"Matter exists on the motion created by Nothingness drawing Matter back
into the Nothingness from whence it came."

Constructive comments in simple terms, pro and con will be appreciated.

"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
...
"Matter exists on the motion created by Nothingness drawing Matter back
into the Nothingness from whence it came."

Constructive comments in simple terms, pro and con will be appreciated.


I am not qualified for any debate about physics, and so I'm just thinking
out loud.

Time is missing from this.
Light and darkness are missing.
Nothingness seems to need an opposite. If there is matter, that is
something, then how can it be drawn into nothingness, without being
obliterated and non existent? Like Genesis 1:5 what is yom when the sun
wasn't created? Time.

Matter is potential which exists on the motion (which requires time) of
everythingness (oneness) drawing
it back after the potential has either been wasted or refined into
everythingness from whence it came.

Nothing cannot draw because the term itself negates accomplishment of any
kind.

I just have time on my hands and I'm blathering. But I do want to think
about this, even though it feels flawed.

Dear Roy Jose Lorr:

On Feb 26, 1:30*pm, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
"Matter exists on the motion created by Nothingness
drawing Matter back into the Nothingness from whence
it came."

Constructive comments in simple terms, pro and con
will be appreciated.

It is not Science. It is verbal nonsense, with almost no cognates in
common with the Standard Model.

"Nothingness" is not helpful. Matter is diffusing, not being "drawn
in". Mass appears to derive from the System, not (detectably) the
Progenitor to the system. Entirely possible that space, time (the
"motion"), and mass all derive from the System.

Otherwise a perfectly meaningless use of the English language. Are
you considering running for the US Presidential nomination?

David A. Smith

dlzc wrote:

Dear Roy Jose Lorr:

On Feb 26, 1:30 pm, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

"Matter exists on the motion created by Nothingness
drawing Matter back into the Nothingness from whence
it came."

Constructive comments in simple terms, pro and con
will be appreciated.


It is not Science. It is verbal nonsense, with almost no cognates in
common with the Standard Model.

To which 'Standard Model' do you refer?


"Nothingness" is not helpful.

Is matter not something? Is somethingness not the opposite of
nothingness, making nothingness and somethingness an opposite pair:
positive/negative, day/night, backward/forward, etc.?

Matter is diffusing, not being "drawn
in".

Matter 'diffuses' in which direction, from where, to where?

Mass appears to derive from the System, not (detectably) the
Progenitor to the system.

How does matter derive from a system undetected?

Entirely possible that space, time (the
"motion"), and mass all derive from the System.

What is there in this statement that differs from religious supposition?


Otherwise a perfectly meaningless use of the English language. Are
you considering running for the US Presidential nomination?

English is my third language, what's your excuse?

Mary Hogan wrote:


"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
...

"Matter exists on the motion created by Nothingness drawing Matter
back into the Nothingness from whence it came."

Constructive comments in simple terms, pro and con will be appreciated.


I am not qualified for any debate about physics, and so I'm just
thinking out loud.

Time is missing from this.

How?

Light and darkness are missing.

How?

Nothingness seems to need an opposite. If there is matter, that is
something, then how can it be drawn into nothingness, without being
obliterated and non existent? Like Genesis 1:5 what is yom when the sun
wasn't created? Time.

Nothingness has its opposite: somethingness, which is matter.


Matter is potential which exists on the motion (which requires time) of
everythingness (oneness) drawing
it back after the potential has either been wasted or refined into
everythingness from whence it came.

Since you're coming from a Biblical perspective then you must agree with
Genesis that God created somethingness from nothingness.


Nothing cannot draw because the term itself negates accomplishment of
any kind.

How do you know that nothingness cannot attract somethingness or that
somethingness does not repel nothingness?


I just have time on my hands and I'm blathering. But I do want to think
about this, even though it feels flawed.

What seems flawed to me is the kabbalistic perspective.

"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
. ..
Mary Hogan wrote:


"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
...

"Matter exists on the motion created by Nothingness drawing Matter back
into the Nothingness from whence it came."

Constructive comments in simple terms, pro and con will be appreciated.


