• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Monistic Atomism

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I'm sorry my friend. Even if I read the whole document, I still don't know if you agree with it, disagree with it, or how strongly you feel about it either way.

Maybe you could summarize the view presented in the document and then present your feelings about it?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes. It speaks for itself. It is saying nonsense. It starts out by claiming all of modern science is false (in spite of all the evidence), that even the basic ideas are incoherent (in spite of being quite well founded), and goes on to talk about Godel's results in a way that shows a complete lack of understanding of those results.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
It also makes the common mistake of thinking aleph_1 is the same as the continuum.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry my friend. Even if I read the whole document, I still don't know if you agree with it, disagree with it, or how strongly you feel about it either way. Maybe you could summarize the view presented in the document and then present your feelings about it?

Briefly:
  • If I have not misunderstood the document, I believe it implicitly says: "Ex nihilo nihil fit (Out of nothing nothing is made.").
  • The document explicitly says that "motion is exclusively a property of physical objects."
    • Because I agree with that notion, I occupy some of my free time wondering what kind of being a spirit is, if it is not a physical being.
  • The document explicitly says that "space" and "time" [a.k.a. Absolute Space and Absolute Time] are abstract nouns. As such, neither moves (nor undergoes expansion or compression.)
  • The document explicitly describes a theoretical physical content of space which moves: atoms, each of which has no parts and each of which moves through space at the same constant speed. The physical objects which occupy and move through space consist of subsets of these atoms, ranging in size from the very small to the very large.
  • For the record, Kelso was a self-acknowledged agnostic and did not believe in gods or unicorns, among other things. I, on the other hand, am a theist of the heretical christian kind. We both were, and I continue to be, devout anti-relativists.
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
The opening paragraph

§1.An introductory critique of the theory of relativityClassical mechanics uses geometry correctly. The “incorporation” of geometry into physics by the general theory of relativity amounts to treating space-time and thus both space and time as if these were continuous physical substances that can be stretched and compressed and that expand or contract. This is an incoherent notion, much less a true one; it is “not even false.”It is, in fact, multiply incoherent.
is enough to brand what follows as scatter-brained ramblings. And taken with the sound of his own voice, the author shows his true objective: self aggrandizement.

.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
The opening paragraph...is enough to brand what follows as scatter-brained ramblings. And taken with the sound of his own voice, the author shows his true objective: self aggrandizement.

Know a lot about Relativity, do you?
As for your claim that Kelso's "true objective" was self-aggrandizement, I well-remember that a goodly number of his correspondents in the about.com/Physics Forum, on their first encounter with him, accused him of arrogance. Over the roughly two years that I was acquainted with him, I watched all but the most obtuse change their opinions and recognize that what first had seemed to them to be arrogance was actually self-confidence.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Know a lot about Relativity, do you?
As for your claim that Kelso's "true objective" was self-aggrandizement, I well-remember that a goodly number of his correspondents in the about.com/Physics Forum, on their first encounter with him, accused him of arrogance. Over the roughly two years that I was acquainted with him, I watched all but the most obtuse change their opinions and recognize that what first had seemed to them to be arrogance was actually self-confidence.

Self-confidence while being wrong is no virtue.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Briefly:
  • If I have not misunderstood the document, I believe it implicitly says: "Ex nihilo nihil fit (Out of nothing nothing is made.").
  • The document explicitly says that "motion is exclusively a property of physical objects."
    • Because I agree with that notion, I occupy some of my free time wondering what kind of being a spirit is, if it is not a physical being.
  • The document explicitly says that "space" and "time" [a.k.a. Absolute Space and Absolute Time] are abstract nouns. As such, neither moves (nor undergoes expansion or compression.)
  • The document explicitly describes a theoretical physical content of space which moves: atoms, each of which has no parts and each of which moves through space at the same constant speed. The physical objects which occupy and move through space consist of subsets of these atoms, ranging in size from the very small to the very large.
  • For the record, Kelso was a self-acknowledged agnostic and did not believe in gods or unicorns, among other things. I, on the other hand, am a theist of the heretical christian kind. We both were, and I continue to be, devout anti-relativists.

Too bad relativity actually works in the real world. Particle accelerators show relativistic effects all the time (because they accelerate particles to relativistic speeds).
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Know a lot about Relativity, do you?
Enough to recognize inane blather when I see it.

As for your claim that Kelso's "true objective" was self-aggrandizement, I well-remember that a goodly number of his correspondents in the about.com/Physics Forum, on their first encounter with him, accused him of arrogance. Over the roughly two years that I was acquainted with him, I watched all but the most obtuse change their opinions and recognize that what first had seemed to them to be arrogance was actually self-confidence.
Didn't read enough of it to recognize any outright arrogance, just how much he was taken by the sound of his own voice: "Let me show you all the scientific jargon I know. Don't you wish you were me?"


461674daaaf772240c49c92aacfeb1e8_litigator-clipart-boasts-clipart_616-372.jpeg




All of which exists within the most atrocious grammar I've read in some time. Obviously, the editor of the piece is as incompetent as was Kelso himself.

.
 
Last edited:

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
Enough to recognize inane blather..."

Ahhh, so you're a poorly informed Relativist groupie, eh? I suspected as much.


