|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 12:46 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:08 am
 |
|
|
|
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.
Quote: 1. The quality or condition of being dense. 2. a. The quantity of something per unit measure, especially per unit length, area, or volume. b. The mass per unit volume of a substance under specified conditions of pressure and temperature. 3. Computer Science The number of units of useful information contained within a linear dimension. 4. The number of individuals, such as inhabitants or housing units, per unit of area. 5. The degree of optical opacity of a medium or material, as of a photographic negative. 6. Thickness of consistency; impenetrability. 7. Complexity of structure or content. 8. Stupidity; dullness.
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.
Quote: will 1 (wl) n. 1. a. The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action: championed freedom of will against a doctrine of predetermination. b. The act of exercising the will. 2. a. Diligent purposefulness; determination: an athlete with the will to win. b. Self-control; self-discipline: lacked the will to overcome the addiction. 3. A desire, purpose, or determination, especially of one in authority: It is the sovereign's will that the prisoner be spared. 4. Deliberate intention or wish: Let it be known that I took this course of action against my will. 5. Free discretion; inclination or pleasure: wandered about, guided only by will. 6. Bearing or attitude toward others; disposition: full of good will. 7. a. A legal declaration of how a person wishes his or her possessions to be disposed of after death. b. A legally executed document containing this declaration. v. willed, will·ing, wills v.tr. 1. To decide on; choose. 2. To yearn for; desire: "She makes you will your own destruction" (George Bernard Shaw). 3. To decree, dictate, or order. 4. To resolve with a forceful will; determine. 5. To induce or try to induce by sheer force of will: We willed the sun to come out. 6. To grant in a legal will; bequeath. v.intr. 1. To exercise the will. 2. To make a choice; choose.
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!?!
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:23 am
|
|
|
 |
I will not be attempting to educate you further after this post.
I will simply link to this post and my previous one with a note to the tune of "Address your scientific ignorance and stop your ignorant babbling" because, quite frankly, I have never had anyone resist education nearly as much as you.
Wrong definition of mass.
The wiki page is good for a start.
Ishtar Shakti I haven't studied physics or quantum mechanics in detail
From your demonstrated understanding of physics, I can only assume that you have not studied physics at all.
Ishtar Shakti 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.
And if you studied physics, you would realise how absurd you were being.
That I keep having to do this implies that you are either a troll or the worst kind of fluffy there is. You don't know what you're talking about but you keep talking. That is willful ignorance.
A bag of sugar weighs, in Ireland, 9.8 Newtons, which tells us that it has a mass of 1kg. Which means, if it were converted to energy it would release 8.98755179 × 10^16 Joules.
That is MILLIONS of times more energy than was released by the Fat Man.
Ishtar Shakti Hmmm in my conceptualization will creates associations. It is the force with which those associations are shaped. Thus it creates solid matter.
This is a non sequitor. That thus makes absolutely no sense.
It does not follow that your conceptualisation will creates association, therefore matter is created.
Ishtar Shakti I use the term energy as pretty much that which is created that has the least amount of associations and is easiest to influence.
I know how you abuse the word energy.
You are wrong. This isn't a case of two equally valid opinions striving to reach a compromise. This is a case of someone with formal education in the matter telling you that your new age bollox isn't worth the paper it isn't printed on.
Ishtar Shakti Pretty much what you described as channeling the ether I would consider channeling energy...
Energy is the ability to do work.
Energy is matter times the speed of light squared.
E = mC^2
NOT
E = m
Unless you redifine the kiligram to be so large as to have no meaning.
Ishtar Shakti it is less dense meaning that which is matter is X times more energy in a smaller space.
..... Why do I keep having to address this?
Energy is not mass. Energy can be converted to mass, as per the equation above.
Energy does not have mass. Energy does not have density.
Water can be converted into steam. Does that mean you can talk about the gaseous properties of ice? No. And if you attempted, you'd look like a moron.
Ishtar Shakti As far as I am aware due to my sources and my education.
Salesian College, Celbridge: 5th and 6th year Physics and Applied Maths
N.U.I. Maynooth, 1st year Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2nd year Theoretical Physics.
Where did you get your education?
Ishtar Shakti If you could please (instead of insulting me)
I haven't begun insulting you yet. I've been, understandably, intolerant of you.
