The concept and structure of matter (the material world)

[Ignat]

More likely that matter exists within the realm of Energy, - materialism within immaterialism imo.

What kind of energy are you talking about?

 

[Atlan0001]

I'm more, or less, with you on this. How do you envisage this "Life Force" being/arising?

The middle ground (0-point). The seed-trunk of the tree (0-point). The set. Infinity. Eternity. Coordinate points past-future histories (SPACETIME MATRIX) center point (0-point).

Traveler travels forever Hawking's migration (migratory) trail of the "life zone" of universes (the perfect ending always being in endless beginning . . . overlaying . . . inlaying). Point A to point B:

-->>(<<--)
A0(B9) > A1(B8) > A2(B7) > A3(B6) > A4(B5) > A5(B4) > A6(B3) > A7(B2) > A8(B1) > A9(B0).
=================
A0 (material) -->>A9 (immaterial) (Relativity breaks down):

General topology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

B0 (material) <<-- B9 (immaterial) (Relativity builds up):
=================

Wormhole - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

=================

 

[Classical Motion]

On an intellectual level, what is energy? Or perhaps I should ask what is the result of energy?

It’s change. A Delta of something.

And on a physical level, for change to occur, it takes motion. Either a change in location or a change in orientation. A twist.

Physical energy is just motion. And motion takes time. Motion consumes/produces time.

An acceleration is energy. A change in speed OR direction. Velocity is energy, a change in location. A spin is energy, a change in orientation. A twist is energy.

Change takes time. It consumes and produces time. Space is just a place for change to occur, space does not change.

Energy is just change. Just motion. It’s the motion property, the motion dynamic of an entity.

It’s an amount of change, or motion, not an amount of substance.

Substance… or matter is the thing of what is being changed.

That substance is e. That e, and the fields of it, are the ONLY substance there is. ONLY e is needed for the periodic table.

All of this cosmos is made out of e. And that’s all the matter there is.

The MOTION of e is not called energy. The MOTION of e is called inertia and mass.

Energy is just motion. Mass is just motion. Matter is e.

Space has no motion. It has no time. It’s an emptiness for e and it’s fields to exist and interact without impedance.

The motion of e has limits. It puts and has a limit on speed…. AND direction. This limits linear speed AND angular speed. This limits the motion of velocity and the motion of angular acceleration.

This gives us c, and it limits the size of e. It limits the motion of substance. The energy of mass.

And makes it impossible for matter to superposition. There will not be any black holes.

Square space cosmology is where the future is.

When you see the light.

 

[whoknows]

On an intellectual level, what is energy? Or perhaps I should ask what is the result of energy?

It’s change. A Delta of something.

And on a physical level, for change to occur, it takes motion. Either a change in location or a change in orientation. A twist.

Physical energy is just motion. And motion takes time. Motion consumes/produces time.

An acceleration is energy. A change in speed OR direction. Velocity is energy, a change in location. A spin is energy, a change in orientation. A twist is energy.

Change takes time. It consumes and produces time. Space is just a place for change to occur, space does not change.

Energy is just change. Just motion. It’s the motion property, the motion dynamic of an entity.

It’s an amount of change, or motion, not an amount of substance.

Substance… or matter is the thing of what is being changed.

That substance is e. That e, and the fields of it, are the ONLY substance there is. ONLY e is needed for the periodic table.

All of this cosmos is made out of e. And that’s all the matter there is.

The MOTION of e is not called energy. The MOTION of e is called inertia and mass.

Energy is just motion. Mass is just motion. Matter is e.

Space has no motion. It has no time. It’s an emptiness for e and it’s fields to exist and interact without impedance.

The motion of e has limits. It puts and has a limit on speed…. AND direction. This limits linear speed AND angular speed. This limits the motion of velocity and the motion of angular acceleration.

This gives us c, and it limits the size of e. It limits the motion of substance. The energy of mass.

