# Infinite Potential

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is no “actionable work dynamic in all differential equations”. That is word salad, the sort of thing someone in a straitjacket might say to his doctor.
Speak for yourself. Your use of the word "salad" is of course something that a vegetarian might use when discussing culinary arts. In context of physical dynamics it is wholly inappropriate.

Merriam Webster Dictionary tells us that a salad is any of the various “usually cold dishes” including raw greens, vegetables and toppings. It is served with dressing or small pieces of food, or usually mixed with a dressing or set in gelatin. Dec 23, 2013.

You can be called on your metaphors as well, ok?

Now back to the topic.

What is Dynamics?
The mass of an object is its size or the amount of matter it has. The more mass an object has, the less effect external forces will have on its motion. Momentum is the potential movement that an object can undergo. The momentum of an object is affected by its velocity and its mass. The energy of an object is the level of its capacity to move or act on another object. This potential action is referred to as ''work.''
In other words, dynamics is the term in the world of physics that refers to the forces that can cause changes in an object's velocity or acceleration through altering its mass, other forces, momentum, or energy. Much of this is done through the transference of one of these attributes.

Does work increase potential energy?
You can use work to add kinetic energy to a system or to increase potential energy in the system. Potential energy stored in any system can be released as kinetic energy. Kinetic energy can be transformed to do work or to increase potential energy.
I believe my use of the term "work dynamics" in context of "potential" and vice versa is entirely appropriate.

Try to keep up.

Last edited:
A wonderful example of "elastic potential"

Do I see an illustration (picture) of 2 differential equations, each possessing "stored" potential to do work?

Conservation of Mechanical Energy
Scientists often think about energy in terms of the total energy of a system, a collection of objects that interact. A system can have one object or many objects. If there are no forces that oppose motion, like friction or air resistance, and no energy is added to or removed from the system, then the mechanical energy of a system remains constant.
Mechanical energy is the sum of the kinetic energy, gravitational potential energy, and elastic potential energy of a system. This concept is called the conservation of mechanical energy. Each time energy is transformed, all of the energy can be accounted for—none of the energy is lost

Mechanical Energy
Mechanical energy is the energy that is possessed by an object due to its motion or due to its position. Mechanical energy can be either kinetic energy (energy of motion) or potential energy (stored energy of position).
Objects have mechanical energy if they are in motion and/or if they are at some position relative to a zero potential energy position (for example, a brick held at a vertical position above the ground or zero height position)
more...... https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/energy/Lesson-1/Mechanical-Energy#

Last edited:
Speak for yourself. Your use of the word "salad" is of course something that a vegetarian might use when discussing culinary arts. In context of physical dynamics it is wholly inappropriate.

View attachment 5405
Merriam Webster Dictionary tells us that a salad is any of the various “usually cold dishes” including raw greens, vegetables and toppings. It is served with dressing or small pieces of food, or usually mixed with a dressing or set in gelatin. Dec 23, 2013.

You can be called on your metaphors as well, ok?

Now back to the topic.

What is Dynamics?

Does work increase potential energy?

I believe my use of the term "work dynamics" in context of "potential" and vice versa is entirely appropriate.

Try to keep up.
On the contrary, “word salad” is a recognised term in psychiatry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad

“actionable work dynamic” is gibberish.

And only thing all differential equations have in common is they relate a function (used here in its mathematical sense) with one or more of its derivatives ( in the calculus sense).

Write4U:
On the contrary, it means that it is applicable to everything.
Anything that is applicable to everything is useful for nothing. Like I said.
The potential for the Big Bang existed before the Big Bang. The potential for the universe existed before the universe existed. The potential for the formation of a galaxy must exist before that galaxy can exist.
I don't know what you mean by "before the big bang" or "before the universe existed". Time itself is supposed to have started with the big bang.

You might as well talk about all the things that are north of the north pole.
For anything to become reality, the potential for that expression must exist before that event can occur.
You speak of "potential" like it's an object, rather than a concept.

