6th August 2006 - 02:57 PM
QUOTE (sdogv+Aug 5 2006, 09:08 PM)
So are you suggesting edges are space/energy, time/energy, and mass/energy are interactions of the six "edges" which in a regular tetrahedron have unique "directions", .....sideways?
I'm suggesting there are no actual edges. There is no actual volume or surface area to space, matter, energy, or time. There is the appearance of such (finite/beginning & end), but this is just the apparent "event horizon" of an otherwise, actual continuum (infinite).
To arrive at an actual surface requires "is". This does not mean, however, the universe "is not". There is of world of "is not actual" between the two. The "very persistent illusion" Einstein referred to.
6th August 2006 - 05:34 PM
Hey EE. I posted an "edge" analysis in Math thread, summarized here. f =r/R where a prolate spheroid approximated as a round pencil of radius r and length R, while for an oblate spheroid is assumed to be a flat plate of thickness r and radius R.
I find it significant that the "f" value to equal value for a tetrahedron is ~15 for BOTH prolate and oblate, while the "f" value to equal that of a sphere is ~4.5 for prolate and 0.014 for oblate.
Seems as if geometric "structure" is involved some way...??? Tetrhedrons have discrete "edges" while spherical "edges" are continuous, i.e. blurry. SO WHAT?
6th August 2006 - 07:02 PM
Do the places where a non-sperical shape's edges meet, come to a point? How sharp is that point? It is non-spherical? I think I've described it right.
18th November 2006 - 04:31 PM
Hey, EE and anyone else interested in crazy ideas. (a recurrent dream of some 30 years)
From a thermodynamic point of view, there is a system and an environment. How does one define either (or both) at THE beginning?
Can one exist without the other? Can existence be defined without time? Consider an existence of mass as a "system" and the existence of energy as an "environment". A tiny particle of mass generally has a short time of existence. Let's ignore the arrogance of humans and assume that it has a desire for a longer time of existence. Then, by exploiting its environment it strives to get more massive, i.e. "time" is the result of mass growth such that it has a longer existence.
Certainly living things tend to congregate, i.e. flocks of birds, schools of fishes, and herds of animals, and biologists have ascertianed time for existence of living things is roughly related to their mass,... over 2l orders of magnitude from bacteria to whales!.
Is their any reason not to consider that there is no such thing as totally inaminate matter? That is, "bigger" things generally enslave and exploit "smaller" things.And the "smaller" things give up and rely on their memory to act as their environment dictates. e.g., water "memory" dictates it to respond to temperature by boiling and freezing, absorb/transmit/refract frequencies of light, etc,
Do we really know that any atom/molecule/particle of mass that we look at is the same one that we looked at in a previous instant?
In the macro world above the Planck mass, matter organizes such that it can be said to "live", longer if they are "bigger", while in the micro world below the Planck mass, their time of existence is straining our measurements of time resolution.
In short, at any position that mass exists, there can be motion as it is exploited by its environment OR their can be growth as it exploits the enivornment (gravity?). Certainly motion and growth are two processes which we try to understand, i.e. mass occupies a position while energy occupies the space which surrounds. (Their interconvertability8 is suggested by E-mc^2 = hf.) So may there be an "equilibrium" between mass (position) and time (change)?
Security of existence is gained by a longer time to exist. Freedom of existence is gained by a shorter time to exist.
Kind of silly as I look at it, but what the hell. (Can't "grow" much any more so my time is becoming limited.) Maybe someone can pick it up in another generation. (I'll keep trying. )
11th December 2006 - 05:10 AM
I'll bite on your dream and go out on a limb. You got "silly", I got "sillier".
I could have sworn I responded to this. I know I was preparing a response, because it interested me quite a bit. Guess the war over at the math thread distracted me.
Matter, energy, space, and time are equal yet different. They are all expressions of distance from center (0) that make up yes, a FULLY ANIMATED universe. Back to that in a bit.
There is NO WAY to define a difference between COMPONENT and ENVIRONMENT.
Matter is no more inside energy, than energy is inside matter. And they are no more inside space and time, than space and time are inside them. At any size, small or large, it is impossible to determine a pecking order. We will NEVER arrive at an infinitesmial size or infinite size. It's "oxymoronic" to think we will.
You'll notice I didn't include SYSTEM in that explanation. The "system" is NOT WITHIN the universe. The universe is a PASSIVE DEPENDENT ILLUSION. It is ANIMATED by a PROCESS that takes place because of and within, a GREATER REALITY (explanation not included).
The animation occurs between a FOCUS and REFLECTION. The question is, how much of the animation is able to REFLECT and FOCUS, upon itself or anything else? This is where the question of CONSCIOUSNESS comes in. Consciousness is where the question of WILL comes in.
The universe "HAPPENING" is because of a conscious will. That which is in it, however, which appears to have a "conscious will", can NOT ever say "I became conscious because of my will or I have a will because I am conscious". That's just the DELUSION of the illusion.
All components of the universe are a CHARACTER in the animation. No matter what they are or their relative size. Matter, energy, space, and time are all characters. Sometimes they're positive and sometimes they're negative. Even space and time have have a charge. They can all be attractive or repulsive.
The more space and time between me and an "attractive positive mass" standing across the room, the more repulsive and negative the space and time seem. When I get close enough to her to realize she may be pretty but her energy is negative and repulsive, suddenly the more space and time between me and her, becomes positive and attractive. Unless you apply the uncertainty principle, and factor in how desperate I may or may not be. Then the big brain and small brain get in a tug of war, and by the time they've worked it out, she's long gone out the front door, on the arm of her next victim.
So, in many ways, the longer the time the more secure the existence and the shorter time the more freedom, but less assurance of the existence. The other guy's big brain didn't take the time to think, so he probably perished that night. But then again, I can't be certain. Maybe I was projecting something and she was a nice (and a little naughty) girl afterall.
Yes, the greater the mass the more time it contains.
Oh yeah, GRAVITY. It's NOT within the universe. It's part of the greater reality.
11th December 2006 - 05:13 AM
Oops, accidently posted my sillyness twice. This is just to modify the second posting. Is there a "delete post" button I'm missing?
2nd November 2007 - 12:43 AM
So are you talking panpsychism? a core of awareness in the mass of everything, all creatures, great and small?