The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Cornernote wrote:1) What constitutes a single physical object? From my limited understanding there must only be one object in the universe, and that is the EM rope. It seems there is no boundary that distinguishes the moon from the sun if they are "connected" by EM ropes. Connected implies they are in contact, and therefore should constitute a single physical object.
If you look at what Bill says about shapes and objects here, you might get a better understanding of what he's on about. He says, "The Moon has shape because it doesn't instantly become one with space.". In other words, you can distinguish the moon from the background on which it sits. Shape is a concept, in the same way a point is a concept. Neither a shape nor a point has any physical existence.
An object is something you can point at that has shape and would need to be moved in order for some other object to occupy any part of the space that it occupies.
Cheers, enegue
Last edited by enegue on May 14th, 2014, 6:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
The word nothing has no value. Space is distance but I agree you can not bend something that has not got anything to bend.
Gaede define nothing (i.e space) as that which has no shape. What do you think about space, is it absolute nothing?
As I have said, the word nothing is the problem. An empty box has nothing in it. A space that has no measurement can not exist. So as far as Geade is attempting to explain, empty space has nothing in it, to bend. Space time as a concept is a false sttempt to justify observations science does not understand.
Space time as a concept is a false attempt to justify observations science does not understand.
Xris! Long time no talk!
If, for the sake of argument, the concept of "space-time" did actually turn out to be useful for describing and predicting various observations of the world, would you consider allowing it to stay?
As I understand it, you have a philosophical problem with the concept of space-time because it appears to you to be a mismatching of concepts. The way in which the word "space-time" is used sometimes seems to be similar to the ways in which words that pertain to objects are used. Yet it clearly doesn't pertain to an object.
But if you could with-hold judgement as to what type of entity is being represented by that word and just concentrate on examining what descriptions of observations arise from it, you might find that it is at least useful for the purpose for which it was invented - accurately describing and predicting observations.
Don't concentrate on what it is. Focus on what it does.
To paraphrase The Life of Brian: "What has space-time ever done for us?"
Hi Steve. I thought we had impasse on the subject. We can not continue to use terms that have no value just because observations just happen to fit the concept. Bill Gaede is attempting to support his hypothesis by asking what exactly are we expected to believe is being bent. If space has nothing in it why is it bent. It is not logical nor is it scientific to expect us to believe a distance can be distorted by mass.xris
Cornernote wrote:2) The term "EM ropes" (note the plural, which is used in BG's website and throughout his publications). Is there one EM rope, or are there multiple EM ropes? if they are connected then it seems there is only one. How is one rope distinguished from another.
If you visit this page on Bill's site you can read about EM ropes.
Basically, Bill is suggesting that every atom in the universe is tied to every other atom in the universe by two intertwined electromagnetic ropes. He doesn't explain how the ropes don't interfere with each other. If you think about what he says concerning objects, then the EM ropes AREN'T OBJECTS because they have no shape and don't "occupy" space - you can't point at them and you don't have to move out of their way. EM ropes is a CONCEPT that Bill says better "simulates all the known attributes of light"
If you look down the page he gives quotes from scientists who are saying much the same thing as he is.
My problem with Gaedes EM ropes is trying to see them as objects. Are they material or pure energy? I think everyone has the same problem of imagining energy without giving it a material structure in our minds eye. Gaedes ropes do perform to every observational challenge. Replace photons with ropes and all the anonomolies you see with photons disappear. No need to bend space. No need of space time or the old alternative of an aether. So why are they not seriously considered? It must surely be our desire for a structured image that we can measure, point to, imagine.
Hi Xris. Yes I think we had reached an impasse. But I think it's still interesting to come back to it every now and then after a break. It's also still interesting, to me at least, to carry on exploring how different people see things and why that results in them having different opinions as to how the world works.
I think one of the differences of philosophical worldview that we identified before was a broad distinction between people who like to use metaphors, analogies and models and people who prefer to believe in things they can directly see and touch. I think that's exemplified in your dislike of the concept of concepts! As you said:
"We can not continue to use terms that have no value just because observations just happen to fit the concept."
In other words, constructing an abstract model in order to describe and predict observations is, to you, not what science is about. It's not enough for the model to be descriptively accurate if it does that by using metaphors, like the concept of "bending", that you don't like.
But that's why I'm always a bit puzzled by your liking for Gaede's ropes. They seem to me to be just as metaphorical as the concept of space-time. As I discussed in the OP of this thread, it's clear from the way that he uses his rope concept that he's not talking about actual ropes, made from strands of nylon, or whatever! So it's a metaphor. But, as I also discussed there, it has the disadvantage of being less predictively accurate than the more standard metaphors. A particular example being his explanation of gravitational lensing as being vaguely something to do with the ropes being attached to the Sun's corona. Nice image, maybe, but it simply doesn't work as a quantitative description of observed reality.
Why is that particular metaphor more satisfying? Why do you not get similarly annoyed by it?
Is it because it uses an analogy with just one everyday concept (the rope) rather than more than one? Obviously, as we know, you particularly dislike the way that aspects of the particle model and aspects of the wave model are both used in various parts of the description of observations known as Quantum Mechanics. I think your distaste for metaphors and analogies makes you dislike these things because they remind you that they are analogies. The rope analogy, on the other hand, since it uses only that one concept throughout, allows us to keep up the illusion that we are talking about something more than just an analogy with the everyday meaning of the word "rope". We can pretend that there is some sense in which we're talking about real ropes.
