[Profpat]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Professor Foolishness, I said nothing about the Big Bang and Evolution not being true, as I've many places stated they are. Re-read what I wrote... The only thing I stated was foolish, was those theories ground state origins...

Oooppps! Sorry Lloyd.

Best to you,

Profoolishness

[N0B0DY]

If you know physics, Lloyd, you would know that all physics is paradoxical and based on premises that change like people's underwear.

Greg mentioned that for nature to have a paradox it would have to break its own laws, and that is exactly what nature does. The absolute universe breaks all relative laws - relative and absolute are opposites.

We think of motion, like, say, you crossing the street, but the absolute universe is already there. We can then deduce that because all people are parts of the absolute universe, all people are already across the street as well.

Although counterintuitive, it is human intuition that can only perceive relatively and therefore perceives illusion. Unless you believe that people/particles/waves are literal breaks in the absolute universe.

There can be no this way or that way moving, etc., in part into what it consists of or as a whole into non existence, Lloyd. Everything consists of the same argued-upon unknowable "stuff" which equals an absolutely static universe with just that - absolutely no degree of freedom to allow for finite and /or infinite motion.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Nobody, a great lady already made philosophy's most important statement. That was Ayn Rand; "There are no paradoxes. If you think you've found one, check your premises. One of them is wrong." She was an excellent epistemologist, and most sensible physicists agree with her. Of course, sensible physicists are like sensible gurus; There's only 1% on each side.

As to laws of nature, they are only our understandings of how she works. Nature needs no laws, she just is, and just happens, as she does. The laws are our abstract knowledge of her self-mechanics. Just as a car runs, so does a universe.

As to your opposites, I'd say the two sides of your brain are over-cooking the debate.

As to absolute, you really should add some science.

I suggest you take your religion back to your own thread... This is a science thread...

MJA___Go to school, a brain is a terrible thing, not to develop...

Lloyd

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

If you know physics, Lloyd, you would know that all physics is paradoxical and based on premises that change like people's underwear.

Greg mentioned that for nature to have a paradox it would have to break its own laws, and that is exactly what nature does. The absolute universe breaks all relative laws - relative and absolute are opposites.

We think of motion, like, say, you crossing the street, but the absolute universe is already there. We can then deduce that because all people are parts of the absolute universe, all people are already across the street as well.

Although counterintuitive, it is human intuition that can only perceive relatively and therefore perceives illusion. Unless you believe that people/particles/waves are literal breaks in the absolute universe.

There can be no this way or that way moving, etc., in part into what it consists of or as a whole into non existence, Lloyd. Everything consists of the same argued-upon unknowable "stuff" which equals an absolutely static universe with just that - absolutely no degree of freedom to allow for finite and /or infinite motion.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

MJA, did you ever consider how insulting, a lack of constructive intelligence is, in a science thread...?

[dleviwing]

Nobody;
There are still people who claim the world is flat and the sun travels around the earth. Their interpretation of the evidence is said to be of low probability. Is this really worth wasting time over? I suggest you create your own thread if you wish to discuss this topic of paradox further; I would be happy to participate if you do.

MJA;
You know quite well that you are being an ass so if you don’t like the responses to your posts then wise-up. Belligerence is a right only acquired with age and you haven’t earned that right.

Greg, Lloyd, Tina;.... THANKS

[Fluent Piffle]

Originally Posted by Tina

But it is not just space that has inherent motion - everything has inherent motion, and if not visible, then evidenced at sub-atomic levels - all moving - nothing is still.

Easy remedy... Space is everything, because it is Infinite. Space is the One thing that exists, with inherent property of motion. No contradiction. It works.

Still no scientific link for the 'void' I see...


pif.

[Tina]

Originally Posted by Fluent Piffle

Easy remedy... Space is everything, because it is Infinite. Space is the One thing that exists, with inherent property of motion. No contradiction. It works.

Still no scientific link for the 'void' I see...


pif.

Yes - but it is a difficult thing to admit because we have degrees of space and in the case of more solid matter we want to say it is seperate matter from the space it occupies.

But Fluent Piffle do you think there is a thing existing that "is" and contains no space? (ie irreducible - and I do ask this with respect for infinity), Is there something that is at 'REST'?

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Fluent Piffle

Still no scientific link for the 'void' I see....

Did you lose your dictionary Pif? Try this one if it's a link you need:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/void
My only objection to the dictionary definitions is that the void should not be referred to as synonymous to space. Space has physical behavior; a void does not! Space has become synonymous to Aether.

Originally Posted by Euclid

You might want to take a look at what Joseph Mazur's latest book has to say about this -- The Motion Paradox. It is a fascinating book that starts with Zeno and ends with string theory

Thanks Joe; Since you share the author’s first name, is it possible you also share the autor’s last name?? (Mazur perhaps?)

[Fluent Piffle]

Originally Posted by Tina

Yes - but it is a difficult thing to admit because we have degrees of space and in the case of more solid matter we want to say it is seperate matter from the space it occupies.

But Fluent Piffle do you think there is a thing existing that "is" and contains no space? (ie irreducible - and I do ask this with respect for infinity), Is there something that is at 'REST'?

It is a difficult thing to admit into our conscious perceptions, because we have evolved to detect other 'parts' of Space, in order to interact with them to our advantage. Now, we retain the psychology of 'separateness', but are rapidly becoming more cosmologically attuned, as we turn our attentions more to the subject. A few thousand years to adjust this cosmological misconception is very little, in actual terms. It doesn't help that certain of us have been indoctrinated to see economic 'advantage' in deceptions. In reality, those of such a bent only truly deceive themselves, but the sad thing is 'we' are also 'they', and thus the whole 'race' suffers for the actions of a few wilfully blind.

Anyway, motion. There must be a non-contradictory explanation for Nature, as it cannot contradict itself. It is to be witnessed in Humans, that we are also 'Space' (if everything is), and that acting contrary to Nature is relatively rapidly reducing our ability to exist within it. Thus our own contradictory Natures are killing us. So, motion is a non-contradictory property of One thing (Space). Space, with its motion are not 'two' things, but complimentary parts of the same thing, that which necessarily exists.

'Consciousness', we can also equate as the 'motion of mind', and apply the same cosmological reasoning; the physical organ (brain), and its motion (consciousness, or 'mind'). However, it is not as simple as that, as we are evolving parts of Space, accumulating as we go. We also have evolved a comparatively large 'storage' facility we call 'memory', then the 'act' or motion of consciousness draws from the conceptual source (memory) and the real-time sensing source (outer reality) at the same time. We usually are almost permanently attuned to the memory state, in order to apply our concepts (which have served us well in the past), but the greater reality is constantly changing all around us, and we must 'upgrade' with vigilance on a regular basis to be attuned to our surroundings, so that we may continue to exist as sustainably as possible within them. Drawing only from concept-mode (memory) does not equip us well for existing within the constantly changing Reality. As in all things, a balance would be nice! ...and this is because all 'parts' are a delicately balanced as One Thing, at source.

It is not possible for Space to 'rest', but some parts do move exceedingly slow...


David, please...When did a dictionary become an important scientific paper? - You are trying to explain such a profoundly important notion, which correctly explains all existential motions with...a dictionary? And you have the audacity to moan at MJA???! Please, please, please, don't tell me that's all you've got? From your link... Void: useless; ineffectual; vain.


pif.

[Tina]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Thanks Joe; Since you share the author’s first name, is it possible you also share the autor’s last name?? (Mazur perhaps?)

Now that would be a highly improbable coincidence David? But you know what they say truth is stranger than fiction.