9
   

The philosophical basis of absolute physics

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2014 04:56 pm
@Arcades,
Arcades wrote:

Relativity. Potential. And factuality. These material presentation mean vasly more than people think generally.


Is that a part of your gospel???

Are you starting a new religion with you as the figurehead...and just doing recruiting here?
Arcades
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2014 05:24 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Mr Apisa please, let's maintain the sane tone of our Discourse. A figurehead ? For a new religion? Just because I might be the first to say something that some find interesting doesn't really put me ahead of anyone who might understand it after. Am I infallible- no, did I get this one thing right where others before might not have - yes I believe so, do I think that it has the legs to go a far way- yes, do I think my theory can stand up to debate and critique- yes. Quite excellently. Do I think that I am oh so awesome- theory dictates that nothing is actually awesome comparatively or individually. I see totality as being credible, and that's it.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2014 05:36 pm
@Arcades,
Whether you speak 'generally' doesn't give any more credence to your thesis. Even though some may credit god, there is nothing to prove it; it's just conjecture. That some may not know god or science has no bearing on what you claim.

Any claim you propose that god created this planet will be challenged by those of us who question mythological beliefs.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2014 05:40 pm
@Arcades,
Arcades wrote:

Mr Apisa please, let's maintain the sane tone of our Discourse.


That would be most welcome. Try to keep the thought in mind as you write.

And please call me Frank.


Quote:
A figurehead ? For a new religion? Just because I might be the first to say something that some find interesting doesn't really put me ahead of anyone who might understand it after. Am I infallible- no, did I get this one thing right where others before might not have - yes I believe so, do I think that it has the legs to go a far way- yes, do I think my theory can stand up to debate and critique- yes. Quite excellently. Do I think that I am oh so awesome- theory dictates that nothing is actually awesome comparatively or individually. I see totality as being credible, and that's it.


Well...so much for a sane tone of Discourse.

Aracades...you sound like the legion of young boys who come here to the forum and aver that they have had incredible revelations of the true nature of REALITY. (Were you smoking pot the first time you had the revelation.)

In any case, so far you have not presented a coherent outline of your thesis...let alone the finished product.

I suspect people "do not understand it"....mostly because it seems to be a figment of your considerable ego.

You claim you KNOW there is no creator GOD.

I defy you to present a coherent, rational explanation for how you can KNOW that...and I am not talking about you gratuitously defining existence as being without a creator GOD.

Start there.

At least get started.

I'll be here with you all the way.
Arcades
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2014 05:43 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Deal.
0 Replies
 
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2014 06:00 pm
@Arcades,
Arcades wrote:

The main premise of absolute physics is that materiality,though it is an undeniable effect,cannot be the base ponential of reality,given that we observe it ,and that it is of definition,meaning that there are differences in constituency,(objects and space,etc). If materiality is the base ponential then there is no physical context for its definition of states and operations except in contradiction of the material principle itself - causality,which is why. There cannot be cited a causal"commencement " to the universe that does not equate implausibility to some degree . What in materiality can show an objective presupposition of material state and function? What is the context for the visceralization of an active existence rather than an inactive existence , a perforce beingness rather than a perforce nonbeingness? What is the physical context for existence's intrinsic beingness factor? This intrinsicity is a singular definition in absolute physics ,that is supraliterated by a reality contextuality that is"more than material". Arcades Cinza


The whole problem with this monologue stems from your view of causality.
Arcades
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2014 07:01 pm
@Ding an Sich,
I welcome any clarification you might be able to provide Ding.
0 Replies
 
RushPoint
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2014 08:46 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
the double slit experiment in effect proves "wave/particle duality", the misconception of the "third perspective" is that of the observation method, the experiment results do not change when visually observed with the naked eye or any sort of camera or recording apparatus, in recent experiments the results show both particle and wave characteristics when observed with an electron microscope or particle detection device thus giving the illusion that it in fact changed when observed, a more likely hypothesis realized by physicists is that the observation equipment itself has altered the experiments results.
0 Replies
 
RushPoint
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2014 08:59 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
read up on "wave/particle duality" before you try and understand the concept of the double slit experiment, will greatly help you understand the point of the experiment itself!
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2014 02:39 pm
@Arcades,
Arcades wrote:

The main premise of absolute physics is that materiality,though it is an undeniable effect,cannot be the base ponential of reality,given that we observe it ,and that it is of definition,meaning that there are differences in constituency,(objects and space,etc). If materiality is the base ponential then there is no physical context for its definition of states and operations except in contradiction of the material principle itself - causality,which is why. There cannot be cited a causal"commencement " to the universe that does not equate implausibility to some degree . What in materiality can show an objective presupposition of material state and function? What is the context for the visceralization of an active existence rather than an inactive existence , a perforce beingness rather than a perforce nonbeingness? What is the physical context for existence's intrinsic beingness factor? This intrinsicity is a singular definition in absolute physics ,that is supraliterated by a reality contextuality that is"more than material". Arcades Cinza
This is a bunch of elaborate nonsense and babble! You try to be overly smart with this fancy rethorics, when it only suggest that you have been a basement case or bumped your head too much as a child.
Arcades
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2014 07:40 pm
@HexHammer,
I know for a fact that this what feel .
0 Replies
 
