Energy is Mass "accelerated" (frequency of vibration) to C^2

[catman]

I agree that consciousness does require energy. As for "philosophical implications", no.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I am talking about the philosophical implications of the relationships symbolized in our mathematical language . . . not the experiential physics applications of the equation. Our artificial mathematics models our reality in useful ways based on our measurements of various phenomena within it. The relationships reveal the underlying structure of our reality and its composition indirectly. The equation E=MC^2 expresses a truth about the underlying reality that reveals its structure to the discerning eye. Unfortunately, most physicists are not interested in the philosophical implications of their equations for the structure of reality . . . only for their utility for manipulation and prediction.

But there IS no such philosophical implications as you list. Nor are you correct that no one is interested in exploring what our equations and laws mean for the structure of reality. Theoretical Physicists are mightily engaged in such things all the time. Anyone who has read any book by any of them will know you are just talking complete falsehoods here. Are there philosophical implications to the work of scientists? Yes absolutely. Are they the ones you are espousing? Not in the slightest no.

Simply read through the "Brief History of Time" or a "Universe from nothing" and you will see that these books are as much about the philosophical implications as they are about the science. In fact you should even like the former book because Hawking likes to use the place holder term "god" sometimes too, like you do. Though he does not pile on the extra baseless attributes you do to the term.

However this is pushing the thread off topic now. The fact is you have claimed on these fora that mass is being accelerated to and many 1000s of times past the speed of light.

It is not.

Ever.

So you are simply wrong in this.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Everything you said applies to the experiential understanding of the equation . . . not what it says about the status of energy/matter philosophically and existentially.

So stop pretending what you're saying is backed up by science and just admit it's idle speculation fueled by mystical visions. We all know that's what it is anyway so stop pretending you're talking about science when you make these claims.

But I'd be curious to see how you accelerate matter to something that's not even a speed in the first place. Pro tip - the units on c^2 aren't correct for it to be a speed or velocity.

What you're saying is similar to abusing the formula for kinetic energy. A mass has an energy of 1/2mv^2. That doesn't mean that a mass moving a v has to be accelerated to v^2 to have that energy - most obviously because it makes no sense. It's already moving at v and has a given E. You don't need to accelerate it again to get that same E value. It's just a way to establish a conversion factor between different types of units, that's all. If you're given m and v of an object you can calculate E. Same with using E=mc^2.

That's especially obvious when you start to work in systems where c is defined to be 1, where suddenly your philosophical interpretation disappear and you're just left with the idea that changes in mass can correspond to similar changes in energy (i.e. nuclear fission and fusion). Nothing magical, doesn't tell us that vibratory energy in the universal field generates consciousness or anything similar. Just normal everyday physics at work.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

But I'd be curious to see how you accelerate matter to something that's not even a speed in the first place. Pro tip - the units on c^2 aren't correct for it to be a speed or velocity.

::Sigh:: I use the terms "speed" and "acceleration" as analogues in a futile attempt to make understanding accessible to more people. You harassers can stop taking them lierally as if you did not see the quotation marks on them. The frequency of vibration of the energy comprising what we experience as matter is what is being referred to as "speed" and changing that is what is referred to as "acceleration." We are describing its existential vibratory status. But I am not naive enough to believe that any of you are remotely interested in actually trying to understand what is being presented. You have another agenda.

What you're saying is similar to abusing the formula for kinetic energy. A mass has an energy of 1/2mv^2. That doesn't mean that a mass moving a v has to be accelerated to v^2 to have that energy - most obviously because it makes no sense. It's already moving at v and has a given E. You don't need to accelerate it again to get that same E value. It's just a way to establish a conversion factor between different types of units, that's all. If you're given m and v of an object you can calculate E. Same with using E=mc^2.

This is what reveals that you have not paid any attention whatsoever to what I have been saying. I am not concerned with USING the formulas so I cannot be accused of abusing them. That is experiential and not existential thinking. My focus is the implications of the relationships for the composition and structure of our reality.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

The only "agenda" here is the truth and there is no truth in anything you are saying. It is also an agenda I do not hide from or am embarrassed to admit to having.

You are back pedalling quickly away from your original claim that energy is matter accelerated. You are now making up more things about waves and vibrations and saying it is just them that are being accelerated.

It is still nonsense no matter how much you back pedal from the original claim. Nothing here is being "accelerated". Certainly nothing is being accelerated TO the speed of light. And MOST certainly nothing is being accelerated PAST the speed of light, let alone to a speed so fast as to be the square of the speed of light.

What you are espousing here is.... from anyone with even minor education in physics let alone the level of education some of us on this thread have on the subject.... quite simply fantasy science.

Again:

You. Are. Just. Making. This. Stuff. Up. As. You. Go. Along.

