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.

 

Resonance: Music, Quantum, and Chaos

page: 9
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by tachyonmind
 


Had you taken the first two definitions, from most sites, for each of the terms, you would better see their related meanings. I saw you had picked from the most differed definitions of the terms but didn't care to mention your deliberate misconstruing because I knew you knew what you had done.


i didn't misconstrue anything bud.. all i did was google "abstract definition", copy and paste the result, and highlight the verb.. but let's try it your way..


ab·stract (b-strkt, bstrkt)
adj.
site 1: Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept.
site 2: Thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea.
site 3: Disassociated from any specific instance

verb
site 1: To consider (a quality, for example) without reference to a particular example or object.
site 2: To consider as a general quality or characteristic apart from specific objects or instances: to abstract the notions of time, space, and matter.
site 3: dealing with a subject in its abstract aspects : theoretical

sub·jec·tive (sb-jktv)
adj.
site 1: a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
site 2: Relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.
site 3: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions:his views are highly subjective there is always the danger of making a subjective judgement


their meanings are not related at all.. one is the act of considering something separately from something else, or considering something which has no physical evidence, and the other means to interpret something based on one's own personal opinion or emotion..

the definition of the term depends on context.. when a physicist describes energy as being abstract, (s)he is saying that our means of measuring it result in it being a value unto itself, separate from mass.. i picked the verb definition of abstract because that is how it is intended by the link you provided.. the adjective definition does not apply in this context, nor the noun..

subjectivity only has meaning as an adjective or noun, there is no verb, (you can't subjectivify something).. either way it does not describe the abstraction of something, nor does it have any relevance to scientific research with the exception of only a few fields, such as the "observer effect" in quantum physics..

it appears you are the one who has misconstrued the meanings.. abstract is in no sense the same as subjective, in any context..


The tennis ball would indeed change forms if the right energy was applied. If an energy was too chaotic for the ball's resonance, the ball would lose its form.


what is this "right energy"? what is the difference between normal energy and "chaotic energy"? how are you defining the term chaotic in this context?

you could set the ball on fire suppose, then it would change forms, it would melt.. but my point was that there is more than just the conversion of energy involved in the fundamental substance of matter, it is only one factor in matter's creation and existence..
edit on 23-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   
here's a link for you =)


It is common that, when reading about the universe or about particle physics, one will come across a phrase that somehow refers to “matter and energy”, as though they are opposites, or partners, or two sides of a coin, or the two classes out of which everything is made. This comes up in many contexts. Sometimes one sees poetic language describing the Big Bang as the creation of all the “matter and energy” in the universe. One reads of “matter and anti-matter annihilating into `pure’ energy.” And of course two of the great mysteries of astronomy are “dark matter” and “dark energy”.

As a scientist and science writer, this phraseology makes me cringe a bit, not because it is deeply wrong, but because such loose talk is misleading to non-scientists. It doesn’t matter much for physicists; these poetic phrases are just referring to something sharply defined in the math or in experiments, and the ambiguous wording is shorthand for longer, unambiguous phrases. But it’s dreadfully confusing for the non-expert, because in each of these contexts a different definition for `matter’ is being used, and a different meaning — in some cases an archaic or even incorrect meaning of `energy’ — is employed. And each of these ways of speaking implies that either things are matter or they are energy — which is false. In reality, matter and energy don’t even belong to the same categories; it is like referring to apples and orangutans, or to heaven and earthworms, or to birds and beach balls.


professor matt strassler
edit on 23-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 09:34 PM
link   
the past couple of pages were quite lively...an enjoyable read.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelanteski
 


Originally posted by michaelanteski
You can't draw a good analogy between aural resonance and any concept from quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, there is no conducting medium (quantum theorists deny the existence of a conductive etheric medium) like air conducts sound.


whether you consider my analogy to be good or not, I accounted for the "no conducting medium" aspect by emphasizing that in the even-tempered piano, non-modal harmonics must be dampened... and that due to this contrivance, the model can only ever generate cookie-cutter simulations of the fully coherent modal system.

but I actually agree with your comment overall.

aside: I have seen the word "aether" being thrown around recently as though it were a well accepted concept. I am in full support of an anisotropic space.... I just didn't realize it was considered acceptable dialogue.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by tachyonmind
 


I have really appreciated your contributions. thanks.

