An Idea

[Graybeard]

Three quarks faced with a difficult problem ... oopps ... difficult proton

[Fredrick]

Hi Fredrick;

Thanks for the response. So what do you think energy's form or structure looks like. I thought maybe the circular shape because the explosion from the atomic bomb seems to form an energy pancake.

So maybe it's circular or maybe spherical? I imagine it to be just a surface area.

I don't disagree about the yin/yang has each others essence in the Tao diagram, but does the positive charge have a negative charge internally? Ditto for the negative charge, does it too have a positive charge internally?

You're right when you mix black and white you get gray. But what do you get when you mix Light with Void?

Best,

Pat

Curious minds want to know, and I like you are quite interested in it all, Pat.

To be honest, I do not see a form or shape when I think of energy: I see it as an expression, but only one of tension.

With energy and mass somehow related (E=MCsquare), I see mass as that form of energy that is stuck in place (energy tangled to the point of no return). Mass therefore has form and structure, because of not having an escape out of that form. Yet to ask about energy's form and structure is like asking what the form is of family dynamics. And the only accurate answer is, whatever the partakers make it. I see energy therefore as extremely malleable.

One of the problems communicating about this issue is that energy originated from the previous state; it is therefore a given. The stressed situation of the previous state is the standard for energy and that isn't much of a stable standard. So, no particular form can be given to energy.

Yet mass has form because it is stuck energy on this side of reality. I claim there was an inward movement during the previous state that was interrupted accidentally and then the current state of the universe started to come about. The inward movement is what most energy had been involved in, while the sudden break compartimentalized all the stressed energy at the smallest level.

Before discussing what the smallest level is, we must agree on which framework to use. You have a preference for string, but I do not see too much form and shape there, making it difficult for me to contribute much to that discussion.

Yet quark is also not the level, because we know (or think to know) that the quarks do not exist independently. On the other hand, the atom is already too big to be considered the single entity of energy; it exists in far too many complex forms to be the standard either.

I belief the state of the energy being compartamentalized was the cube I showed you: one up-quark, two half down-quarks (one of the halves from the cube itself, one from the next-door cube), and the electron (from in between the cubes (said differently: from 4 cubes).

That makes communicating about the origin quite difficult, because the cube is really only a complete entity when viewed from the overall level of all parts. For the up-quark, the other parts are definitively not in their right minds, while for the two half down-quarks the up-quarks are in their right-mind, but consider themselves also logical when together with an up-quark (too bad the up-quark does not agree). For the electron, the quarks just got themselves in a twist and they should untangle themselves (too bad they can't).

So, we end up with formation within energy, and the formation has shape and structure, but the energy is just the underlying origin; it is a given.



The image of Yin and Yang is an overall abstract delivery of oppositional positions/expressions. We eed something that has form to get to that overall image. The Yin and Yang are never the positive charge and the negative charge. We need to have form to have Yin and Yang.

There is nothing overall about charge. In other words: if we had energy but not matter, then this energy would not remain as is for long; it would flow wherever. It is a something, but not of a specific shape or form. Yin and Yang float within this given.

Same with Light and Void. These are not oppositional entities, and they are not of an overall nature. So they cannot be used to populate the Yin and Yang.

[Graybeard]

Quarks have feelings too. And their YinYang

[G_burnett]

Quarks have feelings too. And their YinYang

bad picture, one is not down with two up ... ...g oh oh ... nice art though ..

[Fredrick]

Quarks have feelings too. And their YinYang

They do have feelings, too, and they even need therapy at times. So thank you for the picture of Yin, Yang & Jung.

[labelwench]

Perhaps we should call in Freud as well, and make this a group therapy session?

[dipayankar]

I see of mass as frozen energy...

Curious minds want to know, and I like you are quite interested in it all, Pat.

To be honest, I do not see a form or shape when I think of energy: I see it as an expression, but only one of tension.

With energy and mass somehow related (E=MCsquare), I see mass as that form of energy that is stuck in place (energy tangled to the point of no return). Mass therefore has form and structure, because of not having an escape out of that form. Yet to ask about energy's form and structure is like asking what the form is of family dynamics. And the only accurate answer is, whatever the partakers make it. I see energy therefore as extremely malleable.

One of the problems communicating about this issue is that energy originated from the previous state; it is therefore a given. The stressed situation of the previous state is the standard for energy and that isn't much of a stable standard. So, no particular form can be given to energy.

Yet mass has form because it is stuck energy on this side of reality. I claim there was an inward movement during the previous state that was interrupted accidentally and then the current state of the universe started to come about. The inward movement is what most energy had been involved in, while the sudden break compartimentalized all the stressed energy at the smallest level.

Before discussing what the smallest level is, we must agree on which framework to use. You have a preference for string, but I do not see too much form and shape there, making it difficult for me to contribute much to that discussion.

Yet quark is also not the level, because we know (or think to know) that the quarks do not exist independently. On the other hand, the atom is already too big to be considered the single entity of energy; it exists in far too many complex forms to be the standard either.

