Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
'How can you be mad at something that (to you) doesn't exist?'
Who said we're mad? It's true that you can't be mad at something that doesn't exist. And we are not. Where do you get that idea? Or where did the kid in the movie get that idea?
Possibly you are confusing the fact that some of us are angry at things that DO exist (like religion or theism, given that a lot of us are former believers) with being angry at god. The truth is to the extent any of us are angry, we are angry at the church for promoting false ideas about god -- some of which were harmful to us or ours.
Personally I'm totally over that, too, though.
Another thing some of us are firebrands about is the undue influence of religion on secular life, politics, education, and science. But of course it's easier to invent a pretend god-anger rather than deal with the actual concerns we raise.
But even there, it's not something I personally lose sleep over. I argue against religion having undeserved deference and respect such that it feels entitled not to compete fairly in the marketplace of ideas. I argue against anti-rational, anti-higher education, anti-science ideas -- be they religious or otherwise. I am frank in those criticisms and doubtless some would equate that with anger, but the truth is, anger just doesn't figure into any of that for me. For a given person your mileage may vary, but anger is just not the primary feature of atheism generally in my experience.
The stuff you lift from the SEP article on energy-mass equivalence is not the problem. The problem is your claim that energy is mass accelerated to the speed of light squared.
OF COURSE IT IS NOT!!! . . . you are trying my patience by taking my analogies literally and out of their context as an explanation of the change of state implied in the equations . . . (low energy to high energy). You clearly are too lazy or unwilling to TRY to alter your perspective from its rigid focus on how to do physics and what the equations represent as measures to be manipulated and used. I am totally focused on the ontology and what they existentially reveal about the reality they represent.
Quote:
It implies you do not understand the SEP article you are using as a reference.
I was not using the SEP article as a reference. Boxcar introduced the SEP article to point out that my understanding is a mainstream and accepted view . . . which you could not refute. You focused instead of my analogies . . . as you do here . . . misrepresenting them deliberately to continue your libel about my knowledge and understanding. It is very tiresome.
Quote:
I.e. You complain that I am not acknowledging the philosophical implications of physics. Yet the problem isn't the philosophical implications.
Yes . . . the problem IS your refusal/inability to alter your perspective from your physics as physics and contemplate the implications of the formulations you use as clues to the ontology of our reality. We learned in the extensive quantum discussions that you do not engage in such thought. But your limited non-speculative view is not a majority one.
Quote:
The problem is you do not understand the physics from which you are trying to draw philosophical implications. Energy is not, in any way, literally or analogously, mass accelerated to the speed of light squared.
OF COURSE IT IS NOT!!! . . . Do you intend to continue your one-note song that has NOTHING to do with my knowledge of physics? It has everything to do with your COMPLETE IGNORANCE of what I was trying to accomplish with the analogy of "speed" with frequency . . . or any of my other analogies.
Quote:
Energy is not the basic property of spacetime. Spacetime has a variety of properties. I suspect you are trying to identify some basic attribute that determines spacetime. In which case energy is still not the basic property.
We discussed this in detail, Morbert . . . and you know that FIELD is the basic attribute that establishes our reality and energy is the "same property" manifestation of the equivalence. We dealt with this extensively.
Quote:
The property you are looking for is energy-momentum. Just as space and time are unified into a single framework (spacetime), energy and momentum are unified in energy-momentum. This also motivates a simple interpretation of rest mass as a measure of the difference between a system's energy and momentum.
You are saying exactly what I have been saying . . . just using different jargon. For the umpteenth time . . . I have consistently maintained the position that energy (your energy-momentum) is all that exists within the unified field (your preferred "matter field") that establishes our reality. The way we measure reveals the ontology of the fundamental field we are measuring. You and others here have focused entirely on denigrating me and my credibility with unsubstantiated assertions while misrepresenting what I have said and "correcting" my non-existent mistakes. Focusing on my analogies and pretending I think they are literal explanations is obviously fun for you . . . but in all our interactions . . . you have never found my knowledge or understanding deficient in any area. You just don't like my analogies and apparently intend to use them to continue to attack ME and my understanding . . . instead of simply providing your own ontological interpretations . . . wait a minute . . . you don't DO that! What is . . . just is. The math is just math. Right! No wonder we have communication problems.
To the lurkers . . . There are real differences of opinion about the implications of the extant science. My views seem to be particularly unpalatable to my critics here. But do any of you notice how many of my critics' posts are devoted to attacking ME or my credibility? If there were significant and clear deficiencies in my understanding of the science . . . they would not have to do that. Unfortunately, there are very real philosophical differences about ontology even using the same understanding of physics. It seems Morbert doesn't believe in any of it. This was made very clear in our quantum discussions.
I "refused to accept the analogy" because Mystic was not simply making an analogy. He was attempting to support his hypothesis by underlying it with science, without understanding science.
