Life's objective ( consumption ? ) is the more interesting question.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: NEWS BULLETIN -- Ed Conrad Has Cancer of the Brain .
Next: Quantum Gravity 362.8: Chaos Reconsidered as Opposite to Memory
From: JeffRelf.F-M.FM on 1 Apr 2010 04:42 In my often·stated, never trusted opinion... Old·Coot's/Painius' “space is no·thing” notion is a MEANINGLESS straw·man... they're tilting at windmills. Space·Time is mass·energy ( and vice versa ), inseparable; no true cosmologist would ever claim space/mass is “no·thing”. Life's objective ( consumption ? ) is the more interesting question.
From: Ala on 11 Apr 2010 09:38 "JeffRelf.F-M.FM @." wrote in message news:JeffRelf.F-M.FM.mn(a)2010_Apr1.1.42am... > > In my often·stated, never trusted opinion... > > Old·Coot's/Painius' “space is no·thing” notion is > a MEANINGLESS straw·man... they're tilting at windmills. > > Space·Time is mass·energy ( and vice versa ), inseparable; > no true cosmologist would ever claim space/mass is “no·thing”. > I hadn't thought of the similarity until you said that. It seems to have a genuine quality though without the edge .
From: Painius on 20 Apr 2010 07:06 "Ala" <alackrity(a)comcast.net> wrote in message... news:5N-dnRU8Z9a0TFzWnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... > "JeffRelf.F-M.FM @." wrote in message > news:JeffRelf.F-M.FM.mn(a)2010_Apr1.1.42am... >> >> In my often·stated, never trusted opinion... >> >> Old·Coot's/Painius' “space is no·thing” notion is >> a MEANINGLESS straw·man... they're tilting at windmills. >> >> Space·Time is mass·energy ( and vice versa ), inseparable; >> no true cosmologist would ever claim space/mass is “no·thing”. > > I hadn't thought of the similarity until you said that. It seems to have > a genuine quality though without the edge . In what way? happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "We turn not older with years, but newer every day." > Emily Dickinson P.P.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth
From: Painius on 20 Apr 2010 20:42 "Ala" <alackrity(a)comcast.net> wrote in message... news:mtudnXQnA48LolPWnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... > "Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message > news:4bcd8aac$0$4857$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >> "Ala" <alackrity(a)comcast.net> wrote in message... >> news:5N-dnRU8Z9a0TFzWnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... >>> "JeffRelf.F-M.FM @." wrote in message >>> news:JeffRelf.F-M.FM.mn(a)2010_Apr1.1.42am... >>>> >>>> In my often·stated, never trusted opinion... >>>> >>>> Old·Coot's/Painius' �?ospace is no·thing�?� notion is >>>> a MEANINGLESS straw·man... they're tilting at windmills. >>>> >>>> Space·Time is mass·energy ( and vice versa ), inseparable; >>>> no true cosmologist would ever claim space/mass is �?ono·thing�?�. >>> >>> I hadn't thought of the similarity until you said that. It seems to >>> have a genuine quality though without the edge . >> >> In what way? > > If they are inseperable then they must be similar and if inseperable there > must be no perceptible edge otherwise you could separate them. So if you > can't separate them, they have a quality all their space timey ownness. > > I hope you win an award for your work in this. Hah! What are the chances of *that*? Even Einstein wasn't awarded for his work in this. But if in the very unlikely event that such a thing would happen to me, i promise to tell the awarders of the "not a Mr." Ala who deserves all the credit ! <g> As far as i know, Alabert was the first to say that matter is not "in space", but instead it is "spatially extended". He wrote this in his introductory note to the 15th edition of his _RELATIVITY - The Special and the General Theory_. And, as you say, this must mean that our perception of edges between energy and matter might very well be illusory. It also means that he thought that space, or more precisely "spacetime", is made of the same stuff of which matter is made. Perhaps this is similar to Carl Sagan's expression, "We are the stuff of stars!" happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "We turn not older with years, but newer every day." > Emily Dickinson P.P.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth
From: HVAC on 22 Apr 2010 06:35
"Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message news:4bcfab93$0$5017$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > Sagan, of course, was speaking on an elementary level, > which just means that every element on every planet > (including those elements of which we are made) come > from the stars. A star had to blow up to produce all > those elements, then they condensed again into a new > star with planets. One of those planets just happened > to fall into the "Goldilocks" area around that star. So > the elements on that planet were able to evolve into > everything necessary to produce each and every thing > you see on Earth... including us. ~~~~~ > It also means that he thought that space, or more > precisely "spacetime", is made of the same stuff of > which matter is made. > Perhaps this is similar to Carl Sagan's expression, > "We are the stuff of stars!" ~~~~~ The above statement that you made was a blatant misreprestation of what Sagan meant by "We are the stuff of stars". Certainly he didn't mean that we are made from the vacuum of space. |