Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00038)

Dear Dallas,

Thank you for your comments. I sent the post on Inertia in the hope of clarifying the relationship between decomposition, energy, matter and mass that I am currently grappling with. Your thoughts have helped somewhat.
Dallas wrote:
"As a matter of observation the decomposition of matter, seems
always to provide "food< for further growth. Consider the facts
of digestion in the human body, as an instance"

If we are to believe that mass/matter are just another form of energy then decomposition would imply the recycling of energy from one form into another. Look at a plant that converts energy from the sun and through photosynthesis this is converted into biomass. Eventually this biomass will be lost from the plant through senesence, old age etc and now the soil organisms begin to convert this into energy into forms which they then can use for their own growth (or, in other words, to add biomass to themselves). In the process they mobilize other matter which the plant can then absorb through the roots and utilize for its own purposes, ie further growth. And so on this process continues for infinity. Now in a hypothetical system where the above process occurs, energy from the sun is continuously converted into biomass by a plant. On earth some of this energy would be lost as heat/respiration etc but apart from the energy needed to convert the energy from the sun into biomass nothing from the system is lost. That is so long as there is energy coming from the sun a plant, and everything relaint upon it, would just continue to grow and grow and grow. There is an unlimited amount of nutrients, water etc available to the system so, in essence, there is no limiting factor to growth. At this stage I would like to add that the plant cannot die, as a whole, but individual components of it can. That is, leaves, branches, roots etc die but the plant as a whole does not. Given this, the plant cannot reproduce either. The soil organisms can and do die and they can and do reproduce. So, hopefully, I have set up a hypothetical inertial system where this system is in continual motion where the external force is the sun and there is no friction (ie, there are no limits to growth). Now let us say that another element miraculously appears in the system and this is a human. This is not the modern destructive human but rather a mere passive observer that sits and watches this hypothetical inertial system in action. Although this human is passive it is subject to the law of aging as we know it. So, over time, this human slowly but surely disintegrates/melts/decomposes/dissolves into the nothingness whence it came. This human is in a continual motion of decomposition where the external force acting on it is this mysterious law of aging and there is no friction to prevent from completely wasting away.

So, returning to my original question (at last you're probably thinking!), would this be regarded as a form of inertia?

Your insights are much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Michael Forster

dalval14@earthlink.net wrote: Dear Mic:

Seems to me, for inertia to proceed, there has to always be an
initial impulse, a cause. A process may continue indefinitely
under the laws of inertia, providing there is absence of
friction -- but your illustrations appear to invoke the presence
of many more factors than are superficially apparent, or am I
wrong ?

As a matter of observation the decomposition of matter, seems
always to provide "food< for further growth. Consider the facts
of digestion in the human body, as an instance. How else do
foods and water provide new structural bases for bodily
maintenance and repair except through the innate intelligence of
billions of disparate cells, and who or what guides or instituted
that. Our of the apparent contamination of chyle new sustenance
is continually extracted.

All forces have cause and all trace back to an impulse starting
on some plane other than the physical. This is what the astral,
the pranic and the kamic divisions illustrate and imply. At
least that is how I understand it.



Best wishes,

Dallas

-----Original Message-----
From: Mic Forster [mailto:micforster@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:58 PM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World Inertia


Would the following be regarded as a form of inertia?

Litter on a forest floor decomposing at a certain rate relative
to the aging of a human body.

That is to say they are both in uniform motion though are moving
at different rates. Though an external force can be applied to
the human body to let it age and eventually decompose at the same
rate as litter on a forest floor. Hence decomposition is just
another word for aging and vice-versa.



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 




---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]