<...there's always been matter SOMEWHERE> That's the kicker, isn't it. What a tough notion to wrap one's mind around. WHERE did that 'some matter' COME from? And actually, I rather like the idea of the universe all tied up with a string, like a present. Your post gave me a chuckle, Spidergoat. LOL Marti in Mexico
It didn't "come", it IS, in your mind. It's created by the observer, by the "self". The reality is "nothingness", where everything includes. Nothing is drawn on a blank paper, but everything could be drawn there. Infinitely small is infinitely large. But because "you" have been born into a body, you have eyes which see only a specific wavelength of energy which appear as hard matter. Matter is only a small aspect of the spectrum of energy in the universe, if you'd see all at once, you'd see Nothing!
<...there's always been matter SOMEWHERE> Actually I wonder if that is really correct. Of course, it depends on what you define as matter. It seems as we break down the components of any material object into smaller and smaller bits, we don't really seem to find matter. We find massive amounts of empty space with a speck of "matter". But then even that little speck of matter seems to break down into even more empty space with something exerting force rather than 'matter'. And when we finally reach the string, what is it? Is it a particle or a wave? Whatever it is, it exists in more than 3 dimensions. And then we could look at the 'observer role" in quantum physics. Why does a wave convert to a particle only when the "observer role' is fulfilled? A wave isn't a particle nor "matter". A wave is more like a fluctuating energy source containing information rather than a particle. When the activated information creates a particle are we really seeing a particle or just interpreting a force as a particle. Is there really any matter out there? I am getting a headache..... PS: Gem my comment wasn't directed towards you. It was in response to someone elses comments on your paper.
Electrons are "negative" and protons are "positive" (although these two are exactly the same thing under different circumstances) Particles produce "waves" because of the regular alternance of rotating polarities: North field, south field, north field, south field, and so on, in all directions. This is felt as a wave. Particles produce motion by themselves, because the negative and positive sides can't remain steady. No first cause is needed.
Woah... this discussion is OVER my head and beyond the doorway. Must find out more about string theory, this is REALLY intriguing. And I must use that 'matter is only one part of the energy spectrum' arguement in my science class! Oh, how I enjoy this site. I must come on here more, this is really excellent! I think I've learned more here than I have in three years in science classes! (Although with the way the American School System is, that doesn't say much about what I've learned... lol) But, I really do think that this should be moved SOMEWHERE ELSE... like in PMs, so Gem isn't reading through useless stuff. This is only worse because I'm not even saying sciencey stuff but OH WELL. Wow, I come off as really stupid. Oh well, I am, so that doesn't matter much...
wow a lot has happened here today...some of these posts are kind of confusing to tell the truth...lol... spider: don't worry about being too critical, its kewl
<It didn't "come", it IS, in your mind. It's created by the observer, by the "self". The reality is "nothingness", where everything includes. Nothing is drawn on a blank paper, but everything could be drawn there. Infinitely small is infinitely large. But because "you" have been born into a body, you have eyes which see only a specific wavelength of energy which appear as hard matter. Matter is only a small aspect of the spectrum of energy in the universe, if you'd see all at once, you'd see Nothing! > Whew. This is even harder to wrap my mind around. I understand all that stuff about the observer affecting the observed, and even the part about all that space surrounding everything, which Jagger brought up: It seems as we break down the components of any material object into smaller and smaller bits, we don't really seem to find matter. We find massive amounts of empty space with a speck of "matter". But then even that little speck of matter seems to break down into even more empty space with something exerting force rather than 'matter'. . But the part about 'if you'd see all at once, you'd see Nothing? !!! If you would see all at once, and see Nothing, would you be God? And WHY would you see Nothing if you are seeing All? Jagger, can you elaborate? Marti in Mexico
I think I understood it pretty well, because the thing is, if you saw all of the energy at once, and say, the energy is characterized by a white glowing. If you saw all the energy, all you'd see is WHITE. Because there's so much energy in so many things on so many wavelengths that it would just wash out everything else. -BUT- PLEASE MOVE THIS SOMEWHERE ELSE. If you're going to talk about this and Gem's interested, she'll go to the thread you may or may not start for it. This thread is for helping her correct her essay and it's developement. Now please, move this discussion elsewhere...
Interesting idea. I take it that the universe is living because we as living things cannot live in a world that is dead. The Earth is a living world because it supports living subsets? Correct. The question that arises is what level of living are we talking about as our religious compatriots will mention what level of conciousness are we talking about. Its like saying Algebra is a number as opposed to a number system because it is made up of numbers. Sure an algebraic equation may be equal to a single number or two, but in the end all are numbers. However it makes better sense in the reverse. i.e all number is a system or belongs to a system, e.g we cannot have 5 without 2 and 3. Then all living things are a system or arrangement, of other things be it tangible intangible, living or nonliving. Hence as it is the universe is living in its own way. Indeed it is true that there is always a system present. Everything of meaning belongs to a system. "If everything where dead, then we are an arrangement of everything that is dead..."
