Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?

Post by Terrapin Station »

creation wrote: January 31st, 2020, 8:18 am So now there does not appear to be any disagreement that 'time' is nothing other than a word, and as such just an abstract concept, and that the word 'time' is just describing, or quantifying, the actual measurements taken with respect to the change and movement of the position of the sun relative to the earth, so then let us continue on looking at these experiments and observations that have led people to see things as they are now, when this is written.

Now that the foundation has been looked at and it appears to be "rock" solid and appears to make common sense, what do you propose is next to look at and consider?
"Time is nothing other than a word/an abstract concept"
"Time is a name for actual measurements . . . "

Those two contradict each other unless you're saying that "actual measurements" are "a word/an abstract concept" (and nothing else)
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?

Post by Sy Borg »

Silence on a forum does not necessarily imply consent.
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?

Post by creation »

Terrapin Station wrote: January 31st, 2020, 8:22 am
creation wrote: January 31st, 2020, 8:18 am So now there does not appear to be any disagreement that 'time' is nothing other than a word, and as such just an abstract concept, and that the word 'time' is just describing, or quantifying, the actual measurements taken with respect to the change and movement of the position of the sun relative to the earth, so then let us continue on looking at these experiments and observations that have led people to see things as they are now, when this is written.

Now that the foundation has been looked at and it appears to be "rock" solid and appears to make common sense, what do you propose is next to look at and consider?
"Time is nothing other than a word/an abstract concept"
"Time is a name for actual measurements . . . "

Those two contradict each other unless you're saying that "actual measurements" are "a word/an abstract concept" (and nothing else)
Yes they do not contradict.

To me, the measurements taken are of change. But the actual measurements are what the word 'time' refers to.
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?

Post by creation »

Greta wrote: January 31st, 2020, 5:06 pm Silence on a forum does not necessarily imply consent.
Silence on a forum does not also necessarily imply dissent nor disagreement. But what has this got to do with anything here?

From what I have read here I have not seen anything said that even closely implies 'that' what you wrote.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?

Post by Terrapin Station »

creation wrote: January 31st, 2020, 7:31 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: January 31st, 2020, 8:22 am

"Time is nothing other than a word/an abstract concept"
"Time is a name for actual measurements . . . "

Those two contradict each other unless you're saying that "actual measurements" are "a word/an abstract concept" (and nothing else)
Yes they do not contradict.

To me, the measurements taken are of change. But the actual measurements are what the word 'time' refers to.
The "actual measurements" are a word/an abstract concept on your view?
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?

Post by creation »

Terrapin Station wrote: January 31st, 2020, 8:03 pm
creation wrote: January 31st, 2020, 7:31 pm

Yes they do not contradict.

To me, the measurements taken are of change. But the actual measurements are what the word 'time' refers to.
The "actual measurements" are a word/an abstract concept on your view?
No.

To me, the word 'time' exists, and that word refers to the 'actual measurements' taken in relation to the duration between agreed upon perceived events.

To me, 'time' also exists in thought, or as an abstract concept.

To me, 'time' does not exist in any other way.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?

Post by Steve3007 »

... what do you propose is next to look at and consider?
If our ultimate aim is to understand why the Theory of Relativity makes the propositions that it does about time and space, and to be able to assess for ourselves, from a position of strength, whether those propositions make any kind of sense or not, then I propose that what we consider next is various experiments involving dropping objects from tall buildings and rolling them down slopes, conducted largely by Galileo.

I think from there we can go on to look at Newton's laws of motion, which derived directly from those sorts of experiments. We can then see how Newton's laws introduced the concept of a "force" acting instantaneously at a distance. We can also see how Newton, with the help of the meticulous experimental findings of others, used this concept of a "force" to link such apparently diverse phenomena as objects falling to the ground (e.g. apples) and the Sun, Moon and planets' movements across the sky.

From there we can go on to consider the discoveries that were gradually made, after the time of Newton, in electricity and magnetism. In doing that, we can consider another new concept that was introduced - the concept of a "field". We can see how careful experimentation gradually came up with the idea of representing both electricity and magnetism using both of the concepts of "forces" and "fields". We can look at the experiments which showed that a changing electric field results in a changing magnetic field, and a changing magnetic field results in a changing electric field.