I do still disagree, however, that chaos theory is merely a way of generating neato fractals and modeling economics. while I appreciate your offered definitions, I have a very good understanding of nonlinear chaotic dynamics. so while you say chaos cannot account for physics, I say that it is a profound statement about the nature of ALL systems in our universe....

if quantum mechanics were to be rebuilt, which IMO it needs to be (the basic premise of this thread), chaos theory would make a great foundation.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by tachyonmind
 


I have really appreciated your contributions. thanks.


likewise.. i rather enjoy educating people, it's why i exist =)


I do still disagree, however, that chaos theory is merely a way of generating neato fractals and modeling economics. while I appreciate your offered definitions, I have a very good understanding of nonlinear chaotic dynamics. so while you say chaos cannot account for physics, I say that it is a profound statement about the nature of ALL systems in our universe....


well i certainly agree that chaos theory is more than either of us have specifically outlined, however it is used as the study of mathematical systems.. you can use chaos theory in many field of science, but i wouldn't go as far to say that all systems are chaotic..


if quantum mechanics were to be rebuilt, which IMO it needs to be (the basic premise of this thread), chaos theory would make a great foundation.


i respectfully disagree, on the grounds that mathematical chaos alone cannot describe the behaviour of quantum particles.. i also suggest that you study quantum mechanics a bit more, and see if you do not agree that we should at least let it grow a bit more before ripping it out and replanting new scientific seeds..



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
aside: I have seen the word "aether" being thrown around recently as though it were a well accepted concept. I am in full support of an anisotropic space.... I just didn't realize it was considered acceptable dialogue.


well.. technically.. it's not.. however, it is a perfectly acceptable substitute for term energy, which is definitely not anisotropic space..

i personally like string theory, although still very young, it is promising.. strings/loops could well end up being a better term than aether..

in any case, it is obvious that there is a multidimensional field of something, and quantum theorists do not deny the existence of the medium, they simply ignore it, and study the particles it generates..
edit on 23-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 11:35 PM
link   
There is the baby and there is the bathwater, Materialist effectively deny determinism and in a matter of speaking.... they are ready to throw the proverbial, "baby out with the bathwater".

Any thoughts?
edit on 23-8-2013 by Kashai because: added content



posted on Aug, 24 2013 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
There is the baby and there is the bathwater, Materialist effectively deny determinism and in a matter of speaking.... they are ready to throw the proverbial, "baby out with the bathwater".

Any thoughts?


materialist in what sense? material science? or materialistic as in attributing unjustifiable importance to material objects?



posted on Aug, 24 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Do you have a problem with gravity being an effect that a particular motion has on matter? (A particular motion that all matter can exhibit if said matter is in the proper form.) I keep seeing you mention fields, so I ask to determine what you think a "field" really is. Do you think gravity is something different than energy/motion of matter?


My understanding and belief is that gravity is the activity of matter warping space. Gravity is caused by the motion of matter, but it would be wrong to say that the energetic entity of gravity is matter itself, just as it would be wrong to say when you are in a pool and spin around with your arms extended and on the surface of the water, that the motions of the water 'is you'.

I am not that familiar with the ideas of fields, but as far as I think I know, I think it is thought that particles are secondary to fields, that the nature of the universe is truly multiple fields, which are entities that are connected to itself beyond points and separation, and spans the entire universe, the em field, the gravity field, the theory of quantum electrodynamics has one electron field and one photon fields meaning all electrons are excitations in the electron field, theory of quantum chromodynamics believes that there is a field for all quarks, and so that matter quarks are excitations in a medium of field. So pretty much instead of saying and believing that electrons and particles of matter are separate entities of material like bullets or baseballs traveling through an empty nothingness background, it is seen that they are the results of ripples in fields bunching up at a point in the area of the universe, and remain as a harmonic bunch of order, which stays stable as the totality of the universe, these multiple fields, continues to evolve and 'expand'.

So then yes space itself must be viewed as a field of energy, if einsteins gravity is truly true, that matter warps and curves space, and masses are caught in that warp, and that is the activity of gravity, for if that is true that space can be curved and warped space must be something, not nothing, and it must be a connected entity , like a fabric, or medium of some kind, if it can so fluidly warp.



Do you think space exists where matter does not? Why believe space is more than the area matter consumes?(matter creates space - it doesn't exist in space)


Because that is not doing any thinking at all, you have not defined matter or space, you are just accepting your ignorance, I and science are seeking truth. Why believe space is more then the area matter consumes, is because lots of years of questions and experiments have brought us to logical conclusions that if gravity is to exist, and matter is to be something, and 'space is to be expanding' then space, and there are many multiples of fields packed on top of one another in the area between matter,the area between matter might not be nothing.

