01.02. Real und Abstract

Thinking Abstract
Humans are proud to be be most ´rational´ animal. Indeed by brain, we mentally digest sense impressions, plan further actions, critically judge results, concider carefully and decide again. Indeed during the day, wide-awake brain is talking monologs steadily, thinking continually (however most in circles). Indeed by this capacity, we got most successful species, at least by submitting world to human´s rules (even with side-effects).

Our special ability is thinking in abstract terms, gathering common characteristics by abstract collective names. That´s helpful for daily routine like for description of physical occurrences like for philosophic conciderations. As examples might do these sentences: foods are cheaper at countryside. Fruits are essential for health. Mass shows property of inertia and weight. Gravity is attracting force between bodies. Man feel sympathy or antipathy mutually. Egoisme is opposite of charity.

Only by using abstract terms we can untie from concrete single case and come to statements in general resp. judgements universally valid. This makes easier daily decisions, allows understanding of general laws, is practically prerequisite for any communication (like examples above exclusively use abstract terms).

So this ability of mental abstraction is extremely advantageous. However there are exceptions, for example: lawyers talking and thinking only within their special terms (out of touch), scientists mentally handling only ´empty words´, aesthete having head in the clouds.

Strange enough, philosophs use abstract terms, however can explained them only by examples of everyday occurrences resp. material facts and relations - or please try to define e.g. egoism or love purely abstract (and when using abstract terms for definition, explain these without concern to simple realities).

Opposite, scientists not at all describe reality only by terms (names) for real occurrences, but work with pure mental expressions - or please define e.g. attracting-force or electric-field (exclusively by terms of absolute sure knowledge of reality - where formulas allow calculations but are no explanations).

All these abstract terms exist as (more or less) common agreements, however only at this mental level (of brain-work). These terms have no own real, material existence. It´s remarkable, just at science nearby exclusively is worked with these abstract (not-real) expressions - up to total abstraction in shape of only mathematically relevant formulas (inclusive ´imaginous´ factors).

Real Existance
In reality, there exists e.g. no food nore fruits, no mass nore gravity, no antipathy nore charity. Real existing e.g. only can (one, concrecte) apple which you eat at this moment, or that apple falling onto your head at this moment, or that apple you throw onto head of ugly man, or that apple you present that nice lady.

Really there are no man, really there might be that man with red pullover over there or that man with red hairs next to. Mentally, we use abstract collective words - however in reality, there can exist only one concrete single case.

It might seem like ´lawyers splitting hairs´ - however just jurisprudence shows disastrous results when terms become independent of any real relationship.

In science however, one needs generalisation in order to come to generally statements (laws). Nevertheless also here it´s dangerous, if terms become established and loosing relation to reality, e.g. when used only formally within mathematical transactions. Above this there is dangerous, if preliminary installed term no longer is questioned in order to get to the bottom of it´s really basic essence.

Theory of Gravity
By example of falling apple above, I will explain this ´danger´ resp. will comment this ´most far reaching abstraction man´s brain ever made´ (so Richard Feynman).

One was enthusiastic, as Johannes Kepler got calculated orbits of planets and Jsaac Newton described laws of gravity in general. Above this one well knows, 9.81 is acceleration of free fall at earth and 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000667 exactely is force of gravity.

This one value are MetersEachSecondsBySquare and three-digit number was ´defined constant´ even measurements at different locations, however also at same location at different times, practically never show same results. This second value are KilogrammBySquareDividedByMetersBySquare, this exacte (42-digit) rate measured already two hundred years ago by torsion-string-scale. Only by this method, mass of earth is to determine.

Mathematically it´s no problem, by these both ´earthly´ values to extrapolize into universe for billions of light-years. However it well is question, if based at these two questional values, results could be close to reality out there.

