The illusion of material solidity

MY superpartner only surfaces when I take a bath..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My reply to Post #40 :

1. - You used the word "permission".

2. - Again, I used the words "welcome" and "do not hesitate" and "anything that I, dmoe, AM RESPONSIBLE FOR".

3. - I, to the best of my ability, addressed and or answered all of the questions you asked of me.

4. - Again, Mr. Motor Daddy. - May I possibly, with your permission and approval, hopefully, be allowed, possibly, if I am not being inconsiderate, to ask : have you, MR. Motor Daddy, addressed and or answered all of the questions asked of you - to the best of your ability?

5. - I, dmoe, in all honesty, prefer not to PLAY in your, what seems to me,to be a very childish, demeaning and altogether, below, what I, dmoe, perceive to be, Mr. Motor Daddy's actual intellectual ability, ...GAME...

6. - I, dmoe, in all honesty, will not be anxiously, antici....................................................................................................................pating, any non-answer or rant/tirade/lambaste that you, Mr. Motor Daddy chose/opt/deem to Post.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

DMOE, I Mr. Motor Daddy am signing off this thread. You've clearly earned the name DMOE.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thank you Mr. Motor Daddy, for both: 1. - signing off. - and : 2. - the accolades you lavished upon me.

It seems, to me, at least, that you should admit, Mr. Motor Daddy, that you never actually signed on for any other reason than to "bait" and to try to get someone to "play your game".

It seems, to me, at least, that when you failed to "bait" someone that you could easily "best" in "your game", you did as you have always done in the past - you took your ball(singular) and ran away.

And again, it seems, to me, at least, you did so without ever answering any questions.

By the way, I would imagine you feel really great about yourself right now, knowing that you so clearly devastated, and left as a shattered, broken, emotionally wrecked, former shell of a man that proudly called himself the "dumbest man on earth", by lambasting and verbally assaulting him by telling him he had clearly earned that name.

I mean, it seems, to me at least, that Mr. Motor Daddy, could possibly be perceived as giving up, tucking his tail between his legs, taking his ball(singular) and running off the playground because he had no choice but accept defeat in a battle of wits that he, Mr. Motor Daddy, had picked and had chosen to engage in, with the dumbest man on earth.

Please let me the first to congratulate you for your awesome accomplished achievement!

And again, it seems, to me, at least, that you achieved all of that without ever answering any questions.

Bravo, Mr. Motor Daddy, I have no choice other than to bow to your clearly superior intellect and glorious achievement.

 

If there is no material solidity why build accelerators , as in Cern ?

 

river, why must you insist on forcing facts, intelligence, logic or common sense into this thread?
Unless you have completed kindergarten - and spent years of hard work, dedication and practice to successfully, consistently, be able to wink with just one eye - well...you should just relax, be quiet and learn from the "True Thinkers" - instead of bringing up reality or the fundamental laws of nature.

I'll tell you...the gall of some people!

wiink ! - (still have not learned to "wink" with just one "I")

 

"It goes like this. We know that an atom is more than 99% empty space and less than 1% actual matter. (These numbers are oversimplified, albeit greatly, for the sake of an easier read.) The atom looks solid to us because we are larger and perceive at a rate so slow that the atom appears to spin astronomically fast. It is not just the spin which makes the atom take on the properties of a solid block of matter. It is more than that. It is our internal linkperception of that spin which makes it seem like matter. Our rate of perception is slower: the spin of the atom is faster. It is this vast difference in the two relative scales of internal linktime that enables a mostly empty structure to appear solid to the observer.

If we were able to shrink ourselves and accelerate our speed of perception, the electrons of that atom would appear to slow in their orbits. Eventually, the atom would become more apparent for its empty space than for its solidness. It would thus transform from solidness to emptiness. Accelerate our speed of perception fast enough, and we would find ourselves looking at the components of an atom standing still amid a sea of other atomic components standing still. More than 99% of the matter in the universe, as we formerly knew it, would have disappeared and we would be looking at the less than 1% of matter that remains.

What has just happened is that we eliminated matter when we accelerated the scale of time. We started by measuring the amount of matter in the known universe as it exists within the time scale of, say, a human second. By altering our observation to span the time of merely an astronomical fraction of a second, we find matter has disappeared. This is because matter is a function of time. It takes a certain measurement of time for the components of the atom to complete the amount of orbits necessary to guard their circumference and turn empty space into an impenetrable unit. Accordingly, whether this is solid or empty depends entirely on the amount of time being measured."---

A supposition by Tom Burns Bacon October 1999

 

There is a confusion on the commonly accepted definition of "solid" in this discussion. Solid is a state of matter where atoms are very close together, in comparison to liquid and gas, which are farther apart. We perceive solid as "solid" not because of the electromagnetic field of atoms, but because of the proximity of atoms. Thus, the concept of "solid" does exist, though the OP is correct in stating that two objects never really touch each other. The properties of solid, liquid and gas are defined by the proximity of atoms and not merely by their electromagnetic fields.

 

TruthSeeker, thanks.

 

You're welcome!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes, that is part of it.

You wouldn't have to accelerate your speed of perception. That is directly tied to size.

Without "time", it would be completely empty.

Not transform, it is just a different perception of the same thing.

It would approach infinity and then turn into its diametric opposite... like cot (x) when x= 0.

What has just happened is that we eliminated matter when we accelerated the scale of time.[/quote]

Not exactly, we simply seized to perceive one of the properties of the singularity, namely matter. You can do the exact opposite as well. If you look farther enough, with a very slow perception of time (again, these two are two expressions of the same), you will see the entire universe as one "thing" and you will perceive everything as matter. The manifestations of the universe are relative to the perspective of your perception.

Beware of the word "solid", it is ambiguous. I rather use "existence" in place of "solid" (for matter) and "non-existence" in place of "empty" (for vacuum).

 

Our sensory systems have limitations in terms of sensitivity. We cannot see or feel things to a small enough scale to notice the space within matter. Rather at our natural scale of perception, reality appears solid. To see this space we need to enhance our senses with machines. But since most people are not born with such machines the preponderance of individual lifetime data collection says solid.

As an analogy, say you need glasses but don't wish to war them. You see the words on the page as fuzzy. This will be normal to you since this is how the data appears in your mind based on your visual data collection tools. If you get glasses, now the world changes.