteria. Fatfist has elaborated it well that I'm not going to expound. If you still fail to understand I can't help you.
Regarding calling morons, human being is distinguished by his analytical brain. Anybody who do not use the faculty is a moron, either by choice or by nature. My question was which is which.
Usually, we don't wish to insult the intelligence of who it is we're having a discussion with by defining words that are already defined.
No, people cannot define any word they please, that is nonsense.
Nonsense: Words or signs having no intelligible meaning... Subject matter, behavior, or language that is foolish or absurd.
Thanks for being another example for the OP.
Fatfist gave a challenge to you. If maths is the language of science as you claim, let the whole world hear(Read) your mathematical explanation for gravity.
Space is defined as a bound-less expanse(by your dictionary). If you have any intelligence, as you claim you have, explain how you can make out the expansion of borderless space? Explain how it 'warps' or 'bends'. As you really 'know' it bend please show a picture of the bend. All these, if you are intelligent, otherwise ignore it or say something that has no relation.
Remember, as the claimant, it is your job to 'prove'.
And, where exactly did I make THOSE claims? If you have any intelligence, you won't put words in my mouth.
What does that tautological equality have to do with the attraction between 2 objects? Equations are conceptual equated values (i.e. abstractions).....they are abstract concepts. Does this equation concept come between the ball and Earth and magically pull these 2 entities together? Did God put it there?
How does it pull the ball to the ground.....does it extend its hands, grab the Earth with one, the ball with the other, and pull them together? How does it grab a slippery floor, like an ice rink, and pull the puck to the ice? Its hand would slip and there’s nothing to grab a hold of....
There are no equations in the Universe. Equations are not entities that exist. Equations are tautologies...conceptual!
You’ve said nothing, but chose to evade a very simple question because mathematics is inapplicable to reality.....for if it was, you would mop the floor with our faces quite easily.
Sorry, but I need to show you derivatives of that equation to answer those questions because they can only be understood with math.
All you have to say is that you know nothing about physics and math.
Abstract? The English version would be that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards towards the ball while the ball is in a free-fall state. Is that abstract enough?
It doesn't, the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards towards the ice, thus accelerating the surface of the ice up towards the puck.
“Sorry, but I need to show you derivatives of that equation to answer those questions because they can only be understood with math.”
Impossible. You cannot show any derivative. Not even your God can perform this magic trick.
‘A’ derivative is an abstract concept. No concept can be illustrated or shown or pointed at. You can only show or illustrate or point to OBJECTS. Dynamic concepts, like derivatives or equations can only be CONCEIVED, never perceived ....do you understand this much? In fact, if you can illustrate for us either ‘a’ equation or ‘a’ derivative, I promise to PayPal you $2000 USD. I am on the record.
Just what are you going to point at in the Physics Conference....a piece of paper....letters...symbols....some ink? Symbols & letters are concepts so they can’t perform events in nature. So you are left with paper & ink which are objects. Does a paper and ink pull a ball to the floor? Paper & ink mediates the phenomenon of gravity? Quite a Religion you got there!
“the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards towards the ball “
1) So 2 balls are dropped simultaneously from same height....one on the North Pole, the other on the South Pole. The Earth can only move in one direction. Will it move toward the ball at north or south? How does it decide where to go first? Does it flip a coin? How can both balls hit the floor simultaneously in NP and SP if the Earth can only possibly move towards one direction at a time?
2) When you let go of the ball and look at your accelerometer, how come it doesn’t register any reading (i.e. 9.8 m/s^2) during the time the Earth is accelerating upwards towards the ball? It must, because YOU are accelerated upwards as well....and so is the accelerometer you hold on your hand. How come you don’t feel this acceleration like you feel when in an elevator accelerating upwards?
3) What or Who moves the Earth and makes it accelerate towards the ball? You need a mediator for this magic trick. I can move and accelerate the baseball towards the catcher. Who does it for the Earth towards the ball? Your God perhaps? Quite a big hand He has.
Hilarious Religion you got there. Stunning!
So, for the record, you are claiming that it is impossible to show derivatives of a gravitational equation that has been confirmed to a great deal of accuracy in order to explain what is happening to objects in a gravitational field?
I think we're done here, then.
You asked for an explanation of what is occurring based on the equation I provided. That would be one of the closest possible explanations one could muster using the English language. That's why the mathematical equations explain the phenomenon clearly and concisely, while English does not.
That is because we are all in a free fall state, there are no gravitational forces acting upon us other than the acceleration (i.e. 9.8 m/s^2) upwards from the surface of the Earth.
“I think we're done here, then.”
Yep, you are done. You cannot illustrate ‘a’ equation or ‘a’ derivative because no such objects exist in reality. Even after I offered you $cash$. Equations and derivatives are tautologies predicated on dynamic concepts. You should take a math course when you get to high school because you can’t answer a single question posed to you.
“You asked for an explanation of what is occurring based on the equation I provided.”
The equation you referenced is for Relativity’s alleged warped space and you unwittingly attempted to apply it toward an accelerating Earth. What an uneducated person like you failed to realize is that some people here actually know this stuff inside-out. Your misdirected equations can only impress gullible pushovers who don’t understand those symbols and their underlying concepts.
Back to your EPIC FAILURE: There is absolutely ZERO acceleration in Relativity. This religion has no account of how a planet accelerates towards another or how a ball accelerates to the floor. You showcased your ignorance by attempting to apply that out-of-context equation to an alleged ACCELERATING Earth towards a ball. That is a failed attempt at an explanation, much less a description.
Furthermore, you fail to understand that equations or derivatives are concepts that can only DESCRIBE the behavior of an object. Descriptions are NOT explanations of WHAT causes a ball to fall to the floor. Any child can look at an object and describe its behavior/motion/etc. You’ve done nothing but reiterate a tautology: all you’ve said is....”a horse is a horse....of course of course”. You’ve only impressed yourself with your rhetoric.
“That would be one of the closest possible explanations one could muster using the English language.”
That’s because you have NO clue what is happening to the ball. You have no clue of the underlying physical mechanism that mediates gravitational attraction.
It is impossible for the Earth to ACCELERATE towards the ball. Even an accelerometer will tell you this. And that’s why you don’t feel being accelerated upwards (like in an elevator) every time you drop a ball. And that's why the Earth cannot simultaneously accelerate both in the North and South poles when 2 balls are dropped. You didn't even think of such obvious failures when you proposed such a contradictory scenario.
Furthermore, if the Earth chased the ball upward, as you allege.....then throwing a ball in the air would have the Earth accelerating towards it and the ball would NOT reach an instant peak point in its upward motion before changing direction and getting pulled down. It is obvious that the Earth ATTRACTS the ball, that’s why the ball decelerates upwards before changing direction at v=0 and accelerating downwards. If the Earth chased the ball upwards, as you allege, the ball would NEVER reach v=0....it’s velocity would remain constant (as thrown) until the Earth eventually catches up with it and whacks it from behind. Clearly, your proposal contradicts reality.
You don’t understand the ultra basics of kinematics. That’s why you contradicted yourself with this ludicrous proposal (Earth chases after balls) and that’s why you couldn’t answer any question posed to you. Your nonsense is divorced from reality.
