adjective

    Why are the words adjective and adverb included in this glossary? What does this have to do with
    Physics or with Science? Let’s look at an example from the relativity folklore to see how the
    mathematicians inadvertently extrapolate ordinary speech into scientific dissertations and reach
    unlikely conclusions.

    Relativists claim that their universe is ‘finite, but unbounded’. This so-called no-boundary hypothesis
    was concocted by mathematicians Stephen Hawking and Jim Hartle to answer why the universe could
    be both ‘finite’ (meaning that time and space are finite in extent) yet ‘unbounded’ (meaning that time and
    space are rolled up so as not to present boundaries or edges to a traveler circling around it). Further
    inspections shows that this explanation has nothing to do with the actual universe and all to do with
    grammar and semantics. Obviously, relativists don’t seem to understand the differences between
    adjectives and adverbs.

    In Physics, we can use an adjective exclusively in the context of structure. For instance, the adjectives
    flat, straight, or continuous can be used to modify or describe a wooden board. On the other hand, it is
    incongruous to use the adjectives flat, straight, or continuous to modify the verb ‘to jump’. Jumping can
    at best be constant, incessant, or perpetual. Hence, words which function as adjectives in ordinary
    speech may not be adjectives for the purposes of Physics. In the phrase incessant motion’ the word
    incessant plays the role of an adjective because it qualifies the noun motion. However, this is true only
    in ordinary speech. For the purposes of Physics, the word motion is exclusively an activity: a verb. The
    word motion does not represent a physical object, but what an object does. The word motion is a noun
    in our vernacular only because it may be used as the subject of a sentence (i.e., a term). In Science, a
    concept may not serve as the ultimate center of attention. A concept should always be traceable to at
    least one object.

    Concepts may serve as the topic of discussion only in Philosophy. In Physics, only physical objects
    may serve as valid subjects of study. If adjectives modify objects and adverbs qualify verbs, the word
    incessant is an adverb for the purposes of Science. The adverb incessant may only be used in a
    dynamic context. In the expression ‘incessant cube’ the word incessant refers to the motion the cube
    undergoes and not to a static attribute comparable to flatness or straightness.

    The words finite and unbounded are adjectives in both ordinary speech and in Physics. However, in
    their ‘finite, but unbounded’ argument, relativists use the word unbounded not as an adjective, but as an
    adverb. They justify their ‘finite’ view of the universe on the basis of spatial extent. The justification
    relativists give for the ‘unbounded’ segment of the presentation, instead, has to do with ‘perpetual
    running around or 'perpetual counting of stars.' Relativists can perhaps argue that they can run around
    the surface of space-time incessantly or constantly, but hardly unboundedly. The reason for this
    tortuous usage is clear. It has to do with convincing the public that relativity has resolved the age old
    question of whether the Universe is finite or infinite. With this sleight of hand, relativists insinuate that
    there is no contradiction in relativity between a universe which is both finite and ‘unbounded’ (wink,
    wink).

    The misuse of adjectives as adverbs does not stop here. Relativists have been forced to use adjectives
    as adverbs in their entire vocabulary, an outcome which in retrospect was predictable. Relativity is
    founded on Mathematics and Geometry. Mathematics is a language that deals exclusively with motion,
    and, to this very day, the fantasy relativists call Geometry does not contain a single valid geometric
    figure. Not a single structure of relativity or of modern Geometry, not one ‘mathematical object’ is a still
    image. The alleged ‘objects’ of relativity are all ‘constructed’ dynamically, piece by piece, in a series of
    frames. The objects of relativity are movies and not photographs or sculptures. Of course, if a verb is
    artificially morphed into a noun, the qualifier that accompanies it is invariably converted from adverb to
    adjective. It is this state of affairs that has led relativists to use adverbs as adjectives and vice versa.
    Among the most notorious self-contradictions of Mathematics we find the expressions: ‘continuous
    function’, ‘infinite numbers’, ‘straight path’, ‘longest dimension’, ‘warped space’, ‘weak interaction’,
    ‘continuous wave’, ‘one-dimensional continuum’, ‘infinite energy’, and ‘elliptic orbit’. The second terms
    of each of these expressions are not nouns for the purposes of Physics and this converts such
    phrases into metaphors and figures of speech. Relativists have inadvertently converted adverbs into
    adjectives in order to sell their purportedly static ‘geometric’ theories. They are not expressing their
    conclusions with scientific language, but with ordinary speech.


    For a further information on the use of adjectives and adverbs see also:

    After 3000 years, the morons of Philosophy have no idea what a concept is

    GR's 3-D flatlander

    Is a line continuous or segmented?

    The idiots of Quantum say that a cat can be simultaneously dead and alive !

    Theists, atheists, and agnostics have no idea what they're arguing about!

    1.       A word that modifies and is used to describe an object.

    2.       An inherent, static, objective, property or attribute of an object (e.g., flat, continuous, straight,
    discrete, spherical.

    A cube is not more 'spherical' than a pyramid nor a pentagon more 'circular' than a square. A sphere is
    spherical! A rule of thumb to distinguish adjectives from adverbs is to test whether the qualifier in
    question applies in the context of a still image. Adverbs apply only in the context of intangible concepts.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            




        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008