Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #596355 > unrolled thread

A definition of "Elements" from first principles

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  A definition of "Elements" from first principles Hermes <astalder@span.ch> - 2016-09-08 22:19 -0700
    Re: A definition of "Elements" from first principles Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-09 17:20 +1000
      Re: A definition of "Elements" from first principles Hermes <astalder@span.ch> - 2016-09-09 10:47 -0700
        Re: A definition of "Elements" from first principles Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-10 11:56 +1000
          Re: A definition of "Elements" from first principles Hermes <astalder@span.ch> - 2016-09-10 00:29 -0700
          Re: A definition of "Elements" from first principles benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-12 21:25 -0400
    Re: A definition of "Elements" from first principles edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 22:05 -0700

#596355 — A definition of "Elements" from first principles

note: I am essentially posting this to "stake the claim"
in most minimal form, not in a generally accessible one,
for that see my website now and in the future...

define "elements" as combinations of in/out and rest/move:

ero = rests outside
emo = moves outside
eri = rests inside
emi = moves inside

and a fifth "element":

e5 = what transforms the above elements into each other

inside keeping things at rest requires effort
outside keeping things in motion requires effort

so ero and emi are "passive" and emo and eri "active"
and outside (ero+emo) is "hard" and inside (eri+emi) is "soft"

this relates the "elements" to the ancient greek elements:

fire  - active+hard  - emo
air   - active+soft  - eri
water - passive+soft - emi
earth - passive+hard - ero

perception of the outside world is mirroring outside to inside
acting on the outside world is mirroring inside to outside

in this process "activity" is preserved (postulate)

so the following transitions between elements are possible:

...-ero-emo-eri-emi-ero-...

this is Aristotle's circle of the elements

emo-emi and ero-eri "touch" but cannot directly transform

the 8 trigrams of the i ching represent the 8 transformations
between the elements as follows:

li (fire): earth to fire
  solid matter (earth) is transformed into a flame (fire)
gen (mountain): fire to earth
  a volcano keeps magma (fire) inside its body (earth)
dui (lake): earth to water
  sources emit water from the ground (earth) and form a lake (water)
kun (earth): water to earth
  water turns earth into mud, letting it yield
qian (heaven): fire to air
  a flame (fire) turns to air, and rises to the sky
zhen (thunder): air to fire
  lightning (fire) comes down from the sky (air)
xun (wind/wood): water to air
  water flows from roots to leaves, evaporates (air) and rises
kan (water): air to water
  rain (water) falls down from the sky (air) and forms rivers

arranged in the circle of transformations, the trigram for
father (heaven) is opposite mother (earth), and the 3 sons
and the 3 daughters are arranged strictly in order of birth
from father to mother

the middle line of the trigrams correlates with in/out,
with a broken (yin) line outside and yang line inside
(arranged in a lying 8 with one loop drawn as a dashed
yin line and the other as a yang line, the trigrams "fit")

inside things are softer, they mix more (postulate)

inside things are more collective (unconsciously connected)
this basically explains telepathy, religion, precognition
and more such "collective effects"

there is more...

Alain Stalder (*1966, Dipl. Phys. ETH, Dr. rer. nat.)
Adliswil, 9 Sept 2016 at 7:17 am
https://www.exactphilosophy.net/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#596356

On 9/09/2016 3:19 PM, Hermes wrote:
> note: I am essentially posting this to "stake the claim"
> in most minimal form, not in a generally accessible one,

Troll.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596387

just avantgarde. :)

Cheers,
Alain

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596459

On 10/09/2016 3:47 AM, Hermes wrote:
> just avantgarde. :)
>
> Cheers,
> Alain
>

In the arts, you can just make stuff up.

Science is constrained by the behaviour of the universe.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596475

originally avantgarde was simply the french word for "vanguard" in military.

I don't see avantgarde limited to art at all, more as generally about things that are very early, "ahead of their times", including completely new fields. sometimes such things later lead to something concrete, sometimes not.

concretely, there could very likely be perfectly scientific applications derived from what I wrote in my first post - maybe to physics, maybe "just" to the history of ancient philosophy, maybe to something else - its just too early to be certain and specific about it - especially since I am still working on this.

got to go now, the best way of providing circumstantial evidence for not being a "troll" is to stop arguing...* ;)

all I wanted for the moment is to have some ideas recorded somewhere "public" where it will be archived (by google etc.) as proof of "discovery", should some derived work get concrete sometime in the future and hence a certain public interest about its roots might eventually(!) emerge.

Cheers,
Alain

* See maybe also this post of mine from 2003 to sci.physics.research (note the "from" email): http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2003-01/msg0047545.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596734

On 9/9/2016 9:56 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 10/09/2016 3:47 AM, Hermes wrote:
>> just avantgarde. :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alain
>>
>
> In the arts, you can just make stuff up.
>
> Science is constrained by the behaviour of the universe.
>
> Sylvia.

That's too bad Sylvia. Because anything is possible when you are just 
making stuff up! Ask any journalist.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596534

On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 1:19:36 AM UTC-4, Hermes wrote:
> note: I am essentially posting this to "stake the claim"
> in most minimal form, not in a generally accessible one,
> for that see my website now and in the future...
> 
> define "elements" as combinations of in/out and rest/move:
> 
> ero = rests outside
> emo = moves outside
> eri = rests inside
> emi = moves inside
> 
> and a fifth "element":
> 
> e5 = what transforms the above elements into each other
> 
[]
> this relates the "elements" to the ancient greek elements:
> 
> fire  - active+hard  - emo
> air   - active+soft  - eri
> water - passive+soft - emi
> earth - passive+hard - ero
> 
So you are claiming as yours the Greek theory of elements?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web