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

[MysticPhD]

Moderator cut: delete
The existential status of anything needs to be differentiated from our experience of it . . . something that seems intellectually difficult for some people to achieve. I tried to separate the existential status of everything as vibratory composites of waves from our experience of them in another thread. I think the analogizing and use of "speed" and "acceleration" (predominantly experiential terms) probably accounts for the lack of understanding as they apply to the vibratory status of the energy composites we experience as matter.

The key to understanding here is that our reality is ALL vibratory energy (waves) with matter representing various degrees of aggregated "massing" of waves (like frequency traffic jams). "Speed" is really a propagation phenomenon of the wave frequencies and wave lengths . . . as in the Rayleigh principle for particles.

. . . an individual 'particle' is a whole train of waves of different frequencies which together form a wave packet. The velocity of these packets is a function of the waves comprising it.

These wave packets aggregate into more complex energy systems of waveforms representing atoms, molecules, etc. which are "slower" aggregated frequency traffic jams that we experience as matter.

When matter is "accelerated" to the square of the speed of light C^2 (E=mc^2) . . . i.e., its frequency of propagation increases (E=hf), it ceases to be matter AS WE EXPERIENCE IT. This is important and the two formulations of energy equations reveal the essential link to understanding how matter is transformed into energy and vice versa. All matter is energy aggregations vibrating within their allotted timespace. Hydrogen bombs release energy by compressing the timespace of highly dense plutonium raising its frequency of propagation to C^2. Imagine dribbling a bouncing ball . . . as you decrease the space available to bounce in . . . it speeds up. This is a simplistic analogy to what occurs to "accelerate" plutonium to C^2 and turn it into pure energy . . . energy at the "flow" of the universe (creative advance). It becomes pure energy, indistinguishable from any other energy, and therefore timeless.

I am unsure what is unclear in this explanation or the simple analogy I used to explain the "acceleration" that produces the status change from matter (as we experience it) to energy (as we experience it). It is a quantum change("Leap?") in status from sub-light existence to light-squared existence . . . and our experience of it is likewise completely different. I will entertain further questions about this from anyone not on my personal ignore list.

[BIMBAM]

Dude you don't know what's unclear? I understand this equation inside and out and your post was as clear as mud. E=mass x the speed of light squared, there's no acceleration involved in this equation, and certainly nothing to the speed of light squared as you can't accelerate anything to the speed of light, let alone the speed of light squared. This is just about representing how much energy is in a unit of matter. And anyhow, acceleration isn't a particularly important concept in special relativity, it's all about relative speed between two observers, who each think they're at rest and observe the speed of light as being fixed, and the various phenomenon that results from people moving at different relative speeds who observe the same speed of light. What's this have to do with religion anyways? Basic physics is one of those things that isn't controversial, it's clearly true and these phenomenon have been proven and used practically in applications from the Nuclear bomb to GPS. Einstein was no Atheist and this theory is agreed upon by everyone since it's clearly true for our practical purposes (needs a bit of tweeking when we figure out the unified field theory so we can understand black holes and stuff, but it clearly works for everyday applications just like Newtonian physics works fine if you don't intend to put satellites in orbit).

[baystater]

Originally Posted by BIMBAM

Dude you don't know what's unclear? I understand this equation inside and out and your post was as clear as mud. E=mass x the speed of light squared, there's no acceleration involved in this equation, and certainly nothing to the speed of light squared as you can't accelerate anything to the speed of light, let alone the speed of light squared. This is just about representing how much energy is in a unit of matter. And anyhow, acceleration isn't a particularly important concept in special relativity, it's all about relative speed between two observers, who each think they're at rest and observe the speed of light as being fixed, and the various phenomenon that results from people moving at different relative speeds who observe the same speed of light. What's this have to do with religion anyways? Basic physics is one of those things that isn't controversial, it's clearly true and these phenomenon have been proven and used practically in applications from the Nuclear bomb to GPS. Einstein was no Atheist and this theory is agreed upon by everyone since it's clearly true for our practical purposes (needs a bit of tweeking when we figure out the unified field theory, but it clearly works for everyday applications just like Newtonian physics works fine if you don't intend to put satellites in orbit).

Trust me dude there are people trying to use physics or lack of knowledge of physics to PROVE there's a god.
Case in point this is something that was posted here a little while ago.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/relig...verything.html

[baystater]

Originally Posted by Clintone

Mystic, I always try to dumb things down to understand them...much of mathematics can be reduced to taking away/adding/crushing/etc. marbels. A black hole would happen if someone squeezed sand until the grains of sand began to be crushed, and the particles composing the grains of sand began to be crushed, etc. The following is how my brain dumbed down your depiction:

Everything is vibrations...waves like vibrations, and when big explosions, or masses of energy are released, it means these vibrations are happening quite rapidly. However, when comparing empty space...a largely silent/vibrationless land, to two loud areas...a thick, brick wall, and a nuclear explosion, what is the difference between the vibrations forming the thick, brick wall, and the nuclear explosion? Is a nuclear explosion denser than a brick wall? I'd assume so...because it can destroy a brick wall. Each note would probably be at least either as loud as the brick wall...or as rapid...and much more so in the other variable. Does that make sense?

