There is no obsession on my part, I simply pointed out that the word “hole” has an established concept attached to it. It is true that words are simply descriptions of things or actions, but the concept that is generated in our mind with the use of the word is what matters in reality.
You are right when you say: “You don’t learn what “love” is by looking it up in a dictionary,” but that four letter English word conveys a “concept” that we can understand in our minds as a meaning of something that we may have experienced.
Similarly the word “hole,” or its equivalent in other languages, conveys a “concept” of a volume of less density than its surroundings.
The point that I’m making is that, the concept of a “hole” should not be used in describing a object that contains high density mass. Why not invent a word like black “eloh” or some other word or phrase that would indicate the presence of mass.
Space/Science » in reply to Use or misuse of a word tells us nothing about what the word allegedly describes.
Obsession about definitions?
The whole thread (38 posts)
- Why black holes don't suck.
- A 10 y/o plays football against the 49ers.
- Your argument is valid, except for the fact that
- Use or misuse of a word tells us nothing about what the word allegedly describes.
- The galaxy is expanding? I don't think so.
- My reasoning is that
- Objects that close are both red-shifted and blue-shifted...
- But stars and galaxies of stars were formed by gravity? Tthey formed by contraction. I
- Why not use your reasoning, instead,
- My reasoning is that
- Well done, 4.0, except they do seem to suck, a lot, and blow, a little.
- Excellent, thanks n/t