Skip to main content

Physics - What is SHAPE and Why Does it Define an Object?

  • Author:
  • Updated date:
Does space have shape? If so, what is outside its boundary? Do we expect to find Lawrence Krauss' and Richard Dawkins' Deistic God perhaps? What is the answer? Do you even know?

Does space have shape? If so, what is outside its boundary? Do we expect to find Lawrence Krauss' and Richard Dawkins' Deistic God perhaps? What is the answer? Do you even know?

Did you learn what SHAPE is in Junior Kindergarten? Why not? Were you chewing gum and texting in the back of the class? Were you playing hooky or perhaps smoking joints behind the school? If so, then this article is for you...boy is it ever!

Did you learn what SHAPE is in Junior Kindergarten? Why not? Were you chewing gum and texting in the back of the class? Were you playing hooky or perhaps smoking joints behind the school? If so, then this article is for you...boy is it ever!


Physics is the study of objects (entities); specifically, objects that exist. In Physics, we must have an object for else there would be nothing to study, nothing to perform activities or motion. Only an object can serve as a valid noun in a sentence of Physics with the capability to perform actions.

So it goes without saying that in Physics we need to distinguish between objects and concepts. Only objects can facilitate motion and act as mediators for phenomena. As such, they necessarily comprise the Hypothesis stage of the Scientific Method. The Theory stage uses our hypothesized objects as participating actors that mediate phenomena (i.e. light, gravity, magnetism, electricity).

In Physics we don’t formulate hypotheses with alleged entities that don’t qualify as objects. For example, “love” is not an object. Love is the action that two or more objects mediate with each other. If you’ve ever been in a Love Triangle, like I have, you will understand this all too well.

In similar fashion, we can’t formulate theories with hypothesized entities that qualify as objects, if their existence cannot be justified by a theory. For example, “Superman” is a valid object. We can certainly illustrate it or make a mock-up. But there is no theory that can be formulated using Superman as a mediator to rationally explain any phenomenon. The proposed existence of Superman cannot be rationally justified as even a possibility. This is how the Scientific Method works.

So before we can do any Physics we naturally ask: What is an object?

Since there is an obvious qualitative difference between “love” and “Superman” we need to zero in on what that difference is.

What criterion can be used to determine whether any word in language qualifies as an object or not?


Words which designate objects are qualitatively different than those which designate concepts. So there’s obviously a uniquely defining quality that only objects have in common. But what quality, property or attribute do objects have which concepts don’t? Let’s first investigate some popular options available to us so we can get an idea of what we are dealing with. Which of the following criteria are we going to choose to define the strategic word OBJECT for the purposes of Physics?

1) See

2) Touch

3) Smell

4) Taste

Scroll to Continue

5) Hear

6) Composition/parts

7) Mass

8) Weight

9) Energy

10) Volume

11) Motion

12) Color

13) Temperature

Criteria 1 to 5 (see/touch/smell/taste/hear)

Is an object “that which we can see, touch, smell, taste, hear”?

Is an object going to be defined on the basis of our ability to interact with it? Do we need to run an experiment to prove whether the subject in question is an object or not? Is an object that which is dependent on our subjective and limited sensory system? If we cannot see/touch it, does it not exist? We cannot see the objects that mediate light, gravity and magnetism – does that mean they don’t exist?

Since seeing/touching/etc. necessarily invokes another object (the observer) to do the seeing/touching, then any definition predicated on such criteria is inherently circular (i.e. by requiring the word ‘object’ to be defined on the basis of a test where another object sees/touches it). So even after you unwittingly define an object as “that which can be seen/touched”, the question still remains: what is an object?

Obviously our inability to sense objects has nothing to do with their reality/existence. An object just is….and it is independent of any observer evolving in the Universe to bear witness or run an experiment in a futile attempt to “prove” its definition. Definitions are conceptualized as relations and not amenable to observers, evidence, truth, proof or other subjective activities.

Criterion 6 (composition)

Is an object “that which is composed of something”?

Does having parts qualify as a criterion to define an object? Aren’t those parts (i.e. molecules, atoms, etc.) objects too? I mean, they can’t be concepts! Indeed, the term ‘something’ is a synonym for ‘object’.

