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

[NoCapo]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The "speed" and "acceleration" in the OP has NOTHING to do with linear speed and acceleration of objects. The quote marks are important delimiters to the terms which were used as explanatory analogues for those unfamiliar with the Relativity theories. The ignorance about the philosophical implications underlying the routine USE of the mathematical formulations is what accounts for all the confusion. I am not talking about the USE of the formulas or their application. I am referring to what they imply about the very STRUCTURE and COMPOSITION of our reality.

Unfortunately . . . what is causing the confusion is a basic "ignorance of what the reader is ignorant about" which makes it almost impossible to make any headway . . . especially with my more intransigent and dogmatic opponents and the philosophically naive.

Well, the whole speed of light issue aside, I think there are still some major problems getting from E=MC^2 and E=hf to the idea that everything is simply energy vibrating at various frequencies. I am not the world greatest physicist, but I can't follow this train of thought without some significant misunderstandings of what the math actually says. Both of these equations are really forms of the same equation, given different limitations and are only valid in certain situations.

There may be some other foundational aspects of physics that you see as having metaphysical significance. This was just the one I remember. If there are others, I would be interested in those as well.

If you are willing, I would love to try to follow you, and nitpick the math, in the nicest possible way. Regardless of whether I ever agree with you, it might help you work the kinks out of your own ideas. I have always found that I gain the most clarity about something when I have to explain it to others.

-NoCapo

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The "speed" and "acceleration" in the OP has NOTHING to do with linear speed and acceleration of objects.

So what specifically does it refer to, then? I see lots of backpedaling about what these claims are not, but not a lot of explanation about what it is you're actually talking about. On the one hand you say your idea is scientific, and then as soon as you produce your version of science you end up backpedaling because what you thought was science is shown to be random sciencey-sounding word salad. So what's actually the substance here, or is it all just stuff you're making up off the top of your head?

[Werone]

The question is very unclear. What are we debating?

Vibrational energy is usually measured as temperature. From 0 Kelvin up to plasma temperatures.

The relationship between energy and mass is given by Einsteins equation, the rest as you dive deeper still, becomes a study in quantum physics.

In quantum physics, there are only four forces that define all interaction in the Universe, the weak force, strong force, gravity and electromagnetic forces.

If you dive into the weak force, the complex force that defines nuclear decay and the behavior of matter in our universe at its most basic particles, basically the up and down quark, you will find the nature of particles have flavors and tendencies within the same particle. A up Quark can have three states and so can a down quark.

I guess the question here is "What is your question?"

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

So what specifically does it refer to, then? I see lots of backpedaling about what these claims are not, but not a lot of explanation about what it is you're actually talking about. On the one hand you say your idea is scientific, and then as soon as you produce your version of science you end up backpedaling because what you thought was science is shown to be random sciencey-sounding word salad. So what's actually the substance here, or is it all just stuff you're making up off the top of your head?

I am not trying to irritate you, KC . . . but have you read the article about the philosophical implications of mathematics or any similar material to establish a common point of departure for understanding what I am doing? Your charge of back-pedaling indicates that you haven't. It really is essential that we understand the same things about this approach to what the mathematics reveals about the underlying composition and structure of the reality we are measuring and manipulating.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I am not trying to irritate you, KC . . . but have you read the article about the philosophical implications of mathematics or any similar material to establish a common point of departure for understanding what I am doing?

Why assume I'm irritated? I think crack-pottery is endlessly entertaining. Kind of like creationists - several different people point out the same issues in their abuse of science they barely understand and their conclusion is that everyone else is ignorant. It's a wonderful insight into the power of rationalization in preserving religious beliefs.

Anyway, which article are you talking about? You haven't posted a link to anything in this thread.

Your charge of back-pedaling indicates that you haven't. It really is essential that we understand the same things about this approach to what the mathematics reveals about the underlying composition and structure of the reality we are measuring and manipulating.

In the same vein, before we continue, you should let me know about your academic and professional credentials to show you understand the same things about what physics tells us about the real world. No point in speculation about what the physics implies or not if you don't know what the physics are in the first place.

[baystater]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

Why assume I'm irritated? I think crack-pottery is endlessly entertaining.

And which article, specifically? You haven't posted a link to anything in this thread.



In the same vein, before we continue, you should let me know about your academic and professional credentials to show you understand the same things about what physics tells us about the real world. No point in speculation about what the physics implies or not if you don't know what the physics are in the first place.

Think he talking about an article I posted.

Originally Posted by baystater

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

Some food for thought.

[KCfromNC]

OK read it and have no idea how it relates to physics pointing to a universal god-consciousness which created itself out of nothingness. In fact, with the various comments about avoiding the idea or philosophical when we have the real right in front of us, it seems to work against whatever it is that the OP is proposing in using an analogy to argue for his ideas. But then again, that just points back to the fact that there's no evidence for what he's claiming so all he can do is handwave and hope someone buys it.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

OK read it and have no idea how it relates to physics pointing to a universal god-consciousness which created itself out of nothingness.

::Sigh:: Have you not engaged in inductive reasoning before. Your insistence on attacking the conclusion deductively as nonsense indicates a defensiveness to the conclusion that prevents you from engaging in the inductive process that suggests the conclusions. The point of the article is that the mathematics models real relationships that underlie the "measured" constructs employed. We know the mathematical relationships are artificial constructs of our consciousness. We need to understand the assumptions used to create those constructs and rules of interaction to infer what the underlying relationships in reality might ACTUALLY be referencing. In short . . . reality does NOT do mathematics despite what many physicists and mathematicians have come to believe about our artificial rubric. But what it DOES DO can be inferred from the mathematical relationships that model the relationships and produce the "measurables."

[monumentus]

I think I would add a voice to those calling all this a 'back pedal'. The OP has made the same claim before and at that time did not suggest it was analogy or imagry but presented it as if it was a fact.

Even if it wasn't - calling it an analogy etc. solves nothing. Analogies are useful but need to be carefully used. The usual idea of analogy is to highlight your own point by making comparisons to something known and understood by the listener. In that way you help the listener understand your points by making reference and comparisons to thinks the listener already knows and understands.

What is happening here is the opposite. The comparison is been made to nonsense pseudo science - false interpretations of Einstein equations - and direct contradictions to current physics. This will not shed light on anything at all - only confuses the issues - and results in nothing but making the OP look science illiterate.

Matter can not be accelerated to the speed of light - forget past it. Suggesting the opposite - even behind the excuse of calling it an analogy - is and remains nonsense.

[cacto]

Why is this in the Religion and Philosophy forum?