TOP TEN ANNE HENRIQUES ANSWERS AT QUORA EN AND ES
FRIENDLY DISCUSSIONS AMONG SPECIAL ONES
ON PHYSICS
No. It is most probable that Paul have created Christ. The Greek
texts possess historicity, very well-known by other People: they were not just
lost in Alexandria, but were incinerated in other times: On the contrary of the
Gospels, which don’t possess any historicity. The Platonic love, so understood
as the ‘unreachable love’, which, in the Greek case, could be understood as the
love between men, it’s not exactly in the concordance of the homosexualism of
the Jews nor of Christians. The love described by Plato to Socrates is a
physical love, a man which he met, this not only in the Symposium, but also in
his Laws VIII – 838e-839a, the Law of the Seed :
Plato: “It was exactly this my own meaning when I said that I knew
a device for the establishing of this law of restricting the procreative
intercourse to its function by abstention of congress with one’s own sex, with
his deliberate murder of the race and his waste of seed of life, in a petrified
and rocky soil, where it will never root up and give his natural fruit, and
equal abstention of any field-woman where you don’t desire harvest”
And, in this sense, it’s most probable that Miletus have
created Plato.
The love hasn’t such a reach, the understanding of an homosexualism:
because, the homosexualism is the understanding of a disease, and not
exactly the understanding of a sentiment. Plato doesn’t
report himself to an image, as being Socrates an ‘imaginary cave which he
inhabited’, but as the big love of his life, with which he developed a grand
obsession, due to his own personal misunderstanding towards a
non-correspondence: and not an acceptation of the imaginary, in the latu sensu
of a Creation.
What is known, in the latu sensu of that which was preserved by the
current historicity is less than one third of his works, and this includes
Aristotle as well, who, just as most of the Greeks of his time, questioned
the sexuality between men as something not being
natural. These things are finisher, in that which you’ve asked.
The understanding of Socrates wasn’t dialectical, he didn’t move in
dualities, in the latu sensu of spirit-and-body, which would
fatally lead to a metaphor between the changing and the fix. Plato,
in no form at all tries to compose a character as a form of explaining himself
and neither lesser yet of misunderstanding himself.
In Socrates phylogeny, the love was the first: and this was an
embarrass for the Law: for not existing nothing above the love. For
Socrates, the love wasn’t in the earth, nor wasn’t in heaven, the love wasn’t,
it’s something which passes, and which cannot be transmitted through the touch:
being the love something that always existed: This was
the condition of Eros of Urania. The understanding of Socrates was the simplest
possible: those who don’t pass, created the Law. I think so
Socrates created an embarrass for himself, in the sense of trying to
explain what he felt to the others, and by sexual matters
inherent to his own personality, he may have somehow have been obliged to
understand himself as man, in the conditions of the Law: and he have opted in not
being, because, in such conditions, being something wouldn’t have the
slightest importance.
Plato in no form at all felt himself like this: Plato’s thought
it’s involved in continuity, in the latu sensu of a growth,
elevation and learning: where the contrariety is the
constant in his entire known work: where the human is the
natural of God, and only for this, the sex is ‘the natural of the
earth’: it’s the Creationist understanding: and even for this, Plato’s
thought have survived somehow, and the of his antecessor have disappeared: and
this have given margin for that which you’ve asked. But, are different
understandings, Socrates isn’t in no form at all a duality of Plato: but
someone who indeed Plato never understood: for this, he could never be him, nor
equal to him, nor follow him as well, nor in death nor in life: because, if
Plato indeed loved Socrates, he would have gone together with him.
269 views
2.
How do you justify the existence of the
Universe and all the creation from a single fly to human to all the Universe?
How did it start? How did it become so perfect the plants in its orbits and the
perfection that is in everything exist? [X]
Well, you want to justify God in the Universe, but, you’d have to,
firstly, proving that such a thing happened, a Creation: Such instant,
the absence, doesn’t prove itself in the nature… the nature
is bela [pt]… .
Hi John,
God created the man at His image and resemblance, and the quality
of this is the sin and the death. It was God who mounted the human
couple. The nature of God cannot be denied.
'nisi venerit discessio': unless the dispersion comes - it's the latu sensu of a
stepping-away - the evil won't be revealed. Christ possesses the quality of
Demonstration: that who proves what that is, and, for this,
isn't that.
Paul justifies his action in his body, the flesh, of the why that
he acted that way. You may find strange the concordance of 'Satan', but, in
Isaiah 45:7 God affirms that it was Himself who created the evil. Satan will be
always in the path, and Christ will be always killing the evil. The standard
understanding of Paul is that the Sin is a continuity: It’s the sin who leads
to death: For the Christians, the truth is something compactuado, only
dying infinite times one will arrive in God: everybody knows what needs to be
held: the quality of this nature. “Anne, are you affirming that Christ and
Satan are the same thing?”: yes, it’s what’s Written. Now, if Satan is the
Nature, is something that the Bible didn’t know and doesn’t know explaining:
but certainly, it’s what it would like to have affirmed. Now, you can see these
ambiguities happening, in other kind of literature's, demonstrations few usual,
which involves another kind of language. I’ll leave some sources here for you:
39 views · Answer
requested by John Bonham
Thank you Anne. If I told you that “Isaiah 45:7 God affirms that it
was Himself who created the evil” is a serious mistranslation, how would that
affect the remainder of your position?
Original Author · September 2, 2019
Hi, John,
“…ego Dominus et non est amplius extra me non est deus accinxi te et non cognovisti me, ut sciant hii qui ab ortu solis et qui ab occidente quoniam absque me non est ego Dominus et non est alter, formans lucem et creans tenebras faciens pacem et creans malum ego Dominus faciens omnia haec” [Isaiah 45:5-7 – Parallel from KJV and St Jerome’s Vulgata]
“…ego Dominus et non est amplius extra me non est deus accinxi te et non cognovisti me, ut sciant hii qui ab ortu solis et qui ab occidente quoniam absque me non est ego Dominus et non est alter, formans lucem et creans tenebras faciens pacem et creans malum ego Dominus faciens omnia haec” [Isaiah 45:5-7 – Parallel from KJV and St Jerome’s Vulgata]
‘I am The Lord, and there’s no other besides me, it doesn’t exist
another God for thee. It’s not God around you, and thou didn’t recognize me:
For that anyone knows this from the rise of the sun, and even all those from
the Occident, because without me, nothing is. I am thy Lord, and there’s no
other. I create the light and create the darkness, I make the peace and I
create the evil, I thy Lord create all these things.’ [translation base –
Notredame Latin Dictionary]
Yes, we do may tear this page, but… the problem of the genome
would continue existing: the DNA of the evil.