This is the irrational definition of ‘object’ provided by Wikipedia:

In physics, a physical body or physical object (sometimes simply called a body or object) is a collection of masses, taken to be one. For example, a football can be considered an object but the ball also consists of many particles (pieces of matter).” - Wiki

Obviously, any definition predicated on composition is inherently circular (i.e. by requiring the word ‘object’ to be defined on the basis of its parts being objects). So the question still remains: what is an object?

Criteria 7 to 13 (mass/weight/energy/volume/motion/color/temperature)

Is an object “that which has mass, weight, energy, volume, motion, color or temperature”?

The definition of ‘object’ precedes the definition of all these criteria because they necessarily require a second object in order to establish these properties. This means that such properties are not intrinsic to the object itself, but are rather extrinsic properties requiring us to establish relations with external objects before we can conceive them. Concepts such as mass, energy, volume, motion, color and temperature establish a dynamic relation between a minimum of two objects. This necessitates for our test object to move in relation to another object before these dynamic concepts can be related and conceived. Objects precede motion. All dynamic concepts necessarily invoke at minimum two objects in different locations. Therefore, any of these proposed criteria for objecthood are inherently circular because they necessitate the invocation of two objects within the definition of ‘object’.

We also need to consider that the term ‘object’ defines a category which is inherently static. Whatever is designated to fall under the category of OBJECT will not be required to move before it can be an object. For example, if the Universe was comprised of a single solitary object, that object would not be amenable to motion. And yet it is an object nonetheless! So it’s not only contradictory, but also IMPOSSIBLE to define a static concept (i.e. the category known as 'object') by invoking dynamic concepts.

Furthermore, quantitative concepts such as mass, weight, volume, and temperature designate quantities we invented by relating them to a pre-defined standard. If we decree any of these notions as a defining criterion for an object, we are saying in no uncertain terms that the definition of object requires another object called a ‘human’ to discern it by defining standards and running an experiment. But the Earth and Moon were already objects before we evolved here and began running experiments on them to calculate their mass, weight, volume, etc. Is the star that you cannot see or measure an object? Is a tree not an object before you cut it? Do you prove definitions by running an experiment? Obviously not! Definitions are conceptual and not dependent on empirical verification. So it’s clear that whatever the rational criterion for objecthood is, it is necessarily divorced from any observer dependency!

These criteria fail to define the term ‘object’ because they exhibit circularities, static/dynamic contradictions and observer-dependency. Any definition for ‘object’ predicated on such criteria would summarily be rendered unscientific. So the question still remains: what is an object?


What did we learn from our previous exercise in futility?

Aside from failing to define a real object that exists, the criteria analyzed in the previous section also failed to define any of the objects of Geometry: circles, cubes, triangles, cylinders, etc. Such objects are conceptually abstract and don’t exist, but are nonetheless objects (i.e. we can illustrate, measure, quantify and relate them). How about Napoleon and the 2025 Corvette? Sure, they don’t exist; but aren’t they objects? Can’t we use our Napoleon object in our Hypothesis to Scientifically Theorize why he lost the battle at Waterloo? Of course we can! But none of the aforementioned failed criteria will allow us to do that.

Obviously, we need to develop a broad definition of the category OBJECT which universally applies to all types of objects. Consistency is key here, irrespective if the objects in question are:

a) Abstract objects (i.e. point, line, plane, circle, cube, tribar).

b) Hypothesized objects (i.e. Rutherford’s Planetary version of the atom, gods, aliens, Big Foot).

c) Non-existent objects (i.e. Aristotle, Napoleon, World Trade Center towers, dinosaurs).

d) Real objects (i.e. Moon, Sun, air, this car, your arm, the White House).

All objects are conceptually static. Not a single object occupies two locations. Hence not a single object requires two conceptual movie frames in order to be visualized. All objects can be visualized within a single conceptual frame (i.e. a photograph). Consequently, there is no provision for motion or any dynamics in the definition of object.

You will notice that all the object types above have only one property in common: SHAPE.

Shape is a static concept. It cannot be measured and consequently has no units. You don’t need to see a movie in order to conceptualize shape. It can be conceptualized in a single frame or a static relation. We can now rationally define ‘object’ as follows:

Object: that which has shape.