By Kepler/Newton-Theory was founded, ´attracting-forces´ exists resp. a ´gravity-field´ must exist. In reality however, only occurrence of weight at earth was made calculatable (approximately). Already within sun-system, corresponding ´attractional forces´ affect between each celestial body concerned - and mathematics are not able to calculate forces between only three concerned bodies in motion. In reality (but not often spoken about), even our well known planets don´t bother about calculated tracks. So calculations beyond sun-system are not only purely theoretical but must be called pure fictions.

Above this, Richard Feynman (sorry, I have his book at my table at the moment) reports ´up to now, nobody could tell something about basic mechanism of gravity´. That´s not quite true, however alternative statements (besides Einstein´s ´bended spacetime´) were not concidered. As one doesn´t know real foundation (above pure formalism), one can´t assume abstract general validity of this gravity hypothesis.

Real fact is knowledge about mass-inertia of a body at earth: if in movement, body will go on moving same direction by same speed. If track of that body should be redirected, sideward force is demanded, e.g. if a body hanging at a string is forced to move at circled track around an axis.

It´s real fact, this body must be pulled towards turning axis steadily. However, it´s pure theoretical assumption to transfere matter of fact of this mechanical example analogly to mechanism of celestial bodies. Never ever anybody could make out attracting forces - one only can see occurrence ´as if´ earth is guided at a string, turning around sun.

By rash defined term of gravity-field, science did withdraw from task to find real ´mechanism´ of this effect. Official science didn´t check conciderations analog to movements of bodies within fluids, did not even take notice of presented, precise discussions based on fluid-technology (real essence of gravity is discussed later).

Model of Atom
In spite of that unsolved problem, previous mechanism was transfered onto most small dimensions, as diverse electrons (planets) turn around atomic nucleus (suns with different masses by rather same diameters) in common understanding of atom model.

Negative electrons keep distance based at repulsion of likely charges, at the other hand negative electrons are fixed at spherelike tracks by attraction of positive protons of atomic nucleus - and everybody well knows phenomena (no, dilemma), that all likely protons of atomic nucleus keep together by incredibly forces, instead of flying off immediately.

Also there, one well knows many ´natual constant values´ and is able to calculate mathematically exactely. However again, one introduced ´electromagnetic field´ as abstract term, estimated its purely abstract definition and its (limited) possibility of calculations and ´forgot´ to search for real backgrounds.

Just with concern to electromagnetic waves, meanwhile idea of ´light-ether´ came up. However, experiments were designed wrong and results were interpreted unsufficiently, so lastly ether was superfluous by Einstein´s bended spacetime (and Einstein´s later arguments for existance of ether officially is not noticed up to now).

Outsiders well could have impression of some humour, as physicans keep secrets untouched for following generations to solve.

Connection to Reality
This chapter pointed out, for rational (brain-like) worldview we are bound to use abstract terms. Nevertheless we must differ situations, where we talk about concrete reality and where we mentally handle only abstract terms.

As soon as results of conciderations are no longer approved by directe real facts, it´s not allowed to extrapolize further on or to transfere analogly to other subjects. Matemathics are very helpful, however each step of calculations must fit completely to real experience, otherwise it´s not allowed to calculate further steps.

If there is only ´appearance´ of an effect, it can not be concidered as real fact - and not at all can be concidered as estabished fact when analogly transfered to other cases. At least, if assumed effects (like attrative and repulsive forces above) are contradictory within smallest dimensions (like at atom model above), reality and abstract terms are mixed up totally wrong.

Previous examples demonstrate damages which come up, if abstract terms are installed too early, ´became independent´ and were extrapolized and analogly transfered to other problems, so wrong results are produced inevitably. These hypotheses of gravity and atom are graved into brains thus hard, so other explanations are rejected before thinking about. Steady usage (´naturally´ but un-reflected) of terms like this, prevents researches for basic realities.

Naturally I will show at both examples, which results are possible by other kind of approach and above this, I will show explanations to many other problematic ´phenomena´.

01.03. Real Certainty

Ether-Physics and -Philosophy