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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by tgidkp
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.
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.
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?
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?
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)
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.
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..
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..
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?
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.
Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by tachyonmind
I am referring to the Philosophy of Materialism/"Skeptics"/Conservative Scientist.
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..
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.
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?
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".
nothing physical ever has the value of zero. zero is the absence of physicality, it is the absence of everything.. it's zero.
gravity is described by a mathematical equation that is not irrational.
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?
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.
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?
Yup, gravity wells do indeed have boundaries, but that is not the same as saying gravity itself has a limit..
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..