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.
All your criticism has been about my conclusions from the inferences and implications I draw from the science. You could find or expose NO errors in my knowledge or understanding of the science because there is none. To pretend otherwise is dishonesty and hubris. You still keep failing to comprehend what I use the equations for . . . pretending I think mass is actually accelerated to the square of the speed of light. Your preposterous pretense to believe that I literally believe that IS part of your bigotry against mystics . . . and Yes . . . your abject failure to comprehend the use of analogy.
What we call energy is a field manifestation that we measure in various ways. What we measure is a phenomenon that actually exists and has characteristics that define its structure in our reality. The formulations we use in mathematics reveal those characteristics. E=MC^2 and E= hf reveal different features of the field manifesting as energy. That it is vibratory is revealed by E=hf. One complete cycle (back and forth) is represented using the propagation of EM radiation at the square of that propagation, i.e. E=MC^2. They are representing the SAME reality . . . a vibratory phenomenon existing at high frequency. How would you communicate the idea of aggregate vibratory phenomena existing at low standing wave frequencies being transformed into high frequency phenomena???
But Mystic, this is the problem! E=hf doesn't say anything about energy being vibratory! It says that for massless, wave phenomena, i.e. light, the energy contained in a particular photon is its frequency times planks constant. In this equation, E is a scalar, it is not wave phenomenon at all.
So this any conclusion drawn from this equation that "Energy" is somehow vibratory , is based on an incorrect understanding of the math! Even if it is an "analogy" or a philosophical understanding, it is based on a misunderstanding of physics. There is your error right there!
To go further, the portion of the equation applicable to massive particles, E=MC^2 has no reference to anything cyclic, vibratory, or sinusoidal. It simply relates energy to mass, rest energy to rest mass and total energy to total mass, by a constant. Contrary to what you are asserting this has nothing to do with frequency or vibration.
So, your last two sentences, other than being virtually unreadable, are not supported by the math. There is nothing in that equation that implies that all 'energy' is vibrating, much less at some impossibly high frequency. This is why you would do better to drop the "analogies" and simply present the science clearly and accurately and your belief seperately. Trying to mix the two in this way lessens what you have to say from a powerful, if unverifiable, personal experience to cheap Deepak Chopra-isms.
All your criticism has been about my conclusions from the inferences and implications I draw from the science. You could find or expose NO errors in my knowledge or understanding of the science because there is none.
People interested can read through a few pages of that thread to see that Mystic's recollection of not making mistakes doesn't line up with reality. Post #270 sums up the issue quite well, and it seems like nothing has changed in the past few years.
Maybe the claim that he understands the science is just an analogy and expecting it to match up with the real world is us being stuck in a rut of concrete thinking rather than being willing to explore the deeper philosophical implications of the claim?
But Mystic, this is the problem! E=hf doesn't say anything about energy being vibratory! It says that for massless, wave phenomena, i.e. light, the energy contained in a particular photon is its frequency times planks constant. In this equation, E is a scalar, it is not wave phenomenon at all.
So this any conclusion drawn from this equation that "Energy" is somehow vibratory , is based on an incorrect understanding of the math! Even if it is an "analogy" or a philosophical understanding, it is based on a misunderstanding of physics. There is your error right there!
To go further, the portion of the equation applicable to massive particles, E=MC^2 has no reference to anything cyclic, vibratory, or sinusoidal. It simply relates energy to mass, rest energy to rest mass and total energy to total mass, by a constant. Contrary to what you are asserting this has nothing to do with frequency or vibration.
So, your last two sentences, other than being virtually unreadable, are not supported by the math. There is nothing in that equation that implies that all 'energy' is vibrating, much less at some impossibly high frequency. This is why you would do better to drop the "analogies" and simply present the science clearly and accurately and your belief seperately. Trying to mix the two in this way lessens what you have to say from a powerful, if unverifiable, personal experience to cheap Deepak Chopra-isms.
-NoCapo
"energy" is joule which is a Newton meter, then to kg(m/s.s)(m) is that a scalar? Then from we jump around a bit.