Personally I am cautious with all the above ideas and question them any way they can be questioned.



And the Einstein equation is pretty funny if I may say so. He basically defines energy as being energy by way of saying mass(which is just an effect of energy - without certain energy you have no mass) times the squared speed of light(speed of light is controlled by the amount of energy in the photon/matter). Basically he defined energy with energy. It's almost illogical.


Feels good to say something Einstein thought was 'almost illogical' doesnt it? If I may say so his ideas were pretty profound and I dont completely understand them, as I ask the significance of the c^2 in the equation. Before that point though the idea of energy and matter was pretty interesting. The idea of energy is the motion of matter, or potential energy, the potential for matter to move. But what he said was matter itself is energy, matter itself has the potential for matter to move, stored in its intrinsic inherentness, it is pure energy. Photons are though of as matter or energy? Basically his idea made the atom bomb possible and nuclear reactors, by figuring out that matter itself has tremendous energy stored in its inherent quantized nature, and that matter can be transformed to photons.

What came first energy or matter? And where did it come from? And if energy is defined by the movement of matter, how could energy exist without matter? And if matter is nothing but energy, how can energy and matter exist?



posted on Aug, 24 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by tachyonmind
 


I am referring to the Philosophy of Materialism/"Skeptics"/Conservative Scientist.



posted on Aug, 24 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by tachyonmind

matter is only in existence by virtue of it's energetic vibrational density, which is observable and measurable, and the energetic vibration is only in existence by virtue of the fundamental forces that create and govern all particles..


Matter is only in existence by virtue of its energetic vibrational density, is that to say matter is energetic vibration density?







there is no boundary to gravity.. sure, when you get far enough away from an object's centre of mass, its affects drops to undetectable levels by our measurements, and the affect appears to cease, but it never completely reaches zero.. nothing ever reaches zero, if it did it wouldn't exist.. the whole universe is held together by the forces of gravity of every single atom in existence, working as a whole system of inexorable attractions..


Physically it reaches zero. Mathamatically I can understand how it does not reach zero, because math itself is a non physical, non materially abstract system of quantity with no limits or boundaries to the amount of times digits can be multiplied or divided, they dont reach zero because most likely it is irrational numbers. Because the affects of the earths gravity field cannot be detected on a planet in the furthest galaxy from the milky way right now, or ever, means that physically the gravitational field of earth is not infinite, and that it does have a boundary to its energetic extent, just as if I dropped a boulder in the middle of the Atlantic ocean and had state of the art wave detection equipment, the ripples that would be made would not reach the coast, Yes because energy is not created or destroyed it would add energy to the other areas, and the medium as a whole would absorb this disturbance of equilibrium, but because there are waves coming from other directions as well, and waves of higher energy then the boulder provided, the boulders energy could be snuffed out relatively not far from the point of impact. And I also now that I think about it dont think it can be considered infinite, because I dont think space is infinitesimal in its inward dimension, that is to say I think there is a finite amount of space between 2 points, or if the planck length is incorrect increment, there is something of the sorts. So I dont think like mathematically the intial fraction of Pi could forever be computed with whatever algorithm produces the continual sequence, I dont think the same can be done physically for the extent of a gravity field, because there will be a specific point where its energy reaches the relative equilibrium of total space, which in this idea is equal to 0.



posted on Aug, 24 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by tachyonmind

matter is only in existence by virtue of it's energetic vibrational density, which is observable and measurable, and the energetic vibration is only in existence by virtue of the fundamental forces that create and govern all particles..


Matter is only in existence by virtue of its energetic vibrational density, is that to say matter is energetic vibration density?


not at all, it is to say that matter has energetic vibrational density, and that is how we measure it.. my apologies here, when i said "only in existence", what i meant was "only observable or scientifically measurable"..



there is no boundary to gravity.. sure, when you get far enough away from an object's centre of mass, its affects drops to undetectable levels by our measurements, and the affect appears to cease, but it never completely reaches zero.. nothing ever reaches zero, if it did it wouldn't exist.. the whole universe is held together by the forces of gravity of every single atom in existence, working as a whole system of inexorable attractions..


Physically it reaches zero.


nothing physical ever has the value of zero. zero is the absence of physicality, it is the absence of everything.. it's zero.