Arcades
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2014 08:12 am
For the people who get what I'm saying: this is less than ten percent of what the book will present . This is part of the first chapter Where the embarrassing big bang illogics is rectified. Some scientists don't really believe in science because they like being continuously overwhelmed by its history, and without the "mystery of the universe " satiating their need for Constant frustration they wouldn't know how to proceed.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2014 09:06 am
@Arcades,
Arcades wrote:

For the people who get what I'm saying: this is less than ten percent of what the book will present . This is part of the first chapter Where the embarrassing big bang illogics is rectified. Some scientists don't really believe in science because they like being continuously overwhelmed by its history, and without the "mystery of the universe " satiating their need for Constant frustration they wouldn't know how to proceed.


At:

http://able2know.org/topic/245653-4#post-5718123

...I challenged:

Quote:
Aracades...you sound like the legion of young boys who come here to the forum and aver that they have had incredible revelations of the true nature of REALITY. (Were you smoking pot the first time you had the revelation.)

In any case, so far you have not presented a coherent outline of your thesis...let alone the finished product.

I suspect people "do not understand it"....mostly because it seems to be a figment of your considerable ego.

You claim you KNOW there is no creator GOD.

I defy you to present a coherent, rational explanation for how you can KNOW that...and I am not talking about you gratuitously defining existence as being without a creator GOD.

Start there.



Still waiting for the coherent, rational explanation, Arcades.
0 Replies
 
Arcades
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2014 10:46 am
There is no other possible source for gravity but the electron cloud of atoms. It's appearance must be in sequence with the atomic spectrum as the finishing. It is that space has a preform that is made up of units of energy, in their innate state . This is not the energy you know normally.
We can use space as a polestar for describing it with the way we determine it's functioning to be - non interpretive of our motivities and the motivities of objects - we see ourselves as, and the life of objects as, ambivalently hosted energetic existence. We naturally think that we take place "in" space, but we need to understand that space is a far more capacitous physical structure( saying that there is only one space per se ) than "hard reality". The motivity based portion of reality does seem inadequate as a real spectrum. Construction and deconstruction does seem simplistically straightforward´┐╝.
It's exact position relative to materiality is not known . We couldn't imagine saying something like materiality and space share a positive imprint in reality. Surely these two portions do not have the same position whether we positing that there is an overarching physical context for space and matter , or that there is no more than space and matter together constituting the entirety of reality . So they must be relative overall, in a way that never changes regardless of how motivity
Looks to be intense at any point in time. They must be relative for any theory of a reality to accompass logic . We can't assume them in the same position or positional type .
How would we be able to judge and reference our own motivity and the motivity of object if they were.
So relative we are that space is" in" us, but so complexly connected as a whole that it has to go through all the atoms in our bodies, as gravity , as the strong force; and then we are now observing the elementary particles again. How exactly are they seperate from space we ask .
Well , energy is natural motivity , that imparts a spatial pro- efficiency , meaning that motivity appears to innately grasp direction , only slightly less proficiently than space itself. Energy cannot demark and alternate coherence to coordinate symmetry. Energy can never find a "wrong" direction so to speak, and this is remarkable because it is innate .
We could assume two things here , one: this is a clear indication that energy might be an emanation of space that occurred at the release of the point, space immediately predicating energy in time does seem optionable , but space can only be misdetermined with descriptions of motivity in which we have never observed it being involved( Gravity is a spatial reaction to matter purely), so logically we can't say that space is the motivity that actively facilitated the impetus of a release, which is a physical capacity synonymous with energy based matter We simply do not observe space displaying such properties. Second, we could assume that they both come from a single source that encompasses the facet of motivity, and the natural predication of three dimensional direction, that is the noncentral sphere: motivitylike for the energetic conduct of motivity indicates as such, and dimensionallike´┐╝ as indicated by the relation of space to matter being a possible one. We find ourselves now logically beyond space and matter predicatively.
0 Replies
 
carloslebaron
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2014 02:18 pm
I think your philosophy might be peanuts.

Space is a "conductor", like a copper wire is a conductor for electric energy. The conductor is not the one releasing the energy.
Arcades
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Sep, 2014 09:03 am
@carloslebaron,
In the post i said space and energy emanated from a baser source.
north
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Sep, 2014 06:51 pm
@Arcades,

We seem to think that we know everything about physics

We are young in this investigation of the dynamics of physical things in the micro and the macro

We have much to learn on this subject , I would think
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/15/2019 at 05:25:49