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.

# Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

page: 50
55
share:

posted on May, 19 2014 @ 09:16 PM

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Time is not a thing, that is the problem. Time is not a thing. Time is not a thing. Time is not even an event. Distance is real.
If you don't think time is real, how can distance be real? We use time to define distance in the definition of a meter:

The meter is defined to be the distance light travels through a vacuum in exactly 1/299792458 seconds.

Energy changes. That is true and a thing. Energy existing is a thing.

No it's not. It's a quantifiable property of things in certain configurations, and important because it is a consequence of symmetries in physical equations of motion.

things: one fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish

properties of things: one, two, red, blue

Its not true that energy exists? I believe this misunderstanding is due to semantics. I need a word that describes the essence of somethingness, and I thought that word was energy. Because matter is really energy, and energy is energy, and what isnt energy, isnt at all. There is nothing that isnt energy. If not, what is the word that makes that statement true, the ultimate somethingness that relates all somethings, apart from nothing.

posted on May, 19 2014 @ 09:20 PM
a reply to: ImaFungi

Because matter is really energy,

No. It isn't.
You are misinterpreting equivalence. That being the case you may as well say that energy is matter. But it isn't.
edit on 5/19/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 19 2014 @ 10:02 PM

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ImaFungi

Because matter is really energy,

No. It isn't.
You are misinterpreting equivalence. That being the case you may as well say that energy is matter. But it isn't.

No, you are wrong. The only way you can be right is with contrived definitions, by saying; "The deffinition of matter is that it is not energy, ha!". This is just your choice, to organize data, the universe is not as biased as you.

There is a prime substance, somethingness. This somethingness is the source of all somethings and somethingnesses.

This is called energy. This energy can and has materialized in ways. This is called matter. Matter is still energy, just in a different form.

I will ask one question to begin my defeat of your ignorance; Which came first, energy or matter?

posted on May, 19 2014 @ 10:12 PM
a reply to: ImaFungi

"The deffinition of matter is that it is not energy, ha!".
I did not say that and that is not the definition of matter.

Energy. Some of which became matter.
Matter is not energy. Matter has different properties from energy. Matter behaves differently from energy.
edit on 5/19/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/19/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 19 2014 @ 10:29 PM

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ImaFungi

"The deffinition of matter is that it is not energy, ha!".
I did not say that and that is not the definition of matter.

Energy. Some of which became matter.
Matter is not energy. Matter has different properties from energy. Matter behaves differently from energy.

Matter is a form of energy.

I am guessing the main outlier of a piece of an argument you are arguing from is; Movement, am I right?

The existence of movement.

Because the term 'matter' is very loosely based. If you dont think electrical and magnetic fields are matter, because the definition of matter is 'atoms and stuff like that', well thats your problem and business.

But in my sense of the term, material, this is used to describe a thing that exists. A something. If it is non nothing, then in a sense it is material, as in it exists materially, as in it is something, as in it is not nothing.

So just as earlier I was claiming perhaps 'time' is not a thing, as in it is not a 'physical something' that materially exists. So to now, you appear, if my assumption is correct, to be thinking that; because movement is energy, and 'movement' is not a material something, then energy is not a material something, and then that means material, or matter, is not energy.

Very interesting, I suppose. Maybe you will have a response to that, and then I will consider the essence of movement.

posted on May, 19 2014 @ 10:50 PM
a reply to: ImaFungi

But in my sense of the term, material, this is used to describe a thing that exists. A something. If it is non nothing, then in a sense it is material, as in it exists materially, as in it is something, as in it is not nothing.

Oh. You want to create your own definitions. Wouldn't it be better just to make up a new word rather than misusing an existing one?

posted on May, 19 2014 @ 11:07 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Time is not a thing, that is the problem. Time is not a thing. Time is not a thing. Time is not even an event. Distance is real.
If you don't think time is real, how can distance be real? We use time to define distance in the definition of a meter:

The meter is defined to be the distance light travels through a vacuum in exactly 1/299792458 seconds.

Energy changes. That is true and a thing. Energy existing is a thing.

