The Details of Thread Theory

[altonhare]

What about on the interstellar scale ? If all atom are connected to every other atom, wouldn't we be able to detect something? Some sort of effect that would happen to stars
or planets?

Yes, we would detect such an affect. The connection would prohibit objects from escaping each other easily and cause a general resistance to motion of an object as every atom in the U tugs on it through the aforementioned connection. This is the reason for inertia.

[Sovereign]

Yes, we would detect such an affect. The connection would prohibit objects from escaping each other easily and cause a general resistance to motion of an object as every atom in the U tugs on it through the aforementioned connection. This is the reason for inertia.

I thought resistance to motion was called mass in TT?

[jjohnson]

Op Ed time for me.
Thread Theorist: This is how we think things work.
Realist: This is crap.

And on another subject, who does any proofreading? I know we are all in the family of English speakers here, more or less, but come on, some of us are clearly third or fourth cousins. It is a good thing we aren't writing books, and only to each other. Surely we didn't all pay attention only in science class, thinking English was for the dweebs. Try to be good at everything.

[bdw000]

If you do not have any evidence for these threads, then we can just dump your theory into the waste basket.

I am no expert, but I have read Gaede's book (the physics part). What follows is my opinion.

tango: there is no specific "evidence" to "prove" thread theory. Maybe there never will be any (I admit, not very satisfactory). However, my opinion is that there is a bit of a misunderstanding here.

Gaede is simply trying to come up with a model that explains some of the "experimental evidence" with OUT resorting to paradox (aka "word games).

In essence, the "evidence" for Gaede's thread theory is all of physical reality: the results of experiments done by physicists. What Gaede does in his book is put all the experimental data into a big pot, stir, and then try to put it all together without resorting to magic, the way "modern physics" does. His theory is designed, from the start, to explain all of the data without raping the language.

Keep in mind that there is no "evidence" for all the famous statements of quantum physics: all those paradoxical statements are the INTERPRETATIONS of the experimental data. There simply is no "evidence" for ANY interpretation. An interpretation is what any person can choose to think about any data. Gaede simply provides HIS interpretation, which he calls thread theory. Both sides have the same "evidence."

I'm not saying that this "proves" Gaede's thread theory, just pointing out that much of modern physics (all those hocus-pocus "interpretations") also lacks "proof" also.

I will say this about Gaede: his book is mandatory if you want to understand his view: his website and videos just do not get the point across (in my opinion). Alton does a good job here, but, alas, it also is not good enough: you need the book. I think you can now download the book (Why God Doesn't Exist) from http://www.youstupidrelativist.com for $17. His critiques of modern physics ALONE are worth the price of the book. Whether or not you like thread theory, I would recommend the book for that.

I have read many "anti-modern physics" books (mostly against relativity) over the years, and Gaede's book is by far my favorite. It is difficult to know what other people will like, but I personally can't see how anyone opposed to the religion of modern physics would not enjoy Gaede's book.

[tangointhenight]

Geade has a fair chance like everyone else to get a degree in science and propose his theory.
We live in a society in which if a person wants to succeed he needs a degree of education. A restaurant will not hire non chefs, the same way the academy will not listen to non-scientists. Why should they?
Geade has no new in site, half the stuff he says is out of ignorance or hate.

[altonhare]

Geade has a fair chance like everyone else to get a degree in science and propose his theory.
We live in a society in which if a person wants to succeed he needs a degree of education. A restaurant will not hire non chefs, the same way the academy will not listen to non-scientists. Why should they?
Geade has no new in site, half the stuff he says is out of ignorance or hate.

A restaurant will hire anyone who can do the job, i.e. cook the food.

A scientist is anyone who does the job, i.e. explain a phenomenon of nature rationally. In particular, the slit experiment.

[tangointhenight]

Geade has a fair chance like everyone else to get a degree in science and propose his theory.
We live in a society in which if a person wants to succeed he needs a degree of education. A restaurant will not hire non chefs, the same way the academy will not listen to non-scientists. Why should they?
Geade has no new in site, half the stuff he says is out of ignorance or hate.

A restaurant will hire anyone who can do the job, i.e. cook the food.

A scientist is anyone who does the job, i.e. explain a phenomenon of nature rationally. In particular, the slit experiment.

Rationally? Why should nature care about your rationality? Aristotle was rational and logical and he concluded that men have more teeth than woman. Science is about explanation but these explanation have to be tested for.

[StevenO]

A scientist is anyone who does the job, i.e. explain a phenomenon of nature rationally. In particular, the slit experiment.

Rationally? Why should nature care about your rationality? Aristotle was rational and logical and he concluded that men have more teeth than woman. Science is about explanation but these explanation have to be tested for.

Karl Popper, one of most famous science philosophers of last century, wrote about this:

"When I speak of reason or rationalism, all I mean is the conviction that we can learn through criticism of our mistakes and errors, especially through criticism by others, and eventually also through self-criticism. A rationalist is simply someone for whom it is more important to learn than to be proved right; someone who is willing to learn from others — not by simply taking over another's opinions, but by gladly allowing others to criticize his ideas and by gladly criticizing the ideas of others. The emphasis here is on the idea of criticism or, to be more precise, critical discussion. The genuine rationalist does not think that he or anyone else is in possession of the truth; nor does he think that mere criticism as such helps us achieve new ideas. But he does think that, in the sphere of ideas, only critical discussion can help us sort the wheat from the chaff. He is well aware that acceptance or rejection of an idea is never a purely rational matter; but he thinks that only critical discussion can give us the maturity to see an idea from more and more sides and to make a correct judgement of it."