This definition of ‘object’ doesn’t take into consideration what the shape of an object is. This is irrelevant to the issue before us: Does an alleged object have shape…Yes or No? Either an alleged object has shape or it doesn’t – there is no other option.

Shape is the only intrinsic property that all objects have, whether they are real, abstract, hypothesized, non-existent or invisible to us. But the devil’s advocate will say:

“How do you know? You haven’t seen/experienced all the possible objects in the Universe!”

This is not an issue of evidence, validation, knowledge or proof. This is strictly a conceptual issue we have critically reasoned and rationally justified to be the case. All definitions are necessarily conceptual. If the devil’s advocate doesn’t like it, he could simply produce an object which doesn’t have shape. In the alternative, he is welcome to contradict our reasoning and definitions. Let’s have it or quit whining!

But as it turns out, the devil’s advocate is nothing but a Bimbo after all: the only way to experience objects is if they have a surface; that is, they must have shape. No matter what tricks the fanatic tries to employ to sidetrack the issue of shape, they will always lead him to shape.


Like all words in language, shape is a conceptual relation we objectively define as follows:

Shape: a term that relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding. (Synonym: form)

Take the terms ‘apple, ‘love’ and ‘government’ and plug them into the definition of shape. Only the term ‘apple’ can resolve to what can be bounded in a relation that embodies what we call shape. The terms ‘love’ and ‘government’ are not amenable to such a relation.

Relations can either establish artificial associations between objects or they can identify certain inherent properties, aspects or descriptions about objects. Relations can either be static or dynamic, intrinsic or extrinsic, innate or artificial. Shape is the only intrinsic, static and innate relation that can possibly be conceptualized for any and all objects. A lonely object in the Universe is bounded and separated by space. No observer is required to invent such a relation because it is not artificial, like love and justice are. Humans came along, instantly identified this relation, and when they invented their languages they gave it the name: shape. Without shape, there would be no objects and no relations whatsoever, just absolute nothingness – a Universe of space!

A lonely object in a single-object Universe has a single intrinsic property and no others: shape. Such an object definitely has no mass, weight, energy, volume, motion, color or temperature. Those who disagree will need to explain to the audience how a lonely object can possibly have relations to other objects for the purposes of establishing said attributes. But they can’t because such attributes are extrinsic and thus necessitate another object to establish a comparative relation.

Shape is the only fundamental irreducible criterion which conceivably distinguishes objects from concepts. Dictionaries in all languages can organize their words into only two categories: objects and concepts. There is no other possible category. Those terms which can resolve to have shape will fall under the category of ‘objects’, while all the rest under ‘concepts’. Object and Concept are categories of words that enable us to distinguish Physics from Philosophy & Religion. Only objects are amenable to motion, not concepts like spirits, souls, spacetime, energy, 0D particles, love, justice, etc. Otherwise we would be committing the Fallacy of Reification. It's this YES or NO sense of shape that readily allows us to distinguish objects from concepts without putting much thought into the issue.

The term ‘shape’ is not synonymous with the terms ‘likeness’ or ‘similarity’. Such terms invoke shape from an observer’s perspective; one who will compare an object’s architectural likeness with another object to determine whether it is spherical, squarish, triangular or any other relational pattern. So in this case, the question still remains: what is an object? Simply comparing one object’s architectural pattern to another’s doesn’t define an object. Furthermore, such subjective definitions have nothing to do with Physics. Reality is observer-independent.

Our definition of shape is observer-independent and static. There are no comparisons made to other objects. All our definition sets out to do is to be utilized to answer the simple question:

Is there shape? Can this relation be embodied in the scenario under question? YES or NO?

If yes, then we have an object amidst our proposed scenario. And this is all we need to answer to determine if the subject of our inquiry is an object or not. A planet’s shape is unique in that it is its own property. A planet does not have shape simply because the human conferred it upon the planet. Shape is not a pattern that the observer visualizes, but an intrinsic property of an object irrespective of any observers. Shape is not what we see. We can only see objects, not concepts like shape. Shape is what we conceptualize in a relation! But more importantly, shape is what an object has before light even reaches our eyes from the object.


