It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Good remains triumphant over Evil

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   
because of the major side tracking im trying to remember the key theme of what it was we were discussing. im pretty sure it was the energy connection between all things. i think i was trying to prove different waves of energy would have a direct effect on matter structure.




posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Yes, you did state that. Yes, it falls under well understood physics. I believe the reason your trying to show me this "connection" of sort's is stemming off from how you were talking about how we still exist after death. Which my argument was, no we don't. While granted, the atom still exist, all the underlying characterisitic's that actually define YOU are no longer existing. Example's include your mentality and the physical shape. These no longer exist after death. Well, the shape does, but not forever. Either way, even IF the physical aspect of your body, or by even using the example of just the lowly atom, the true YOU is your mentality. Without that, you never existed. Say all those atoms were in a rock. YOU wouldn't know, be self aware of that fact, so in no way whatsoever are YOU connected to that rock. Your atoms, or what could have been the atoms that make up your physical appearance and allow you to have higher cognitive thought's would not exist. The mentality was never there before hand.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   
yes but see what i say is that physically you exist forever, but the mentallity of you is carried by your defined shape. like you believe this cluster of atoms is you, well thats just your mental aspect. but when you eat an apple it becomes part of you. since the apple is part of you now its wouldnt be fully you anymore now would it? youd be mostly you, part of that apple too though. you is everything that exists physically, because at some part and time that atom could be part of your physical existance. now mentally like i said is a different story

mental there is a defined you and the only connection that is already there are the ones you make with other self aware beings. i supose you could mentally make a connection with non living things such as nature, but thats more realizing the physical connection because you cant mentally connect with something that isnt self aware. mentally though is totally different then physically.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Ok, let's try a different approach to this.

Define, YOU. To the best and fullest possible definition you can. What are you, who are you, and why are you, you.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   
physically, im a constant change in cluster of atoms and such. i can either be considered a part of all things, or not really anything. i cant be a set amount of things mainly because im never the same physically, whenever i eat im changing physically who i am, cells die and new ones form from materials that probably didnt originally make up me.

mentally, thats alot harder to explain simply because i think it would take up a great amount of time to fully describe me. if youd really like me to though i will.
i am a curious person whos trying to figure out why people do things they do. i do this because i feel that it would help me better understand why people act on emotions rather then rational thought. this leads me to countless conversation where i analyse every bit of it. i do that because im looking for every clue to what a person is like mentally. i tend to what to figure them out to find the connections made mentally. physically im pretty sure of connection but mentally i try to find what exactly causes it. im more into challanges of my thinking process. anything that gets me thinking i want to do. i know why i do this, because without it i feel like im being wasteful. im not materialistic, i realize the benefits of person to person connection. its a mix of chemical reactions and just understanding that makes me pursue these connections between people rather then material items. i do often study the wildlife. i go out into the woods and fish, but while i fish im studying as well. of course fishing, depending on the type, is a mind challange of its own testing patience and understanding of how the fish works. i do this so that i can see the physical connection between all things. i do it often because 1. i can analyse how things connect, and 2. because i can challange my patiences and understanding of the waters im in, the fish im trying to catch, and what i will need to use to catch it and why. like i said i like to challange my mental strength. i use to have a anger problem, but i learned that this was genetic, and i also have a strong gene for bipolarity in the family, but ive overcome that as well. i know this because im constantly thinking and analysing my own actions so whenever i start to lead toward basic "instincts" i can cant myself and correct it. like all thing, over time, you have to concentrate on these things less and less untill eventually, i was catching myself without even realizing it. i study a contemplation of everything and my only problem is getting too far ahead of myself. the reason is i try to learn multiple things at once because ive been labeled with an extreme case of ADD, where most kids who are normal scored 80% on the tests the give to see, i scored a 20% which is extremely bad. anyway in the past year and half ive been correcting this through practice, i use to interrupt my own sentences with other information it was so bad. now the test i retook i am at 60% and i notice i dont constantly flow off topic as much. (even though in this post you totally led me off topic lol) but yea i dont bother to try and fall in love with most kids. i do this because i understand that most kids this age dont really know what they want and are constantly changing because of pressures around them. they are more simple, they feel indestructible, and are very easily influenced as far as their opinion goes. this to me makes me decide to stay away from getting close to a person i know is tempted to change (which is just about everyone i talk to). id like to say more but right now i must go.

