It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

page: 169
61
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 12:37 AM

originally posted by: Bleeeeep

If everything physical is made of "something", what is "something" made of? And how would you address its infinity? (If everything is made of turtles, what are turtles made of? Is it turtles all the way down [into and throughout infinity]?)

I think the logical outcome is that, although everything is made of "something", everything physical is not made of something physical. (As per intuition would lead you to.)

This gets into the realm of terminology, words and definitions, semantics. Physical. Something.

The ultimate denotation is; Something. Nothing. Something is what exists. (the most difficult thing I have encountered, the biggest hindrance to the purity of these statements is; motion. The nature of potential (which is related to motion). And related to potential, potentially, the nature of abstract ideas and ideal ideas, like math and geometry.

So I get the feeling you have a particular comprehension of the term 'physical', in which if there are two sets; [Something]. [Nothing].

The term physical, would be in the set of [something], but you seem to be implying that the set [something] and the set [physical] are not equal. That there is aspects in the set of [something] which cannot be considered physical.

The question 'what is something made of';

I dont think this is an answerable question, or knowable, or maybe even sensical question; I think the most I can think to say is that;

It is not true that there is only nothing.

Therefore; There is something.

I can not say anything fundamentally about 'made of'; there is only the fact that 'something' exists.

It is tautological; Something = Something. That which exists is made of that which exists.

It just must be accepted, that something (and a seemingly whole lot of it) exists, rather than absolutely nothing.

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 12:38 AM

Define energy.

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 01:30 AM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Define energy.
Since we were talking about whether photons have energy, the energy in a photon is Planck's constant times the frequency

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Energy is a broad term and there are many other types of energy.

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 01:45 AM

Define what the word energy means.

The word, material, means; Something (not nothing).

What does the word, energy, mean?

Why is energy not material? (as I mentioned above, partly, because 'motion', motion is not material. And motion is 'energy', or material in motion, is said to 'have energy').

The concept 'motion' cannot exist independent of 'something'.

edit on 9-9-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 01:55 AM
As I said energy is a broad term and an overly simple definition will not be accurate.

This article should help get you started on understanding what energy is.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Why is energy not material?
You apparently didn't watch the one minute of the video I asked you to watch here.
edit on 201599 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 03:33 AM

I honestly did not expect you to say what you said, I'm impressed - especially so considering that I only ever see you on science topics, chasing the elements around (no offense).

I mean, even though you left the equation kind of scrambled and unsolved (you actually dismissed it), you still, somehow, made the intuitive leap, and got the conclusion right, I think: Everything is within [Something] and is Something.

The ultimate denotation is; Something. Nothing. Something is what exists. (the most difficult thing I have encountered, the biggest hindrance to the purity of these statements is; motion. The nature of potential (which is related to motion). And related to potential, potentially, the nature of abstract ideas and ideal ideas, like math and geometry.

Can you explain "the most difficult thing I have encountered, the biggest hindrance" in another way, while expanding upon it pleeease??

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:15 AM

He can't, however, come to grips with the fact that you can have a volume with dimensions that contains nothing at all.

Which is absolutely possible.

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 09:11 AM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
In general, fundamental physics is not secret.

Yes, it is.

People who want to understand how the universe works should study everything they can get their hands on derived from leaked information.

They should unlearn what they've been taught in textbooks and universities.

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 09:52 AM

- Energy is charged matter motion relative to the charged matter in the rest of the universe.

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 10:07 AM
Out of all the declassified black projects, which of them contained secret fundamental physics?

If you think there is secret fundamental physics now, how do you distinguish between true leaks of real secret physics and made-up stories claiming to be such?

Can you give one or two examples of what you think is a true leak of real fundamental physics that's secret?

originally posted by: KrzYma

- Energy is charged matter motion relative to the charged matter in the rest of the universe.
If photons (or whatever you think light is) have no charge and thus no energy, how do you get energy out of a photovoltaic solar panel?

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 10:44 AM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

You have to be patient and understand sentence by sentence and line by line and how they relate. It is difficult to understand, but it is semantically and intelligibly sensible. Read line by line, and quote the first line that you do not understand and I will explain it to you, and then we will continue doing this. At least give me that chance with the first line, to prove to you that what I wrote is meaningful and sensical.
Ok I'll do that as we go by.
Besides how's this for my Eureka moment that happened 5 1/2 years ago www.abovetopsecret.com...