I belief the state of the energy being compartamentalized was the cube I showed you: one up-quark, two half down-quarks (one of the halves from the cube itself, one from the next-door cube), and the electron (from in between the cubes (said differently: from 4 cubes).

That makes communicating about the origin quite difficult, because the cube is really only a complete entity when viewed from the overall level of all parts. For the up-quark, the other parts are definitively not in their right minds, while for the two half down-quarks the up-quarks are in their right-mind, but consider themselves also logical when together with an up-quark (too bad the up-quark does not agree). For the electron, the quarks just got themselves in a twist and they should untangle themselves (too bad they can't).

So, we end up with formation within energy, and the formation has shape and structure, but the energy is just the underlying origin; it is a given.



The image of Yin and Yang is an overall abstract delivery of oppositional positions/expressions. We eed something that has form to get to that overall image. The Yin and Yang are never the positive charge and the negative charge. We need to have form to have Yin and Yang.

There is nothing overall about charge. In other words: if we had energy but not matter, then this energy would not remain as is for long; it would flow wherever. It is a something, but not of a specific shape or form. Yin and Yang float within this given.

Same with Light and Void. These are not oppositional entities, and they are not of an overall nature. So they cannot be used to populate the Yin and Yang.

[Fredrick]

I see of mass as frozen energy...

So do I, Dipayan, and I consider matter as energy locked in place due to circumstances. The reasons for having locked-in energy are not found at the detailed (local) level at which energy is expressed as matter, but at the overall level of the universe itself — of energy as a whole no longer being united.

All in our universe is moving outwardly, and so we know that there is a fundamental disconnection among matter that's been going on for 14 billion years. Only at the local level does matter try to 'reunite' when possible. Yet without having the ability to all get together again, the attempts are nothing but attempts. Energy is 'energized' in matter in such manner, it has agreed to something that is not the true and whole deal, but only the best deal.

That fundamental disconnect creates its own problems when we try to communicate with each other about the ToE as well. Even if we all start out agreeing that the 'disconnect' is more fundamental than the 'connect,' it is still hard to agree on all the details. One reason is that there is always a way out from under 'full-connection' or full-agreement because there is no full-connection ever.

Lloyd and I, for instance, agree that the word void is not a word to be used in science (or only when perfectly well described, which is quite difficult when talking about a void), but Pat considers it a word that needs to be used for the ToE.

I can follow Pat, but I need to do something special (turn to philosohpy) to find a correct use of the word. I can have the present state of the universe (in all its glory) and declare that what the universe was (yesterday, for instance) as void. The past state is no longer here, the past is void.

In science, we do not consider the past, only the artifacts of the past (old bones, light from stars far away, etc). So, we must also start accepting that we communicate with each other in specific frameworks, themselves not compatable (but sometimes using the same words): science, philosophy, religion, and gabberish are all frameworks we can use to communicate.

These frameworks can be discribed, for instance, as: inward thinking, outward thinking, whole thinking, fragment thinking.

I consider words to behave much like matter: frozen energy. If we do not all agree on a word, then that word will not get used by all. If accepted, the word becomes established, frozen in our minds as a tool to use. A word can remain in place for quite a while, but can be replaced instantly if another better word comes along, or if we start speaking a different language altogether. I believe that if we accept the different frameworks in our minds as real, and when we demand from ourselves to understand the other person's words within the correct frameworks, then we will no longer have too many difficulties communicating about the ToE.

After all, the ToE has been known for Millennia.

[labelwench]

I consider words to behave much like matter: frozen energy. If we do not all agree on a word, then that word will not get used by all. If accepted, the word becomes established, frozen in our minds as a tool to use. A word can remain in place for quite a while, but can be replaced instantly if another better word comes along, or if we start speaking a different language altogether. I believe that if we accept the different frameworks in our minds as real, and when we demand from ourselves to understand the other person's words within the correct frameworks, then we will no longer have too many difficulties communicating about the ToE.

After all, the ToE has been known for Millennia.
Originally posted by Frederick

I follow several threads, without the foundation of a strong scientific backgound, though I do consider language and communication to be among my strengths.

For that reason, I greatly appreciate the efforts of yourself, and others, as they work to establish an agreement on the proper use of language in bridging these distances.

Thank you for your efforts, respectful of the differences of others, as always.

Regards,

Labelwench

[Profpat]

Main Entry: 1void
Pronunciation: \ˈvȯid\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English voyde, from Anglo-French, from Vulgar Latin *vocitus, alteration of Latin vocivus, vacivus empty, from vacare to be empty
Date: 14th century
1 a : not occupied : vacant <a void bishopric> b : not inhabited : deserted
2 : containing nothing <void space>



Hi Fredrick;

I think it's a good word to describe NOTHING, like VOID. And something needs the void to expand. What is so difficult with that concept?

Best,

Pat

P.S What is the opposite of something?