 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: JackJack Date: Jul 2, 2008 12:06
Everything that doesn't cycle is long gone by now.
|
| |
|
| | 12 Comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Jul 2, 2008 18:36
On Jul 2, 12:06 pm, "Jack" yahoo.com> wrote:> Everything that doesn't cycle is long gone by now.
How would you know that there are things that don't cycle and how does
this influence the strength of your argument. Does the place where all
cycles, cycle, also cycle? Do these ideas about the universe need to
have answer that are not counter-intuitive?
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Leon HoeneveldLeon Hoeneveld Date: Jul 3, 2008 01:35
Jack schreef:
> Everything that doesn't cycle is long gone by now.
>
>
I agree. To be in a cycling process however doe not mean that the object
itself needs to "show" cycling.
On an elementary level particles could be seen as cycling movement. Not
being more than movement. Movement of nothing. Pure cycling.
Where a move towards the viewer is to be considered material (touchable)
and a move away from the viewer is to be considered a force (taking you
away)
I have for many times tried to explain this to others, but somehow
nobody sees it the same way.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: JackJack Date: Jul 3, 2008 07:32
> On Jul 2, 12:06 pm, "Jack" yahoo.com> wrote:>> Everything that doesn't cycle is long gone by now.
>
> How would you know that there are things that don't cycle and how does
> this influence the strength of your argument. Does the place where all
> cycles, cycle, also cycle? Do these ideas about the universe need to
> have answer that are not counter-intuitive?
Just as a matter of principle, I'm thinking that 15 billion years is long
enough for anything that is consumed to have been completely consumed. But
I guess there's nothing saying that 15 billion years is a long time... just
compared to a human life span it is.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: JackJack Date: Jul 3, 2008 07:34
"Leon Hoeneveld" wrote in message
news:g4i30s$to5$1@aioe.org...> Jack schreef:
>> Everything that doesn't cycle is long gone by now.
> I agree. To be in a cycling process however doe not mean that the object
> itself needs to "show" cycling.
>
> On an elementary level particles could be seen as cycling movement. Not
> being more than movement. Movement of nothing. Pure cycling.
>
> Where a move towards the viewer is to be considered material (touchable)
> and a move away from the viewer is to be considered a force (taking you
> away)
>
> I have for many times tried to explain this to others, but somehow nobody
> sees it the same way.
>
I don't get it either... what do you mean that toward the viewer is
material, touchable?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Leon HoeneveldLeon Hoeneveld Date: Jul 3, 2008 08:08
Jack schreef:
> "Leon Hoeneveld" wrote in message
> news:g4i30s$to5$1@aioe.org...>> Jack schreef:
>>> Everything that doesn't cycle is long gone by now.
>> I agree. To be in a cycling process however doe not mean that the object
>> itself needs to "show" cycling.
>>
>> On an elementary level particles could be seen as cycling movement. Not
>> being more than movement. Movement of nothing. Pure cycling.
>>
>> Where a move towards the viewer is to be considered material (touchable)
>> and a move away from the viewer is to be considered a force (taking you
>> away)
>>
>> I have for many times tried to explain this to others, but somehow nobody
>> sees it the same way.
>>
> I don't get it either... what do you mean that toward the viewer is
> material, touchable? ...
|
| Show full article (0.86Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: JackJack Date: Jul 3, 2008 08:12
"Leon Hoeneveld" wrote in message
news:g4iq1n$9bl$1@aioe.org...> Jack schreef:
>> "Leon Hoeneveld" wrote in message
>> news:g4i30s$to5$1@aioe.org...>>> Jack schreef:
>>>> Everything that doesn't cycle is long gone by now.
>>> I agree. To be in a cycling process however doe not mean that the object
>>> itself needs to "show" cycling.
>>>
>>> On an elementary level particles could be seen as cycling movement. Not
>>> being more than movement. Movement of nothing. Pure cycling.
>>>
>>> Where a move towards the viewer is to be considered material (touchable)
>>> and a move away from the viewer is to be considered a force (taking you
>>> away)
>>>
>>> I have for many times tried to explain this to others, but somehow
>>> nobody sees it the same way.
>>> ...
|
| Show full article (1.05Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Leon HoeneveldLeon Hoeneveld Date: Jul 3, 2008 08:37
Jack schreef:
> "Leon Hoeneveld" wrote in message
> news:g4iq1n$9bl$1@aioe.org...>> Jack schreef:
>>> "Leon Hoeneveld" wrote in message
>>> news:g4i30s$to5$1@aioe.org...>>>> Jack schreef:
>>>>> Everything that doesn't cycle is long gone by now.
>>>> I agree. To be in a cycling process however doe not mean that the object
>>>> itself needs to "show" cycling.
>>>>
>>>> On an elementary level particles could be seen as cycling movement. Not
>>>> being more than movement. Movement of nothing. Pure cycling.
>>>>
>>>> Where a move towards the viewer is to be considered material (touchable)
>>>> and a move away from the viewer is to be considered a force (taking you
>>>> away)
>>>>
>>>> I have for many times tried to explain this to others, but somehow
>>>> nobody sees it the same way. ...
|
| Show full article (1.16Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: JackJack Date: Jul 3, 2008 08:50
"Leon Hoeneveld" wrote in message
news:g4irof$hpf$1@aioe.org...> Jack schreef:
>> "Leon Hoeneveld" wrote in message
>> news:g4iq1n$9bl$1@aioe.org...>>> Jack schreef:
>>>> "Leon Hoeneveld" wrote in message
>>>> news:g4i30s$to5$1@aioe.org...>>>>> Jack schreef:
>>>>>> Everything that doesn't cycle is long gone by now.
>>>>> I agree. To be in a cycling process however doe not mean that the
>>>>> object itself needs to "show" cycling.
>>>>>
>>>>> On an elementary level particles could be seen as cycling movement.
>>>>> Not being more than movement. Movement of nothing. Pure cycling.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where a move towards the viewer is to be considered material
>>>>> (touchable) and a move away from the viewer is to be considered a
>>>>> force (taking you away)
>>>>> ...
|
| Show full article (1.39Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Leon HoeneveldLeon Hoeneveld Date: Jul 3, 2008 08:55
Jack schreef:
> "Leon Hoeneveld" wrote in message
> news:g4irof$hpf$1@aioe.org...>> Jack schreef:
>>> "Leon Hoeneveld" wrote in message
>>> news:g4iq1n$9bl$1@aioe.org...>>>> Jack schreef:
>>>>> "Leon Hoeneveld" wrote in message
>>>>> news:g4i30s$to5$1@aioe.org...>>>>>> Jack schreef:
>>>>>>> Everything that doesn't cycle is long gone by now.
>>>>>> I agree. To be in a cycling process however doe not mean that the
>>>>>> object itself needs to "show" cycling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On an elementary level particles could be seen as cycling movement.
>>>>>> Not being more than movement. Movement of nothing. Pure cycling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where a move towards the viewer is to be considered material
>>>>>> (touchable) and a move away from the viewer is to be considered a
>>>>>> force (taking you away) ...
|
| Show full article (1.66Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