No it's not. It's a quantifiable property of things in certain configurations, and important because it is a consequence of symmetries in physical equations of motion.

things: one fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish

properties of things: one, two, red, blue

Its not true that energy exists? I believe this misunderstanding is due to semantics. I need a word that describes the essence of somethingness, and I thought that word was energy. Because matter is really energy, and energy is energy, and what isnt energy, isnt at all. There is nothing that isnt energy.

As I've repeated before, you are stuck on your excessively naively linguistic-influenced focused concepts of "is". And jibberish like this:

But in my sense of the term, material, this is used to describe a thing that exists. A something. If it is non nothing, then in a sense it is material, as in it exists materially, as in it is something, as in it is not nothing.

So you have your criteria for "exist" which is unexplained and undefined and not grounded on reliable, independently confirmable and and agreed-upon facts or definitions. 'twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimbel in the wabe.

Matter is not "really" energy any more than red is fish. All the stuff you read about "matter being equivalent to energy" is bull#. Matter may be transformed in certain particle reactions in Standard Model which do not preserve total rest mass but do preserve total energy, and there is a quantification which tells you how much.

If not, what is the word that makes that statement true, the ultimate somethingness that relates all somethings, apart from nothing.

No one word. Energy is something that can be computed in physical systems from configurations of fundamental matter and fields and is very important concept in dynamics since many physically allowable reactions have properties which impose constraints on what happens to this quantity.

things: one fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish

properties of things: one, two, red, blue

read that until you understand.

edit on 19-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 19 2014 @ 11:20 PM
a reply to: ImaFungi

Ok first matter and energy are different but the definition of matter keeps changing as we discover more. I think the key difference however is energy is something that causes matter to do something. The older definitions really no longer apply such as something having mass. Since we know we can cause energies to have mass.

Now time is a thing we cant ignore it there is something.There is a past present and future we as humans have just broke it up into intervals to help track it. We know time itself is linked to motion as well as forces. Time is an illusion as Einstein said but most people dont truly understand what he meant. He didnt mean it wasnt real he was looking at past present and future basically past is a record much the same as recording ones voice. The Future of course hasnt occurred yet and open to multiple probabilities and the "NOW" is such an indefensibly small slice of time which as we know is based on the observer.Time is a real phenomenon a continuous change through which we live. Without time nothing occurs if we stopped time nothing would interact and the universe ceases to exist eveything would collapse into nothingness.

posted on May, 19 2014 @ 11:24 PM

originally posted by: dragonridr
the key difference however is energy is something that causes matter to do something

No it doesn't. Underlying physical equations of motion tell you what will happen and energy computations are a shortcut to tell you quickly which outcomes are prohibited.

posted on May, 19 2014 @ 11:38 PM

originally posted by: [post=17941605]dragonridr . Without time nothing occurs if we stopped time nothing would interact and the universe ceases to exist eveything would collapse into nothingness.

That would be a scary scenario

posted on May, 19 2014 @ 11:39 PM

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ImaFungi

But in my sense of the term, material, this is used to describe a thing that exists. A something. If it is non nothing, then in a sense it is material, as in it exists materially, as in it is something, as in it is not nothing.

Oh. You want to create your own definitions. Wouldn't it be better just to make up a new word rather than misusing an existing one?

"Before the 20th century, the term matter included ordinary matter composed of atoms, and excluded other energy phenomena such as light or sound. This concept of matter may be generalized from atoms to include any objects having mass even when at rest, but this is ambiguous because an object's mass can arise from its (possibly-massless) constituents' motion and interaction energies. Thus, matter does not have a universal definition, nor is it a fundamental concept, in physics today. Matter is also used loosely as a general term for the substance that makes up all observable physical objects" -Wiki

posted on May, 19 2014 @ 11:57 PM

originally posted by: mbkennel

As I've repeated before, you are stuck on your excessively naively linguistic-influenced focused concepts of "is". And jibberish like this:

I will admit, the conundrum is motion. I would never say, matter is made of motion. I believe that 'somethingness does exist', a finite amount of it which transforms indefinitely. This fact of transformation, is the fact of relative motion of constituents. This is where the notions of time and I suppose, your energy, come in. I am of the belief then that 'matter', or substance, or at the very least descriptive 'somethingness', has always existed. Yes, as in, is, yes as in exist, yes is, yes exist, exist, is, yes, exist, is, yes. Does exist. It does. It is. It exists. Quantity. Quality.

