My argument against materialism

[PixyMisa]

Gravity does hold Jupiter together. Pixy thinks the EM forces prevents it from collapsing.

And every physicist on the planet agrees with me.

Main stream physics claims it doesn't have enough mass to start collapsing such as it would if it had enough mass to become a star.

And why is mass relevant?

I will write more later but know that gravity interacts with all of the Standard Model particles: fermions that build matter and the bosons that carry the forces. This means all Standard Model forces including EM gravitate. It also means their presence adds to the mass/energy count. EM or the other two Standard Model forces do not repulse gravity. That's equal to a magical transference of mass into some hypothetical anti-mass that would subtract from the mass/energy count. It's nonsense & her thinking (I call it a new theory since it isn't supported in mainstream physics) includes more nonsense.

Don't try to talk about the Standard Model when you haven't grasped Newton's First Law of Motion. Seriously.

 

[dafydd]

NO ... I'm good to go. Can I have my check?

There's not enough matter around Jupiter for that to happen therefore it's extremely unlikely it will; at least any time soon. I was not literally referring to imagining the event in my mind. People imagine that Santa Claus comes down chimneys and that Jesus walked on water etc.

Is there anything else I can help you with?

Yes there is not enough matter around Jupiter,but if there was then Jupiter could accrete mass. What did you study at university,the Completely Obvious?

 

[dlorde]

I am introducing a subtle distinction here, I am as I stated in my point to pixy where I use the phrase "rose tinted glasses", suggesting that everything that "man" can think, say or conceive of is theoretical.

All subtlty is lost because "rose tinted glasses" does not suggest anything like "everything that "man" can think, say or conceive of is theoretical".

What were you thinking?

 

[laca]

Yes that was the trigger. My main point is you didn't refer to anything that was in the boxed quote.

Yes, I most definitely did. Your continued failure to realize that is embarrassing.

I actually did it in two edits. In the first, as I recall, added &/or replaced a sentence. In the second edit I did insert a few missing characters. I fail to see the relevance of this.

No relevance whatsoever, other than showing your true colors. Thanks for that. Keep it up.

 

[dlorde]

All of this is not the Theory of PixyMisa, but mainstream physics. And that is what keeps Jupiter from collapsing more than it is.

I guess if you have to explain this, it's less embarrassing here than in SMT

 

[laca]

Unfortunately due to a lack of time, my library currently in storage and living in a house I am renovating I have not been able to research this. I will eventually, as it should not be a difficult task.

Please, do. We are waiting with bated breath.

 

[AlBell]

It doesn't matter that they choose to believe something, though. What matters is whether or not the thing they choose to believe has meaning.

Suppose an idealist and an old school materialist are sitting in a room, and you put a nail in front of both of them. The idealist sees an idea of a nail. The materialist sees a manifestation of a material nail.

But both of them are seeing the same nail. If you ask the idealist to hammer it into the wall, he grabs an ideal hammer and hammers in an idea into the wall. Ask the materialist, and he will grab a physical hammer and hammer in a physical nail into the wall. The materialist would likely pick up the same hammer that the idealist would pick up, and no matter who hammered in the nail, both would likely agree that the nail was hammered into the wall.

In both cases, the nails they see are simply representations of the nail. In neither case is their representation of the nail the actual nail. And in both cases they are able to interact with the same nail.

Before you figure out if the real nail is the idealist's image of the nail, or if the real nail is the materialists image of the nail, there's a bigger question you need to worry about; and that is this.

What does it mean for one of them to be the real nail?

Only how the person allows his choice of ontology to effect or even affect his private and public behaviors, most especially noticed in communicating his views to others.

 

[kenkoskinen]

The Bad Guy's Answers

I haven’t got around to your tape yet but noticed your replies and decided to answer them.

Gravity pulls on my derriere while it's in the chair. It pulls my derriere down to the earth. I exert an equal and opposite gravitational force on the entire planet earth pulling the entire planet towards my chair.

Yes this is so, I agree! I think you meant “down towards the earth.” Of course we both know earth's gravitational response to your mass is miniscule.

So my derriere, my chair, and the planet are all squashing together. But something keeps us from being a big pile on the floor.