[edit on 10-2-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Excellent post. You do realize I have to pick at it though.


The first thing I noticed, you have more to say about you mentally then anything else.

In your description of you physically, you only brush up on the very thing I've said, your physical shape in the here and now. Not before and not after. You hadn't described that particular aspect of YOU or how it fully applies to the being of YOU. You however did, in a few words state everything and nothing in a physical aspect, but lacked any actual connection of how that aspect truelly define's you physically.

In the mental description of you, I found it rather interesting on how you state that you try and study how everything is connected in a way. You show the example of fishing.



i do this so that i can see the physical connection between all things. i do it often because 1. i can analyse how things connect, and 2. because i can challange my patiences and understanding of the waters im in, the fish im trying to catch, and what i will need to use to catch it and why.


How thing's are seemingly connected physically in this aspect is easy to understand. Everything in nature has evolved to serve a certain niche, including the human species, whether we realize or fully understand that niche. The connection's your showing are of this scale, and this scale only.

Another aspect of your definition, you've seemingly overcome an anger/bipolar issue, but you have shown a slight outburst, although temporarily. The slight, nearly insignificant outburst might have meant nothing, but if this is a normal occurance, then you haven't fully overcome the problem. Nothing to get ashamed of or angry about. I get angry alot, I won't goto anger managment though because sometime's an emotional outburst is a hell of alot better then bottling it all in. I also openly cry, although not as much as I used too when I was a kid. I'm not ashamed in admitting that I sometime's cry or get depressed. My mom also has bipolar disorder, so far no ammount of medication has helped her, but she also mix's medication's and mix's those all up in alchohol.


My whole point of asking you to do this definition experiment was to learn from you, what you think the definition of you is and what it entails. And as I thought, and as it is with just about anyone you'll come in contact with, that definition consisted mostly of the mental aspect. All the while, before this definition, you were trying to show me how the being of you existed before birth and after death. But when it all boiled down to a clear cut definition, which you self analysed that definition, none of those previous aspect's were ever defined as being you or how those connection's are what define you.

[edit on 10-2-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
Excellent post. You do realize I have to pick at it though.


thank you lol



The first thing I noticed, you have more to say about you mentally then anything else.


this is mainly because our mental aspects are so much more complex then our physical. physically things can be extremely simple, but mentally we are not.



In your description of you physically, you only brush up on the very thing I've said, your physical shape in the here and now. Not before and not after. You hadn't described that particular aspect of YOU or how it fully applies to the being of YOU. You however did, in a few words state everything and nothing in a physical aspect, but lacked any actual connection of how that aspect truelly define's you physically.


the me physically, in a sense, can either be seen as every physical thing in this universe (energy and matter) or nothing where as i dont ever have a true physical identity, but the many atoms over the course of time are the ones with the acutal identity. further more those atoms may not have identity but the strings actually have the physical identity. in the end the strings are what is individual, we either can be seen as no physical identity or a combination of all physical identity. i say anything because any cluster of strings can eventually be part of us, and all strings of energy or vibrations make up everything in the universe, connecting it all together. unlike unless these strings, though individual in number, dont have such individual physical aspects. we tend to label individual as the aspects we can see or describe, but individual actually lies in something that is considered whole in its form. i would define individual as something that hold the same identity, without change. physically we do not do this, so we arent individuals as far as the human body goes. these strings which have no life span are the true individuals so in a sense, physically, death never occurs. the indiviudals with identities merely cluster together differently throughout time. you can find this in ALL aspects of living and non living things when you look carefully. water for instance has the cluster properties. it forms a cluster, then breaks apart, the another cluster, breaks apart. now although with water these clusters last extreme fractions of a second they still show what strings do over the course of millions of years.



In the mental description of you, I found it rather interesting on how you state that you try and study how everything is connected in a way. You show the example of fishing

How thing's are seemingly connected physically in this aspect is easy to understand. Everything in nature has evolved to serve a certain niche, including the human species, whether we realize or fully understand that niche. The connection's your showing are of this scale, and this scale only.


im talking about energy wise, when i watch say a squirell eat a nut, what i actually see is a transfer of energy from the nut to the squirell, while the squirell actually is losing part of its original cluster it was formed out of.