“That is because we are all in a free fall state”
If the Earth ACCELERATED and chased the ball as you alleged, then you would feel this (similar to an elevator) the instant you let go of the ball. More contradictions.
“there are no gravitational forces acting upon us other than the acceleration (i.e. 9.8 m/s^2) upwards from the surface of the Earth.”
Funny, your proposal has been debunked.
Fat: “What or Who moves the Earth and makes it accelerate towards the ball?”
Circular reasoning! You are using gravity to explain gravity. You’ve done nothing but reiterate a tautology: all you’ve said is....”A is A; a horse is a horse....of course of course”. Hilarious..LOL. Gravity is a concept....the attraction between objects. The mediator for gravity is what physically pulls objects together. Your ludicrous Religion has no Hypothesis for what mediates gravity.
It does not appear that you are one of them who does know this stuff inside-out, evidently.
But, you don't, evidently.
Hilarious, General Relativity takes acceleration into account because Special Relativity does not. Try and get your facts straight.
Your adamant denial means nothing.
Ah, so now you're changing your claims... you said...
"You cannot illustrate ‘a’ equation or ‘a’ derivative because no such objects exist in reality. ‘A’ derivative is an abstract concept. No concept can be illustrated or shown or pointed at. You can only show or illustrate or point to OBJECTS."
Yes, I do.
No one does. That is an answer scientists are looking for now.
Yes, you keep making those claims of denial without ever explaining yourself.
"An accelerometer on a rocket far from any gravitational influences that is accelerating through space due to the force from its engine, will measure the rate of change of the velocity of the rocket relative to any inertial frame of reference, because such changes require application of a (rocket) force that can be felt (as weight), for any mass. However, the proper acceleration measured by an accelerometer is not necessarily the coordinate acceleration (rate of change of velocity), when gravity becomes involved."
Yes, it would, exactly in the way we observe it and exactly in the way those derivatives will show us.
That's what Newton thought, unfortunately, he was wrong.
According to the derivatives of relativity, it is dead accurate.
Please explain what kinematics has to do with gravity, other than external forces acting upon gravity?
I have been answering questions, please stop lying.
I have no idea what you're talking about? Feel what? Where?
By your denials without explanation?
Then, I may have misunderstood your question of "Who or what" - please tell me exactly what you're looking for in an answer?
You haven’t foggiest clue of what you are talking about! You are simply trying to weasel your way out of a jam with a magical exit statement. The tactic consists in relying on an old cliché to induce gawking, impressionable readers to divert their attention from the fact that you can’t answer the questions posed to you.
“General Relativity takes acceleration into account”
Please explain using Relativity WHY a ball would accelerate towards the floor in the presence of ‘a’ warped space well. What grabs the ball in Relativity and pulls it at 9.8 m/s^2......the hands of warped space? You can’t say gravity because warped space IS the mechanism of gravity for GR. You obviously can’t and you know it. So stop lying.
“so now you're changing your claims”
What claims did I change? I never made any claim. It is YOU who made contradictory claims about planets chasing after balls you cannot justify.
Fat: “You have no clue of the underlying physical mechanism that mediates gravitational attraction.”
Troubled: “No one does. That is an answer scientists are looking for now.”
Ahh, so now that you’re cornered with no way out...you retroactively amend your claim that ‘a’ derivative or ‘a’ equation pulls the ball to the floor. Now we suddenly don’t know, despite all the math.
“inertial frame of reference”
Oh, what is ‘a’ inertial frame of reference? Can you illustrate one so we can see if such a beast exists in Reality? Your petty concepts have no bearing on reality.
“Yes, it would, exactly in the way we observe it”
Impossible! The ball has a constant speed when thrown upward. As you said “ONLY THE EARTH ACCELERATES UPWARD”. So the ball will never reach v=0 and change direction. Obviously....because YOU claim the Earth chases after it. The ball is not accelerating or decelerating as per your claims. Funny. the accelerometer never shows the Earth accelerating ....hence no chasing after balls. Even your own observations contradict your foregone conclusions. This is all a lie because you cannot offer a single explanation. You cannot even justify this contradictory claim.
“According to the derivatives of relativity”
First, Relativity proposes warped space....not planets chasing after balls. Go read your Bible again because you’ve invented your OWN Religion of planets chasing balls. And this time....read it without the help of an interpreting Priest.
Second, derivatives are concepts....they propose nothing. They only DESCRIBE what the human pre-defined them to describe. Derivatives are pre-defined tautologies describing dynamic inputs a human gives them. Tautologies (derivatives/equations) have Nothing to do with reality....they don't exist in outer space behind your God's veil. That’s why you’ve contradicted yourself with planets chasing after balls.
Take a basic course in math and explain with your own words instead of copy/pasting text from online articles your don't understand.
And yet, I have been answering your questions, see my posts above acknowledging your posts.
As I've already stated, the ball is in a free-fall state, it has no forces acting upon it, hence it is not accelerating anywhere.
Nothing is grabbing the ball, there are no forces acting upon it. That was the mistake Newton made when he theorized gravity was a "pulling" force on one object with another. This begged the question of "action at a distance" and how a force can reach out into space, grab something and pull it back towards itself.
Space doesn't curve on its own or just anywhere, it curves around objects.
Huh? What are you talking about?
A frame of reference in which all objects are in motion with one another but are not under acceleration.
If the ball is at a constant speed, it isn't accelerating, hence the accelerating surface will eventually catch up to it.
I understand what Relativity postulates, hence I understand the effects of gravity between balls and planets.
Yes, your continued denial of such things without any rational explanation continues to entertain, but probably for not much longer.
“And yet, I have been answering your questions, “
The only thing you’ve answered is that neither you nor GR/QM/ST has a clue as to WHY a ball falls to the floor. Here you go:
Troubled: “No one does. That is an answer scientists are looking for now.”
So you concede with the above statement that Relativity has no explanation for gravity....and you are correct....it doesn’t!
And you do away with warped space, because it’s a useless hypothesis, but yet claim that YOU KNOW why the ball falls on the floor: because the Earth accelerates towards a ball. When I asked you what mechanism makes the Earth chase the ball, you elude and run.
So yeah.....you’ve only answered the questions that were not asked of you because you have no answers to the questions I asked.
“the ball is in a free-fall state”
You haven’t justified this claim. What makes the ball fall? What is pulling the ball? No ball can fall unless it is either pushed or pulled. You can continue to dogmatically decree what you like, but if you cannot justify your assertions, you haven’t said anything.
“it is not accelerating anywhere”
....and this why you continue to chase your tail in circles with contradictions. The ball is obviously being pulled by the Earth as I explained earlier. It is impossible for the Earth to chase balls simultaneously at the North and South poles. You can’t have it both ways, unless you have a Religion.
“Nothing is grabbing the ball”
Then it is IMPOSSIBLE for a discrete ball to fall to the floor when you let it go. You propose a MAGICAL SPIRIT you call 'a' derivative majikally making a ball fall to the floor. Nice Religion. You allege the ball stays still in the air and instead the Earth accelerates to smack it. I explained many times why this is contradictory and impossible. If nothing is pulling the ball, it will continue to stay still floating forever. You can’t have it both ways.
“Space doesn't curve on its own or just anywhere, it curves around objects. “
Space is nothing. Not even your God can curve nothing. Only objects can curve, warp, etc. Space is not an object.
