Welcome to Gaia! ::

Sigh due to time constraints I'm answering multiple replies in one post.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Mass
2. a collection of the component parts of something

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/voice1.htm

"mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing

very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa."
I haven't studied physics or quantum mechanics in detail and I don't expect that I'm using the terms properly though I still believe that the amount of energy that can be stored in one atom should give you a decent idea of how much energy you would need to be able to control and influence in order to form said atom.

Hmmm in my conceptualization will creates associations. It is the force with which those associations are shaped. Thus it creates solid matter.
I use the term energy as pretty much that which is created that has the least amount of associations and is easiest to influence. Pretty much what you described as channeling the ether I would consider channeling energy... or that which has the least amount of associations of contrary imprints which can conform with your will with the least amount of work on your own part.

Its mostly a conceptualization of things that I've witnessed.

Ok and looking at the page you linked me to. I work from a different conceptual framework and the terminology though some of it is definitely close to my conceptual framework.

The place I was referencing would probably closer to your concept of the infinite ether. Its far removed from any resonance to the physical ether and doesn't reflect the physical ether perse. and existed as far as I know before the physical ether and the physical ether is a condensation of this place which is pretty much ... just energy or weak associations that lack imprint.

My conceptual frame work deals more with possibilities. Lets say there was something in existence which lacked all definition and meaning. Or that existence at its core lacked all meaning. Then the will of individuals gave the universe meaning. This would be coupled with resonance patterns which would create an infinite regression of echo's of the person viewing there own definitions. This would be much like what you were describing as the spiritual ether but different as my framework has the ether lumping together to form the physical universe rather then the other way around so I don't think they are compatible?

I've never heard of white wolfs mage the ascension. What is that, I would assume a book?

So a clarification:
Energy is matter, it is less dense meaning that which is matter is X times more energy in a smaller space. As far as I am aware due to my sources and my education. If you could please (instead of insulting me)
I said it was a Rough estimate as I don't study physics or quantum mechanics in depth though I have some rough idea's concerning the matter.

When I use the word energy... or the ability to do work I consider it will/probability/possibility/whatever you wish to call it. Force? That it builds from a point of nothingness into a greater and more complex form. This doesn't fit with the frame work you've developed completely or smoothly.



100% wrong... if a person is a 100% anything its probably nothing at all
I've taken physics

Most of my post was talking about how difficult it would be to affect something physically. How difficult it would be to make or shape something physical. How difficult it would be to alter the core structure or nature or associations of something physical.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/density

Sooo numbers 4 6 7 are pretty valid concerning my use of the word.

I would rather not have everything I say be degraded to the point where you ignore any possible context or reasoning I might have behind my words even if they don't fit your definitions.

To bring this Entire conversation back on Point.

I doubt the persons thievery would very likely make a big impact on the item itself.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/will
To decide or choose.
If your looking at the world from a perspective of things being guided by probability with individual wills being the focal axis for the turning of events... will being synonymous with probability isn't really all that difficult to conceive and if you also pair this with some of the concepts which you have concerning resonance (not sure though I would like to explore your conceptualization more) but pretty much that positive energy flow would bring an object to greater stability/complexity. The energy flow that would be considered possiblity or the paths of possibility would be this complexity manifest. The will for me is seen as the pushing force that determines and forms the complexity.

I don't have the will to cover everything. How much freetime do you have!?!

I'll just address whatever is directed to me.



That doesn't make sense... as in the words themselves don't make sense. Instead of using a bunch of concept words that don't seem to have any rhyme or reason, describe what is happening from a conceptual standpoint. E.g. "Will pulls higher law down into the world and forces it to conform" should be "you concentrate really hard and sort of mix up two worlds, so that the rules in one of them makes this one change"

Since it seems like you have no clue what these words mean, it would be better to describe things from a conceptual standpoint, instead of trying to use technical terminology.



You're going to need to explain what you mean by associations. Energy is not created, only converted from one type to another.

Make another word for something that is created and easy to influence.



Channeling the Ether is channeling energy, in that you're tapping into the energies that are native to the Spiritual Ether and using them to do work here.

The thing you said after the ... still continues to make no sense.



I have my doubts about that since you've consistently described incorrectly what I've described in this thread.



So why don't you describe that without technical terms? Because you continue to make no sense, so clearly the technical terms are not helping.



That's not even remotely close to the Infinite Ether. One didn't come before the other, and neither of them are far removed from each other.



Etherism treats them as interchangeably reflections (dual reflectivism) so neither causes the other to form. They both form in conjunction.

You're seriously operating on the same system as the background from Mage: The Ascension (it's an rpg)



Yes, a book about a role playing game. A really good one actually.



This is wrong. Rethink your view. They are capable of being converted into each other (or just matter into energy) but they are not equivalent.



If you're following a system similar to Mage's backstory (which I find dismaying, but let's at least make your words comprehensible) then you would essentially believe that the minds of sentient beings enforces the laws of reality (and are able to change them.) And that you need a word for this mental enforcement.

Stop using energy, really stop using will. Make up a new word that seems to fit for the laws of reality being determined by belief and conviction.

That's fair. It's still the best way to handle the situation though, otherwise she's never going to be able to communicate this stuff.



Of course.



I'd like for her to at least try. I can even help her but the effort has to come from her too.

Oh, okay.

My offer to help create new words stands for the lurkers too. XD

Me being a living stuff name generator? XD

Ishtar, allow me to explain something about this guild that may not have come across previously.

The purpose of this guild is to educate those who are uneducated, and to dispel ignorance at it's root. To this point, you are having a debate that works with physics, with someone who has studied physics, while, by your own admission, you have not studied it to any considerable degree.

To make a corollary, this is like an Amish person getting into an argument with an auto-mechanic about how a combustion engine works.

No one is saying "Your opinion isn't important". What IS being said is that "Your opinion uses factors that are measurable by science, and you are displaying no concept of how that science works as it has been studied and proven to operate."

Cu is not attacking you or insulting you, despite how you may be taking his statements; he simply happens to be very direct. He is providing scientific evidence that directly contradicts your theory, and you are responding with more conjecture...conjecture which doesn't even begin to truly address the facts that he's bringing up in the first place.

In summation: You are acting from a position of ignorance, and when being called upon it, you are retreating further into your ignorance rather then at least truly reviewing what has been said.

I'm glad to help.