| | | | Moderator
Status: Offline Posts: 7,340
Thanks Given: 348
Thanked 703x in 655 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2005 Rep Power: 94 |  Re: ambivalence for TOE -
01-16-2007, 05:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao  Purely metaphysics. According to Aristotle's metaphysics, pure matter is incomprensible. However, absolute knowledge could be attained thru pure form and mathematical structures are just relative forms. | And being relative forms these will be in a state of flux and change.!
regards michael.
Humilty,coupled with boldness,surprises truth to
reveal herself? | |
|  | | | | | 9th degree Black Belt
Status: Offline Posts: 1,579
Thanks Given: 114
Thanked 44x in 42 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2006 Rep Power: 26 |  Re: ambivalence for TOE -
01-16-2007, 10:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao Purely metaphysics. According to Aristotle's metaphysics, pure matter is incomprensible. However, absolute knowledge could be attained thru pure form and mathematical structures are just relative forms. | Aristotle was an excellent ethicist, his metaphysics, physics and science are scattered with false ideas, as are all older ideaists. Mathematical structures are abstract, yes, but real bricks layed is objective count, real houses built with slanted roofs forming triangles create real objective triangles, and I might add, long before any mathematician abstracted such objective cognitive logic, of staying dry in the rain. Aristotle's statement about matter being incomprehensible is some of his backwards ontology. They then taught the being "I" was knowable, yet it is matter that is knowable and the "I" which is unknowable, because it is ever changing___incomplete and heading toward completeness, which can only be accomplished by turning false ontologies to true ontologies, i.e., matter creating mind makes logical sense, and mind creating matter is pure nonsense. At least the science can be shown logically true if we simply turn the ontology of mind/matter to matter/mind. There is no other logical way to a true unification of the age-old body/mind problem___matter over mind instantly solves all the metaphysical foolishness, that's existed for centuries. So, if you choose to stay stuck in the wrongness of Einstein's metaphysics, and I accept Einstein's physics, we will always be opposed of views...
Einstein's relativity physics is cognitively objective. Einstein's relativity metaphysics is subjectively abstract. Einstein was a brilliant physicist, and a child as metaphysicist. As metaphysicist he holds the world in retrograde. As a physicist he advances the world. Too bad he never understood matter over mind vs. his inadequate mind over matter childish immaturity. I think his mother did it to him, that's usually the case, but sometimes the father also, then the church, friends, foes, etc,...
regards,
"To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel "Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein "The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G. "The tick-tick-tick of the cesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G. | |
| | | | | | Raider of the lost time
Status: Offline Posts: 5,316
Thanks Given: 728
Thanked 123x in 121 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003 Rep Power: 74 | Re: ambivalence for TOE -
01-17-2007, 05:02 PM
Quote: |
we simply turn the ontology of mind/matter to matter/mind.
| Mass as matter could be zero but energy as mind could not. Why is that?
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
| |
| | | | | | Moderator
Status: Offline Posts: 7,340
Thanks Given: 348
Thanked 703x in 655 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2005 Rep Power: 94 | Re: ambivalence for TOE -
01-17-2007, 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao Mass as matter could be zero but energy as mind could not. Why is that? | Prehaps because energy and mind are one of the same,and are at 1 with all?
regards michael.
Humilty,coupled with boldness,surprises truth to
reveal herself? | |
| | | | | | 9th degree Black Belt
Status: Offline Posts: 1,579
Thanks Given: 114
Thanked 44x in 42 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2006 Rep Power: 26 | Re: ambivalence for TOE -
01-17-2007, 10:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao Mass as matter could be zero but energy as mind could not. Why is that? | You have it backwards, Antonio. Mass as matter can never be zero, as stop-motion is impossible, and even any small amount of matter motion has a weak amount of mass. On the other hand, energy as mind can be zero, and is at death, when spirit/energy/matter/mass leaves the body as thermal heat, and decays to thermal cold. I guess there'd be a slight amount of mass here also... Oh well...
regards,
"To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel "Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein "The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G. "The tick-tick-tick of the cesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G. | |
| | | | | | Raider of the lost time
Status: Offline Posts: 5,316
Thanks Given: 728
Thanked 123x in 121 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003 Rep Power: 74 | Re: ambivalence for TOE -
01-18-2007, 04:23 PM
Quote: |
Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Mass as matter can never be zero | The masses of photons, gravitons, and gluons are all zeros.
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
Last edited by Lloyd Gillespie : 01-19-2007 at 02:44 AM.
| |
| | | | | | Moderator
Status: Offline Posts: 7,340
Thanks Given: 348
Thanked 703x in 655 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2005 Rep Power: 94 | Re: ambivalence for TOE -
01-18-2007, 05:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao The masses of photons, gravitons, and gluons are all zeros. | None of them amount to very much then do they Antonio?
regards michael.
Humilty,coupled with boldness,surprises truth to
reveal herself? | |
| | | | | | 9th degree Black Belt
Status: Offline Posts: 1,579
Thanks Given: 114
Thanked 44x in 42 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2006 Rep Power: 26 | Re: ambivalence for TOE -
01-19-2007, 02:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao The masses of photons, gravitons, and gluons are all zeros. | Since when can c see true c? I still happen to accept the uncertainty principle. If mass is true zero, it's matter/wave doesn't exist either, yet they do. Photons, gravitons and gluons, if they exist, give up almost all mass at our measurable light speed, except fundamental mass at true c. We can't measure mass at true c. We can only measure mass below true c, then not very accurately, from what I've seen.
regards,
"To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel "Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein "The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G. "The tick-tick-tick of the cesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G. | |
| | | | | | Raider of the lost time
Status: Offline Posts: 5,316
Thanks Given: 728
Thanked 123x in 121 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003 Rep Power: 74 | Re: ambivalence for TOE -
01-24-2007, 03:13 PM
Quote: |
Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie We can't measure mass at true c. We can only measure mass below true c, then not very accurately, from what I've seen. | They are still debating whether neutrinos have mass and missing solar neutrinos by flavor oscillations.
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
| |
| | | | | | 9th degree Black Belt
Status: Offline Posts: 1,579
Thanks Given: 114
Thanked 44x in 42 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2006 Rep Power: 26 | Re: ambivalence for TOE -
01-24-2007, 05:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao They are still debating whether neutrinos have mass and missing solar neutrinos by flavor oscillations. | From what I've seen, when all the neutrino experiments data are surveyed, neutrinos do have mass, as there are more collected from the earth's experimental stations, closer to the atmosphere, than what travels through the earth, from the other side, to the collectors. Common sense would tell us they have a small amount of mass. This evidence is from comparing the data of five neutrino collectors in as many nations, and areas...
regards,
"To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel "Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein "The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G. "The tick-tick-tick of the cesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G. | |
| | |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | | | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8 Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com | |