Didn't read enough of it ... All of which exists within the most atrocious grammar I've read in some time. Obviously, the editor of the piece is as incompetent as was Kelso himself..

LOL! Reminds of the first of Woody Allen's two jokes in this clip from his movie "Annie Hall".
Look on the bright side: Now that you've vented, you can move on to do something more productive.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
How about a well-informed advocate of relativistic physics?

??? You lost me.
  • I asked skwim: "Know a lot about relativity, do you?
  • skwim responded: "Enough to recognize inane blather when I see it."
  • I say: :"Ahhh, so you're a poorly informed Relativist groupie, eh?"
  • And you ask me: "How about a well-informed advocate of relativistic physics?"
  • Are you suggesting that skwim's reading of an unspecified portion of a document and his conclusion that that portion contained "inane blather" is evidence for a claim that he is a well-informed advocate of relativity?
  • If that's not what you're suggesting, then I don't know what you're suggesting.
  • However, if that is what you're suggesting, I say--based on my previous experience observing and interacting with well-informed advocates and opponents of relativity--that you have a remarkably low standard of what constitutes being a well-informed advocate or opponent of relativity, as a consequence of which I conclude that you have nothing new or of importance to teach me.

It seems to me that those who reject relativity are especially poorly informed.

Ha! You have a long way to go before I'll fret over a negative opinion from you. It's time for us to part ways and move on to more entertaining and/or productive activities.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
??? You lost me.
  • I asked skwim: "Know a lot about relativity, do you?
  • skwim responded: "Enough to recognize inane blather when I see it."
  • I say: :"Ahhh, so you're a poorly informed Relativist groupie, eh?"
  • And you ask me: "How about a well-informed advocate of relativistic physics?"
  • Are you suggesting that skwim's reading of an unspecified portion of a document and his conclusion that that portion contained "inane blather" is evidence for a claim that he is a well-informed advocate of relativity?
Well, he at least has a basic enough understanding to recognize that this was inane blather.

  • If that's not what you're suggesting, then I don't know what you're suggesting.
  • However, if that is what you're suggesting, I say--based on my previous experience observing and interacting with well-informed advocates and opponents of relativity--that you have a remarkably low standard of what constitutes being a well-informed advocate or opponent of relativity, as a consequence of which I conclude that you have nothing new or of importance to teach me.

Well, read the first few pages of the article. If you think it is anything other than inane blather, then you are probably ignorant of basic physics.

Ha! You have a long way to go before I'll fret over a negative opinion from you. It's time for us to part ways and move on to more entertaining and/or productive activities.

Well, how about supporting any of the assumptions of that article? From the faulty physics, to the misunderstandings of Godel's results, there is hardly anything there. As they say, there is correct and new stuff there: what's new isn't correct and what's correct isn't new.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
  • Well, he at least has a basic enough understanding to recognize that this was inane blather.
So, you prefer an ignorant Relativity advocate to an Anti-relativist, regardless of the latter's abilities, in your world, eh?

I'm neither surprised nor dismayed. In spite of the obvious irreconcilable difference between you and me, you don't.want to follow my previous recommendation: that we part ways and pursue other interests. That suggests to me that you relish having the last word, shifting the decision to walk away to me. Thanks.

  • Well, read the first few pages of the article. If you think it is anything other than inane blather, then you are probably ignorant of basic physics.
Your desire for the last word seems strong.

  • Well, how about supporting any of the assumptions of that article? From the faulty physics, to the misunderstandings of Godel's results, there is hardly anything there. As they say, there is correct and new stuff there: what's new isn't correct and what's correct isn't new.
And yet you persist. Your desire for the last word borders on lust. Perhaps I can help you.
 
Last edited:

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
Here's your chance to have the last word ....
Relativity v quantum mechanics – the battle for the universe

Which do you think will "win the battle"? Relativity or Quantum Mechanics.

If you don't have the interest or ability to express an opinion in that matter, perhaps you would consider solving the "puzzle" described in the first two sentences of a research paper cited in this article: More than one reality exists, shocking study says

The two sentences to which I refer are in the research paper's abstract found at: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.05080.pdf

"The scientific method relies on facts, established through repeated measurements and agreed upon universally, independently of who observed them. In quantum mechanics, the objectivity of observations is not so clear, most dramatically exposed in Eugene Wigner’s eponymous thought experiment where two observers can experience fundamentally different realities."

Which trumps which: the Scientific Method or Quantum Mechanics?

Inquiring minds want to know what you think, Professor.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
So, you prefer an ignorant Relativity advocate to an Anti-relativist, regardless of the latter's abilities, in your world, eh?

Well, since I have yet to find an Anti-relativist that was competent, the issue is moot. The quoted article doesn't hold out much hope of a change in that evaluation.

I'm neither surprised nor dismayed. In spite of the obvious irreconcilable difference between you and me, you don't.want to follow my previous recommendation: that we part ways and pursue other interests. That suggests to me that you relish having the last word, shifting the decision to walk away to me. Thanks.

Your desire for the last word seems strong.

And yet you persist. Your desire for the last word borders on lust. Perhaps I can help you.

Well, we can start by asking if the article in the OP is one you find representative of 'competent' anti-relativists. Then we can go through and demolish it step by step, if you want.
 
Top