[altonhare]

Geade has a fair chance like everyone else to get a degree in science and propose his theory.
We live in a society in which if a person wants to succeed he needs a degree of education. A restaurant will not hire non chefs, the same way the academy will not listen to non-scientists. Why should they?
Geade has no new in site, half the stuff he says is out of ignorance or hate.

A restaurant will hire anyone who can do the job, i.e. cook the food.

A scientist is anyone who does the job, i.e. explain a phenomenon of nature rationally. In particular, the slit experiment.

Rationally? Why should nature care about your rationality? Aristotle was rational and logical and he concluded that men have more teeth than woman. Science is about explanation but these explanation have to be tested for.

As far as science is concerned, Nature is rational. If you don't think so, you're not in science, and you can pack up and go home. If you're right and "Nature is irrational" then no human has any hope of understanding anything in Nature.

[Plasmatic]

Steven, could you stop polluting every thread with Poppers skeptic/nihilistic garbage!

"The genuine rationalist does not think that he or anyone else is in possession of the truth; nor does he think that mere criticism as such helps us achieve new ideas. But he does think that, in the sphere of ideas, only critical discussion can help us sort the wheat from the chaff. He is well aware that acceptance or rejection of an idea is never a purely rational matter; but he thinks that only critical discussion can give us the maturity to see an idea from more and more sides and to make a correct judgement of it."

Is a claim to truth in itself and is self refuting. The "rationalist" above self professes his epistemic method is not "purely rational",and nevermind the word "correct" is a synonym of" truth". Do youself a favor and read Stoves, Popper And After. (instead of the wiki on Popper)

[StevenO]

Steven, could you stop polluting every thread with Poppers skeptic/nihilistic garbage!

"The genuine rationalist does not think that he or anyone else is in possession of the truth; nor does he think that mere criticism as such helps us achieve new ideas. But he does think that, in the sphere of ideas, only critical discussion can help us sort the wheat from the chaff. He is well aware that acceptance or rejection of an idea is never a purely rational matter; but he thinks that only critical discussion can give us the maturity to see an idea from more and more sides and to make a correct judgement of it."

Is a claim to truth in itself and is self refuting. The "rationalist" above self professes his epistemic method is not "purely rational",and nevermind the word "correct" is a synonym of" truth". Do youself a favor and read Stoves, Popper And After. (instead of the wiki on Popper)

I know the opinion of a real philosopher is a threat for the Objectivist's metaphysical faith, but let's keep the forums an open place for everybody, will'ya? Try to see the fun of a difference of viewpoint, otherwise cheer up by reading how our advanced space age specifications are tuned to a Roman's horse's behind: The Space Shuttle and the Horse's Rear End

[altonhare]

The genuine rationalist does not think that he or anyone else is in possession of the truth

Then the "genuine rationalist" must question whether s/he is correct in the assessment that nobody is in possession of the truth.

[StevenO]

The genuine rationalist does not think that he or anyone else is in possession of the truth

Then the "genuine rationalist" must question whether s/he is correct in the assessment that nobody is in possession of the truth.

Thruths can only be falsified. Anyone claiming to be in possession of the thruth or stopping testing retires from the game.

[Plasmatic]

Thruths can only be falsified. Anyone claiming to be in possession of the thruth or stopping testing retires from the game.

Petitio Principii

[altonhare]

Geade has a fair chance like everyone else to get a degree in science and propose his theory.
We live in a society in which if a person wants to succeed he needs a degree of education. A restaurant will not hire non chefs, the same way the academy will not listen to non-scientists. Why should they?
Geade has no new in site, half the stuff he says is out of ignorance or hate.

A restaurant will hire anyone who can do the job, i.e. cook the food.

A scientist is anyone who does the job, i.e. explain a phenomenon of nature rationally. In particular, the slit experiment.

Rationally? Why should nature care about your rationality? Aristotle was rational and logical and he concluded that men have more teeth than woman. Science is about explanation but these explanation have to be tested for.

We have to distinguish between the general judgment "Aristotle was a rational man" and a particular situation where Aristotle was either rational, irrational, or neither.

Aristotle picked up a big rock and a small rock. He decided the big rock will fall faster. This is neither rational nor irrational, it's just a guess. Similarly, Aristotle claimed men have more teeth than women. This is neither rational nor irraional, again it's just a guess. I could just as well guess that there are 50 million grains of sand at Sunset Beach, North Carolina. Guesses are arbitrary, you can guess anything you want, they are neither rational nor irrational and none are part of science, which explains consummated (past tense) events. Aristotle may look into a man's mouth and a woman's, and count more teeth in the man's mouth. His explanation for this may be either rational or irrational. Analogously he may see a rock fall faster than another one, and explain this. His explanation is, again, either rational or irrational.

Science embodies rational explanations, religion embodies the rest. If you don't think Nature behaves rationally, you are free to leave the Science Club, nobody is forcing you to stay. These days, theists pose as scientists and, when their religion is threatened, say that God works in mysterious ways (Nature doesn't have to be rational).