Physical theories are instructions on what we observe. They tell us about the frequency of observables and their relations. Quantum mechanics, for example, tells us observables do not always commute, and provides us with a new set of tools for understanding how non-commuting observables behave.
Physical theories are not metaphysical procedures or ontological foundations for establishing mysticism or personal experiences as real.
Sometimes, people will try to use physical theories to support mysticism. They do this for two reasons:
1) Some physical theories appear mysterious after a first pass, and people want to support mysticism with mysterious and exotic things.
2) Physical theories are reputable. By dropping physical terms into their mysticism, people hope that their mysticism will become reputable.
Not only is this a misapplication of physics, but the person doing so often has no understanding of the physics they are referencing. MysticPhD is a classic case.
Thanks Morbert, the explaining is always appreciated. Understood and I believe my post was worded improper or unfair so apologies .
Snipped rambling personal attacks - there's no point in indulging those yet again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
To the lurkers . . . There are real differences of opinion about the implications of the extant science.
Sure. But those points are best investigated by people who can do the science correctly, not by laymen in the field such as yourself.
Quote:
My views seem to be particularly unpalatable to my critics here.
It isn't the views so much as the method. That is, making up stuff and claiming it is science and then making up "philosophical" "implications" about the "analogies" to that made up science is no way to learn much about anything - except maybe to watch rationalization of religious faith in action.
If you just came clean and told people you believe this stuff because you had a vision one day and left it at that, I doubt anyone would care. But when you invade threads to preach and then write paragraphs of personal attacks when people don't share your faith, don't be surprised that people pull your ideas apart and cause that cognitive dissonance that's causing your obviously defensive postings.
Quote:
But do any of you notice how many of my critics' posts are devoted to attacking ME or my credibility?
When you make simple mistakes that others have to help you fix, people are going to be skeptical when you then turn around and use your claimed expertise in the field compared to those others as the basis of your arguments. The facts simply don't fit your version of reality of you as some divine prophet of science and philosophy. Nothing sinister about pointing that out.
e=mC^2 speaks to mass's relationship energy. and your notion touches on its meaning but you have to get the basics right. I say start with time. But you can start any where you want.
E=hf open the door to quantized stuff. Little discrete "patches" if you will.
an Excited field being particles is where you want look. The "oscillations", think of a plastic film 10ft over the ocean. every wave taller than 10 ft hits the plastic and represents a particle. Or the surface of boiling water. And that's where we "live". That analogy seems to fit virtual particles. but there are other valid takes. Look at space and link it to the notion of "rest mass". Can you name one spot we can test that is at "rest"?
Who said we're mad? It's true that you can't be mad at something that doesn't exist. And we are not. Where do you get that idea? Or where did the kid in the movie get that idea?
Possibly you are confusing the fact that some of us are angry at things that DO exist (like religion or theism, given that a lot of us are former believers) with being angry at god. The truth is to the extent any of us are angry, we are angry at the church for promoting false ideas about god -- some of which were harmful to us or ours.
Personally I'm totally over that, too, though.
Another thing some of us are firebrands about is the undue influence of religion on secular life, politics, education, and science. But of course it's easier to invent a pretend god-anger rather than deal with the actual concerns we raise.
But even there, it's not something I personally lose sleep over. I argue against religion having undeserved deference and respect such that it feels entitled not to compete fairly in the marketplace of ideas. I argue against anti-rational, anti-higher education, anti-science ideas -- be they religious or otherwise. I am frank in those criticisms and doubtless some would equate that with anger, but the truth is, anger just doesn't figure into any of that for me. For a given person your mileage may vary, but anger is just not the primary feature of atheism generally in my experience.
agreed. not all atheists are mad. But I think most times they are the posters. I am not mad at religion. Its people that get me angry. Stupid is stupid.
agreed. not all atheists are mad. But I think most times they are the posters. I am not mad at religion. Its people that get me angry. Stupid is stupid.
I certainly agree that we dominate (even in Christianity - if we are invited there there to debate....sorry... call that 'Explain' ... ) but of course, the theists dominate there as the do in Islam and Judaism section.
But in the Open religion forum we dominate. Because our arguments and indeed understanding are by far the best.
It wasn't like that when I arrived here. Atheists had their own section and they had a tightly knit and erudite bunch of first class thinkers. But there were not as many as there are now and were fairly quiet. A/A ticked over VERY slowly.
It's different now, but we dominate because we have earned that domination. We have the best case, the best debaters and the best case since, if evidence and reason count for anything, Atheism is right and religion is wrong.