So there is the thing. And there is its movement. Say one thing has a mass of 5, and it is standing still. An identical thing has a mass of 5, but now it is moving 5 mph.

First of all, you need to tell me what could possibly cause movement? If your definition of energy, is the movement of matter (or one of them...the only one we need to be arguing about, if you wanna say all the fields arent 'things' that exist, but conditions or relationships or something, I am still right, because they exist in some way, they are not true nothingness).

How does matter ever move, or what originally caused matter to move? Your example of energy, is the fact that in that 'mass of 5' example. The two subjects have differing values of energy, just because one is moving faster in relation. So where did that extra energy come from. Is it an infinite regression? The ole prime mover argument. This is why beginning of the universe theories are broken haha! What made the first movement move, in the beginning, there was movement, what was moving? What did it move?

So yea, that is weird...the almost abstract 'existence' of the action of motion. Its still a material phenomenon I would offer, because it only exists because matter, and if the universe is a closed system and full of fields everywhere, it is material because something about the nature of all the fields, and the nature of 'the matter' is causing the matter to be motive.

Can matter move by itself? Can matter move matter? Energy is, that which allows matter to move? If energy has a cause or effect on matter, energy must be non nothing, which means its something, which means it exists.

Matter is not "really" energy any more than red is fish. All the stuff you read about "matter being equivalent to energy" is bull#. Matter may be transformed in certain particle reactions in Standard Model which do not preserve total rest mass but do preserve total energy, and there is a quantification which tells you how much.

Is light energy or matter? When a mass/matter is radiated away to pure light, where did the matter go, what is happening there? What does this say the matter was made of the whole time? No other parts were there? No eternal matter parts were there? It was energy all along, wasnt it? In a different form?

posted on May, 20 2014 @ 12:43 AM
a reply to: ImaFungi
Yes this is what I was arguing earlier in the thread when I said matter isn't well defined, which is uncharacteristic for me since I'm usually pointing out that physics are usually well-defined, but "matter" is a term that went off the rails definition-wise in the 20th century as your wiki quote implies. Take a proton, or hydrogen ion, the most abundant form of baryonic matter in the universe, where the three quarks only make up a small fraction of the proton's mass, while the vast majority of the proton's mass is comprised of energy. So, how much of the proton is matter, and how much is energy? Apparently it depends on how you look at it.

Proton

While gluons are inherently massless, they possess energy—to be more specific, quantum chromodynamics binding energy (QCBE)—and it is this that contributes so greatly to the overall mass of the proton (see mass in special relativity). A proton has a mass of approximately 938 MeV/c2, of which the rest mass of its three valence quarks contributes only about 11 MeV/c2; much of the remainder can be attributed to the gluons' QCBE.

However the fact that the definition of matter is a bit fuzzy should drive you to do the opposite of what you're trying to do. Instead of looking for one generic word to describe everything, which will inevitably fail at describing the nuances of how nature works, you should be striving to find better descriptions which aren't so generic.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Is light energy or matter?
I don't think it's ambiguous to say that light is a form of energy.

originally posted by: dragonridr
Without time nothing occurs if we stopped time nothing would interact and the universe ceases to exist eveything would collapse into nothingness.
I do find it interesting that from our outside reference frame, time stops at the event horizon of a black hole, but for the spaceship entering the black hole it goes right past the event horizon as if it's not even there, if the black hole is big enough, with the clock chugging right along.

edit on 20-5-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on May, 20 2014 @ 02:24 AM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

However the fact that the definition of matter is a bit fuzzy should drive you to do the opposite of what you're trying to do. Instead of looking for one generic word to describe everything, which will inevitably fail at describing the nuances of how nature works, you should be striving to find better descriptions which aren't so generic.

I believe this has been a misnomer of a derailment about semantics, that I followed because at the core I believe my generality was sufficient to get at what I was getting at. I had to then further and what I have been attempting to do, explain my point of view as to why I made the convenient, generality. Compared to those convenient arbitrarities.

