Skhandelwal
- 400
- 3
What I mean to say is what is energy? I mean what is matter? What does it have that separates it from blankness or nothingness?
Thanks.
Thanks.
Yeah. So don't go blabbin' it around.granpa said:discretely
Make up your mind. Which is it: space, vacuum, nonexistence, energy or matter?Skhandelwal said:What I mean to say is what is energy? I mean what is matter?
Skhandelwal said:What I mean to say is what is energy? I mean what is matter? What does it have that separates it from blankness or nothingness?
Thanks.
JoeDawg said:Matter is a thing
1.3 Matter is formed from the Wave Motion of Space
It is well known that there is a particle-wave duality for light and matter. Given this most simple science theory is founded on One substance, Space, we must consider the Properties of Space, thus we cannot add 'parts / particles' to Space. So we are left only with waves.
Thus there is only one solution - Space must exist with the Properties of a Wave Medium, and matter is formed from wave motions of Space.
So Aristotle and Leibniz were largely correct, they just did not realize that matter's activity / motion really came from the wave motion of Space (a vibrating Space / substance is a simple way to imagine it).
Energy is a thing
In physics and other sciences, energy (from the Greek ??, energos, "active, working")[1] is a scalar physical quantity that is a property of objects and systems of objects which is conserved by nature. Several different forms, such as kinetic, potential, thermal, electromagnetic, chemical, nuclear, and mass have been defined to explain all known natural phenomena.
Energy is converted from one form to another, but it is never created or destroyed. This principle, the conservation of energy, was first postulated in the early 19th century, and applies to any isolated system. According to Noether's theorem, the conservation of energy is a consequence of the fact that the laws of physics do not change over time.[2]
Although the total energy of a system does not change with time, its value may depend on the frame of reference. For example, a passenger in an airplane has zero kinetic energy relative to the airplane, but nonzero kinetic energy relative to the earth.
Skhandelwal said:What started time?
Skhandelwal said:So Does time really exist? Or is all relative like velocity?
MaWM said:Yes. Time exists. Otherwise, there would be no "now".
JoeDawg said:What if there is only 'now'?
PhysiksFreak said:But there's also the fact that Reiki masters...
MaWM said:Our theories and expirements allow us to predict the future and arrange the past in a logical fashion. I can think about things that are not happening now, and they will come to pass if I use the proper science.
JoeDawg said:You remember the past, now.
You predict the future, now.
You experience, now.
Anything else is conjecture.
MaWM said:I won't be impressed unless you show me evidence that time is an illusion.
HallsofIvy said:Please, please, please don't say that "energy" is a "force". If you are using the physics definitions of those words, that is obviously untrue. If you are not, then it is non-sense until you have told us what definitions you are using.
I'm not sure that time ever "started." I'm not sure if there are those who have studied this formally as it seems somewhat speculative and philosophical. Personally, I think of time as a rather ordinary dimension like width, height, and depth. While consciousness moves forward in time, the past and future still exist. They're just located at a different point in space-time.Skhandelwal said:What started time?
JoeDawg said:Reiki masters of full of something, its not just 'energy', and it requires a shovel.
JoeDawg said:I don't much care what would impress you.
You said: Yes. Time exists. Otherwise, there would be no "now".
That is faulty logic. Now exists, and a theory of time can be inferred from that, but I certainly can't prove it.
If anyone needs to prove anything, its you who claim that 'time' also exits, when it indeed could be an illusion.
The fact that 'now' exists doesn't prove that your 'theory of time' is correct, regardless of how impressed you are with yourself.
PhysiksFreak said:In fact, he's damn right, without time, there would be no "now", but nor would there be a tomorrow, which would mean that there would have been no past as well (I'm taking this viewpoint from time zero.). Time is also an illusion, do you know why? because no where in the world time is EXACTLY the same. Just because man made it so, it doesn't mean nature has to go along with it. Without time, there would be no date with the hot girl down the street at ten o clock, nor would there be lunch with mom at twelve, nor breakfast with dad at nine, nor going to my best friends birthday on Sunday. If we're discussing about time, we need to think outside the box, and then only we might get an idea of what time is.
JoeDawg said:I don't much care what would impress you.
You said: Yes. Time exists. Otherwise, there would be no "now".
That is faulty logic. Now exists, and a theory of time can be inferred from that, but I certainly can't prove it.
If anyone needs to prove anything, its you who claim that 'time' also exits, when it indeed could be an illusion.
The fact that 'now' exists doesn't prove that your 'theory of time' is correct, regardless of how impressed you are with yourself.
PhysiksFreak said:Umm, JoeDawg, You should go get some Reiki yourself. Maybe then you'll believe?
Only in general... theories of time are vague at best and only descriptive.MaWM said:As I said, our theories work, and our expirements wok.
Its a good assumption, no more. The question of whether it is an illusion however has no relevance to predictability. A good magician can fool you every time, even when you know how the trick works. Such is the nature of illusion."Time exists" puts very strict and specific limitations on our universe.
This is almost the same argument as evolution vs creationism
Ocularis said:Without the past or future "now" is meaningless. Can you really say that we can experience time without there taking place some form of measurement or comparison? If there were only 'now' with no past or future, there would be nothing to experience.
JoeDawg said:Lets pretend I'm an all powerful demon and I created you this instant. When I created you I put in a whole host of 'memories' into you. These memories gave you a sense of what the future might be like. Then, demon that I am, I annihilate you in the very same second.
Would your experience of 'now' have been any different?
MaWM said:Again, your all powerful demon theory is unfalsifiable, the existence of time is not.
JoeDawg said:Its not a theory. No one is advocating it, nor believes it to be true, no one is doing experiments about it. This is reasoning, not lab work.
Its a thought experiment that demonstrates the primacy of consciousness.
Whether time exists or not, is NOT EVEN THE QUESTION. You can't even discuss that question, until you acknowledge consciousness.
Now exists, we can't avoid this, based on our experience of now and our memories we can then derive a notion of what is 'past'. From that we can infer a future. We can make connections.
But I'm repeating myself and this is phil 101 type stuff... ah well.
MaWM said:Your distinction between how you know that now exists and how you know that the past exists is arbitrary. How do we know that now exists? Because of our senses? Because we can reason about it? That means by expirement; our senses are merely scientific instruments. Our senses could be tampered with, our reasoning could be tampered with just as easily as our memories could be tampered with. The way we know "now" is not significantly different than how we know the past. (And, if youre going to tell me that we know the past exclusively from memory, remember that "now" is long gone before I can process any information about it, since that processing takes time. That is to say, we know "now" entirely from memory as well.)
Without memory there could be now thought, and all data is past data.
JoeDawg said:I have no interest in people who make money from selling snake oil. Masters indeed.
PhysiksFreak said:True Reiki masters do not sell snake oil you dolt. Why don't you read it up and then come and blabber to me?