OF COURSE IT IS NOT!!! . . . you are trying my patience by taking my analogies literally and out of their context as an explanation of the change of state implied in the equations . . . (low energy to high energy). You clearly are too lazy or unwilling to TRY to alter your perspective from its rigid focus on how to do physics and what the equations represent as measures to be manipulated and used. I am totally focused on the ontology and what they existentially reveal about the reality they represent.I was not using the SEP article as a reference. Boxcar introduced the SEP article to point out that my understanding is a mainstream and accepted view . . . which you could not refute. You focused instead of my analogies . . . as you do here . . . misrepresenting them deliberately to continue your libel about my knowledge and understanding. It is very tiresome.Yes . . . the problem IS your refusal/inability to alter your perspective from your physics as physics and contemplate the implications of the formulations you use as clues to the ontology of our reality. We learned in the extensive quantum discussions that you do not engage in such thought. But your limited non-speculative view is not a majority one. OF COURSE IT IS NOT!!! . . . Do you intend to continue your one-note song that has NOTHING to do with my knowledge of physics? It has everything to do with your COMPLETE IGNORANCE of what I was trying to accomplish with the analogy of "speed" with frequency . . . or any of my other analogies.We discussed this in detail, Morbert . . . and you know that FIELD is the basic attribute that establishes our reality and energy is the "same property" manifestation of the equivalence. We dealt with this extensively. You are saying exactly what I have been saying . . . just using different jargon. For the umpteenth time . . . I have consistently maintained the position that energy (your energy-momentum) is all that exists within the unified field (your preferred "matter field") that establishes our reality. The way we measure reveals the ontology of the fundamental field we are measuring. You and others here have focused entirely on denigrating me and my credibility with unsubstantiated assertions while misrepresenting what I have said and "correcting" my non-existent mistakes. Focusing on my analogies and pretending I think they are literal explanations is obviously fun for you . . . but in all our interactions . . . you have never found my knowledge or understanding deficient in any area. You just don't like my analogies and apparently intend to use them to continue to attack ME and my understanding . . . instead of simply providing your own ontological interpretations . . . wait a minute . . . you don't DO that! What is . . . just is. The math is just math. Right! No wonder we have communication problems.
To the lurkers . . . There are real differences of opinion about the implications of the extant science. My views seem to be particularly unpalatable to my critics here. But do any of you notice how many of my critics' posts are devoted to attacking ME or my credibility? If there were significant and clear deficiencies in my understanding of the science . . . they would not have to do that. Unfortunately, there are very real philosophical differences about ontology even using the same understanding of physics. It seems Morbert doesn't believe in any of it. This was made very clear in our quantum discussions.
Mystic, speaking as a friend, I really wish you would take some time to reflect about all this, otherwise this conversation you are having with your 'critics' is simply never going to end. It will go on and on like the side of a mobius strip.
Many of us have tried to explain it to you - some patiently and some not so kindly I grant you.
The conversation I believe may have started here: Energy is Mass "accelerated" (frequency of vibration) to C^2
In which you did indeed make a mistake by taking a physics equation - not any old physics equation, but the most well known physics equation in the world, and use it to try to illustrate one of your analogies.
You did indeed say that Energy is Mass "accelerated" (frequency of vibration) to C^2. It's right there in the title of your thread. The very first response back then pointed to the error here. If you had then attempted to make some sort of correction, perhaps this might have ended much sooner. But even now, you doggedly refuse to admit you made a mistake and that 'what you said shouldn't be taken literally, it's just an analogy for something else'.
Then you get upset when people tell you if you could just get the physics right first, then we can talk.
If the physics is not right, it's a non-starter. I don't understand why you don't get this.
The ONLY people who are even slightly, going to go with you on this are people who don't understand physics! and therefore it follows, don't really understand the analogy either. Do you see? In which case lets just dispense with the physics and discuss the philosophy.
This is never, ever going to work Mystic. It's beyond me why you don't see it.
You are a highly intelligent person obviously, but this analogy as well as others you have tried - do . not . work!
I certainly agree that we dominate (even in Christianity - if we are invited there there to debate....sorry... call that 'Explain' ... ) but of course, the theists dominate there as the do in Islam and Judaism section.
But in the Open religion forum we dominate. Because our arguments and indeed understanding are by far the best.
It wasn't like that when I arrived here. Atheists had their own section and they had a tightly knit and erudite bunch of first class thinkers. But there were not as many as there are now and were fairly quiet. A/A ticked over VERY slowly.
It's different now, but we dominate because we have earned that domination. We have the best case, the best debaters and the best case since, if evidence and reason count for anything, Atheism is right and religion is wrong.
no malice in that post arg.
I heard it all before. "we have the real truth they don't". "We are better at ... bla bla bla." " we are "freed/saved" because we believe "this" "that", and "the other". I look far left and I look far right and when I close my eyes they sound like the same pack of branch shaking chimps pooping all over their stuff.
And when the war starts the first casualty is the truth. The second casualty are the innocent warriors that have to kill other good warriors because they are left no choice. And the winning soldier gets to gloat over the meaningless blood shed of a make believe enemy (the truth), patton style. The "winning" warrior walks away ashamed at some of the real things he had to do.
this is right and your take is wrong. It has nothing to do with god because there is none. Its has to do with wanting to "dominate" "real" people that don't think like us and maybe can't..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
call that 'Explain' 
... ) but of course, the theists dominate there as the do in Islam and Judaism section.