I know nothing about physics.

I think Brain Cox dumbed it down enough for general consumption.


Pr. Brian Cox - A Night with the Stars [BBC, Full Lecture] - YouTube

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by BIMBAM

Dude you don't know what's unclear? I understand this equation inside and out and your post was as clear as mud. E=mass x the speed of light squared, there's no acceleration involved in this equation, and certainly nothing to the speed of light squared as you can't accelerate anything to the speed of light, let alone the speed of light squared. This is just about representing how much energy is in a unit of matter. And anyhow, acceleration isn't a particularly important concept in special relativity, it's all about relative speed between two observers, who each think they're at rest and observe the speed of light as being fixed, and the various phenomenon that results from people moving at different relative speeds who observe the same speed of light. What's this have to do with religion anyways? Basic physics is one of those things that isn't controversial, it's clearly true and these phenomenon have been proven and used practically in applications from the Nuclear bomb to GPS. Einstein was no Atheist and this theory is more or less agreed upon in it's current form (but will need a bit of tweeking for special situations once we work out the unified field theory, it breaks down in places like the very centre of a black hole at distances smaller than a planck length and times shorter than a planck time)

Everything you said applies to the experiential understanding of the equation . . . not what it says about the status of energy/matter philosophically and existentially. I understand your focus as a physicist (guessing) on the experiential implications and especially the use of the terms "speed" and "acceleration" as used in relativity. But I am concerned with the existential implications for the structure of our reality and its composition . . . which is where the theism intersects with the physics. Let's try a little Socratic exercise, shall we. Why would the amount of energy in a given mass be expressed as a multiple of a constant velocity squared? It hardly seems intuitive. When expressed as E=hf we see the same structural composition but the velocity is replaced by frequency (a vibratory "speed").

The photoelectric effect revealed the enigma encapsulated in these two separate formulations resulting in the duality nonsense because what we can currently mathematically manipulate as waves fails us. This is why I believe a breakthrough on the order of the calculus will be required to ultimately resolve this enigma. Meanwhile the Maldacena conjecture holds promise for less rube goldberg work arounds in the String and Loop Quantum Gravity efforts toward a unified field.

Anyway . . . what can these two formulations of the same phenomenon tell us philosophically about the composition of our reality and its relationship to energy? It is clearly vibratory in nature seemingly eliminating any solidity enduring through timespace . . . but it can act (be experienced) as "particle" events. That was why I cited the Rayleigh principle of particle formation as a "compound frequency event" producing individual "packets" whose vibratory frequency (understood as their energy content) propagates (velocity) as a standing wave composite of their individual frequencies. This pretty much invalidates the macro experiential understanding as a basis for comprehending the structure of reality philosophically and its implications for theism. Our macro reality is bounded by the standing wave aggregate vibratory frequencies comprising the molecular composition of our senses and our extensions of them. The ultimate question becomes "vibrating within what?"

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by baystater

Trust me dude there are people trying to use physics or lack of knowledge of physics to PROVE there's a god.
Case in point this is something that was posted here a little while ago.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/relig...verything.html

Fortunately, I am not one of them. I am only interested in transferring my understanding to others, period. My personal experiences are all the proof of God I personally need.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

This is interesting because it is just Eintein's equation in words . . . E=MC^2.

It is no such thing. The equation in question does not, in any way, claim that mass has been "accelerated to the square of the speed of light" at all. Nothing about it says this. Nothing in Einsteins writing claims this. Nothing supports it whatsoever. You simply made it up.

What the equation DOES say is simply that the amount of energy tied up in matter is directly proportional by a fixed quantity. That is all. Nothing. Whatsoever. About. Accelerating. That. Matter.

What is worse is that in Ireland, where I am from, Science education starts at age 12 and by age 14 in Ireland students already know what you have claimed is bogus and false.

The truth is that current science knows that we can not accelerate matter TO the speed of light at all, let alone any multiple of it. Do your claim that matter has been accelerated to a speed faster than light is literally fantasy.

So this simply means you are outright making up false science now. No basis, no evidence, no papers, no studies. Nothing. You simply made up a massively erroneous fact and have run with it.
Moderator cut: delete

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Indeed. I have no doubt that "personal experience are all the proof I need" also work for people who think they were abducted by aliens, are Napoleon reincarnated, or have magic leprauchauns in their cellar.

Personal experience is not enough, one has to perform a reality check on those experiences to check if they were not just hallucinations of dreams. If ones "experiences" do not map onto reality in any way at all one has to question the experiences. Moderator cut: delete
Back on topic though, one must reality check ones experiences, not invent a new reality to house them in - and claiming that matter can be accelerated to the speed of light, let alone many thousands of times beyond it, really is to construct a false reality to house them in. A reality where matter is being accelerated past the speed of light certainly is not our reality or happening in our universe.

[PanTerra]

Huh?

E=mc^2 just gives you the amount of energy in Joules for a given mass in kilograms X 300,000,000^2. No acceleration involved. The speed of light is just a factor.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by PanTerra

E=mc^2 just gives you the amount of energy in Joules for a given mass in kilograms X 300,000,000^2. No acceleration involved. The speed of light is just a factor.

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.

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.