Can there be any motion or relation without an experience in which a sense of motion or relation is literally encountered?
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 9:37:46 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > All, > > Here's one more theory from my book on Reality: > > All forms of mass and energy are just different forms of relative motion. > They actually have to be different forms of the same thing for there to be > mass-energy conservation, and different forms of relative motion are what > they are. > > Rest mass in this theory is just vibrational motion. It is relative > motion, but since this relative motion is so spatially confined, it appears > the same to all external observers. It is equally relative to all > observers, thus it appears absolute in having the same value relative to > all observers. Thus rest mass is the same to all observers, even though it > is actually relative motion. > > This is somewhat similar to string theory's notion of particles as > vibrating strings. But in my theory the vibration itself is not the > particle and there is no need for extra dimensions. In my theory, the > vibration takes place in ordinary 3D space and represents only the mass of > the particle. Only in 3D space is it interconvertible to other 3D relative > motions. > > [In my theory particles themselves are composed of their particle > properties (not vibrating strings), one of which is mass-energy, but that's > another part of the theory I won't get into in this post.] > > So in this theory the conversion of mass to energy is quite simple. It's > just the conversion of the equivalent amount of vibrational motion into > either the relative linear motion of kinetic energy and/or the relative > wave motion of EM energy. > > This theory neatly conceptually unifies all forms of mass and energy, and > the conversion of one form to another as simply the conversion of one form > of relative motion to an equivalent amount of another. > > All other forms of energy neatly conform to this explanation including > what we call potential energy which is really just an accounting trick. > What we call potential energy is actually just some form of blocking (or > impinging) energy from a system external to the system under consideration. > To just analyze the system itself, we imagine a potential energy IN the > system equivalent to the actual blocking energy outside the system. It just > makes things easier to analyze. So potential energy is not a real form of > energy, not a real relative motion, but an accounting trick to confine > analysis to an isolated system when systems are not actually energetically > isolated from their environments. > > > Edgar > > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
