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

[monumentus]

Communication is important yes. It is hard enough to communicate however without muddying the watery by inventing nonsense in order to make analogy to it. There are enough real and established facts to make analogy to without doing that. That would be the main crux of the point I am making here.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

Yep. In a previous conversation he said that matter can't absorb and re-emit photons, when in fact they do it all the time (think neon lights, for example).

Well this conversation has exploded. Thank you Peter-1 for trying to get the scientific luddites to expand their philosophical grasp of the issues. If this post refers to me, KC . . . either cite the quote to substantiate this lie or otherwise reveal that it is your misunderstanding that produced such nonsense. Since your misunderstanding is legion regarding these issues . . . I suspect the latter.

This fact is covered in high school level science classes around the country, yet he didn't know about it. Or maybe he did, but didn't connect his idea with the stuff he'd learned in a science class a while back. Either way, for someone pretending he's working on the cutting edge of science it's a pretty fundamental mistake. If that were the only example, it could just be an honest mistake, but there's definitely a pattern of this over and over again.

This is the major problem, KC . . . getting you beyond high school physics into contemplation of the structure of existential reality as revealed in the symbolic representations of mathematics. If it is simply beyond your capabilities . . . I will understand.

[monumentus]

So correcting false and nonsense psedudo science makes one a "luddite" now. I think you perhaps should recheck the definition of the word because in fact correcting bad science is very much a part of the scientific progress which the scientists among us cherish and work hard at.

The issue here is not with people being against progress in science - but with people making up nonsense science to suit themselves - even if it is just to have something to make an analogy to.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by monumentus

What the OP is aware of is not clear at all in fact. If you go back to his "Synthesis" the claim that matter is accelerated to the square of the speed of light is presented as a fact. Nothing in the text suggests it was an analogy.

Perhaps it is a reading comprehension problem (or a function of my hurried attempt to communicate so much in a simplified framework. Try to grasp what Peter-1 was pointing you toward apparently without effect.

"The analogy was to establish the relativity of existential reality as a function of molecular "speed" (spherical standing wave vibratory frequency of the massing and "slowing" of energy into molecular activity)"

Did you even try to comprehend what this implies for the structure of our reality as we experience it? Your campaign to undermine any conceivable acceptance of my God conclusions is clouding your objectivity.

To refresh your memory . . . here is the section that analogizes the "speed" and acceleration as regards energy.

Actually, the only thing that exists in our universe is energy. It is merely stratified into differing states. The separation of these states is determined by the relation of their vibratory "speeds" to each other. (Remember this notion when we refer to String Theory later) Matter, or mass, is energy decelerated from the square of the speed of light.
Conversely, energy is matter accelerated to the square of the speed of light. This is Einstein's famous equation in words.

To understand the philosophical significance of energy, we must change our basic notion of speed as a characteristic of getting somewhere. Speed illustrates relativity and will be useful in simplifying the concept, as Henri Bergson observed, "percevoir signifie immobiliser."

You can visualize the relativistic nature of matter and energy by imagining the passing of a tremendously fast automobile close to you on the highway. If you are stationary, the car as it passes will be an invisible blur, in essence, pure motive energy. Now picture yourself on the same highway in another car traveling at an identical speed. The other car will now be a solid object to your eyes, not a blur of energy.

All matter is in continuous molecular motion. The speed of this molecular motion determines the state we view it in. All our visible matter is that which is traveling at relatively the same range of molecular speed that our bodies are. This is the normal range of molecular activity as it contains those energy states that we can sense as solids or composite entities. This is a limitation of our bodily senses.

Our senses are limited by the speed of the molecular activity that comprises their very existence. We are not equipped to sense as a composite any substance that exists at the square of the speed of light. When the speed of molecular activity reaches the square of the speed of light, it becomes pure energy to us because it exceeds the normal range.

Essentially, those things with molecular activity at similar speeds to ours are the living forms of substance, both animate and inanimate. Animate life forms are the ones whose molecular speed is identical to ours. Inanimate life forms are slower, but still living. The things whose molecular speeds are so slow relative to ours that they appear immobile are the lifeless (inorganic) forms.

The forms of substance with molecular speeds faster than ours appear less and less solid, from the fluid and gaseous states to the speed range designated as energy. As long as the molecular speed of our body and senses remains fixed, we can never see the fastest substance as anything but a blur of energy.

Solid Matter is Energy. This concept is vital. Therefore, I shall emphasize it and put it in the plainest possible terms. Solid matter and energy are NOT different phenomena. They are IDENTICAL, which is a primary source of confusion in our mathematical depictions. The only difference is their relative range of speed on either side of our molecular speed.

The harder a substance is to our senses, the slower is its molecular speed in relation to ours. The less solid a substance is to our senses, the faster its molecular speed is to ours. Energy is the term we use to describe substance in the speed range that we can no longer sense as a whole in this time-space. This does not mean it is any less "substance."

