Objectivism Online Forum

# All Activity

1. Past hour
2. ## Gravity Threads are Real

The math leads to Galileo's experiments with projectile motion, right? The parabola is therefore a relational existent between the object and its trajectory. A gravity thread represents the reification of a relational existent that has been separated from its object. Without the cannonball flying through the air, there is no objective basis for the parabola's existence.
3. Today
4. ## Gravity Threads are Real

My (preliminary) questions are perfectly legitimate, with no shade of ad hominem. Now I know that the “theory” is YOURS and I understand that what you wrote under the title “Gravity Threads - A Theory” is ALL that is about this “theory”.
5. ## Gravity Threads are Real

To bounce off this... What is your educational background in physics? My main comment is I'm wondering about the foundation this is based on. I really am curious.
6. ## Gravity Threads are Real

If someone else wants to start trailblazing, I've got an Easter party to attend right now.
7. ## Gravity Threads are Real

Let’s have a self contained journey here... this hill I’ve set up needs a trailblazer who is not me... it’s not meant for me to do solo... it’s more fun with more participants... what is wrong with my sandcastle if the math is “consistent” with it?
8. ## Gravity Threads are Real

A great mind once said: "Things﻿ having possible attributes or properties can always be mentally inverted with a background of attribute or property having a propensity to manifest as a thing﻿."﻿﻿
9. ## Fundamentally, is there only ‘spacetime’?

Unless and until the theory can be validated by observation /experiment evidence it stands only as mere speculation. If his theory has any prediction different from existing science then those could be tested... Fantasies can always be conjured from nothing (here quite literally) in order to “validate” the existence of the somethings we DO observe. Things having possible attributes or properties can always be mentally inverted with a background of attribute or property having a propensity to manifest as a thing. At least one error in this is the perceived motivation that things which are, need an explanation for their being. That somehow nonexistence is coherent but existence is not... the premise is that things must at their base come from the nothing... because only “nothing” has explanatory power. Here we see a mix of this exaltation of zero with a touch of monism (a very old and common tendency... “all things are water”).
10. ## Gravity Threads are Real

Right. We're not trying to cause waves here. The difference between internal versus external threads can wait for now.
11. ## Gravity Threads are Real

I appreciate your input... but can we deal with one thing at a time?
12. ## Gravity Threads are Real

The ax^2+bx+c is the form Newton and Galileo used from the framework of the historical point in time which they made their observations. According to a long lost ancient Pythagorean text, the exact shape of the gravitational threads would have also been dependent on whether they had been formed by being cut or being rolled.
13. ## Gravity Threads are Real

This seems like another theory. I like it but I am unsure about it because the parabola which we observe directly is a simple second order polynomial. If other higher order terms were present in the math we might have seen evidence for the spool. As it is, our direct evidence is of the form ax^2 + bx + c

15. ## Gravity Threads are Real

What's wrong with the theory? It appears to be missing a spool. For the thread to take the shape of a parabola, the spool would be needed to unwind the initial thread and provide the initial involute. If only a portion of the entire involute is considered, it might get conflated with a parabola. The more developed involutes more closely resemble a spiral. Rather than traveling along the thread, what is being described is the endpoint, and the course it makes as it becomes unraveled from the spool, where if properly wound, serves as an excellent example of a helical coil. The specific gravity, in this case, might be derived from the weight granted to the original development in the vacuum of having left out the spool around which the original thread was packaged and subsequently unraveled from thereafter.
16. ## Gravity Threads are Real

Let the math guide you... 1. The use of innumerable was with regard to the number of other kinds of threads. There are as many Gravity Threads as there are possible paths (let the math guide) and there are an infinite number of them. 2. Technically they emerge from the Earth, but they pass through every point in space near the Earth. As to why or how the Earth does it, that has not been discovered. The math tells us that they are there because of the way things move. 3. Again how and why things attach to the threads is a mystery. Experiment and the math tells us that they do. In fact an object is always attached to a thread. This can be proven by observation. If you quickly remove the external influence of a table down and out from under an object sitting on it. it will fall downwards on the Thread it was attached to along a path it was prevented from travelling on by virtue of the solidity of the table top. 4. As points along a line are continuous so too the attachments continually shift, but as any point on a line is only ever at one point, an object is attached only to one Thread at any one time. 5. what you say is consistent with the theory. If we create a vacuum in a jar falling things will follow single Threads in there. Newton and Galileo... They all used the math without being struck by the insight that the math was literally describing something real. A. What’s wrong with the theory?
17. ## Gravity Threads are Real

