Philosophy Discussion Forums

No I don't think we will ever have a meeting of minds. I still wonder how you can give a concept sufficient imagery to call it an object. If I remember correctly you said as much about photons. A mathematical concept that satisfies the advocates.

Steve3007 wrote:
Why doesn't it need a mechanism?

1. You have avoided answering my questions about how gravity pulls. Please supply a mechanism or just admit that the concept is a fraud. Then, we can move on and grow smarter and stronger, instead of avoiding the truth and retreating into an infantile state of denial.

2. It doesn't need a mechanism because it is natural and occurs without any intellectual or mechanical manipulation or use of muscles/machines to make it work.

DarwinX:

You have avoided answering my questions about how gravity pulls. Please supply a mechanism or just admit that the concept is a fraud.

"It doesn't need a mechanism because it is natural and occurs without any intellectual or mechanical manipulation or use of muscles/machines to make it work."

Perhaps we could examine why we might both make the proposition that our respective concepts (gravity and aether) don't need a mechanism. In order to do so properly, we'll have to examine carefully what exactly we mean by a "mechanism" and what you mean by "pushing" and "pulling".

You are under the impression that "pushing" is, in some sense, natural, fundamental and in need of no underlying explanation. But that "pulling" is not natural and makes no sense without an underlying mechanism. It's not entirely clear why you would think this, but it seems to be something to do with "action at a distance". You regard the pulling concept as involving one object having an influence over another object with no "contact" between them. You regard this as intellectually unsatisfying. But you regard pushing as involving contact, between two bodies, and this is why you prefer it.

Is this a reasonable summary of your position? I need to know if it is before being able to examine it.

If it is:

Perhaps you could start by describing to me your understanding of precisely what happens when one object pushes against another object? What is it about the objects that causes the second object to move? Why does the first object not just pass straight through the second one?

Another thing to consider: What is it that stops solid objects from being torn apart? If a rope is under tension, why does it not immediately snap? What forces stop it from snapping?

If you are actually interested in these concepts, I think that would be a good start. If not, no worries.

Steve3007 wrote: "It doesn't need a mechanism because it is natural and occurs without any intellectual or mechanical manipulation or use of muscles/machines to make it work."

Perhaps we could examine why we might both make the proposition that our respective concepts (gravity and aether) don't need a mechanism. In order to do so properly, we'll have to examine carefully what exactly we mean by a "mechanism" and what you mean by "pushing" and "pulling".

You are under the impression that "pushing" is, in some sense, natural, fundamental and in need of no underlying explanation. But that "pulling" is not natural and makes no sense without an underlying mechanism. It's not entirely clear why you would think this, but it seems to be something to do with "action at a distance". You regard the pulling concept as involving one object having an influence over another object with no "contact" between them. You regard this as intellectually unsatisfying. But you regard pushing as involving contact, between two bodies, and this is why you prefer it.

Is this a reasonable summary of your position? I need to know if it is before being able to examine it.

If it is:

Perhaps you could start by describing to me your understanding of precisely what happens when one object pushes against another object? What is it about the objects that causes the second object to move? Why does the first object not just pass straight through the second one?

Another thing to consider: What is it that stops solid objects from being torn apart? If a rope is under tension, why does it not immediately snap? What forces stop it from snapping?

If you are actually interested in these concepts, I think that would be a good start. If not, no worries.

Here I am giving you all the secrets of the universe and you treat me like this. You should feel privileged that you can finally see how the universe really works instead of being fooled and distracted by nonsense science.

The universe is held together by the force of the aether which is under pressure. This is what holds a rope together and what stops it from snapping in two. The universe is infinite, both inward and outward. The five elements are explosion, implosion, spin, matter and aether. Explosion, implosion and spin describe what matter and aether can do. Note - They can't pull.

You still do not say what this ether is made of and why we have not discovered it.Nor how light manages to permeate this ether without the obvious confusing pattern waves would create in 3D space. Einstein and Tesla felt it necessary but neither could give it credibility. Sorry but it is not a logical alternative.

DarwinX says:

"The universe is held together by the force of the aether which is under pressure. This is what holds a rope together and what stops it from snapping in two. The universe is infinite, both inward and outward. The five elements are explosion, implosion, spin, matter and aether. Explosion, implosion and spin describe what matter and aether can do. Note - They can't pull."

There's a logical flaw in this. If the universe is infinite, then there is no edge which means you can't tell what's going on once you go suffiently far to examine. Also the "force of aether" sounds like gravity so I find the force of aether idea to be extraneous.

Too many genuinely intellectual topics have been derailed, and hijacked, by fanatic conspiracy theorists. This is no longer a forum for the "love of wisdom", but for the hatred and distrust of it.