There were Shadows, Abysses, and God called tenebrous what
He saw: “…terra autem erat inanis et vacua et tenebrae super faciem
abyssi et spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas” (Gen1:2 – Jerome’s
Vulgata): a strange sentiment, God affirms the unknown, as not
being Him that which He creates: Deus criou a terra à face de quem? [pt] The
Creationist sequence points to the latu sensu of an evolution: the original
from God is the unfinished, where the growth develops itself in the death,
where the life would be the eternal rebirth, and this closes with the
resurrection: the evil doesn’t lose its continuity in the time, as much as the
good, its counterpart. Such understanding doesn’t lose its symmetry in Paul, on
the otherwise, the lapse is a sine qua non condition as a functioning, and this
is basically the understanding of Thessalonians, the text which you’ve quoted,
which’s polarized with both texts, the Deuteronomy, which you’ve quoted in the
other question, as well as with the one I’ve quoted, Isaiah 45. In Gen6:6, God affirms that
He erred when He Created the man, for having made the man from the face of the
earth: God changed the time of the man, and this changes the space: God
modifies the body of the man: God changed His creation: God goes back behind in
that which He did. In mode that the origin of the Evil cannot take an
assembling of unspecific just because the Christians preferred to follow in
misunderstanding, turning the truth as a pact with the evil and a permission
for sinning, in the latu sensu of a continuity, misunderstanding, with this,
where such existence was possible… .
Whether you assume that God is Dominus, or the good will have
always a relative value.
Yes, I may change my interpretation, provided that you give me
another understanding, which be possible of being rationalized outside of a
metaphor, parables: if you tell me that Isaiah is wrong, that St Jerome
committed a gross error and that the understanding of Paul is another, simply
because the ‘Septuagint transliteration it’s wrong’, I’d really like to see the
originals, because, the exclusion of anything is terminative.
In mode that the answer has to be simple, objective and direct, not
fitting any other kind of rationalist recursiveness : Who created the
evil? The evil exists, doesn’t it..? if the evil didn’t exist, there
wouldn’t exist the sins, and Christ would be unserveable. It’s the
understanding of Pope Francis, and even for this, none human being may be
judged in a capital penalty, because, for God, “everything is recoverable, even
that which degrades the life, His foremost Creation”, the Cardinals that don’t leave
me lie, because, otherwise, the basic mantra of the current Christianism
wouldn’t be “everyone will be forgiven, that the life it’s the solid
unrecoverable evil and only for this we follow doing the good”, because, the
Spiritual Elevation supports the understanding that God changes, that God
evolves, and it’s passible of errors, just as the human beings: and only for
this, the humanity walks in the straight line, so, I think so the moment it’s
opportune for ones to question themselves on the naturalness of the
error… is it original from who, exactly..?
“Yes, Anne, God created the evil, it’s not quite exactly as the
prophet Isaiah spoke, even because, the prophet Isaiah it’s involved with
anachronism, technically, there exists three Isaiah’s…”, because, the
Babylonian Torah isn’t equal to the Torah of Jerusalem, so, if the Scriptures
survived to so many versions, there should already be the correct literature of
that which was considered valid and be removed all the other Biblical
interpretations: and what I say is that this is impossible, what ones want it’s
indeed follow in misunderstanding, and this seems to be the pact of the truth,
that which’s not had, but that everyone knows being from
God.
I think so it doesn’t fit any other understanding, I mean, whether
God affirms everything, or God denies everything: He proposed a totality,
the loss of any part is the loss of an integrality. It’s what
the Vatican it’s discussing, in the latu sensu of Pope Benedict, the relative
good.
The Science questioned Genesis in its structural sequence, and this
structural sequence showed itself fail towards the nature: in nothing the unity
may be found, lesser yet a beginning or an end.
Scientists of China along with others reunited, discovered in 2014,
through a deepening on the studies of the meiosis interphase that none
plant carries its own seed [x]: none separation considered plena
[pt] may be extensive to the known universe: the nature doesn’t
possess an adiabatic principle, of the inside and of the outside.
I think so that there isn’t other alternative left, for the
Christianism, towards the happenings, and the current understanding of the majority
of the Scholars, is that the evil is the counterpart of God, in the condition
of the other side of the good, so..
God signs it doing it, independently of the posteriors clearing ups
of the ones said cleared ups by Him: I mean, God signs the evil, independently
of Isaiah’s understanding, or of Moses, or of Paul.. and Christ, yes, without
Satan, Christ would never be a proper of his own actions, it was how he
understood the flesh, and only for this, he denied God in the cross, God wasn’t
with him in that moment: it wasn’t God dying, but the man: this was the body
which the man received from God to exist. If we understand the humanity as an
action, it doesn’t go beyond the time, because the time doesn’t go beyond an
idea, geologically speaking, the humanity won’t leave tracks in the earth,
except its own bones, not being the humanity able to be, nor even, understood ,
in the latu sensu of an Anthropocene. The human being
already arrived in his result, if God isn’t the nature, definitely, He didn’t
create it.
1 upvote
Thank you Anne. As I am not Christian, I appreciate your
Christianized references for their value within your religion. To my original
question, the citation of Isaiah 45:7 refers to calamity; not evil, as there is
no evil in Elohim: both Adonai and Attiyq Yom. 1
Original Author · September 2, 2019
No, John, Isaiah’s evil is unspecific, it’s a spiritual action, it
doesn’t possess materialness, such things cannot be seen in the earth, only in
the human actions, because the Biblical God has dominion over all the things:
it’s the understanding of all’s. To any angle, it doesn’t fit another
interpretation, the procedence has to be God, obligatorily, in the latu sensu
of a unicity: otherwise, we’d be always relativizing things up. And you also
didn’t answer me the origin of the evil. Yes, I’ve founded the passages which
you’ve quoted way top, because they possess the same understanding. But they
don’t finish the matter of the relative good, and for this the question’s at
the table. But, if you believe that something was created, you will be in the
condition of a Christian even though not being. As I’ve already said a lot of
times here at Quora, I’m not a Christian and my status is of undesirable, so,
my procedence of the Biblical understanding is another. But yes, I’d like to
understand better your definition of evil, because, the denial of the evil it’s
also the denial of Christ, and even for this, the protestant vertente
[pt] existed. My understanding is analogous to the understanding of
the Amazonian indigenes, it’s where I live, the nature isn’t, in nothing,
similar to the nature narrated in Biblical terms, my understanding it’s the
of the forest, I see serpents and ounces almost every day and I’ve never seen
the evil in the nature: and I not having how to have such understanding I went
to see the understanding of the white-man, because, the pale-face seems to not
have color in his eyes, and his sound it’s the word… there never existed such a
moment in the nature, the silence, a day on which the sound didn’t pass…
so, é pela cor, é pela flor, é pelo amor à terra [pt].. the life
was something that only begun. Yes, thank you for your preoccupation, indeed
such behavior would never come from a Christian. We talk in the topics. In my
language it’s ehr ahkinow, that who passes,.. it’s how the animals see
each other, in the forest. There isn’t a sentiment of separation.