“A frame of reference in which all objects are in motion with one another but are not under acceleration.”
Just like I thought...RF is an imaginary concept having nothing to do with reality. That’s why you cannot justify your claim of why the ball falling to the floor is not accelerating and not being pulled or pushed toward the floor. Your thought experiment must have ball floating until another object collides with it. Good luck with that.
“If the ball is at a constant speed, it isn't accelerating, hence the accelerating surface will eventually catch up to it.”
Lol, but reality doesn’t work that way. The ball decelerates to v=0 on its way up, and accelerates towards the floor. This means the ball is always under the pull of the Earth. But of course, since you claimed that nobody understands how gravity works, it’s no wonder you continue to post your contradictions to reality.
Troubled: “No one does. That is an answer scientists are looking for now.”
“I understand what Relativity postulates”
Then you understand that GR proposes that space warps like a mattress and the Earth rolls on this mattress around the Sun. The Earth does not FLY towards a motionless ball floating in the air. The ball is alleged to roll down a GR gravity well and hitting the floor. Go read your Relativity Bible.
First Problem is....GR cannot justify how a motionless discrete ball begins its initial motion from rest, when you let it go. Somebody needs to push it or pull it down the GR gravity well.
Second Problem is....GR cannot justify why the Earth presses down on this alleged mattress of space. Does gravity pull the Earth down and make a depression on the mattress of space, like a bowling ball does on a bed? Circular! You cannot invoke gravity to explain gravity.
Fat: “Second, derivatives are concepts....they propose nothing.”
Troubled: “your continued denial of such things without any rational explanation”
A derivative is a CONCEPT, not an object. Derivatives are abstract relations. They are invented and DEFINED by humans.....not discovered in space, like asteroids. You can’t find them under rocks. You need to take a basic course in Physics.
If you believe ‘a’ derivative is an object flying around in space pushing planets toward balls, the onus is on YOU to illustrate this spirit of yours for the audience to see, got it?
But continue to elude the issue to protect your Religion....you have no other choice.
Do not write this much. He cannot comprehend a paragraph longer than 3-4 sentences and for him,it is gibberish.
I said no such thing. Scientists are trying to find out the mediator for gravity, they already understand it's effects and how it works.
Yes, and your constant denial of that without explanation is really getting tiresome.
After this, I will ignore those claims.
Of course, those are nothing but fabrications. And, you know that.
I already explained that and will no longer repeat myself.
And, I explained to you that was Newtons mistake and the reason why his equations are not as accurate as Einsteins.
Unless there is a surface that is under constant acceleration towards it, the ball can remain in motion or not and the accelerating surface will eventually meet it.
More denials without explanation.
More denials without explanation.
We know that isn't true because we know there are no forces acting upon the ball to decelerate or accelerate it. If that were true, astronauts would not float around inside their ships.
Why do astronauts float around inside their ships? Your logic would have them being constantly "pulled" to the side of the ship facing the Earth.
That would sort of represent a snapshot of what is occurring, but it still doesn't do any justice compared with the mathematical explanation. There's a lot missing from that snapshot and doesn't simply show a complete picture.
Argument for incredulity coupled with more gibberish.
I'm done with your garbage and your personal insults, Jomine.
“Scientists are trying to find out the mediator for gravity”
No they aren’t! Where are they looking for ‘it’....under a rock.....at the bottom of the ocean....in outer space....on Mount Ararat perhaps?
A Scientist already understands that a mediator is an object, and all objects are hypothesized in the Hypothesis stage of the sci method. Invisible objects that mediate light, gravity and magnetism are never “found”, like spirits are in Religion. You confuse Science with Religion. Take a course in Science 101.
Fat: “And you do away with warped space, because it’s a useless hypothesis”
Finally, we have the first Relativist who denies his Religion of Relativity. He now says that warped space is a useless bunk hypothesis. Watch out, the faithful Relativists will stone you.
Fat: “but yet claim that YOU KNOW why the ball falls on the floor: because the Earth accelerates towards a ball.”
Troubled: “Of course, those are nothing but fabrications. And, you know that.”
Another admission! Planets accelerating and chasing after balls is yet another bunk Theory you admit to.
“And, I explained to you that was Newtons mistake”
This discussion has nothing to do with Newton. Newton was a Mathematical Priest, not a Physicist. He had no Hypothesis for gravity. He eluded the sci method. To Newton, it was God who mediated gravity. To you, ‘a’ derivative mediates gravity. No difference!
“Hypothesis non fingo” -- Newton
Fat: “Space is nothing. Not even your God can curve nothing. Only objects can curve, warp, etc. Space is not an object.”
Troubled: “More denials without explanation.”
You haven’t a clue about the sci method. Space is NOT an explanation of a consummated event. An explanation is a Theory of an event. Space is a HYPOTHESIS, not a Theory, as you so ignorantly claim. Do you understand this much? Take a Science 101 course before you continue embarrassing yourself in public.
The onus on the THEORIST of “gravity is mediated by warped space” to tell the audience WHAT space is by either defining it or illustrating ‘it’. Neither you or anyone is able to do this because “warped space” is a BUNK hypothesis by your own admission above!
You ask theists to define or show God....but like a true Religionist, you turn the other cheek and can’t define or show “space” in a Scientific Presentation.
“We know that isn't true”
Truth is YOUR opinion! Truth is what YOUR Priest convinced you of in the confession box! Here, educate yourself:
http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/There-i … to-OPINION
“there are no forces acting upon the ball to decelerate or accelerate it.”
Of course NOT! Force is a ONE-WAY mechanism. Gravity has nothing to do with forces. Gravity is a TWO-WAY mechanism. Any two objects in the Universe are perpetually pulling on EACH OTHER. Do the Cavendish experiment so you can understand the phenomenon of gravity, because you haven’t a clue. One object doesn’t “fall” down a GR gravity well to the other, and it certainly doesn’t “fall” or “accelerate/chase” the other, while the other is standing still. BOTH are atrracted towards each other.
“Why do astronauts float around inside their ships? Your logic would have them being constantly "pulled" to the side of the ship facing the Earth.”
Astronauts appear to float in their cabins and appear to be weightless within their ship. A scale on the ship will register 0 kg because the scale is moving too. Remember, gravity is acting on the spaceship but at the same time, it’s also pulling the astronauts themselves so the space ship never has to "push" them along though the turn around the Earth. When you go around a turn in your car, your car is propelling and pushing you, so you feel the effect. The astronauts never feel this effect because they are being pulled towards the Earth and simultaneously the ship is moving sideways at the SAME rate (approx 28,000 km/hr). As it is being pulled towards the Earth’s surface, it curves away from them. So the ship and everything inside are being pulled at the same rate towards the Earth.
There is absolutely NO explanation for this phenomenon using YOUR debunked theory of “planets chasing balls”, or by Relativity’s gravity well, or by Quantum’s 0D graviton, or by String Theory’s 1D strings. None....zip....nada!
“Then you understand that GR proposes that space warps like a mattress and the Earth rolls on this mattress around the Sun.”