I think he is loosely using hf as waves. That's where he gets "vibratory'. It's good enough for string theory and everything else so it seems ok. maybe? maybe not? They are not sure if a photon is a wave or a particle so jumping between both is not wrong. "vibratory" to me just means some type of dynamic state(s).
But you don't interpret science philosophically. There is plenty of discourse in the fields of philosophy of physics and philosophy of mathematics. These people have an impeccable understanding of physics. Papers matching '' - PhilPapers
You, on the other hand, reference physics in the exact same way this girl references physics:
No rigour. No consideration for the terms you crowbar into your mysticism. No claims that could be explained away as "analogies".
Yep. Physics tells us how nature behaves. But physical theories are not metaphysical procedures or ontological foundations for establishing mysticism or personal experiences as real. If you want your ontology to be motivated by physics go right ahead, but you can't retroactively use it to varnish your mysticism.
But I repeatedly showed you mistakes. You, for example, claimed energy was mass accelerated to the speed of light squared. You claimed energy was all that exists. You misunderstood the quantum eraser experiment as somehow evidencing the necessity of consciousness in quantum theory. The list goes on.
Let's take one example: Energy being "mass accelerated to the speed of light squared". Not only did you make this statement, but you also said it "is just Eintein's equation in words . . . E=MC^2". When I called you out on this, you attempted to contrive a "it was just an analogy" excuse. This is all nonsense.
The bottom line is, by salting your mysticism with physics terms, and by trying to pass yourself off as a non-layman, your only ultimate achievement is to obfuscate the field of physics for anyone unfortunate enough to stumble across your posts.
"energy" is joule which is a Newton meter, then to kg(m/s.s)(m) is that a scalar? Then from we jump around a bit.
Yup, it is a scalar quantity. It has no direction, so it isn't a vector. It doesn't have a magnitude and phase angle, so it is not the same king of thing as an electrical signal, or even a photon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
I think he is loosely using hf as waves. That's where he gets "vibratory'.
That is exactly how he gets it, but it is not a correct interpretation of the math. In the case of that equation, it simply show the relationship between the energy of a massless particle ( photon) and its wavelength. The higher the energy, the shorter the wavelength ( or higher the frequency). It does not mean that energy itself is vibrating, or that it has a frequency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
It's good enough for string theory and everything else so it seems ok. maybe? maybe not? They are not sure if a photon is a wave or a particle so jumping between both is not wrong. "vibratory" to me just means some type of dynamic state(s).
Maybe not! This has nothing to do with wave-particle duality. The claim was that since there is a frequency term on the right side of the equation ( Which is valid! electromagnetic waves, photons, have a frequency), that frequency is a part of the left hand term, energy. This is not the case, the energy is measured at a frequency, but energy itself is a scalar, not a vector.
The point to this is that you cannot expect to make valid philosophical leaps, or formulate useful analogies is the underlying understanding of science is not correct.
All your criticism has been about my conclusions from the inferences and implications I draw from the science. You could find or expose NO errors in my knowledge or understanding of the science because there is none. To pretend otherwise is dishonesty and hubris. You still keep failing to comprehend what I use the equations for . . . pretending I think mass is actually accelerated to the square of the speed of light. Your preposterous pretense to believe that I literally believe that IS part of your bigotry against mystics . . . and Yes . . . your abject failure to comprehend the use of analogy.
What we call energy is a field manifestation that we measure in various ways. What we measure is a phenomenon that actually exists and has characteristics that define its structure in our reality. The formulations we use in mathematics reveal those characteristics. E=MC^2 and E= hf reveal different features of the field manifesting as energy. That it is vibratory is revealed by E=hf. One complete cycle (back and forth) is represented using the propagation of EM radiation at the square of that propagation, i.e. E=MC^2. They are representing the SAME reality . . . a vibratory phenomenon existing at high frequency. How would you communicate the idea of aggregate vibratory phenomena existing at low standing wave frequencies being transformed into high frequency phenomena???
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
But Mystic, this is the problem! E=hf doesn't say anything about energy being vibratory! It says that for massless, wave phenomena, i.e. light, the energy contained in a particular photon is its frequency times planks constant. In this equation, E is a scalar, it is not wave phenomenon at all.