I admit the troubling part is 'motion'. All other things that are called 'energy' are physical things, as in, they exist. Its tough or impossible to say motion exists as a thing, its very abstract and weird. But do you think the kinetic energy of a moving object, which perhaps is constantly kinetic does that mean every 'certain increment' that value of kinetic energy is just effecting the surrounding space over and over ?

Like imagine a mass with value 5 at rest, and it has energy value (what, it wouldnt be 5 would it, or at rest a value of energy to a mass, or matter, is meaningless?) of...idk, im afraid ill be wrong but lets say 5. And so then this mass is caused to move. It takes mass and energy to cause this value 5 rest mass to move. The energy is thrusted onto the rest mass and now the rest mass is moving.

Now the energy value of the rest mass is 10. So all that was given to the rest mass was energy once, and then over time, it can keep that energy. This is the object in motion stays in motion adage, and assumes the vacuum is frictionless I suppose, or something.

The energy used to increase the momentum of the rest mass, came from somewhere, and now remains with the now moving rest mass? So I think, though I am very unsure at this point, just trying to think, it may be that even motion is a material phenomenon, is a material property, is itself material...somehow.... I need to think further, but this topic is baffling. Consider what it means to exist in an infinitely large vacuum as a solitary closed system, consider this extreme hypothetical, nothing exists at all, besides an infinite perfect expanse of absolute nothing, you, and a tennis ball. And you throw the tennis ball away from your body. This is an equation of energy, you and the tennis ball are matter. Perhaps in many different ways energy is released from you, and the tennis ball gains some of that in the way of momentum. And then the material tennis ball, just 'has' energy, forever, it will just always be moving at that same speed you threw it.

Now it may be different within the universe, if it is completely full of fields, foundationally. Then could it be that a ball thrown will be given the motion, by your material arm, which was made to move my your material brain, which was made to move by its material constituents, which were made to move by its other material constituents, which are made of material chemicals, which cause the constituent interactions to take places with material electrical impulses (or is that energetic electrical impulses), and your arm moves relatively forward, and your fingers open up, and now the ball continues moving away from you.

You have created pure energy with a body, what you would refer to as perhaps a mixy conglomeration of energy and matter, pure energy in the form of the motion of the ball. Now if not for the similarity of the prior vacuum example, the other potential possibility maybe, is that the tennis ball is interacting with the fundamental field a bibillion times a second, and its a sort of computation, of the fields recognizing unconsciously of course, the mass of the ball and the fields naturally reacting to the speed of the ball, as they would naturally react to the speed of all things, and as a light wave 'self propagates' and sound wave is a mass rubbing air molecules which rub their neighbors which rub their neighbors which rub their neighbors, so too might it be, that the fundamental fields are constantly being rubbed by the tennis ball, and giving their equal and opposite force, which causes the ball to carry on at the speed it was carrying on at as it left your hands, thus making even the energy of motion, a completely physical, and mechanical, phenomenon?

I don't think it's ambiguous to say that light is a form of energy.

And youve said that particles of matter can completely disappear into pure light? What happens to matter, matter isnt energy, why can matter completely disappear and turn completely into energy if its not energy?

posted on May, 20 2014 @ 12:52 PM
a reply to: ImaFungi
I made a thread about whether E=mc² is right or wrong, and the reason why it's not exactly right is because of this motion issue you are discussing.

So, the thread also shows the corrected formula that includes a motion term.

Regarding how protons at the LCH get all that energy from motion, it's not a mystery. I think the typical electric bill for CERN is about a million dollars a month or more, when the LHC is operating, and the sources of that electrical power are well understood.

posted on May, 20 2014 @ 01:23 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

However the fact that the definition of matter is a bit fuzzy should drive you to do the opposite of what you're trying to do. Instead of looking for one generic word to describe everything, which will inevitably fail at describing the nuances of how nature works, you should be striving to find better descriptions which aren't so generic.

I believe this has been a misnomer of a derailment about semantics, that I followed because at the core I believe my generality was sufficient to get at what I was getting at. I had to then further and what I have been attempting to do, explain my point of view as to why I made the convenient, generality. Compared to those convenient arbitrarities.