I agree but "all are not squashing together," but rather you and the chair are being pulled towards the Earth and yes the Earth is pulled towards both. Obviously, the gravitational force between a chair, your derriere and the planet is not strong enough to squash them. Further the EM force bonds atoms and molecules and thereby holds things like our bodies and chairs together. It is gravity that keeps us on the ground.

That is EM--acting as a repulsive force. And it's the same thing that keeps the chair from going through the floor, the floor from going through the foundation, the foundation from going through the ground, the ground from going through the mantle, and so on.

EM only acts as a repulsive force per sec between particles that have the same charge (i.e. + & + or - & -). The objects in question are EM neutral and therefore don’t interact repulsively.

Now, I’m going to change the example for the sake of simplicity and it will be a glass cup on a glass table. The molecules are all locked into a solid state in both objects and the cup doesn’t fall through the table because their molecules don’t interact enough. (Interacting neutral objects do exchange surface electrons producing the force of friction. This is what allows us to get enough grip to walk and other things. Static electricity is a slight build up of an electric charge on objects). However if you heat up the glass of both objects enough they would melt into each other. This is because the EM bonds in the liquid state are weaker than in the solid state and now the molecular interaction increases. Given even more heat, you could reach a gaseous state. Here the EM bonds are weaker still. Heat even further and we get the plasmic state, like that in our Sun. In plasmas all the atoms are ionized and/or are ions or charged particles. Not all plasmas are extremely hot. The issue is about the strength of EM atomic/molecular bonds and the related degree of interaction capacity with other atoms/molecules. This doesn’t have anything to do with EM repulsion in neutrally charged objects. This has never been detected.

Yes, the entire planet earth gravitationally pulls on my derriere, and my derriere likewise pulls on the entire planet earth. But my derriere, over an extremely small gap, pushes on that tiny little chair, and that tiny little chair pushes against my derriere, and the result is a repulsion equal and opposite to the attraction of my derriere to the entire planet earth. And that is why my derriere is in the chair and not in the floor.

Sorry … that’s NOT the case. I assume the repulsion you speak of is due to EM? Your derriere doesn’t EM push on the chair, gravity pulls you down onto it. The chair doesn’t EM push up against your derriere (what’s that an example of a tiny amount of anti-gravity, levitation?) If you throw a ball into the air and it falls down and hits the ground, the ground doesn’t instantly EM push up against the ball on impact! But yes we do sit in chairs. See my above comments for the reasons.

All of this is not the Theory of PixyMisa, but mainstream physics. And that is what keeps Jupiter from collapsing more than it is. If it didn't, we'd sink into the earth like a rock in a pool. And gravity would be the force tugging us down.

I don’t know what PixyMisa thinks of what you wrote but a lot of it is NOT mainstream physics. Jupiter is a gaseous planet and the EM bonding in gases as I noted earlier is weak. However as I noted before, all of the Standard Model forces gravitate and they (including EM) do NOT repulse gravity. Gravity holds Jupiter together. It’s not collapsing because its mass/energy content is not high enough. If it accretes enough mass then, yes it could begin collapsing.

Further, although you didn't raise this issue, the EM force is also not holding the Sun together nor preventing it from collapsing. The Sun’s energy is produced by nuclear fusion & it radiates outwards. It is balanced by the force of gravity. This is why the Sun maintains its basic shape and size. In some 5 billion years or so the nuclear fuel will begin to run out. It’s a long story but briefly the heat lowers and the Sun swells and becomes a Red Giant. The inner planets will be engulfed. EM doesn’t play out, as you and Pixy suggest on planets, here either.

Thanks for your comments! At least you are rational and write more than one word, one line answers. And yes, I've asked Pixy Misa questions that she didn't answer. I didn't repeatedly insist she do what I wanted. I also posted an earlier rebuttal that she has yet to address. She has given me references that don't contain what she claims. I've asked for clarification on her references and didn't get it. She claimed to have posted the essence of her thinking and didn't. I asked for the post that contained it and didn't get it. It's all in the posts/record; read them. I simply got tired with of all of the baloney. Pixy is probably a fine lady but she is not someone I want to discuss physics with. Others have been rude to me and I've responded in kind. And ... of course ... I'm the bad guy!

I will have more to say on this later! I’m sure you people will disagree but after all the posts are done, it will be a good time to take them to the SMT people. I don't know who would want to wade through all of this; but I've heard that's what they do.