From there we can examine all of the findings about electricity and magnetism to show that those two appear to be different ways of looking at the same phenomenon, which came to be called "electromagnetism". That will show how the observed strengths of the electric and magnetic fields resulted in two constants which measure their respective strengths, and a simple combination of those two constants yields another constant which we call the speed of light.

From there we can see how the phenomenon of light was linked to electricity and magnetism and came to be understood as an "electromagnetic wave", like radio waves.

We can look at the efforts that were made to further understand the nature of these "electromagnetic waves", of which light appears to be an example, by, among other things, trying to find a medium through which those waves are propagating. And failing. In doing that, we will have to first look at other kinds of waves, and how they appear to work.

From there we can go on to look at how Einstein and others extended the findings of Galileo, and Newton's laws of motion, to include the laws of electromagnetism. We can see how this led Einstein to propose that, since the speed of light is intimately entwined in the laws of electromagnetism, the speed of light must be the same as measured by all observers, even if they are moving relative to other observers.

From there we can see that a consequence of proposing this was, among other things, the thing which is sometimes referred to as "time dilation" and that will take us back to the "twins paradox" where we started talking.

That is a very, very brief summary of the proposed journey.

Are you up for starting that?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?

Post by Terrapin Station »

creation wrote: January 31st, 2020, 8:52 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: January 31st, 2020, 8:03 pm

The "actual measurements" are a word/an abstract concept on your view?
No.

To me, the word 'time' exists, and that word refers to the 'actual measurements' taken in relation to the duration between agreed upon perceived events.

To me, 'time' also exists in thought, or as an abstract concept.

To me, 'time' does not exist in any other way.
That makes sense, but then you can't say that time is nothing other than a word/an abstract concept.

Actual measurements are something other than that.
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?

Post by creation »

Terrapin Station wrote: February 1st, 2020, 9:33 am
creation wrote: January 31st, 2020, 8:52 pm

No.

To me, the word 'time' exists, and that word refers to the 'actual measurements' taken in relation to the duration between agreed upon perceived events.

To me, 'time' also exists in thought, or as an abstract concept.

To me, 'time' does not exist in any other way.
That makes sense, but then you can't say that time is nothing other than a word/an abstract concept.

Actual measurements are something other than that.
Actual measurements are actual measurements. This cannot be disputed nor refuted. But what the actual measurements are of exactly can be discussed, and worked out.

I say the actual measurements taken by human made contraptions generally known as clocks are just measurements of change, and nothing else. We can see and observe change, and so we can describe 'change'. We have also been taking measurements of this change by contraptions at least since a stick was placed vertically in the ground and the shadow from that stick, from the the light of sun, was observed to change in relation to that stick. So, I would be somewhat surprised if anyone wanted to dispute that actual measurements taken from human made contraptions, known as clocks, was not in relation to 'change' itself. But, again I am OPEN to anything.

Now, if anyone wants to say the actual measurements taken by human made clocks is of time instead, then that is fine. But, to them, what is 'time'? How do we observe 'it'? What is 'time' made up of exactly? How do these people describe 'time'?
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?

Post by creation »

Steve3007 wrote: February 1st, 2020, 4:27 am
... what do you propose is next to look at and consider?
If our ultimate aim is to understand why the Theory of Relativity makes the propositions that it does about time and space,
But WHY human beings wrote a 'theory of relativity' where human beings made propositions about time and space is just because of the previous past experiences, which led up to this point.

What else is there to understand here?

But if we want to look at ever detail as much as we can, then that will be great also.
Steve3007 wrote: February 1st, 2020, 4:27 am and to be able to assess for ourselves, from a position of strength, whether those propositions make any kind of sense or not, then I propose that what we consider next is various experiments involving dropping objects from tall buildings and rolling them down slopes, conducted largely by Galileo.
Okay.

Why 'time dilation' does not make sense has already been concluded, to me anyway, when we looked at the foundation of this itself, so let us keep moving on.

By the way, if we follow a path of where and how human beings came to see the things they do, and think the way they do, then also what they propose would make sense. Obviously, it was through a line of propositions about what could be true from the beginning to the now, and experiments and observations, which is the reason why such propositions are made in all sort of theories about things.

