Space (s) -the third form of matter

[Dubbelosix]

1 hour ago, Capiert said:

 

Space s is the 3rd form of matter,

 which is a completely new idea

 that (nobody has thought of before,

 

 

Are you for real? Why are you entertaining a bogus idea? The whole terminology ''space as a state of matter'' is ridiculous. A few years ago, the community got excited over new buzzwords that didn't make any sense, like considering consciousness as a state of matter, and yet thinking of consciousness as a state of matter is one thing, but space is an arena where fields and their particles exist, it is not a state of matter per se. So thinking of the two on equal footing, makes no sense to me. And I assure you, will make little sense with anyone else here.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Dubbelosix

[Strange]

Why the 3rd state of matter? We already have 4. 

6 hours ago, Capiert said:

If I understand correctly, you are trying to say the following.

Congratulations. You have made it even more incomprehensible. I wouldn’t have thought that possible. 

[Capiert]

6 hours ago, Dubbelosix said:

Are you for real?

I'll assume I am.

Quote

Why are you entertaining a bogus idea?

Maybe you missed the point?

(The previous interpretation is an intermediate,

 inspired from my boredom with dead ends,

 that don't work right, completely.)

I'm trying to figure out (& identify) what he is "trying" to say

 even though he is not using the correct vocabulary.

It's simply a different perspective,

 & Einstein said there is no preferred perspective (reference frame),

 they are all valid if you can convert (to them).

He (=Dr Turner) has mentioned a math technique

 & has stated it has advantages

 (e.g. (it's suppose to be) easier)

 so I would like to try (=test) it

 to see what they are.

Thus, I have given him the benefit

 of the doubt.

The mind completes itsself in peculiar ways (of encryption).

(That is perhaps the subconscious part (90%?, often mentioned)

 which runs automatically.)

People do not always say (exactly) what they mean,

 but that does not mean they are stupid.

That is a communication problem instead

 which starts arguements because the egos burst (& go) out of control.

I'd like to sort the facts from the fiction,

 instead of throw (away) everything, at first

 without knowing what got thrown out.

I can ignor the most vulgar (=common (standard)) info

 to try to catch new (subtle) ideas

 (because the standard will be driven in you,

 so that once in, you can never get rid of it

 without extreme effort).

This is a speculations forum

 so I do expect

 something different

 from all the brainstorming (=0..20% useful, the rest trash)

 (even if you might not (want it)).

We've seen Einstein

 & we know he wasn't perfect,

 so there has got to be a different way to tackle things

 (even if it is not popular).

 

(I'm just looking for inspiration. Otherwise it was science fiction (=entertainment)).

Quote

The whole terminology ''space as a state of matter'' is ridiculous.

It doesn't look like you quoted correctly (=accurately).

Wasn't the word "form", instead of "state".

Or are you ruffly describing? (which I'll assume).

Quote

A few years ago, the community got excited over new buzzwords that didn't make any sense, like considering consciousness as a state of matter, and yet thinking of consciousness as a state of matter is one thing, but

That's an interesting theme, but it's beyond me.

Quote

space is an arena where fields and their particles exist, it is not a state of matter per se.

I'll assume the 3 states of matter are solid, liquid, & gas;

 ionized(_gas, plasma) is the 4th;

 & the (legendary) quintesscence (ether) is the 5th

 (which I'm (often) tempted to interpret as space).

I suppose all are a ruff description of the flexibility

 (=lack of hardness, & density).

Quote

So thinking of the two on equal footing, makes no sense to me. And I assure you, will make little sense with anyone else here.

Reading between the lines (=interpreting)

 I'll assme he (Dr Turner, ruffly) meant

 "form"=kind (of)=type of

 e.g. ..energy;

 not in the strict sense.

It was just a vague (=ruff, approximate) description.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Capiert

[koti]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Why the 3rd state of matter? We already have 4.  

Plus we have other states of matter which are known to exist in extreme cold, density or high energy situations. Like the Bose-Einstein Condensate or Neutron Degenerate Matter.

(Im sure you know this, Im just posting to make at least shreds of this thread readable for others in the future)

Edited November 13, 2017 by koti

[studiot]

Capiert I do like your new mellow perspective. +1

34 minutes ago, Capiert said:

=ruff,

Is that dog ruff?

[Dubbelosix]

44 minutes ago, Capiert said:

 

It was just a vague (=ruff, approximate) description.