 

[dafydd]

I haven’t got around to your tape yet but noticed your replies and decided to answer them.



Yes this is so, I agree! I think you meant “down towards the earth.” Of course we both know earth's gravitational response to your mass is miniscule.



I agree but "all are not squashing together," but rather you and the chair are being pulled towards the Earth and yes the Earth is pulled towards both. Obviously, the gravitational force between a chair, your derriere and the planet is not strong enough to squash them. Further the EM force bonds atoms and molecules and thereby holds things like our bodies and chairs together. It is gravity that keeps us on the ground.



EM only acts as a repulsive force per sec between particles that have the same charge (i.e. + & + or - & -). The objects in question are EM neutral and therefore don’t interact repulsively.

Now, I’m going to change the example for the sake of simplicity and it will be a glass cup on a glass table. The molecules are all locked into a solid state in both objects and the cup doesn’t fall through the table because their molecules don’t interact enough. (Interacting neutral objects do exchange surface electrons producing the force of friction. This is what allows us to get enough grip to walk and other things. Static electricity is a slight build up of an electric charge on objects). However if you heat up the glass of both objects enough they would melt into each other. This is because the EM bonds in the liquid state are weaker than in the solid state and now the molecular interaction increases. Given even more heat, you could reach a gaseous state. Here the EM bonds are weaker still. Heat even further and we get the plasmic state, like that in our Sun. In plasmas all the atoms are ionized and/or are ions or charged particles. Not all plasmas are extremely hot. The issue is about the strength of EM atomic/molecular bonds and the related degree of interaction capacity with other atoms/molecules. This doesn’t have anything to do with EM repulsion in neutrally charged objects. This has never been detected.



Sorry … that’s NOT the case. I assume the repulsion you speak of is due to EM? Your derriere doesn’t EM push on the chair, gravity pulls you down onto it. The chair doesn’t EM push up against your derriere (what’s that an example of a tiny amount of anti-gravity, levitation?) If you throw a ball into the air and it falls down and hits the ground, the ground doesn’t instantly EM push up against the ball on impact! But yes we do sit in chairs. See my above comments for the reasons.



I don’t know what PixyMisa thinks of what you wrote but a lot of it is NOT mainstream physics. Jupiter is a gaseous planet and the EM bonding in gases as I noted earlier is weak. However as I noted before, all of the Standard Model forces gravitate and they (including EM) do NOT repulse gravity. Gravity holds Jupiter together. It’s not collapsing because its mass/energy content is not high enough. If it accretes enough mass then, yes it could begin collapsing.

Further, although you didn't raise this issue, the EM force is also not holding the Sun together nor preventing it from collapsing. The Sun’s energy is produced by nuclear fusion & it radiates outwards. It is balanced by the force of gravity. This is why the Sun maintains its basic shape and size. In some 5 billion years or so the nuclear fuel will begin to run out. It’s a long story but briefly the heat lowers and the Sun swells and becomes a Red Giant. The inner planets will be engulfed. EM doesn’t play out, as you and Pixy suggest on planets, here either.

Thanks for your comments! At least you are rational and write more than one word, one line answers. And yes, I've asked Pixy Misa questions that she didn't answer. I didn't repeatedly insist she do what I wanted. I also posted an earlier rebuttal that she has yet to address. She has given me references that don't contain what she claims. I've asked for clarification on her references and didn't get it. She claimed to have posted the essence of her thinking and didn't. I asked for the post that contained it and didn't get it. It's all in the posts/record; read them. I simply got tired with of all of the baloney. Pixy is probably a fine lady but she is not someone I want to discuss physics with. Others have been rude to me and I've responded in kind. And ... of course ... I'm the bad guy!

I will have more to say on this later! I’m sure you people will disagree but after all the posts are done, it will be a good time to take them to the SMT people. I don't know who would want to wade through all of this; but I've heard that's what they do.

Write a paper and submit it for peer review. Can you show me your maths for the above? It's nonsense,but I would be interested in seeing your equations.

 

[kenkoskinen]

Do You Lack More Courage?

Write a paper and submit it for peer review. Can you show me your maths for the above? It's nonsense,but I would be interested in seeing your equations.