“That would sort of represent a snapshot of what is occurring”
There is no such mechanism in reality. It is impossible for space (i.e. nothing) to warp like a mattress. Relativists use the Sun’s static gravity well to irrationally explain the orbits of all the objects in the Solar System. Consider the moons of Uranus which travel around the planet’s equator. The trouble is that Uranus is lying down on its belly and has its South Pole pointing towards the Sun! Unlike the rings of Saturn, which are near-parallel to the Sun’s equator, the rings of Uranus face the Sun head-on (i.e., perpendicular to the ecliptic!). Uranus does not spin East-West like Earth, but more like North-South if we use Earth as an example reference. To be consistent with GR, Uranus would have to push the warped space mattress ‘outwards’ from our star in order to generate the necessary gravity well in its vicinity that would induce its satellites to orbit facing the Sun. Warped is contradictory. But the real death blow, is that space is nothing, not an object. You cannot warp ‘nothing’. We’re done!
““ but it still doesn't do any justice compared with the mathematical explanation.”
There is NO mathematical explanation. Math is not a language with explanatory power. Math is a system of dynamic concepts that are used to describe & quantify abstractions like itineraries. The only thing math can describe is the itinerary of an object along with the magnitudes of pre-defined scalar quantities. That’s it! This is a petty description....NOT an explanation. Learn the difference between these 2 words.
Destroyed your Religion! That’s why you have no response and at a loss for words. You just run away and elude. At least you are getting educated.
“Argument for incredulity”
LOL....can you justify this claim with the luxury of detail? I will go on the record and offer you $10, 000 USD PayPal cash right this very second if you can justify this claim. Tear my response line-by-line for the audience. Let’s both agree that if you can’t justify it by your next reply, you were lying all along in order to protect your debunked Religion, ok? Oh, this is getting better!
“with more gibberish”
Destroyed your Religion! That’s why you have no response and at a loss for words. You just run away and elude. At least you are getting educated.
Um, objectively speaking you are closing in on posting gibberish. You are saying less that I understand, and more of what I can understand appears to be incorrect on points of fact.
The scientific community abandoned that concept long ago.
"The Cavendish experiment, performed in 1797–98 by British scientist Henry Cavendish, was the first experiment to measure the force of gravity between masses in the laboratory."
Notice that Cavendish experiment does NOT provide an understanding of the phenomenon of gravity, it only attempted to measure it.
“Why do astronauts float around inside their ships? Your logic would have them being constantly "pulled" to the side of the ship facing the Earth.”
Abandoned, long ago.
"This NASA video segment explains why objects seem to float in space. Viewers learn that an apple that floats in space is really in a state of freefall. Since the whole space shuttle is also in freefall, the apple seems to float."
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducato … Float.html
That makes no sense at all.
Oh yes, you almost had me believe you there for a second.
“The scientific community abandoned that concept long ago.”
What you and your Priests choose to abandon is irrelevant to reality. You have no hypothesis or explanation for ANY phenomenon of reality whatsoever. Hence your vague elusive and irrelevant responses. It’s obvious you know nothing about Physics or the Scientific Method, as evidenced by your contradictions.
“Cavendish experiment does NOT provide an understanding of the phenomenon of gravity”
Irrelevant whether Cavendish explained why the phenomenon happens the way it does. The bottom line is that the experiment demonstrates the phenomenon of 2 objects attracting each other simultaneously. One object doesn’t chase the other motionless object as you allege. Which one decides to chase the other? Do they flip a coin? LOL. See...I told you that this experiment falsifies and destroys all of Relativity and Quantum.....and so does the simple experiment of throwing a ball upwards.
“an apple that floats in space is really in a state of freefall. Since the whole space shuttle is also in freefall, the apple seems to float.”
Exactly what I said earlier. The ship and its contents FALL to the Earth because the Earth ATTRACTS them. AND YOU’VE MANAGED TO CONTRADICT YOUSELF WITH THE ABOVE STATEMENT BECAUSE THE EARTH OBVIOUSLY DOES’T FALL TOWARDS A MOTIONLESS OBJECT, AS YOU CLAIMED BEFORE. LOL, please keep talking....your contradictions are endless.
“That makes no sense at all.”
LOL, what contradicts YOUR Religion makes no sense because your SPACE MATTRESS is a contradiction...pure bunk and you know it. That’s why you run and elude. It’s funny how the motion of Uranus contradicts all of Relativity in one fell swoop! If you take an intro course in Physics 101 you wouldn’t be making these profound errors in reasoning. Education is your friend.
“Oh yes, you almost had me believe you there for a second.”
That’s what happens when your whole life is based on BELIEF & FAITH....you become a Religionist who is completely divorced from reality. I just let you do the talking and you consistently refute all your statements. I mean, NONE of your proposals even matched the OBSERVATIONS and experiments of any phenomenon.
But my $10,000 offer still stands if you ever wanna make some cash and enter high school or college and get a basic education in critical thinking. You just underscored my point that you were lying all along to protect your Religion.
Since you are incompetent in this field of study, I suggest you find the best & brightest Priests from your Religion and get them to make their case for you. I will PayPal them $10,000 each if they can make their case. Perhaps they can give you 10% of their winnings. You know where to find me. I don’t run and elude.
For the record, Fatfist has stated that the scientific community consists of Priests.
Obviously Cavendish thought they were 2 objects attracting each other, that was back in 1797, long before Einstein was even born. But once again, the Cavendish experiment did NOT explain gravity, it only measured it.
That is a lie, nowhere does it state the Earth is attracting them as you describe.
For the record, Fatfist states that Relativity is a Religion.
For the record, Physics 101 classes do not expound on Relativity, however subsequent classes do, hence the request form Fatfist to take Physics 101 would contradict his claim that Relativity is a Religion.
For the record, Fatfist is referring to the understanding of Relativity as "BELIEF AND FAITH... becoming a Religionist who is completely divorced from reality) when Relativity is required in order for GPS to work.
Obviously, if you are simply denying everything and calling Relativity a religion, it is unlikely you have any intention of paying out a dime.
Garmin alone has 8800 employees world wide. At $10K a head, you owe them $88 million.
Oops! Forgot to change your userid to Fatfist?
They do not know the mediator of gravity, but know how it works??
Of course everybody 'knows', the ball falls to the ground!
Then what were you 'explaining' with the equation?
What is with your warped space and accelerating earth?
These religious people are never honest.
Relativity: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
So, is it the equation that pulls the ball? or the mu and pi and the 'g'? Or is it the equal? Oh the derivatives pull it?
Explain the mechanism of gravity by equation. You say, by equation, what pulls the ball to earth(as you put it, "the earth and ball accelerate/free fall towards each other". Your space bending, though nonsense, is an explanation, while your equation tell nothing about, why the ball is in free fall nor why the earth accelerate.
So you chose the latter option to wiggle out of the question? You forgot the "if you are intelligent part..."
"Your space bending, though nonsense, is an explanation."
Actually, he dropped the space warping nonsense. Gravity does not happen via warped space anymore. It now happens when the Earth actually accelerates towards the ball and smacks it while it sits motionless in the air. Relativity is officially dead with this proposal....it was impossible to justify with any sort of argument anyway. He now needs to justify this new proposal.
So, terms = words? We don't define words in conversations.
Then, get yourself a dictionary if you are a layman.
You aren't a scientist so you need not worry.
