The laws of nature

[David Maes]

1. The laws of nature don't change suddenly; the basic laws of nature are invariable.
2. The universal constants don't undergo drastic fluctuations.
3. The phenomena and laws in all fields of knowledge eventually obey: firstly, the basic laws of chemistry and physics, and secondly, they'll eventually get their explanation in them: so a "perpetuum mobile" is not constructable.

So levitation (= cancelling gravity), materialization and dematerialization, and foreknowledge don't exist.

[analog]

Hello David,

I believe in a fundamental substance, and that substance has absolute properties which give rise to the perceived forces of nature; whereby the laws of thermodynamics, etc. are manifested.

One of those properties is absolute motion; thus IMHO the entire universal system is in a state of "perpetual" motion. It is the distribution of this motion throughout the whole and how it moves that defines our observable world. The absolute motion of the FS produces the same effects/laws/forces consistently throughout the entire universe.

As far as making a machine that can sustain motion on Earth allowing us to pull "energy" from it; then I agree with you, and I don't think this could exist due to how I interpret my framework. However, if gravity is more of a kinetic effect understood through the absolute motion of the fundamental substance, then I'm not sure that the motions which caused it couldn't be temporarily canceled out by some means. I actually haven't given it much thought, but high energy magnetism used to levitate even living tissue would apparently be defying gravity.

As far as materialization/dematerialization, I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to, but all things (structured matter) materialize from the fundamental substance and can also dematerialize their structure to revert back to the less dense medium which brought them forth, in my opinion. This would relate to electromagnetic radiation.

regards,

Tim

[David Maes]

Personally, I more like the theory of relativity of Einstein; so I think motion is more relative. It also gives me a way of keeping the laws of nature constant, and I have a chance of being right about 99%. (Since scientific laws are also relative, no scientific theory is absolute.)

Indeed, there is a kind of levitation possible, for example the levitation train in Asia. You can conquer gravity by using magnetism. But all this is still consistent with the laws of nature. What I don't believe is when someone says he can defy gravity just by using his 'spiritual energy' or something like that.

With materialization for example, I mean when "some spirit suddenly materializes" or somebody suddenly "dematerializes" because he just wants to, etc.

Of course I'm not sceptical for E = mc² and the atomic bomb.

[analog]

Hi David,

The relative motion of Einstein's Relativity which gives rise to time dilation, etc. is accounted for in an absolute motion framework, and is not ignored. I agree with the conclusion that to accelerate one clock relative to another would cause an effect on its ability to measure time/motion relative to the other. As dleviwing would say; "It's the clock that dilates", as this is also related to the length contraction of Relativity.

Absolute motion is a framework derived for the very purpose of keeping the laws of nature constant; whereby the laws of conservation are allowed to function.

I do understand your statements now as they relate to the mystical. I didn't catch your meaning when I first replied. My mistake....sorry. Unfortunately, I haven't come to any conclusions about what thought actually is, which would allow me to comment on its ability to interact with our world, and at what level this interaction takes place.

[David Maes]

I don't intend to post mystically, because logic nor science delivers the necessity of the existence of a deity.

Concerning what thought really is, I have to admit I haven't come to any conclusions myself.

I take this title, because I want to know what the truth is. So the question is: 'What can we really know?' Descartes learned us that our senses can be very deceptive. So what we perceive is something we can't know for sure. It could all be deceit. We can only be 'deceived' if we experience 'this deceit'. This experience makes that we exist.

Whatever thinking is, in its most simple form, we have experiences, and that makes us realize we exist.
That's how I perceive it; no guarantees that it's right...

[analog]

Just for the record, I wasn't implying that you were posting mystically, if that's how you interpreted my words. I was acknowledgeing that I now realize that you are questioning/doubting the mystical concepts of levitation, materialization, dematerialization, and foreknowledge. My mind was focused on the less mystical sciences when I first posted, and somehow I didn't realize what you were actually questioning, but I do now.

Personally, I see no need for an omnipotent deity either, but there are many people who find comfort in the concept of such a being, due to their own personal fears and loneliness I guess.

As for the question: 'What can we really know?', I guess no more or less than what's needed for us to do our job here; whatever that may truly fundamentally be, as we too are an important part of the motions of the whole. In my opinion, most knowledge/thought can be related to us making predictions, which allows us to function within this world. It's just like learning to walk; before we commit to setting ourselves into motion with every step, we can calculate (within reason) the effects of our motions (steps) by means of our accumulated knowledge/thoughts, whereby we know/learn just the right stride and how much force to put into it. When we get good at this (often after many falls), we are able to run.

Science is a natural extension to this fundamental need of ours, in my opinion. It is merely our attempts to make increasingly larger predictions; whereby we can affect our world on an increasingly larger scale. The motions of the seemingly small (us) are amplified due to our knowledge/thoughts/ability to predict allowing us to arrange our environment, whereby we are increasingly effecting the motions of the large (our universe) at an accelerated rate.

Existence isn't the miraculous concept in my mind, as all things are conserved and have always been in some form or another, IMHO. For something that obviously is now to someday not exist would be the miracle to me.

[David Maes]

I'm not sure that relativity is actually right or not.