God's Time

To guerillabedlam: I don't consider nothingness a field. A field is physical as it can have an effect on matter. I would agree that the canvass would be like a field as its texture can effect the paint. Nothingness would be the empty room that allows the interaction of the two.

 

http://youtu.be/J3xLuZNKhlY

 

^^^ Notice what he says at 3:45. Quarks pop in and out of existence. What I've been arguing is not that space is completely empty, but that emptiness does exist. If it didn't There couldn't even be field fluctuations.

 

I'm pretty elementary with this stuff as well but I still find it interesting to discuss. Isn't it fair to say that at least most particles are indeed particles as well though? I thought the point aspect of the particle dictates it's spin.

pop in an out of existence of the vacuum.

Anti-particles can annihilate particles as well.

 

i suppose the word particle is the best word to use when talking about them. i dont think they are quite like just little bits of stuff that you could pick up with a small pair of tweezers or something tho. i think it's difficult for a human to conceptualize the nature of what they are. the material aspect of matter comes from the interaction between all particles/fields involved. idek what just one particle on it's own would be like

 

They are called atoms, indivisible and indestructible; Their energy is never quite the energy of how it is intentionally learning about them in the field of human Consciousness. However, their's is the Energy in God;s consciousness. It's just a hypothesis for the unconditioned Time never fulfillingly being materialist "knock me off of the block" Matter.

Oh yes, it's got to be Newton's system for hypotheses.

 

what time does not belong to everyone? including gods?

 

that would be described by Newtonian time, with Einstein's theories we now know that time isn't what we thought, your time may not be the same as my time.

 

you are referring to perceived time. more specifically the perception of vector time as perceived in a physical space. the same space as perceived by both, but illustrated by einstine to be flexible.
but time can equally be explicated as a cartisian frame of reference, just as can space and spirit. each of the three, interpenitrating the other as their vector, but not otherwise localized in relation to each other. i know its my turn to wear the tin foil hat now, because the larsonian interpretation understandbly never caught on, for lack of means having yet been found, to demonstrate it experimentally. none the less, in the realm of non-numerical thought perception it works and does so with greater ease then strings, while quite happily digesting quantums.

 

This is not really in response to any particular post but I find this an amazing foreshadowing of the idea of spacetime from Aristotle, only about 2,000 years ahead of time.

..Reading it again, he may have even knocked out the first law of thermodynamics as well.