Do you now see from the full context what the analogy is actually used for? I realize that existential thinking and philosophical understanding is not common . . . which is why I wrote the synthesis using simplified analogies. I have no agenda here. I was asked to write the synthesis to explain my views for a mass audience. My God belief is unshakable . . . but it has nothing to do with bamboozling anyone. You say you have read and understood my synthesis . . . but your posts belie that (or you simply did not try to actually understand what was being presented).

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Perhaps it is a reading comprehension problem

Not really. There is no way to read nonsense about matter accelerating to the square of the speed of light that makes it suddenly make sense. It remains nonsense the whole time. appears to occur. The main issue here simply appears to be that anyone with any knowledge of the subject - such as myself - are linging up in the thread to tell you that what you are writing is pseudo science and nonsense. I am sure it works on people who are scientifically illiterate and easily bamboozled. But those of us who know the subject and the terms realise this is just nonsense.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Did you even try to comprehend what this implies for the structure of our reality as we experience it?

Yes and I concluded "nothing". However feel free to expand upon it further - explain it - support it with citation to actual science and so on. The speed of molecules is not all that great and I am not sure what it has to do with our perception of reality or matter accelerating to the speed of light. However whatever you are getting at - analogies to matter going at speeds it can not go at does not illuminate the issue. Analogies can be helpful when trying to explain your position. Analogies to nonsense made up pseudo science - not so much.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Your campaign to undermine any conceivable acceptance of my God conclusions is clouding your objectivity.

Campaign? I just got here - you said as much yourself with your irrelevantly pointing out my "newbie status". Sounding a tad paranoid here like everyone is out to get you. All I am pointing out is that the conclusions do not follow from the pseudo science used to support it. Nothing wrong with pointing that out. Re-Quoting the entire thing again does not improve it either.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by monumentus

Not really. There is no way to read nonsense about matter accelerating to the square of the speed of light that makes it suddenly make sense. It remains nonsense the whole time. appears to occur. The main issue here simply appears to be that anyone with any knowledge of the subject - such as myself - are linging up in the thread to tell you that what you are writing is pseudo science and nonsense. I am sure it works on people who are scientifically illiterate and easily bamboozled. But those of us who know the subject and the terms realise this is just nonsense.

Yes and I concluded "nothing". However feel free to expand upon it further - explain it - support it with citation to actual science and so on. The speed of molecules is not all that great and I am not sure what it has to do with our perception of reality or matter accelerating to the speed of light.

::Sigh:: As long as you continue to deliberately misunderstand what the analogy really is about and refuse to consider the implications of the phrase so insightfully pointed out by Peter-1 . . . of course it will seem like nonsense to you. Existentially, there is no such thing as matter . . . just "energy events" of varying vibratory states. Molecular activity is the "slowest" form of "energy event" due to aggregation of energy constituents (massing and slowing of vibratory rates). Photons and sub-atomic "particle events" are the "fastest." Clearly you are not used to thinking very deeply about these issues.

Energy is ALL that exists in a universal field that establishes the parameters for the aggregation of "energy events" into mass of varying "spherical standing waveforms" we interact with as matter. Einstein's equation reveals this mass-energy equivalence that leads to the philosophical implications for the composition of reality I have tried to explain.

To understand this philosophical significance of E = mc^2 as regards the nature of reality . . . we need to understand the meaning of the symbols. Unfortunately, these symbols are not used univocally by physicists and philosophers. Nevertheless a relatively unequivocal understanding is that E represents the total energy of a physical system. The symbol (m) represents the relativistic mass of the system as "measured" by an observer moving with a constant velocity (v) relative to the system. (Note the use of quotes to emphasize the importance of measurement in all these speculations. See my synthesis for a discussion of the implications of such measurements.)

When the observer and the system are in a relative state of rest . . . the mass is called the inertial rest mass . . . or the tendency of the system to resist changes in velocity. The value of the energy in the rest state is the rest energy . . . and is a measure of all of the energy (including the potential energy) of the constituents of the system. This is the form of Einstein's equation we are exploring the implications of for the nature of reality . . . because at rest the Lorentz factor is 1 and disappears.

The three main philosophical questions concerning the interpretation of E = mc^2 are:

1. What is mass-energy equivalence and are mass and energy the same property of physical systems?;
2. Are we dealing with conversion or transformation of mass into energy in some physical interactions?;
3. Are there any ontological consequences of Einstein's equation? If so what?