Another aspect of your definition, you've seemingly overcome an anger/bipolar issue, but you have shown a slight outburst, although temporarily. The slight, nearly insignificant outburst might have meant nothing, but if this is a normal occurance, then you haven't fully overcome the problem. Nothing to get ashamed of or angry about. I get angry alot, I won't goto anger managment though because sometime's an emotional outburst is a hell of alot better then bottling it all in. I also openly cry, although not as much as I used too when I was a kid. I'm not ashamed in admitting that I sometime's cry or get depressed. My mom also has bipolar disorder, so far no ammount of medication has helped her, but she also mix's medication's and mix's those all up in alchohol.


what i meant is eventually the outburst dont even occur, i catch them before they even happen because eventually i just seem them coming. often the urge doesnt even come anymore, but that might be the fishing and my patience. its not that im ashamed of any, but that some just dont hold benefits in doing, and those ones that dont have benefits in the overall problem i can see before it happens and react to them accordingly rather then with emotion, with reasoning.



My whole point of asking you to do this definition experiment was to learn from you, what you think the definition of you is and what it entails. And as I thought, and as it is with just about anyone you'll come in contact with, that definition consisted mostly of the mental aspect. All the while, before this definition, you were trying to show me how the being of you existed before birth and after death. But when it all boiled down to a clear cut definition, which you self analysed that definition, none of those previous aspect's were ever defined as being you or how those connection's are what define you.


i merely discluded the physical aspect of it because physically it will be alot easier to understand the connection physically when you realise we, as clusters, have no true identity physically, and the building blocks are what holds true identities. because of that they are the connection of all things.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   
On the basis of indivuality, one could counter argue, that true indivuality is uniqueness. Your unique and indivual from any one person or thing in all of existance. When you look at the definition of individual you can see why I say this.

www.answers.com...&r=67

Also, those vibrating string's, if they do in fact exist, are also in a constant state of change. The frequencies of those strings don't remain constant for eternity. They under go changes as the connect with other string's to make up individual atoms that compose your body.

Another aspect of your definition is also interesting. When posed with the question, what define's you in the fullest extent you could concieve, you gave me your initial idea's of how you would define yourself. When pointing out that none of what you were talking about previously was in your definition, now your definition has changed to include the very point's I brought up that weren't initially there. You used phrases like, "What I meant," and, "I merely discluded,". Common trait's that show up when someone change's their story on any subject. Mind you, I'm not labeling you a liar at all, as this triat doesn't apply to only liar's, it also applies to people who aren't sure of something or can't fully explain something because they don't know fully what is they are explaining. If you truelly meant what your secondary definition is, then how did it slip past your initial definition?

I'm not trying to be insulting or degrading, but there are definatly clear signs that you don't fully understand the point your trying to define of what define's you. For instance, from a religous perspective, religion's try to define why god created us without actually understanding if there is a god (I know, bad example). From their definition, they feel they have a solid belief in how we were created, but when directly shown evidence that disposes this belief, they've changed their story, so now they call creationism, intelligent design. They don't fully understand the point they are trying to put forth. Rather then discover true intelligent design, they resort to attacking the gap's in modern science. The thread in my sig goes into abit more depth on this.

[edit on 10-2-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   
well first i would like to say i thought a breif definition of what physical connection was would be sufficient because it wasnt really as complicated. but you seemed to what a more precise answer for physical being, you interpreted it as i was only talkin about mental because i assumed you wanted to understand what i felt about it on a mental level. physically i thought it was simple and wouldnt need to go into a more full detail. when you misinterepted my breif summary i felt the need to go into full extent of what i really meant. that was all.

both yes and no to having a full extent of what im talkin about. it is only a theory branching from string thoery. and A im not an expert in string theory, and B i also cannot prove it to exist yet so some things may not be fully accurate. like for instance whether or not a string maintains its individuality or not. because the fact we have yet to even prove they exist because we arent far along enough yet in science, we cant say whether they do or dont maintain individuality. i consider them individuals because even though their physical characteristics may change, they are still the same string in a sense as in they are still what they use to be, just vibrating differently. we are a cluster of strings, a couple years from now i may not have any the original strings that made up my body still inside of me. this is why i said we arent individuals because we arent ever really made up of the same stuff, though we hold form, on a chemical level we are always changing identities because we lose cells that were once part of us. i think you needed me to go into this more in the physical aspect then mental because physical is more important in a sense. physically, we are all connected by the same individual strings. these strings may change on a characteristic scale as far as what their traits are, but what they actually are and their originallity stays the same, they are still the same string in a new form. where as humans are the same form to an extent (as far as lifespan goes) but their originallity chemically is constantly different.

