Talk:Classical element/Archive 1

message: Merge Just fold Primordial's terminology into the Greek element subsection of Classical Elements, provide a redirect, and have done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.136.124.170 (talk • contribs) .
Merge if there is anything noteworthy in this article at all.--Niels Ø 01:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Were you aware when you wrote this that primordial elements has undergone significant revisions since the discussion started? BTW, caue's signature from 12 March 2006 goes with the previous comment ("Even while the current article...") and not the one on "stupid suggestions."
--caue 21:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge: Yea or Nay 

message: hi, i'm not that familiar with wikipedia, but i saw an error in this section, currently it reads: 
"The tarot suits: cups, wands, swords and pentacles may be taken as corresponding to water, air, fire, and earth respectively. ", and "respectively" would indicate that cups=water, wands=air, swords=fire and pentacles=earth right? this is incorrect, it's supposed to be swords=air and wands=fire. see for reference: http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/learn/meanings/suits.shtml and http://www.learntarot.com/less3.htm (both mentioned as links on the wikipedia-page about Tarot, and considered very useful resources by myself as well), also i really never encountered any text about tarot that switches these elements around :) i mean you can switch Strength and Justice all you want.. but the suits are the suits ;-)
so i set out to correct this error, check back a few days later and see it reverted :(
the revert reads: "06:48, 20 February 2006 Carnildo (Revert unsourced change)", revert unsourced change, what does that mean? am i supposed to give a source to explain which tarot-suit corresponds to which element? really? apologies if i made a mistake here, i thought it was just a tiny mistake and tried to correct it, didn't think of the need for a source. but as it reads here i would not agree with it.
as i'm not that familiar with wikipedia and editing/correcting pages, i'm not sure if i should go and change the paragraph back - again, and if i would perhaps it would be a good idea to include a link to the aeclectic.net as IMO it has the clearest explanation about the suits?
wooow correction, i just read on aeclectic.net, "FIRE (though some decks have it as Air). If FIRE then:" and "AIR. AIR though some decks have it as Fire. If AIR then:" .. guess i didn't read it correct either. heh, that's new to me. if you don't mind i'll just give up now, encyclopedia-editing is probably not for me ;)
:I reverted it because a common and hard-to-detect form of vandalism of Wikipedia articles is for someone to make a minor, unexplained change, such as changing Mount Rainier's elevation from 14,410 feet to 14,310 feet.  When I see such a change and I can't immediately verify it one way or the other, I decide to err towards conservativism and undo the change.  Providing a source where the change can be verified, either in the edit summary or in a endnote or footnote after the change, will solve this. --Carnildo 07:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tarot suits of cups, swords, wands and pentacles may be taken as corresponding to water, air, fire, and earth respectively. These correspond in the modern deck of playing cards to hearts, spades, clubs, and diamonds. Cups and water, pentacles and earth are correct. Swords are fire and wands are air however. This is certainly true in horoscopes.
...is completely nonsensical, and I had no idea what the third and fourth sentences were talking about until I looked here on the discussion page, where I was going to comment asking someone who knows something about tarot to please make it make sense.  Now I can see what's wrong with it, but I don't know much about tarot, so I'm not sure which way is right.  I do know that those two sentences belong here, though, not in the article itself, since they're commenting on the article, so I'm off to remove them.  Nalgas 20:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tarot Suits and the Elements 

message: Regarding "(Latin derivatives are pyro, terra, aero, and aqua)."  Aqua and terra are indeed proper Latin for 'water' and 'earth', respectively.  But aero is not really proper Latin; the Latin for 'air' is simply aer,  although there is a rare oblique case form aero.  Further, pyro is not Latin by any means.  Pyro is apparently derived from the Greek πυρ/pyr ('fire') (see e.g. "Woodhouse's English-Greek Dictionary"), although again it is not properly Greek in form.  The Latin for fire is ignis, which can be easily verified in any Latin dictionary. 
I suspect that pyro, terra, aero, and aqua may be terminology that is in current vogue for referring to the classical elements, but I don't know this and certainly have seen no sources to cite.  What is certainly true is that the forms given are not all Latin derivatives.  I'm removing the word "Latin" and asking for citations on this parenthetical comment.Derek Balsam 17:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I always thought that the English prefixes for the elements were pryo, hydro, aero, and geo, all derived from Greek in some way.  The wikipedia pages for those prefixes (excepting aero) all claim the same thing, but this may be one of those "common understanding" things that really isn't true at all.  I won't try to verify, source, or refute it; that's better left for people with actual knowledge about the subject. 129.61.46.16 18:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical Elements in Greece 