 

Of what exactly?

[Capiert]

 

48 minutes ago, studiot said:

Capiert I do like your new mellow perspective. +1

Is that dog ruff?

Yes, (dog spelt backwards is god needing a 2nd "o" for good)

 I think we have to look for the virtures (=positive points)

 of theories (for our progress).

Typically science has evolved from ruff (=approximate) ideas.

Looking closer, the previous theory description had errors.

Our descriptions (will) narrow in on the details (later, in the future).

 

Then we can bow (&) wow.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Capiert

[studiot]

Just now, Capiert said:

Typically science has evolved from ruff (=approximate) ideas.

very approximate ?

[Capiert]

59 minutes ago, studiot said:

very approximate ?

Yes (I agree with you),

originally (some of the ideas (of science) were very approximate, at some point in time),

 it's a comparative process (=technique)

 (of similaries

 & differences,

 to quantively (& qualatively) evaluate).

1 hour ago, Dubbelosix said:

(Dr Turner's (words) "form of"

was just a vague description)

Of what exactly?

It was just a vague description

for

"form of" energy

"kind of" energy

 "type of" energy.

 

He implied that energy

 is mass

 (or matter).

 

E=m*(c^2).

 

He mentioned,

 2 purebreds (particle; wave)

 & 1 hybrid characteristics (wave_particle).

Edited November 13, 2017 by Capiert

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, Capiert said:

 

Yes, (dog spelt backwards is god needing a 2nd "o" for good)

 I think we have to look for the virtures (=positive points)

 of theories (for our progress).

Typically science has evolved from ruff (=approximate) ideas.

Looking closer, the previous theory description had errors.

Our descriptions (will) narrow in on the details (later, in the future).

 

Then we can bow (&) wow.

Probably why the agnostic dyslexic insomniac stayed up all night...wondering if their really was a doG...

[Capiert]

On 13 November 2017 at 3:52 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

Probably why the agnostic dyslexic insomniac stayed up all night...wondering if their really was a doG...

Yes but how can you know either? Aren't we all agnostic (to a degree)?

[studiot]

2 minutes ago, Capiert said:

Yes but how can you know either? Aren't we all agnostic (to a degree)?

Not all.

I'm a don't care, since it makes no difference to me.

And I sleep better at night for not feeling the urge to prove or disprove the unprovable.

 

(Didn't Oscar Wilde say something like that?)

 

[Capiert]

56 minutes ago, studiot said:

Not all.

I'm a don't care, since it makes no difference to me.

And I sleep better at night for not feeling the urge to prove or disprove the unprovable.

There you have made an important decision,

 to know (=recognize) what is proveable

 showing the futility (& uselessness)

 of argumentation.

That alone decides the argument (as true or false).

(Or does it?)

Doesn't it at least indicate (=imply) on the right (=proveable) or (unproveable=) wrong track?

Unfortunately, not always?

But many false arguments can be eliminated, before hand.

56 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

(Didn't Oscar Wilde say something like that?)

 

Maybe.

The way I see it, people like to be lied to, I don't know why, it supports fantasy so they can sleep well (=dream (better)).

They loose no sleep. I haven't a clue why I punish myself, unlike them. I guess I'm nuts (=crazy)?

Edited November 18, 2017 by Capiert

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

I'm a don't care, since it makes no difference to me.

Same here. I am baffled as to why anyone would believe in gods but equally baffled as to why anyone would care that other people do. I long ago gave up worrying about why people play golf. 

[Capiert]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Same here. I am baffled as to why anyone would believe in gods

"Can't beat the feeling." It's a hormone trip, a natural high.

Quote

but equally baffled as to why anyone would care that other people do.

"The feeling'( i)s gone" (with (negative) criticism.

"My heart belongs to (only) me"-Streisand.)

Quote

I long ago gave up worrying about why people play golf. 

Golf, what's that? A whole in 1?

 

Facit:

The emotional problems begin

 when we start to care

 & (to) decide,

 but why do we fall in that (incomplete) trap?

 

Edited November 18, 2017 by Capiert

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Same here. I am baffled as to why anyone would believe in gods but equally baffled as to why anyone would care that other people do. I long ago gave up worrying about why people play golf. 

The definitive guide on "why" of golf has already been made known:

(warning :lots of "colourful language")