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.
Mystic, I do understand what your putting forth, this is something I have pondered on for a few years. All matter equals energy and energy reside at different vibations creating soilds, liquids and gasses. I agree that current mathematics really hams strings science when it come to string theory and to dig deeper in QT. When one looks at the "non-local" phenomenon it does suggest faster than light is a reality.
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.
Here, I have to admit that the discussion is over my head. I shall have to leave it to the experts.
I read the first link from the previous page and for some reason , I'm getting more in-ability coherence and will approach this over time with patience. I think the overall foundations and relative significance's are very interesting and enjoy taking things one step at a time to allow for information categorization and solidity.
In the whole keen interest I'm wondering about something which I know may be silently in mind in small influence privy to my inner philosophical approach at things in general but, helpful in shaping all realities, in our exploration to join the dots on things.So I know at some point this question will arise and would like to remove it from silent distraction.
Is there, or has there ever been any consideration to the possibility that abject or absolute negative thought is negative( void of energy) and simply void of energy on out-put and retract in its materialistc manner toward self materialistic intent on the self in its manifestation...negating a union with the suggested feild ? The energy from mind would be almost of a different classification relatively speaking. Is this a possibility within the approach? I'm not asking for a qualifying purpose, its simply something which I don't want nagging at myself without knowing creating an un-fair mind-set on approach which as mentioned looks very interesting. I think the concept of energy via thought may or would express itself, but would need something to receive which would recognize-associate-nature .... it gets tricky here in the dark energy idea and over all scheme of things. It may be a question that cannot be answered and thats ok, but I think it becomes entwined in a very interesting way over all. Ignore if the idea is apart or an entire form of presumption-leading, simply wanted to jot this down in the exercise of making entries.
As long as you continue to deliberately misunderstand what the analogy really is about and refuse to consider the implications of the phrase
I know what the science is and what the analogy is. The problem is that the "science" is nonsense, false and useless. Which makes the analogy also nonsense, false and useless. Analogy is useful when you make reference to established and well understood things in order to illuminate something in your own points. Making analogy to made up nonsense therefore defeats the purpose.
That is if one even beleives it _is_ analogy and not something you present as fact which reference to your "synthesis" calls into question. You very much presented it there as if it was a fact which is why users on the thread have called "back pedal" on you.
The only think "Einsteins Equation" tells us is how much energy is tied up in matter. All this nonsense about vibrations and accelerations of matter past the speed of light is just pseudo scientific linguistic trickery.
Calling people ignorant and suggesting they do not "think deeply" changes none of this either. Personal comments of that sort add nothing. One can think about nonsense science all the time - it will remain nonsense science.
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
https://www.city-data.com/forum/23175690-post549.html. I'm sure you'll find some reason to backtrack on your claim that "EM energy (E=hf) is energy that cannot be contained in matter as we know it", but you should really keep track of what you're saying. I know you're just making it up as you go along, but really, accusing other people of lying because your memory is failing isn't all that good for your reputation.
And really, if you can't get this right what hope to you have to understand SR and the implications it has on the rest of science? It's like someone who doesn't know that Moby Dick is whale trying to figure out the existential meaning of the novel. Sure, he can come up with lots of nonsense but it's all just guessing.
Keep it up with the personal attacks instead of actually providing content, though. It really makes you look credible.
https://www.city-data.com/forum/23175690-post549.html. I'm sure you'll find some reason to backtrack on your claim that "EM energy (E=hf) is energy that cannot be contained in matter as we know it", but you should really keep track of what you're saying. I know you're just making it up as you go along, but really, accusing other people of lying because your memory is failing isn't all that good for your reputation.
Your credibility in charging me with "making it up as I go along" simply reveals an ignorance of the physics and mathematics that forms the basis for such spurious charges.The statement is true because there is no such thing as "matter as we know it." The implications of that particular equation are to point out the inescapable vibratory nature of energy that NoCapo has problems with.
Quote:
And really, if you can't get this right what hope to you have to understand SR and the implications it has on the rest of science? It's like someone who doesn't know that Moby Dick is whale trying to figure out the existential meaning of the novel. Sure, he can come up with lots of nonsense but it's all just guessing.
Keep it up with the personal attacks instead of actually providing content, though. It really makes you look credible.
Pointing out ignorance is not a personal attack . . . it is simply pointing out demonstrable fact as I have tried to do with both analogy and non-analogy to those who "have eyes to see and ears to hear." The sideline hecklers with no content of their own making spurious charges not backed up with anything but rhetoric are in a separate class.
I know what the science is and what the analogy is. The problem is that the "science" is nonsense, false and useless. Which makes the analogy also nonsense, false and useless. Analogy is useful when you make reference to established and well understood things in order to illuminate something in your own points. Making analogy to made up nonsense therefore defeats the purpose.
That is if one even beleives it _is_ analogy and not something you present as fact which reference to your "synthesis" calls into question. You very much presented it there as if it was a fact which is why users on the thread have called "back pedal" on you.
The only think "Einsteins Equation" tells us is how much energy is tied up in matter. All this nonsense about vibrations and accelerations of matter past the speed of light is just pseudo scientific linguistic trickery.
Yes, yes, yes . . . blah, blah, blah. Do you have anything substantive to rebut about the non-analogy I presented and its philosophical implications or not?
Quote:
Calling people ignorant and suggesting they do not "think deeply" changes none of this either. Personal comments of that sort add nothing. One can think about nonsense science all the time - it will remain nonsense science.
Pointing out ignorance is not calling people ignorant . . . though I am sure it feels that way when you cannot rebut by showing the knowledge that was claimed to be missing. Calling it nonsense without providing the necessary support for your claims is simply spurious sideline heckling.
Your credibility in charging me with "making it up as I go along" simply reveals an ignorance of the physics and mathematics that forms the basis for such spurious charges.
So says the guy who's misunderstanding of physics implies that it's impossible for streetlights to work. You'll forgive me if I trust reality over the ranting of someone on the internet.
But keep pretending that everyone else is ignorant and lash out wildly. Maybe you'll luck into making a point or two.
Quote:
The statement is true because there is no such thing as "matter as we know it." The implications of that particular equation are to point out the inescapable vibratory nature of energy that NoCapo has problems with. Pointing out ignorance is not a personal attack . . . it is simply pointing out demonstrable fact as I have tried to do with both analogy and non-analogy to those who "have eyes to see and ears to hear." The sideline hecklers with no content of their own making spurious charges not backed up with anything but rhetoric are in a separate class.
Yes, that's nice. Let it out. Do you feel better now?
What I definitely thought I knew was that the Atomic Bombs work by splitting the Nucleus, then releasing energy as less potentially energetic nuclei are formed. Nothing to do with the "acceleration" of the particles. In fact, The speed of light is a SPEED, not an ACCELERATION.
What is philosophically amazing about relativity is that if you are in a space-ship going .98c and someone turns on a flash light in the direction of propagation, it still goes at the speed of light, there is no increase. weird huh?
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.
I shall have to leave it to the experts.
