Physics deals with objects

    What are the foundations of Physics? What should we construct Physics upon?

    Well, a good place to start is by defining what we mean by Physics. If you look up the word physics you
    will find the following definitions...

    "physics: the natural science that involves the study of matter and its motion through
    space and time, along with related concepts such as energy and force" Wikipedia

    "physics: the science that deals with matter, energy, motion, and force"

    These definitions simply don't cut it in Science. They have no chance whatsoever. These self-serving
    definitions were put in the dictionaries and encyclopedias by mathemagicians and not by physicists. The
    casual reader takes them at face value because they allegedly emanate from authority.

    One prominent mathematical site which incongruously calls itself the Physics Classroom begins by stating
    the party line...

    "Physics is a mathematical science. The underlying concepts and principles have a
    mathematical basis. Throughout the course of our study of physics, we will encounter
    a variety of concepts that have a mathematical basis associated with them. While our
    emphasis will often be upon the conceptual nature of physics, we will give considerable
    and persistent attention to its mathematical aspect."

    Not only is there no justification for these claims anywhere in the site, but it quickly becomes obvious that
    the bread and butter of Physics are not concepts. The introduction continues...

    "The motion of objects can be described by words. Even a person without a background
    in physics has a collection of words that can be used to describe moving objects.

    Therefore, according to this official site, Physics deals at least some of the time with objects. It follows
    that before we can 'describe moving objects', we must first define what we mean by 'object'.

    So let's lay it on the line and get to the point. Let's state what Physics is about at its most fundamental
The Foundations of Physics

    It turns out that no one in the last 10,000 years ever defined the word 'object' for the purposes of
    Physics. But if anyone ever did, no one ever recognized its importance. Not a single textbook of
    'physics' on the planet begins by telling the student what an object is. All books jump directly into
    equations and other quantitative concepts. And yet the first paragraph in that site as well as in
    all 'physics' textbooks talks about the motion of objects.

    What is an object?

    We start by defining the strategic words that underlie Physics, beginning with the word 'object'.

    object: that which has shape

    In his appalling ignorance the devil's advocate steps into a trap. He usually asks you to define the word
    'shape'. The strategy he has in mind is to show that it is impossible to define any word in the dictionary
    without referring to other words in the dictionary which again require definitions. In other words, the
    devil's advocate learned by rote that ultimately all definitions are circular. That's what the philosophers
    have concluded after thousands of years of civilization.

    The first argument against the devil's advocate is that he had no reason to choose the word 'shape'.
    Why didn't he ask for a definition of 'that', 'which' or 'has'? Are they any easier to define?

    The second argument is that we can take two geometrical figures of the same color -- a cube and a
    sphere -- to any elementary school and ask the children to identify the difference between them. It
    would be surprising if any of them would answer anything other than "their shape".

    A third argument is that, as argued above, we absolutely need a definition of the word 'object' in
    Physics. No physicist can elude this requirement. If he can't tell the crowd what an object is for
    the purposes of his discipline he is not a physicist and, therefore, will not be allowed to give his
    presentation. It's just that simple! A physicist has no choice but to begin his dissertation with the
    word object. What is he going to put on the board or on the screen, otherwise? The location of
    WHAT? WHAT will be moving in his film? WHAT will he bang against the walls or collide in his
    accelerator? We have to start somewhere and we can't leave the conference room until we have
    a definition. The attempt of the devil's advocate to leave the discussion inconclusive fails.

    The last argument is that we find definitions of the word object in the common dictionary and when
    prodded the devil's advocate comes up with a couple more. These are the definitions that the
    mathemagicians use by default. Therefore, on the one hand, the mathemagician argues that it is
    impossible to define words without relying on other words, on the other he claims that all his
    definitions are rigorous, and still on the other he brushes aside the foregoing definition, but then by
    default uses the ones in the dictionary. The problem before us is not "What do you mean by 'shape'?"
    (i.e., the extreme devil's advocate defending his religion at all costs). The issue is "What criterion or
    criteria are we going to use for the purposes of Physics?" The following is an impromptu list I
    compiled over the years from devil's advocates terrified of losing their religion followed by a brief
    argument of why they fail...

    1. that which we can touch

    Touch requires another object. Is the Moon not an object until the comet
    strikes it?

    2. that which we can see

    See requires an object to do the seeing. Any definition of any word to be
    used in Science that invokes an observer, witness, testimony, opinion,
    feeling, perception, etc., is UNSCIENTIFIC!

    3. that which has mass

    We won't know whether the Moon is an object until we measure something
    about it. Is a massless photon an object? Is a square or Superman an

    4. that which has volume / occupies space

    As all mathematical concepts, volume -- like mass, energy, time, force -- is
    a DYNAMIC concept. Volume is the amount of displacement of a medium:
    the amount of water the rubber ducky displaces in the bathtub. Therefore,
    not only is volume a dynamic concept (see motion below), but it tacitly
    invokes another medium, entity, object, thing...

