Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: ImaFungi

The relativity, or extension, or connection is what I was after.

I thought you had made connections like:

The abstraction, or measurement, of potential, or probability, thereby, or therein, creating excitation, or motion of...

What is physical and how do you conceive the space between measurements - these abstract ideas separated by " ".

The abstraction creates from probability [something] and is something.



What is the relation you are thinking of? Only that they are a hindrance to [something]? (Abstraction and probability, I mean.)

Also, have you noticed the link between time and emotions? How emotions are inexplicably linked to time byway of expectations? Emotion as an excitation of abstraction on [time/probability/will].

originally posted by: Bleeeeep

The abstraction, or measurement, of potential, or probability, thereby, or therein, creating excitation, or motion of...

What is physical and how do you conceive the space between measurements - these abstract ideas separated by " ".

The abstraction creates from probability [something] and is something.


What is the relation you are thinking of? Only that they are a hindrance to [something]? (Abstraction and probability, I mean.)

I said;

I believe there is only; Something. Nothing.

I said;

The hindrance to that belief, is, the concept of motion. The concept of potential. The concept of math/geometry.

I said;

The concept of potential, might be related to the concept of motion. As if there is eternally guaranteed to be 0 motion, there is guaranteed to be 0 potential.

I said;

The concept of math/geometry, might be related to potential. As when humans said 1=1, + = +, 2 = 1 + 1, before they went any further, it must have been true, that 1 + 1 + 1 = something (3).

The concept of motion, is a hindrance to the purity of my declaration of the ultimate distinction between absolutely something and absolutely nothing, because;

Is motion itself a thing? A thing exists. A thing that is not moving, can move. The thing is not physically changed, but there is difference between the thing moving and not moving. 'moving' is not a thing. A thing is a thing. 'What is the moving?'.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Yes like this:

[Something [Physical is [Abstraction [of Potential]]]][Nothing]

a reply to: Bleeeeep

I dont know.

What exactly is motion?

It is not a thing. And it is not absolutely no thing.

I suppose it is possible, that motion is 'a thing', in the sense that; if a thing is moving, 'motion' is a real quality of that thing.

As round is a quality of a thing, or (sketchy) red, motion is an irremovable aspect of a thing, and so I cannot try to separate and think about 'motion' as a concept.


Also, I realized, potential exists in minds. For example, the potential for you to clap your hands in a minute, once, or twice, is not an attribute or a potential of nature outside of your mind (besides the rare potential for the wind to force your hands to clap or something).

Potential only exists, either, as related to the wind example, accidents (though ultimately driven by consciousness), or mainly, as simulations in the mind, i.e. the imaging of knowledge that allows one to be aware that in a minute they can clap their hands, without the mental realization of the potential for them to clap their hands, the potential does not exist. Of course this gets infinitely complex, when bringing up things like instincts, or muscle reactions, or involuntary twitches, or even potentially a thoughtless babies ability to clap.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

If photons (or whatever you think light is) have no charge and thus no energy, how do you get energy out of a photovoltaic solar panel?

I have told you few times already, "photoelectric effect" is a property of matter and not some imaginary photons-enery transfer, otherwise you could use butter for solar panels and not like it is required - just specific materials

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Though I am inconclusive as to whether or not 'the blackness' between galaxies is true pure nothing.

You can look at it two ways. A cubic meter of that space might contain one or two hydrogen atoms, and a very very tiny amount of vacuum energy aka dark energy, neither of which amounts to much in a cubic meter. Compared to what we deal with every day on Earth, it might as well be nothing, as our best vacuums don't come close to that level.

On the other hand, while the contents of that cubic meter don't amount to much, there are so many of those nearly empty cubic meters that the sum of all of them ends up having most of the mass energy content of the universe in the form of dark energy. It's a case where you get two different perspectives at two different scales, which happens a lot in physics.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

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

He did say that the ability to produce heat might be one short definition which was true but he also said it wasn't a useful definition.

His point wasn't that it's "inconclusive", but rather that a short definition like "the ability to create heat" isn't really useful, and to create useful definitions of the different types of energy requires more than a single line we feel compelled to give to a short definition. He mentioned four textbooks he researched left out an attempt to provide a short definition, in favor of explaining the different concepts of energy in detail, where it is well-defined, so I would hardly call this inconclusive. He even reviewed some of those concepts in that article.

originally posted by: KrzYma
I have told you few times already, "photoelectric effect" is a property of matter and not some imaginary photons-enery transfer, otherwise you could use butter for solar panels and not like it is required - just specific materials

OK let's use butter. Intense sunlight can melt butter. How can it do that if sunlight has no energy per your definition?

a reply to: ImaFungi

All somethings have to be probable, and thus abstractable from potential, and thus within potential, and thus within abstraction, but its body; its physicality, well, all things don't seem to have that (as per their abstraction).