I am not qualified for any debate about physics, and so I'm just thinking
out loud.

Time is missing from this.

How?

Nothingness is void of time. It is a void.

Creation, is time so nothingness, which is void of time can't create.
Nothing cannot change definition in mid stream unless it is a rock band.


Light and darkness are missing.

It's like a rainy night, although your destination may be near you can't see
it. A clap of lightening will expose it, but the mind can get confused
again easily and lose track of the destination.

Is matter an illusion? It casts a shadow, it takes up space. So you make
this statement about matter and motion creation and nothingness. We see
matter in our dreams. We are matter in our dreams, and yet we aren't.

There is absolutely no nothingness. No such thing. Can't be. You can use
your senses to determine matter. Motion is just time through space, so
we're talking about time. And time is not what we think it is. Today is the
26 of February. I see time like a spiral. Rav Dessler said: I have heard
from my teacher of blessed memory that we should not think of time as
passing over us, but rather ourselves as moving through time. For example,
there is really only one Shabbat, but we move thorugh the weekly cycle and
re-experience it week by week. It is our cyclic progress through time.
Nothing is random.

How?

Nothingness seems to need an opposite. If there is matter, that is
something, then how can it be drawn into nothingness, without being
obliterated and non existent? Like Genesis 1:5 what is yom when the sun
wasn't created? Time.

Nothingness has its opposite: somethingness, which is matter.

That is something I need to think about. Wait a minute, you assume that the
opposite of nothingness is somethingness. To me that is arrogance. I think
the opposite of nothingness is evil. That void without Shechinah.



Matter is potential which exists on the motion (which requires time) of
everythingness (oneness) drawing
it back after the potential has either been wasted or refined into
everythingness from whence it came.

Since you're coming from a Biblical perspective then you must agree with
Genesis that God created somethingness from nothingness.

Tohu v Bohu, the Ramban is a bit over my head though.
The hule and all. The 4 elements are found together in mass. This is and
intriguing thought, But I really want to listen to Rabbi Eisemann's Koheles
right now. Be back later.




Nothing cannot draw because the term itself negates accomplishment of any
kind.

How do you know that nothingness cannot attract somethingness or that
somethingness does not repel nothingness?


I just have time on my hands and I'm blathering. But I do want to think
about this, even though it feels flawed.

What seems flawed to me is the kabbalistic perspective.

"Mary Hogan" wrote in message
...
|
| "Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
| . ..
| Mary Hogan wrote:
|
|
| "Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "Matter exists on the motion created by Nothingness drawing Matter
back
| into the Nothingness from whence it came."
|
| Constructive comments in simple terms, pro and con will be
appreciated.
|
|
| I am not qualified for any debate about physics, and so I'm just
thinking
| out loud.
|
| Time is missing from this.
|
| How?
|
| Nothingness is void of time. It is a void.
|
| Creation, is time so nothingness, which is void of time can't create.
| Nothing cannot change definition in mid stream unless it is a rock band.

Will this one do?
http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/astrobiolog...bandedrock.jpg
or how about this one?
http://z.about.com/d/geology/1/0/d/-/1/bifslab.jpg
or this?
http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=102150&rendTypeId=4

This guy is at mid stream, he might find a rock band.
http://www.j-archive.com/media/2005-06-06_DJ_10.jpg

On Feb 26, 3:48*pm, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
dlzc wrote:
Dear Roy Jose Lorr:

On Feb 26, 1:30 pm, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

"Matter exists on the motion created by Nothingness
drawing Matter back into the Nothingness from whence
it came."

Constructive comments in simple terms, pro and con
will be appreciated.

It is not Science. *It is verbal nonsense, with almost no cognates in
common with the Standard Model.

To which 'Standard Model' do you refer?



"Nothingness" is not helpful.

Is matter not something? *Is somethingness not the opposite of
nothingness, making nothingness and somethingness an opposite pair:
positive/negative, day/night, backward/forward, etc.?