It seems Orwellian and visceral. Every topic ends with a handful of identical discussions involving scepticism and paranoia of science and its discoveries.

It is truly shameful, and sordid that a philosophy forum has stooped to this level of contempt and lamentable discord.

I understand your sorrow.

Xris wrote:You still do not say what this ether is made of and why we have not discovered it.Nor how light manages to permeate this ether without the obvious confusing pattern waves would create in 3D space. Einstein and Tesla felt it necessary but neither could give it credibility. Sorry but it is not a logical alternative.

There are many unanswered questions in science. What causes gravity? What is light? What is magnetism? Current science has no answers to these basic questions. The aether theory gives a logical explanation which also unites these forces into one system.(unified field theory)

The work of Dayton Miller and others shows that the aether does exist, but the authoritarian science institutions won't allow this knowledge to exist because it would make the universe far too easy to understand. Thus, it would take away the power and authority of these science institutions and make science too accessible to the general public. Therefore, there wouldn't be any further need to have highly paid university professors to explain the so called 'complexity of the universe'. This is the same strategy that has been employed by religious organisations for thousands of years. The idea is to keep the masses in a state of confusion and ignorance which enhances the authority of those in positions of power. Knowledge is power and to keep this power those persons in authority have a vested interest in keeping the general public in a state of ignorance. I know that people like Geordie Ross will moan and groan and call 'fowl play,' but this is all part of the deception process. There is a never ending supply of brain washed acroylytes of science who will defend their religious order of corruption till death.

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

-- Updated November 13th, 2013, 10:35 am to add the following --

Philosophy Explorer wrote: There's a logical flaw in this. If the universe is infinite, then there is no edge which means you can't tell what's going on once you go suffiently far to examine. Also the "force of aether" sounds like gravity so I find the force of aether idea to be extraneous.

Your just stating the obvious here. I don't really understand what you are complaining about, could you clarify your questions?

1. How is the concept of infinity a flaw?

2. Does the universe have to have an edge? I don't get what you are on about here?

3. Of course the force of gravity is the aether in action, what else could it be?

DarwinX:

The universe is held together by the force of the aether which is under pressure. This is what holds a rope together and what stops it from snapping in two...

Thanks for that. So, to be clear: The reason for this whole alternative theory is a distaste for the notion of "pulling forces" yes? The idea of using this pressure idea is to recast all pulling forces as pushing forces. And the reason for the distaste for "pulling forces" is a distaste for the concept of "action at a distance".

Is this a correct description of your view? (I know you never answer these questions, but it would be really helpful if you did.)

Why do you use the concept of "pressure"? As you know, it is a macroscopic thermodynamic concept caused by collisions between molecules. And those collisions are a result of electrostatic repulsion. I suspect this is something that you would dislike because of its "action at a distance" connotations. But this is the definition of pressure. I'm puzzled as to why you would wish to borrow a concept from the "enemy", as it were.

If the particles of this aether are capable of exerting pressure in any recognizable sense of that word, then they need to take part in the electromagnetic force. Which must mean they're capable of pulling.

If these aether particles do not use the electromagnetic force as the mechanism whereby they exert pressure, then what mechanism do they use? How are you redefining the concept of pressure?

---

Geordie Ross:

Too many genuinely intellectual topics have been derailed, and hijacked, by fanatic conspiracy theorists...

I understand your frustration. But I was, perhaps naively, hoping to coax DarwinX away from simply showing everybody his stamp collection into a genuine philosophical discussion. I think there is some potential in a discussion about what it means for something to have a "mechanism", why we feel things ought to have mechanisms, and why certain concepts (like, perhaps, "action at a distance") seem instinctively distasteful. I think these ideas could even be linked back to the reason I started the topic.

But I suspect I'm too optimistic! So I'll probably stop soon! You'll perhaps be relieved to hear!

DarwinX asks:

"1. How is the concept of infinity a flaw?

2. Does the universe have to have an edge? I don't get what you are on about here?

3. Of course the force of gravity is the aether in action, what else could it be?"

I shall answer (1) and (3), (3) first. The force of gravity is also in action, so what's the difference between gravity and ether? Ether has been disproven by the Michelson-Morley experiment so I don't believe it to exist. As far as I'm concerned, the concept is extraneous.

An infinite universe isn't flawed. But how can you tell that the laws of physics applies to all of an infinite universe? Does matter occupy all of an infinite universe? If so, how can you tell? Does the force of gravity fill an infinite universe?