This is a silly discussion. You're just using the word "potential" in the usual non-technical way, to refer to a possibility that something might happen in the future. There's nothing particularly scientific or mysterious about that. But you speak of it as if it's a profound insight into the universe, or something.
This is where I came up with the proposition that "whereas not all potential becomes reality, all reality past, present, and future was, is, and will be preceded by potential".
What do you want? A pat on the back and a reward for your ingenuity, for managing to come up with that? Isn't it just obvious, from the common meaning of the word (which is the only one you're using)?
I believe that mathematical logic demands that before something can become expressed in reality, the potential for that expression must exist a priori in the system itself.
I don't really care what you believe mathematical logic demands. If you're going to make that kind of claim, you'd better show me the relevant mathematical logic - i.e. give the actual mathematical argument you're relying on to make the claim.
It is the "actionable value" of the causality.
Can we say; potential is the actionable work dynamic in all differential equations?
"Actionable work dynamic" is word salad. I bet you just made it up.
Is mainstream (conventional) quantum mechanics devoid of conflict?
Of course not. Scientific research, at the limits of what is known, is always full of different ideas and conjectures about which hypothesis is best and so on. Scientists argue about the implications of experimental results and of theories all the time. But they are usually careful not to make claims they can't support with arguments or evidence.
Is it a strictly unified cabal?
Science isn't a conspiracy, and scientists are not a conspiratorial cabal.

You shouldn't let yourself be sucked into the vortex of mad conspiracy theories.

Consider this: maybe Tegmark's and Bohm's more New Agey ideas haven't found widespread acceptance among scientists because (a) they have flaws; or (b) they just aren't very promising ideas; or (c) they don't suggest any useful research programmes; or (d) they seem like dead ends.

It doesn't have to be some grand conspiracy to suppress their respective geniuses.

Do I see an illustration (picture) of 2 differential equations, each possessing "stored" potential to do work?
No. There are no differential equations in the illustration. If you're seeing them, you might be hallucinating.

Why do you think it is useful to post basic definitions of terms like "mechanical energy"? Do you think that exchemist and I don't know what that term means? Even after we both spent some time explaining potential energy to you?

Do you think you could distract from your nonsense term "actionable work dynamic"? Or couldn't you find any references to that?

Why do you keep wasting everybody's time?

I'm noticing this pattern from you, where you just skip over things you don't understand, or which seem inconvenient for your claims, and instead of responding you just post irrelevancies, as if with the intention of trying to draw attention away from your nonsense. You do this a lot. Too much for it to unintentional. Why do you do this?

On the contrary, “word salad” is a recognised term in psychiatry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad
Psychiatry is a physical science?
“actionable work dynamic” is gibberish.
Until it is defined.
And only thing all differential equations have in common is they relate a function (used here in its mathematical sense) with one or more of its derivatives ( in the calculus sense).
Well, the term "differential equation" is occasionally mentioned in context of dynamical systems.

Dynamical system
In mathematics, a dynamical system is a system in which a function describes the time dependence of a point in an ambient space, such as in a parametric curve. Examples include the mathematical models that describe the swinging of a clock pendulum, the flow of water in a pipe, the random motion of particles in the air, and the number of fish each springtime in a lake.
The most general definition unifies several concepts in mathematics such as ordinary differential equations and ergodic theory by allowing different choices of the space and how time is measured.
Time can be measured by integers, by real or complex numbers or can be a more general algebraic object, losing the memory of its physical origin, and the space may be a manifold or simply a set, without the need of a smooth space-time structure defined on it.
more.....
In physics, a dynamical system is described as a "particle or ensemble of particles whose state varies over time and thus obeys differential equations involving time derivatives".[3] In order to make a prediction about the system's future behavior, an analytical solution of such equations or their integration over time through computer simulation is realized.
The study of dynamical systems is the focus of dynamical systems theory, which has applications to a wide variety of fields such as mathematics, physics,[4][5] biology,[6] chemistry, engineering,[7] economics,[8] history, and medicine.
Dynamical systems are a fundamental part of chaos theory, logistic map dynamics,
bifurcation theory, the self-assembly and self-organization processes, and the edge of chaos concept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_system

Well, the term "differential equation" is occasionally mentioned in context of dynamical systems.
Of course it is, but so what?