[Julian658]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Many mathematicians, physicists, and whatnot, tend to forget the artificiality of their models and ignore the need for introspection into the assumptions that underlie their use. It is very easy for a true grasp of the mathematical side of a theory to exist side by side in the same mind with serious misunderstandings or ignorance of the philosophical implications of the theory. Cosmologists are the most likely to be amenable to the philosophical implications of theories.

General relativity and special relativity are solid.

However, before that Newton's equations were also solid.

Solid up to a point. Relativity is a bit better, but not by much-----it needs refinement.

Einstein's relativity is not quite there. Quantum Mechanics is not there either because the math of these two systems fall apart at the time of the singularity or so-called time zero before the Big Bang. The philosophical point here is that the cosmologists have done no better than Saint Thomas Aquinas with regards to the existence of God.

Can you visualize a force of gravity that is so strong that does not allow the light to travel?

More food for thought.

The volume of an electron is 10^-45 meter^3
Planck volume = 10^-105 meter^3

At the time of the singularity it has been said that the energy of the entire universe was inside one Planck unit.

E=MC^2

There is a lot of mass in the universe. Maybe the universe is God.

[stargazzer]

Originally Posted by Julian658

General relativity and special relativity are solid.

However, before that Newton's equations were also solid.

Solid up to a point. Relativity is a bit better, but not by much-----it needs refinement.

Einstein's relativity is not quite there. Quantum Mechanics is not there either because the math of these two systems fall apart at the time of the singularity or so-called time zero before the Big Bang. The philosophical point here is that the cosmologists have done no better than Saint Thomas Aquinas with regards to the existence of God.

Can you visualize a force of gravity that is so strong that does not allow the light to travel?

More food for thought.

The volume of an electron is 10^-45 meter^3
Planck volume = 10^-105 meter^3

At the time of the singularity it has been said that the energy of the entire universe was inside one Planck unit.

E=MC^2

There is a lot of mass in the universe. Maybe the universe is God.

Howdy..I see a fellow Catholic:

Well I guess the increasing and continuing disorder fits in with "To know me is to Know the Father" How are you going to fit in, all that mass?

The real question still remains in a suggestion and that is......Therefore what?

A universe only needs gravity to unfold we are carefully told.

A force in consequence of merely consequence itself, like asking why is 2+2=4 as Hawking remarks.

The above simple equation, an obvious requirement of order, as consequence must concede to order, to allow its very existence.

Logically if the universe is God then God would be both the order allowing for
the universe to exist, and as well the allowable property(mass), which by order, self dis-orders.

So then, what we have in the suggestion is that God allowed himself to enter into an increasing state of disorder, while by our only comprehension available would in fact be an entity or what have you, comprised of a time absent or certainly time causing, composition of order which changed its course and decided to become the opposite of order itself. (universe-disorder)

If we were to somehow forgive the tainted contradiction, and give a thought to a possibility of a higher power to be comprised of that which was created intentionally or otherwise (universe is God), the outstanding riddle becomes what caused order to become disordered if not for another influence of a higher form of order....this suggests yet a multi God idea , or a reduction which shows the God-Universe to be in a diminished role, to that which caused the disruption of order.

Therefore with above, I find your food for thought illogical at this time.

Its my view that philosophers become so distracted with these abstract thoughts that they forget....the concept of a cause, or characterization of a God, is an abstract thought to begin with. The layers of abstract thought become so congested until the abstract thought assumes... the original abstract thought can be relied upon for navigating reason.

Besides, if God was the universe, then we know the essence of God is not only disordered in objective to its entirety( mass) through molecular deconstruction, but also disordered in its achieving process through the great and fantastic ability in dis-ordered thought, as easily seen in this thread idea through a continued abuse of the imaginative faculty.

I would like to reserve a special spot for commentary on the abstract thought and proper moderation for objective reason directly in this thread and on topic, at a later more appropriate time....there may be more elaborations in store.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

This is what reveals that you have not paid any attention whatsoever to what I have been saying.

It also shows that one of us paid attention when they took physics. Checking units is a basic test that an answer makes sense - something I learned in high school. Your idea can't even get past that hurdle.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

It also shows that one of us paid attention when they took physics. Checking units is a basic test that an answer makes sense - something I learned in high school. Your idea can't even get past that hurdle.

You still do not get it. We are not discussing the application or use of the formulas, KC. We are interpreting their philosophical significance in revealing the structure and composition of our reality. Have you ever considered the philosophical implications of what our mathematical language and measurements reveal about that?

[baystater]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

You still do not get it. We are not discussing the application or use of the formulas, KC. We are interpreting their philosophical significance in revealing the structure and composition of our reality. Have you ever considered the philosophical implications of what our mathematical language and measurements reveal about that?

http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/interview.html

Some food for thought.