Ishtar Shakti 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.
No... you don't. You have some wrong ideas. They're not rough. Rough is a few orders of magnitude out. You were six.
Ishtar Shakti When I use the word energy... or the ability to do work I consider it will/probability/possibility/whatever you wish to call it.
You are wrong. It does boil down to that.
I am not going to sit here and watch you spread your ignorance without challenging it.
You are as wrong as creationsists and what you are doing offends my scientific sensibilities just as much as what they do does.
Force and energy are not remotely the same thing.
Ishtar Shakti This doesn't fit with the frame work you've developed completely or smoothly.
Not me. The scientific community, over centuries.
Ishtar Shakti 100% wrong... if a person is a 100% anything its probably nothing at all
This makes no sense. At all.
Did you fail?
Ishtar Shakti Most of my post was talking about how difficult it would be to affect something physically.
It is easy to affect something. It takes a few joules of energy to overcome inertial rest and fewer joules to maintain movement.
Ishtar Shakti Sooo numbers 4 6 7 are pretty valid concerning my use of the word.
No they are not.
.... wow... see how that works. You say something, I disagree.
Until you prove your position, as I have been doing, you have no more authoritative a position than I do.
Ishtar Shakti 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.
Then admit you are wrong and stop posting in defense of your incorrect opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:38 am
|
|
|
|
I'll just address whatever is directed to me.
Ishtar Shakti Hmmm in my conceptualization will creates associations. It is the force with which those associations are shaped. Thus it creates solid matter.
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.
Quote: I use the term energy as pretty much that which is created that has the least amount of associations and is easiest to influence.
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.
Quote: 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.
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.
Quote: Its mostly a conceptualization of things that I've witnessed.
I have my doubts about that since you've consistently described incorrectly what I've described in this thread.
Quote: 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.
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.
Quote: 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.
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.
Quote: 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?
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)
Quote: I've never heard of white wolfs mage the ascension. What is that, I would assume a book?
Yes, a book about a role playing game. A really good one actually.
Quote: Energy is matter, it is less dense meaning that which is matter is X times more energy in a smaller space.
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.
Quote: 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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:57 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:37 am
|
|
|
|
TeaDidikai Recursive Paradox 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. This is a very difficult thing for people who cling to personal value through external validation to do. It undermines the previous sense of value and often people get stuck because they think something has to be 100% correct the first time for it to have any merit.
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.
Quote: My personal example in this was that I spent the first third of my life mispronouncing some very important beings names. sweatdrop It was a byproduct of not living in the family home. redface That doesn't mean that mistake invalidated my traditions and gnosis. Just that it needed to be refined.
Of course.
Quote: I understand it was easier for me because I had an established tradition and a valid correction to apply. Creativity- to generate a new title can be very difficult for folks who aren't inclined that way.
I'd like for her to at least try. I can even help her but the effort has to come from her too. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:55 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:36 am
|
|
|
|
TeaDidikai Recursive Paradox 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. ... I'd like for her to at least try. I can even help her but the effort has to come from her too. I'm not condoning her actions. I find habitual misuse of language to be highly annoying. I was more or less commenting for lurkers who find themselves in a similar position.
Oh, okay.
My offer to help create new words stands for the lurkers too. XD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:50 pm
|
|
|
|
Recursive Paradox TeaDidikai Recursive Paradox 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. ... I'd like for her to at least try. I can even help her but the effort has to come from her too. I'm not condoning her actions. I find habitual misuse of language to be highly annoying. I was more or less commenting for lurkers who find themselves in a similar position. Oh, okay. My offer to help create new words stands for the lurkers too. XD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:48 pm
|
|
|
|
TeaDidikai Recursive Paradox TeaDidikai Recursive Paradox 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. ... I'd like for her to at least try. I can even help her but the effort has to come from her too. I'm not condoning her actions. I find habitual misuse of language to be highly annoying. I was more or less commenting for lurkers who find themselves in a similar position. Oh, okay. My offer to help create new words stands for the lurkers too. XD That's something that should be added to the link list when it gets updated.
Me being a living stuff name generator? XD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:03 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:27 am
|
|
|
|
Ishtar Shakti (Everything said thus far)
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:26 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:35 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:17 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