EDIT: further more, you asked me what describes me to the fullest extent...well in all reality and in simple terms, physically i have no individuality so I can only describe what is an individual by my definition. physically i cant describe myself in the physical sense that youd like me to because i hold no true Identity. mentally of course so that i felt was the only way i could really describe what you asked of me.

if you could point out where ive specifically contradicted myself ill admit to that then, but i feel ive just been adding on rather then changing. my original point hasnt changed, and either has alot of the stuff in it. im not sure exactly what i may have contradicted so id appriciate if youd proint it out to me, thanks

also one other thing, the site describe individual as one person, which is exactly what im going against. i dont feel that definition is right by scientific standards. i dont feel we are individuals because we arent at all the same when we start our so called "life" to when we "die" this to me shows that individuality physically amoung humans doesnt exist. i never said it didnt exist mentally, i agree firmly that a humans only individuality lies in the mind. thats why when you asked MY individuality all i could give you was mentally, because thats the only individuality that i personally have. physically i have no individuality other then in the views of characteristics that people physically see, rather then whats actually there. individuality i dont believe is the physical form in which the cluster takes, rather that each string in the cluster to ultimately form the human being is what actually has individuality, because it forever remains an individual of all other strings, it doesnt bond like an element to form a new type of string, it clusters like water would to create something in a new form.

[edit on 10-2-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   
You thought a brief descrition of the physical was suffient despite the question asking to the best and fullest definition of you. I never asked for a brief description, so I don't see how you could have missinterpreted that to mean brief would be sufficient. Your assumption for the mental aspect is unfounded. Prior to the question being posed, the main topic of discussion was your idea's of physical connections, no where in that previous discussion leading to the question would lead one to assume a more mental than anything definition. I did ask, best and fullest definition, even that alone wouldn't lead one to assume a more mental then anything definition.

Let's propose a theory here, since all we are dealing with is theories for the basis of your idea's of true indivuality. I propose that string theory could be wrong. Let's assume there's a better definition for what's going on in the world of physic's, but, whatever it is, is in a constant state of change. Never remain's in the same state any certain length of time. For instance, this hypothetical object, could retain an "individual' form, but onyl for an indeterminate length of time. After a certain length of time, this form completley change's into another form. Could be a minor change, could be a drastic change, we are dealing with thing's on the quantum level. Yet the underlying physics at this fundemental level could prove to be something beyond the reach's of even quantum physics. We are dealing with theories without evidence's after all. String theory only exist's on paper. There's nothing in reality yet that support's it's claim's. Same with my theory.

Now let's assume for a minute that my theory, or one very similar, yet yielding the same constant change result's os found to exist in reality. What implication's would this have on your founding belief on indivuality? As you formalize your answer, please remember, in both cases we're dealing with theories that exist only on paper.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   
after reading what you were trying to show as theory i think i semi addressed it in my last post but in the past i made many assumptions that you understood what i meant and skipped over critical things which i think mislead you to what i was saying. so i will go over it in detail

im opposing your definition of individual. your individual relies on characteristic to define itself. my individual relies on it being the same material as the original substance. now say a string does in fact change completely into a new type of string characteristically, i would say it retains its individual state. i say this because its still the same material in which it was before. now if you were to say two strings bonded instead of clustered i would say that this bonded string would apply to the same rules as this new definition of individuality. there would be a clause though because its not like all other substance. if the string only bonded 2 strings together, this string no matter how it changed form would still have to be the same material because if it breaks its two strings are still individual, while if it doesnt break it still retains its individual qualities, such as same material used. other then this exception though, only the basic string can be considered an individual.

i hope this answers you question for your theory of constant change.

also i think before when i said that i did a brief description of physical, i literally said what i meant. i think because i didnt directly say, we have no individuality you didnt understand the connection between my original answer and the extended one. after reading my original answer to your description of me answer i find that i described the same thing, but in a much simpler form. that you could see it as everything that makes me and all other things are individual, or that we as humans and anything else non strings dont have any individuality at all.