I admit the troubling part is 'motion'. All other things that are called 'energy' are physical things, as in, they exist. Its tough or impossible to say motion exists as a thing, its very abstract and weird.

No, energy and motion are more similar than different---they are properties of matter and non-matter (zero rest mass) parts of Standard Model.

Take as fundamental the fields of the Standard Model. An electron is an excited state of the electron field (roughly) like a photon is an excitation of the EM field, and these are the results of what's called 'creation operators' in QFT.

The "motion" of a particle I guess in quantum mechanics can be described as the result of applying the 'momentum' operator to the field state and seeing the result---you may get a single value of momentum (if your initial state was a pure state in momentum representation) or a distribution over various values of momentum.

So you start with fields ("real stuff") apply an operator and the field again to get a number, represented in notation as , which is a shortcut for get the expected value of the distribution of what you get from the operator, a long-winded way of 'make an observation of property of a system'

This is how quantum mechanics works. Those operators are mathematical constructions which represent the combination of a mathematical 'algorithm' which is applied to the state of the wave function (or universe), some bits of differentiating this, rotating that and then integrating, that kind of stuff.

So in this sense 'motion' and 'energy' are more alike, they are human concepts of properties of what you get out when you perform a mathematical operation on the wave function and compute the result.

red fish, blue fish

fish = excitation of the fish field
red = expected value of the color operator applied to the state of the fish field

But do you think the kinetic energy of a moving object, which perhaps is constantly kinetic does that mean every 'certain increment' that value of kinetic energy is just effecting the surrounding space over and over ?

No, it doesn't work like that---if the object itself has specific physical properties which result in influencing nearby stuff, like being charged and making EM radiation----then it will do so. Energy considerations give some overall constraints---they're like a 'budget', but the details are specific to the interaction. So a heavy charged particle will loses kinetic energy quickly when its velocity changes, which it can do by colliding with matter, but a neutrino loses less.

Analogy: energy is what you have in your bank account. Specific commercial interactions are what you actually buy and do to make money go from one person to another. What did you buy, who did you work for? Energy is like the financial constraint that unless you're the God of Dollars (Fed + Banks) you can't make new ones, just transfer existing ones. Just like a financial value is a property of a piece of art, it is not the same thing, and does not comprise the totality of what the art does and doesn't do.

"motion" and "energy" are like 'fast" and 'rich".

Take a man. He's fast (property of person). He is rich (property of person). He is Usain Bolt (name of the person itself). "Usain Bolt" is even a property but it is the unique name given to one particular collection of Jamaican cells with awesome DNA, that's the man himself.

Energy is like "wealth". Is wealth a "thing"? Does it "exist"? Yes, in human conceptual terms it 'exists', but it is not a thing like biological entities who eat.

energy : matter :: wealth : people

edit on 20-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 20 2014 @ 01:42 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Time is not a thing, that is the problem. Time is not a thing. Time is not a thing. Time is not even an event. Distance is real.
If you don't think time is real, how can distance be real? We use time to define distance in the definition of a meter:

The meter is defined to be the distance light travels through a vacuum in exactly 1/299792458 seconds.

Energy changes. That is true and a thing. Energy existing is a thing.

No it's not. It's a quantifiable property of things in certain configurations, and important because it is a consequence of symmetries in physical equations of motion.

things: one fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish

properties of things: one, two, red, blue

Its not true that energy exists? I believe this misunderstanding is due to semantics. I need a word that describes the essence of somethingness, and I thought that word was energy. Because matter is really energy, and energy is energy, and what isnt energy, isnt at all. There is nothing that isnt energy. If not, what is the word that makes that statement true, the ultimate somethingness that relates all somethings, apart from nothing.

I told you my operational definition for "physically exists" --- is a source term (causative) in Einstein gravitation. Works so far.

posted on May, 21 2014 @ 05:14 AM

originally posted by: mbkennel

I told you my operational definition for "physically exists" --- is a source term (causative) in Einstein gravitation. Works so far.