Mathamatically I can understand how it does not reach zero, because math itself is a non physical, non materially abstract system of quantity with no limits or boundaries to the amount of times digits can be multiplied or divided, they dont reach zero because most likely it is irrational numbers.


gravity is described by a mathematical equation that is not irrational.


Because the affects of the earths gravity field cannot be detected on a planet in the furthest galaxy from the milky way right now, or ever, means that physically the gravitational field of earth is not infinite, and that it does have a boundary to its energetic extent, just as if I dropped a boulder in the middle of the Atlantic ocean and had state of the art wave detection equipment, the ripples that would be made would not reach the coast


the ripples may not reach the coast but a minute quantity of the original energy release would reach the coast in fact, our inability to detect it does not change that it does..


Yes because energy is not created or destroyed it would add energy to the other areas, and the medium as a whole would absorb this disturbance of equilibrium, but because there are waves coming from other directions as well, and waves of higher energy then the boulder provided, the boulders energy could be snuffed out relatively not far from the point of impact.


how can the boulder's energy be "snuffed out"? you just said energy cannot be destroyed.. if we could follow the energy interactions from the moment of impact, we would see the force spread outward, interacting with other currents, yes, but those currents would only divert some of the energy in another direction, perhaps toward another shore even.. the energy released by the boulder's impact is never lost, with the right technology you could trace its progress throughout the ocean and wherever else it may go until the end of time..


And I also now that I think about it dont think it can be considered infinite, because I dont think space is infinitesimal in its inward dimension, that is to say I think there is a finite amount of space between 2 points, or if the planck length is incorrect increment, there is something of the sorts.


well.. here's where we get technical.. 3 dimensional spacetime as we can see it is not infinite, agreed.. but it contains at least 12 or 13 dimensions, the states and sizes of these extra dimensions are unobservable to us currently and only the forces which play out in the three dimensions we occupy are measurable.. gravity is the weakest force by many orders of magnitude, because it is the only one of the 4 known forces to interact with all dimensions of spacetime, rather than just our three..

for the purposes of simplification, i said infinite, but what i really meant was that the reach of the force of gravitational attraction has no limit.. the moon's gravitational field does not stop around earth, it just becomes so weak that it is not apparent under the stronger gravitation of larger bodies.. it still ever so slightly tugs at mars, venus, sol etc..


So I dont think like mathematically the intial fraction of Pi could forever be computed with whatever algorithm produces the continual sequence, I dont think the same can be done physically for the extent of a gravity field, because there will be a specific point where its energy reaches the relative equilibrium of total space, which in this idea is equal to 0.


it is incorrect to say that equilibrium is equal to zero.. you are using a numeral which literally has a value of nothing, (nothing does not exist in physical reality), to define the point at which the weakness of a force, acting over distance, makes it undistinguished..
edit on 24-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by tachyonmind
 


I am referring to the Philosophy of Materialism/"Skeptics"/Conservative Scientist.


what's a conservative scientist? are you making assumptions about a person's philosophical inclinations based on their knowledge of physics? skepticism is not the same as being scientifically critical..



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by tachyonmind

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by tachyonmind
 
ul

I am referring to the Philosophy of Materialism/"Skeptics"/Conservative Scientist.


what's a conservative scientist? are you making assumptions about a person's philosophical inclinations based on their knowledge of physics? skepticism is not the same as being scientifically critical..


I think of Scientist as human beings who love there children and understand why any parent would. Alternatively consider the concept of "Flatland" taken to another level? Would a 4D being present a 3D persona in a 3D perspective.

Not that we are just aware of 3 dimensions and because of this it is possible we would see more than a Shadow.

In context so would any individual who understood this.

Any thoughts?
edit on 25-8-2013 by Kashai because: Added thoughts...



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 02:01 AM
link   
ah, now i get you..


Originally posted by Kashai

Originally posted by tachyonmind

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by tachyonmind
 
ul

I am referring to the Philosophy of Materialism/"Skeptics"/Conservative Scientist.


what's a conservative scientist? are you making assumptions about a person's philosophical inclinations based on their knowledge of physics? skepticism is not the same as being scientifically critical..


