Philosophy Discussion Forums

DarwinX,

What do you mean by "energy is more than a concept"? Something is either a concept or is not a concept. You can't have a semi-concept. For example - Heat is just fast moving electrons and or waves of matter and aether flow. Thus, energy can be described merely as movement and not as a thing in itself. Thus, energy could be described as aether in movement and transition. Light can transfer itself interdimensionally, thus it can disappear and reappear at the point of impact. The dimensional transference of energy is poorly understood, so I can't provide any further details of this process. All I can say is that logic demands that this process must exist and that space can not be empty. Suggest that you refer to the work of Dayton Miller for further confirmation of the existence of an aether.

I think that energy is a concept because we can conceptualise about it. I don't believe it is a macroscopic object (unless you define light or electricity as objects), but it does exist, within objects and provides them with power. How many times do I have to tell you, that I don't agree with your (mis)conceptualisation regarding matter and aether flow? Yet, you continue to repeat it as though it is an arbitrary fact, that I have no choice, but to accept? I agree that light can transfer dimensionally, as such it is capable of permeating all dimensions of existence. The dimensional transference of energy is simply as it is stated. Why should it require investigation? What difference will knowing how it works make? And please drop this 'aether' thing with me.

Fanman wrote: I think that energy is a concept because we can conceptualise about it. I don't believe it is a macroscopic object (unless you define light or electricity as objects), but it does exist, within objects and provides them with power. How many times do I have to tell you, that I don't agree with your (mis)conceptualisation regarding matter and aether flow? Yet, you continue to repeat it as though it is an arbitrary fact, that I have no choice, but to accept? I agree that light can transfer dimensionally, as such it is capable of permeating all dimensions of existence. The dimensional transference of energy is simply as it is stated. Why should it require investigation? What difference will knowing how it works make? And please drop this 'aether' thing with me.

Sorry, but without aether, the universe becomes very illogical and silly. I therefore, have to include it, regardless of the supposed lack of evidence and support from the established science community.

Note - All physicists have secretly believed in an aether. Einstein called it the space-time continuum. Fayman called it quantized photons. Higgs called it the Higgs Field. Other names for the aether include - dark matter, dark energy, virtual photons, Plancks Constant , bosons, gravitons and wimps.

The term aether is considered old fashioned and redundant but the idea of an aether persists in many other shapes and forms to this day. Ignoring the aether is like a fish ignoring the sea water. Fish are probably completely unaware that sea water exists too.

DarwinX:

Sorry, but without aether, the universe becomes very illogical and silly.

To be clear: Is this because you believe the concept of "action at a distance" to be counter-intuitive?

I'm making an assumption here, so let me know if I'm wrong. But it sounds as though the concept of aether attempts to remove the need for action-at-a-distance by proposing that a "substance" (the aether) passes between separated objects like, for example, celestial bodies, and is responsible for their movements which are, in classical mechanics, attributed to forces, like the gravitational force.

If this is true, why would you consider action-at-a-distance to be illogical and silly? I can perhaps see how it might be considered to go against common sense and intuition (which is perhaps what you mean by "silly"?), because these things are based on everyday Earth-bound experiences. And we don't generally tend to see much of anything that looks like action-at-a-distance in our everyday lives. We're very familiar with the concept of contact forces - with the idea that the world is composed of material objects with clear, precise boundaries.

Why illogical though? Surely for something to be illogical it has to contain some kind of internal self-contradiction, and not merely disagree with empirical evidence. For example, the statement "it is raining" is perfectly logical, even if it's not raining. But the statement "it is raining and also not raining" is illogical.

Could you provide an example of a logical self-contradiction in an aether-less theory? Perhaps something along the lines of: "planets orbit in ellipses and they also don't orbit in ellipses".

Equal to mass times the speed of light squared?

The only reason Xris considers energy to be a "concept" is because of Gaede, he had to redefine everything into two categories, "objects and concepts" it's an excluded middle fallacy.