[edit on 10-2-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Let's try it again. Forget string theory for a minute. Just assume the theory I proposed is discovered to be true, and that this fundamental 'sumthing' only retains 'indivuality' for indeterminate length's of time, which after it goes under a state of change becoming an entirely different 'something'. Just as there are many different particles and flavors of quarks, there could also be many different flavors, each being different from one another in some way, as particles are different from one another. So, in the reality of my theory, none of the individual fundamental something's actually retain any sense of indivuality due to it's change into a different form of fundamental something. This indeterminate length of time could be mere femtoseconds, minutes, days, year's, thousand's of years, million's of years, billion's of year's, or even trillion's of year's. The problem is though, just as we have the heisenberg uncertainty principle, dealing with particals, a similar principal also exist's for ths fundamental something in such a fashion that we cannot predict when that something at any particular point in time, will change.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   
on a side note i must thank you because i do have a problem with organization still. this shows in my posts. youve made me explain my theory fully and entirely picking at every little aspect with detail. this causes me to sort the theory into the best possible way so that it gets across. this is the best way i have found to organize my theories, is to write them out and whenever theres a misunderstanding of what im trying to get across i rewrite it differently.

doing this has helped me organize the bases of my theory on paper, sort to say, so now i can continue my studies in physics and math. because ive had to clearly state my theory, in my mind, i have a more structured idea of how to describe it and what to do with it reguarding everything ill need to prove it. i can better sort useless info from useful info. so i must thank you for this because its one of the few times i get to go full in depth with this and organize accordingly.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
Let's try it again. Forget string theory for a minute. Just assume the theory I proposed is discovered to be true, and that this fundamental 'sumthing' only retains 'indivuality' for indeterminate length's of time, which after it goes under a state of change becoming an entirely different 'something'. Just as there are many different particles and flavors of quarks, there could also be many different flavors, each being different from one another in some way, as particles are different from one another. So, in the reality of my theory, none of the individual fundamental something's actually retain any sense of indivuality due to it's change into a different form of fundamental something. This indeterminate length of time could be mere femtoseconds, minutes, days, year's, thousand's of years, million's of years, billion's of year's, or even trillion's of year's. The problem is though, just as we have the heisenberg uncertainty principle, dealing with particals, a similar principal also exist's for ths fundamental something in such a fashion that we cannot predict when that something at any particular point in time, will change.


ok i think me using strings made you believe i only meant strings so i will no longer use the term stings to define this "something" you talk about

this something, first off could not be matter, mainly because matter cannot be smaller then the energy that makes it. this is because matter is made up of a ton of energy. i cannot give you an exact scale of how much energy makes up one atom but i reassure you physics shows that alot of energy is needed to create a small amount of matter. now that we have declared energy is the smallest most fundemental form, "something" must be some form of energy. we will move on from there now. if i understand you correctly your saying 1 "something" will completely change and maintain none of its original characteristics. as we know this "something" is still bound by the laws of physics that states matter cannot be created or destroyed, energy cannot be created or destroyed, yet they can be converted. since we know it cannot create any more of itself or get rid of any less of itself, 1 "something" will still contain the same amount of it, no matter how much it characteristically changes. the definition of individuality i am presenting is based on how much material of the "something" stays the same. Physics bounds this "something" to retain the same amount of material. this material cannot be switched with part of something else because its the smallest, most fundemental form of existing material. two "somethings" cannot switch parts of itself with eachother because that would require something to be smaller to cut it and make it smaller. now that we have declared "something" cannot create any more or less of it, cannot become any smaller in size, and its individuality is determind not by characteristics of the "something" but by the amount of material which is retained from the original "something". since the original something uses X amount of material, the new form must also use the same X amount. further more the material must be the same material because it cannot get any smaller, and if it got any bigger it must be either a bond or cluster of two or more "somethings" which then this no longer holds its individuality since its not the most fundemental size.

this i hope was more in depth.

edits were editing out the word string. i used it accidentally a couple times because thats the word i would like to use for these somethings since thats what scientifically so far is avalible.

