Ph.D really does mean Dr. of Philosophy

[RascalPuff]

Posted by Clerk, on Astronomy net, June 10, 2004 16:39:33 UTC


Ph.D Indeed Means Dr. Of Philosophy
In Response To Clerk's post of Alexander's self induced denouement.
Re-Posted by Kent B. Robertson on June 9, 2004 21:35:42 UTC

"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 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 is an opinion, 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 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. 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.
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).

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 columns, 'all over the - especially astronomy - net'.

That encumbent phenomena - along with its transparently identifiable, forumite familiar 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.

(Not to be confused with the 'faction' <fiction based on fact> story - The Conquest of Reason, Morality and Law ; which all of the turbulent, name calling deluge of 'reverse confessions', vulgar self flagellation, vainly irrelevant diagnoses of 'Mauchesen's Syndrome' and galloping guilt, is disdainfully orbiting...)

In the (timely-spatial) interim, Truly Yours can only be grateful for the - however wayward - sincereity of the entry 'Replies', so far (in a guest list that has long since been hacked into non existence by the poor losers who couldn't stand up to its' revealing station on the internet)...

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 Bangological 'theory' <is a flawed - Cosmological Constant pilfering - hypothesis>).
I remain, respectfully thanking the T.O.E. staffers and all of the sincere contributors to its scientific and philosophical reason for being.
Sincerely, K. B. Robertson. http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

[mkirkpatrick]

My grandfather used to say "before "they" shot him",that he once knew a man who had more degrees than a thermometer!Now did that make this fellow particularly intelligent,
or did he just run hot and cold?

I have studied philosophy for over 40 years,will I recieve a doctorate?



regards michael.

[Graybeard]

I have studied philosophy for over 40 years,will I recieve a doctorate?

If you have studied philosophy for over forty years and still don't know if you will receive a doctorate or not give it up !!

Study something simple, like Science ... its easier

Rascal ... which particular Zenos Paradox are you referring to ?

cool bananas ... greg

[RascalPuff]

If you have studied philosophy for over forty years and still don't know if you will receive a doctorate or not give it up !!

Study something simple, like Science ... its easier

Rascal ... which particular Zenos Paradox are you referring to ?

cool bananas ... greg

______________________________________

Of the paradoxes Zeno may have presented, I'm alluding to the (perhaps most famous) one, where a person or object is moving from and keeps cutting the distance in half from Point A to Point B, but never arrives at Point B, because of Euclid's axiom that there's an infinite number of greometric (non space occupying) points in a straight line between A and B.

Since we know that a person or object can and does indeed successfully move from Point A to B, we likewise know that Zeno's paradox isn't really all that paradoxical.

It isn't realistic because it excludes the factor (dimension) of time.

Good to hear from you, Mr. Cool Bananas.

Regards,
- RP

[MJA]

The Zeno or Euclid paradox is:

INFINITY

Between any two measuring points in space, are infinite or immeasurable other points.

Innversely, to measure the dimensions of a point, from one side to the other, one would need two points from which to measure.

Then again, the same is true; both points of space or points of a point,
between any two measuring points, are infinite or immeasurable other points.

Then, space as well as any point, are infinite or immeasurable.

Then, the finite measurability or certainty of measure without a finite point does not exist; be it the infinite or immeasurable points of space, points of a point, points of time, points of nature, points of the universe, or simple the point itself..

Then, measure is a moot point, and the truth of everything is immeasurable infinity!

MJA