Well, I had always found the definition of "static" in physics somewhat unsatisfactory for me. Nothing is at rest in this universe because to see an object at rest you need to observe it in a reference frame that is equivalent to the object's reference frame and so its "static" status is just apparent.
Oh, is that all? :)
You see, even the inertia principle asserts that you need to apply a certain force to change the status of an object, but that is only apparent because if you accelerate your reference frame (point of observation) you will observe that same object decelerate […]
If I accelerate my reference frame? You mean, if a certain force is applied to my body its velocity, and so too its relationship to other objects, changes? Or, do you mean if I decide to throw out the logic and observations of physics altogether?
… which means that you will be able to observe and measure also a kind of force acting to the object, a force that before didn't exist.
I believe we call it the gravitational constant?
To make it short: Mass, Energy (force),Wavelength and Form, all go down to only these 3 factors: Motion, Reference frame and Space.
Which of the three is function of the others? In few words what is coming first?
But you haven’t resolved the problem of gravity. From that, how on God’s green Earth do you arrive at the question of what “function” comes first?
I and a mathematician friend of mine many years ago tried to solve the question, we didn't actually solved it but we sensed that (for reasons to complicate to explain here) [I bet!] that a reference frame (point of observation) had to be somewhat senior of the other two. But in that case we had to explain what the "zero" often resulting in our equations really meant and also why it appear to be outside this physical universe. At that time we called it "Absolute Static Observation Reference".
Anyway we were in a "dead end" and decided to forget it about.
Um, news flash. I don’t know about your friend, but you clearly have not forgotten about it—you just used it as the very basis for creating this thread. It seems, therefore, like just a convenient statement to make when you can’t explain yourself?
Few months later I found the answer in a book of Ron Hubbard (SoS) who wrote something like this:
"a True Static doesn't have any position (space), form, mass, energy, wavelength, form or motion but being capable of considerations and beingness, is actually the creator of those things"
I love it!
Why?
So I guess it is my love for it (true static) that I continue to use it.
Sure, but that doesn’t make it reasonable, right?
Using terms like thetan, (Mr. Hubbard called true static:"Theta" to differentiate it from the physical universe which he called MEST), soul or spirit, is in my opinion a little bit "too much" for many science lovers and philosophers.
So, it’s just a PR thing used to attract…pseudo scientists? I mean, what are you saying here?
I prefer to call it, instead, consciousness, and that's why I've titled this thread: Space & Consciousness.
But, marcothay, you haven’t answered my question. You have only said that you wouldn’t use the qualified word “static” in place of what should really be “consciousness,” but confessed your unrequited love for it nonetheless. :)
Yes, in fact, theta is defined as a non-physical (non-MEST) thing with the ability to act on—nay, create, even—the physical universe. Alright, so that’s a really attractive idea—more attractive than a woman. But I am still left with these questions, previously directed at you:
I am wondering why, as a physicist, you so easily accept the use of this term (with the added qualifier “true”) to describe a “thing” without location in space or time and without form, mass, energy or wavelength? I mean, why not just stick with “thetan” or “soul” or “spirit." Indeed, why not just "life force" - or, are all these things necessarily interchangeable? What does the use of the term "static" solve, and how and why? Is there any reasoning behind it that you can fathom?
For the sake of simplicity (hopefully!), let me capture all those questions in one: if thought makes an idea an existing thing, what objectifies (gives space to) its existence in the MEST universe if not MEST itself?
In other words, I can get the idea of (postulate) a pink unicorn, but it's MEST universe relations that make it "
an idea of a pink unicorn." Or, I can observe a black dog, and it's MEST universe relations that make it "a black dog." How is theta "the creator" "
outside of" MEST?