[RascalPuff]

It's A Shame To Hide Such Good Stuff
Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Clerk on June 10, 2004 16:39:33 UTC
Ph.D Indeed Means Dr. Of Philosophy
Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To Clerk's post of Alexander's self induced denouement.
Re-Posted by K. B. Robertson (That Rascal Puff/MagicHorse) on June 9, 2004 21:35:42 UTC

(Review of the previous AstroNet post with my response)

"CAN YOU PLEASE USE MATH
TO SUPPORT YOUR PHILOSOPHY
By Alexander, 6/8/2001
"Because this is physics/astronomy place, not a philosophical magazine. Physics has nothing to to with opinions (blah-blah-blah...) - that is area of phylosophy. Physics is about verifiable by observation numbers/phenomena. It does not make sense to say that space is 3-dimensional (or 20-dimensional) and time is 5-dimensional unless you can support it by observation and math.

"So, any observed facts or math to support your foggy opinions?"
___________________________________________

Response to Alexander, by KBR/K. B. Robertson - That Rascal Puff:

I was told of this portion of a series of replies to my posting of 'Xeno's (alleged) paradox'.

The first response by Alexander surprised what few correspondents I am blessed with, who told me of it. The word 'please' is actually employed; though awkwardly followed by the fly swatting proclamation - 'Physics having nothing to do with opinions' - as though the explanation for the flaw in Xeno's (allegory) paradox at issue here is misplaced, as an intro to related discussions (the exclusion of time from the motion of A to B, where A never arrives at B, as long as the element of time is excluded from the issue).

Several forums and BBS messages on the net accurately point out that mathematics can be ambiguous and even self contradictory. This is hardly a newly observed or understood fact, about 'mathematics'.

Whereas: with regard to the employment of math as applied and responding to and describing the physical universe: this is called *'metric mathematics'. It's objective - and obligation - is to correctly describe existential conditions; events 'what's happening' (independent of any anthropomorphic observation or description of it).
(E=MC squared, for example, is not merely 'mathematics', it's an ongoing physical event - quite indifferent to whether people know about or properly describe it, or not...)

The other kind of math is called *'non-metric' mathematics, which has an earned reputation for being able to prove or disprove anything at all, including the feature of two flawless formulas - side by side - that mutually contradict each other.
Repeat: The former type of (metric) math is obliged to adhere to describing events in space-time that occur, with or without human observation or mathematical application.

We may properly - if quaintly - spell clue, 'clew' (old English); perhaps properly spell philosophy 'phylosophy'; whereas, such trivial minutiae - however mesmerizing to their newly indoctrinated practitioners, have no authority to exclude 'philosophy' from physics: is to forsake altogether the fact that all academic ranks of 'Dr.' - certainly including physicists and mathematicians - are Ph.D's - Doctors of Philosophy - Philosophical Doctors...

Hopefully this will clear up you 'foggy opinions' on the meaning of your quaint spelling - and arrythmic doggerel; while offering an alternative spelling for what you ostensibly prove not to understand.

"So, any observed facts or math to support your foggy opinions?" - Alexander Please

It was not Einstein's 'opinion' that the recognized 3-dimensional universe is actually 4-dimensional, for example.

You seem to think that the 4th, 5th and 6th dimensions (for example) of gravity, electricity and magnetism are a matter of philosophical opinion, rather than very substantially proven, previously unrecognized mathematically and geometrically established facts of 'hard science' (math, experiment and geometry, not necessarily in that sequence), initially founded by Truly Yours, going on fifty years ago it is, now.

Please refer to the condensed book on Gravity Is The 4th Dimension, and if in fact you do that: please return to this forum and continue with your irreverent, non-mathematically or philosophically supported 'blah-blah'.

As things stand here presently, it appears that your courtesy - the usage of the word 'please' - is the only appropriate communication in your (inadvertantly) memorable missive.

On the other hand, the benevolent surfers who brought this forum to my attention were surprised to see that its replies aren't what has otherwise become a recently engaged and ongoing tradition of odious name calling and hazing of this author (KBR); often in redundant, Shakespearean (refer 'version7ein') over-speaking, strike thru and altogether obliterated columns, 'all over the net'...

That encumbent phenomena - along with its transparently identifiable trespassers, having created and still apparently in the process of creating their own self condemnative www net legacy - will soon enough join the other documentary books, journals, novellas and essays on the menu at the Road Kill Cafe - stop by for some feral quisine, along the way...

(Not to be confused with the Non Mathematical Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned <Steady State> Unified Field, which all of the turbulent, name calling deluge of 'reverse confessions', vulgar self flagellation and galloping guilt, is disdainfully orbiting <Gravity, Electricity & Magnetism are the 4th, 5th & 6th Dimensions; the Big Bang Theory is Wrong. Entropic 'Heat Death' is a Myth>...)

In the (timely-spatial) interim, Truly Yours can only be grateful for the - however wayward - sincereity of the entry 'Replies', so far...

Summarily, until further notice, I consider my entry and subjection of Xeno's Paradox, and it's (faulted) exclusion of time (the 4th dimension, including gravity) an appropriate and non-mathematically comprehensible introduction to related subjects (which also wrongly exclude the 4th dimension of time, such as the Big Bang harangue - which purports to acknowledge the 4-D space-time continuum but functionally excludes it. (Refer: The Art of Missing the Point: When You Can't Afford to Catch on.)

I remain, respectfully thanking the Astronomy Net staffers and all of the sincere contributors to scientific and philosophical reasons for being.

Sincerely, K. B. Robertson.

That Rascal Puff (etceteras)
World's #1 Einstein Groupie
Apprentice to Albert - 'The Axe' - Einstein
The Last Man Standing

"There was a young Lady named Bright, who moved much faster than light. She departed one day in a relative way and returned on the following night." - Eric Buller 1923
"Reality is merely an illusion - albeit, a very persistent one." - Einstein

[Graybeard]

Hi Rascal Puff

I tried to read your post above ... but the font-changes, the layout, and what appears as jumping from point to point makes it very difficult to comprehend.

Perhaps it is the way it appears on my screen and not necessarily the way you post it.

I tried to follow your thoughts on Zeno's paradox ... but could not decipher whether you believed it or not ??

Zeno's Paradox is no paradox at all ... it is simply an example of the difficulties earlier societies had before it was discovered how to divide numbers correctly. If you don't agree with this then you find yourself in their situation.

best of luck ... greg

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by Graybeard Hi Rascal Puff I tried to read your post above ... but the font-changes, the layout, and what appears as jumping from point to point makes it very difficult to comprehend. Perhaps it is the way it appears on my screen and not necessarily the way you post it. I tried to follow your thoughts on Zeno's paradox ... but could not decipher whether you believed it or not ?? Zeno's Paradox is no paradox at all ... it is simply an example of the difficulties earlier societies had before it was discovered how to divide numbers correctly. If you don't agree with this then you find yourself in their situation. best of luck ... greg

Dear Graybeard:
Please excuse my partial obfuscations. It's not any kind of abberance on your screen or anomaly in your thinking. I wandered quite a lot without specificity. I quite agree that Zeno's (alleged) paradox is no paradox at all. Zeno may himself have known that. As I see it, it's an object lesson in what happens when the factor of time is left out. Departures from A with arrivals at B do in fact happen all the time... As it were... When you exclude time, then the spatial distance keeps being cut in half, ad infinitum, and one never gets from Point A to Point B. Thank you for the heads up. - Best regards, RascalPuff