Toe

[G_burnett]

self explanatory link lol enjoy http://www.reuters.com/article/idUST...nceNews&rpc=76

[labelwench]

self explanatory link lol enjoy http://www.reuters.com/article/idUST...nceNews&rpc=76

An interesting article, that science can now measure at least one aspect of a thing that has long been accepted as being so.

Are you one who plays the game of chess, Graham?

Inquiring minds and all that jazz......

[G_burnett]

hm-mm well i have been invited to play down under at a site but i only remember a few moves ... Dr Bennett Wong had me in his office at a young age of about eight trying to figure me out an after many sessions i realized he just was a very good chess player and we may have had only twenty words spoken between us which was odd come to think of it... i always liked going down town Vancouver area on Broadway where he had his offices ... i was about ten and a half going on 15 or so i think ... best of all was a young girl that was waiting next in line when i came out about my own age but looking older of course ... we had to be about the same age because neither of us knew how to take the appreciative amid longing eye contact any further then that .. my what memories come up some times ... kind regards graham ..

[G_burnett]

a work in progree revise

Chapter one

“The beginning of all motion of matter

On the singularity of event platform

Is where all fools stand.” sage

The question of which state of a structure came first, condensed energy or energy in a certain freedom from atomic or subatomic condense requires the sage to understand both to realize it is the wrong question to ponder. Both states of energy are in transient structure of exist to a value of potential to do work. The question then immediate arises from the observation of the sub atomic state to which state of observation made has a fundamental rule of exist to a potential of change by its own devise of a structure if indeed the process of condense is a cyclic event repeating itself. (1)

Alternatively can be considered all energy comes from the state of matter exist in the consideration that energy condenses to matter. The alternative thus considered follows the logical reason of dimension need of mass in motion. At the same consideration all matter can be looked at as possible the energy state of exist in it feature of having mass, when we do include a dimension of time for it motion. This was done by the historic Theory of Relativity of Albert Einstein giving to the consideration of E=Mc2. (2.)

We postulate in the objective logical reality that all fundamental substance has potential value to do work that can be quantified or potential to be considered as energy. This potential of all substance is in by the addition application of define of motion being considered to a ratio against a matter mass value quantified. Mass being the matter of what energy will be needed in an application to the mass value to a motion of the substance given a dimension of mass per that application of energy by other.
In this there was a problem to quantify in an answer to a wanted ratio. That problem was with the question what would be considered a fundamental value of any given substance not established should be considered in any define of substance on a fundamental level of any quantify of that exist.

Max Planck established a solution in propose for the need of a fundamental standard of quantity made to a fundamental unit of substance considered at any level of mathematical define and accepted in physics ponder now is where we can say one matter of which has mass in it smallest observed state takes a fundamental unit of energy to take it from it static state to a state in which we can observe it motion. (3)

The Planck value was established to the fundamental unit of energy in ponders postulated above and given to the use of the symbol standard of `h’. The fundamental substance (FS) of all matter is not given to any define in physical quantification in physics as a constant measure or defined exist although many confuse this with the theoretic search for the Higgs Bosom as a gravitational constant. (4)

Max Planck (5.) postulated in his many reveals that all matter of fundamental substance has vibration. Argument addition can be made for the define in advancement of a clarity on such premise postulated that all fundamental substance has a pulse that can be considered a vibration reflection based on a wave pulsed creation of the state of vibration observed or a state of which the substance has itself maintaining the transfer of pulse to varied imagined end.

In the latter view observed would be the fundamental state would be pulsing seemingly on its own merit of causal but to a reality it was created in it state if the pulse was degrading with no further creative force being applied.

[Graybeard]

I read your post as possibly contradictory ........ As Planck states energy is a 'fundamental standard of quantity' ... but your post implies that energy is an entity rather than a measurement.

I don't read E = MC^2 as a conversion but as the amount of energy contained in that amount of mass ? This would lead to the conclusion that all that exists is matter in motion.

I may be wrong ......

cool bananas ... greg

[G_burnett]

I read your post as possibly contradictory ........ As Planck states energy is a 'fundamental standard of quantity' ... but your post implies that energy is an entity rather than a measurement.

I don't read E = MC^2 as a conversion but as the amount of energy contained in that amount of mass ? This would lead to the conclusion that all that exists is matter in motion.