So this any conclusion drawn from this equation that "Energy" is somehow vibratory, is based on an incorrect understanding of the math! Even if it is an "analogy" or a philosophical understanding, it is based on a misunderstanding of physics. There is your error right there!
To go further, the portion of the equation applicable to massive particles, E=MC^2 has no reference to anything cyclic, vibratory, or sinusoidal. It simply relates energy to mass, rest energy to rest mass and total energy to total mass, by a constant. Contrary to what you are asserting this has nothing to do with frequency or vibration.
So, your last two sentences, other than being virtually unreadable, are not supported by the math. There is nothing in that equation that implies that all 'energy' is vibrating, much less at some impossibly high frequency. This is why you would do better to drop the "analogies" and simply present the science clearly and accurately and your belief seperately. Trying to mix the two in this way lessens what you have to say from a powerful, if unverifiable, personal experience to cheap Deepak Chopra-isms. -NoCapo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
I think he is loosely using hf as waves. That's where he gets "vibratory'. It's good enough for string theory and everything else so it seems ok. maybe? maybe not? They are not sure if a photon is a wave or a particle so jumping between both is not wrong. "vibratory" to me just means some type of dynamic state(s).
Yes . . . we ARE discussing the particular STATE something called energy EXISTS in. The underlying phenomenon being "measured" with these different "measures" (NOT the measures themselves) is what I am referring to. The "measures" are events revealing the underlying structure of EXISTING field phenomenon under various manipulations . . . the nature of that EXISTENCE is what we are trying to understand. If the phenomenon CAN be represented by a "measured" frequency . . . it is inherently vibratory. If the SAME phenomenon CAN be represented by "measures" representing inertia and the propagation rate of EM radiation . . . surely the vibratory nature is retained in that scalar formulation by the measurement process.
Measurement requires our consciousness and the "quantum time" necessary for our consciousness to form prior to our experience of it as instantaneous awareness. That will be reflected in those measurements. It is why Minkowski's formulation of the topological constancy of the world interval is so intriguing. It illustrates the dependent nature of time . . . as we measure it . . . on the square of the speed of light:
I = Squareroot{S^2 – C^2(T2 - T1)^2 }
where S = spatial distance; T2 - T1 = measured time interval; and C = speed of light. In words, the spatial separation of events is altered by a continuum of C^2 for any "measured" temporal separation.
To grasp the philosophical significance of this formulation . . . it is necessary to reorient your thinking from our "inside-out" perspective to an "outside-in" perspective. The expression actually reflects relativistic events arbitrarily "measured" within the illusion that comprises our internal view of reality in our "v. If a difference between two internally measured events (T2 - T1) in a system has an effect on a third event (S^2) by a specified constant (C^2), that implies that the measurements were made by an entity using that constant (EXISTING in that state) as the ultimate base of reference! That is why it is constant! We assess stimuli that EXIST at less than C^2 against a base of reference that EXISTS at C^2 . . . which is our thoughts. In fact, without such a reference at C^2, "measurement" itself would be impossible . . . which means that differentiation between T2 and T1 would be impossible and any multiplicative relationship with C^2 would be meaningless.
This clearly reveals the dependence of our measurement of time and distance on the formation of our consciousness. I realize that thinking about the measures used as representations of the state that some underlying structure of reality EXISTS IN . . . as measured by the state our consciousness EXISTS IN . . . is NOT the way the mathematics is typically USED. But every measurement event is a slice of the underlying structure of our reality and indirectly reveals the structure of BOTH the measuring AND the measured entities. The mathematical manipulations and formulations also have characteristics that reflect how that underlying structure manifests under various manipulations. That is also why analogy (NOT literalism) is the preferred mode of communication when describing that underlying reality.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 01-27-2015 at 02:23 PM..
Please tell me you didn't just post this...
Posting an incorrect equation in support of your philosophy is bad enough.
Posting an incorrect equation in support of your philosophy after having been corrected is even worse...
Posting an incorrect equation in support of your philosophy, when a link and reference to the original correction was posted 4 posts previous?
If you want people to credit your understanding of the underlying physics, you need to get the physics correct!