We could go through every bit and go, "Yes it is logical and reasonable for this person to propose this, from what this person proposed earlier, from experiments and observations and so on and so on". But, if we get to the end and conclude; "So, it is very reasonable to accept and understand that the reason why people propose 'time dilates' is because of all of those reasons in past experiences. But, as we discovered at the foundation level, if 'time' is only a thing in concept only, then 'time dilation' is not actually possible in any physical terms other than in concept only".

Then we could have already been at the stage where we are starting to look at, and discuss, the very reasons WHY physical things change due to certain circumstances, but WHY there is just a perception that 'time' itself dilates with speed and/or gravity?

But considering so far no one has wanted to take this up with me, then let us proceed this way.
Steve3007 wrote: February 1st, 2020, 4:27 am I think from there we can go on to look at Newton's laws of motion, which derived directly from those sorts of experiments. We can then see how Newton's laws introduced the concept of a "force" acting instantaneously at a distance. We can also see how Newton, with the help of the meticulous experimental findings of others, used this concept of a "force" to link such apparently diverse phenomena as objects falling to the ground (e.g. apples) and the Sun, Moon and planets' movements across the sky.

From there we can go on to consider the discoveries that were gradually made, after the time of Newton, in electricity and magnetism. In doing that, we can consider another new concept that was introduced - the concept of a "field". We can see how careful experimentation gradually came up with the idea of representing both electricity and magnetism using both of the concepts of "forces" and "fields". We can look at the experiments which showed that a changing electric field results in a changing magnetic field, and a changing magnetic field results in a changing electric field.

From there we can examine all of the findings about electricity and magnetism to show that those two appear to be different ways of looking at the same phenomenon, which came to be called "electromagnetism". That will show how the observed strengths of the electric and magnetic fields resulted in two constants which measure their respective strengths, and a simple combination of those two constants yields another constant which we call the speed of light.

From there we can see how the phenomenon of light was linked to electricity and magnetism and came to be understood as an "electromagnetic wave", like radio waves.

We can look at the efforts that were made to further understand the nature of these "electromagnetic waves", of which light appears to be an example, by, among other things, trying to find a medium through which those waves are propagating. And failing. In doing that, we will have to first look at other kinds of waves, and how they appear to work.

From there we can go on to look at how Einstein and others extended the findings of Galileo, and Newton's laws of motion, to include the laws of electromagnetism. We can see how this led Einstein to propose that, since the speed of light is intimately entwined in the laws of electromagnetism, the speed of light must be the same as measured by all observers, even if they are moving relative to other observers.

From there we can see that a consequence of proposing this was, among other things, the thing which is sometimes referred to as "time dilation" and that will take us back to the "twins paradox" where we started talking.

That is a very, very brief summary of the proposed journey.

Are you up for starting that?
Why are you asking me if I am up for "starting" that? Where do you want me to "start"?

You can start that if you like. That way of doing things was your idea anyway.

I was extremely happy to stay with the 'twins paradox', where I had asked the questions;

If one twin takes a clock with them on a trip at the speed of light to a planet four light years away, lands, looks back at earth, and then returns back to earth again at the speed of light, then what is observed, and what is read on the clocks at intervals?

And, if anyone wants to discuss this thought experiment with me?

We have anyway already looked at the foundation and discovered that 'time' is only in concept only, and what is measured is just change, itself. So, if anything dilates then it is just change. But, if anyone wants to discuss and look at the thought experiment I started, and wants to answer clarifying questions extremely honestly, then let us proceed. I am sure we can and will get down to where the actual flaws, faults and inconsistencies are in both what is called "relativity" and "quantum mechanics" and how the two can be very easily and very simply unified into not just one theory, but into one unified actual explanation of what the Universe actually IS, and how It actually works.

See, all of the above what you wrote might logically explain WHY such propositions of some theory of relativity came to exist, but, obviously that theory does not yet fit in with and is not consistent with other theories. Only one theory of everything, which is consistent with all things, but is yet still falsifiable is really the only one worth looking at by "scientists" and such. But, for the rest of us, we could, on a philosophy forum proceed in actually explaining 'all-of-this' through and from logically reasoned discussions, which when done peacefully and properly sound and valid arguments can be made, which are obviously just, and just irrefutable facts anyway.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?