I’m not here to advocate from a position of ad hominem or act in defence against a position of ad hominem. I am here to discuss ideas. What I believe is irrelevant to such a discussion. If that is a discussion you are interested in having, let’s begin! If not, no worries.
18. Yesterday
19. ## Late Term Abortion

Is there an AI with conceptual consciousness? I'm not aware of one.
20. ## Gravity Threads are Real

I'll begin with some specific items: 1. I am puzzled by the use of "infinite" to describe the threads. Do you mean they are "without a limit" or "impossible to count"? If they have a limit, perhaps using "innumerable" in the beginning would help. I notice you used that adjective in the end. 2. Why do gravity threads emerge from points in space? What causes them to emerge and how? You say Earth creates them, but how? 3. How does an object attach to a gravity thread? What does "attach" mean here? 4. When an object shifts from one thread to another, what is its thread status while in transition? Is it attached to a thread even while shifting from one to the other? 5. You say that "absent other influence" an object is attached to its "perfect gravity thread." But isn't an object always influenced by Earth's atmosphere, unless you place it in a vacuum? So, under normal circumstances, would the object ever be attached to its perfect gravity thread? More generally, when I think of gravity, I think of Isaac Newton. What do you think he got wrong, if anything?
21. ## Gravity Threads are Real

Again: Are YOU the author of this "theory”? This IS important for me to know, because if it is yours, then: - you obviously agree with it - and you know everything about it and should be able to answer any questions. If it is NOT yours and you are simply interested in collecting opinions about it, please specify the link where it is systematically developed - its object, motivation for a yet another theory (in addition to Newton’s), its assumptions, concepts, results, applications, etc.
22. ## My Free Will Theory

Absolutely, any suggestion or criticism is appreciated. Even if someone thinks the theory is ridiculous, I'd like to know why. I have plans for additional essays, but will prioritize responding to reader's points or objections. Thanks.
23. ## Gravity Threads are Real

Excellent! Please demonstrate why this is a "joke", why it is "disastrous", i.e. please demonstrate what is "wrong" with the theory?
24. ## Late Term Abortion

Has a fetus ~earned~ the 'right' to continue living (after it reaches a predictable stage, primarily increasing and regular brain activity, one could venture) ? Not to be confused with the "right to life" of which individual rights are corollaries, applied to individuals much older who have freedoms of action. But it can (?) be protected by law on the basis of achieving "actual" status as a human being. Not at present, that's clear, but with individual rights.(Open to debate) (As the factual/logical argument goes, there is little change in its essential identity, between, say, 2 weeks before parturition, and 2 minutes after. If its life is ended in either case, the one is called abortion and the other is murder).
25. ## Gravity Threads are Real

This "theory" is a joke, sorry. E.g. “SOMETHING out there needs to be guiding objects as they fall…” Are you the author of this "theory” ? Besides, reminds me strongly of the disastrous Theory of Elementary Waves by Lewis D. Little, enthusiastically embraced, then abandoned, by some Objectivists. It assumed that “something” is guiding particles, namely mysterious but ubiquitous “elementary waves”. So – here we go again…
26. ## Late Term Abortion

For it to acquire rights the AI would have to be a conceptual consciousness, and that I fail to conceive of. An AI can be programmed for its knowledge (and its ethical system), but not the means to knowledge. iow, "fed' the content not the process - the "acts of consciousness". Therefore, it has no free will, cannot conceptualize independent goals, nor make independent evaluations, can have no autonomous values, (and not experience relevant emotions). Simply, it must have the 'capability to make errors', built in. A contradiction of the AI's purpose to men. Do we want to allocate rights to such a being? Somebody who knows more about AI, please expand.
27. ## My Free Will Theory

Do you want any help honing your theory i.e. strengthening it in response to possible criticism?
28. ## My Free Will Theory

In response to comments, I've posted a critique of David Hume. I talk about his method and theory on free will, compared to my own. I also provide the introspective evidence for my theory, as well as how it works with the law of causality. https://freewilltheory.blogspot.com/?m=1
×
×
• Create New...