Concept

    In Physics it is irrational to move a concept

    One of the most absurd notions of Mathemagix is 'energy transfer'. You wonder who was the deranged
    lunatic that came up with that one. But the Mathemagicians also transfer information and waves and who
    knows what other abstract concepts. Scarier still is that all mathemagicians and the public at large have
    bought into such notions as 'dilating time' and 'warping space'. Nobody questions such hogwash anymore.

    So let's get to the point. In Science, it is irrational to say that you moved a concept. It is irrational to say
    that you 'gave love' or that you 'received rewards'. This language is okay in ORDINARY SPEECH. It has
    no place in Science. You cannot hand out or kick or smash abstract concepts such as justice or grace or
    attraction. Likewise, it is irrational to impart motion to any of the favorite CONCEPTS of the religion of
    Mathemagix: mass, energy, field, time, charge, force, wave, plasma, vortex. It is irrational to say that
    'you moved a mass' or that 'a field accelerated a charge' or that 'the wave traveled from here to there'.
    There are no such objects as energy, time, mass, field, charge or wave in Physics. These concepts
    would be appropriate in Philosophy if it weren't for the fact that they are irrational concepts. We have no
    use whatsoever for them in Science.

    Therefore, we need to start at the beginning in order for the casual reader to fully understand what the
    argument is.


    What is Science?

    Let's start by defining the word at the center of our discussion...

    Science: rational explanations

    Science is about explaining a phenomenon rationally. It is divided into two disciplines or fields. Physics is
    the branch that deals with objects and causes. Philosophy is the branch that deals with concepts and
    reasons.Physics includes what is informally known as the hard sciences: Physics, Chemistry, Paleontology,
    Biology, Medicine, and the like. Philosophy includes what is typically regarded as soft sciences: History,
    Law, Social Studies, Psychology, Languages, etc. Math is a language. Consequently, it belongs strictly
    within Philosophy. It has no business in Physics. We have no use for Mathematics in Physics.

    If Mathematics is not the language of Physics as has always been claimed by the monks of Mathemagix,
    then what is the language of Physics in the alternative?


    What is the language of Physics?

    The language of Physics is ILLUSTRATION!!! This follows from the Golden Rule of Physics...


    The Golden Rule of Physics

                         First and foremost, Physics requires an object. You cannot do Physics without an object.



    What would there be to observe, assuming observation is part of the Scientific Method? What would there
    be to handle in the lab on, assuming experiments were part of the Scientific Method? What phenomenon
    would there be in the entire Universe if there were no objects? What would move and collide and break
    apart?

    Unfortunately, the mathemagicians who took over the reigns of 'science' when traditional religions could no
    longer hold sway never learned this fundamental lesson. They continue to play around with irrational
    concepts such as energy and time and fields. These concepts are irrational because the mathemagician
    presents and/or uses them as objects. WHAT is the mathemagician transferring when he says "energy
    transfer" if energy is clearly and unambiguously defined as a concept:

    energy: a property of objects which can be transferred... the ability...

    How do the mathemagicians purport to transfer a property of an object? Indeed, we can replace the word
    energy in any 'scientific' paper written in the last 10,000 years with the word spirit and we would learn just
    as much. Try it! Just for fun!

    And if you still have doubts, let Nobel Prize Richard Feynman tell you in his own words...

    "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is."

    Richard Feynman, Lectures on Physics, 4-1

    So it turns out that the mathemagicians are transferring 'something', but they don't know what. And the
    reason they don't know is that energy is a CONCEPT. They have been dealing with this spirit for centuries
    and calling what they do 'science'. They have converted energy into mass and it turns out that all they've
    done when you come to think of it is convert love into justice. Not a single mathemagician in any university
    on planet Earth can define either word.

    mass: a property of a physical body... a measure of an object's resistance to acceleration

    And then again, typical of the religion of Mathemagix which boasts that it is founded upon rigid definitions,
    we have the top-rated gurus John Wheeler and Edwin Taylor tell us that...

    "Nature does not offer us any concept as ‘the amount of matter.’ History has struck down
    every proposal to define such a term. Even if we could count number of atoms or by any
    other counting method try to evaluate amount of matter, that number would not equal mass."

    John Wheeler and Edwin Taylor, Spacetime Physics, p. 248

    So? What have we learned from our autistic friends in the mathemagical world? What is mass? What is
    energy? We will never know!


    What is a concept?

    And this takes us to the purpose of this web page. What is a concept? What do we mean when we say that
    such and such word is a concept? I mean, if the mathemagicians have been moving concepts around and
    this is a no-no in Physics, what really is a concept? How do we distinguish it from those words in the
    dictionary that we identify as objects?

    object: that which has shape

    concept: a word that invokes or embodies two objects

    A concept is a RELATION between two objects. A concept is easily distinguishable from an object in that it
    doesn't have shape. You cannot imagine or visualize the shape of a concept. What image are you going to
    form of energy or mass or force or time? What are you visualizing? What form? What shape? Is energy a
    cloud of some kind, a cloud of spirit? Does it convert into a solid piece of metal when it 'converts' into mass?

    In this sense, we can also say that an object is that which has shape and that a concept is that which doesn't.
    Every word in the dictionary can be placed into either category: object or concept. It either depicts that which
    has shape or it doesn't. These are the only two categories of any interest to authentic physicists or relevance
    to Physics.


Home      

Nila and Bill      

Extinction       

Mathematical Physics      
Rope Hypothesis    
Ye Olde You Stupid Relativist

Objects

Concepts
To comment on any of the pages in this website go to:

Rational Scientific Method