message: I seem to recall the concept of 4 elements also being used in Jewish mysticism in the Talmud.Loodog 02:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, it was the Kaballah.Loodog 04:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judaism 

message: Certainly some Buddhists may recognise them. But they don't come anywhere near to being the "basis" of Buddhism. Our teachings don't even touch upon the 4 elements.
I would like to see a citation here or a re-wording.
" In early Buddhism, the Four Elements are a basis for understanding suffering and for liberating oneself from suffering."
Is not accurate. The Four Noble Truths are the basis for our understanding of suffering and its extinction.
Lostsocks 19:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Buddhism?

message: The concept of flora as a fifth element is something I have never heard of outside of this article. Is there any citation for this claim?24.24.81.186 01:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of weird stuff has been added lately. I'm not sure why this article and Classical elements in popular culture have been attracting this stuff of late. I have a feeling it could be a Stephen Colbert or Youtube thing. -- Kesh 23:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what it seems, anything that remotely deals with Prismaticism is being listed as having a relation to the classical elements. For instance, in many video games and some television series, there tend to be fairly gimmicky environments (ice planet, lava planet, etc.) and that if this can be seen as being elemental in any way (an arctic setting may have some areas of liquid water in it, there may be plumes of fire in a volcanic setting) then people may erroneously regard this as a deliberate referrence to the classical elements. 74.74.84.169 22:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flora 

message: Where the modern science elements: Time, Space, Matter and Energy?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.11.145.80 (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Classical elements. THe key word is classical. Showers 20:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In regards to this, should this article really open with a paragraph comparing ideas in modern sciences to the Classical elements? 24.24.90.148 02:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I woulden't say it's a bad idea. I mean, after all, it is rather annoying how there are those who argue such things as "Water is not an element because it's made from Oxygen and Hydrogen!" Dark Sorcerer666 (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern science

message: I think someone should do some type of research on the native cultures of the Americas. I'm sure that they have belief relating to the elements. TeePee-20.7 05:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw this at colombian mythology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombian_mythology
It says that the muiscas thought the creators of this world danced and created the smoke, the cosmic clouds and other element, but I forgot its name. Can someone add that information to the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.67.195 (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New World 

message: :In neo-Paganism, it is believed that all living things have a smaller piece of nature inside them. Of course the two elements not seen in other cultures represent Parts of the Human Soul. Light of course represents the purity of the human soul While  Dark represents the tainted parts. In most beliefs neither can exist without the other and Good and Evil exist in all things.
:But beyond that the idea is that one may only find peace at mind after understanding the elements outside ones "self". Along with that it is a belief that the "Divine Presence" in this world is female because of the fact that when a woman is pregnant all elements can be found within her.
Do these interpretations of this concept really relate that well to the notion of classical elements? Where the first mention at least has citations, is it really appropriate to introduce an article primarily discussing classical ideas with a mention of conceptions within modern science? 24.24.90.148 02:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this complaint; seriously, outside of one isolated paper on how some musical instruments can be considered "ethereal," where does the idea that computer science represents the Fifth Element come from? 74.236.79.85 (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. All the 'Idea' and musical intrument stuff appears to be either WP:OR or not notable enough for inclusion. Ashmoo (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Neo-Paganism 

message: when i added neo paganism 6 months ago it compared the elements to the body and the body to the earth, it however did not talk about people in this set of religions like they were a cadre of witches. Deanostrodamus the Mystical (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  neo paganism 

message: This article is kinda biased - it links to seperate articles for Indian/Chinese/Japanese etc elements, but no seperate article for the Greek elements. As far as I can tell this is the article for the greek elements. To make things clearer this article should be split into two groups, one specifically talking about the Greek element system and another that describes all of them on equal terms.--86.142.171.82 (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutrality discussion below. Razor Rozar7 (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  bias 