[edit on 10-2-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   
in my theory basically, whatever is the smallest most fundemental particle in existance is what holds it individuality. this reason being is stated above. nothing else has true individuality by definition. this definition is an obvious challange to the present one. i present it because if there is any change in matter or energy, not in characteristics but in actual material that was used, then this being no longer holds its individuality.

since nothing living holds this form, nothing living holds true individuality by new definition. most matter does not hold this form, only the most fundemental particles in the universe can hold its original material for an indefinate amount of time, reguardless of change in characteristics.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Ok, it's pretty simple and clear cut. I'm not asking you to redefine the phrase string theory. I'm simply asking what would be the implications of your idea's behind indivuality, if my theory I proposed turned out to be true, considering that both theories exist only on paper without any evidence of the validity of either theory. Again, forget string's and forget energy. Focus upon what your definition of individuality would mean if my proposed theory were correct.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   
your not reading, ive already told you your theory doesnt change mine. if your saying that the entire physics of the universe had suddenly changed then id tell you that youve just crushed your arguement. why you ask?

if the current physics, at the most fundemental levels is wrong (which if your theory conflicts at all with what i just wrote, then it is) then you have just crushed your arguement on the previous page about science being fact. i am going by scientifically what you call fact. these facts i am using to show you that my theory, unless the fundemental physics are changed, will not change with your theory.

ive told you that my definition of individuality, physically, is the amount of original material used that is retained. only something thaat retains 100% of its original material used can be considered individual. your theory of constant change in no way effects what i am saying. if your theory doesnt effect it then something in fundemental sciences most be wrong because thats what im going on.

[edit on 10-2-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   
your constant change, other then in the smallest fundemental particles, is always already in effect. anything that is larger then these particles (whether they be strings or quarks or small particles of energy or whatever) is eventually going to apply to this constant change, because eventually these bonded or clustered particles will have to break apart, the larger they get the more likely the break will become. two of the smallest particles would even apply to this because even if it took 90 trillion years for them to break, technically, they would still be under constant change rule. this fortunately doesnt effect my theory at all.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   
I never stated that science was fact and I have agreed that it can be wrong. Your either not listening or choosing to not participate. The theory of string's isn't fact. It's only shown on paper and there is no direct evidence of it's validity. If string theory is supposed to take the role of fundamental physics, beyond the quark/gluon level, being the smallest measurable unit, then yes indeed my theory would hold ground.

The physics concerning atoms is entirely different concerning the quantum level, both being different concerning the physics of the sphere's. The fundemental level physics is also different. Now hopefully your understanding what I'm getting at. So, to move on.

If the underlying physics at the fundamental level is *unproven*, as is my theory, then again, seeing as how my theory allow's for no true individuality, your basis for individuality cannot be true. Your basis for individuality would only exist within the current model of string theory, but not in my model. My model at some future point in time could theoretically be proven, or accepted, just as well as string theory has. My fundamental 'sumthings' could hold the same properties seeing in string theory, but with the applied model or similar model of the heisenberg uncertainty principle, thus making the prediction for any change's improbable. Just as we see the effect's of quantum entanglement, there could be another similar force allowing for this fundamental change in identity and it's occurance over undetermined periods of time.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   
had you read you would see that your constant change theory would have to effect and change, the following basic physics rules

then it would have to prove wrong einstiens equation E=mc2
imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...
where it shows a huge amount of energy is required to make a small amount of matter.
^this proves that energy must be smaller then matter, so the fundemental particles of the universe must be energy.

www.emc.maricopa.edu...
that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, only converted between eachother.
^this proves that no matter what you do, the same amount of material must be used reguardless of any change in characteristics.

my theory states whatever the fundemental particle of the universe is, that is what holds individuality. right now string theory is what holds the closest relation, because that is the suspected smallest particle in the universe. if its not and say a proton or quark or whatever is, this theory still applies to that. it applies to whatever the fundemental particle is.

[edit on 10-2-2006 by grimreaper797]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join