The Scientific Method demands illustration. In all disciplines of Science, whether we talk about Biology, Evolution, Astronomy, Chemistry, Geology, Botany, etc. you must illustrate the actors of your Hypothesis (i.e. cell, ape, star, molecule, volcano, flower) before invoking them in your Theory to explain a natural phenomenon like, cell division, transitional forms, star death, photosynthesis, pyroclastic flow, plant growth, etc. It goes without saying that a Scientist should be able to make a movie of these events in order to visualize the mechanisms as explained by their Theories.

And Physics is NO exception!

Just as in all branches of Science, in Physics we need to Hypothesize what object can possibly mediate natural phenomena such as light, gravity, magnetism and electricity. Even though these objects are invisible to us petty humans -- just like air, molecules and atoms are -- it doesn’t mean that we can’t use our critical thinking skills to conceptualize how they could possibly look like in their microscopic reality.

To conceptualize is to relate; and you do so by imagining objects and associating them in a relation. The term ‘imagine’ comes from ‘image’ which necessarily invokes shape and visualization. We have the naturally inherent capacity to imagine objects – any object! In Physics, “to imagine” means “to visualize" an object; specifically, an object that will be used as a mediator in, say, our Theory of Light for example. There is not a single invisible entity we cannot form a mental image of by utilizing our innate critical thinking skills.

If you can’t visualize what you are talking about and can’t illustrate it for your audience, then you’re NOT doing Physics. You are at best doing Religion!

In reality, concepts have no ability to serve as physical mediators of phenomena. Love is not what attracts two lovers. Love is the action performed by two lovers to mediate their attraction. In similar fashion, justice does not prevent a prisoner from escaping. It’s the prison and supporting infrastructure that prevents his escape. Those who ascribe motion to concepts are doing poetry if not Religion. Such reifications have no place in Physics.

Concepts are used to define our key terms for the purposes of facilitating understanding and communicating ideas. Concepts are used to describe phenomena, formulate Hypotheses and rationally explain Theories to each other. It is impossible to use concepts as actors that can perform phenomena in reality. This is called REIFICATION or RELIGION! In reality only objects can perform actions.

The bounty of reality is comprised of objects, and only objects with location. There are no spirits, souls, incorporeal entities, supernatural entities, non-physical entities, objectless entities, or any other incoherent magic that a human ape’s sneaky brain can invent. If you utter a word you don’t understand within your dissertation, then you’d better go back to the drawing board and brainstorm a definition before inventing a Religion around your nonsense. Ascribing motion to the concepts of space, time and energy are prime examples of reification. But more importantly, such notions are prime examples of those who haven’t a clue what these words even mean, but won’t hesitate to use them with authority nonetheless.


Reality can only be critically reasoned and rationally explained using objects. Physics is all about explaining natural phenomena using the visualizations of objects as actors that mediate such events. If you can’t make a movie to illustrate how your proposed actors mediate such phenomena, then your proposal has nothing to do with Physics. It has to do with Philosophy or even Religion.


fatfist (author) on February 18, 2015:

You know, a library will lend you a dictionary so you can take your time searching for this extremely elusive word: bounded.

And this suggestion respectfully comes with my humble understanding that your village doesn't have any Internet service yet.

fatfist (author) on February 14, 2015:

Leo, did you get swallowed by the dictionary?

I pray to the Good Lord you found the definition of "bounded".

fatfist (author) on February 06, 2015:

You've never used the word bound in a sentence before? Did you make it past grade 1? Ever heard of a Dictionary?

If not, then perhaps your mother bottle-fed you with a soy formula...

Leo on February 06, 2015:


I guess the first thing i should ask is...what is the definition of bounded?

Vile Maggot on September 23, 2014:

Can we have some new content already, you sponging socialist bastard?

fatfist (author) on April 17, 2014:

Space doesn't exist. Only objects can exist if they have location. The clause "space precedes matter" means that space is NOT dependent on matter. Makes sense since space is nothing. The Universe could have been all space and no matter and we wouldn't even be here to talk about this issue.

But it is impossible for the Universe to be all matter without space since an object's form necessitates space.

Understand now?