message: Does this:
"Idea" is the preferred modern term, and lends itself well to the idea that algorithms, software, or other similar "cyberspace" processes be categorized as belonging to the fifth element. In other words, just as the mind belongs to Idea, even though the brain is a mixture of solid ("Earth") and liquid ("Water"), software also belongs to Idea even though the hardware it runs on, i.e. silicon chips, etc., is made from solid ("Earth") matter.[2] The fifth Classical Element (Idea) may be further sub-divided into living and non-living. For example, the mind is an example of a living form of Idea whereas computer software is an example of non-living Idea.
really belong here? wr 87.139.81.19 (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like WP:OR to me.  Ashmoo (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software in classical Japan 

message: The whole Classical elements in sound and music section seems like WP:OR or at least the views of a tiny minority. Could someone detail who actually believes or proposed this view of music classification, so we can determine its notability? Ashmoo (talk) 12:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Classical elements in sound and music

message: Is there any connection between the two? I mean, the elements seem to correspond with the states of matter (Earth/Solid, Water/Liquid, Air/Gas, Fire/Plasma), but I've never seen it mentioned anywhere else. Xavius, the Satyr Lord (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to recall reading something that gave a similar correspondence: Earth = Matter, Fire = Energy, Air = Space, Water = Time. I believe it was some Wiccan/Neo-Pagan literature but I forget what exactly, possibly Starhawk. --86.135.180.131 (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not comfortable with the correspondence, especially that of associating fire with plasma. Whereas you can make some loosely valid connections with three of them, i.e. Water is a Liquid (as long as it isn't :-), Air is a gas (well the mixture of gas state compounds), Earth is a Solid (in many cases, yes), but fire (as it is defined in this context) is not an example of ionization in any sort. I really think the associations are all weak.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.214.84 (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to that, the ancients could hardly have known about plasma as a state of matter, so if there is an equation, it's probably coincidental and/or unintentional. Razor Rozar7 (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unless there was an advanced civilization or advanced information available in the past. Faro0485 (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Elements and States of Matter?

message: This article, or rather the series of articles about classical elemental systems, seems to be (presumably unintentionally) biased. What I mean by this is that having the Greek system discussed only in the main article and then having all others split off into their own articles puts it on an unequal footing with the other systems. It implies that either a) the Greek system is the "generic" or "default" version of the system and that all others are merely exotic variations or abberations, which is obviously bias, or that b) the Greek system is not interesting or notable enough to get it's own article, which is a different kind of bias. Either way there seems to be a problem. IMO this article should refer to all the systems equally, then we can have a seperate article for the Greek system specifically. --86.135.180.131 (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One could argue that this article should really focus on the Greek elements, per the dictionary definition of classical: "of or relating to the ancient Greek and Roman world and especially to its literature, art, architecture, or ideals". --Itub (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then there should be a new article at Element (philosophy) that refers to the concept as a whole, without singling out any one version. --86.135.180.131 (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a new template suggesting that the page be split, for the reasons given above. --86.135.218.10 (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a new article made for the philosophical elements, and this one is renamed "Greek elements" or somesuch, the Romans and their ideas should probably be merged into it, since the Greeks had so much influence on their culture. Razor Rozar7 (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we just cut the Greek section out, put a trimmed-down version and a link on this page, and then made the Greek section an article in and of itself? Razor Rozar7 (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute: why doesn't the Greek system get its own article? 

message: Yes, obviously! This is inherantly biased. It's like calling the Greek version classical/universal, and the Japanese/Chinese ones as "versions"! Shame on whoever did this! I'm moving the page in 10 days to "The Five Elements" if there's no response. MotherFatherChild (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Colonial bias!

message: This article does not mention the geometric associations made by Plato and Empedocles with the classical elements. A quick google search produced this site which explains said associations. Perhaps someone could augment the page to include geometric shapes?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HylianElf (talk • contribs) 17:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geometric associations of the elements? 

message: Um, I've tried to do my research on this, and I got ziltch.  Any sources? Haftorang 18:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lucian? 

message: Could somebody clarify whether there actually is a genuine link between the Chinese five phases and the Greek elements, or between many of the other examples of "elements" in this article? The word "element" means something completely different in many of these examples, and I have serious questions about any article that purports that they can be discussed together. DDSaeger (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What justifies the existence of this article? 

