From: "John Foster" <borealis-AT-mercuryspeed.com> Subject: Re: Einstein Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:12:46 -0700 ----- Original Message ----- From: "michaelP" <michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk> To: <heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu> Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 9:56 AM Subject: Re: Einstein > on 20/9/03 4:14 pm, Tudor Georgescu at tgeorgescu-AT-home.nl wrote: > > >> Nope. Digestion, muscle power, buring oil, and so on, are chemical > > changes. > >> Molecules are exchanging atoms and electrons changing energy levels. > > > > If E=mc2 would not apply to it, then m=constant and E=constant. Look at it > > this way: In the Sun fusion happens, a loss of mass produces energy. Earth > > receives some of this energy, e.g. through warming and photosynthesis. What > > is photosynthesis? A photon induces storage of energy in form of > > carbohydrates. The energy of the photon in consumed in the stored substance. > > E=mc2 still applies and mass increases, though the mass variations are > > almost insignificant. We can say matter annihilation has an efficacy of > > 100%, fusion 0.375%, fission still lower (0.098%) and chemical reactions > > almost insignificant. But, that does not mean there's no reciprocal > > variation in the amounts of mass and energy. It happens, but the figures are > > so low, that we count them as negligible. Without such variations, no energy > > could be stored in chemical form, for by the very fact an electron pops to > > an upper orbital, the mass of the atom increases. > > Tudor, it depends on what we mean by "mass"; if it is equatable to the > equivalent in energy of mc ^2, then the mass increases, but that's just > another way of thinking mass as also energy. Mass is not a property of the > particle according to relativity but one relation of the observer to the > observed, i.e., it is not what those who are involved with 'objectivity' an > objective absolute property of the particle (thus not energy either). Well do you see the relatio here to MV*2/2 or mass times velocity squared divided by 2. Well they (E=MC*2 and F=MV*2/2 actually are similar expressions but one is a first order differential. Fission releases more than sensible heat;(long wave radiation) also very short wave radiation such as X-Rays, Gamma Rays, et cetera. There is a fusion reactor located in the sun; this reactor also releases vast amounts of energy too...other than that I have forgot just now. The reason why some physicists exclaim there is an 'implicit order' within the physical universe is not due to any single intuition about the whole, but rather because of the rational order of the laws regarding the physics of the universe (eg. "Nothing is without reason", Leibnitz). There is no intuition of 'implicit order or wholeness' since the 'feeling' or 'intuition' - if the later exists at all would have to correspond to an object. Now here is my point. By analogy, since Love is regarded as an act, it does not also mean that Love is a conscious act; thus if it is true that the ultimate reality in the universe is Love (the act of creation itself, universally proceeding in the physical universe where stars are born, and die, only to be re-born again; and species die in Darwinian Selection, and Ecosystems die in Lamarckian succession after the species die), it does not follow that any creature could be conscious of the Love-In-Itself since it has been determined if Love is itself a conscious act, or primary attribute of the Creator. Since there is no 'evidence' for the existence of Love, Being, nor God, but rather all is evident, then it also follows that no single observer can fully appreciate Love as an act, nor can any observer fully appreciate 'implicitness' or 'wholeness' but they can have an 'objective word' for their own non-intuitive sense. Simply said if there was an 'object' called 'holness' or 'implicit order', then there would be an 'objective word' for the object. Each observer experiences 'holness' and 'implicit order differently, through a 'lens darkly'....With these differences, there is no reason to suspect that there is no 'holness' nor any 'implicit order' it is just that something 'tells us that there is'....It is the 'uncanny' or Umheimlich experienced not as the 'paranormal' but rather as something unique in each new day; it is day light thing with them. It is that rare combination of emotion and sense which occurs in the evening sometimes.... "the reason for my reason" "a spanish mona lisa" The evening example is a primary intuition, a primary illusion belonging nowhere, no locus or point of departure. It appears, like a wander lust, a willie wah (sudden wind that leaves only one tree with leaves flutteering - the rest are still as Japanese paintings), it goes-out-of, it was an 'in-tent-sion', a scion, a will-o-wisp, a thread of smoke, but nothing immaterial or ethereal. It is a real 'thing' but not ever the same thing because it 'comes out of' rather than goes into....in symbolic intuition it would be similar to experiencing the mental light of awareness for the first time: "In order for something to be illuminating, and that means luminant, there must of course be a light that shines. The shining of this light is a decisive condition for what is said in principle to luminate such that it occurs to us, enlightens us." [The Principle of Reason, trans. Reginald Lilly; M. Heidegger, first published 1957] Similarly the light was found to be unlike any other lights; it was a light which 'occurs to us'... an "occurant" light....enlightening us. Light and the 'character principle' or 'principle character of the reason principle: "It will be claimed that observations about the form of principles belong to grammar and logic." Lecture One [19-20], Supra Note "So long as this perspective is established as the only normative one, we cannot unfetter the principle of reason from the compass of this sentence-form (ie.)... every being: necessarily has a reason)" This means that every observation contained in a simple sentence must have for it an 'ought' or 'imperative' condition suggesting that the light or luminant is none-other than 'purposive-thinking' or that thinking in order to be 'clear' and not 'muddled' must be leading to some purpose....rather than simply normative; rather it is normative that thinking leads to some purpose, rather simply arguing to no sound conclusions. chao john foster, in the dark nightly > > In terms of photosynthesis, say, it is not necessarily an increase in mass > that is installed, just another increase in energy of another form; this > energy is only realised in the opposite venture of the 'burning' of the > stored carbohydrates. Again unless you make a total equivalence of mass and > energy in which case there is no point in making the point of an increase in > mass... does this make sense? > > regards > > mP > > > > --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005