Last minute tweaks
Last minute tweaks
I'm working on the front cover. This is the latest draft which will be published shortly. Any last minute suggestions will be gratefully received. (The quality is much better in PDF, but hopefully, you get the idea.)
Cheers
Will
http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk
Cheers
Will
http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk
Re: Last minute tweaks
Sheesh this really is BAD!
What is the universe made of ..atoms ..and you show the sun .....uhmm ..and you claim to be a peer reviewer?
What is the universe made of ..atoms ..and you show the sun .....uhmm ..and you claim to be a peer reviewer?
Re: Last minute tweaks
Hi uwot,uwot wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:03 pm I'm working on the front cover. This is the latest draft which will be published shortly. Any last minute suggestions will be gratefully received. (The quality is much better in PDF, but hopefully, you get the idea.)
Cheers
Will
http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk
In the panel to the right of the red scull and crossbones with the caption "Danger! Philosophy Hazard," the line "...that the universe is made of some stuff..." is written twice in a row.
Re: Last minute tweaks
Thanks seeds. Someone else pointed that out, so it's clearly a problem. Is it clearer if I italicise it: "The simplest explanation for all the evidence that suggests that the universe is made of some stuff, is that the universe is made of some stuff"? If not, I will need to rewrite that bit.
Re: Last minute tweaks
Yes, that now makes your intent much clearer.uwot wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:04 amThanks seeds. Someone else pointed that out, so it's clearly a problem. Is it clearer if I italicise it: "The simplest explanation for all the evidence that suggests that the universe is made of some stuff, is that the universe is made of some stuff"? If not, I will need to rewrite that bit.
Even though I can now see what you were getting at after you pointing it out, for some strange reason it seemed like an error.
-
- Posts: 4404
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Last minute tweaks
monads in the ether...
or maybe not
-Imp
or maybe not
-Imp
Re: Last minute tweaks
You could be on to something.
Re: Last minute tweaks
Since you give that much attention to how the world works, maybe you should put in a few words how much the world earns an hour for that work.
Nobody works for free.
Nobody works for free.
Re: Last minute tweaks
Arguing that matter is fundamentally "stuff" is more rational then saying it is space?
Re: Last minute tweaks
Space is either empty or it has stuff in it. A section of space, at any rate. Or it contains some stuff, along with some emptiness.
Matter always contains stuff.
You can find space that is empty, you can find space that contains stuff, but matter always contains stuff. Matter is never empty.
Call this rational if you can find the rationale for it.
Re: Last minute tweaks
Depends what you mean by 'space'. If you mean that space=void, as in empty space, then you are presented with two possibilities. Either there are voids in which electromagnetic and gravitational fields have no influence, or you have to accept that such fields work by "spooky action at a distance", to quote Einstein.
Quantum field theories, QED, QCD and Higgs, for example, assume that 'fields' are in some sense 'stuff', and that matter and energy are disturbances in those fields.
Not of EM and gravitational fields, as far as we know.
Re: Last minute tweaks
-1- wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:42 amSpace is either empty or it has stuff in it. A section of space, at any rate. Or it contains some stuff, along with some emptiness.
Matter always contains stuff.
And what is stuff? At the end of the day it can only be space folding upon itself.
You can find space that is empty, you can find space that contains stuff, but matter always contains stuff. Matter is never empty.
Call this rational if you can find the rationale for it.
Re: Last minute tweaks
uwot wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:42 pmDepends what you mean by 'space'. If you mean that space=void, as in empty space,
The terms "empty" and "space" also implies that space acts simultaneously as a boundary as empty implies a deficiency. We can observe this in 1 and -1. 1 exists on its own terms, while is strictly a relative deficiency of 1 and not a thing in itself. It can be observed if and only if their is 1.
What we understand of as "empty" is merely a spatial dimension that is deficient of another spatial dimension, with "empty" merely being an observation of the relations between spatial dimensions.
then you are presented with two possibilities. Either there are voids in which electromagnetic and gravitational fields have no influence, or you have to accept that such fields work by "spooky action at a distance", to quote Einstein.
Space is merely "direction" as what we understand of space, through dimensions, breaks down to the direction of space relative to other spatial directions. We can observe this in the linear foundations, or measurements, we use to observe space. Space is the observation of direction as dimension, with extradimensional linear relations being the foundation of much of what we know. However "extra"dimensionality is what defines space as direction.
In a seperate respect, 0d space, is merely an observe of 1d space as we cannot see 0d space for itself. It still maintains a dual nature, through 1d space as
1) the point (1d line between 0d points)
2) and the field (1d line between 0d points as an extension of the very same 0d points acting as a field. Or a 1d line extending into a 0d point ad-infinitum causes the 0d point to act simultaneously as a field considering only the line exists._
Quantum field theories, QED, QCD and Higgs, for example, assume that 'fields' are in some sense 'stuff', and that matter and energy are disturbances in those fields.
And if there are multiple fields, that relate to eachother, how does their behavior differ than that of particulate?
Not of EM and gravitational fields, as far as we know.
Space is "being", in simple terms.