Steve3007 wrote: Thanks for that. So, to be clear: The reason for this whole alternative theory is a distaste for the notion of "pulling forces" yes? The idea of using this pressure idea is to recast all pulling forces as pushing forces. And the reason for the distaste for "pulling forces" is a distaste for the concept of "action at a distance".

Is this a correct description of your view? (I know you never answer these questions, but it would be really helpful if you did.)

Why do you use the concept of "pressure"? As you know, it is a macroscopic thermodynamic concept caused by collisions between molecules. And those collisions are a result of electrostatic repulsion. I suspect this is something that you would dislike because of its "action at a distance" connotations. But this is the definition of pressure. I'm puzzled as to why you would wish to borrow a concept from the "enemy", as it were.

If the particles of this aether are capable of exerting pressure in any recognizable sense of that word, then they need to take part in the electromagnetic force. Which must mean they're capable of pulling.

If these aether particles do not use the electromagnetic force as the mechanism whereby they exert pressure, then what mechanism do they use? How are you redefining the concept of pressure?

I don't have any "likes or dislikes". I am trying to be objective in my analysis of things. If something doesn't make sense or is illogical, then, I try to find a better or more logical solution. Aether theory is a more logical way to look at the way the universe operates. The current theories don't make any sense and are discoordinated with one another.

Electromagnetic forces are the result of aether flow, aether out and aether in. Positive and negative are just high and low aetheric pressure points. Note - Aether may not exhibit the same properties as matter in terms of macroscopic thermodynamics.

The concept of nature "pulling" is illogical, that's why I don't like it. Its not because I have some kind of instinctive vendetta against it.

Simplicity is the natural enemy of academia. I sense that you are Mexican, Yes?

-- Updated November 13th, 2013, 12:35 pm to add the following --

Philosophy Explorer wrote: I shall answer (1) and (3), (3) first. The force of gravity is also in action, so what's the difference between gravity and ether? Ether has been disproven by the Michelson-Morley experiment so I don't believe it to exist. As far as I'm concerned, the concept is extraneous.

An infinite universe isn't flawed. But how can you tell that the laws of physics applies to all of an infinite universe? Does matter occupy all of an infinite universe? If so, how can you tell? Does the force of gravity fill an infinite universe?

I doubt whether or not you have looked into the Michelson-Morley experiment in any detail. You will find that they did have a valid result but they ignored it on the advise from Einstein, because it would have invalidated his theories.

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

Reference - The Static Universe by Hilton Ratcliffe

-- Updated November 13th, 2013, 2:11 pm to add the following --

Steve3007 wrote: But I suspect I'm too optimistic! So I'll probably stop soon! You'll perhaps be relieved to hear!

Ah ha !!! First signs of a retreat. Don't run too far!!! You might fall off the edge of the universe!!!

None of your links give the slightest clue to what this proposed ether is made of. It has not been directly observed as you try to claim. There is a problem with the understanding of light permeating as a wave function without a medium but that is problem with the concept.I understand why you believe in an ether when science insists that light travels as a wave function but you and science never accept the consequences. How can light travel like sound waves in 3D space without a medium and also not cause a complex wave pattern? Even with your ether the problem of light travelling as a wave still remains.

DarwinX:

The concept of nature "pulling" is illogical

What do you understand by the word "illogical"? Why is pulling illogical?

Electromagnetic forces are the result of aether flow, aether out and aether in

As I said, pressure is an electromagnetic/electrostatic phenomenon. That is its mechanism. So you're saying that EM forces are caused by aether and that the underlying mechanism for aether is EM forces. Circular argument. If you are not saying this then you are redefining the word "pressure". You need to state your novel new definition of the mechanism for your new concept of pressure.

Note - Aether may not exhibit the same properties as matter in terms of macroscopic thermodynamics.

It "may" not? So what properties does it exhibit? And what is the mechanism for those properties? I suspect you're going to say that it doesn't need a mechanism and that the properties it exhibits are whatever is needed in order for it to be used as a mechanism for everything else. In other words it is an unfalsifiable, unobservable abstract concept which is the uncaused-cause of everything in the universe. I know another concept like that!

Xris:

Even with your ether the problem of light travelling as a wave still remains.

I think one of the classic problems with aether, if it is posited as medium for EM waves, has always been the fact that it would cause all kinds of complex refraction effects as the EM waves propagate between volumes of aether moving in different ways. These effects are simply not observed.

So why do we not see problems with EM waves permeating without a medium?The concept of EM radiation permeating as complex pattern of waves has never been confronted. Try constructing a picture of light travelling as waves in 3 dimensional space from several sources and you will soon see the problem.

Back to the subject, a thought..Energy is what matter does.