Reference: The Book of Universe
Reference: The Book of Physics
The impingement of the universe on our senses leads to the postulate of “substance.” The layman sees substance as a synonym for matter; but energy and thought also impinge on our senses and qualify as substance.
.
Definition of SUBSTANCE
Physics looks at substance as a synonym for matter. So, substance is treated as a common English word, and it is not considered to be a part of the vocabulary of Physics. However, we define substance as “Any form of force, which is substantial enough to be sensed.” This is a scientific definition that tells us that substance is more than just matter.
Matter happens to be the most familiar substance. We know matter only by its forces. But, we also know light and thought by their forces. It is very likely that light and thought are different forms of substance.
Faraday, in his talk Thoughts on Ray Vibrations, hypothesized that his “lines of force” could be the seat of vibrations of radiant phenomena. Maxwell confirmed light to have the nature of electromagnetic radiation. Einstein then established the mathematical equivalency of light as electromagnetic energy, and matter. This established scientifically that light was also a substance.
It is now hypothesized that thought is also a substance, because it impinges and can be sensed just like energy and matter. We know that there are interchanges between thought, energy, and matter within the human body. It may be possible one day to scientifically establish the equivalence between thought, energy and matter.
The root meaning of SUBSTANCE is “that which stands under.” This means that substance underlies every aspect of this knowable universe. We now postulate Thought, Energy and Matter to be the substance of the universe.
.
Notes
Science looks at energy and thought to be properties of matter. This we call the matter-centric view because it cannot conceive of energy and thought from a viewpoint independent of matter.
In Newton’s time the kinetic energy and the potential energy were defined in terms of matter only. Light as electromagnetic energy is a very different concept which is independent of matter. Light is considered to have no mass but it has momentum. It is only in this latter sense that energy is a substance. These two different notions of energy has generated enough confusion in the scientific community that energy has yet to gain full acceptance as substance.
Einstein also associated the concept of space with gravity because gravity is something that pervades the space. Other phenomena associated with gravity are dark matter and dark energy. Here we are looking at as yet unknown form of substance, which may very well be thought. Here the nature of space needs to be determined scientifically.
.
Key Misconception
To think of substance as merely a synonym of matter is a key misconception. There is something deeper about the meaning of substance in terms of force that is the common denominator of matter, energy and thought.
.
More Misconceptions
You may discover more misconceptions on your own, if you contemplate on each sentence of the above definition with mindfulness. Please see:
Or, you may end up improving upon this definition.
Good luck!
.
Comments
Love this. It is very good and mindful work. 🙂
I love this. It is very well thought through.
Historical Correction:
It is Henri Poincaré who has The First expressed on a Note of one of his Courses, the Relation between Mass and Energy.
Also, it is Henri Poincaré that has Conceived and Worked on the 4 Mathematical Dimensions that supported the Mathematical Abstraction of “Space-Time”.
But Poincaré didn’t see the Full Relevency of this Abstraction, only after Einstein’s Publications.
Special Relativity looks to me, has been the Result of the Works of Poincaré that Einstein Known, Lorentz, and Einstein all Together; Einstein being Helped by a Mathematician Friend of him: Marcel Grossmann, but the Full Formalism having mainly been done by Hermann Minkowski.
Yes, these are historical identities associated with certain knowledge. But the ultimate source of knowledge is unknowable.
The relevance lies in the continuity, consistency and harmony of knowledge.
Yes, that is why, Dear Vinaire, “I” use the First Plural Persona like “we” in “my” Work, to say that it is OUR Creation, to All Of Us All As One, would be as the EVERGOKNG ONESS but also because of All Our Past Indenties who have Contributed to Grown Our Actual Knowledge as Humanity; it is a “we” of Humility.
By the way, here in France, Doctoral Theses were used be written at the First Plural Persona for indeed Humility Reasons too I think; have You seen such practice in your own country? Dear Vinaire.
For MASS,
as we see it,
it comes from the “SOLDITY” created when
. a FLOW OF ENERGY LOOPS ON ITSELF,
as an INFORMATION PROGRAM LOOPING,
and which happens by
. MEANS OF HARMONICS OF THE PLANCK ACTION
(the Number of ACTION WAVELETS IN THE WAVE PAQUET THAT MAKES A PARTICLE).
IdealGoal aka Rff 😉