Post by Steve3007 »

creation wrote:Why are you asking me if I am up for "starting" that?
I thought you might be interested in seeing how the foundations and walls of the house support the roof, as previously discussed.
creation wrote:Where do you want me to "start"?
I don't want you to do anything that you're not interested in. It takes a lot of time and patience to study a subject to this level, and a lot of time and patience to describe it. If you're not interested in it, it's probably not a good idea to start. But if you were interested, the answer would be: the beginning. Obviously.
creation wrote:You can start that if you like. That way of doing things was your idea anyway.
I take it from this comment that you're not interested. No problem. Nothing wrong with that at all. But do bear in mind that when you post your usual "this is all nonsense and I know the truth and it's all very simple" comments, you're talking from a position of ignorance on the subject. Nothing wrong with ignorance. We're all ignorant of all kinds of things. It only becomes a problem if we pretend otherwise.

Nice talking to you creation.
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?

Post by creation »

Steve3007 wrote: February 2nd, 2020, 4:57 am
creation wrote:Why are you asking me if I am up for "starting" that?
I thought you might be interested in seeing how the foundations and walls of the house support the roof, as previously discussed.
But why ask me if I am up for starting that?

And considering we have already started at the foundations and have seen what the actual solid foundation is, then we have already started.
Steve3007 wrote: February 2nd, 2020, 4:57 am
creation wrote:Where do you want me to "start"?
I don't want you to do anything that you're not interested in. It takes a lot of time and patience to study a subject to this level, and a lot of time and patience to describe it. If you're not interested in it, it's probably not a good idea to start. But if you were interested, the answer would be: the beginning. Obviously.
Did I miss something? Have we not already started at the beginning, and now you want to move onto some next part, where I really do not care where you move onto next. I am just interested in seeing what else you have to say here.
Steve3007 wrote: February 2nd, 2020, 4:57 am
creation wrote:You can start that if you like. That way of doing things was your idea anyway.
I take it from this comment that you're not interested.
Well that was a very wrong assumption and conclusion that you just made and came to. I am very interested in where you can go with this and what you have to say.
Steve3007 wrote: February 2nd, 2020, 4:57 am No problem. Nothing wrong with that at all. But do bear in mind that when you post your usual "this is all nonsense and I know the truth and it's all very simple" comments, you're talking from a position of ignorance on the subject.
And, once again, your assumptions have led you completely astray. This is just another of your assumptions.

Besides that, we have already established that there is no actual thing as time in any physical sense that could dilate anyway.

This is based on the foundation that you wanted to look at and inspect.

To me, it appears to set out to suggest a way to look at things, which you were not expecting any to take up. I am more than willing for you to do what you discussed we would, and am very interested in hearing what 'you', yourself, have to say, as then I have your own actual words that I can use to show where the faults and flaws lay. But, now that I have shown I am very interested in this, you appeared to have completely changed and now do not want to do it all.

The readers will decided why you do not want to continue on with this now?
Steve3007 wrote: February 2nd, 2020, 4:57 am Nothing wrong with ignorance. We're all ignorant of all kinds of things. It only becomes a problem if we pretend otherwise.

Nice talking to you creation.
And, once again, your fear or complete incapability, or both, to just look at a thought experiment, and discuss it truly honestly, because if my thought experiment did happen to reveal that what you accept and/or believe is true is actual false and logically impossible anyway, then is just to much for you to bear.

Your closed attitude in not wanting to look at ideas and find out what they actually contain is why human beings are so very slow at progressing.

Human beings still fight for and claim that 'their' theory has been already verified and confirmed, yet others say the exact same thing about 'their' different theory that they accept and/or believe is already verified and confirmed.

Nothing much has changed since human beings when they continually fought for what they accepted and/or believed was true in relation to the sun revolving around the earth.

Obviously, what happens in my thought experiment completely falsifies some of what is proposed, predicted, or claimed in 'the theory of relativity', which no one could prove this statement illogical or false.

And, no one taking up my offer to discuss this thought experiment with me, or no one even showing the slightest bit of interest in understanding my views and ideas, so that they could challenge or question me legitimately, then just dismissing me and my ideas is actually what is based on absolute total true ignorance.