    5. that which moves

    An object precedes motion. You cannot have motion until you first have an
    object. Motion is a movie, a film of an object. A film is comprised of several
    frames, each depicting the object at different locations with respect to other
    objects. An object is what we SEE in the first frame of the film. Motion
    requires WATCHING the entire movie.

    6. that which is 3D

    This definition summarily eliminates Euclid's 0D point, 1D line, and all planes.
    It also does away with Einstein's 4D spacetime. Nevertheless, the definition of
    the word object precedes the definition of the word dimension ... much like it
    precedes the definition of the word motion. We need an object before we can
    talk about properties such as its size, weight, and dimensions.

    7. that which we can talk about / subject of a sentence / noun

    In ORDINARY SPEECH we can convert any word into a noun or subject and
    talk about 'it'. For instance, we can talk about 'motion'. Does th word 'motion'
    qualify as an object for the purposes of Physics? Are we going to move
    motion? Is this how the word 'orbital' became an object in the religion of
    Quantum Mechanics?

    8. something that...

    This is the most popular error. The proponent is not allowed to use synonyms.
    A synonym is a circular definition (i.e., no definition at all). Words such as
    thing, anything, something, entity, medium, body, structure, physical, stuff,
    substance, item, gizmo, gadget, noun, article, etc., are synonyms. Anyone
    proposing synonyms shows that he hasn't done a minimum of research on the
    word object. No one has defined this formidable word in 10,000 years and the
    arrogant skeptic comes in to try to resolve the matter in seconds. He improvises
    and what does he come up with? Synonyms!

    9. that which is made of...

    Another popular reply!

    10. functional / operational definition

    Functional and operational definitions are after-the-fact 'definitions': no definition
    at all. Functional and operational definitions are unscientific. They are used by
    people who have not taken an introductory course in Science. The proponent
    plays a guessing game throughout his dissertation and expects the crowd to
    figure out in retrospect at the end of the talk what he was talking about.

    e.g.: "It is white, large, and has wings."

    So? Was he talking about a swan or the White House?

    The bottom line is that whatever definition we come up with it has to have a criterion that stands in stark
    contrast to those above. We need a definition in Physics and can't leave the room until we have one.
    The penalty is death... the death of Physics!

    Until a skeptic can come up with an alternative definition of the word object that he can defend, the
    'shape' version stays. The chip is on the shoulder. The task is simple. BEFORE a devil's advocate
    challenges the foregoing definition, he will be required to present and defend HIS personal version...

    object: ________________ ?

    If the skeptic cannot fill in the blanks with a definition he can defend, he will not be allowed to challenge'
    the 'shape' criterion. He hasn't done his homework. He is wasting the rational person's time.

    Other strategic definitions of Physics

    Physics is first and foremost the study of objects, but Physics does not care for objects that don't exist.
    Physics is the Science of Existence. Physics only studies those objects that exist. Therefore, the
    second word we must define in Physics is the word 'exist'.

    It turns out that no one in the last 10,000 years has defined the word 'exist' either. No one has any idea
    what this enigmatic word means. The reason theists, atheists and agnostics have been arguing in circles
    for hundreds of years is that not one of these philosophies has ever defined the key word at the center
    of their debate.

    Before we can define 'exist', however, we need to define other key terms in order to understand the
    definition. This includes the word 'distance' and the word 'location'.

    distance: separation between two objects

    location: the set of distances of one object to all others

    The distance of Mathemagix is actually distance-traveled. No more needs to be said here to debunk it.

    The word 'position' belongs exclusively to Mathemagix. In Physics, we have no use for it. In Physics
    we use the word 'location'.

    We now have established the terms we need to define 'exist'...

    exist: physical presence (object + location)

    Unlike in ORDINARY SPEECH, for the purposes of Science the word 'exist can ONLY be applied in
    the context of objects. It cannot be used to qualify concepts. It is irrational in Science to say that
    "love exists" or that "intelligence exists". A rock or a tree may be said to exist. It has to be an object.

    However, an object that is said to exist must meet both criteria of the definition. It must have location
    as well. If God wants to exist, God will have to be presented as an object. God will also have to have
    location: a set of distances with respect to all other objects. There has to be distance between God's
    chest and mine! God may wish to hide in the 10th Dimension, but God will not be able to avoid a
    direct line from me to Him!

    What remains now is to define the last crucial term of the Foundations of Physics...

    motion: two or more locations of an object

    To recap...

    object: that which has shape

    distance: separation between two objects

    location: the set of distances of one object to all others

    exist: physical presence (object + location)

    motion: two or more locations of an object

    We can now begin to do Physics.

    The Golden Principle of Physics

    Physics is first and foremost the study of objects. You cannot do Physics
    without an object. What would there be to study if there were no objects?
To comment on any of the pages in this website go to:

Rational Scientific Method   


Nila and Bill      


Mathematical Physics      
Rope Hypothesis    
Ye Olde You Stupid Relativist