Hugs.
Hugs back Anne. Thank you for explaining further. Most scholars of
the Tanakh agree this citation speaks of calamity; not evil as we commonly
define it. Here is a third-party source which reasonably explains this: Why does Isaiah 45:7 say that God created evil?
And you are not undesirable. It has been a pleasure understanding
things from your perspective.
Shalom
Original Author · September 3, 2019
Thanks, John. My name, by father’s part, curiously, is Levy… yes,
of Judaic origin.. and understanding the Hebrew, and translating the Hebrew was
something that I did, before studying the Latin: even because, the Judaic
writings also passed by a process of formatting, and the Yahwehist standard
was, in a certain form, forgotten and modified by rationalities more
positivists. But I descend from a tribe which writing dates from 10 thousand
years, and the etiologic standard of the words, in their most ancient language,
possesses a similarity to the of the Ancient Judaism. The Yanomami language is
dated from more than 10 thousand years. However, the Yahwehist standard it’s
involved with a horrible definition of the evil as being the nature, and due to
my limitations in the Hebraic idiom I could never clear up, I mean, having a
literature of firsthand, which was not cleaved in transliteration, and stayed
difficult making a study of approximation. But, I think so the Judaism stepped
itself away too much due to this, submitting the love to the condition of a
result: that which didn’t exist in the beginning, because the pleasure and the
taste entered in opposition. I’ve been seen many Judaic scholars trying to
reestablish a new order in the understanding of the Torah, in an understanding
closer to the nature, but I don’t know indeed which’s the importance in this
review, in the latu sensu of which’re the sentiments involved, what
does one wants with this exactly, once the creation it’s not the Love: and
outside this, constructions too failure, the own geometry of the comparisons
possesses impossible angles, the sentiment’s that indeed ones still wants to
hide something, in mode that I don’t have how to take seriously such
propositions. i think so the Judaism from the beginning was more
honest in that which they believed, it wasn’t exactly an acceptation nor a
sentiment of reward, but , a better concordance in that which they believed, it
wasn’t an imposition over the others, but a relation between them. As I said, I
can’t elongate too much, but we may talk yes about these things, because, that
which was lost was the earth… havia terra no olhar…e ela nunca foi seca
[pt], the earth was never separated from the waters.. and the
Yahwehist stories of my people are incredibly not-humans as much as the day on
which the humanity didn’t exist: but indeed, I’m skeptical as to the practical
results of the reparation, in mode that my sentiment isn’t neither of
destroying nor lesser yet of fixing something, I think so the clearing
up must be given, independently of the result, because, something was Written:
the Creation: and sentiments were violated in name of a proof. The dry earth
only existed because of the Sins, it was from the end that Abraham departed.
The end is the procedence of the command which they follow as servants: it’s
very strange the word having been constructed from the end, and not from the
sound: Abraham, oriented by God, through the end, could direct Babel: how could
this be so hardly misunderstood as the procedence of something on the
natural..? it’s lacking the goddess, it’s lacking the
love, I think so the Judaism does has to explain these things up to
the Christianism, an it won’t get to do this, misunderstanding the Natural, or
using it one more time as escapism of their ideas. Satan isn’t Nature: period.
I think so the clearing up must, primarily, begin by there. The current status
of God, in both religions, is that who points the evil, which proves
that which He causes to the man: and so it is how He occurs. The
nature doesn’t agree with this, and this vision needs to be, somehow, exceeded.
You ask me anything about the natural, and I’ll have pleasure in answering you.
Just as you, at Quora I’m limited to not clearing things up, so, I
will make you some questions and you reply when you can, and we go talking.
I’ll leave you a quite interesting text, from King David - he really loved
Bathsheba: it’s a natural vision of the Torah, you will like: [The
Bird: X]
Big hug.
Thank you Anne. Very enlightening. I look forward to many more
times of communicating with you.
Big Hugs back and Shalom
4.
Do neutrinos exist? How can something neutral create something
negative? [X] – Question made by Anne
Henriques
“How can something neutral create something negative?”
They don’t. What are you referring to?
Reply
Upvote
Original Author · March 9
Hi, Erik, I too am
trying to understand…
http://mb-soft.com/public4/neutrino.html
http://mb-soft.com/public4/neutrino.html
Yeahhhhh, I just skimmed that page, and it’s nonsense. Not only
does it just ignore that last several decades’ worth of
experimental evidence, it also completely makes stuff up (neutrinos
aren’t claimed to be able to create charge).
I recommend against getting your information about physics from
some random personal website.
Reply
Upvote
Original Author · March 9
Who wrote the article is a theoretical physicist from the
University of Chicago, it’s not so independent like this.. .it is of 2020.
Along these 10 years, many false experimentalisms appeared, which don’t
offer explanations for the formation of the matter conform the Theoretic
Theology which Albert Einstein would like. I don’t have motives to
believe that the cosmology be so certain about that which it affirms and
disaffirms constantly. The neutrino already existed before being proven, bosons
already existed before being proven… Where’s the Cause?
But, yes, I don’t pego [pt] anything: at least
from a big university, and from physicists who represent grand property and
knowledge on that which they affirm, and they do add legitimacy to the facts,
on that where they seem to have perfect understanding of that which is broken.
The problem of the physics it’s its understanding of space, even
more than its understanding of energy: the problem of the physics is
geometrical. In mode that, I would do a drawing for you, interrelating the
spaces, because, I’m a drawer, and in the same mode that you could present me a
theoretical problem, and I’d have difficulty on understanding, attributions of
hypothetical properties wouldn’t go beyond an hypothesis: the hypothetical
science hasn’t any certainty at all on what it says: and much of these things
on “3th hand” seem to make irrefutable sense of the wrong.. I’ll stop by here,
But thanks anyway.
A hug.
Reply
“a theoretical physicist from the University of Chicago”
No, definitely not.
I think there was a guy on Quora a while back who used to make
similar claims, and he had a bachelor’s degree (possibly U
Chicago) that he hadn’t used / kept current with for half a century. He
is not an academic, is not affiliated with
the U Chicago physics faculty, has no advanced training in the
subject, and is not familiar with modern advancements.
Neutrinos are not controversial. We use them for things,
like getting early warning of supernovae. We can also use them to send
messages through the Earth. You may as well doubt the existence of
electrons.
Reply
Upvote
Original Author · March 10
Anson, thanks for all the informations, but you didn’t help
absolutely nothing in my topic.. . using something doesn’t
mean, necessarily, knowing it. Yes, the electron exists because it
is a name, and the name it’s an attribution of the owner. I discuss the shape
of the electron, the shape of the neutrino, the shape of the atom, the
shape of the physics.. : it isn’t natural.
