caldrail's Blog

Can you prove all the atoms are still in existence, or are we just assuming? Do objects keep the same mass, or just a relative form? Can a concentration of form attract like particle formations, and can they quantitatively thin over time, similar to how frost expands and contracts?

 

Secondly, how do we know photons move faster than us? Dont we have quite a few in us? In a relativistic universe, we gotta be going somewhere.

Oh..... what exactly was Clara saying, especially in the museum..... everything she said was British, not English..... made no sense.

Can you prove all the atoms are still in existence, or are we just assuming?

I haven't invented a Macroscopic Quantum Quantizer yet, nor has anyone else, so the total number of atoms is an estimate and will remain so for the forseeable future, or perhaps until Professor Cox's next Christmas lecture. However, the condition of Change within our universe does not, as I underatand it, prevent the migration of atmoic substance to other forms of existence. Such transformations are part and partcel of phycis and chemistry, without which you or I (or even socially aware ravens) are impossible.

 

Do objects keep the same mass, or just a relative form?

Mass is dependent on atomic structure and the total of atoms within that object. Please note that metric stabndard weights are very carefully kept to prevent minute changes in mass caused by decay or chemical reaction. Also please note that mass and weight are different. Mass is defined by atomic structure, given a scaler value by the efect of gravity acting upon that weight.

 

Can a concentration of form attract like particle formations, and can
they quantitatively thin over time, similar to how frost expands and
contracts?

Newton says yes. Einstein says it's a result of space-time deformation caused by mass. I say they knew better than I do. Since our solar system is a glaringly obvious example of mass-attraction and electro-chemical interation, I guess the answer is basically Yes.

 

Secondly, how do we know photons move faster than us?

Two or three centuries of theoretical and experimental physics.

 

Dont we have quite a few in us?

Actually we do, becauae it is now known that human beings have a very low level of bio-luminesence. Not quite enough to show up on special forces imaging systems, but we're already giving off enough heat or reflecting enough light to make thiose things work.

 

In a relativistic universe, we gotta be going somewhere.

Not necessarily, because movement is relative to the observer, not intrinsic, thus we have no way of knowing whether we're moving or the surrounding universe is moving around us unless we can compare our position to known values and locations, which are themselves of course potentially in motion.

 

Hope my answers are of use to you.

They are not in fact. I only bring that nugget up because a Oxford Graduate wrote a book called 'The Dicegame of Shiva' http://www.amazon.com/The-Dice-Game-Shiva-Consciousness/dp/1577316444

 

He pretty much takes your stance, but with the attention to further detail on the objective-subjective divide and atomic structure, coming to the conclusion that each atom, when it becomes molecular, is evidence of atomic consciousness. 

 

So.... back to my initial questions if you want to get off the non-Dualist slip and slide..... 

 

Carefully reconsider..... is weight and mass inherently different? How would relativity work if they were different. Yes, I'm aware of the periodical separation and classifications..... but that evolved out of the ideology central to Alchemy, which is dualistic and not necessarily relativistic. How are the two really separate? Are we merely applying a archaic system of categorization that has long ceased to apply to our larger assumptions.

 

I for one don't like the slippery slope of assuming atomic consciousness that a separation presupposes. I like Heraclius, but not that much.

He pretty much takes your stance, but with the attention to further
detail on the objective-subjective divide and atomic structure, coming
to the conclusion that each atom, when it becomes molecular, is evidence
of atomic consciousness.

I don't necessarily share the views of atomic conciousness - though in fairness it comes uncomfortably close to my own personal religious beliefs - and I should point out that physicisyts are concerned about the existence of 'Bolzmann Brains', sentient entities formed by fortuitous interaction of quantum particles, or if you  like, the sort of energy creatures you see on Star Trek quite a lot. The moral or philosophical questions however are no different - at what point does an entity assume conciousness? Research suggests much lower down the tree of life than we realise, in some primitive way, but conciousness involves more than simple existence and unless particles are complex enough to harbour conciousness, then it's no more than quantum/chemical/physical change without recognition.

 

is weight and mass inherently different?

No. Mass is instrinsic to atomic structure and weight the multiple of mass caused by the strength of the gravity force acting upon mass.

 

How would relativity work if they were different.

The same, with different values and results.