tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post4975265132218070661..comments2024-03-04T15:09:00.479-08:00Comments on The Scientific Worldview: Univironmental Analysis of NucleosynthesisGlenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-30793937599634340842011-01-18T06:31:01.394-08:002011-01-18T06:31:01.394-08:00I understand (and agree with) both rickdoogie'...I understand (and agree with) both rickdoogie's and Dr. Borchartd's comments. I think it's also important to keep in mind the 'evolutionary' concept of 'how do you get there from here'. By that I mean that the concepts of space and particle are a way to comprehend and study the subject. It's not that these words are "flawed" so much as that they are incomplete, but they give us a handle for describing the concepts which are essential for being able to build on them and then transcend the concepts they convey. Math is an example. Whole numbers are a way to begin to conceptualize (thru approximation) a description of nature when the concept of the fractal nature of reality is not yet known. We aren't able to conceive of a new scientific worldview until we have been able to develop the prior worldview and then begin to test it. 'Flawed' worldviews are the vehicle for conceiving of a different worldview so that it can then be perceived (i.e. "you don't perceive what you can't conceive").Bill Howellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01893569000316310311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-77012018735370842422011-01-08T19:55:16.380-08:002011-01-08T19:55:16.380-08:00Rick:
Thanks again for the compliments. I agree w...Rick:<br /><br />Thanks again for the compliments. I agree with your comments about the dubiousness of the terms "space" and "particle." We tend to think of these in absolutist terms. As you mentioned, empty space does not exist and particles without empty space do not exist. The space between you and me exists, because it contains microcosms, so what we call space really is matter. That is why I say that space exists. I don't necessarily consider space and particle to be flawed concepts--if we use them correctly. It is just that each portion of the universe appears to have material characteristics that appear to be more dominant or less dominant than other portions. Thus in UD, the macrocosm contributes 50% to the UD interaction whether it is resistant or less resistant. I really don't think of "space" as the 3 dimensions matter moves in, because "space" is matter as well. Space simply is "weaker" matter that allows other microcosms to move through it, just as you are able to move through the space filled with the air (or water) around you. Nevertheless, once again, you have gotten the jist of TSW.Glenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-58352543094825990722011-01-08T10:20:49.666-08:002011-01-08T10:20:49.666-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Rick Doogiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10623190298260782836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-44236257753731103942011-01-08T10:19:55.049-08:002011-01-08T10:19:55.049-08:00"The key is to understand that common physica..."The key is to understand that common physical terms such as momentum, force, energy, and space-time are mere calculations. They are not things or the motions of things. They are descriptions of matter in motion. Thus space exists, but space-time does not."<br /><br />Here's an expansion on that idea. <br />Even the terms "space" and "particle" are flawed concepts in our heads. <br /><br />The concept "space" too often evokes the idea of "emptiness". <br />The concept "particle" evokes the idea of a closed system enclosed by some kind of shell. <br />When we use these flawed concepts to create mathematical formulas and "Laws of Physics", our formulas are just as flawed. We end up with laws and formulas that reinforce and perpetuate our flawed concepts of reality.<br /><br />"Space" is the 3 dimensions that matter moves in. "Dimensions" don't exist. Dimensions are scientific and mathematical concepts. "3 dimensions" is nothing but the concept we use to measure distance and motion between microcosms.<br /><br />If we look at the "space" in between tiny particles, we see this "space" is full of tinier particles. Then, if we look between those tinier particles, we find even smaller particles. And so on, infinitely. So, I wonder; is it accurate to say that "space exists"?<br /><br />On the opposite end of this enigma, we look at so-called "particles". We find that they are mostly filled by "empty space" with a few small particles zipping about a nucleus. If we look within these small particles, they themselves are filled by "empty space" with a few more infinitesimal particles zipping around inside. Ad infinitum, we assume.<br /><br />Thus, space is full of particles. And particles are full of space. Hmm. Not the best "handles" for grasping reality. We are screwed as soon as we use the words "space" or "particle".<br /><br />The quality of our understanding is tied to our definitions of concepts and words. That's why the terms "infinity", "univironment", "microcosm", and "macrocosm" are indispensable for the evolution of scientific thought. Now, there are some "handles" we can get ahold of. Instead of trying to define a particle moving through space, we would be better off defining a microcosm interacting with a macrocosm.<br /><br />Although our words and concepts can never be perfect, they can always be better. "It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is always possible to know more about anything". Thank you, Dr. Borchardt, for working toward popularizing new, more useful concepts and terminology.<br /><br />Words are the meat and potatoes of our "real world" concepts. That's why it's so important to have new words to define new understanding. "Consuponibility" and "univironmental determinism" are important concepts on the road to better scientific understanding. <br /><br />I can't wait for that next book.Rick Doogiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10623190298260782836noreply@blogger.com