Matter is made of only waves?

[junglelord]

Thats why its called Sacred Geometry.

Ever watch the Zome video, 2, 3, 5, infinity?

[junglelord]

Declaring that a dimension consists of "angular momentum" or "spin" is CONCEPTUALLY absurd! SpIn is a verb , verbs are not existents , they are actions associated with concrete existents. As Ive said in the past if I declared that "horizontal slip " was the stuff all things are made of , Id be considered a lunatic. If I then said that I had an equation that proves it is a consistent view of reality Id likly be hospitalized....

I don't know about that?
I mean galaxies and planets all spin and there in a dimension of something.
It seems much less foolish then the horizontal hypothosis because its inherit in Nature.

Certainly Meyl and many others believe in the vortex as do I. Indeed I call it the Archetype form which is first and foremost from the Three Primary Fields set in Quadrature contained by Three Dimensions of Space set in Quadrature.

"There are no straight lines in Nature"...Freddy Gruber,
drum teacher to the world famous drummers.
quoted by Neil Peart (drummer for Rush) on his view of orbital time vs linear time....
I think there is something about art imitating life...or in this case Nature.

[Plasmatic]

don't know about that?
I mean galaxies and planets all spin and there in a dimension of something.
It seems much less foolish then the horizontal hypothosis because its inherit in Nature

You just proved my point. Planets are concrete existents. They "spin" but are not made up of "spin" I didnt say anything about a horizontal hypothesis.

[junglelord]

You just proved my point. Planets are concrete existents. They "spin" but are not made up of "spin" I didnt say anything about a horizontal hypothesis.

Why do they assign spin to atomic particles then? Everything spins...that is self evident. All double layers create vortex spiral forms which is the archetypal form. I cannot conceive of a world from quantum to galactic that does not spin.
PS
I was only using the horizontal thing as a apples and oranges example on someone trying to discredit spin theory with a ovbiously foolish parallel to horizontal theory.

[Plasmatic]

Why do they assign spin to atomic particles then? Everything spins...that is self evident

Ill try again. Particles are "things" they are concretes. Things "spin" ,But spin , is NOT a THING.

I I told the grocer I was paying with a bag of "spin" , how would that work aye? If I say "theres nothing in my pocket" there is not a entity called nothing in my pocket. Its the same conceptual mistake to say spin exists as a concrete.....

[junglelord]

If the most elemental thing spins, is not spin elemental?
Meyl makes a valid point that the vortex is real as does Tesla, Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, Tewari, Johnson and many others even the first modern father (forget his name) of a EU theory is explicit on this point. The point being there is no point particle, rather a vortex form that we conceive of as a point particle. In their model the electron is a vortex which is a spin and not a point. So that spin is elemental and the archetype and not a verb but a noun.

[Plasmatic]

If the most elemental thing spins, is not spin elemental?
Meyl makes a valid point that the vortex is real as does Tesla, Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, Tewari, Johnson and many others even the first modern father (forget his name) of a EU theory is explicit on this point. The point being there is no point particle, rather a vortex form that we conceive of as a point particle. In their model the electron is a vortex which is a spin and not a point. So that spin is elemental and the archetype and not a verb but a noun.
If the most elemental thing spins, is not spin elemental?
Meyl makes a valid point that the vortex is real as does Tesla, Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, Tewari, Johnson and many others even the first modern father (forget his name) of a EU theory is explicit on this point. The point being there is no point particle, rather a vortex form that we conceive of as a point particle. In their model the electron is a vortex which is a spin and not a point. So that spin is elemental and the archetype and not a verb but a noun.

No sir , youve just affirmed the consequent . Spin would be a property of the most elemental thing , which is spinning.
all I CAN SAY IS THAT IF YOU ARE IN FACT CORRECT ABOUT THE ABOVE MENTIONED FOLKS THEN THEY ALL NEED A PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE LESSON AS WELL AS A HELPFULL PORTION OF CONCEPTUAL INSIGHT ON THEIR METAPHYSICS!

[Tzunamii]

If said object is spinning, I could only be led to the question," what caused it to spin?". That there is action at all can only lead to seeking its cause, right?

[Plasmatic]

Thats my point!! You are essentially asking the unanswerable...the "first cause" . The only causes one can observe will be an entity , a thing , we refer to as a nouns in linguistic use. Not a verb Otherwise it will be "no-thing" causing "some-thing" to happen. Thats absurd. Spin is not a "thing/entity" , its a observed property of "things" that are concretes. A "wave" is an arrangement of "things" or units in relation to one another . the change we see in their positions are called movement , actions , etc. VERBS

To ask what caused "things" to move is to ask the ultimate question. Which is in fact a question relgated ONLY to the realm of FAITH.

[seasmith]

~
Plasmatic,

My dear comrade in arms, as a student of philosophy, you will likely agree that the essence of being is change and hence,
IMHO, all nouns are, in essence, verbs...

[bboyer]

If the most elemental thing spins, is not spin elemental?

No sir , youve just affirmed the consequent . Spin would be a property of the most elemental thing , which is spinning.

If the most elemental spin "things" then is not thingness elemental?

If the most elemental thing "spins" then is not spinning elemental?