The system of mass attribution, be it in the quantum mechanics or
in quantum fields, is fail, thus, it’s coherent the understanding of Carl W. Johnson.
Now, it’s logical, for being an understanding contrary to the
Standard understanding, the space-plan, the problem of two bodies different
in shape for being different symmetries, the
hypothesis happened: it’s what a Theory is: the property of
hypothetical properties, a hypothesis: The electron is only a
hypothesis in the nature, nothing more than this, the nature is
perceivable, if it has the shape of the formula is another
thing: The problem is that the symmetry broke because God
disappeared from the table, as an object not found in the certainty: it wasn’t
exactly the nature who wasn’t found. The nature is beautiful,.. how good being able
to see a movement in the nature, and being able to call
this anything.. . good, being able to call the symmetry of something as
being a movement, the expressive result of an observation, the fix.. .:
none electron is equal to the other, nor in mass, nor in length, nor in time..:
‘are the minimal of phenomenological constants that any theory can have… one
cannot explain that the constants explain the mass nor any part of it’: the scalar
construction of an atomic structure has problem of spatial
interrelations, because the drawing is plan, there will be
always vacuum, creating a separation-object: the
problem of the physics it’s of conception, the mathematics is
geometric, for this, the drawing, in the nature, will always be plan,
it’s a problem of angles, and not a natural existent problem, that
where ‘the nature hides’ .. .
Could you inform me, for example, what’s the origin of the
neutrino..? things like, is it possible that the neutrino always
existed..? and, when was he seen, exactly, for the first time,
outside the theory..? this will help me on giving continuity on my
studies on the problems of the physics, and when I arrive to a conclusion I
post it here at Quora.. Right, Erik..? if you have some papers, send some
links, things of this kind.
Best regards,
Anne.
Reply
That’s a good place to start.
If you reject my advice to stop reading nonsense written by
crackpots, I can’t really help much.
Reply
Upvote
Carl W.
Johnson, Theoretical
Physics & Physics, University of Chicago (1967)
No, they don’t. Your second question is very important and
insightful. We Physicists believe in several important Laws, including the
Conservation of electrical charge, and you have noted that the claim of any
neutrino would have to violate that. You may enjoy my Paper at Neutrinos Do Not Exist
You may especially enjoy examining the logic of the specific
experiment (done only 25 years AFTER Pauli had speculated about the (Scalar)
existence of neutrinos in 1930 (where Newton’s analysis of Gravitation 300
years earlier established that gravitation is instead a Vector quantity.
Therefore, the “Nuclear Spin” upon which Pauli had based his (incorrect) Scalar
reasoning is obviously a Vector quantity (where Pauli had clearly erred in his
Scalar logic).
But the 1956 experiment which is considered the “PROOF” of
neutrinos is so logically flawed that it is hilarious, for the reasons which
you are aware of. I AM impressed!
46 views
View Upvoters
· Answer requested by Anne
Henriques
Hi Carl,
I am impressed,
I don’t have words, your understanding it’s right: the scalar logic in mater
it’s wrong.
My understanding isn’t exactly physics, but the conception of space.. .
I’ve read your paper, it is of significative importance for the Science, specially for the physics,
…And, indeed, there exists some ‘magic’ which disexplains the physic understanding on the construction of the mass, in the quantum universe. Indeed, I do have some questionings, but, what you’ve answered is already enough.
My understanding isn’t exactly physics, but the conception of space.. .
I’ve read your paper, it is of significative importance for the Science, specially for the physics,
…And, indeed, there exists some ‘magic’ which disexplains the physic understanding on the construction of the mass, in the quantum universe. Indeed, I do have some questionings, but, what you’ve answered is already enough.
Thank you :)
Reply
Original Author · March 11
Hi, Anne, I am impressed. I hope we might have long conversations!
Where are you? I am near Chicago.
Reply
Upvote
Yes, of certain, it would be a pleasure talking, yes.. . I’m in the
middle of the Amazon, near the Waimiri Atroari’s tribe (yes, the rainforest).
I’m involved with environmental causes, and with that which’s my specialty, the
botanic.. the physics, for me, isn’t exactly a passion, but an upsetment, not
by the physics itself, but for that which ceased being science, in the latu
sensu of misunderstandings. But if you ever come into the Amazon someday,
search for me, the forest possesses a certain magia [pt], and the
sensation-universe is different, something that I try to contextualize better
in my drawings.. . I’ll grab some of your papers at Academia, and, if you allow
me, doing some questionings (you answer whenever you can).
A big hug, and thanks for all your attention.
Adam
Jacholkowski, former experimental particle physicist at CERN
(1983-2015)
It is a question of the global curvature of the universe, depending
on its energy content. Flat universe would mean that is equivalent to a plane
in 2 dimensions, while positive curvature analogy is a sphere which is closed
but has no limits. Shape of the universe - Wikipedia
29 views · Answer requested by Anne Henriques
Upvote
Share
Hi, Adam
Any bidimensional thing is flat, independently of its geometrical
form. The gravity may be parameter, in the maximum, of a shape, it
hasn’t how to explain the form: the universe would have to have,
obligatorily, a center: and in this sense, the form of
the universe wouldn’t go beyond the understanding of a particle.. . I
really do respect your credentials, but I expected a less flat thing,
in the latu sensu of the fix: curvatures have face of angle:
carrying limits of concepts implicit, to such an unspecific
form as the nature… .not being able to be an infinite straight-line:
The laterality has in the outside the reach of its interior.
Reply
Original Author · March 11
Reply
Upvote
Joseph
Lazar, Senior
Multimedia Developer at Pipitone Group (2001-present)
Are you asking about the universe being flat? It doesn’t really
mean it is flat ..it just means you are not going to travel in one direction
and end up back where you started.
39 views
View Upvoters
· Answer requested by Anne
Henriques
March 11 ·
1 upvote from Joseph
Lazar
Hi, Joseph
A simple thought, it may seem no sense (in the good physics
understanding of the mater): the matter is a property of the form:
being the form something of undefinable symmetry, it cannot be flat: Form isn’t
shape, for if so it was, the space would be the vacuum, the basic property of
any field: there exists a problem in mater, the matter isn’t as
elemental from the point of view of its precedence over all the things, the
space-time, but the symmetry of the nature defines itself, primordially, in
its form, if it’s not known the structural form of the nature, any
attribution will be always an hypothetical property, because the
structural understanding of the atom is flat, independently of its dispositions
in fields and their scalar relation and quantitative interrelations, it’s
linear, it’s flat.. relation of sides.. .: a drawing which doesn’t go
beyond the square.. In mode that I need this answer, of what’s the
understanding of the physics, in 2020, of the shape of the universe, if it’s
still the understanding of the flat: there exists a lot of independent
declaration, but, what it seems to me is that even today, in current
understandings, the understanding is yet analogous to the of Albert Einstein,
that the universe is ‘indeed flat, not fitting any other possible
understanding’, so… .