I think of Scientist as human beings who love there children and understand why any parent would. Alternatively consider the concept of "Flatland" taken to another level? Would a 4D being present a 3D persona in a 3D perspective.


absolutely, it could and would, if it was partly made up of matter or energy that interacts within the 3d universe..

i have to ask for clarification though, on what you mean by "4d being".. do you mean, "4dimensionally aware being"? as in a lifeform that can sense 4 dimensions, or a being that is "made up" of 4 dimensions? because all "beings" would be multidimensional in the same universe, just interacting with different dimensions.. all particles in all dimensions experience the force of gravity, but that is all we really know at this point..

for all we know, the sun is a conscious multidimensional "being"..

current science has no idea what interactions our dimensions might have with neighboring ones, it can only look at what we can see and measure..

all we know is, the more we measure, the more we see, and the more we see, the more we can measure..


Note that we are just aware of 3 dimensions and because of this it is possible we would see more than a Shadow.

In context so would any individual who understood this.

Any thoughts?


i have one on dark energy/matter.. it may be this "shadow" of extradimensional energy/matter interacting on some level with ours.. research is still very young on this subject though..


edit on 25-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by tachyonmind


not at all, it is to say that matter has energetic vibrational density, and that is how we measure it.. my apologies here, when i said "only in existence", what i meant was "only observable or scientifically measurable".


So take away energetic vibrational density and what is left? According to you it would be matter right, and so what is that?





nothing physical ever has the value of zero. zero is the absence of physicality, it is the absence of everything.. it's zero.


I meant equation wise, We measure a gravity field surrounding a body in space and it has positive values of gravitational energy from where we start, and as we increase our distance from the body the numbers fluctuate but there is energy where we are measuring so the value is not 0, however we continue to increase the distance and eventually the energy value of the gravitational well will be unmeasurable because it is not there because the dent of that body does not extend throughout all space therefore the gravity potential of that body is not infinite, there fore at points in space sufficiently distant from that gravitational event, that gravitation event would equal 0 there. I understand I muddled the terms a bit but what I am trying to express remains true. If there was a wall 7 inches thick, we could devise countless ways of increments to measure the thickness, inches centimeters, but once we are a certain distance beyond the wall, the thickness of that wall ceases to exist, I know you do not like this analogy and I do not like it either, but the point I wish to express is that gravitational wells have boundaries.






gravity is described by a mathematical equation that is not irrational.


Yes inverse square law, but because you are using numbers and can divide them if not evenly, infinitely, this is why you think gravity of a body is infinite, because you are able to keep plugging in physically representing numbers and applying them to an equation which can infinitely compute the numbers. In this sense a gravity well may be considered temporally infinite, in that right now its boundary is not stable nor stopping. But it is not spatially infinite. Do you not understand my argument? I know that you are alluding to some sort of butterfly affect or newtons cradle, in that the gravitational energy waves, once produced by the body in space "go on forever", but I am saying that the surrounding universal space compared to a single body and its gravity well, is so massive in relation, inexplicably massive, that it is very easy for it to absorb and muffle and dampen and seal this gravitational wells blow, resulting it back to equilibrium at 0 if the equation was the totality of surrounding space verse a constant pocket of created gravity well, in time, that surrounding space ends the gravity wells existence of where it just was in space. Unless I am wrong and space is a solid, and gravity is the activity of a body boring a hole through this solid, which the tunnels remain forever.



posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by tachyonmind


not at all, it is to say that matter has energetic vibrational density, and that is how we measure it.. my apologies here, when i said "only in existence", what i meant was "only observable or scientifically measurable".


So take away energetic vibrational density and what is left? According to you it would be matter right, and so what is that?


Not quite.. Take away the measurement of matter's energy and it's still matter.. If you take the yellow out of a banana is it still a banana?






nothing physical ever has the value of zero. zero is the absence of physicality, it is the absence of everything.. it's zero.


I meant equation wise, We measure a gravity field surrounding a body in space and it has positive values of gravitational energy from where we start, and as we increase our distance from the body the numbers fluctuate but there is energy where we are measuring so the value is not 0, however we continue to increase the distance and eventually the energy value of the gravitational well will be unmeasurable because it is not there because the dent of that body does not extend throughout all space therefore the gravity potential of that body is not infinite, there fore at points in space sufficiently distant from that gravitational event, that gravitation event would equal 0 there. I understand I muddled the terms a bit but what I am trying to express remains true. If there was a wall 7 inches thick, we could devise countless ways of increments to measure the thickness, inches centimeters, but once we are a certain distance beyond the wall, the thickness of that wall ceases to exist, I know you do not like this analogy and I do not like it either, but the point I wish to express is that gravitational wells have boundaries.



