system-theory (I believe) is a system where matter or energy can flow into and/or out of the system, in contrast to a closed system, where energy can enter or leave but matter may not. Would you AGREE ..the premise, Iseason?  

--Last edited by ferme on 2007-02-02 06:39:36 --

that is entirely dependant on the level of energy you wish to measure leaving or entering a system. If you leave out gravity, you have dismissed it as a force containing energy.
   consider the sun as a closed system. You can percieve it a closed system as long as you resist light having particle properties.
   Closed or open really makes no difference to me . All interactions are dependant on every other. In order for this not to be true , we live in a series of 'closed systems' that light would not travel to . The light from the stars has to affect us on some level.
   I was considering why we float in space. this seems at odds with my thoughts. i realized that in a vaccuum we created on earth , the decision for an object to find conservatism in the bottom of a vessle is made easy by locality. not within the vessle , but within the earth. the seeking of rest within the earth does not change .
   But within space , the jump or energy required to travel to a conservative state is more than the quanta of energy allowed the atoms within the object.
   Looking at centrifugal forces. When an object is moving , either in a circle or forwards , once momentum is achieved , conservatism is found best in maintaining it.
   conservation is always correct. the front of a moving object rests on the mass coming from behind and the trailing mass holds on until it takes more energy to do so than is allowed by law.
   stopping is similar. a bounce conserves energy. the hieght of the bounce does not continue equally because the earth becomes a better rest prospect. But the ball is not allowed to violate the laws of conservatism in order to find it's rest state. It must find other "outside" mass to pass on it's excess energy to . On the moon , no atmosphere means nothing to pass on excess energy to so less gravity.

Cheers
Iseason

Quote :

Iseason wrote : that is entirely dependant on the level of energy you wish to measure leaving or entering a system. If you leave out gravity, you have dismissed it as a force containing energy.        Closed or open really makes no difference to me . All interactions are dependant on every other. In order for this not to be true , we live in a series of 'closed systems' that light would not travel to . The light from the stars has to affect us on some level.    I was considering why we float in space. this seems at odds with my thoughts. i realized that in a vaccuum we created on earth , the decision for an object to find conservatism in the bottom of a vessle is made easy by locality. not within the vessle , but within the earth.

I agree if you leave out gravity one's ideas become very complicated.

**In thermodynamics, a closed system, as contrasted with an isolated system, can exchange heat and work, but not matter, with its surroundings. For a simple system, with only one type of particle (atom or molecule), this amounts to a constant number of particles. However, for systems which are undergoing a chemical reaction, there may be all sorts of molecules being generated and destroyed by the reaction process. In this case, the fact that the system is closed is expressed by saying that the total number of each elemental atom is conserved, no matter what kind of molecule it may be a part of. Mathematically:





cit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_system  

--Last edited by ferme on 2007-02-04 14:37:05 --

hi
Ferme

i guess i'm not dissagreeing. my method is to see actions affecting differing levels in a similar way. this is because of a part of the theory creating expansion of the central causality.

So to Me , atomic must have residual waste and conservation not collected at a level we percieve. While the act is smaller than the atom , the implications are bigger than the universe.That's why i commented on having limiting parameters on what constitutes a closed system. because at atomic the electron may see the emanations as matter rather than work or heat.
 larger objects need to be affected similarly to smaller , hot to cold , moving to stationary. the outside influences are explained by an internal motor.
 for example , If I throw a ball. The act of throwing ends when the ball leaves my hand. Now the ball contains the motor. there is no other possible answer. the causality is the same answer as the electron /photon/universal laws of motion. They cannot exsits seperately.

Cheers
Iseason

**Most generally, causation is a relationship that holds between events, properties, variables, or states of affairs.**


Iseason  -
Is your theory of; "the part of the theory creating expansion of the central causality."
related to;
how you see "events" happening, period ..when you say; "your method is to see actions affecting differing levels in a similar way." ? ferme  

--Last edited by ferme on 2007-02-04 22:18:51 --

The methodology I see is Not to be confused with current lines of thinking.

