a fundamental particle is accompanied by and encased in an -intrinsic- spacial void which buffers it's intrusion by any other partical which prevents such a particle from being further reduced,
a fundamental irreducible partical
so, two dots screaming towards each other
can -not- crash because of these -intrinsic- spacial voids which tends to push each other 'out of the way,' as it were,but, there are levels of spacial energetics much like the energy levels of the 'hydrogenlike' electron energy states.
and when and if these spacial void levels are energetically favorable, you get mixing of spacial regions which allow a 'coagulation' of sorts and the formation of the larger, so called 'atoms'
but these were already set at time of manufacturing.
there's a bunch of other stuff
like the concious awareness of the supra-universal intender
-who- is able to -direct- the apparent motivity of such
seemingly massless particals -by- a -real- form of psychokinetic interactivities.
and that's what the governors protect until such time as we can be fully trusted to move mountains by force of will.
only the human being is already blessed with trust.
but our eyesight can still get in the way
and block us from our useful comprehensibility.
these little fish sleep in a pool until they are interactivated by conscious awareness which acts upon them and brings them into being inasmuch as they were unrecognizable as being until they were motivated to swim.
which is the other wierd thing;
ask, "who knew 'they' were "there""
who could possibly know things that have no being as they sleep were anywhere when no spacial orientation had yet been given real formulation?
the One who -can- see things that "be not as though they be"
and no thing else.
no other being could have known.
'they' weren't even there until acted upon by the Knowing Being of all Creativity.
they do not exist in a real sense,
but when activated by conscious intent,
and the Rest is future history
too many strange things...
God knows what Rest is
what would you call a massless object
that is not in motion?
right, -you- would call that 'nothing'
but it really may be some thing,
only most any observer would have
no means to detect it
it has no mass
it has no motion
it may as well not be there at all
and yet, it is
it gains these things;
mass and motion
when the time is right
well, that was not entirely correct
inasmuch as we have no time to speak of
as long as 'it' has no mass and no motion.
"what do yo mean massless?"
it matters little if 'it' has any substance
what matters is that 'mass' is a comparitive attribute.
and as long as 'it' is =completely= 'at rest'
there is no possible comparison.
and so, the curtain is down.
but when the still small voices whisper in Unison;