-NoCapo
Oh get a grip! I = Squareroot{S^2 – C^2(T2 - T1)^2 } It is a notational error that has NO impact on my interpretation of the implications of the formulation. You guys aren't even trying to comprehend where I am coming from . . . just nitpicking and sniping. You try to denigrate my knowledge instead of understand my views . . . AS IF ANY of you have ever displayed even one tenth the knowledge I have exposed to your criticisms . . . entirely from memory. Your nit-picking forced me to revisit Minkowski to see the irrelevant transcription error (irrelevant to my purpose of exposing its implications).
Last edited by MysticPhD; 01-27-2015 at 02:46 PM..
You could find or expose NO errors in my knowledge or understanding
Quote:
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
Here, Mystic mistakens the "m" in E=mc^2 to mean "matter". He believes the equation is saying that c^2 somehow represents the velocity of the matter. I.e. If you moving/vibrate matter at the speed of light squared, you get energy.
What "m" actually stands for is mass. And it says absolutely nothing about the velocity of the mass, and can even refer to rest mass. In fact, mass can't ever move at the speed of light, never mind the speed of light squared.
What E=mc^2 says is if you have a system with mass m (in SI units), then it will posses energy E of an amount equal to mc^2 (in SI units). If we use natural units, the equation vecomes even simpler. E = m. If we want to discuss motion explicitly, we must use the more complete energy-momentum relation
E^2 = m^2 + p^2
where p is momentum. This says, quite simply, that the energy of a system can be determined from its mass and momentum.
So, for example, a photon has no mass but it does have momentum. The equation becomes
E^2 = 0 + p^2
which reduces to
E = p
I.e. The amount of energy a photon has (in natural units) is the same as the amount of momentum it has. Similarly, if we have an object with mass that is not moving at all, it will have no momentum, and the equation becomes
E^2 = m^2 + 0
or just
E = m
The amount of energy the object has (in natural units) is the same as the amount of mass it has.
This is what E=mc^2 is communicating. It is a simple relation between the quantity of mass an object has and the quantity of energy it has. (Quantum field theoretic calculations actually involve violations of this relation)
The closest Mystic gets to being correct is alluding to wavelike properties of things, first characterised by De Broglie matter waves. But this lends no support to his wrong statements about E=mc^2.
Quote:
It illustrates the dependent nature of time . . . as we measure it . . . on the square of the speed of light:
I = Squareroot{S^2 – C^2(T2 - T1) }
If a difference between two internally measured events (T2 - T1) in a system has an effect on a third event (S^2) by a specified constant (C^2)
s^2 in this equation is not a third event. s is the separation between the same two measured events that occur at t1 and t2.
Oh get a grip! I = Squareroot{S^2 – C^2(T2 - T1)^2 } It is a notational error that has NO impact on my interpretation of the implications of the formulation. You guys aren't even trying to comprehend where I am coming from . . . just nitpicking and sniping. You try to denigrate my knowledge instead of understand my views . . . AS IF ANY of you have ever displayed even one tenth the knowledge I have exposed to your criticisms.
Mystic, it isn't a notational error. What you originally wrote, twice, is a meaningless statement. It is as if you tried to support a philosophical argument based on 1+1=3.
If your point still stands, based on incorrect mathematics, then it isn't really based on the mathematics.
The fact that the mathematics mean so little to you that you can make the mistake once, insult and demean those who noticed it, ignore the correction and do it all over again demonstrates that the science here is incidental. it is simply something you have grabbed because you can twist it into service to support your predetermined conclusion. In that sense you are doing exactly what Eusebius does, only with bigger words and slightly nastier insults.
If you want to use physics to justify your faith, all we are asking is use the physics correctly! Don't use it if you don't understand it, and if a marginal neophyte like myself can point out the problems with your assumptions, then you don't understand it...
Now if you are interested in actually looking at the physics, we can go back to E=MC^2 and E=hf and talk about it... As I said before in neither equation is E anything but a scalar, it has no frequency (and likewise no mass). In the fist case we are discussing the relation of the energy of a particle to its mass, and in the second the energy of a field to its frequency.
-NoCapo
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.