Like concepts.

Try to see which car is [the car]. Where is the car? It is an abstraction from potential of [the car]. Otherwise, there would be only one physical car and nothing else could be it.

Which apple is the one true apple?

e.g. The body is the image of the awareness of the will. My words are the image of my awareness, and my awareness is the abstraction of my will to explain motion. If my abstraction of motion is physical, it will be physical then, but only then: like these words could be considered physical, and therefor the image, or body, of motion would be: motion. But if the image of motion is to move physical, then that is motion, and motion isn't physical itself, instead, it is the image of physical motion.

Hopefully I didn't overcomplicate it.


[Something [Physical is [Abstraction [of Potential]]]][Nothing]
[Some [Body is [Awareness [of Will]]]][Nobody]

a reply to: Bleeeeep
You're discussing philosophy which you're allowed to do, but it's not the topic of this thread nor of this forum.

There's a separate forum for philosophy:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The topic of this thread is "Ask any question you want about Physics" so if you have a question about physics feel free to ask.

Physics will contain something about making testable predictions, and collecting data to test those predictions. I don't see how that can be done with anything in your post.

Scientific method

a reply to: Arbitrageur

We're talking about the observer effect on probability waves...

And what is motion.




In science terminology, it is a discussion about wave function collapse rendering motion as the motion of physical objects.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

OK let's use butter. Intense sunlight can melt butter. How can it do that if sunlight has no energy per your definition?

and lower pressure can boil it with no light needed...
you arguing about banana talking apples and dividing it by oranges, like all MS theories.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Arbitrageur

We're talking about the observer effect on probability waves...

And what is motion.

What are the testable predictions and what data has been gathered to test them?

a reply to: KrzYma
I'll take that response as meaning "I have no idea how sunlight melts butter, so I'll try to confuse the issue by talking about dividing apples by oranges"

a reply to: Arbitrageur


In science terminology, it is a discussion about wave function collapse rendering motion as the motion of physical objects.

The results are motion of physical things instead of physical motion.

Let's discuss?? What's your interpretation of forces rendered out of probability?

Are there actually many fields or just one field of probability from which all forces arise (based on the measuring, abstraction, observer effect which causes a said wave collapse, said force)?

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Arbitrageur
In science terminology, it is a discussion about wave function collapse rendering motion as the motion of physical objects.

The results are motion of physical things instead of physical motion.

You lost me there. I don't even know that that means. Please post the data collected so I can review it and then I can give you an opinion based on the data.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

You can look at it two ways. A cubic meter of that space might contain one or two hydrogen atoms, and a very very tiny amount of vacuum energy aka dark energy, neither of which amounts to much in a cubic meter. Compared to what we deal with every day on Earth, it might as well be nothing, as our best vacuums don't come close to that level.

But the idea of cubic meter is arbitrary. Here is the point I guess I am trying to express. In reality is there only 1 ultimate space? Which everything exists in?

I intuit, that if so, there is an ultimate absolutely nothing space (that is infinite in all directions), and the only way in which it exists, is that it 'is' non existence, (existence, referring to, that which is something).

So considering that infinite nothing space, this is why models of the big bang said 'space didnt exist prior' etc.

The space it is talking about there, is, distances between objects.

Nothing space always exists (by not existing).

If I have 2 apples, whether they are 1 foot, 2 feet, 3 feet, 100000 feet away from one another... 100000 feet of nothing space exists regardless.

So when you say a cubic meter, you are defining an imaginary, arbitrary, distinction of abstract unitary area;

a cubic meter = a cubic meter regardless of anything (this is like eternal fact, 1 = 1, 2 = 2).

A cubic meter is a cubic meter, if there is 10 atoms, or 20 atoms in it, or nothing space, or gravitons...

Spatial expansion, and/or dark energy; If something..... cannot be referring to nothing...

You cannot say, there exists a cubic meter of nothing space;

With a few atoms that exist in it,

And the quantity of nothing increases;

Therefore the quantity of energy increases.

On the other hand, while the contents of that cubic meter don't amount to much, there are so many of those nearly empty cubic meters that the sum of all of them ends up having most of the mass energy content of the universe in the form of dark energy. It's a case where you get two different perspectives at two different scales, which happens a lot in physics.

Ok, but you were talking about atoms existing in the cubic meter/s. And we are not settled on mutual comprehension of dark energy, spatial expansion, vacuum energy.

What is vacuum energy referring to. What is the energy?

The energy cannot be, nothing.

What is the something, that the energy is?

If the word vacuum does not = nothing.

What does the word vacuum =?

Any arbitrary 3d shape = vacuum?

He did say that the ability to produce heat might be one short definition which was true but he also said it wasn't a useful definition.