You’ve made an important observation, thank you.
Reply
-
Question made by Anne
Henriques.
Jeffrey
Werbock, musician,
lecturer
Before I address the question about a particle, let me mention that
there are two kinds of waves; statistical and geometric. A wave on water is a
geometric wave and that is what the word “wave” originally referred to. An
electromagnetic wave is not a geometry wave, it is a statistical wave. Yes, all
those illustrations in all those physics textbooks and published papers
depicting EM “wave” as a wave-like graphic. It is an illustration that does not
represent physical reality; it represents statistical reality. It is the
distribution of amplitudes. Now, you could argue that a geometric wave like a
wave on water, rises up from the surface of the pool of water on account of a
statistical distribution of amplitudes of the pulse of energy which caused the
wave, and this is true. However, a wave on water (any geometrical, physical
wave) does not have a wavelength or a frequency; that takes two waves to
establish. But for EM “waves” it is presumed that each individual photon has a
wavelength and a frequency. In reality, it only has these characteristics the
instant it is absorbed by the bound EM field surrounding the atomic nuclei of
the molecules composing the detector machine that “observes” and measures that
EM quantum (photon). That’s right, a photon has no such thing as a wavelength
or a frequency until it interacts with a bound EM field. In transit, an EM
quantum (photon) has three attributes; velocity, direction (vector) and a
certain amount of kinetic energy. No wavelength, no frequency, only KE. It is
neither a wave nor a particle. And this is explained by QFT.
46 views
View Upvoters
Bob Myers, Science:
best method we have for figuring out what's true
The term “particle” in quantum physics doesn’t mean quite the same
thing as what you might normally think; in particular, it does not necessarily
mean a nice, neat little sphere of “something,” somewhat like an
ultra-microscopic billiard ball. A “particle” is not even necessarily matter as
you normally would think of it. In the case of a photon or similar
energy-carrying “particle,” think of it instead as a tiny packet of energy.
What that might actually mean is not as important as the fact that looking at
it in this way lets us correctly predict how it’s going to behave.
Electromagnetic energy such as radio waves or light has the
seemingly odd quality of somehow being a wave and a particle at the same time;
both are models of what is “really” there, and are each useful
in explaining the behavior of EM in certain specific situations. In other
words, sometimes we are forced to consider EM/light as a wave, and sometimes we
must view it as a particle, in order to correctly predict its behavior. (Which
is all a scientific model or theory, to give it the correct
name, is supposed to do.) Neither is quite correct as a complete description of
what is “really” there, but as long as a theory is useful in a predictive sense
- i.e., it correctly describes and predicts the behavior of a
given phenomenon - it is accepted at least for a given range of applications.
For example, Newton’s theories (or models) of motion are still very
widely used, because they are valid/correct/useful for prediction in the vast
majority of situations. It’s only when we start looking at the cases of the
very large, very small, or very fast that we realize that Newton didn’t have
things quite right, and have to turn to a different model (Einstein’s, in this
case) in order to be able to properly describe the behavior of the system in
question.
102 views
View Upvoters
Because Physicist will make any fudge to cobble a theory together.
There are no Electromagnetic Waves.
Noboby has ever detected one.
But they cannot make particle Physics work either.
But it all started with Newton who simply invented Mass.
There really is no such thing.
103 views
View Upvoters
see my friend you could not have been wronger photons do not have a
rest mass butbutbuuut they do have a mass while moving at a high enough
velocity as einstein himself had stated
6.
Did the physicists arrive to any conclusion if the photon, that
one, fundamental of the beginning, is a particle or a wave? [X] -Question made by Anne
Henriques.
Simon
Bridge, Scientist
Yes.
It’s neither. I’ll explain, bear with me:
There is a story of blind men investigating an elephant to find out
for themselves what manner of creature it is… in this version there are two.
One gets the front end, and handles the trunk. He notices how it
squirms and coils like a snake and concludes that an elephant is a kind of
snake.
The other gets the back end and handles the tail. He notices how it
is hard but wippy like a tough rope, and concludes that an Elephant is a
rope-creature.
They are both happy until they compare notes … surely one of them
is wrong?
They agree to repeat each other’s experiments … and verify each
other’s findings!! What could be going on?
After a lot of discussion, conferences where other blind people
repeated the experiments and so on, they realize that Elephant’s display snake-like
and rope-like properties depending on the circumstances.
They announce to the World that Elephant’s display snake-rope
duality.
See the problem?
Investigating light, we find that light displays properties of the
classical particle in some situations and classical waves in other situations…
historically, the conclusion was that light displays wave-particle duality.
You’ve heard this term.
Now we understand that light is the emergent result of the
statistics of many many photons.
Photons are called “particles”, yes, but they are not classical particles.
They are quanta of energy.
The individual quanta are what is noticed when light has
particle-like behavior (by which we mean like the behavior of classical
particles) and the statistics of the quanta is what gives rise to the
wave-like behavior (by which we mean like the behavior of classical waves).
What has happened is that we have discovered the rest of the
elephant.
An elephant is not it’s trunk and not it’s tail, it is the whole
elephant.
Photons are the substance of the elephant, and quantum mechanics is
the stuff that holds it all together so it is elephant shaped.
That’s why the short answer was “neither”.
For more see Richard Feynmans excellent series on how light works.
Still relevant and accessible.
220 views
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
3
Share
Jeffrey
Werbock, musician, lecturer
We don’t often hear from practicing physicists who talk about wave
particle duality since QFT evolved from QM. In QFT, there are no (classical)
waves or particles, there are quantum excitations of the field. To help
visualize this description of physical reality at quantum scale, we can think
of a field as the physical expression of two fundamental forces in oppositional
states that are dynamic, not static, and that dynamism makes the field oscillate
and the oscillations have peaks and that’s what quantum excitations are, the
peaks of the field’s oscillations. That is why a wavelength and corresponding
frequency can be assigned to quanta. The wave form is statistical not
geometric like a wave on water. A wave on water doesn’t have a wavelength or a frequency; it would
take two waves to establish that for a geometric wave. Quanta are not geometric
waves, they are statistical waves that, when represented graphically, look like
a geometric wave. That geometry is a compilation of amplitudes.
