[AntonioLao]

Rest in potential eternal (ripe), it is a general approach to Anderson Localization. In the year 1842, the Reverend Samuel Earnshaw was 37 years old. He died at the ripe old age of 83, 8 years over the average life of male. But 1842 will be remembered as the year he introduced a fundamental theorem which is important to chemistry in particular and to science in general. This is Earnshaw’s theorem.

It asserts that a closed system of interacting particles by an inverse square law, for example, Coulomb’s law for electrostatics cannot exist in a state of static equilibrium. But the converse is that it must exist in a state of dynamic equilibrium. Prior to the discoveries and widespread acceptance of atoms (1850), of molecules (1890), and electrons (1897) it presciently demonstrates that a model of atoms and molecules based on ‘dead’ electrons is not physically possible. Same sense, ‘live’ electrons would be understood that they are constantly in motion or are in continuous space-time transformations: of rotation, of reflection, of translation, or of dilation.

In physics, things in motion acquire kinetic energy while in fixed positions possess only potential energy. But with respect to individual inertial coordinate frame of reference, things in motion also possess inertial mass which is an equivalent form of relative potential energy. To satisfy Earnshaw’s theorem at deeper levels approaching absolute potentiality, each succeeding level must be derived from certain dynamic equilibrium (de). For galactic structure, this is the de of stars. For stellar structure, this is the de of planets. For molecular structure, this is the de of atoms. For subatomic structure, this is the de of electrons. For sub nuclear structure, this is the de of quarks. For solid states lattice structure of metals, this is described by Anderson localization for disorder systems.

[mkirkpatrick]

Great thread Antonio,it further proves what I have been aware of now for over 40 years,
that death is an illusion,there is but change,from one state to another.



regards michael.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick death is an illusion,there is but change,from one state to another

So what different states of consciousness can we possibly describe? Does our awareness of one state preclude, include, or exclude the awareness of another?

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao So what different states of consciousness can we possibly describe? Does our awareness of one state preclude, include, or exclude the awareness of another?

Good question,all previous states are included,yet we would probally have difficulty
in accessing the lower conscious states.



regards michael.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick yet we would probally have difficulty in accessing the lower conscious states.

Good answer. But if lower states of consciousness do not contribute to the evolution of higher states then it is not necessary to go back. The past is prologue. The future holds all promises of everlasting consciousness. On the other hand, special and general relativity would assert that these states are all connected and motion in time back and forth is possible.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao Good answer. But if lower states of consciousness do not contribute to the evolution of higher states then it is not necessary to go back. The past is prologue. The future holds all promises of everlasting consciousness. On the other hand, special and general relativity would assert that these states are all connected and motion in time back and forth is possible.

Now is the future my friend?




regards michael.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick Now is the future

...and the past. I keep viewing the movie Lake House over and over again and I have trouble making all those time connections http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0410297/ .

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao ...and the past. I keep viewing the movie Lake House over and over again and I have trouble making all those time connections http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0410297/ .

The "past" is also now,Antonio.


regards michael.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick The "past" is also now

I understand but the movie shows cause and effect interactions which made them meaningless for a unidirectional time.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao I understand but the movie shows cause and effect interactions which made them meaningless for a unidirectional time.

Movies show many things,however is that now,or a reflection of what is thought to be now?



regards michael.