His point wasn't that it's "inconclusive", but rather that a short definition like "the ability to create heat" isn't really useful, and to create useful definitions of the different types of energy requires more than a single line we feel compelled to give to a short definition. He mentioned four textbooks he researched left out an attempt to provide a short definition, in favor of explaining the different concepts of energy in detail, where it is well-defined, so I would hardly call this inconclusive. He even reviewed some of those concepts in that article.

I dont consider usefulness, since my first post on this thread or site, I have only cared about Truth.

OK let's use butter. Intense sunlight can melt butter. How can it do that if sunlight has no energy per your definition?

What do you mean by; sunlight *has* energy?

Energy = motion.

Matter = That which exists.

Matter in motion = matter that has energy.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

I'll take that response as meaning "I have no idea how sunlight melts butter,"

Sunlight is something.

Butter is something.

Sunlight collides with the butter.

The orientations of the composition of the butter which retains its stable form, are interfered with during the collision, thus the butter loses its stability.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Post the data collected... lol you funny

My "hypothesis" is that motion is probabilistic.

The data on motion (motion as a probability), can be found in many experiments. Motion coheres, or collapses, as the motion of physical objects, instead of motion as independent forms. We can deduce that motion is probabilistic because of measurements made on physical objects positions before their probabilistic wave phasing and after their subsequent collapse caused by the observer effect. For more information, see: wave function, wave-collapse, a psychiatrist, you need one, superposition, etc.)

originally posted by: ImaFungi
The orientations of the composition of the butter which retains its stable form, are interfered with during the collision, thus the butter loses its stability.

Of course mainstream science can explain how sunlight melts butter.

This line of discussion originated with this post:

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: ImaFungi

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

I was challenging that definition since sunlight has no measurable charge yet it contains energy, which in this case since we are talking about melting butter, the ability to generate heat will do as an over-simplified definition of energy.

I've already said I'm not going to entertain your dictionary abuse regarding how space is defined. Vacuum energy is not well understood, but I know I've explained what we know to you at least several times; the expansion of the universe is accelerating and vacuum energy is our guess for the reason. That guess could be wrong but I don't have a better guess. If you didn't get it the first five times there's no point in re-hashing it again.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The total quantity of something that exists, cannot be an infinite quantity.

The total quantity of something that exists, must be a finite quantity.

Therefore, eventually, if one were to zoom out in any direction far enough, they would reach the end/edge of something, beyond of which, is an infinite expanse of nothing, or.... a conceptual road block my mind cannot comprehend.

If you had a foot long ruler, and you brought it beyond the edge of something, into the expanse of nothing, that ruler (lets imagine nothing physically happens to it, it doesnt break or warp in anyway, its made of an unbreakable unwarpable material, for thoughts sake) would equal itself.

If you bring that ruler anywhere, amidst the expanse of something, (same unbreakable ruler) it will equal itself.

The concept of nothingness, pure distance (dimension if you like... though I wouldnt say, necessarily 3d dimension,) exists, regardless... it cannot be escaped, because it is not anything...

Now, on this side of the wall, amidst the expanse of something, (we call the universe), there is still the fact, of nothing; and something.

Material, matter, is something.

You can take your cubic meters, and any rulers, to measure, either something, or nothing.

Nothing... cannot change.... it is nothing...

If there are changes... it is changes... of something...

If you have a cubic meter... and there are changes in relation to it....

Something, has changed...

Nothing has not changed... cannot change... will not change...

Nothing cannot expand...

Objects exist.

Objects move.

Nothing does not exist. Nothing does not move.

You do not measure nothing.

You can measure nothing, I suppose, essentially what a ruler is, but you are not measuring characteristics of nothing, because nothing has no characteristics, when you use tools of measurements, you are comparing something to something.

Ok, how is it, within the confines of ST, that the only particle that can theoretically be a closed string, and apparently therefore a spin 2, is the Graviton (yes, theoretical particle, I know)? What particular parts of the hypothesis prevent any other particle from having a closed string, except maybe the even more ridiculous Tachyon?

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Post the data collected... lol you funny

My "hypothesis" is that motion is probabilistic.

The data on motion (motion as a probability), can be found in many experiments. Motion coheres, or collapses, as the motion of physical objects, instead of motion as independent forms. We can deduce that motion is probabilistic because of measurements made on physical objects positions before their probabilistic wave phasing and after their subsequent collapse caused by the observer effect. For more information, see: wave function, wave-collapse, a psychiatrist, you need one, superposition, etc.)

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
Try to see which car is [the car]. Where is the car? It is an abstraction from potential of [the car]. Otherwise, there would be only one physical car and nothing else could be it.

I see, so you have no data showing that the motion of a car is probabilistic, because no such data exists.

If you had been talking about electrons instead of cars, such an argument might make sense.