You have been alive so long and still do not realise that since to clearly define one word you must use many, you just adds to the confusion already presented in the one.
Words are the realisation of the confusion of men, and where the confusion is greater, more words are employed.
"Are they really morons or pretending so, that they don't have to abandon long cherished beliefs?"
Both, and usually with a generous heaping of dishonesty to go with it.
How does making grammatical errors mean you're a moron?
Language is constantly changing and evolving. Here are some examples of words that were used incorrectly, then evolved to have new meaning: Bitch, fag, gay...
It is not about errors, it is about being vague deliberately.
Are you referring to definitions like this:
Say I was conducting a study on the caliber of musket balls from a French and Indian War Fort. I have broken down the caliber of balls into 3 categories: small, medium, and large. I found 100 small, 50 medium, and 75 large. However, without me defining the differences between small (.01-0.22), medium (0.23-0.5), and large (<0.5) my reader will be lost in my definition of small, medium, and large. Is that what you are referring too? If so, I agree.
I agree that your definition of the word is needed.
Similarly anybody who claim "space expands" has a responsibility to define space.
I would agree with that as well. Unless given through context the definition of space can be implied. However, throwing out a definition never hurts.
"However, throwing out a definition never hurts."
No, it doesn't hurt. What hurts, and hurts really bad, is if the proponent's definition is shown to be contradictory, circular or shown to commit the Fallacy of Equivocation. The proponent will always get angry and will instantly resort to claiming that words have no meanings whatsoever or that all definitions are circular. Yet another contradiction.
Obviously, when in such dire straights, the proponent will claim that non-contradictory definitions are just not possible. But when someone provides the whining proponent with an objective and non-contradictory definition which can be used consistently, he will do his best to reject it. Why? Because it destroys his dogma. Sure, the proponent is given ample opportunity to contradict that definition. Problem is....he can't....neither can his peers. Quite an embarrassing situation for the proponent and his Religion.
The OP is bringing this issue to light because it's a very a common problem, not only here, but in Mathematical Physics.
That might depend on whether or not we were talking about the space between ones ears or the space between distant galaxies. Since there are only few topics that deal with the concept of space and the topic being discussed is cosmology ("space expands") then it would be obvious as to what that definition would comprise, which is the spacetime scientists usually refer.
So space is a CONCEPT. Now tell us how a concept 'expands'. Or don't you even know what a concept is?
Perhaps, I'll reword that so as to not cause you confusion.
"Since there are only few topics that deal with concepts surrounding space such as cosmology ("space expands") then it would be obvious as to what that definition would comprise, which is the spacetime scientists usually refer."
Is that better?
"Perhaps, I'll reword that so as to not cause you confusion."
That's the general idea being discussed here. Perhaps your confusion could benefit from an unambiguous definition? Once you've done that, then we can talk about whether space expands or not.
That is the point, using the English language will usually result in ambiguous definitions, hence we use math instead.
Well, does it expand?
“That is the point, using the English language will usually result in ambiguous definitions, hence we use math instead.”
Usually? Well let’s make this one of those times when it doesn’t. You cannot define words with math.
Space: ______________ by the guy who is having some trouble with basic words.
We can usually apply this "usual" point everywhere, Jonas:
"Having sex will usually result in STD's or pregnancy, hence everyone must always use protection instead.”
We usually apply this type of Usual Reasoning to everything. The alternative is impossible to "usually" apply.
Yes, I know, perhaps, I mistakenly said "definitions" but meant "explanations" instead.
You should have said "description", not explanation/definition.
Study your dictionary/English first, then we will deal with science.
Now there are concepts 'surrounding' space?? Great.
Your equation describe a warped space, but about space all you can say is" everybody knows it wink, wink, nudge, nudge!
You said there is no need for definition and dictionary is enough. According to dictionary space is a "border-less expanse".
So how does this border-less expanse warp/bend/expands?
So if you are intelligent(though you do not claim to be one) define space and explain how space bend/warp/expand.
Yes, I know you're Fatfist. No need to sock me with your puppet.
LOL, paranoia starts to set in when the proponent of a faithful Religion cannot justify any of his claims.
Glad you didn't call me Satan this time, Claire Evans.
Decide which persona you wish to use and stick with it instead of attempting to support yourself with various userids.
Do you think everybody got alter-egos like you have, Claire Evans?
Not really, but it's blatantly obvious you and Fatfist are one and the same. I mean, you really didn't even make a slight attempt to differentiate your posts.
It would be really interesting to see how you managed to compare me with Claire.
Because neither of us are making any claim and I'm asking you to be clear and precise which you refuse to do.
You and Claire speaks the same nonsense adamantly, only the name of Gods are different. You both are being deliberately vague and nebulous and you both have religions to protect. And only a deranged mind can mistake people for others.
That is a lie and you know it. I have been answering the questions from an understanding of the subject matter. You have done little more than simply deny it, offering things like kinematics and the Cavendish experiment as alternatives, when they aren't even the same thing. You then go on to state that gravity is a pulling force when that theory was given up decades ago, verification by accurate experimental results.
And, you simply deny all this and call it religion. Hilarious.
Lying and insulting do nothing to help your case. There are countless sources on the internet, in books and in many laboratories in which Relativity is observed daily. GPS would not work without it.
To deny all that is laughable.
This forum is Education and Science. Please try to keep it that way. If all you do is come here denying everything without explanation or understanding, why bother?
I'm not the one who said about kinematics or Cavendish.
All I asked you is an EXPLANATION for gravity and definition of space and an explanation for the space expanding nonsense, which you have not provided yet. You totally evaded the latter and for the former your answers included a 'nobody knows'.
The second paragraph is what all religious persons says, only they call it miracle.
Not having a proper understanding of the meaning of words and reification of concepts like space, time and energy is what the idiots and religious do. This being an educational forum, do not do it here.
I doubt anyone here is sympathetic to your lack of using a dictionary to understand the meaning of words and concepts, and must resort to calling others idiots for your failure to do so.
I have been explaining to you, but you do nothing but deny what so many others understand. It really is hilarious.
I don't give a Damn whether anybody is sympathetic or not.
And though you are unable to comprehend, I told you this so many times before. A dictionary lists all the available meanings of a word while before A scientific presentation you have to specify which meaning you are going to use for the purpose of clarity and better understanding. Such a statement that clarifies the meaning unambiguously and precisely is called a definition. Is this so difficult for you to understand?
You didn't explain, that is you haven't explained the mechanism behind gravity. First you provided EFE as an explanation, which I told is a description for warped space. Then you said earth accelerate towards the ball, but couldn't tell what happens when two balls are dropped in opposite poles or why the fall is towards earth and bot sky. In between you also said no body knows the mediator of gravity. And for your convenience I have provided links that you know the difference between explanation, description and definition which you failed to look up.
All you have essentially said is that you personally have issues with understanding definitions of words. You have yet to present any "scientific presentations".
LOL! You can't be serious? Did you actually think that the explanations of a constantly accelerating surface being indistinguishable from gravity is an explanation for the Earth physically expanding outwards in two different directions?
“You then go on to state that gravity is a pulling force”
You are talking to the wrong person. Relax, don’t be so flustered....if you can’t explain anything at this stage of your life it’s because you don’t have a solid foundation in the concepts. You need to educate yourself. It takes some time.