Hi Steve, thanks for replying. I never believed they were ropes in the sense they had material reality. Light can never be truly understood from a material perspective. We have to use analogies to make sense of something we can never observe directly. The problem with photons they do not perform to direct observations. They become waves because particles fail certain observations. Its quite important we create a true picture of light. We cannot describe energy, we can only say what it does. These ropes attempt to give a truer picture of EM energy. You appear not to understand how Gaede explains gravitational lensing. Can you give a reason why it is impossible to understand and why you can imagine a space that has nothing of value is capable of bending? Is it really a reluctance to accept one strange engineer has come up with a concept that destroys the last hundred years of quantum understanding or is it a well investigated, thought out objection on scientific foundations? Xris
enegue wrote:If you think about what he says concerning objects, then the EM ropes AREN'T OBJECTS because they have no shape and don't "occupy" space - you can't point at them and you don't have to move out of their way. EM ropes is a CONCEPT that Bill says better "simulates all the known attributes of light"
It is your opinion that Bill Gaede believes a CONCEPT pull the moon toward the Earth?
It seems to me that Bill is very clear that concepts (eg, energy, force, etc) cannot interact with objects. I am certain that it was written on his website that EM Ropes are objects, however it's difficult to filter through his opinions on other theories and find any real information on his hypothesis. I interpret the hypothesis to specify that the EM rope does have shape. After all, the EM rope "physically connects" the atoms. How can they be physically connected by a concept?
The page you linked to does not contain the word object, concept or shape. If you can find a page that says EM Rope is a concept I would be happy to take a look. Until then I will interpret as I specified in my first post:
Under the rope hypothesis:
Shape is the inability to blend or to be continuous with space; possessing a surface or boundary; potential to have location.
Object is that which has shape.
EM ropes are physical objects.
EM ropes connect every atom in the universe to every other atom in the universe.
I think, as before, we do probably simply have different ideas as to what constitutes a "true picture".
On Gaede's explanation of gravitational lensing though: My understanding of it was taken from a paper he wrote. I suspect you, or I, or both probably referenced it somewhere way back in the history of this topic (or one of the several similar ones). I thought that was basically what he proposed - that gravitational lensing was due to the interaction of the ropes with the Sun's outer atmosphere. I didn't find anything more detailed than that from my search of his website.
I think, as before, we do probably simply have different ideas as to what constitutes a "true picture".
On Gaede's explanation of gravitational lensing though: My understanding of it was taken from a paper he wrote. I suspect you, or I, or both probably referenced it somewhere way back in the history of this topic (or one of the several similar ones). I thought that was basically what he proposed - that gravitational lensing was due to the interaction of the ropes with the Sun's outer atmosphere. I didn't find anything more detailed than that from my search of his website.
Hi Steve before we get to that point of impasse., I can feel it coming on, what is wrong with his explaination? Most importantly how do you argue for the idea that empty space has something that can bend? Im not asking for the observational evidence nor the tbeory that attempts to explain it. As they both support each other to create an illogical consequence. A true picture has to withstand the most crucial test in my opinion. It has to be logical and not create anomolies that require belief rather than understanding.
Hi Xris. OK, but I think I can see that impasse approaching again just around the next bend (or curve?)!
About Gaede's explanation of gravitational lensing: I'll have to look at it again to be sure. But, from memory, it seemed to simply say that the effect could be explained by saying that the ropes connect to atoms in the Sun's corona. If that were true, I would expect the effect to vary as the sun's corona varies. As far as I know, that variation is not observed to happen. And he didn't seem to go into any quantitative detail at all. If he wanted it to be taken seriously I would have thought he'd try to use it to make a quantitative prediction of an observation that differed from the predictions made by General Relativity. So an observation could be done to test which theory is most accurate. He may have done so, but, if so, I don't remember seeing it.
As to the concept of the bending, or curvature, of space/time: I come back to my central thesis about what science does: It creates models to describe and predict observations. I view space/time as one of those models. Its inventor (Einstein or Reimann or whoever) gives it certain characteristics. If those characteristics fit observations then its a worthwhile model. If not, it isn't. Given that description of what, in my view, a concept like space/time is I see curvature as just one of those characteristics.
Whereas you, I think, don't really buy this whole "model" idea to such an extent.
But I have to concede that the fact that these models have names that make us think we're completely familiar with them in an everyday sense can be misleading. Perhaps they should all be given abstract names. Perhaps space/time should be called Xyz/Abc or something. Or perhaps they should just stick to expressing everything in purely mathematical terminology. But I guess the idea is to try to give some kind of visceral, immediate gut feeling about what's going on. Just as we have gut feelings that allow us to intuit what's going on in the physics that relates to more immediate, everyday experiences, like Newtonian Mechanics - throwing balls and so on.
But clearly it's a mistake to think we can have any kind of common-sense gut understanding of physical scales that we will never directly experience with our gut, or any other part of our anatomy.
Cornernote wrote:The things I don't understand are somewhat related, however I will list them as 3 points:
3) The term "two" (eg: a concept is a relation between two or more objects). If we are not allowing math to pollute physics in a similar way to not allowing religion, then where is this concept of "two" coming from? I assume we cannot invoke "one plus one" without resorting to mathematical trickery.
Number is just a linguistic device for communicating magnitude/quantity and on its own doesn't constitute mathematics. Mathematics is the systematic use of number for the purpose of solving problems (or creating them, if taken beyond its useful limits).
Steve our observations of gravitational lensing is far from proven for many. As for the sun, have we managed to observe gravitstional lensing directly, let alone study any local variation? The problem with relativity it sends out a message that what you want to find will be found. When observations are not what you expect you have the authority to invent. Dark matter, dark energy become accepted but if a guy suggests an alternative not requiring these outrageous inventions he is immediately discounted. I just dont get it. Yes there is an impasse, i will never desert my logic for faith. A space filled with nothing can not be bent by mathematical formula. Thanks again Steve, the impasse has survived.