I may be wrong ......

cool bananas ... greg

I read your post as possibly contradictory ........ As Planck states energy is a 'fundamental standard of quantity' ... but your post implies that energy is an entity rather than a measurement.

Energy can be measured as the ability to do work but it exist is in a transient state of which it is in a varied degree of motion measured and never fully at absolute rest in it condensed state of potential to do work nor in absolute motion a state to which it will not degrade. This would apply to both cyclic and directional transient energy other than imagined as toronic state. The difference in support is the placement of polar state on one end of a stream of energy or in the center of an orb for the other view.


I don't read E = MC^2 as a conversion but as the amount of energy contained in that amount of mass ? This would lead to the conclusion that all that exists is matter in motion.



Mass is just the value given to what it will take to move the substance observed from one position to another?
That which is a matter in ponder is what we view to define it fundamental value and the basic unit of energy we can look at meeting the requirements of the axiom view in a state where other energy is no longer a feature of the structure that created it is the toronic structure applied to the electron that by it nature of a degrade in the subatomic state winking out of exist supports the postulation.
All that is a matter of ponder is in a motion either sub atomic or atomic and we observe the paradox you would consider only within a relative to the view taken time frame or transient a zone of reference in which the degree of time applied to the event is given to a vanity measure in the brackets of limited view. The rock you pick up or the wood you split still contains the fundamental base of a unit of measure (h) as would be the define given.


I may be wrong ...... so could I but the intuitive conceive I have is with faith what I am not aware of yet can fit in to the postulation being made. To that learning process I like to entertain I say thank you for your reply and will try to make it clearer as I proceed.

kind regards graham

[Graybeard]

I want to reply to your above, but a bit busy at this moment ... and also will resurrect the chess game if you are inclined ..... I intend to beat you ... lol

greg

[G_burnett]

i
think i know what your further is going to be on the posting lol but the path you are in ponder with leads to the given of fission when we look at energy but that was just one application given to the objective of the bomb. I am trying to use the term matter in it more primal define as what would matter as the objective reason in back tracking Einstein to the formula for force. Thus energy as an identity did not enter my mind but more a jump into a consideration that energy described in it fundamental state in relativity to potential based on mass value and motion constant will degrade if not contained above a sub atomic level and independent of having a receiver it changes by the degrade all on its own function of structure in the toronic.

alternatively we can consider that the degrade has a causal by the lack of creative force torque applied but in that event of cessation of torque is the transfer end of linier energy having a direction non circular but linier in nature of it structure. Thus considered moves one to postulate that both may be FS define but would not be the case. Only the one which would degrade in place or a given position should be considered a structure worthy of the term .. ok so both would fit the define ... the personal prefer would be to call the toronic structure the fs of all ... reason is that it can be measured in amplitude to a given Planck value and the linier cannot meet those requirements with our tec or in the geometric reality on it own without going to the toronic ponder again. ok i will wait till you post had that in my mind tonight and thought to share it as the afterthought it is lol ...

Yes get on the board dude.. i am taking a beating twice now from one good fellow but i have been preoccupied so i know my causal and will try to concentrate more to make the painful end a quick one ... hee hee ... kind regards graham

[G_burnett]

reading this i have postulated now after a couple coffees i see where i am creating my own paradox of view that both if considered a fs foundation would meet the criteria of proximity end by the transfer and change of it structure type. In such a postulation i would say neither is correct but at the same time the failure of being able to differentuate the two by it structure does not rule out the measure of energy force as a good contender for the crown of FS defined. energy does not degrade to nothing but transfers itself to the one or the other state of energy in motion observations.
...does the proton potential considered have the same observation in the view?
...does the neutron potential considered have the same observation in the view?
....to both i would say yes they would in the conservation of energy rule, though as dave pointed out, it is not proven yet in this direction of imagine.
... or is it?

food for thought today .. kind regards graham

[Benyehooda]

Hi Graham,

I tried to follow your logic, saying we can not state a theory of everything.
It seems you mixed different fields (physics, physiology, social science....), each of this fields have differed theories, they can be easily unified once build properly.

I may only offer you a better understanding of the physical world.

Best Regards,
Ben Yehooda.