190 views
View Upvoters
·
ANY
statistical fluctuation is geometrical: the understanding that the length
of anything is Euclidian, is flat, a surface measure: it is X and Y, and the
graphic is Cartesian: any coordinate is geometrical, independently of
the logic of abstraction of the invisible, the energy without space is a formless
mass, turning impossible the definition of the matter as a body. In mode that
the form in mater is well-known, it is geometrical. What happens is that the
mathematical formulas have binned the interpretation of the time in two
different logics: the time in the condition of moment, it’s understood
as space; and the time in the condition of distance is understood as vacuum,
the speed-of-light. And even for this, the logic ceased to be
geometrical, for a simple mathematical escapism: for not knowing exactly which’s
the exact form of that which one’s calculating, at the same time on which’s
affirmed completely that the form of the quantum field is analogous to
the surface of the water: flat. In mode that, the dissimulation of
something doesn’t step-away that the understanding of something hasn’t indeed
the geometrical understanding.
Ratan Kumar, Thinker
(2005-present)
Yes they have arrived on a definite conclusion long long before.
And the conclusion is that of you are looking at the photon then it is a
particle and if you are not then it is a wave.
Let me explain it in a little more detail. Looking or observing is
simply possible when you interact with a quantum system and the moment this
interaction takes place photon appears to be a particle. Here particle simply
means countable. You can count their number. But if no such Interaction takes
place then it remains as probability wave. The superposition of a large number
of probable particles.
In oversimplified terms, light is emerged and absorbed in form of a
particle known as photon and travels in form of electromagnetic probability
wave.”
61 views
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
1
Share
Jon
Therkildsen, MSc MBA from
University of Århus (2004)
Everything in the quantum realm can be described entirely in terms of
waves, or entirely in terms of particles, whichever one
prefers.
It is not only photons, it is so for all the
fundamental particles (quarks, leptons, bosons, gluons and photons). Paul Dirac proved both versions
are exactly equivalent. However, they cannot be both right. Even Niels Bohr believed that they
were neither waves or particles, let alone both. He, however, was content with
not asking this question further.
A way to view it, is, that they travel like waves, and arrive like
particles. The “like” her is important, as we have no way of knowing what they
actually are. The problem is, there is nothing in our theories that explain
what goes on in between the “transition from the possible to the actual (as
Heisenberg called it) - experiments show waves, and they
show particles, not the transition. There has never been an experiment ever to
catch a wave-function in the act of a collapse. Leslie Ballentine argues there never
is a collapse. Schrodinger hoped, at one point, to show what happens in-between
these states, but he never did - and for good reasons.
The wave-function is describing this nature of quanta and quantum
systems accurately. To Schrödinger, his wave-function was the literal
description of a quanta. To him, the tiniest particles are wave-functions. And
the fact is, nothing in his equations (or any of the equations) is about an
actual collapse. In their true form, they ARE wave-functions. There is no
better description, and it is an accurate description. However, and if we have
to get anal about it, the wave-function does not live in our ordinary Euclidean space; it lives in Hilbert space - which for all
sense and purposes is the space of quanta, and so demands, at the very least, a
mentioning in an article like this.
The takeaway here is that the tiniest constituents
of our reality are fluctuating wave-functions rather than particles or
manifested waves - more like some third sort of indefinable mix between these
two.
The truth is that neither “wave” nor “particle” are good labels for
the tiniest constituents - but it is the best we can think of when figuratively
describing something like this beyond the elegant language of mathematics. A
more adequate label would simply be to acknowledge these quanta as
wave-functions and call them this:
Meticulous, the above description may be, but it is not very
satisfying when writing an essay. Alas, we continue to call them particles or
waves or both, depending on what we are trying to communicate.
Neither, unfortunately, are correct, but often correct enough.
316 views
View Upvoters
Dan Brigham, former
Transportation at Professional Transportation Incorporated (2005-2019)
I think the photon is like a string of sausages like structures
that are hollow. I think they contain liquid like energies one a constant now
and the forward one representing a step into the future. Literally we perceive
the light of the now and as it extends into the future hence what comprises its
velocity. As it is liquid energy that is contained it sloshes around as a wave
and has particle like properties.
34 views
View Upvoters
7.
¿Por qué en la física teórica se permite
especular con teorías sobre las que no se puede probar ni si es cierta, ni lo
contrario? ¿Hasta qué punto es inteligente aceptar algo en base al “argumentum
ad ignorantiam”? [X]
Anne Henriques, Escritora, editora, botánica
Respondido inicialmente: ¿Por qué en la
física teórica se permite especular con teorías sobre las que no se puede
probar lo contrario? ¿Hasta qué punto es inteligente aceptar algo en base al “argumentum
ad ignorantiam”?
La ignorancia es algo Institucional: algo sustentado
por la defensa antrópica de todas las cosas, sin una prueba real. Los físicos
pueden ser manipulados, sí, sites como ResearchGate , por ejemplo, sufrieron restricciones,
después de 2016, fueron prohibidas publicaciones en el latu sensu de aquello
que puede ser considerado valido y liberado en la defensa de uno interese común
que no pueda causar danos al sentido del espacio-plano, el campo imaginario de
la verdad donde el fundamentalismo de una idea se estableció como vacuo: y
prohibirán estudios abiertos y cualificaron apenas los que son sustentados
institucionalmente y que defienden los intereses de la comunidad: comunidad esa
ampliamente conocida en el mundo de las cartas como proteccionista de una
Teología de la cual la moderna física se alejó años-luz del entendimiento de la
materia, en relación a su predecesora física clásica, frente la explicación natural
de alguna cosa, la teoría estándar y todas sus variantes no va allá de una
basura cosmológica: polvo, que jamás serán estrellas.. . La verdad, aquella,
que debería ser un estándar, virou [pt] un sistema de caños,
cuya conexión con el inicio desapareció en el agujero negro de la mente, para
siempre. Lo que aconteció en agosto de 2016 en la CERN, desapareció de la internet. Maria
Spiropulo, habló el
siguiente: “la data de expiración está amarrada al tiempo de vida de nuestro
sol, tal vez billones de años de distancia. Pero sí, es así que nosotros
hablamos sobre inicios y fines – extrapolando y retropolando y
teniendo modelos para sistemas complejos (como el universo, la tierra y el
sol). Así como nosotros no sabemos realmente si la Teoría Big Bang fue uno “ato
de la naturaleza”. El Big Bang es aún una teoría.” [x]
74 visitas
Ver votos positivos
8. ¿Realmente existe el campo de Higgs? [X]
Anne Henriques, Escritora, editora, botánica
“¿Fotones libres interactuando con el nada, forman una
partícula..?”.. la Partícula
Higgs no fue probada, ella existe en la Teoría: Sí: no
fue probada. Y la misma teoría explica que las partículas
Higgs existieron, y que esa es la prueba de toda la veracidad que ‘el Big Bang
aconteció’: pero que, misteriosamente no pueden más ser encontradas, en todo el
universo cuántico hipotetizado, excepto en el Big Bang… ¿usted no acha extraño
la afirmación?.. Yo pienso que no debes estar mucho satisfecho con las
respuestas… la explicación de una teoría no es una prueba de
existencia. Se afirmó que una existencia puede ser probada en teoría.