The relationship between mass-energy equivalence and hypotheses concerning the nature of reality rest on assumptions concerning the nature of matter. The actual relation derived from special relativity is:

E = (m − q)c^2 + K,

K just fixes the zero-point of energy and is conventionally set to zero. However, unlike the convention to set K to zero, setting q = 0 involves a hypothesis concerning the nature of matter . . . because it rules out the possibility that there exists matter that has some mass which can not be “converted” into energy. This relates directly to the issue of conversion/transformation and physicists have no evidence whatsoever that there exists ANY matter for which q is NOT equal to zero. The view that mass and energy are the same property of physical systems requires that q = 0. Mass and energy cannot be the same property if there exists matter that has any mass that cannot be “converted” into energy. Bottom line: Rainville, et al. have empirically demonstrated the mass-energy equivalence directly as recently as 2005 with an accuracy for Einstein's equation of 0.00004%.

What can we take away from this equivalence philosophically about the structure of reality and the nature of matter? Actually Einstein's classical distinction between matter and fields has given way to an ontology entirely comprised of fields. This makes the preferred view of 'particle" physicists that the "same property" is physical mass questionable (Lange, et al. . . . such physical bias is to be expected from physicists I suppose). But Einstein's ontological field view (universal field) requires that energy be the "same property" rest state (basic "substance") . . . NOT mass.

The most recent efforts relying on this "same property" view have shown that the very structure of timespace must be altered to account for any transformations. (See my other analogies in the Synthesis for more simplified explanations of what is going on) Minkowski's topological analysis of timespace is instructive. I deliberately reverse the typical "spacetime" expression to "timespace" because it is increasingly evident that time is the more crucial and "real" aspect of reality and that "energy events" are the true "structural components."

If you have any relevant corrections to my "non-analogy" views and wish to subject them to discussion and further clarification please do so. Otherwise, my assertion that energy is the basic property of timespace stands . . . Einstein's universal field is validated . . . and consciousness as energy is established (since there is nothing else for it to be!)

[TRANSPONDER]

I ought to know better than to get involved, but Mystic seems to be right in that matter seems when you get down to the basics to be just 'energy'. And what energy is made of is another question to be answered.

That said, Momentus seems to be right in that matter (given that it is made of energy) does not yet (provably) seem to be able to move above the speed of light, let alone the square of it. When there is evidence that it does as distinct from a theory that it should (since it made of 'energy') be able to, then perhaps Mystic's theory would gain a little credibility.

[NoCapo]

Thanks Mystic. I will have to come back to this later when I have a little more time to ponder. Off the top of my head, I still have concerns about the reduction to vibratory resonances at the speed of light (or beyond), and the notion of 'pure' energy, as opposed to some other kind. I also wonder how this squares with QM, particularly the current lack of harmony between QM and gravitation.

But overall, the intelligibility of your views on physics and cosmology just increased by orders of magnitude by not using analogies. This is way better! Thanks.

-NoCapo

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I ought to know better than to get involved, but Mystic seems to be right in that matter seems when you get down to the basics to be just 'energy'. And what energy is made of is another question to be answered.

That said, Momentus seems to be right in that matter (given that it is made of energy) does not yet (provably) seem to be able to move above the speed of light, let alone the square of it.

This is the repeated straw man that Momentus and my other critics seem bent on perpetuating. There is no linear movement involved. We are talking about different energy states we experience as molecular activity of matter.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by NoCapo

Thanks Mystic. I will have to come back to this later when I have a little more time to ponder. Off the top of my head, I still have concerns about the reduction to vibratory resonances at the speed of light (or beyond), and the notion of 'pure' energy, as opposed to some other kind. I also wonder how this squares with QM, particularly the current lack of harmony between QM and gravitation.

Resolution of the QM and Relativity (essentially gravitational) theories faces a number of conceptual, formal, and experimental problems. The search for a quantum theory of gravity is inevitable and forms an important part of the efforts to unify the forces . . . as in the string or loop quantum gravity theories. Quantum gravity research occupies a central role in theoretical physics . . . so philosophers of physics (and general philosophers of science) have to acquaint themselves with the problem of quantum gravity and the main approaches currently out there. Quantum gravity research not only impacts theory construction, selection and justification . . . but poses significant issues for our standard notions of the nature of space, time, matter, and causality.

I have said many times it will take a revolution in mathematics on the scale of the calculus to provide the tools necessary to resolve the measurement incompatibilities with the theoretical constraints posed by our discrete measurements of non-discrete or indivisible "energy events." The time problem poses almost insurmountable difficulties. Time and the other discrete "measures" are actually energy events "measured" using our "pre-time" (quantum time) formed consciousness that is itself an interval energy event . . . but is seemingly instantaneous. This creates all the constants we encounter . . . as derivative of the formation "time" of our consciousness that performs the measurements of the constants.

But overall, the intelligibility of your views on physics and cosmology just increased by orders of magnitude by not using analogies. This is way better! Thanks.
-NoCapo

I suspect that is not a universal view among those less conversant with the relevant science and mathematics, NoCapo.