Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
------------------------------------------------
Hello Savolain | Log out | Donate | Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post
-------------------------------------------------

It's A Shame To Hide Such Good Stuff
Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Hide secretary | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Clerk on June 10, 2004 16:39:33 UTC

Title: Ph.D Indeed Means Dr. Of Philosophy
Ph.D INDEED MEANS PHILOSOPHICAL DOCTOR

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Hide savolain | Back to Thread Topics |

In Response To Alexander
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?"
___________________________________________
*******************************************
Response (By *Kent Benjamin Robertson)

*Recently dubbed honorarily as 'The Fog Cutter' (as though he isn't already garnished with enough aka's?), by Surfers who astutely observed with candid interest and unguarded admiration, the respondent slicing and dicing, as it were. Never mind the Rubicon Crossing: The chopped Fruit-Salad-Alexander is (squarely) cast...
(Bon Apetit?)
...................

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; certainly including the so called 'Big Bang theory', as will be subjected again before the close of this response.
(*Xeno's - so called - Paradox', entails the exclusion of time from the motion of A to B, where, the distance between A and B can be cut in half, indefinitely, while A, never arrives at B. Which, with the issued qualification at point here, is 'true', yet still, only a paradox-apparent.)

A never arrives at B, as the distance between two given points is endlessly cut in half: as long as the element of time is excluded from the exclusively spatial issue. Ostensibly, there are infinite and ongoing examples of people and things shuttling to and from A and B, because motion occurs in Einsteinian space-time, not Newtonian space and time.
The exclusion of *time - the interval between two or more events in space - *synonymous with motion, was and is excusable in Xeno's era, whereas: the same - continued and maintained - mistake, the exclusion of time, is no longer excusable, since Einstein's General Theory Of Relativity, 1916, wherein time, the interval between two or more events,and directly related to motion is proved as a previously unrecognized 4th dimension, omnipresent for all time, within the three recognized dimensions... ).

May the reader momentarily bear with the ongoing monologue, insofar as if you allow it to, it promises to solidly arrive from A to B, in this case, in a relatively very short period of time...

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 accurately (and merely) describing events and or structures and conditions in space-time that occur and/or exist, 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, wide eyed, greenhorned, attitude copping practitioners, have no authority to exclude 'philosophy' from physics: is to forsake altogether the fact that all academic ranks of 'Dr.' (and there are scores of them) - certainly including physicists and mathematicians - are Ph.D's - Doctors of Philosophy (Philosophical Doctors).

Hopefully this will clear up your 'foggy opinions' on the meaning of your quaint spelling - and arrythmic doggerel; while offering an alternative spelling for what you ostensibly - with an undeniably familiar 'command voice of authority' - powerfully prove not the least bit 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 (and no small number of ingrates like 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.

(Perhaps of taxidermical interest to the stuffers of historically retrieved and preserved mutants at the Smithsonian?)

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 incumbent 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 (importantly unimportant) 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...

Until further notice, you - and quite anyone else - may confidently 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 venerable contributors to its scientific and philosophical reason(s) for being,

Sincerely, Kent Benjamin Robertson
(Aka KaiduOrkhon, The White Mongol)