Philosophy Discussion Forums

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I asked to see what you had to offer. Apparently you can't argue from an informative position either and it hasn't been well explained.

I have no intentions of informing you if you have no desire to examine hypotheses.

Xris wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I asked to see what you had to offer. Apparently you can't argue from an informative position either and it hasn't been well explained.

I have no intentions of informing you if you have no desire to examine hypotheses.

Don't worry. I won't hold my breath.

Xris wrote:If you want to place a hyperthetical isolated atom into an infinite space, go ahead but it does not prove space exists without objects of mass.Space can only exist in presence of mass. Without mass how do you explain space? Space can only be imagined by measuring the distance between objects with mass. Infinity is a concept that defies an explanation. A metaphysical attempt to reason our inability to understand nothing.

EM radiation can only be explained using a hypothesis that gives objects and space a relationship. Light does not aimlessly wander of into the cosmos travelling till it encounters an object.Bill Gaedes ropes give mass and space a relationship that explains our universe.

Oh, I forget that the word "infinite" is an adjective. In a strict scientific discussion, it is useless to use adjective to describe space because adjective can only modify OBJECT. Nothing (i.e space) is obviously not an object thus it is not finite or infinite. Nothing is nothing. Instead of saying space is finite or infinite, we should say, "if we go beyond the farthest object in the universe, we will keep going and going indefinitely/infinitely, etc. and never return to the starting point".

http://www.scientific.net/AMR.433-440.5809 If you change your mind.

IMO, there are two different kinds of physics , pseudo and demonstrable. Psuedo physics is more about theory than practice, has effect with unclear cause. Demonstratable physics can be utilized, has clear cause and effect.

Rickoshay76 wrote:IMO, there are two different kinds of physics , pseudo and demonstrable. Psuedo physics is more about theory than practice, has effect with unclear cause. Demonstratable physics can be utilized, has clear cause and effect.

So how do you demonstrate EM radiation using a photon particle as a concept? Bill Gaedes EM ropes are certainly demonstrable without causing ilogical consequences.

Xris wrote:

Rickoshay76 wrote:IMO, there are two different kinds of physics , pseudo and demonstrable. Psuedo physics is more about theory than practice, has effect with unclear cause. Demonstratable physics can be utilized, has clear cause and effect.

So how do you demonstrate EM radiation using a photon particle as a concept? Bill Gaedes EM ropes are certainly demonstrable without causing ilogical consequences.

Oh, I forget that the word "infinite" is an adjective. In a strict scientific discussion, it is useless to use adjective to describe space because adjective can only modify OBJECT. Nothing (i.e space) is obviously not an object thus it is not finite or infinite. Nothing is nothing. Instead of saying space is finite or infinite, we should say, "if we go beyond the farthest object in the universe, we will keep going and going indefinitely/infinitely, etc. and we will never return to the starting point".


This is the following Bill Gaede's statement about infinity :

"“infinity” ranks among the most irrational words invented by Man, right up there with ‘energy’, ‘point’ and ‘God’.

object: that which has shape Synonym: finite.

Finite and infinite can ONLY be adjectives. For the purposes of Physics, in a scientific context, outside of ORDINARY SPEECH, finite and infinite can only qualify/modify true nouns, which again, for the purposes of Physics, can only be objects. There is no such thing in Physics as finite love or infinite intelligence. Concepts do not have the ability/property of being finite or infinite. The words motion, orbit, itinerary, trajectory, location, distance, energy, love, information… are NOT nouns for the purposes of Physics, one of the two branches of Science. (The other is Philosophy.) First and foremost, Physics studies objects and causes. Philosophy studies concepts and reasons.

ALL objects, without exception, are finite! There is no such thing as an ‘infinite object’. This term is an oxymoron, a self-contradiction and, thus, irrational. It violates the scientific definition of object. The foregoing definition of object is scientific because it can be used consistently, especially in Physics.

What has happened is that the idiots of Mathemagics (he hates mathematics so much, because according to him mathematics is no different from religion) have confused motion and concepts for objects. The ‘point’ is the foundation of this misconception. The mathemagician makes a mark on the board and calls it a point. He tells you in your face that that point is zero dimensional (0D) when it is patently obvious that the dot you are staring at has at least two dimensions: width and height. The mathemagician ‘clarifies’ that the dot is a ‘pictorial representation of a point’.

So what is the point?

The point, he tells you, is a location. The elephant or his weight (which the idiots of Math call ‘mass’ to confuse themselves) is squeezed into a non-dimensional LOCATION which the idiot of Math represents pictorially with a dot. The dot is 2D, but the location is 0D or non-dimensional.

Of course, the idiot of Mathemagics ends his prez by telling you that for some reason he can’t give you a definition of the word ‘point’. If he did, he confesses, it would result in a circular argument, one definition relying on others ‘infinitely’.