Anyway, I never said gravity is a pulling force. This is your strawman. Force is a one-way mechanism (i.e. F=ma). Gravity has nothing to do with force....nada..zip! Gravity is a two-way attractive mechanism as evidenced by the phenomena out there, which obviously contradict all of your proposals. You are divorced from reality. You keep good company with Christians & Muslims.
“given up decades ago”
Nothing was ever given up....except for the fact that Einstein gave up on Relativity because he swindled all the brain-dead idiots in the world to believe his nonsense.
In 1919, in reference to Eddington’s alleged confirmation of his theory, Einstein remarked that his theory was correct. However, he wasn’t as cocky by the time he died. The punchline is that Einstein died an atheist in his own religion, writing to his friend Besso in 1954 that:
“All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, ‘What are light quanta?’ Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics.” -- Albert Einstein (p. 467) 
Anyone who half read Einstein's struggle to find the Holy Grail in his last few years concludes that Einstein lost his faith in his own theories, indeed, in all of Math Phyz. He was at least aware that he and all the mathematicians were 'wrong' (i.e., that their theories didn't make any sense). Maybe that qualifies him as the most intelligent mathematician... but that's not a whole lot.
Einstein even admitted that the aether exists, even though YOUR Math Priests denied the aether all along and even to this day. Nice Religion you have...LOL!
“According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable” -- Einstein
Regardless, your argument is based on authority. You care committing the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority with every reference to who “accepts” what or has “given up” what. You fail again with no argument.
For the record, Fatfist is deleting my comments from his hubs, but continues to comment there himself with little more than insults and childish remarks. Yet, he is nowhere to be seen here.
This it typical of the crank, who must continuously deny facts and evidence simply because they have no understanding of the subject matter, hence it must be a "religion" and those who do understand it are "brain-dead idiots".
Trying to explain it to them is as pointless as trying to explain evolution to a creationist.
They must resort to creating fabrications, like this one... "Einstein even admitted that the aether exists..."
And of course, the onslaught of childish insults only serves to solidify their lack of credibility.
I don't think they're so much morons so much as uneducated. That's not their fault, by the way, but the fault of English teaching.
Knowing the exact meaning of words is vital to effective communication.
http://spiceofwriting.blogspot.com/2012 … iting.html
Synonyms are helpful for a understanding of what is meant. Every good dictionary has them along with the definition. Thesaurus' are around for a reason.Objective is different for different folks. To a blind man, sounds are far more objective than sights. To someone who is gifted with empathy feelings are quite objective, where they are not to you.
Moron to me has a medical diagnosis definition in a rating type system for disabilities. You used it as a slanderous remark about people you deem to be not as smart as you. A moron savant is just different.
Your question is pretty full of typos and bad grammar. Perhaps a glass house is not for you.
I own two thesaurus - Oxford and Rogets.
A synonym is what I need when I write poetry. But in an education and science forum, I'm not looking for poetry, but scientific language. In scientific language, definition is a must, so that the crucial terms are clear and precise, that the word can be used through out unambiguously. Also objective in science is different from the way you used it, it means the meaning is irrespective of the observer.
I will not name anyone.
I'm not against synonyms. In my 2years in hubpages, I have asked some persons to define. But they always refused and almost always there answer was that a synonym will suffice.
I think it is fair to say that your average person is not versed in defining words. Kind of like on Jeopardy, "what is". Some folks have trouble putting the response into a question. Most people on hubpages really like words and their uses. Some though, just want to express their feelings, it is very hard to put feelings into definitions. When a person expresses their feelings and you require them to use a definition -- you are not really getting their point. "what is your definition of feelings?" is really not an intelligent question.
Yes, it is synonyms that give beauty to language. If Hemmingway is asked to define his words, how boring it would be? But science is different.
A great many science definitions cannot be expressed in English, but only in mathematics; the language of science. The best that can be done is an approximation in an attempt to promote layman level understanding, and that can often be done best by the use of synonyms. Others CAN be defined by words, but only by digging through reams of paper as there is no simple definition, and again synonyms can be helpful.
Language of science is not mathematics.
Science is an explanation, while maths is description.
An explanation of gravity will be how gravity works, a description(Newtonian) is what we have, difference of hell and heaven.
Jomine, I think you may be missing it. Life and human communication is not an encapsulated petre dish. People are wonderful and diverse and not inclined to fit into you nice neat definitions. They are far more interesting than that. I am not a science experiment. I have my own views, thank you.
I'm not and I think you are not getting my point.
I'm not discussing about common parlance or the beauty of language, but about scientific language. In science language should be exact, there is no place for ambiguity. One cannot, in between, say that the meaning was not as initially supposed. It is about conveying ones ideas precisely and clearly. Poetry and poetic prose is what you are talking about, but in science even life gas to be defined before one embark on studying it.
My bad, sorry, Mia Culpa,
I was applying the matter to social, philosophical, spiritual conversations. Absolutely in science your notion is the goal to strive for as the bottom line.
Except the example given was definition of faith positions. Not a scientific concept.
Well I should have known what he meant, even though he did not define the issue well ;-)
I was responding to what I thought he meant, as you say it, but because the issue was not defined well I suppose, as he points out, he can change it as he goes.
It most certainly is in physics. You can't fathom it without understanding the math.
The OP is correct....they are uneducated morons if they do not understand that all words are first and foremost, lexical concepts. It is impossible to have a concept without a definition. The instant any concept is conceived, so is its definition, whether one realizes it or not. An undefined word (concept) is an oxymoron and obviously impossible to conceive. To those who are ignorant of this: ignorance is bliss!
People should not be hell-bent on suppressing and railing against education....unless of course they have a Religion to protect from inquiry/scrutiny:
http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/The-Ont … -a-CONCEPT
Only those who wish to protect their contradictory dogma will authoritatively assert their ignorance of undefined words and brainwash their believers to do the same.
In Science, the theorist is responsible for defining the key terms of his theory in an objective and unambiguous manner. He is never expected to define all the words in his sentences. Just the key terms which make or break his theory. If the theorist gets defensive, angry or does his best to elude any request by the audience to define a term, then he clearly doesn’t know what he is talking about. He can’t define a term because he doesn’t understand his own argument. He is a hack who is trying to show off and impress, and hopes that nobody asks him questions he can’t answer (crosses his fingers!) Plenty of these uneducated clowns around....they are a dime a dozen. Like Priests, they profess to have fancy authoritative titles to impress upon the gullible pushovers...but are clueless when asked an ultra-basic question about THEIR dissertation..lol.
Unless the author has made up a new term for their theory, then yes, they need to define the term.
However, I've never seen definitions of words in any peer reviewed papers, ever.
“Unless the author has made up a new term for their theory, then yes, they need to define the term.”
If the theorist claims that space is an OBJECT that EXISTS....and bends/warps to allegedly keep the Earth in orbit around the Sun.....but humans, trees and houses on the surface of the Earth don’t get crushed when the Earth rolls on this alleged surface of space.....just like an ant on a ball gets crushed when you roll the ball on a surface......then the audience will indeed ask this theorist to define OBJECT & EXIST!