message: Could someone explain what the "Lemurian" elements are refering to in the side bar?  I clicked on the the link to Lemuria, which offered no explanation on its relation to this subject.--PointTheFinger (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They're nonsense someone added to the template a few months ago. Gone. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemurian? 

message: 1-Light
2-Fier
3-Wind
4-Water
5-Earth
Light is the first element of the world as the beginning of the world is light
Cannot leave without light for long time 
Reference Scientific - Religion (Jewish - Christian - Islamic)
As the first construction of the world begin with light  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihabelrifai (talk • contribs) 08:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 Elements 

message: I've been searching over the internet for any words that would have the same meaning as the word "Element", but I have yet to find one.
Is there even  a word or are all of its relations towards other cultures?
Such as the Greek or Japanese, and if so then what would be the right word for "the use of elements" such as using Earth to build or Fire to cook and so on.
Or is this again something that doesn't exist?
If they do though then I would definitely like to see an entry on this topic.
~ esp (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synonyms for the word Element 

message: i need a page thet will help me more so this i think needs more info on here thanks _KENN  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.171.70 (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  omg  

message: Summary should be rewrite the lead to:
* not say, in science, they're patterns that aren't chemicals, natural substances or chemical mixtures; (the "technical difference" is a bit too confusing in contrast to philosophical concepts; this isn't the lead for the science article)
* say the opposite of what it said about the wu xing; (that it is a chemical etc./not a pattern)
* and include phases of matter; (which I thought should go in the lead too)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Machine Elf 1735 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opps, hit enter while editing the summary 

message: These are the elements developed by some Hindi and Tibetan monks. They believe in ten true elements that have kept balance throughout the universe's existence. The elements each have a different description and role in nature. The elements are divided into groups of two. There are originals, which are the original aspects like Earth, Water, Wind, and Fire. Then there are the ancients: Light and Dark. And the End and Begin: Life and Death. And the two universal aspects: Time and Space.
===The Peaceful Original Aspects===
Earth: The strong, non aggressive balance that acts as a scale; said to be a barrier for the other elements to not wage war with one another.
Water: Peace loving friend to all mankind; said that it hates danger and violence and takes residence in the seas and other water sources.
===The Dangerous Original Aspects===
Wind: Powerful hot tempered assassin of nature; is said to antagonize water and will get very angry with humans and will hurt them. Although it is not completely bad, and is often seen as a benefactor.
Fire: Considered the only original aspect that is completely bad; is all about survival of the fittest. Only the strongest deserve it, and those that don't Fire considers unworthy and will attempt to kill them.
===The Ancient Aspects===
Light: Considered the only truly good aspect. It is considered an oasis in the desert, as it brings an end to fear and sarow. It loves the sight of happiness and revels in joy. It may not always seem enticing, but will usually lead to good fortune. This and dark, no matter how opposite the two seem, go together, as there is always a bit of dark in light, just like there is always some light in dark.
Dark: Considered the only truly evil aspect. Darkness represents all that is bad and is basically the opposite of Light. It starts the sorrow and enjoys other peoples sadness. It may seem enticing, but will usually lead to misfortune. This and light, no matter how opposite the two may seem, go together as there is always a bit of light in dark, as there is always some dark in light.
===The End and Beginning===
Death: Not really considered good or evil, but is considered the sad part of life. It is still needed and even though it knows this, and it is natural, people still fear it. However, even though they are different, life and death need each other. Without Life there is no death, but without death there can be no knew life.
Life: Not really considered good or evil, but is considered the happy part of life. It is loved and needed, however, even though they are different, life and death need each other. Without Life there is no death, but without death there can be no knew life. 
===The Universal Aspects===
Space: Considered as a more free spirited aspect as opposed to Time, and is very concerned what happens to the space it controls and the people in it.
Time: Considered more uncaring, as in it doesn't care at all about the people that nor the things that befall the world, as it has seen things come and go and knows that what happens, no matter how good or bad will just be lost to the waves of time.
Each of the aspects are contradictory, yet need each other to function. The aspects are not only known by the monks previously mentioned, many religions tough lightly on the subject. The most brought up are usually Life and Death. Two very different aspects that still need each other to exist, as well is the same with Light and Dark.
Left message for User talk:63.226.180.189, and temporary moved edits to talk page.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aspect Elements 