Is a graviton a source term in Einstein gravitation? Higgs particle?

posted on May, 21 2014 @ 06:58 AM

originally posted by: [post=17943540]mbkennel Take a man. He's fast (property of person). He is rich (property of person). He is Usain Bolt (name of the person itself). "Usain Bolt" is even a property but it is the unique name given to one particular collection of Jamaican cells with awesome DNA, that's the man himself.

Good analogy, though imo, some black magic is at play with the 2 Jamaican runners.
Watch them closely, like their leg movements compared to their competitors and it will become apparent

posted on May, 21 2014 @ 09:38 AM

originally posted by: mbkennel

No, energy and motion are more similar than different---they are properties of matter and non-matter (zero rest mass) parts of Standard Model.

Im suggesting all energy besides motion, is physical and material. And motion is the most distant 'property' of them. Because its the most abstract. This is what I mean by all other things exist, if even for the tiniest portion of time, in some way, all other forms of energy are 'things' that exist. The properties of fields, exist as their own things. They are real and exist. I dont just say they are properties because lol these matters dont exist in a vacuum, each existent thing is an intrugal part and cant be dismissed as more or less non existent, though it can be noted that each part may exist for more or less amounts of time. The energy you speak of, as non quarks and electrons and neutrinos, in and of themselves, is still a quantity of real 'stuffness' that is a real part of the totality of 'stuff that exists'. Do you agree with that, that one cannot make all the fields, or properties disappear, or turn into nothing, as it is energy, which cannot be created or destroyed, I do not need to argue that energy is something, this is obvious, the most abstract and confounding part for me, is motion.

Because the energy to cause the abstract motion, has to have been a something, which came from somewhere. And its just interesting to cause this abstract 'movement' as its power of somethingness. I can certainly see it, imagining an air tight medicine ball, full to almost the highest density with water, and then many different food colorings put in there, surely the energy would be coming from outside the system when you shake it up, but once you do so and let it sit on the ground, the given energy will take the form of movement of different particles of coloring and maybe water in the water. So from an external observer to the sphere, at a fixed point in relative space and time...well I guess the only way the energy could stop from moving in there, is if it radiated out of the ball? So if the ball was completely shielded to insure all energy would stay in, once originally supplied...well now I see our pesky friend gravity, so eventually the masses of particles will arrange in the ball appropriately settled, or regardless of gravity, in vacuum of 'deep space' will the food coloring particles eventually just remain steady, and coalesce, or will all particles of coloring and water just 'vibe' around 'for ever', without any more energy entering system, and with none of it leaving?

But anyway, so motion as that... Its very difficult to comprehend! Because it seemingly takes 'something' that is 'not motion', (because that makes no sense, because motion isnt a thing), to cause motion. And it seemingly takes motion, to cause 'something'?

All fundamental particles are known to constantly be in motion right, as its seemingly impossible to get 'anything' to be at absolute 0? Which I suppose would be non relatively, or approaching objectively, motionless?

See now, after starting to think about motion last night, thinking about this conundrum of existent things and abstract qualities, I tried to see if I could think of a way it would be possible to say, that motion itself was not an abstraction, but a strictly material phenomenon,to try and say 'motion is a thing in itself', in a way, and I have no clue if I am able to do that, I have no clue if its true, or false, or if I am not or am able to do it because of if it is true or false, but I thought similar to that water ball example; if, exactly, all, most infintesmal points of a closed system were physical quantas of somethingness, from an outside observer, movement may be a completely mechanical and therefore physical existent.

Yea, I know, I am killing myself here, and I dont know what im saying (with this current train of though more then most), but I understand, if even from a distance, the idea of a mathematical grid of 'tug of war' (meaning, take some here, give some there, 'all is accounted for'), giving every infintesmal point a value and as play has been pressed, plotting their progressions, and the physical relative movements of each point to each other point, is 'energy', and is 'movement'.

Argh...Like the energy of movement, that abstract quality, must come from somewhere, where does it come from. I dont buy, I cant buy, the vacuum fluctuations, singularity, collapsing nothingness theories of mainstream science. But instead of attacking that one prior sentence, I would rather you try and answer the one prior to it; the energy of movement, that abstract quality, must come from somewhere, where does it come from?

top topics

55