 Since I am a believer in smaller matter than we can percieve, The "root" causality is variable to the power of "some really big number". In ending particle reactions at the level science does, they dissallow a number of great thinkers ideaologies.

 we can see a long way up. This doesn't stop people saying "what if we were just one universe in a sea of universes"
 It seems there are rules to the game of supposition.

 By allowing smaller states , I allow interaction between states only at the "peaking" of each state. our reality only percieves the speed of light as a constant because before matter that makes up light reduces to that speed , we cannot percieve it.
 That doesn't mean it's not there , just that it isn't in our size range. Much like our chances of hitting a star with a baseball(If the star was a photon and the baseball was the matter that makes up a photon.)
 it is necessary , to allow matter to go all the way to a singularity of some sort to form a coherent theory. But once that is believed. ANYTHING. and I do mean anything can result from any interuption in the universal make-up, if it was changed at the beginning. The formation of us as beings is and always was assured. When would have been altered but no if we would exsist.

Cheers
Iseason

Quote :

Iseason wrote : the constitution of a closed system could be rather variable . Don't you think?  It could well be that our universe is just one level of "closed systems" , But since we only look up wards in scale , everyone seems ok to accept that.   but in going down , there seems to be a problem. Since the smallest tools we use to measure are also the smallest objects we can percieve,I don't find it so unusual that it would be difficult to prove.   The conservation in atomic doesn't suffer despite using an awful lot (for size) to keep itself in reality. Science allows for a quantum of energy to materialise from somewhere. My thoughts are what Is the somewhere.   In doing so I must not limit this to the behaviour of the atom , but the universe. As if Either both or neither existed, because that is just the reality. You cannot realisticly seperate the bricks from the house and still have a house. you can have a house of different kinds of bricks , set into different designs and in differing states of decay. but you still need bricks.   It serves no purpose to even begin a theory that will not explain every level. If you run ahead in stella without mastering the atom , AND gravity, The temptation will be to ADD theories to prop up one level at the expense of the other. Cheers Iseason

I agree the constution of a closed system COULD be variable

going back to reflection  , the image needs to have two equal qualities for light behaviour. If our eyes see a true reflection of an image , then our own circuits are making up the balance. That allows light to be conservative , since the image gives up just enough to produce a result without wasting energy. But equally it means we expend most of the energy in seeing a reflection. This is also conservative , since we would only use the amount necessary.

Also , the benificialy is the one expending the energy. IE: we want to see , so we produce internal electrons with that specific purpose.
The star expends no more energy than it does in it's gravity / conservative search, but we see it because we "join the dots" with our own source.

  That being said , the emissions from a distant source need be no bigger than detection allows for us to make the huge leap from detection to vision , since we only need the smallest outer parameters for the intrepetation.

Cheers
Iseason

Though not necessarily correlate:

 ++Conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant, although it may change forms (for instance, friction turns kinetic energy into thermal energy). In thermodynamics, the first law of thermodynamics is a statement of the conservation of energy for thermodynamic systems.+

above does seem similiar to your arguement. zee

Then we are looking at evoloution on a differing time scale. When a star emits energy we see that energy even though the distance should make the travel use more energy than the photon posesses. So the question becomes "how did energy learn to evolve from a closed state to one that relates".
  There is only on path which can explain it . That a single closed system 'created ' the open network one step at a time.
  Think about it . In any number of ways you look at it we have a series of interacting closed systems. The links between the systems is predominately the smallest matter we percieve. AND the stuff they are made from . So the pathways are made of the smallest matter that we know of now!.
  But to go from a fundamental single closed 'state' to a string is a leap of huge proportions. And this change in the universal could only ever have happened ONCE. After that the biase of the new "reality " dictated the blueprint for every alteration in states. The closed state ceased to exsit ANYWHERE and FOREVER.

Cheers
Iseason

-








!!




-

-







Emergence of an optical twin slit diffraction pattern.


-  

--Last edited by saucer on 2007-06-21 22:59:16 --

-


Young's slits






-  

--Last edited by saucer on 2007-08-08 21:38:57 --