message: Space: Considered as a more free spirited aspect as opposed to Time, and is very concerned what happens to the space it controls and the people in it.
Time: Considered more uncaring, as in it doesn't care at all about the people that nor the things that befall the world, as it has seen things come and go and knows that what happens, no matter how good or bad will just be lost to the waves of time.
Each of the aspects are contradictory, yet need each other to function. The aspects are not only known by the monks previously mentioned, many religions tough lightly on the subject. The most brought up are usually Life and Death. Two very different aspects that still need each other to exist, as well is the same with Light and Dark.
Left message for User talk:63.226.180.189, and temporary moved edits to talk page.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The Universal Aspects

message: * Maat = Logos?
* Nu (mythology)= "water" of Thales?
* Shu (Egyptian deity) = "air"
* Tefnut = "the moisture of the sky"
* Geb = "Earth"
* Nut (goddess) = "Sky" / Böri (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient Egypt 

message: This was added recently, can it be developed and sourced? —Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 elements in Christianity? 

message: Lightning is commonly named as a classical element, notably in many modern video games. Perhaps a mention in this article? Robo37 (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lightning]] 

message: Regarding the recent changes, I ... from Imorthodox23. (I thought most of the edits to the various other classical element articles were constructive). There are reasons the elements are given in various orders... (godai, Aristotle, etc.) And the elimination of serial commas is a hard sell (based of preference and consistency?) Quotes shouldn't be changed. If changes are made, then square brackets are used to indicate what's been changed.
Thanks—Machine Elf 1735 23:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit for preference 

message: Why not rename the subsection classical elements of India and then place Hindu and Buddhist elements and the seven chakras directly underneath it.
:Like ?—Machine Elf 1735 19:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea 

message: Not only does this reflect the annoying Hindu habit of expressing their religious and philosophical ideas as if they were objectively real -- fine when talking to other Hindus, not so fine for Wikipedia's NPOV policy -- but it's laden with undefined technical terms in Sanskrit that convey no information whatsoever to anyone other than a Hindu who already understands it.
Bad enough when this kind of nonsense crops up in Hindu-related articles. Can we please not have it inflicted on us elsewhere? 192.91.172.42 (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course they express their "religious and philosophical ideas as if they were objectively real" as would anyone. NPOV doesn't suggest they should be presented as "nonsense" anymore than it would privilege some "objectively real" ontology. While it's little more than a table of correspondences, at the very least it satisfies WP:ATTRIBUTE by repeatedly using "According to"… quite helpfully indicating what might be sourced to the Rigveda, and where the WP:OR begins. I'll move it here in case anyone can cite what "mastery of Vedic meditation and an analysis of Vedic hymns" would make clear.—Machine Elf 1735 14:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no, not anyone would. Not here, anyway. Christians, for instance, aren't allowed to get away with inserting their religious beliefs into random articles as if they were absolute truths. Nor should they. I have to believe you deliberately misread my comment (posted from another machine), one annoying, disingenuous tactic by the obtuse that was among the factors that drove me from editing Wikipedia some years ago. The "nonsense" isn't the beliefs themselves; it's their mode of representation. Yes, it says "according to". It also says that certain matters are revealed by meditation, and takes knowledge of Brahma's attributes as a given. And then there's the typesetting, giving non-neutral emphases to their conclusions as if they were important lessons to be absorbed. No, no one else gets away with this kind of thing. 74.220.76.54 (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "PANCHAMAHABHUTAS ACCORDING TO BRAHMAJNANA" 

message: What was Aristotle thinking here?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.124.77 (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't that seem like the weirdest thing. (It would kind of makes sense in a humid climate). Warm moist air was thought to spontaneously give rise to life.—Machine Elf 1735 14:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Air is primarily wet, and not Water?