Yo voy a seguir la pregunta también, muchas gracias
por preguntar y cuestionar la vergüenza en la naturaleza - el Big Bang,
la Creación.. ¿Cómo puede el campo de Higgs existir sin Higgs.. ? Con
licencia.. .yo preciso mucho de esa respuesta para volver a mi tribu, que
quiere saber se el Dios-Uno fue encontrado, se afirmaron su grandeza como una
procedencia en la naturaleza…
Por no haber un experimentalismo compatible con la cuestión, entonces, estoy esperando el esclarecimiento del desaparecimiento de algo tan importante de la ciencia, la explicación del universo conocido en la lente.
Por no haber un experimentalismo compatible con la cuestión, entonces, estoy esperando el esclarecimiento del desaparecimiento de algo tan importante de la ciencia, la explicación del universo conocido en la lente.
64 visitas
Ver votos positivos
9. ¿Por qué se dice que la nada no equivale
al vacío? [X]
Anne Henriques, Escritora, editora, botánica
Hola Juanjo,
El problema de la cuestión está exactamente en el
entendimiento del espacio: el espacio, en la naturaleza, es
entendido como una proyección de planos, lo que es básicamente
condiciones trigonométricas, que cuando aplicadas en una racionalidad, en el
latu sensu de una abstracción, genera una racionalidad geométrica y tanto puede
ser explicado de una forma algébrica, matemática, o, modelos físicos: Egipcios,
griegos, ya tingan eses conceptos espaciales: Imhotep, Euclides, Pitágoras, Ptolomeo,
Newton, Einstein, Pedro Higgs…: no es privilegio de los judíos el entendimiento
del plano. De modo que la noción del vacío, la ausencia, es el
latu sensu de una separación, onde el nada fue
angulado. Al contrario del vacío, en el nada no hay espacios para ser
extraídos. Entonces, el espacio es entendido, de una
forma regular – digo, censo común – como cuerpos, obyectos, que,
en el modelo físico es entendido como simetría. Ya el
nada es algo que no tiene simetría. El vacío es
el espacio proyectado en el plano, en términos físicos, ‘landscape’, que
puede no contener nada, y por eso, estar vacío. El nada antecede la
creación del espacio, en términos Creacionistas, pero no en términos físicos.
El creacionismo creó un problema imposible para la ciencia responder,
porque, el vacío precisa existir en lo después, antes de la formación
del movimiento, y esa es una condición del momento, T1 y
T2, A y B, porque el espacio, en términos Bíblicos es creado
siempre en la frente, como el después de Dios: Dios si define creando,
es el ángulo entre el nada y el todo.
Encontrar un obyecto en la naturaleza en tales
condiciones es imposible, porque se estaría siempre violando
una secuencia. El pésimo entendimiento físico de la analogía del primero: él no
es un número, pero una posición, el centro.
Entonces, existe uno sistema estándar de disposición
de obyectos, cuando se va a crear alguna cosa, sea en la mente o en lo papel,
que no es nada más que una construcción espacial. Si los
espacios proyectados invaden el espacio del otro, habrá una superposición o
una intersección, en la fórmula o en la imagen. Por eso, en
términos físicos, el vacío jamás será el T0 , el observador puede ser el centro
si entender la recta como uno segmento. Por eso, el bueno diseñador, al desinar
alguna cosa en lo papel, usará técnicas de profundidad, relacionará el punto de
fuga, su horizonte, como algo vino del fundo para la frente: esa es la noción
del Big Bang. Ese también es el ángulo del observador: él no está en
aquello que ve: porque aquello que él ve está en el fuera de
él. A nivel de ToM eso es entendido como abismo
de la mente. Los ojos humanos son ojos espectrales, formados por conos
RGB, y por cuenta de eso, generó una especie de contraste de la
visión, una especie de apagón: él ve el negro, el oscuro, y precisa
colocar el blanco en la frente. Entonces, el entendimiento de
espacio, de vacío y del nada son también los principales factores que crearon
la religión, por ser la racionalidad el sistema de navegación, uno sistema
de localización, un posicionamiento. Esa posición
levó el ser humano a establecer una relación con la naturaleza, y de esa
relación nasció el ángulo con Dios: por ser Dios el fijo de
una observación del movimiento: pero eso también puede ser entendido como
el después del nada: porque, la proyección es el latu sensu también
de una reflexion: la recta solo puede existir después del
plano. Usted puedes decir que ‘la dilatación del espacio es el tiempo
aconteciendo’, pero el tiempo solo existe después que la aresta se forma en un
punto más afrente: el fin, en el latu sensu del horizonte: el
alcance de una distancia visual, definida en horizonte racional.
La mayoría de los teólogos y teoréticos entienden así,
en sus fórmulas geométricas. Fue onde el vacío fue colocado como uno estado
de sin movimiento. Ese estado, esa localización, no es en el
nada, pero en el obyecto ya creado, donde el inicio fue
marcado.
Entonces, es evidente que, para que esa formulación
pueda existir, el espacio tiene que existir tanto en el antes como
en el después, y ser tratados como espacios
diferentes: esa es una condición Teológica, y non física. Yo me bato
con eso, porque, los físicos fueron obligados a secuenciar la
naturaleza, siendo la secuencia imposible: ir de 1 para el 3 sin pasar
por el 2: es obvio que la teoría estándar está errada, y cualquier cosa que se
apoyar en ella, va a errar también, cualquier constante será siempre la
evolución de uno defecto. Einstein era uno tierra-planista [pt],
en todo él vía uno centro, al mismo tiempo en que desentendía
la permanencia, el fijo de una observación: su antes estaba
siempre en el después. En esa condición, el tamaño será siempre la
grandeza en la mesa, la condición de medir la naturaleza:
Desentendiendo, con eso, que fue el nada que dio la capacidad humana de
atribución, y hasta por eso, Dios.
Un bueno ejemplo de vacío es el cuerpo humano
[Adán], un bueno ejemplo de nada es el espíritu de la creación: antes del
universo ser creado, el nada había, y por tanto, no había espacio: el espacio
apareció solo después, en la condición de plano, y su bipartición: por eso el
ángulo Dios no es encontrado en nada en la naturaleza, por ser el estado
nada una ficción, uno problema de la visión, y no
exactamente una interpretación del natural.
Por eso que la mayoría de los físicos salieron de la condición de ciencia para quedaren en la condición de perturbados, por aceptaren la condición que el nada un día existió, y llamaren el después del nada de vacío, como una forma de entender la ocurrencia de Dios. La creación de cualquier constante en la naturaleza, es la condición de uno desesperado: Llamar el invariante de variable.