Yup, gravity wells do indeed have boundaries, but that is not the same as saying gravity itself has a limit..





gravity is described by a mathematical equation that is not irrational.


Yes inverse square law, but because you are using numbers and can divide them if not evenly, infinitely, this is why you think gravity of a body is infinite, because you are able to keep plugging in physically representing numbers and applying them to an equation which can infinitely compute the numbers. In this sense a gravity well may be considered temporally infinite, in that right now its boundary is not stable nor stopping. But it is not spatially infinite. Do you not understand my argument? I know that you are alluding to some sort of butterfly affect or newtons cradle, in that the gravitational energy waves, once produced by the body in space "go on forever", but I am saying that the surrounding universal space compared to a single body and its gravity well, is so massive in relation, inexplicably massive, that it is very easy for it to absorb and muffle and dampen and seal this gravitational wells blow, resulting it back to equilibrium at 0 if the equation was the totality of surrounding space verse a constant pocket of created gravity well, in time, that surrounding space ends the gravity wells existence of where it just was in space. Unless I am wrong and space is a solid, and gravity is the activity of a body boring a hole through this solid, which the tunnels remain forever.



I'm afraid you have lost me here.. Temporarily infinite? Spacially infinite? A force that is "absorbed" by surroung forces? None of these terms make any logical scientific sense..






edit on 26-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by tachyonmind


Not quite.. Take away the measurement of matter's energy and it's still matter.. If you take the yellow out of a banana is it still a banana?


So you are saying that there is no such thing as energy, energy does not objectively exist, energy is only when we take something solid and let something moving hit it? But when something is moving and we do not measure it, there is no such thing as energy involved or existing in that physical scenario?

So an atom is matter, but what is an atom, quarks and electrons, quarks and electrons are matter, but what are they? 'ripples in a field'? Standing waves? Your analogy with the banana is disgrace to the great tool an analogy can be.

Ok so taking the energy out of an atom, is the idea of absolute 0? And this is the purest form of matter then? Ever increase the energy of an atom and what will happen to it?




Yup, gravity wells do indeed have boundaries, but that is not the same as saying gravity itself has a limit..


Does the earths area have a limit? Why yes it does, because it has a boundary. Boundary is a limit. Of course there are potentials for change, if something were to happen where the earth was given double its mass or velocity altered this would change its gravity well, or if a large meteor crashed into earth its area and boundary would be altered. But this is the tiniest fraction of change, and would still be maintained within its own limit and boundary of potential and likely change, that it is insignificant when compared to the vastness of the greater universe.

I cant believe you are continuing with your argument, dont you have some understanding of the scale of the solar system compared with the distance to the next closest cluster of solar system, and that compared with the next and next? And that scale and distance compared with the closest galaxy cluster? And then that distance compared with the next and next? All the while the space between these galaxies are increasing? You really believe that the gravitational displacement of earth (if we had detectors on whatever substance is responsible for gravity) trickles its way into near and distant galaxies?






I'm afraid you have lost me here.. Temporarily infinite? Spacially infinite? A force that is "absorbed" by surroung forces? None of these terms make any logical scientific sense..


Temporally infinite, as in, infinite in time. This is how gravity maybe be called infinite, in that if I were to ask you how long is gravity of earth occurring right now, you wouldnt be able to tell me with a finite
amount of time, because it is a continuous event.

Spatially infinite is what I thought we were arguing about, that the gravity from earth takes up an infinite amount of space. The area of space and potentially the universe as a whole may be quantized, the extent of gravity would not be an infinite quantity, though it may always be in flux, the energetic extent of earths gravity does not take up all space.

A force that is absorbed by surrounding forces, for example you punching a brick wall.

Oh and if you read the bit after that it makes my point very clearly, shame you couldnt understand and comment on that.






edit on 28-8-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by tachyonmind
 


So just to get this straight; you think at first matter did not exist...then all the energy existed, and matter still did not exist, but then all the energy turned into matter, so then all the matter and energy existed...but, that matter is not energy? Yes matter comes from energy, owes its existence to energy, is created from and nothing but energy, is there anything other then semantical convenience that matter is not itself what energy is (in some hidden way), and that the only reason 'matter' exists as matter, is our perspective as matter and energy ourselves as well as our perspective in time? If we cut down a tree and build a table using no materials or tools but the tree itself, we may not call the table a tree, but thats all it is, a tree in a different form.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join