You can say the spaceship "crosses" the vacuum in a metaphorical way using ordinary speech. And we know what you are talking about since we understand that space is nothing. But you cannot make such a statement in Scientific speech; that is, alluding to space as "something". Context is the key to understanding what we say.

carmel76 on April 17, 2014:

Hi there,

does space precede matter or is useless/irrational to make a request "precede" since you also stated that matter and space EXIST which is NOW and then understating/rationally is that matter and space does not precede one against the other?

Do you understand space as "something" physically exists or is just a concept in human app mind? For example, when we say that rocket goes from one location to another, from Earth to Moon, does it cross the void/vacuum as a "physical realm" or how do you explain?


fatfist (author) on February 28, 2014:

“Do the fluids(in our example gases, plasmas) qualify as object “

Object: that which has shape

Gas is an object (i.e. air); it has shape. We can point to gas and draw a still picture of gas (any gas) in a single frame of the Universal Movie. Plasma is not a gas or a synonym of gas. The word 'plasma' is a concept. The word plasma means: gas that has been ionized; i.e. in motion. Plasma is not a photograph….you cannot illustrate plasma in a single pic. Plasma is a movie. You need to watch minimum two frames of the movie to understand the concept plasma.

“if one could observe a gas under a powerful microscope, one would see a collection of particles (molecules, atoms, ions, electrons, etc.)”

Irrelevant. You have just switched the context and talking about something completely different than the object gas. Now you are talking mereology and composition… are NOT talking about the object in question (i.e. air). Pick one context and stick with it so your statements are consistent. Don’t jump around contexts and confuse yourself into thinking you are talking about the exact same “thing”…..because you obviously aren’t. Either you talk about the object gas….or you talk about the object molecule….not both at the same time as you are committing the Fallacy of Equivocation.

“Answer 1) plasma of hydrogen and helium, as well as electromagnetic radiation, magnetic fields, neutrinos, dust and cosmic rays.”

I googled images and videos of all these items you referenced. They ALL show this “BLACK STUFF” in the background which is the VOID; i.e. there is nothing surrounding them. What you referenced directly CONFIRMS that space lacks shape.

“There is no clear boundary between Earth's atmosphere and space, as the density of the atmosphere gradually decreases as the altitude increases.”

When we introduce the word air as an exhibit, we treat this gas as a continuous entity. We apply the word air to a cloud of gas taken as a whole rather than as the aggregate of its individual constituents (atoms). Air is the name we give to a finite bundle of gas irrespective of its composition, density, color, taste, smell, ability to offend people, …or any other qualification imaginable. An object has shape irrespective of ANY quality you ascribe to it, as ALL qualities are extrinsic to the object except for shape. All objects in Science are made of a single piece in the instant context …..mereology plays no role in Physics.

“A sample of Ionized hydrogen plasma, as seen in the middle of our galaxy:”

Nice! That “BLACK STUFF” you illustrated in the pic is the void (nothing).

“2) air that opposes a drag force to your hand but the kinetic force is much higher than the drag force,”

FORCE is a verb….what one object DOES to another; i.e “to force”….either PUSH or PULL. To “force” is a concept, not an object. A concept requires TWO objects to be defined. Your hand PUSHED the air because nothingness surrounds the air and allows it to be displaced and moved from one location to another. No different than a fish displacing water in order to swim.

“I don't know I get you right, if you exclude fluids like gases as objects or not “

This has nothing to do with me. I am not God nor a dictator. My opinions are irrelevant to reality no matter how loud I scream. Reality is objective, not subjective. Reality can only be rationally described and explained; i.e. without contradictions!

If the word you reference resolves to having shape, then that word obviously references an object.

“My posts here are not meant to contradict you or troll”

Trolling ain’t cool…..but contradicting is perfectly fine. Contradictions show what is impossible. I am quite sure that you came here to talk rationally (i.e. illustrate all claimed objects) and without contradictions.

carmel on February 28, 2014:


have you got my post recently sent?


carmel on February 28, 2014:

Hi Falfist,

uuups, I have to pay attention to my opinion then :) I will try

Do the fluids(in our example gases, plasmas) qualify as object according to you criteria? I mean , these takes shape of their surrounding(volume) , still if one could observe a gas under a powerful microscope, one would see a collection of particles (molecules, atoms, ions, electrons, etc.) and makes sense as "something" rather then "nothing".