Darwin, if ether is a medium that light travels through, what is it's refraction index?

DarwinX,

Drop this aether thing with me, if you can.

Steve3007 wrote: Could you provide an example of a logical self-contradiction in an aether-less theory? Perhaps something along the lines of: "planets orbit in ellipses and they also don't orbit in ellipses".

I'm not sure what you are on about here, but I will offer the example of gravity. Gravity pulls, but has no mechanism of pulling, therefore, it is a logical contradiction.

DarwinX:

I'm not sure what you are on about here, but I will offer the example of gravity. Gravity pulls, but has no mechanism of pulling, therefore, it is a logical contradiction.

I think that's an interesting start. But what do you mean by "mechanism"? Presumably some kind of underlying cause - something must cause this pulling action, yes? It can't just happen by itself, right?

Why do you think things need to have underlying causes? Do you think the underlying causes themselves have to have causes, and so on ad infinitum? Or are you happy to reach some mechanism, at some point, and say "ok, we'll stop there. No further depth required"? If so, why not just say that pulling gravity is the mechanism?

Taking your example of aether: what's the mechanism that causes aether to behave in the way that it does? And what's the mechanism for that?

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Steve3007 wrote:
I think that's an interesting start. But what do you mean by "mechanism"? Presumably some kind of underlying cause - something must cause this pulling action, yes? It can't just happen by itself, right?

Why do you think things need to have underlying causes? Do you think the underlying causes themselves have to have causes, and so on ad infinitum? Or are you happy to reach some mechanism, at some point, and say "ok, we'll stop there. No further depth required"? If so, why not just say that pulling gravity is the mechanism?

Taking your example of aether: what's the mechanism that causes aether to behave in the way that it does? And what's the mechanism for that?

Do you see what I'm getting at?

1. Well, just give me any mechanism that you wish. I have asked the top physicists in the world to give me just a tiny hint of a mechanism, and they have all failed to do so. I expect that you too will fail to give me a mechanism. That's mainly because there isn't a mechanism for a pulling gravity. This is because a pulling gravity is illogical.

2. Aether is invisible but you can see and feel its effects in gravity, electricity, light and magnetism.

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

Mmm. I guess you didn't see what I was getting at then. Never mind.

Steve3007 wrote:Mmm. I guess you didn't see what I was getting at then. Never mind.

Mmm. I guess you didn't see what I was getting at then. Never mind.

You can't out joke the joker!

I'm just curious as to why you quoted my post just before your point when you didn't actually appear to be addressing any of the points in it. If you want to say something unrelated, it's probably best not to quote irrelevant previous posts. Just clutters things up.

DarwinX, perhaps it will help you to focus more on what I've said if I keep it short and stick to one answer and one question at a time.

Here's my answer: Gravity is a mechanism.

Here's my question: What is the mechanism behind aether?

Geordie Ross wrote:Equal to mass times the speed of light squared?

The only reason Xris considers energy to be a "concept" is because of Gaede, he had to redefine everything into two categories, "objects and concepts" it's an excluded middle fallacy.

Darwin, if ether is a medium that light travels through, what is it's refraction index?

Well if you can understand the argument give us an example of an object? Is a photon a concept or an object?

Energy is life in action. Once humans understand what life is we will understand energy.

Why would I redefine everything into two categories after I pointed out its a false dichotomy fallacy? Is reality an object or a concept? It's pathetic how Gaede needs to artificially categorise everything that exists into two mutually exclusive groups. It's a grotesque fallacy.

Geordie Ross wrote:Why would I redefine everything into two categories after I pointed out its a false dichotomy fallacy? Is reality an object or a concept? It's pathetic how Gaede needs to artificially categorise everything that exists into two mutually exclusive groups. It's a grotesque fallacy.

Do you really believe that using terms such as "false dichotomy" makes your view valid? Just answer my question.Give me an example of a concept, an object and then tell me if a photon is one or tother? If you can. I'l give you a few hours to research the subject.