Sounds to me like you guys are missing the elemental, illusory dichotomy with which you are polemically engaged.

Two sides of the same coin called reality. Why go about arguing "for" one or the other when it is all a marriage of process (verbs) and patterns (nouns)? Another way of phrasing it might be that process matters, and matter processes. Jeeze, how complicated do we wanna make it? What good is the noun without the suitable verb and vice versa? Of course, I've heard tell of indigenous cultures whose language contain no or few nouns and got along quite well in their perception of reality without them. Maybe that's just an old wives tale as I have no real first-hand knowledge of it. I've also heard Chinese is of similar character (not the various romanized or alphabetic versions that have been introduced under European or church influence) but can't personally attest to that either.

'Course, this line of inquiry is fun 'cause if it weren't then there'd be no reason for such a great forum.

[bboyer]

~
Plasmatic,

My dear comrade in arms, as a student of philosophy, you will likely agree that the essence of being is change and hence,
IMHO, all nouns are, in essence, verbs...

And, conversely, it could be said that the essence of change is being, so all verbs, in essence, are nouns.

What a world, what a world. Beautiful, ain't it? Let's see, which one shall I champion today.

[bboyer]

If said object is spinning, I could only be led to the question," what caused it to spin?". That there is action at all can only lead to seeking its cause, right?

If said spin is an object, it could only lead to the question, "what caused it to be an object?" That there are objects at all can only lead to seeking their cause, right?

I'm on a roll.

[StefanR]

So are you Arc-us or Zeno?

potentiality-actuality (or Dynamis-Energeia)

The processions of real beings, far more even than the positions of physical bodies in space, leave no vacuum, but everywhere there are mean terms between extremities, which provide for them a mutual linkage.

[Plasmatic]

So are you Arc-us or Zeno?

potentiality-actuality (or Dynamis-Energeia)

The processions of real beings, far more even than the positions of physical bodies in space, leave no vacuum, but everywhere there are mean terms between extremities, which provide for them a mutual linkage.
So are you Arc-us or Zeno?

potentiality-actuality (or Dynamis-Energeia)

The processions of real beings, far more even than the positions of physical bodies in space, leave no vacuum, but everywhere there are mean terms between extremities, which provide for them a mutual linkage.
Quote arc-usPost detailsRe: Matter is made of only waves?
by arc-us on Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:08 am

Tzunamii wrote:
If said object is spinning, I could only be led to the question," what caused it to spin?". That there is action at all can only lead to seeking its cause, right?


If said spin is an object, it could only lead to the question, "what caused it to be an object?" That there are objects at all can only lead to seeking their cause, right?

I'm on a roll.

If said object is spinning, I could only be led to the question," what caused it to spin?". That there is action at all can only lead to seeking its cause, right?

If said spin is an object, it could only lead to the question, "what caused it to be an object?" That there are objects at all can only lead to seeking their cause, right?

I'm on a roll.
Quote arc-usPost detailsRe: Matter is made of only waves?
by arc-us on Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:24 pm

seasmith wrote:
~
Plasmatic,

My dear comrade in arms, as a student of philosophy, you will likely agree that the essence of being is change and hence,
IMHO, all nouns are, in essence, verbs...




And, conversely, it could be said that the essence of change is being, so all verbs, in essence, are nouns.

What a world, what a world. Beautiful, ain't it? Let's see, which one shall I champion today.

~
Plasmatic,

My dear comrade in arms, as a student of philosophy, you will likely agree that the essence of being is change and hence,
IMHO, all nouns are, in essence, verbs...

And, conversely, it could be said that the essence of change is being, so all verbs, in essence, are nouns.

What a world, what a world. Beautiful, ain't it? Let's see, which one shall I champion today.
Quote arc-usPost detailsRe: Matter is made of only waves?
by arc-us on Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:18 pm

junglelord wrote:
If the most elemental thing spins, is not spin elemental?



Plasmatic wrote:
No sir , youve just affirmed the consequent . Spin would be a property of the most elemental thing , which is spinning.


If the most elemental spin "things" then is not thingness elemental?

If the most elemental thing "spins" then is not spinning elemental?

Sounds to me like you guys are missing the elemental, illusory dichotomy with which you are polemically engaged.

Two sides of the same coin called reality. Why go about arguing "for" one or the other when it is all a marriage of process (verbs) and patterns (nouns)? Another way of phrasing it might be that process matters, and matter processes. Jeeze, how complicated do we wanna make it? What good is the noun without the suitable verb and vice versa? Of course, I've heard tell of indigenous cultures whose language contain no or few nouns and got along quite well in their perception of reality without them. Maybe that's just an old wives tale as I have no real first-hand knowledge of it. I've also heard Chinese is of similar character (not the various romanized or alphabetic versions that have been introduced under European or church influence) but can't personally attest to that either.

'Course, this line of inquiry is fun 'cause if it weren't then there'd be no reason for such a great forum.

fuzzy wuzzy was a what?????????????

Now ,yall know , that I know , that yall know , I aint one to act kindly to notions of duality and uhhh , , go around fraternizing with the likes of ZENO and GODEL!!!! So uhh Ill be going ta sleep because I feel like a swollerd a badger tonight!!