I just wonder if I get you right, since I think you refer to the solid state of object only, with a visible eye shape ...

How will you categoryze the fluids then if not objects?

Answer 1) plasma of hydrogen and helium, as well as electromagnetic radiation, magnetic fields, neutrinos, dust and cosmic rays.

There is no clear boundary between Earth's atmosphere and space, as the density of the atmosphere gradually decreases as the altitude increases.

A sample of Ionized hydrogen plasma, as seen in the middle of our galaxy:

2) air that opposes a drag force to your hand but the kinetic force is much higher than the drag force, however we can move the hand in the air. We feel the difference(the effect of force) by moving in the fluid like water, however.

My answers 1) and 2) are not exhaustive since I don't know I get you right, if you exclude fluids like gases as objects or not .

My posts here are not meant to contradict you or troll, we all learn :) for me is the chapter fluids and gases :)


fatfist (author) on February 27, 2014:

“Perfect void can not be achieved”

“Perfect” is a matter of opinion. The terms ‘void’, ‘vacuum’ and ‘nothing’ explicitly refer to that which lacks shape, by definition. This is rational. No opinion or academic achievements are required to define these synonyms.

““even in outer space.”

Now we get to the point. Your issue is that the term “space”, which alludes to that “black stuff” (for lack of a better term) we can point to that is around stars and galaxies….is not synonymous with “nothing”. Your claim is that space is something; i.e. an object….that space must have shape! This is what you are saying.

That’s fine. But now you need to justify your claim that space (i.e. that black stuff mentioned above) is an object. You need to answer 2 questions:

1) Please link to some illustration or video that shows this alleged space object. We need to conceptualize whether the space shown in the illustration has shape or not.

2) Please explain how motion would be possible for stars, planets, living entities, cars, etc. when they are surrounded and bound by some endless substance you call “space”. If there is no void to displace this space substance, then how can you possibly move your hand?

carmel on February 27, 2014:

If you consider the observer/subject like atomic force microscope, a scanning tunneling microscope, or a field ion microscope for analysing/"seeing" the shape/structure of void, vacuum we find shapes for..

To take an example: hard vacuum, it contains a low density of particles: predominantly a plasma of hydrogen and helium, neutrinos, dust and cosmic rays. I am not sure I've put all :)

All these particles have shape at that special microscopic observer, but lacks shape for the normal human optical sensor/eye.

Perfect void can not be achieved, even in outer space.

I can search material to share , hope to find something public how these particles "looks like" , what shape have.

Do you agree ? If I get you correctly.


fatfist (author) on February 27, 2014:

space: that which lacks shape. synonym: void, vacuum, nothing.

carmel on February 27, 2014:

Hi FatFist,

have you defined the concept of space?

Do you mean that space is the void or vacuum?

From the chemical view I need to understand what did you mean :)


nicholashesed on May 07, 2013:

o.k. I got it.

God is an object as fatfist so poignantly points out. I would place God in a separate category of objects and label it Divine Object. This is rational.

An object is that which has shape, synonym form. Form: a term that relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding. God has a form as it is asserted in Philipians 2:6:

{2:6} who, though he was in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be seized.

but it is important to note that this verse refers specifically to the Second Person also known as the Son or Christ Jesus. So it is not what is bound it is who is bound. For this verse in the form of God means that the Second Person is immediately surrounded by the First Person (also known as the Father). The Second Person is within the First Person. But the Second Person is bound in other words distinct, unique, etc. The two Persons are One Object.

This accounts for the Second Person but God is One so I have to account for God. God is bound by nothing. His immediate surrounding is nothing similar to space however His location also known as Heaven is discontinuous with the universe. God is One yet Three. The immediate surrounding of the Father is nothing. The immediate surrounding of the Son is the Father. The immediate surrounding of the Spirit is the Father and the Son.

The illustration/visualization for God is a target: a circle within a circle within a circle. The circle is the Father. The circle within the circle is the Son. The circle within the circle within the circle is the Spirit.