In post 98, you proposed that all differential equations involved potential (they don't) and that this potential was an "actionable work dynamic" (which is gibberish - at least it is unless you can give it meaning by defining it for us, which you have not done ).

Here's a link to examples of differential equations involving dynamics (plural) which make no reference to either work or potential:https://mathspanda.com/A2FM/Lessons/Differential_equations_with_acceleration_and_velocity_LESSON.pdf

I repeat, the only thing all differential equations have in common is that they relate a mathematical function to one or more of its mathematical derivatives (a term from calculus, which you don't understand), with respect to some variable.

Anything that is applicable to everything is useful for nothing. Like I said.
Like Quantum Theory? It's all useful for nothing. Interesting observation.
I don't know what you mean by "before the big bang" or "before the universe existed". Time itself is supposed to have started with the big bang.
Before time began there existed a timeless, dimensionless permittive condition that we named "nothing" (no thing).
You speak of "potential" like it's an object, rather than a concept.
Oh, James, what am I going to do with you. Potential is a mathematical permission. The absence of potential is a mathematical restriction. "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear".
Of course not. Scientific research, at the limits of what is known, is always full of different ideas and conjectures about which hypothesis is best and so on. Scientists argue about the implications of experimental results and of theories all the time. But they are usually careful not to make claims they can't support with arguments or evidence.
Science isn't a conspiracy, and scientists are not a conspiratorial cabal.
Hey, it's your word. I had not thought of that before you mentioned it.
Consider this: maybe Tegmark's and Bohm's more New Agey ideas haven't found widespread acceptance among scientists because (a) they have flaws; or (b) they just aren't very promising ideas; or (c) they don't suggest any useful research programmes; or (d) they seem like dead ends.
And on what evidence do you base those conclusions? Do you believe that the elimination of wave-particle duality would make physics more complicated than it is?
It doesn't have to be some grand conspiracy to suppress their respective geniuses.
when there is a fundamental shift involved it does. Physical science hasn't been able to do away with religion has it?

No. There are no differential equations in the illustration. If you're seeing them, you might be hallucinating.
Strange as these illustrations were used to describe "differential equations"
Why do you think it is useful to post basic definitions of terms like "mechanical energy"? Do you think that exchemist and I don't know what that term means? Even after we both spent some time explaining potential energy to you?
Are you now complaining that I use an accepted scientific term? Make up your mind, will you.
Do you think you could distract from your nonsense term "actionable work dynamic"? Or couldn't you find any references to that?
It was a condensed description of Newton's third law.
Newton’s third law of motion tells us that forces always occur in pairs, and one object cannot exert a force on another without experiencing the same strength force in return. We sometimes refer to these force pairs as action-reaction pairs, where the force exerted is the action, and the force experienced in return is the reaction (although which is which depends on your point of view).
Newton’s third law is useful for figuring out which forces are external to a system. Recall that identifying external forces is important when setting up a problem, because the external forces must be added together to find the net force.
https://openstax.org/books/physics/pages/4-4-newtons-third-law-of-motion
Why do you keep wasting everybody's time?
You may want to reconsider that stupid comment.
AFAIK, I am addressing all of your trivial objections that are actually a waste of my time, instead of discussing substantive issues.
I'm noticing this pattern from you, where you just skip over things you don't understand, or which seem inconvenient for your claims, and instead of responding you just post irrelevancies, as if with the intention of trying to draw attention away from your nonsense. You do this a lot. Too much for it to unintentional. Why do you do this?
Because I do see "relevance" and always back it up with a quote from mainstream science. If you don't see the relevance it's not my fault.

