In dictionary.com, Intention is defined thus: “in·ten·tion [in-ten-shuhn] noun 1. an act or instance of determining mentally upon some action or result . . . ”
Philosophically, we are using intention to provide the physical interface betweennothing, and something. By this, I am writing that mentally there is nothing and then there arises something. This is my observation of the inception of manifestation.
There is an enormous assumption at the beginning of the definition of intention that the volition of this manifestation of something is caused by the individual.
I am now considering whether this is true, or rather how true this is. As I have routinely written, it is my conjecture that our language describing physical phenomena may not be laid out quite rightly.
Yesterday during a review of the definition of the word intention, I demonstrated my intention to myself by picking up my own hand. By raising it and lowering it using different scenarios, I demonstrated that either raised or lowered “if and only if” I used the interface of intention. What is this intention I wondered. We are conditioned to believe that it arises from our immortal spirit. Yet I am noticing that this “if and only if” function is quite common in logic and other machinery.
There exists the assumption that personal responsibility and will to be adamantly welded. I am considering “How true is this?”
I assume that if my opinions were important or if anyone cared what I think then I would receive a few flaming responses for this sacrilege. However, because I consider that no one cares what I think then this unholy comment may go unnoticed! I may be allowed to consider this issue of will in peace.
Then the second piece is a physics experiment demonstrating the stresses present which pressure 32 disharmonic metronomes to synchronize after only a few minutes. I call it a musical piece but maybe you want to call it a rhythm piece. No matter. The experiment was not set up by but is explained by Joe Hanson, PhD, we can watch, meditate, and ponder upon the unseen processes at work which present themselves as both harmonics, and discordants, and which work to organize seemingly against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. But is it? Watch and see if it gives you any ideas about the Nature of things.
November 8, 2012 7:02 AM (updated with this *.gif April 2, 2017)
I like this graphic *.gif that demonstrates spacetime bending toward the massive object as it travels in spacetime.
Vinaire: Gravity is due to attraction between masses. Chris: This seems to be a conjecture only to me. I see how we get to that conjecture, the apple falls, but why? It must possess a characteristic which attracts it to the earth. Right?
And yet, is this the only possible solution? We have to do more on this and although I’ve written this post on gravity, I think it belongs under the heading of space and space-time. I am going to promote the idea that gravity may have more to do with space than it has to do with mass. Even mass may be a characteristic of space. We accurately measure the forces involved but are the forces the reason for gravity? I say no, and this is why I’ve posted up this topic for discussion. I am promoting the idea that SPACE IS A DYNAMIC SUBSTANCE WITH ELASTIC AND STICKY PROPERTIES.
Look at gravity as a property of space; as a river of space flowing toward accretion points forming vertices in that matrix of space. Picture the accretion points as “sticky bits of space” creating the vertices of space and you will see how I am trying to model this.
We might one day discover that “self” is one of the products of the properties of space. How could this be so? It would require space to be composed of a substance. Rather than being empty, space may be a matrix; a structure; a scaffolding which supports the accretion points. It may be a dynamic and flowing dimension which invisibly supports and makes possible the visible. Its observable effects, which are pervading every aspect of existence, may be pointing toward an as yet, undiscovered dimension.
Think of it this way: Mass might not have any intrinsic “gravity” at all and may simply be formed by and held in place by the elastic characteristics of space. This is crude, I know; however, it is a direction that is different than the extant view of physics. Is this idea a brilliant light to shine on the “dark matter” of extant physics; or is this idea as short-sighted as Aristotle’s <em>spontaneous generation theory</em>? Maybe.
And what of <strong>dark matter</strong>? Is dark matter the congealed but invisible portion of unconsolidated space? Or could dark matter be a type of well-spring from which dark matter emanates? And was dark matter always present, underpinning original space since the big bang? Or possibly has it made its appearance by first making the old universe milky with the initial evolutions of accretion? Did space congeal into mass? This seems to have happened but atomic particles and sub-atomic particles are generally regarded as separate and existing separately from space. But is this so or are there sub-sub-atomic particles which comprise space in a way we haven’t looked at? Regardless, space through the force of gravity, like the rest of the universe appears to be evolving. Gravity as a quality of space may be the force but not the only force at work.
Take a look at this wide-angle photo of The Universe and let your imagination unwind! These are not stars, neither are they galaxies nor even clusters of galaxies. The bright points are super-clusters of galaxies!