narkive is for sale. Interested?
Discussion:
What do you think the vacuum is capable of
(too old to reply)
D.Schlenk
2009-09-11 17:49:21 UTC
Permalink
I once listened to a lecture by Ulrich Warnke held in front of his students
and filmed by German Television (SWR) in 1997. The subject was an
Introduction to Quantum Electro Dynamics. What fascinated me most was that
we all consist of 99,9999 percent of vacuum, that the whole universe
consists of almost nothing. That means the space appearing so immense is
almost empty. He further told his students that our whole reality can be
described by the interaction of electrons and photons. By being
interconnected and needing no time when they interact, they create our
reality permanently. Vacuum can be the explanation why the phenomenon of
non-locality exists and why an all knowing God being everywhere might exist.
I refer to the Wheeler-Feynman Observer Theorie, to the Niels Bohr
Kopenhague interpretation and to some other scientific stuff which lead us
to believe that time and space do not really exist.

If you feel uncomfortable reading this, you are not obligated to believe the
above. You might as as well live merrily without taking the above into
consideration.

Detmar Schlenk
D.Schlenk
2009-09-11 18:39:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.Schlenk
I once listened to a lecture by Ulrich Warnke held in front of his students
and filmed by German Television (SWR) in 1997. The subject was an
Introduction to Quantum Electro Dynamics. What fascinated me most was that
we all consist of 99,9999 percent of vacuum, that the whole universe
consists of almost nothing. That means the space appearing so immense is
almost empty. He further told his students that our whole reality can be
described by the interaction of electrons and photons. By being
interconnected and needing no time when they interact, they create our
reality permanently. Vacuum can be the explanation why the phenomenon of
non-locality exists and why an all knowing God being everywhere might
exist. I refer to the Wheeler-Feynman Observer Theorie, to
Sorry, of course it is called Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory.

the Niels Bohr
Post by D.Schlenk
Kopenhague interpretation and to some other scientific stuff which lead us
to believe that time and space do not really exist.
If you feel uncomfortable reading this, you are not obligated to believe
the above. You might as as well live merrily without taking the above into
consideration.
Detmar Schlenk
ecky
2009-09-12 21:54:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.Schlenk
I once listened to a lecture by Ulrich Warnke held in front of his
students and filmed by German Television (SWR) in 1997. The subject was
an Introduction to Quantum Electro Dynamics. What fascinated me most was
that we all consist of 99,9999 percent of vacuum, that the whole
universe consists of almost nothing.
Well, 'maayaa': that [long 'a': feminine, female entity?] which (yaa)
"should" not exist (maa), LOL!