Can we say; potential is the actionable work dynamic in all differential equations?
Here's a link to examples of differential equations involving dynamics (plural) which make no reference to either work or potential.
:https://mathspanda.com/A2FM/Lessons/Differential_equations_with_acceleration_and_velocity_LESSON.pdf
Talking about cherry picking! You found a pdf that did not have the term "work" in it, wow.
I repeat, the only thing all differential equations have in common is that they relate a mathematical function to one or more of its mathematical derivatives (a term from calculus, which you don't understand), with respect to some variable.
In a mathematical context, sure, I understand that. But then, in a mathematical universe that function translates into energy and work in a physical context such as the illustration in post #102, which apparently you don't understand.[/quote]

Gravitational potential

Fundamental study of potential theory

In classical mechanics, the gravitational potential at a point in space is equal to the work per unit mass that would be needed to move an object to that point from a fixed reference point. It is analogous to the electric potential with mass playing the role of charge. The reference point, where the potential is zero, is by convention... Wikipedia
Here's more ;
Potential Energy
Potential energy is the resting form of energy present in any object. It can also be defined as the energy that is stored in an object due to its position, state, or composition.
Potential energy can be of various types like electric potential energy– potential energy in an object due to its charge; gravitational potential energy– potential energy in an object when it is held vertically at some height; elastic potential energy– potential energy in those objects that can be compressed and stretched; chemical potential energy– potential energy stored in the chemical bonds of a substance.
And 10 more
See: https://studiousguy.com/potential-energy-examples/

Last edited:
Write4U:

Clearly, you're no longer posting in good faith. You're just wasting everybody's time, like a troll.

I think it's because you think you're part of a cult, and you feel obliged to lie and dissemble whenever somebody says something that might suggest that the Great Leaders might not actually be superhero genius gurus.
Like Quantum Theory? It's all useful for nothing. Interesting observation.
Like a troll, you're trying to put words in my mouth. I did not say quantum theory is useful for nothing, obviously. I said "anything applicable to everything" is useful for nothing. Is quantum theory "applicable to everything"? No, it is not. But "infinite potential" is applicable to everything. How do we know this? Because you told us so.

It is "infinite potential" that is worthless. Useful for nothing. Get it?
Before time began there existed a timeless, dimensionless permittive condition that we named "nothing" (no thing).
I explained to you that the notion of "before time" is meaningless nonsense, and why. However, even if it wasn't meaningless nonsense, you would still not know what existed "before time". So stop pretending you know. You don't have to tell lies for Tegmark, or whoever it is you're lying for.
Oh, James, what am I going to do with you. Potential is a mathematical permission. The absence of potential is a mathematical restriction. "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear".
"Mathematical permission" is word salad. Stop making stuff up and pretending it's science. Why do you do that?
It was never in dispute. You brought it up as a non sequitur response to something unrelated.
Hey, it's your word. I had not thought of that before you mentioned it.
Why don't you address the content of what I wrote, while you're busy admiring my fluency in English?
And on what evidence do you base those conclusions?
What conclusions? Didn't you read what I wrote?
Do you believe that the elimination of wave-particle duality would make physics more complicated than it is?
Another complete non sequitur which has nothing to do with anything I wrote. Why do you think this question is relevant?

My answer to your question is: I have no idea. All I can say is that I'm not aware of any viable alternative models that do not involve wave-particle duality and which have equal or superior depth of explanatory power, compared to quantum mechanics. That's not to say that such a model is impossible, though it might be.

Why do you care what my opinion is on that particular question?
when there is a fundamental shift involved it does. Physical science hasn't been able to do away with religion has it?
Clearly not. You're like a cult follower - a believer in a religion of pseudoscience, with cult leaders that you believe are infallible. Physical science doesn't appear to be something you want to learning something about.
Strange as these illustrations were used to describe "differential equations"
No. They weren't.
Are you now complaining that I use an accepted scientific term?
No.

Are you going to answer the questions I asked you? Or are you going to keep posting irrelevancies, like a troll?
Make up your mind, will you.
Stop trolling.
It was a condensed description of Newton's third law.
Don't be ridiculous. You made up the term "actionable work dynamic". It doesn't describe anything. And even if it did somehow describe Newton's third law (which it doesn't), then you posted it in a context where it was a complete non sequitur.

