Sojourner (sojourner@vt.edu)
Tue, 14 Jul 1998 05:50:03 +0100
At 11:38 AM 7/10/98 +0000, Magnus Berg wrote:
>> This is why I hit upon Glove's use of the word "precession". It's
>> also
>> why I reject the view that DQ is change (rather than cause of change).
>> To be perfectly honest, I can see some value in what Sojourner has now
>> suggested:-
>> >DQ = energy
>> >SQ = matter
>> My understanding of quantum theory is that energy has no existence
>> without a container, be it a photon, a vibrating string, or a Uranium
>> nucleus. The container is always "matter". This is why physicists
>> looked
>> so hard for the "ether" which carried light before the idea that light
>> is it's own matter (photons) was adopted. Similarly, all matter is
>> energy - E=mc^2. Thus matter and energy are not distinct, just
>> different
>> ways of looking at the same thing. In physics, the cause of change is
>> energy. DQ=energy, the cause of change, sounds pretty good to me.
>>
>If matter and energy are just different ways of looking at the same
>thing, why separate them with an SQ/DQ split? To be blunt, matter and
>energy are inorganic SPoV. You'll have a hard time trying to convince
>me otherwise.
>
All things which analyze are different ways of looking at the same
thing. Why else name the two sides of a coin? It's just two different
ways of looking at the same coin. The uni(one)verse can be split to
analyze any number of different ways. This topic is discussing what
falls on what side of the SQ/DQ line, and my thought was energy falls on
the DQ line and matter falls on the SQ line.
That is all. And I'm not looking to convince you, or anyone. I am
simply stating my opinion. Please state yours.
Thank you
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:28 CEST