We have a similar problem with the word ‘infinite’. The stupid, idiotic moron of Mathemagics has confused adjectives with adverbs. ‘Infinite’ is an adjective and can ONLY qualify an object. ‘Infinitely’ is an adverb and can at best qualify motion. He is not saying that the cheetah runs infinitely or that spacetime expands infinitely. He is saying that the cheetah runs incessantly and that spacetime expands eternally, perpetually, constantly or whatever. The idiots of Math have brought ORDINARY SPEECH into the scientific environment. They converted adjectives into adverbs and lost track of what they were trying to qualify.
But they went a step further. They converted adjectives into nouns. Infinite became ‘infinity’. Now, finally, after all these years, you can tell your mother-in-law to go to infinity instead of to hell! That perpetual trip has to be more boring and more punishing for the damned woman.

Does it make sense to say that space, the Universe, or spacetime is ‘infinite’?

It would if space, the Universe or spacetime were physical objects. Unfortunately, space, the Universe and spacetime are concepts and, as we just held, concepts can neither be finite nor infinite for fear of raping the definition of object.

An infinite object implies that the object is expanding and you cannot visualize its edges, borders, surface or shape. Therefore, you cannot draw such an object because you are inside of it rather than staring at it from a bird’s eye perspective. However, an object is conceptualized and drawn in a STATIC image. An object is NOT a dynamic movie, but a still photograph. The words infinite, infinitely and infinity imply motion. An object is static before we move it. That’s what the proponent is required to draw. He has to draw what he visualizes in ONE frame of HIS movie.
Therefore, we don’t care if his electron bead is moving infinitely or whether his spacetime is infinite. We want to see what is in ONE frame of his movie. We want to see an image of HIS atom, the one he is going to use to illustrate HIS theory. We want to see an electron bead next to a proton bowling ball. Is that HIS atom? Isn’t that what the Standard Model suggests his atom looks like: two discrete balls?

Of course, he denies it and continues to talk about discrete particles.

And spacetime is warped. What does spacetime look like before he begins to bend ‘it’?

I suppose that we’ll never know. It’s too infinite for us measly humans. We’re too infinitely dumb to understand God’s Creation. You have to take Math to 'understand' spacetime. So don't strain your eyes...

I’m off to infinity, folks. I’ve drunk my beers and tomorrow I’m in South America if the plane doesn’t go to infinity. Remember to sign up early for the conference. Don't wait until infinity... "

Btw, do you agree with his statement? Especially the bolded statement.

Why not?

Xris wrote:Why not?

You forget that he also said space is not finite. Because according to him, space is nothing.

He said finite is a concept not an object you can measure.He does not say space is nothing.

Xris wrote:He said finite is a concept not an object you can measure.He does not say space is nothing.

Where does he said that? Read his various articles including Fatfist's articles. If you ask him, he will say space is neither finite nor infinite because these are adjective. All object is finite because object is what that have shape and location while space is not an object and space is nothing. So we can't say space is finite or infinite according to him.

Julius Caesar wrote:

Xris wrote:He said finite is a concept not an object you can measure.He does not say space is nothing.

Where does he said that? Read his various articles including Fatfist's articles. If you ask him, he will say space is neither finite nor infinite because these are adjective. All object is finite because object is what that have shape and location while space is not an object and space is nothing. So we can't say space is finite or infinite according to him.

I agree space can not be defined as finite nor infinite.What is your argument? Can you point out where he claims space is nothing?

Xris wrote:

Julius Caesar wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Where does he said that? Read his various articles including Fatfist's articles. If you ask him, he will say space is neither finite nor infinite because these are adjective. All object is finite because object is what that have shape and location while space is not an object and space is nothing. So we can't say space is finite or infinite according to him.

I agree space can not be defined as finite nor infinite.What is your argument? Can you point out where he claims space is nothing?

He said in an article, "If matter is that which has shape, space is that which doesn’t. Space is not a thing, but a place. However, we should be careful to distinguish between artificial, shapeless concepts such as love and the place I call space. Space served as backdrop to matter before life arose on Earth. space: a place; that which doesn’t have shape, surface, or perimeter. (syn.:nothing, discontinuity.)".

-- Updated January 26th, 2014, 12:19 am to add the following --

You can read the following note at the end of the article here, http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... en&ct=clnk

Still not sure what your argument is exactly. Space is not an object it is a distance between objects. It can not exist without considering something that has shape. You can have an empty box but you can't have a empty space without the box. Gaede is attempting to explain how the idea of bending something that has no shape is a metaphysical concept that has no place in science.

Xris wrote:Still not sure what your argument is exactly. Space is not an object it is a distance between objects. It can not exist without considering something that has shape. You can have an empty box but you can't have a empty space without the box. Gaede is attempting to explain how the idea of bending something that has no shape is a metaphysical concept that has no place in science.

You previously said universe have the topology of a two-dimensional torus but you agree space is not finite or infinite. Space is no longer the distance between object if you go beyond the farthest object in universe. What do you call the space beyond the farthest object? Space? Nothing?