Ph.D Indeed Means Dr. Of Philosophy
Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Hide savolain | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Kent Benjamin Robertson on June 9, 2004 21:35:42 UTC
(Review of the previous 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?"
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 (alleged) paradox at issue here, 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 4, 5 and 6 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 at einstein.periphery.cc/, 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) 'all over the net'.
That encumbent phenomena - along with its 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 einstein.periphery.cc/
(Not to be confused with einstein.periphery.cc/machine_1 through _4 ; which all of the turbulent, name calling deluge of 'reverse confessions', self flagellation and galloping guilt, is about...)
In the interim, I 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 theory), as the issued, other more impingent subjects follow that discussion (Xeno's Paradox) in the starting missive (above).
I remain, respectfully thanking the Astronomy Net staffers and all of the sincere contributors to its scientific and philosophical reason for being,
Sincerely, Kent Benjamin Robertson