Philosopher, If it's nonsense ... show me! I've put the post out ... now let's get real. You can do better than that. If I've erred, and I'm only human, respond!

 

[kenkoskinen]

The End Game

To be fair, his site is his site. He can post whatever he wants there - and there are probably worse sites online [lacks substantiation].

It's his attitude here that is really cringeworthy. It seemed to start off OK, but rapidly turned very weird...

dlorde if you really want to be fair read the record. Yes ... when people booed me I booed back in kind. However, I'm not primarily on this forum to do that. And, yes I'm planning to move on to other threads. I simply want to finish up on this planetary thing. I'm not one to leave something I think may have merit, left undone.

However when I stumbled into this thread I noticed that physics/cosmology was being discussed. The longer I lingered ... I saw what some of you have been saying, including you, physics isn't primarily what's on the menu. I also see that what is being discussed isn't of much interest to me. So everyone can relax. After the last posts are written, I will take it all to SMT and move on. However I might elect in the unknown future to revisit. There are other threads in Religion & Philosophy that I also plan to check out.

By the way if you think something on my website lacks substantiation feel free to point it out! No one's website is perfect and tuned to attract everyone. I'm okay with that. But if I can improve my site ... all the better!

 

[dlorde]

dlorde if you really want to be fair read the record.

For better or worse, I've read all the posts in this thread (up to here ).

Yes ... when people booed me I booed back in kind.

If that's how you see it, so be it - but I don't think I'm alone in finding your responses ... strange. Just sayin'.

After the last posts are written, I will take it all to SMT and move on. However I might elect in the unknown future to revisit. There are other threads in Religion & Philosophy that I also plan to check out.

Go for it.

By the way if you think something on my website lacks substantiation feel free to point it out!

No, the [lacks substantiation] rider referred to my speculation that there might be worse sites out there - IOW, there might be, but I don't know of any.

 

[punshhh]

Please, do. We are waiting with bated breath.

Unfortunately I am going on a mountain walking holiday on Tuesday for a week and don't have much free time before I leave.

 

[dafydd]

For better or worse, I've read all the posts in this thread (up to here ).

If that's how you see it, so be it - but I don't think I'm alone in finding your responses ... strange. Just sayin'.


Go for it.


No, the [lacks substantiation] rider referred to my speculation that there might be worse sites out there - IOW, there might be, but I don't know of any.

His responses are very odd. The site is a perfect example of cod 'science'.

 

[punshhh]

As I said before, you keep asserting this without ever showing any evidence or logic to support the assertion.


Not odd at all. Understanding is just calculation.

I refer you back to post 2107;

"Look in the mirror and consider if what you see is actually a pure thought machine, unbiased and objective. Capable of clearly assessing all avenues of thought regarding our existence and arriving at a balanced assessment of the nature and reality of existence.

Or are you looking at a mammal rather like my cat with lots of built in anthropocentric biases, tainted with ego and emotional baggage. Evolved to survive in a forest, using all the psychology of tribal behavior to accomplish this."

Which of these two "images" do you see in the mirror?

 

[dafydd]

I refer you back to post 2107;

"Look in the mirror and consider if what you see is actually a pure thought machine, unbiased and objective. Capable of clearly assessing all avenues of thought regarding our existence and arriving at a balanced assessment of the nature and reality of existence.

Or are you looking at a mammal rather like my cat with lots of built in anthropocentric biases, tainted with ego and emotional baggage. Evolved to survive in a forest, using all the psychology of tribal behavior to accomplish this."

Which of these two "images" do you see in the mirror?

Talk about poisoning the well. Have you stopped beating your wife? What does the event horizon of the formless mean and why are you avoiding that question? Are you ready to admit that is a meaningless phrase? If not,please elucidate.

 

[PixyMisa]

Philosopher, If it's nonsense ... show me! I've put the post out ... now let's get real. You can do better than that. If I've erred, and I'm only human, respond!

Newton's First Law of Motion. If what you claim were true, there'd be nothing in the Universe but black holes.

 

[carlitos]

Newton's First Law of Motion. If what you claim were true, there'd be nothing in the Universe but black holes.

You know what the first rule of Black Holes is, right?

stop digging?

 

[Trent Wray]

You know what the first rule of Black Holes is, right?

Once you go Black Hole, you don't go Back?

 

[carlitos]