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 11:33 AM

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Ok I'll do that as we go by.
Besides how's this for my Eureka moment that happened 5 1/2 years ago www.abovetopsecret.com...
Marko Rodin figured out what dark matter was over 9 years ago, or so he claims, and he and you have presented the same amount of evidence to support your claims: zero.

Even if the most brilliant scientist working on the problem claims he's found dark matter, he will have to provide evidence for his claim and this evidence will be scrutinized by his colleagues, so nobody gets to make scientifically valid claims about what dark matter is without providing evidence. Without evidence these claims don't have the value of a single sheet of toilet paper...at least we can do something useful with a sheet of toilet paper.

edit on 201599 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 11:53 AM

I’m not familiar with a list of declassified black projects, so I can’t answer your question.

The declassified ones, however, are probably declassified because they contain no information that is of any threat to the powers that be retaining their power through knowledge.

I distinguish truth from fiction by using my intuition and by comparing and contrasting sources.

The problem with advocates of mainstream science is that they try to use ridicule and a claim to authority, but I reject both as invalid.

An example of leaked fundamental physics is the testimony of whistleblower Corey Goode in an interview entitled "Electric Sun," one of a series of interviews of him by David Wilcock on Gaiam TV.

In this interview Corey Goode states that the universe is a plasma electric universe and a torsion universe, and this is what the secret space program bases their technologies on.

The interview is not on YouTube so I can’t link to it.

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 12:07 PM

originally posted by: ConnectDots
The problem with advocates of mainstream science is that they try to use ridicule and a claim to authority, but I reject both as invalid.

An example of leaked fundamental physics is the testimony of whistleblower Corey Goode in an interview entitled "Electric Sun," one of a series of interviews of him by David Wilcock on Gaiam TV.
Electric sun was brought up on page 163, and I posted this which doesn't contain ridicule as far as I can see. It includes observational facts that electric sun can't explain but the mainstream model of the sun can. There are many, many more facts which contradict the electric sun model, but I tried to narrow the discussion down to a simple scope by focusing on two of them.

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 12:23 PM

Regardless, the goings on in black projects trumps anything that comes from mainstream science.

This is why people need to seek in order to find.

Corey Goode also pointed out that the electric sun model needs to be married to torsion fields to make it complete.

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 01:31 PM

I read that article, it was enjoyable so thanks. The writer seemed to come to two conclusions; one, inconclusive, not having a perfect definition of the word 'energy'; two, the ability to create heat. The latter being similar to what I said; motion.

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 01:36 PM

originally posted by: Bleeeeep

Can you explain "the most difficult thing I have encountered, the biggest hindrance" in another way, while expanding upon it pleeease??

I mentioned three hindrances (the other two after I already wrote, the most...the biggest...one), which might be related to the first in some way, or extensions of the first.

Motion.

Potential.

Ideal concepts/eternal concepts (math, geometry).

Is 'motion' a thing or nothing?

Is 'potential' a thing or nothing?

Is 'the ideal, never creatable, but discussable sphere (or the quantity 99999^9999999999, prior to it written)' a thing or nothing?

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 01:38 PM

originally posted by: Bedlam

He can't, however, come to grips with the fact that you can have a volume with dimensions that contains nothing at all.

You can have a volume with dimensions; i.e. a plastic hollow cube; that contains nothing at all.

Hmmm, I think I can come to grips with that potential; for I believe outside the universe (or multiverse) there exists nothing, so theoretically a volume could be brought to an area of nothing, and then nothing would be in the volume;

Though I am inconclusive as to whether or not 'the blackness' between galaxies is true pure nothing.

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 01:40 PM

originally posted by: KrzYma

- Energy is charged matter motion relative to the charged matter in the rest of the universe.

Something. Nothing.

If all the something that existed; Did not move at all; what aspect of that something would be considered energy, and why?
edit on 9-9-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 01:47 PM

Dark matter being electrons, in the time domain?

Why do you think its dark matter? What is the reasoning.

new topics

top topics

61