5. With generalities out of the way, I guess we can spend a minute on arfa's content, limited as it is
When I point out that Feynman also says "nobody knows what energy is", which contradicts "I know what energy is, it's a number", James gets all shitty.
I've already walked arfa through what Feynman was talking about when he said that. It ought to be obvious that the person who has gotten all shitty here is arfa brane, not me. arfa
really doesn't like being corrected, it turns out.
So distance must be a concept, because you can't put distance in a bottle. That is ridiculous and a completely useless argument to make. To go to the trouble of making . . . even.
This is an example of an attempted argument by ridicule. Notice how arfa doesn't even attempt to explain what is
wrong with the argument that distance must be a concept because you can't bottle it? In fact, as interested readers will have noted in previous threads, arfa has been determinedly dancing away from facing this issue for weeks now, if not months. Having no arguments of his own to make, he can only impotently
assert that my arguments are wrong. It's all a bit pathetic, really.
It's ridiculous because there is no rule in physics saying "you must be able to put physical objects in bottles".
arfa has also refused to define exactly what he means when he refers to "physical objects", despite repeated invitations from me.
My "bottle" rule is just a simple rule of thumb for distinguishing between concepts - thoughts in a person's head, essentially - from things like matter - bricks and cars and M&Ms - those kinds of things. In principle, given a large enough bottle, all of those kinds of "matter" things can be put in ordinary glass or plastic bottles, for instance. But your love for your grandmother can't be put in a bottle like that in the same way.
This is kindergarten stuff. I introduced the "bottle" example after it became clear to me that arfa could not - or would not - comprehend or deal with more complicated descriptions. The teacher adjusts the presentation to try to assist the student's learning. Once the student has the basics, then the teacher can move on to discussing more complicated examples - perhaps even ones that break the previous, simple, "rule of thumb". This is good teaching practice.
I don't know what arfa's issue is. Maybe he has actually lost the capacity to learn new things. Old age, perhaps? That seems less likely than the possibility that he simply doesn't
want to consider new ideas, especially ones told to him by somebody he has decided he doesn't like. Or maybe arfa
does understand but is unable to bring himself to admit that the hated moderator might be right about something. Something like that seems most likely to me, but the other possibilities are live options.
James' "bottle argument" falls over at the first hurdle. It's useless, it's facile. It's probably demented.
Notice that arfa has not explained what this "first hurdle" is, exactly, or how my simple analogy fails to clear that hurdle.
James R is not, and never has been, a physics moderator. He doesn't really understand physics, apparently. Or maybe it's all an act.
It could be that this is just an attempted insult from arfa, which is consistent with the lack of character he habitually displays on this forum. Alternatively, maybe arfa really believes that James R doesn't really understand physics, in which case arfa is just sadly wrong. Either way, in the absence of any attempt to justify his claim, this is just empty, rude, rhetoric on arfa's part. Not to mention demonstrably, factually wrong. arfa should come to appreciate that he is woefully unqualified to judge James R's understanding of physics.
The "examples" say a lot about James way of thinking, which appears to be quite rigid. He can't get past bottles for some reason.
No doubt it is abundantly (and boringly) clear to readers that it is
arfa who can't (or won't) get past the bottles.
Lots of things can't be "put in" a bottle. What kind of bottle, anyway? Have you heard of a bottle that's made out of magnetic fields?
arfa needs to learn to walk before he tries to run. If we can ever get him to acknowledge simple concepts like putting a stone in a glass bottle, then maybe we can hope to progress him, at some future date, towards developing a capacity to discuss things such as magnetic bottles in a way that might actually be productive. As things stand, however, sadly he is stuck.
How do you tell the difference, though? James R tells us the distance between two objects can't go in a bottle. Distance must be a concept, different from "the actual thing". What do you think he means?
I have explained what I mean at some length. I'm confident that many readers other than arfa understood (and agreed with) the explanation. The problem seems to be at arfa's end. It
might have been interesting to hear what
arfa thinks James R means when he (I) says that "distance can't be bottled". Alas, we'll probably never know. I'm not convinced arfa actually
has coherent thoughts on the matter, at this point.
Mass is a concept--a number--in James R's theory. That's what it is, a theory.
The obvious question that arises, then, is whether the theory is right or wrong. Alas, we have nothing but empty claims on that question from arfa.
James has said a field, like the gravitational field of the earth, is a concept. I just can't see how that can possibly be true, or reflect reality.
Argument from incredulity.
James says things like that, a lot. Things that just don't seem to say anything. That's why I say he shouldn't be moderating physics, his ideas are just too off the wall.
Once again, arfa expresses his opinion. As if we weren't already well aware. If only he could give some
reasons...
That he is moderating at this site and sees no need to examine his particular philosophy at other sites (where he might find disagreement, like anyone else usually does) says enough about the house of straw he's built.
Interesting. Has arfa been hunting for me elsewhere on the interwebs? Stalker, much? How does arfa know that I'm not actively engaged in conversations on "other sites"? Is arfa All Knowing?
He's just wrong whenever he says he knows what mass, or charge, or anything else physical is.
*sigh* Yes, yes, we know arfa can make unsupported
assertions until he is blue in the face. What we
need is for him to attempt to support them with arguments and/or evidence. (Why is it always this way with cranks and obsessives?)
6. I think I just threw up a bit in my mouth
Having written section 5, above, it seems like I probably could have been doing something more useful, like watching TV or something. Giving arfa the attention he craves seems to me to be an exercise with diminishing returns. Maybe I'll stop - or at least try to cut back on the time I spend on this attention seeker. On the other hand, you know what they say about the road to hell. Oh well.