message: There are five classical elements: Water, Fire, Earth, Air and Quintessence. Quintessence is Energy. You need that in life too. Also how is Air wetter than water? There shouldn't be two characteristics, only one. Water is wet, Fire is hot, Earth is dry, Air is cold, Quintessence is all. Quintessence is also electricity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.67.40 (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article includes aether but the Empedoclean/terrestrial elements are four in number, and while Aristotle's celestial element was all energia and no dunamis, it was not “energy”. If they're still discussing your list of characteristics in two and a half millenia, they should put it in the article.—Machine Elf 1735 05:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quintessence 

message: see the link.--2.187.107.80 (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  in Contemporary Architecture 

message: Surely a Bruce Willis action film isn't something to use as a reference for a philosophy/faith article. What is the reasoning behind this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp3hybrid (talk • contribs) 03:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: .—Machine Elf 1735 15:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The film The Fifth Element (1997) as a reference?? 

message: God willed to express himself into multiple forms and play a game of Maya.
My Explaination for Law of  Gravitation
So, he created a vessel called sky and filled it with ether ( a mixture of akashic elements, like  electron and magnetic particles, and blew  his shabad (sound energy) through a opening in sky vessel, resulting in formation of various sizes of bubbles(in reality these are the nucleus of atoms),which were  filled with akashic particles moving at light speed inside the bubbles. the bubbles are made of such film material ,which can not be penetrated by akashic elements, and so are  pressurized by these akashic element  , which are  moving in straight lines,from all sides, but when this movement  is obstructed by other bubbles, a pressure imbalance results , This pressure imbalance  thus creats obstruction from one side on a bubble resulting  in its attraction towards that  bubble, this attraction in large quantity  manifests itself as  gravitational force, We can mathematically prove this ( GMm/r2)because this pressure difference is a function of sum of areas of the obstruction, and the sum of areas of the attracted bubble.and thus we can logically say that mass is nothing but the area of nucleus of an atom, through which this akashic element  can’t pass.Thus proving ancient theory that akashic element is holing all other elements, by creation of gravitation force.
	Breaking and joining of bubbles(nucleus) to form new size of bubbles under force or high temperature results in release of internal energy of bubbles according to change in volume of (nucleus) bubbles , thus occurring, which may be  called fission and fusion nuclear reactions. proving E=mc2 ,mass energy conversion equation of Einstein.
My Explaination for Magnetism
There are magnetic paricles of very small size ,in ether,  In magnets, the elements align in straight lines to form tunnels( larger than size of magnetic akashic particles0, through which akashic magnetic particles can easily pass, Passing of mgt through tunnel near north pole results in creation of vaccum or low pressure of mgt near north pole resulting in forced flow of nearby mgt to fill the vaccum thus created ,manifesting in attraction for iron and magnetic materials, Thus magnets acts as pump for mgt creating a field from south pole to north pole.
My  Theory of Electromagnetism
There are magnetic and electronic particles in space. The oscillation(interchange) of energy between these two results in electromagnetic waves.
My Explaination for  action and reaction and conservation of momentum
The solids consists of nucleus bubbles and their fields, when a collision occurs the bubbles are pressurized to form elliptical shapes in place of spherical normal, when the force is removed they try to recoil  to their natural shape(as in a spring), resuling in release of stored energy like in a spring recoiling in opposite direction. This is the reason that every action will have equal and opposite reaction.
 the collision resulted in various atoms filled with different energy level.   These different atoms with varying energy levels(fire element) combined with each other and with others to create atoms and compounds with varying attractive and repulsive forces amongst each other resulting in manifestation of solid, liquid and gaseous substances. Solids (prithvi Tatva) formed  the shell or the structure or boundaries for the liquid (jal Tatwa) and gases(Vayu Tatwa) to entrap inside. Solids manifest  a temporary immortality in this mortal world.
	
The creation is a dance of attractive and repulsive forces and, motion between matters and electromagnetic waves, the interaction between higher energy state particles and lower stage particles, results in transfer of energy and destabilization of existing systems.
Solids structures are always being attacked by fluids, which are freer to move, and are energized by sun and other radiating stars and heat entrapped inside the shell of earth. And there is difference in energy received at different level in space and time, so there is difference in energy levels and fluids move from higher energy levels to lower ones. And fluids are cutting the solids; always try to keep changing the structure of solids. So Elements  are always attacking each other, and the equilibrium of forces keeps changing resulting in regular creation of new shapes of solid structures.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.99.51.101 (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining   gravitation,magnetism, action & reaction and interaction  of  elements with help of  akash Element