If the theorist gets defensive, angry or does his best to elude any request by the audience to define a term, then he clearly doesn’t know what he is talking about. He can’t define a term because he doesn’t understand his own argument. This clown is nothing but a Priest who is going door to door like a Jehova’s Witness to push his Religion to those who won’t ask him to justify his terms and his argument.
The theorist is free to change his mind and claim that he wasn’t giving a Scientific dissertation.....that he was only talking figuratively in metaphors, using poetry i.e. that he was only Speaking in Tongues!
“However, I've never seen definitions of words in any peer reviewed papers, ever.”
....just like you’ve never seen definitions of words in the Bible during the peer-review called the Counsel of Nicaea.
Nobody gives a rat’s behind about the opinions of human apes during any sort of subjectively-biased review. A peer-review found that OJ Simpson did not murder anyone....so what? This is a fallacious argument.....Argument from Authority. There are no authorities in the Universe.....only Priests who claim to be.
“You can't fathom it without understanding the math.”
Please use any math you like to explain WHY a ball falls to the floor instead of the ceiling. What compels the ball to do so....a tautological equation invented by a human? Do concepts (relations) perform events...pull objects to the floor? If you can’t answer this question, then it is you who can’t fathom what math has to do with Physics.
“Usually, we don't wish to insult the intelligence of who it is we're having a discussion with by defining words that are already defined.”
Yes we do wish to insult those who are not intelligent, but pretend to be in order to propagate lies. If they don’t understand the meaning of the words they use to push their lies, then they have ZERO intelligence. They don’t even know that all concepts are DEFINED.
“No, people cannot define any word they please, “
Then they haven’t a clue what they are saying. All words have meaning....you can’t have it both ways. Your God cannot be both a ‘man’ and ‘love’.
I've always understood a definition as a succinct, accurate description of an idea, or a system of ideas, such as define the exact purpose of... The definition is defined by the writer. The writer has to risk the interpretation of the reader or listener (semantics et al)
I've never heard of any one asking someone to define the meaning of just one word; a phrase, yes, but not one word. Always thought dictionaries were invented and compiled to do that. And, yes, dictionaries do use synomyms to help with the understanding of a word.
A TROUBLED MAN's explanation for gravity
1. Einstein's field equation explains it.
But the equation only describe a warped space. It does not say how a ball fall to ground - the mechanism. Besides ATM is not yet able to tell what space is or how it bends/warps/curves.
2. Earth accelerate towards the ball.
He is unable to explain what happens when two balls are dropped simultaneously on both poles. He also cannot explain how earth knows that we are about to drop the ball. Magic may be, or god might be telling the earth.
3. No one does. That is an answer scientists are looking for now
Honesty, from a relativist. Oh! He could be punished. He could be sent to a black hole. If he hadn't done this blasphemy he would have gone to a space-time chamber or at least a dark matter!
Science describes how gravity works and thus what it is. Like mass or velocity it is what it is. I am not sure how you would provide a "how" or "why" for any of these three. They just are.
I only recently began reading the hubs of those who haunt the Education and Science forums who deny facts and evidence to working theories. They are called cranks or crackpots, of which this forum has several and their hubs show this in spades. They've also created a number of sock puppets that support their nonsense, almost to a tee.
It's unfortunate enough some may come to this forum seeking answers to questions but instead are inundated with crank nonsense, those same cranks are then compelled to publish hubs with the words: REFUTED in the titles, yet show no evidence to their refutations, no work, no rigor and no math whatsoever, but instead blatant denials complete with hand waving, insults, lies and incredulity.
Of course, for Hubpages, it becomes a site that is forced to embrace these cranks, and while I understand that it is the purpose of Hubpages to allow them to write stuff, I submit that their hubs degrade the site with extremely bad content and hence degrade the performance of other members hubs.
I would encourage others to read those hubs and vote on them (thumbs down) accordingly.
“those same cranks are then compelled to publish hubs with the words: REFUTED in the titles... I would encourage others to read those hubs and vote on them (thumbs down) accordingly.”
ATM, you present yourself as an authority on reality yet you are unable to define in no uncertain terms a word as basic as space. You misunderstand the point being made in this post yet encourage readers to vote down the author’s (and others) hubs. I offer that this grumbling disgrace of a comment is merely a reflection on you!
Nowhere have I ever made that claim.
Ah, another Jomine sock puppet. I don't define words that are already defined.
I understand that the author does not understand how science works, and further to that, denies many facts outright without any explanation.
“Nowhere have I ever made that claim.”
No, that’s why I said “you present yourself as an authority on reality…”, what fool would pronounce it openly?
“Ah, another Jomine sock puppet.”
“I don't define words that are already defined.”
I said “in no uncertain terms”.
“…the author does not understand how science works”
Did you mean what science IS? You might know how to add up numbers ATM, but adding up numbers is not science. Scientists explain how and why things work with spoken language on the basis of unambiguous definition. You seem opposed to this method without any sensible argument, perhaps it is you who does not understand what science is?
So, YOU decided I'm an authority on reality? What fool would decide that?
What is that supposed to mean?
No, they don't. Scientists use math to explain how things work. If you see explanations in a spoken language, those explanations are lacking and are meant to provide some insight for those who have no understanding of the subject matter and can't understand the math.
Um, indeed, the question of "why" the natural world works the way it does is clearly outside the domain of science.
Science does not even assume that there is a "why".
"the question of "why" the natural world works the way it does is clearly outside the domain of science."
It's clearly outside the domain of mathematics, but certainly not science.
As a scientist, I can only disagree. Gravity requires no why. It just is.
Why relates only to the study of volitional acts, and the great majority of reality is not volitional. It occurs, it has causes, it has consequence, but none of these things imply purpose.
"As a scientist, I can only disagree. Gravity requires no why. It just is."
Why a ball falls toward the Earth has nothing to do with volition. Obviously you are a psychology philosopher up to your neck in statistics – psychology is mostly mathematics (predictive). Science is not about prediction, that’s what priests and astrologers do, science is about explaining why.
“Why is it so?” – Julius Sumner Miller
Um, I don't know what you think I said, but I suggest you read it again. You seem to have it upside down.
And it is about explaining how. How is very different from why.
"How is very different from why."
Exactly, that is "why" we separate these two questions into hypothesis (how) and theory (why). Why does a pen when released fall toward the Earth? Why?
"And it is about explaining how."
"Explaining how" is probably "why" you don't get this; you describe how something happens and then you explain why it happens. Didn't you say you are a scientist? This should be obvious to you...?
Repeating that over and over does not make it valid or true.
"No, they don't. Scientists use math to explain how things work."
There you go again, presenting yourself as an authority on what is correct. Mathematics makes no provision to explain why things work, it's principle use is calculating what something will do (predictive). Scientists explain why, while mathematicians calculate.
So, by simply stating a fact, you assert I'm an authority?
Of course not, math explains "how" things work, not why.
It can also calculate what something has done, too. And, whether or not it predicts or presents results, the observations match the math accordingly and accurately.
Completely false, scientists DO NOT explain "why" - they explain "how".
Look ATM, any idiot can describe magnetism and what will happen, but it takes a scientist to explain why opposite poles attract and like poles repel. Mathematics cannot explain why and is therefore not science.