Por eso que la mayoría de los físicos salieron de la condición de ciencia para quedaren en la condición de perturbados, por aceptaren la condición que el nada un día existió, y llamaren el después del nada de vacío, como una forma de entender la ocurrencia de Dios. La creación de cualquier constante en la naturaleza, es la condición de uno desesperado: Llamar el invariante de variable.
Votar positivo
Compartir
Vas bien Anne pero la explicación es mucho más simple.
Acuérdate de la navaja de Ockham.
Responder
Votar positivo
¿navaja de Ockham, Juanjo? ¿es un conto
español..? El nada es el vacío sin espacio. Acontece que el nada en
cuestión es el ángulo de 2 espacios. Nada^2 = 1. Yo podría hablar eso,
pero ningún iba entender.. .
En tiempo: El cuadrado de la distancia del nada es igual a cero. Por eso, 1=0. El vacío es una atribución del nada, una constante. Es lo que una ecuación es, la atribución de un vacío a la naturaleza.
En tiempo: El cuadrado de la distancia del nada es igual a cero. Por eso, 1=0. El vacío es una atribución del nada, una constante. Es lo que una ecuación es, la atribución de un vacío a la naturaleza.
Por eso, cuando hablo a terra-campistas [pt],
que atribuyen espacios en sus ecuaciones, esclarezco el sentido exacto de su
representación en la naturaleza, el nada.. . Yo mi
aborrecí con el bosón-nada y con su atribución, el vacío-Higgs, el sistema de
caños para conectarse con el Big Bang. Los teoréticos van a entender eso. Yo no
gusto de mentira, Juanjo, ni de falsedad, e involucrar la naturaleza en más uno
credo, peor que lo de AD 400.. y lo silencio de los físicos mi indignó.
Infelizmente yo no puedo cotar aquí uno desino de mi entendimiento del nada.. .
Yo también conozco la historia de otra espada, del legendario Rei Arthur, aquel
que enfió la espada en la piedra, diciendo que aquello era amor, después elevó
su nombre a su señor… ¿Cómo consiguieron ver la naturaleza con ese
ojos.. los ojos de una maquina..? saber lo que tiene dentro,
como si el pensamiento tuviese la capacidad de penetrar todas las cosas…
porque, si tal cosa acontece en la naturaleza, ciertamente será una invasión,
creer que cosas separadas pueden juntarse para formar un entero .. la
naturaleza no está esparcida en pedacitos.. sí, ellos se f***** : y lo que
ellos querían ver, desapareció: el vacío decayó tan rápido,
que el nada apareció… pero, no ver nada es la prueba de Dios,
entonces, ellos continuaron, completamente ciegos en sus atribuciones, como si
nada tuviese acontecido. ¿usted no acha extraño eso, ningún hablar nada..? por
2 años ellos quedaron calados, y solo ahora están manifestándose, afirmando que
la pesquisa está continuando, como si de hecho tuviesen encontrado alguna
cosa.. . aquella historia de “usted gaña 1 millón o muere en ese instante”…
¿usted acha mismo que la inquisición acabó..? ellos no pierden uno centavo,
porque ellos quedarían sin uno entero, perderían todo: hablamos tanto
del nada, pero ¿Quién es el todo en cuestión..? ¿Quién es el dono de la
ecuación..? ¿Para quién la ciencia trabaja..? usted puede decir, “
Anne, y ¿ya fue alguno día diferente..?”: sí, ya… había tierra en el
olhar [pt]. Peor, yo preciso de esa respuesta para volver a mi tribu..
yo no puedo volver con el nada en las manos.. y solo por eso, yo
voy a quedar un poco más por aquí..
El nada, el vacío, es el menos, las pierdas. Lo
sistema humano es una troca de señales, onde aquél que dio quedó sin nada,
entregó al otro todas sus pierdas, por eso, del otro, todo recibió: quedó con
Dios: quedó positivo. El sistema físico es igual al de los seres humanos, sea
en la contabilidad o en el económico: la relación de troca es una relación de
uso de los señales, onde el menos vale más. Es un sentimiento, el sentimiento
que el nada creó: porque el nada no quería ser nada, el nada es aquel que nada
obtiene, el nada es aquel que toma de aquel que tiene, lo que es del otro es
su. “está bien, Anne, pero, ya fue así un día, diferente..? ya.. la tierra no
está.. la tierra no está en una relación de troca, la naturaleza no si usa.. no
existe uso en la naturaleza. Yo no habité la tierra, yo no a usé. “pero, Anne,
¿y la tecnología..?”: no va allá de la hinchada.
Mi tribu está aquí a más de 10000 años.. Es lo que los
salvajes quieren saber, ¿lo que los seres humanos aprendieron de la naturaleza,
durante todo ese tiempo que estuvieron abastados de la tierra..? en lo momento,
la respuesta es nada. Si 2 protones se encontrasen en una
torrente sanguínea, el cuerpo explotaría… ¿lo que es una explosión..? ¿aun ya
se vio una explosión en la naturaleza, que causalidad es esa..? dinamites
explotan porque alguien ha ascendido la mecha, la iris del hambre se conectó al
buraco oscuro del estómago: fue por onde la trompa salió, y pegó un pedacito de
pan.. la comida: alimenta-acción, un pensamiento, “ni solo de pan vive el
hombre”: el hombre no precisa de nada, solo de Dios.. : piense en lo que es
eso, y usted estará comiendo: eso no son sentimientos, son otras cosas.. el
vacío, atribuyéndose en una acción: el hambre.. ¿Qué ojos son eses, que miraron
la naturaleza como comida..? es porque no sente nada por aquello que vio: si
eso aconteció, es porque él siempre se sintió solo, en el nada, porque el nada
es el sentimiento de Dios, y hasta por eso él creó alguna cosa. Por todos eses
años de civilización, fue un sentimiento que yo nunca entendí, el sentimiento
de la creación. Aquel que se reduce acabará desapareciendo, acabará virando
nada, de tanto que se separó. Sí, Juanjo, no quede me provocando.. yo puedo
acabar hablando demás. Pero, para la naturaleza, el nada no es de más ni de
menos, la naturaleza no tiene tamaño.. es una formula mucho complicada, bien
diferente de la del nada y del vacío también, el hambre, y
solo por eso el hombre come.
10.
What are quantum fields made up of? How do
you measure or “deducing" its constitutive material? [X]
Until the present moment, without an answer, because indeed,
no one knows what’s the answer. Many theories are related, as the own
understanding of the black matter, but.. the quantum properties aren’t properties
of the space-form: the logic has the reach of defining the object, and relating
it with another object, but it hasn’t the capacity of relating the object with
its own time: because the properties of the field in matter are unknown by the
own Science, and they will never know this answer. The Science stopped there: FINAL
SYSTEM, INEXISTENT PROCESS… .
No comments:
Post a Comment