God is invisible, even so He exists and is present not within the universe, but to the universe, call it Divine Presence. His location is Heaven which He created discontinuous with the Universe.

I think this more or less fits your Physics Object/Shape article fatfist.

nicholashesed on May 05, 2013:

I understand the spirit here and will respect it. My purpose it to learn. Plus hey I know full well that the Christian life is full of contradictions, paradoxes, etc. Anyone who wants to be a Christian has to get comfortable with contradiction. If they are insecure with contradiction then perhaps they are not living the Faith and are out to start conflicts which is not the Way. It's a life of faith and reason. I need work on the reason aspect and that is why I am here. JPII said Science can purify religion from error and superstition.

fatfist (author) on May 05, 2013:

Thank Nicholas. We talk rationally here. We don't push beliefs or personal agendas like "eternal human life" and other religious ideologies. No magic, no opinions, no BS. It's that simple. Of course....we often participate in barroom brawls, which get bloody at times, and people leave angry or crying...but hey, that's life on a planet full of apes....quite normal.

nicholashesed on May 05, 2013:

ah! Haven't got there yet. Yesterday I did a google search "relationship between concept and language" and it led me to your "Ontology of Language: What is a Concept" article. Very good! And then I see all these other goodies. It will take me some time to get through all your stuff. I think I have learned more here in one day than years of parsing mainstream linguistics, cosmology, etc. Its pretty daunting, but I really like your integrity and consistency across fields.

fatfist (author) on May 05, 2013:

I discuss it at the end of this article...

nicholashesed on May 05, 2013:


Peace. What are your thoughts about the Cosmic Microwave Background?

fatfist (author) on April 30, 2013:

“Now I'm more curious about those "sophisticated drinks!" You must write a Hub about that 'cause something tells me it has my cheap beer beat!”

Whaaaaaaaat? Cheap beer??

Ok buddy… need to spend some time with me and learn how to live a little. If it’s beer you fancy, then you came to the right place. Here’s your homework…. get yourself a large tulip glass and track down the following European beers: Leffe blonde, Bavaria 8.6, Duvel, Jenlain OR, Affligem, Chimay, FAXE 10%, Crest 10%....just to start.

Come back and thank me later!

And btw….sophisticated women love men who know their drinks….yes, including beer,..the drink with the seemingly low social status. So don't sell yourself short.

Insane Mundane from Earth on April 30, 2013:

It was a figure of speech as I'm not a magnetic aficionado either, albeit you did make your answer very clear, nonetheless; ha! Oh dear... Now I'm more curious about those "sophisticated drinks!" You must write a Hub about that 'cause something tells me it has my cheap beer beat!

fatfist (author) on April 30, 2013:

I am only a fan of loose women, fast cars, expensive watches, fine dining and sophisticated drinks. Those who are fans of magnetism and zero nothingness, really need to get a life.

Insane Mundane from Earth on April 30, 2013:

For starters, I take it that you are not a big fan of magnetism and Zero Point Energy?

Eric Dierker from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A. on April 23, 2013:

I must ponder more. Perhaps I am resistant to changing my mind on the matter. "In Motion" just seems more sexy. Static is dull. Besides it does not set well with "string theory". I also like the idea that matter and energy are the same.

fatfist (author) on April 23, 2013:

You’re not alone…..I thought that too. Until I noticed that Mathematicians were using 8 different atoms to try to doubletalk me into believing they have explanations for natural phenomena. Here’s all the atoms they use in the lab:

1. Thomson Plum Pudding (berries)

2. Rutherford Planetary Bead

3. Bohr Planetary Bead

4. Sommerfield’s Wavon which incorporates Einstein’s Relativity

5. DeBroglie's Ribbon

6. Schrödinger Wave

7. Born's Electron Cloud

8. Lewis Shell

Which is the real atom?

Most Mathematicians say that Relativity is true…that Einstein was a genius….I mean, we even have his brain in a glass jar. So the real atom has to be the Wavon, which has no protons or electrons. What do you think? Are there any 8-sided dice we can roll to get an answer?

Eric Dierker from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A. on April 23, 2013:

I thought all particles were in motion and that objects were made up of such. Protons, electrons and neutrons.

Related Articles