Once again, it will be explained to you that science does NOT answer the question "why"
Then, all I can respond with is a "duh" because math does NOT explain 'why"
Do you have anything else to offer?
"math does NOT explain 'why"
So, you're finally getting it. Good to see. Obviously in science we have to explain why a pen falls to the floor and why magnets attract or repel, otherwise we are not doing science.
Sorry Bill, I understand you have no grasp of what science entails.
It is unfortunate you're compelled to create so many userids here at Hubpages and spam your nonsense all over the place, with all your other userids supporting the comments in your hubs. You hardly even make any attempt to differentiate your userids so they don't appear to be the same, but instead, they are all obviously you. You do a great disservice to Hubpages by spreading your websites nonsense all over this place under many userids and degrading the site for everyone else.
Look pal, if you don't have any rational arguments just retreat and ask yourself why you feel so angry, okay? You're emotional reactions are amusing, but they are also getting a little repetitive. Thanks!
Here are some quotes from YOUR hub...
"All words in the dictionary either resolve to an object or a concept. A concept is a relation between objects; concepts are always defined. An object is that which has shape. Objects are illustrated rather than defined."
You are Bill Gaede, no question about it.
Btw Bill, your one hub regarding morals under this userid have so many of your other userids talking with one another in the comments section, all agreeing with you. Curious behavior, Bill.
If I'm Bill, you're Gomer Pyle!
Look, why don't you answer the questions put to you and stop acting like a spoiled child?
You can sit there deleting my comments from you hubs and then fill those comments sections with lies, but it would be preferable, Bill, to come out of hiding and step up to the plate so we can see just how much you don't know.
Did you get banned from the forums under your userid, just like most of the other sock puppets you've created, Jomine, Fatfist, etc.?
Here is your chance to explain gravity.
You say earth accelerate towards the ball, The three balls are dropped simultaneously. If earth accelerate towards ball "A", how does the other two fall to ground. If it is free fall, why the free fall is towards earth and not towards sky. EXPLAIN.
After reading more hubs, I have found the cranks all post literally identical hubs and all support each other with literally identical responses, insults, lies, format, style of writing and of course, ignorance, and all appear to be the same person, Bill Gaede, crank extraordinaire.
"This website was officially inaugurated on June 1, 2008 and is intended as a gift to mankind.
It's purpose is to allow those few individuals blessed with intelligence to understand a little
bit about our Universe before our species disappears from the face of the Earth.
You Stupid Relativist . com is committed to the destruction of the religion known as
Mathematical Physics. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics make a travesty of
Science and should be abolished. They constitute frauds against humanity."
Copied from Fatfist's hub: Big Bang! The Big Lie!
"In physics, we explain it as follows:
Object: that which has shape
Space: that which doesn't have shape; the static distance between objects
Space cannot acquire Length, Width, and Height and convert into an object.
An object cannot lose Length, Width, and Height and convert into space.
Since space has no boundaries, matter cannot escape space. Matter is eternal. It has always been there and will continue to be there after humans are gone."
Copied from Gill Gaede's hub: The Big Bang Never Happened
"As always, we begin by defining the crucial words of the dissertation, the ones that make or break a proponent's theory.
object: that which has shape (syn: something, thing, entity, medium, body, etc.)
space: that which doesn't have shape (quick and dirty version) (syn: nothing, vacuum)
Now it's a piece of cake. Space cannot spontaneously acquire length, width, and height and morph into an object. An object cannot surreptitiously, of its own volition, lose length, width, and height and convert into space. Likewise, no atom can leave ‘that which has no borders’ (i.e., space). "
All other sockpuppets of Bill argue the same thing.
An observer-independent definition is all about consistency. This is precisely the point of Jomine9's post. It just goes right over your head. doesn't it? You really are, huh?
A Troubled Girl is paranoid, and sees sock puppets everywhere. He calls persons that use non-contradictory, unambiguous, non--circular definitions in their explanations, sock puppets and cranks. Yet, he also asks, "Why define when one can use the popular use of a definition from a dictionary?"
Using a popular term from the dictionary could be considered the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Also, fallacy of argument from authority.
Rational science understands that definitions are limitations on words to make clear to ALL the meaning for purposes of discussing a hypothesis and theory.
A couple of buds over beer can talk about hanging ten, shooting the curl, or riding the wave. A couple of scientists must agree to define the term wave unambiguously, rationally, and without contradiction for purposes of a scientific discussion. But A Troubled GirlyMan wants us to accept his key terms without a proper definition, so he can wiggle and weasel out of any discussion.
He also wants others to believe that math explains reality, when all it does is describe motion. Math tells us that there are infinite masses, or that we can halve a distance an infinite number of times. Reality shows us that this is clearly not the case, as one can not halve their distance to a brick wall an infinite number of times and never arrive. All who have tried this wind up smacking their forehead on the wall.
Is this the userid "monkeyminds" you have chosen as the one you're going to stick with, Bill?
Yes Bill, that is exactly the very same assertions put forth by all your other userids.
If indeed, that is going to be your userid here (monkeyminds), please confirm, and I'll be happy to begin responding to your posts. Thanks.
Freud would have had something to say about these issues with gender, and possibly they relate to how a person's mother (didn't) love them.
"This website was officially inaugurated on June 1, 2008 and is intended as a gift to mankind."
At first glance, I had to laugh as it appeared to be a joke. But now, I'm beginning to get the impression it's something you actually believe.
Bill, I have no problem with you coming out with your own userid or not, but at the very least, pick one and stick with it.
I would expect at the very least, of course, to talk strictly about the subject matter and see exactly where you believe Relativity is wrong, without resorting to calling it a religion or anything other names, or to refer to everyone else as idiots or any other name calling. Just the subject matter.
If your problem is with definition of words, pick the ones you have issues with from an online dictionary with a link and we'll discuss those too.
We can start with the very basics of Relativity, if you wish. Give me the get go and I'll create a thread just for our discussion. I understand that I may have somewhat of an advantage considering I have access to all your websites and the contents there within.
If you wish, I can ignore them or refer to them, your choice.
If you think assigning someone female gender is an insult, that says a lot about you.
Also: methinks the sock doth protest too much.
by pburger 11 years ago
A science paper is supposedly objective truth. But if language is the medium of expression, and all language is subjective, how objective the language of science?
by Kate Swanson 11 years ago
I recall a thread where it was suggested HubPages use the word "non-compliant" instead of "substandard" in their email when a Hub is unpublished.I think that idea was adopted?I'd love to see the word "substandard" banished altogether from HubPages and replaced with the...
by jomine 11 years ago
To define means, to describe clearly, to convey a word's proper meaning.So I define "Exist" as having shape, a physical presence.Relativist say they never define, and hence can use words ambiguously and inconsistently. So the meaning is derived by the one who hear it, than by the one who...
by jomine 11 years ago
"Space is the boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction."; Wikipedia.If space is a boundless expanse, is it an object or nothing?If it is nothing[as it lack a shape(boundless], if it has no borders, how does it...
by Julianna 10 years ago
Define the meaning of loveWe tend to use the word so loosely. We love our cars, homes, jobs, etc. Eliminate all of the materialistic things, what is love to you?
by TruthDebater 12 years ago
Which comes first, the subjective or the objective? Also, which is more important to life?
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|