Who, exactly, do you think you're fooling here, Write4U? Yourself, perhaps?
You may want to reconsider that stupid comment.
After you just doubled down on the stupid and replied like a troll? I don't think so.
AFAIK, I am addressing all of your trivial objections that are actually a waste of my time, instead of discussing substantive issues.
You dodge and avoid direct questions. You hide behind attempts to redefine words. I think about half of the content of any of your posts consists of pointless off-topic distractors.

Is this the best you're capable of?
Because I do see "relevance" and always back it up with a quote from mainstream science.
You think that if you can touch base with mainstream science every now and then, by quoting a definition or using a sciency-sounding term, that somehow gives the rest of your nonsense credibility and justification.

The problem is that whenever you post something from a reputable scientific source it is usually irrelevant to the discussion at hand and/or something you don't understand, even if there's nothing wrong with the content itself (other than it being an out-of-context irrelevancy). On the other hand, whenever you post your own thoughts, they are a muddled mish-mash of borrowed terms from science, combined with stuff you just made up on the spot, always liberally sprinkled with references to your cult leader figures. And whenever you make scientific-sounding claims in defence of your pseudoscience religion, they are nonsensical, or wrong, or something you're completely unable to justify with evidence or logical arguments.

You're clearly interested in science to some degree. Yet you're completely unwilling to accept any correction or to try to learn anything when you get something that science says wrong. Because you don't understand enough science, you've ended up latching on to some celebrity pseudoscientists. Although you don't understand their claims or arguments, exactly, they sound to you like they know what they're talking about, so you're willing to go all in and just believe whatever they say, no filter necessary. Maybe you went looking for a guru to follow and you ended up finding three or four who you're willing to worship. But in the process, you threw away your common sense, and now it seems you're willing to tell lies and make up stuff on behalf of your leaders.

Wake up, Write4U. Start being your own person again. Start thinking. Stop telling lies to protect those people who are more than capable of arguing their positions on their own behalf. They don't actually need a follower who only half-understands them; they won't thank you for making up your own hodge-podge version of their views, I assure you.

If you're really interested in science, why not ask some questions and try to learn some real science? Sure, it will require a little more effort than trawling the interwebs looking for random quotes in support of some gurus. But it will very probably be more useful to you in the long run, for all kinds of reasons.

Last edited:
Like a troll, you're trying to put words in my mouth. I did not say quantum theory is useful for nothing, obviously. I said "anything applicable to everything" is useful for nothing. Is quantum theory "applicable to everything"? No, it is not. But "infinite potential" is applicable to everything. How do we know this? Because you told us so.
Quantum is applicable to everything. This is where you lack "vision". At quantum, that's where it ALL begins. There is nothing without quantum

Like an autocrat (Trump) you have been demeaning me from the very beginning. Take some of your own medicine. It might teach you something.

Infinite Potential is not my term. It is the title of a movie about David Bohm. You are the lying troll laying that title at my doorstep from the very beginning. When I am successfully defending the concept you throw hissy fits.
Grow up and have some respect. I'm still your elder.

Last edited:
I think it's because you think you're part of a cult, and you feel obliged to lie and dissemble whenever somebody says something that might suggest that the Great Leaders might not actually be superhero genius gurus.
Oh, now you are projecting, how quaint.
I can turn that around real easily.
After all, aren't you part of the Establishment cabal of Great Leaders who might not actually be superhero genius gurus, but who hysterically defend the status quo?

And that was "offered" on the premise that "word salad" doesn't make any sense, whereas in culinary terms it makes a palatable dish of complimentary vegetables for consumption.

And just to keep this off-topic comment from polluting what is actually a very serious scientific subject, I'll address your misunderstanding of my condensed version of what expresses very clearly what I wanted to convey in this thread.

In my case the use of three complimentary words with specific meanings makes for a perfectly logical expression

actionable = sufficient reason for action
work = transfer of energy
dynamic = stimulating force

"Actionable work dynamic" ="sufficient reason for action by transfer of energy as a stimulating force"

If so I believe it is quite palatable in context of the subject being discussed in that thread which is not psychology.

To you, it would be.

