Alfred Evert 14.02.2003

01.02. Real und Abstract

Thinking Abstract
Humans are proud to be the most ´rational´ animal. Indeed, our brain is able to mentally digest our sense impressions, to plan further actions, critically judge the results, consider carefully and decide next step. Indeed, during the day our wide-awake brain is talking monologs steadily, thinking continually (however most in circles). Indeed, we became a most successful species by these facilities, at least for submitting the 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 considerations. As an example might do these sentences: food is cheaper at countryside. Fruits are essential for health. Mass shows property of inertia and weight. Gravity is attracting force between bodies. Men feel sympathy or antipathy mutually. Egoism is opposite of charity.

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

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

Strange enough, philosophers use abstract terms, however can explain it 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 formula allow calculations however don´t explain anything).

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 the scientists nearby exclusively are working with these abstract (not-real) expressions - up to total abstraction in shape of only mathematically relevant formula (inclusive ´imaginary´ factors).

Real Existence
In reality, there exists e.g. no food nor fruits, no mass nor gravity, no antipathy nor charity. Real existing e.g. can be only (one, concrete) apple which you eat at this moment, or that apple falling onto your head at this moment, or that apple you throw onto the head of the ugly man, or that apple you present that nice lady.

Really, there are no men, 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, exists 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.

The sciences however need generalisation in order to come to general valid statements (laws). Nevertheless also here it´s dangerous, if terms become established and are loosing the relation to reality, e.g. when used only formally within mathematical transactions. Above this, it´s dangerous if preliminary installed terms no longer are questioned in order to get to the bottom of it´s really basic essence.

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

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

Upside three digit number are MeterEachSecondBySquare and is the ´defined constant´ value - even measurements at different locations and also at same location at different times, practically show different results all times. This upside second 42-digit value are KilogrammBySquareDividedByMeterBySquare and this exact rate was measured already two hundred years ago by torsion-string-scale. Only by this method, the mass of earth is determined.

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

By Kepler/Newton-Theory was founded, ´attracting-forces´ exists resp. a ´gravity-field´ must exist. In reality however, only the occurrence of weight at earth was made calculable (approximately). Already within sun-system, corresponding ´attracting forces´ are affecting 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 fiction.

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 considered. As one doesn´t know real foundation (above pure formalism), one can´t assume an abstract general validity of this gravity hypothesis.

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

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

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

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

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

Also there, one well knows many ´natural constant values´ and is able to calculate mathematically exactly. However again, one introduced the ´electromagnetic field´ as an abstract term, estimated its purely abstract definition and its (limited) possibility of calculations - however one ´forgot´ to search for real the background.

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

Outsiders well could have the impression of some strange humour: the physicians keep the secrets untouched, so the following generations have a chance to solve the problems.

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 considerations are no longer approved by direct real facts, it´s not allowed to extrapolize further on or to transfer analogue to other subjects. Mathematics are 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 the ´appearance´ of an effect, it can not be considered as real fact - and not at all can be considered as established fact if analogue transferred to other cases. At least, if assumed effects (e.g. the attractive 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 the damage which comes up, if abstract terms are installed too early, ´became independent´ and were extrapolized and analogue transferred to other problems, so wrong results are produced inevitably. These hypotheses of the gravity and the atom are graved deep into the brains, so other explanations are rejected before thinking about. Steady usage (´naturally´ but un-reflected) of terms like these, prevents researches for basic realities.

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

01.03. Real Certainty Aether-Physics and -Philosophy