• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My argument against materialism

kenkoskinen said:
Well, resistance or opposition to what gravity does to a particle/object can be many things: all three standard model forces (including the action of EM), Pauli's Exclusion Principle (not one of the four forces), what I refer to as the neutral barrier (it separates two neutral objects because EM doesn't interact between them) and hence it is not quantum EM activity.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly where you appear to be understanding the model incorrectly.
 
kenkoskinen said:
That EM action can resist gravity action on particles/objects isn't the issue.
Click to expand...
Oh but it is. The whole discussion started when you rejected it.

Early in the argument I objected to statements that EM cancels, counterbalances gravity.
Click to expand...
In what sense is EM 'resisting gravity action' not counterbalancing gravity's effect?
 
SusanB-M1 said:
... well, just who does kinkoskinen think he is?:boggled:
Click to expand...

So far he's just reinforced my earlier assessment that he just can't bear even to admit that he made a mistake, or misunderstood the point being made. Continuing the pattern of evasion, diversion, distraction, and straw-manning, he now says 'That EM action can resist gravity action on particles/objects isn't the issue' :rolleyes:

Most people would have simply said they'd misinterpreted or misunderstood what was meant at the start, and we could have all moved on.
 
kenkoskinen said:
Okay ... I've even created some thought experiments. Try it ... it's fun! If Sol is a physics prof ... that's nice. Our discussion isn't a lecture ... but whatever you want to call it, it can continue if he likes!
Click to expand...

Why not. He may be in need of a few laughs.
 
SusanB-M1 said:
Earlier in the thread, when kenkoskinen had assumed that PixyMisa was a she, there was a patronising element in his words because of, apparently, talking to a female, but there has also been a generally patronising tone to all posters. But now to be patronising towards SolInvictus too..... well, just who does kinkoskinen think he is?:boggled:
Click to expand...

Megalomania? Troll?
 
dlorde said:
So far he's just reinforced my earlier assessment that he just can't bear even to admit that he made a mistake, or misunderstood the point being made. Continuing the pattern of evasion, diversion, distraction, and straw-manning, he now says 'That EM action can resist gravity action on particles/objects isn't the issue' :rolleyes:

Most people would have simply said they'd misinterpreted or misunderstood what was meant at the start, and we could have all moved on.
Click to expand...

Most people,but not the Finnish equivalent of Patience Strong.
 
I'm not a physics guy; my strengths lie elsewhere.

Having said that, I'm wondering if an actual physics guy/gal could please explain how Ken uses his rather long-winded (pseudo?) physics statements to argue against materialism.

I would ask Ken himself to clarify, but I'm frankly afraid that he'd actually try.
 
The Norseman said:
With all the dodging he was doing trying to avoid Pixy's clever and nefarious traps, I really lost the point he was trying to make so I thought I'd attempt one last chance for some clarification.
Click to expand...

My guess is that he confuses not understanding everything about the universe with not understanding anything. He seems to have taken the old saying, "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, then baffle 'em with ********," to heart.

He was attempting to provide an explanation for a phenomenon (EM repulsion) for which he erroneously thought there was no compelling explanation in the current materialistic model. The problem with his explanation (neutral barrier) is that it is based on a false premise (that being: net-neutral objects cannot exert EM forces on each other), it has neither explanatory nor predictive power, it flies in the face of the evidence, and is only two words long.

He uses lots of physics lingo and contradicts himself from time to time.

At least that's how I read him.
 
gentlehorse said:
He was attempting to provide an explanation for a phenomenon (EM repulsion) for which he erroneously thought there was no compelling explanation in the current materialistic model. The problem with his explanation (neutral barrier) is that it is based on a false premise (that being: net-neutral objects cannot exert EM forces on each other), it has neither explanatory nor predictive power, it flies in the face of the evidence, and is only two words long.
Click to expand...
Yeah. He's gone from neutral particles don't attact or repel one another (through EM) to net neutral objects cannot attract or repel one another. As my very very simple question demonstrates, the latter position is completely untrue. I'm guessing that's why he won't answer it.
 
kenkoskinen said:
Is that all you think? You asked me a question ... I gave an answer. You deleted most of it. So, do you think anything else other than ... honesty? How does that relate to your imaginary question about the universe?
Click to expand...



Your are either dishonest or incredibly dense! My ten year old granddaughter has no trouble understanding it.

Please click here and read. There is no math to confuse you, just a very simple explanation.
 
PixyMisa said:
Yeah. He's gone from neutral particles don't attact or repel one another (through EM) to net neutral objects cannot attract or repel one another. As my very very simple question demonstrates, the latter position is completely untrue. I'm guessing that's why he won't answer it.
Click to expand...

Ken seems to have left the building.
 
gentlehorse said:
My guess is that he confuses not understanding everything about the universe with not understanding anything. He seems to have taken the old saying, "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, then baffle 'em with ********," to heart.

He was attempting to provide an explanation for a phenomenon (EM repulsion) for which he erroneously thought there was no compelling explanation in the current materialistic model. The problem with his explanation (neutral barrier) is that it is based on a false premise (that being: net-neutral objects cannot exert EM forces on each other), it has neither explanatory nor predictive power, it flies in the face of the evidence, and is only two words long.

He uses lots of physics lingo and contradicts himself from time to time.

At least that's how I read him.
Click to expand...

PixyMisa said:
Yeah. He's gone from neutral particles don't attact or repel one another (through EM) to net neutral objects cannot attract or repel one another. As my very very simple question demonstrates, the latter position is completely untrue. I'm guessing that's why he won't answer it.
Click to expand...



Thanks, guys!
 
PixyMisa said:
The problem is that you have no grasp of what materialism is, as shown by your incessant asking of questions that are meaningless under materialism.

You haven't proposed any thought constructs. You've proposed thought failures. It's not that I can't appreciate them, it's that they are meaningless.

No, it's not fun. It's not anything, except a waste of time.
Click to expand...

Good morning Pixy,

Please define "materialism", I am unfamiliar with the term.

Is it distinct from science?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom