How do you define "physical?"

[Bunyip]

That's because in my previous post I was responding to your 180 degree turn in which all of the sudden what was simple was suddenly not, and then it was specifically that the categorization wasn't simple but the terms were (which I pointed out is impossible). I'm trying to follow the tangled web you weave.

There was no such 180 degree 'turn' mate - you just misread.

So gravitons ARE physical? So all of chemistry, nuclear physics, and most of the natural sciences are all wrong, because they treat as physical something that doesn't exist but is fundamental to every theory, model, and development within these fields?

No, that is your invention - not what I claimed.

By what definition? More importantly, how is something like anger "abstract" but "sky" or "electricity" not? Is metabolism physical? How about the climate? Or heat? If energy is physical, is work (I mean in the physics sense of the term)?

Ask one of the English teachers at your school.

We were discussing what is and isn't physical. You were claiming that physical things were real things, and concepts were nonphysical, and were supporting this claim by restating it over and over again. I was trying to point out that physicists don't treat the physical the way you do in order to show you one of the many ways such a simple dichotomy might help you understand the world but would be a huge problem if scientists had to be constrained by such a simplistic model.


Feel free. I've said my peace, you've admitted that most of the natural sciences are wrong (and by extension anything that relies on theories within these), and failed to give any reason not to define concepts in terms of their neural representation or define as physical those things which are physical processes, just to name a few issues.


No you are just using both words poorly and arbitrarily. Neuroscientists study the physical nature of concepts, various specialists study the physical nature of anger, anxiety, depression, and almost none of the physical sciences include a thing called a "graviton".

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

There was no such 180 degree 'turn' mate - you just misread.

If you say so.

No, that is your invention - not what I claimed. Ask one of the English teachers at your school.

English teachers don't study language as I do (or if they do it is applied linguistics, which is how to teach language not its nature). More importantly, the issue is not a matter of language:

gravitons are components of the physical universe.

You've just claimed that something is physical that isn't just lacking in almost every single theory and model in the natural sciences but is replaced by something else. If gravitons are physical components of the physical universe, then the phenomenon that replaces it in everything from organic chemistry to general relativity can't be real, and thus every field in the natural sciences except particle physics posits the existence of a non-physical but fundamental component of the "physical universe" that can't exist if gravitons do.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Bunyip]

If you say so.


English teachers don't study language as I do (or if they do it is applied linguistics, which is how to teach language not its nature). More importantly, the issue is not a matter of language:

You've just claimed that something is physical that isn't just lacking in almost every single theory and model in the natural sciences but is replaced by something else.

This is just silly mate - I made no such claim, you know it - I know it, what on earth is the point of this sort of tomfoolery?

If gravitons are physical components of the physical universe, then the phenomenon that replaces it in everything from organic chemistry to general relativity can't be real, and thus every field in the natural sciences except particle physics posits the existence of a non-physical but fundamental component of the "physical universe" that can't exist if gravitons do.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]Legion, you are not even debating or conversing - all you are posting is posturing, nit-picking and obfuscating. You leave me nothing of weight to engage with.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

This is just silly mate - I made no such claim, you know it - I know it

I know that you made a claim that entails it. I also know that either you have so little understanding of any of the natural sciences that you are unable to realize every single field within them holds gravitons don't exist but rather something in its place, or you truly believe that virtually every field in the physical sciences is flawed at a fundamental level. Of course, you could indicate they this isn't so easily enough by noting how e.g., organic chemistry or general relativity refer to gravitons (rather than something that is entirely different). You might also want to be able to describe (accurately) what a field is and why it is or isn't physical and if it is why most of the natural sciences deal with physical systems but not fields.

 

[Bunyip]

I know that you made a claim that entails it.

Only if you draw an incredibly, all but immeasurably long bow.

I also know that either you have so little understanding of any of the natural sciences that you are unable to realize every single field within them holds gravitons don't exist but rather something in its place, or you truly believe that virtually every field in the physical sciences is flawed at a fundamental level. Of course, you could indicate they this isn't so easily enough by noting how e.g., organic chemistry or general relativity refer to gravitons (rather than something that is entirely different). You might also want to be able to describe (accurately) what a field is and why it is or isn't physical and if it is why most of the natural sciences deal with physical systems but not fields.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Only if you draw an incredibly, all but immeasurably long bow.

I invited (and invite) you to show that I am wrong by indicating how virtually the entirety of the natural sciences doesn't fall by assuming that gravitons are real. You have repeatedly dodged this.

 

[Bunyip]

I invited (and invite) you to show that I am wrong by indicating how virtually the entirety of the natural sciences doesn't fall by assuming that gravitons are real. You have repeatedly dodged this.

Actually no mate, I have not dodged that question at all -- I have not really engaged on the subject of gravitons, I don't have a position on them. Unfortunately much of our conversation appears to be taking place in your imagination.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Actually no mate, I have not dodged that question at all -- I have not really engaged on the subject of gravitons,

gravitons are components of the physical universe.

I don't have a position on them. Unfortunately much of our conversation appears to be taking place in your imagination.

gravitons are components of the physical universe.

Actually no mate, I have not dodged that question at all -- I have not really engaged on the subject of gravitons,

You've failed to explain why "components of the physical universe" don't exist according to virtually every field in the physical sciences.

 

[Bunyip]

You've failed to explain why "components of the physical universe" don't exist according to virtually every field in the physical sciences.

Why would I 'explain' that? It is the opposite of my position?

Are you ok at the moment Legion?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Why would I 'explain' that?

My bad. I keep forgetting you don't know physics. Let me explain: you stated (and very, very, very clearly) that gravitons were physical. Not only are they lacking from virtually every field in the natural sciences, but if they were included these fields would collapse. Utterly.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Also on this note (sort of) I wanted to make a statement about a common misudnerstanding about many of these key particles such as graviton, bosons, ect. They seem to be an even field that can become more or less intense. It is only under certain circumstances that we can even force these particles to "exist" as a particle. The higgs for example is only ever important as the higgs field rather than a particle but we cannot observe a "field" like we can a particle.

So a graviton for example is part of the gravity field. And only in certain circumstances can we force them to exist as a particle. This is part of the reason why we cannot state an exact path for electrons. Mainly because there probably isn't one. It is an electron "field".

 

[Bunyip]

My bad. I keep forgetting you don't know physics. Let me explain: you stated (and very, very, very clearly) that gravitons were physical. Not only are they lacking from virtually every field in the natural sciences, but if they were included these fields would collapse. Utterly.

Legion,gravity is a physical force, anger is a mental concept. What it is that you simply can not grasp about such a simple idea I have no idea.

If you want to ask me a question or clarify a point I made - just ask me. Your tactics of pedantic prosecution based on trying to catch me out in some way or another are pointless and unnecessary. Just ask a straight question rather this silliness of trolling through my comments trying to cantilever everything I have said into some form of contradiction to fling at me.

Rather than translating my posts into some unrelated point and then insisting that I defend it, and then getting endlessly bogged down as I attempt to simply point out that you are misreading or misrepresenting me - try just asking straight questions.

 

[Willamena]

"Everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance." - Thomas De Quincey

This.

 

[Willamena]

Legion,gravity is a physical force, anger is a mental concept. What it is that you simply can not grasp about such a simple idea I have no idea.

If you want to ask me a question or clarify a point I made - just ask me. Your tactics of pedantic prosecution based on trying to catch me out in some way or another are pointless and unnecessary. Just ask a straight question rather this silliness of trolling through my comments trying to cantilever everything I have said into some form of contradiction to fling at me.

Rather than translating my posts into some unrelated point and then insisting that I defend it, and then getting endlessly bogged down as I attempt to simply point out that you are misreading or misrepresenting me - try just asking straight questions.

Gravitons are not gravity. Even I know that.

 

[Bunyip]

Gravitons are not gravity. Even I know that.

A graviton is a hypothetical particle that mediates the force of gravity - particles (a boson in this case) are a part of the physical universe. I am simply distinguishing between mental abstracts and the phenomena of physics.

 

[nazz]

This.

So a weightless astronaut is not physical?

 

[Willamena]

A graviton is a hypothetical particle that mediates the force of gravity - particles (a boson in this case) are a part of the physical universe. I am simply distinguishing between mental abstracts and the phenomena of physics.

Or the hypothetics of physics groupies.

 

[Willamena]

So a weightless astronaut is not physical?

In what way is a weightless astronaut not measurable?

 

[Bunyip]

Or the hypothetics of physics groupies.

Sure, I have acknowledged that hypothesis are conceptual - the language is indeed problematic - nevertheless bosons are particles, they are in that sense material.

If we are talking about a hypothesis (whether gravitons exist), that is a concept.
If we are talking about bosons, they are particles of the physical universe.

 

[Willamena]

Sure, I have acknowledged that hypothesis are conceptual - the language is indeed problematic - nevertheless bosons are particles, they are in that sense material.

If we are talking about a hypothesis (whether gravitons exist), that is a concept.
If we are talking about bosons, they are particles of the physical universe.

Bosons aren't gravitons. (?)