And makes it impossible for matter to superposition. There will not be any black holes.

Square space cosmology is where the future is.

When you see the light.

What is Energy? is another question - that which preceded our universal time and space, Higgs Bosons and all materiality, and which all seem to be expressions of.

 

[Catastrophe]

What is this? What is that?

"The map is not the territory".

Unfortunately we are stuck with words. All is cyclic in description.

We believe that "something is out there", meaning something external to ourselves.

Information reaches us via "information carriers", such as light and sound.

These information carriers enter us via our sensory organs, such as eyes and ears.

This 'information' is then processed by our brains, using words.

These words are understood by some commonality of definition.

We think that we understand that these words accurately describe information about objects.

But these are assumptions which have greater or lesser degrees of validity.

Light waves are of differing frequencies which affect our eyes and brains as colours.
We agree in our speech that these colours have names, red, yellow blue, et cetera.
But we can never know how these colours affect our interpretation by our brains.
We know what the effects are called, because we learn the names given to them.
We can never know how these affect each of us. We just assume what we are taught.

Words, names of objects (or phenomena) which we learn, are arbitrary descriptions.
The very many different languages show that words are arbitrary conventions.

"The map is not the territory". "The menu is not the meal". The words are not the reality.
The more complicated and convoluted the verbal descriptions, the greater the discrepancy.

The more we analyse verbal descriptions, the more we realise that they are cyclic.
Whilst there is certainly much use of words, they are still a series of cyclic meanings.
Just look at a dictionary.

All words are filtered through our personal experiences.
Consider how differently each of us understands the following words:
Father, mother, great, possible, unusual, extraordinary, food, drink, meaning.
Whilst there are common elements - sufficient for some communication - these are limited.

We cannot convey accurately in words, what we experience through our senses and brains.

"The map is not the territory". General semantics.

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

When you think do you use words?
And, if you do, are some languages better thinking tools than others?

 

[Catastrophe]

You use words to describe the symbols which occur in thought.

Some languages are much better for purpose than others.
They are called sciences.

Other types of language have been adapted for artistic effect.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Google this. You will find:

Some scientists claim that all thinking needs words and grammar, and is really talking to yourself. Others argue for a special 'language of thought' that uses abstract mental representations. Others say that only some kinds of thinking uses words.

Cat

 

[mdswartz]

When I visualize things I don't use words. In fact, I find it difficult to explain in words what I've visualized. Thus, my herky jerky style of writing. Anyone who's read what I wrote would believe me. I visualized black hole interiors, big bangs, falling in all directions into the rest of the universe, and supermassive black holes stripped of stars as eternal pillars and galactic anchors. None of that involved words. Sadly, words might have taught me something, but I've enjoyed my visualizations.

 

[Gibsense]

The chosen language may be advantageous, even if only some thought processes involve words. If so, then it might be useful to express a problem in very many different languages as some may be better to address a particular problem.
Regarding visualisations, yes, much thought involves imagery and a mental film show but words are needed to communicate it to others, of course (mostly)

 

[Gibsense]

The most successful language must be mathematics

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

There's only 2 things, matter and space, but the really fun stuff is watching what matter does. Matter wields gravity and all the forces to interact with space to make everything we see and experience in the universe and here at home. It's there for our viewing pleasure, for our experiential pleasure. And matter might make intelligent life after any big bang, yet it's still a crap shoot because the right conditions might not develop. But with the immense mass required to achieve a big bang, it gives a fairly good shot, so if one big bang doesn't yield intelligent life, the next one might. It did at least once.

Close.... but incomplete and in reverse order. The two things are actually space and time , the components of the continuum known as the space-time continuum. (Which should actually be known as the distance-time continuum.) it is the invariance of these phenomena which make the speed of light a constant , and as Minkowski said... preserve an independent reality.

Both einstein and Minkowski told us that space, (distance) and time are a single phenomenon, Is it really that hard to understand ???