Do circles exist?
I hypothesize that a circle can only exist as an expression of motion over time, never in static form.
I further speculate that the concept of static form in itself is a fallacy, and that change (defined as the movement of energy) is the only real constant.
Other urls found in this thread:
lightandmatter.com
twitter.com
So, circles are really just an expression of rotational motion or "spin". As we can see here (lightandmatter.com
The question now becomes: What is this inward forces that causes energy to condense and spin, forming the apparent illusion of physical "subatomic particles" and the resulting perception of atoms, matter, sensory input, and so on?
It would seem that rest and death equate to endless expansion, while life and action are essentially a contraction of energy. What then, is the driving impulse for this "breathing" action of all energy, which composes all things?
Are we all just imaginary particles of mucus that came out of an imaginary sneeze from God's nose?
the sun looks like a circle, the drawing of a circle looks like a circle. You need to clarify what you mean by "circle" because can be drawn frozen-in-time as representational images.
electro-magnetic fields. Not gravity.
clarify you duns you are talkin on Sup Forums you are only stroking your own ego. What do you mean by any of this shit?
>burrito inside a burrito
here we go.....
But really, the relative force of activated substances and their inherent cyclical neutro-forces are more to blame OP. Several instances of this anomaly are found in nucleally "activated" fruits and nuts, especially the almond, which is rich in potassium-g, an ionized compound that is one of the only ones to organically limit the transformation phase of the anomaly.
That looks familiar
Jaden, is that you?
Appearing is not the same as existing by definition.
In layman's terms, if you zoom in on any physical representation of a circle, you will find that it is actually a polygon.
Imagine a "perfect circle" made up of a single line of atoms. If you connect the nuclei of each atom with a straight line, you will find that it is actually a polygon. You cannot show me a physical representation of a true circle, because no such example exists.
Dunno, found it in my "trippy" folder...
I like your style.
everything is relative
Dude, circles can't exist,
we can only make approximations of circles,
because howerver atomic a level we get on
we will still have an n sided polygon,
even if those n sides are the length of a molecule.
stop doing acid
follow up to
static form can definetly exist in a perfect vacumm at 0 kelvin.
However just by observing it it will change form,
so it can exist but not be observed, just read about quantum physics.
thanks for clarifying the real question i think you oughta consider: how in the world do you plan to utilize this information you know? There is nothing inherently wrong with conceptualizing and pontificating... but theres nothing inherently useful about it either. It is a waste of time. You got this far, great, now where do you plan to take this?
I work 60 hours a week fixing cars. This is how I decompress...
Perfect vacuum and 0 kelvin environments have never before been observed in nature nor produced in a lab, so I have as much faith in their actual existence as I do the perfect circle.
reread
please
i did not say to stop but talking about abstractions is as meaningful as playing call of duty if you dont utilize it for an invention.
...
god dammit... OP is actually right about something.
It's about turning abstraction into real solutions.
You start with the former, and then build a bridge to the latter. You cannot create solutions without first understanding of the nature of the problem.
This all connects to the work of Victor Schauberger, btw. He knew some of this intuitively, and used his knowledge of vortices, circular motion, and implosion/explosion forces to great practical effect.
This^ can also be connected to the work of Goethe, specifically his "Metamorphosis of Plants"
I agree that one accomplishes nothing as long as he stays in the realm of imagination indefinitely. However, it is as necessary to the creative process as death is for life, exhalation is for inhalation, etc...
Excuse me as I click all the pictures of eggs...
...
What about when a system of energy reaches homeostasis, such as the contractive/expansive forces of a celestial body without rotation or net gravitational influence?
It is still in motion and constantly changing both in location in space-time and in form, as it's form is ultimately composed of spinning energy vortexes that we (wrongly) think of as physical atoms.
Furthermore, there is no real isolation in space, only the interaction of various fields of energy/force. Nothing in this universe can exist unchanging and in eternal isolation.
To use a biology analogy, a human body is always trying to reach homeostasis, but is always just in motion toward that middle point. It is never actually reached. Even at what a doctor might call homeostatis, you are never truly "static".
Also, show me a celestial body without rotation. It can't exist.
On a simpler level, we can simply draw a circle. Because we can create it, it can exist. Descartes FTW.
But it's not a circle, it's just a polygon with a lot of sides that you imagine is a circle due to the limits of your perception.
Yes.. nothing that can be perceived is static. All that appears, appears as a verb. There are no nouns, only the consistency of aspects of the verbing that with an attached label seem to be separate objects unto themselves. Like a rock, or scissors. You could maybe say that the entirety of the verb is a noun, one noun that is the verbing of everything, but then you'd be imagining yourself as outside of the entirety of the verb to be able to identify it as a noun, when in fact all that there is is this verbing going on. One verb unto itself without an inside or outside.