Yes, you are quite right, Roy. In fact, the particles of the Standard
Model span the space of something/nothing. The first family is the
something and the third family is the nothing - it hardly appears at
all in ordinary matter. It is the so-called subjectivist "illusion,"
in which time also plays a part, according to Einstein. Our
scientific friend has his scientific head way up his scientific ass.

* *Matter is diffusing, not being "drawn

in".

Matter 'diffuses' in which direction, from where, to where?

* *Mass appears to derive from the System, not (detectably) the

Progenitor to the system.

How does matter derive from a system undetected?

* *Entirely possible that space, time (the

"motion"), and mass all derive from the System.

What is there in this statement that differs from religious supposition?

Otherwise a perfectly meaningless use of the English language. *Are
you considering running for the US Presidential nomination?

English is my third language, what's your excuse?

He is an asshole. However, there is a huge jump from acknowledging
nothingness as the subjectivist illusion and your assertion that it
could become all-powerful and absorb the something. Rather, physics
pulls in the opposite direction and absorbs the nothing into the
something. However, this push and pull is just the conflict of G-d
and matter that drove HaShem to madness. Jews want to paint Jesus as
the madman, but they are projecting a mile a minute. It is JHVH, the
G-d of the old testament, who was driven mad by His opposite, the Hyle
or Matter.

Dear xxein:

"xxein" wrote in message
...
On Feb 26, 5:43 pm, dlzc wrote:
Dear Roy Jose Lorr:

On Feb 26, 1:30 pm, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

"Matter exists on the motion created by Nothingness
drawing Matter back into the Nothingness from whence
it came."

Constructive comments in simple terms, pro and con
will be appreciated.

It is not Science. It is verbal nonsense, with almost no
cognates in common with the Standard Model.

"Nothingness" is not helpful. Matter is diffusing, not
being "drawn in". Mass appears to derive from the
System, not (detectably) the Progenitor to the
system. Entirely possible that space, time (the
"motion"), and mass all derive from the System.

Otherwise a perfectly meaningless use of the
English language. Are you considering running for
the US Presidential nomination?

xxein: What 'System' are you referring to?

The Universe.

How is mass non-detectable?

Read again what I wrote. "Mass derives from the System", just
not in a verifiable way.

Are you claiming a dictatorship?

Are you interested in the job?

David A. Smith

Dear Roy Jose Lorr:

"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
...
dlzc wrote:

Dear Roy Jose Lorr:

On Feb 26, 1:30 pm, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

"Matter exists on the motion created by Nothingness
drawing Matter back into the Nothingness from whence
it came."

Constructive comments in simple terms, pro and con
will be appreciated.


It is not Science. It is verbal nonsense, with almost
no cognates in common with the Standard Model.

To which 'Standard Model' do you refer?

Cosmology.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm

"Nothingness" is not helpful.

Is matter not something? Is somethingness not
the opposite of nothingness, making nothingness
and somethingness an opposite pair: positive/negative,
day/night, backward/forward, etc.?

Again, "Nothingness" is not helpful. It is neither descriptive,
nor does it describe / circumscribe what "Matter" was before it
"Became". Whatever Matter was "after", it was "before". So
"Nothingness" was not nothing.

Matter is diffusing, not being "drawn in".

Matter 'diffuses' in which direction, from where, to
where?

Ostensibly, "Past" to "Future". "Small and Hot" to "Diffuse and
Cold". "Few states" to "Maximum states".

Mass appears to derive from the System, not
(detectably) the Progenitor to the system.

How does matter derive from a system undetected?

The "derivation" (connection) is not obvious. The "derivation"
(connection) is not detectable, since all instruments similarly
derive. I did not know there were so many ways to misread a
sentence.

Entirely possible that space, time (the
"motion"), and mass all derive from the System.

What is there in this statement that differs from
religious supposition?

Ask Ernst Mach. Or Einstein.

Otherwise a perfectly meaningless use of the
English language. Are you considering running
for the US Presidential nomination?

English is my third language, what's your excuse?

Your meaning is unclear. You need a thesaurus, for alternate
words to "Nothingness". It is very easy in any language to
construct "completely silly". Or "fortune cookie sayings".

David A. Smith