Wrtie4U,
Quantum is applicable to everything.
You're just proving my point. You refuse to listen. You subscribe to nonsensical pseudoscience views, like this one.
This is where you lack "vision".
You might have the best imagination in the world, but that won't make you a scientist.
At quantum, that's where it ALL begins. There is nothing without quantum
That's just a mantra - part of the creed somebody has taught you. When will you start to think?
Like an autocrat (Trump) you have been demeaning me from the very beginning. Take some of your own medicine. It might teach you something.
There's no shame in lacking knowledge or expertise in something. The shame lies in pretending to know things you don't know. The waste lies in being unwilling to explore better ways of thinking about things.
Infinite Potential is not my term. It is the title of a movie about David Bohm.
If that's all it is, why were you doing back flips to invent your own pseudoscience definition of what that term might mean?
You are the lying troll laying that title at my doorstep from the very beginning.
If you're going to accuse me of lying, please quote the lie you are referring to. Use my words, not yours, to demonstrate the lie.
When I am successfully defending the concept you throw hissy fits.
Again, you misunderstand. I'm trying to give you a metaphorical shake, to see if some sense can get through the cracks. So far, nothing has managed to penetrate the shields.
Grow up and have some respect. I'm still your elder.
Why do you think that being older than somebody else means that you deserve their respect? Isn't respect something that needs to be earned?
Oh, now you are projecting, how quaint.
I can turn that around real easily.
After all, aren't you part of the Establishment cabal of Great Leaders who might not actually be superhero genius gurus, but who hysterically defend the status quo?
No, I'm not part of a cabal. What are you referring to, specifically? Who is "hysterically" defending a status quo? Which status quo are you complaining about, exactly? How do you think I'm connected into the conspiracy?

I think you're losing touch with reality, if not already gone.

So far, nothing has managed to penetrate the shields.
That is because no one has proven me wrong yet in any of my generalizations where things have "common denominators".

I believe this supports my posit.

Quantum physics: Our study suggests objective reality doesn't exist
Alternative facts are spreading like a virus across society. Now it seems they have even infected science—at least the quantum realm. This may seem counter intuitive. The scientific method is after all founded on the reliable notions of observation, measurement and repeatability. A fact, as established by a measurement, should be objective, such that all observers can agree with it.
But in a paper recently published in Science Advances, we show that in the micro-world of atoms and particles that is governed by the strange rules of quantum mechanics, two different observers are entitled to their own facts. In other words, according to our best theory of the building blocks of nature itself, facts can actually be subjective.
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-quantum-physics-reality-doesnt.html
Can you cite a single physical object or function that does not have quantum as a fundamental universal property?

Last edited:
Can you cite a single physical object or function that does not have quantum as a fundamental universal property?
That question doesn't even make sense.

That question doesn't even make sense.
Of course it doesn't to you, because you cannot think of a single instance.

I have supporting quotes.
The Universe, at a fundamental level, isn't just made of quantized packets of matter and energy, but the fields that permeate the Universe are inherently quantum as well. It's why practically every physicist fully expects that, at some level, gravitation must be quantized as well.Aug 11, 2021
https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...ough-to-explain-the-universe/?sh=6f928fe851e8

Loop quantum gravity: Does space-time come in tiny chunks?
By Paul Sutter, published February 23, 2022

Are there fundamental units of space-time at some unfathomably tiny scale?
Unifying quantum mechanics with general relativity is the ultimate dream — or nightmare — of physics. It would be a way to finally describe the force of gravity with the tools of quantum mechanics, unlocking how gravity works when it's really strong and at really small scales.
Einstein's theory of general relativity tells us that the warping of space and time is what we experience as the force of gravity. Quantum mechanics tells us that what we experience as the forces of nature really come in discrete, tiny chunks, known as quanta.
So, if gravity is the bending of space-time, gravity is a force and all forces are quantized, maybe space-time itself comes in discrete little blocks. Maybe there are fundamental units of space-time at some unfathomably tiny scale.
https://www.space.com/loop-quantum-gravity-space-time-quantized

Where exactly am I "not even wrong"?

Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.