If, according to your logic here, if anyone pretends that they are not ignorant of my views and ideas, and so propose my ideas or views as being "irrational", "pseudo", "denying accepted knowledge ideologies", et cetera, for example, then only then this obvious ignorance becomes a problem.

But just remember this is certainly not a problem for me. As I have set out to show just how the brain, through the belief-system, will not even consider looking at a new or any idea that which is suspected of opposing the ideas, which are currently held to be logical and true.

The power of this belief-system I have exposed and shown through test subjects, and have their own written words as the evidence needed.

So, either way, if anyone is not afraid to look at some thoughts and answer some questions, or not, I am achieving what I have set out to do.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?

Post by Terrapin Station »

creation wrote: February 1st, 2020, 9:57 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: February 1st, 2020, 9:33 am

That makes sense, but then you can't say that time is nothing other than a word/an abstract concept.

Actual measurements are something other than that.
Actual measurements are actual measurements. This cannot be disputed nor refuted. But what the actual measurements are of exactly can be discussed, and worked out.

I say the actual measurements taken by human made contraptions generally known as clocks are just measurements of change, and nothing else. We can see and observe change, and so we can describe 'change'. We have also been taking measurements of this change by contraptions at least since a stick was placed vertically in the ground and the shadow from that stick, from the the light of sun, was observed to change in relation to that stick. So, I would be somewhat surprised if anyone wanted to dispute that actual measurements taken from human made contraptions, known as clocks, was not in relation to 'change' itself. But, again I am OPEN to anything.

Now, if anyone wants to say the actual measurements taken by human made clocks is of time instead, then that is fine. But, to them, what is 'time'? How do we observe 'it'? What is 'time' made up of exactly? How do these people describe 'time'?
What does any of that have to do with the comment of mine you're responding to? It's important that you understand/acknowledge the comment I made, because it will help your communication a lot in the future.
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?

Post by creation »

Terrapin Station wrote: February 2nd, 2020, 9:22 am
creation wrote: February 1st, 2020, 9:57 pm

Actual measurements are actual measurements. This cannot be disputed nor refuted. But what the actual measurements are of exactly can be discussed, and worked out.

I say the actual measurements taken by human made contraptions generally known as clocks are just measurements of change, and nothing else. We can see and observe change, and so we can describe 'change'. We have also been taking measurements of this change by contraptions at least since a stick was placed vertically in the ground and the shadow from that stick, from the the light of sun, was observed to change in relation to that stick. So, I would be somewhat surprised if anyone wanted to dispute that actual measurements taken from human made contraptions, known as clocks, was not in relation to 'change' itself. But, again I am OPEN to anything.

Now, if anyone wants to say the actual measurements taken by human made clocks is of time instead, then that is fine. But, to them, what is 'time'? How do we observe 'it'? What is 'time' made up of exactly? How do these people describe 'time'?
What does any of that have to do with the comment of mine you're responding to?
All of that has to do with the comment of yours that I responded to.

Can you not see and understand just how what I said was in relation to your comment?

If not, then either you do not understand what I am saying, which could be easily clarified with clarifying questions. Or, I do not understand your comment.

In your comment where you telling me that "That what I said makes sense?"

If you did, then were you telling me, but then; "I cannot say that time is nothing other than a word/an abstract concept."

If yes, then you are wrong, because I did just say that time is nothing other than a word and an abstract concept (AND it still makes sense, to me anyway, by the way).

Terrapin Station wrote: February 2nd, 2020, 9:22 am It's important that you understand/acknowledge the comment I made, because it will help your communication a lot in the future.
Now, if you cannot see nor understand how what I said was in direct relation to you comment, then it is important that you understand/acknowledge my comment I made, in response, because it will help your communication a lot in the future.

So, I have asked you two clarifying questions, if you do clarify them, then the readers will see who is not actually understanding the other here.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?

Post by Terrapin Station »

creation wrote: February 4th, 2020, 3:33 am All of that has to do with the comment of yours that I responded to.
My comment was about this simple bit of logic:

If we say that x is nothing other than F, then we're contradicting ourselves if right afterwards we say that x is (also) G, where G isn't identical to F.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021