mA 1 ind. (casting a following %{ch} to be changed to %{cch} Pa1n2.
6-1 , 74) not , that not , lest , would that not RV. &c. &c. ; a particle
of prohibition or negation = Gk. $ , most commonly joined &243830[804 ,1]
with the Subjunctive i.e. the augmentless form of a past tense (esp. of
the aor. e.g. %{***@no@***@indra} , do not slay us , O Indra RV. ; %
{***@bhaiSIH} or %{***@bhaiH} , do not be afraid MBh. ; %{tapovana-
***@uparodho@***@bhUt} , let there not be any disturbance of the
inhabitants of the sacred grove S3ak. ; often also with %{sma} e.g. %
{***@sma@gamaH} , do not go Bhag. cf. Pa1n2. 3-3 , 175 ; 176 in the sense
of , that not , lest "' also %{***@mA} e.g. %{***@mA@***@mRtyuH@pari-
***@iti} , that death may not disturb you , Pras3uUp. ; or %{mAyathA}
e.g. %{***@bhUt@***@yathA} , lest there be any loss of time R. ; %
{***@na} with aor. Subj. = Ind , without a negative e.g. %
{***@dviSo@***@vadhIr@mama} , do slay my enemies Bhat2t2. cf. Va1m. v , 1 ,
9 ; rarely with the augmentless impf. with or without %{sma} e.g. %
{***@abhibhASathAH} , do not speak to him R. ; %{***@sma@karot} , let
him not do it Pa1n2. 6-4 , 74 Sch. ; exceptionally also with the Ind. of
the aor. e.g. , %{mA} , %{***@tvAm@aty-agAt} , may not the season pass
by thee MBh. ; cf. Pa1n2. 6-4 , 75 Sch.) ; or with the Impv. (in RV. only
viii , 103 , 6 , %{***@no@hRNItAm} [SV. %{hRNItAs]@agni4H} , may Agni not
be angry with us ; but very often in later language e.g. %{***@kranda} do
not cry MBh. ; %{***@vA@***@A} , you can go or not go ib. ; %
{***@ayam@mAjAyatAm} , may not this foe arise , S3alntis3. ; also with %
{sma} e.g. %{***@sva@***@cid@***@vada} do not speak a word MBh.) ; or
with the Pot. (e.g. ma %{***@paseyam} , may l not see Yama ; esp. %
{mAbhujema} in RV.) ; or with the Prec. (only once in %{***@bhUyAt} , may
it not be R. [B.] ii , 75 , 45) ; or sometimes with the fut. (= that
not , lest e.g. %{***@zapsye} , lest I curse thee MBh. cf. Vop. xxv ,
27) ; or with a participle (e.g. %{***@duHkhadagdho@jIvati} , he
ought not to live who lives consumed by pain Pan5cat. ; %{***@sa@mA} ,
he cannot have gone Katha1s. ; %{maI7vamprA7rthyam} , it must not be so
requested BhP.) ; sometimes for the simple negative %{na} (e.g. %
{***@mA@bhUt} , how may it not be Katha1s. ; %{***@gantum@arhasi} ,
thou oughtest not to go , R ; %{***@bhUd@AgataH} , can he not i.e. surely
he must have arrived Amar.) [804,2] ; occasionally without a verb (e. g. %
{***@zabdaH} or %{zabdam} , do not make a noise Hariv. ; %
{***@nAma@rakSiNaH} , may it not be the watchmen Mr2icch. ; %
{***@bhavantam@***@pavano@vA} , may not fire or wind harm thee Va1m.
v , 1 , 14 ; esp. = not so e.g. %{***@prAtRda} , not so , O PrñPra1tr2ida
S3Br. ; in this meaning also %{***@mA} , %{***@mai9vam} , %{***@tAvat}) ; in
the Veda often with %{u} (%{mo74}) = and not , nor (e.g. %
{***@magho4naH@***@khyatam@***@R4SNAm} , do not forget the
rich lords nor us the poets RV. v , 65 , 6 ; and then usually followed by
%{Su4} = %{su4} e.g. %{***@Su4@***@ni4rRtir@vadhIt} , let not
NñNi4rr2itir on any account destroy us , i , 38 , 6) ; in S3Br. %{***@mA}
- %{***@sma} = neither - nor (in a prohibitive sense).
D. Schlenk
2009-09-12 23:51:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by ecky
Post by D.Schlenk
I once listened to a lecture by Ulrich Warnke held in front of his
students and filmed by German Television (SWR) in 1997. The subject was
an Introduction to Quantum Electro Dynamics. What fascinated me most was
that we all consist of 99,9999 percent of vacuum, that the whole
universe consists of almost nothing.
Well, 'maayaa': that [long 'a': feminine, female entity?] which (yaa)
"should" not exist (maa), LOL!
mA 1 ind. (casting a following %{ch} to be changed to %{cch} Pa1n2.
6-1 , 74) not , that not , lest , would that not RV. &c. &c. ; a particle
of prohibition or negation = Gk. $ , most commonly joined &243830[804 ,1]
with the Subjunctive i.e. the augmentless form of a past tense (esp. of
inhabitants of the sacred grove S3ak. ; often also with %{sma} e.g. %
9 ; rarely with the augmentless impf. with or without %{sma} e.g. %
him not do it Pa1n2. 6-4 , 74 Sch. ; exceptionally also with the Ind. of
by thee MBh. ; cf. Pa1n2. 6-4 , 75 Sch.) ; or with the Impv. (in RV. only
it not be R. [B.] ii , 75 , 45) ; or sometimes with the fut. (= that
he cannot have gone Katha1s. ; %{maI7vamprA7rthyam} , it must not be so
requested BhP.) ; sometimes for the simple negative %{na} (e.g. %
he must have arrived Amar.) [804,2] ; occasionally without a verb (e. g. %
the Veda often with %{u} (%{mo74}) = and not , nor (e.g. %
rich lords nor us the poets RV. v , 65 , 6 ; and then usually followed by
Sorry, I cannot quite follow you. Me seems you are familiar with Indian
terminology, which I don't know. I hope you can be of help to others.
Loading...