Bluenose

where sigma = the total of all STEM
S= 3d of space
T= 1d of time
E= Energy
M= Matter or Mass

Only 4 Forces which explain all events:
g= gravity in general relitivity
e= electromagnetic radiation
w= weak subatomic force
s= strong subatomic force

That's all folks. period

If you look in the front door of my pad you will see history books covering the entire wall on the right side, a bookself island crowned with a 1950s encyclopedia on the left, in front my new 21speed, a shelf full of magazines and oversize books above which is a large framed photo of M31 with the added bright yellow letters: STEM, GEWS and E=MC2.

Implict in that one equation (for me) and those 8 definitions is radical empiricism, radical egalitarianism, radical atheism (or as we call it on the home page, metaphysical naturalism).

Until a fifth force is proven, there are only those four and no more "supernatural" barf, period.

This view should compute for terrans of any and all backrounds, as well as people from any planet or galaxy until we or they find a 5th force or prove extra dimensions.

I post this as a new topic because
a) today is my first anniversary as a registered II,
b) our friend Telemachus is in port for a few days and I want to get him to say hi before he sails again,
c) this is as simple as I can distill the biggest picture of all which is pure philosophy.

Edit to try to clarify.

[ July 14, 2002: Message edited by: Bluenose ]</p>

emphryio

Thanks for sharing. What were the four forces again? I can't find four of a kind.

Oh, back in the title.

[ July 14, 2002: Message edited by: emphryio ]</p>

Bluenose

Thanks for asking.
I see most philosophy as an effort to sharpen the big questions. The biggest picture of all will never be totally resolved into any single poetic oversimplified 'myth', even though as Einstein may have said (I'm not sure if this is an accurate quote) Seek Simplicity BUT mistrust it.

John Page

kinetic energy?

Bluenose

I am not sure what your question is ?

Mr. Sammi

Whew.

Why does atomic forces have to be divided into strong and weak. Why is it that an atomic force cannot be 1 force which manifests some times as strong and other times as weak. Which implies the fifth force according to your classification as neutral atomic force.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Skepticwithachainsaw

Sammi:
I'm not entirely sure but:
The Strong and Weak nuclear forces depend on different properties possessed by particles and
the Weak nuclear also only acts at much closer distances than the Strong Nuclear force.

The reason they are both called Nuclear, is I presume because their effects can only really be "seen" at the subatomic scale (while electromagnatism and gravity are obviously observed on everyday scales).

Also the Weak and Electromagnetic forces have been "unified" with the Electroweak theory in 1973, however the Strong force remains separate from both, as does gravity.

The Properties the Forces depend apon are:
Mass (Gravity)
Charge (Electromagnetic)
"Colour" (Strong nuclear... I think)
I'm not sure... sorry but seems only to effect Quarks and Leptons... I think...(Weak nuclear)

Could someone with more knowledge in particle physics validate/invalidate/correct this.

Umm, isn't this science more than Philosophy?
I mean we depend on empyrical evidence to discover this...

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: Skepticwithachainsaw ]</p>

Aquila ka Hecate

Something I feel I can chip in with:

Strong Nuclear force is actually the shorter-range force of the two nuclear forces.
It propogates through gluons on the proton and nuetron constituents of the atonic nucleus and is effective only over order-of magnitude 10^-15 m or so.

Weak Nuclear has a longer range, being responsible, through bosons, for nuclear decay among other things.

Indeed, there is a question as to wether these should be seen as four seperate forces at all, and as Skepticwithachainsaw has noted, the electromagnetic and weak nuclear are properly two manifestations of one force, called the electroweak.

Mr. Sammi

Hmmm,

Nuclear force Nf, affects X and Y. What about X and Y because of their makeup are affected in different ways by Nf. The manner in which various particles are affected by a single force.

The theory fits...

BUT, is it a correct interpretation.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Bluenose

This thread is my attempt to define the most simple "fundamental" expresion of my philosophy.

I am not trying to redo our other threads from the science topics or the philosophy of science.

I began reading Hoyle and Gamow about 50 years ago when the leading cosmological theory was called 'steady state'and Hoyle coined 'big bang' as a joke. Now the joke is that big bang has been the leading theory for almost 40 years and I am still reading, with questions.

I am trying to avoid the endless word games and nit picking debates of academic philosophical practice. Granted that will focus our ability to reason and sharpen our questions.

"sigma: STEM. gews" is my shorthand for my assertion that the sum total of reality is within the realm of science. The old 'materialists' have been ground down, as have various 'realists' et cet. I do not believe in science or any other formal belief system of religion, anti-religion, or any particular philosophy.

I regard philosophical questioning as the basic precondition of doing science as a quest for truth. IOW 'nature' is the only reality. It's all quarks, leptons, photons, gluons, bosons OR what ever the best science will call them 100 years from now.

If I called myself any simgle label, I would have to change the label sometime in the future as I have had to change labels over the past 50 years.

For now I freely admit to greater certainity in my thinking than only 15 months ago when I got a pc and began to read all the good things on the II.