Energy is Mass "accelerated" (frequency of vibration) to C^2 (points, objective)
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 already replied to that post. As I said your point in that post is not clear which is why I am asking you to re-engage with it, but you will not. Declaring that I am the one that is not engaging instead and getting half your posts deleted by throwing in random uncalled for insults.
I have explained why the "analogy" you have used is absurd and unhelpful in understanding what point it is you are trying to make. What I am asking you to do now is re-engage with the point you are trying to make and try again - without recourse to making analogy to nonsense. Then perhaps the point you are trying to make will actually come out this time.
All I can see in the post you refer to is the wish to claim that conciousness is energy. Is that all your point is or is there more to it than that? If so you did not need to make up absurd non-science to argue it. Our body releases energy from sugars and more and part of that energy moves around our brains. That is energy. All there is in our heads is gooey wet stuff arranged into a complex pattern around which energy moves.
Of course we have much yet to learn about how that works - but I do not see how we are going to get such answers by making up nonsense science to do it - or by deciding there is a god to stick into that particular god of the gaps - and then spending decades trying to confirm that assumption to ourselves as you admited you do in a true application of confirmation bias. We certainly get nowhere by you simply slipping conciousness into a piece on physics and just declaring that it is all the same thing. You have tried this before I see and when called on it you never replied.
So what is your point? Would you like to make one, or do we need to go through another round of deleted insults before you will get to it this time too? Also what exactly do you think you are referring to when you use the phrase "spherical standing waveforms". Elaborate more also on your concept that energy exists as a substance in and of itself rather than as a property of other things etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I made no personal attacks
The deletion of your posts by the mods would seem to indicate you are alone in believing that. I am certainly hopeful that we can move forward without any more of it however. We are all adults here, so lets proceed in that fashion together as one. *waves around some olive branches*
Last edited by monumentus; 04-19-2012 at 09:00 AM..
Respond substantively and rigorously (as an avowed mathematician you should know what that means) to the rationale about the mathematics of relativity in my post#86 or "cut and run" yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
I already replied to that post. As I said your point in that post is not clear which is why I am asking you to re-engage with it, but you will not. Declaring that I am the one that is not engaging instead and getting half your posts deleted by throwing in random uncalled for insults.
I have explained why the "analogy" you have used is absurd and unhelpful in understanding what point it is you are trying to make. What I am asking you to do now is re-engage with the point you are trying to make and try again - without recourse to making analogy to nonsense. Then perhaps the point you are trying to make will actually come out this time.
All I can see in the post you refer to is the wish to claim that conciousness is energy. Is that all your point is or is there more to it than that? If so you did not need to make up absurd non-science to argue it. Our body releases energy from sugars and more and part of that energy moves around our brains. That is energy. All there is in our heads is gooey wet stuff arranged into a complex pattern around which energy moves.
Of course we have much yet to learn about how that works - but I do not see how we are going to get such answers by making up nonsense science to do it - or by deciding there is a god to stick into that particular god of the gaps - and then spending decades trying to confirm that assumption to ourselves as you admited you do in a true application of confirmation bias. We certainly get nowhere by you simply slipping conciousness into a piece on physics and just declaring that it is all the same thing. You have tried this before I see and when called on it you never replied.
So what is your point? Would you like to make one, or do we need to go through another round of deleted insults before you will get to it this time too? Also what exactly do you think you are referring to when you use the phrase "spherical standing waveforms". Elaborate more also on your concept that energy exists as a substance in and of itself rather than as a property of other things etc.
No you did not respond to my post . . . you keep harping on the analogy and your concerns about my beliefs about God. You did not respond to that post "rigorously and substantively" as a mathematician would. I was very clear and explicit about how and why I derived the implication from the mass-energy equivalence in the relativity equations that the "same property" means it is energy . . . not mass. Now . . . respond rigorously as a mathematician explaining the implications of the math as you understand them and why my understanding is wrong, period. No more blustering distractions and bloviations about the analogy or my beliefs about God.
I very much did respond to it. I even quoted it. Go check. However you just proved my point for me. I just openly attempted to keep the peace and engage with you and ask you questions about your position and your point. What do I get in return? The same nonsense parrotted back at me that I have not been engaging.
When I engage I get told I am not engaging. When I engage more you refuse. I asked questions about your post and your position in the post above. Did you answer one of them? Of course not. How is one meant to engage with anything you say when you retreat so fearfully from any attempt to seek clarification on the parts I am not clear about? Are questions some kind of personal insult in your mind and if someone says "Can you tell me exactly what you mean here....." you need to respond with such vitriole? It is politics not science you are engaged in here.
Then what specifically did you mean by "EM energy (E=hf) is energy that cannot be contained in matter as we know it"? Seems weird that you think matter can't contain the energy from photons when it happens all the time. It's how neon lights work. It's how many types of streetlights work. We have pictures of it happening. And yet if we take your claims at face value, they're impossible.
For all the complaints that no one understands the implications of your writings, it looks like you don't either.
Of course you'll attempt to hide behind "it's just an analogy" or whatever. But if your making an analogy between your ideas and something which is outright wrong, what are you hoping to prove, exactly?
Then what specifically did you mean by "EM energy (E=hf) is energy that cannot be contained in matter as we know it"? Seems weird that you think matter can't contain the energy from photons when it happens all the time. It's how neon lights work. It's how many types of streetlights work. We have pictures of it happening. And yet if we take your claims at face value, they're impossible.
For all the complaints that no one understands the implications of your writings, it looks like you don't either.
Of course you'll attempt to hide behind "it's just an analogy" or whatever. But if your making an analogy between your ideas and something which is outright wrong, what are you hoping to prove, exactly?
As I said . . . you misconstrue what I am referring to. The "energy composite" that we experience as our consciousness cannot reside in the brain matter as matter. Its "molecular" composition is too energetic . . . just as flames do not remain within the original combustible matter. There seems to be no easy way to remedy the lack of knowledge about these well-documented issues without massive citations to avoid violating copyright or other concerns.
I have repeatedly said that the basis for my views resides solidly in the extant science, theories and philosophical speculations about their implications that are widely available on-line or in print. Only my unique hypotheses and conclusions from them are original to me and I have never suggested or implied otherwise. I have studied extensively and I suggest you educate yourself about them before you attempt to discuss them with me either in rigorous or analogy form.
To get you started . . . here is an excellent discussion in the Stanford Encyclopedia online(which I abstracted the relevant highlights from and attempted to place in context, simplify and paraphrase for the discussion) of mass-energy equivalence in my post#86. I suggest you read it ALL . . . it will answer your questions about the absorption and emission issues. They do not alter the validity of my rationale or conclusions about the "same property" being energy . . . not mass nor does it alter its vibratory character. When you have done that then return if you want to continue this discussion. My efforts to remedy any educational deficiencies here are over. Google is your friend.
As I said . . . you misconstrue what I am referring to.
Then what did you mean?
Quote:
The "energy composite" that we experience as our consciousness cannot reside in the brain matter as matter. Its "molecular" composition is too energetic . . . just as flames do not remain within the original combustible matter.
I have no idea how this answers the question (or even means - who thinks consciousness is matter?), and I doubt you do either.
Quote:
There seems to be no easy way to remedy the lack of knowledge about these well-documented issues without massive citations to avoid violating copyright or other concerns.
"I could explain it but I'm too busy" isn't an answer. It's an excuse to avoid the question. Try again.
Quote:
I have repeatedly said that [b]the basis for my views resides solidly in the extant science
Yes, but as we all know talk is cheap. Unfortunately when that's all you have, you end up in situations like this where your credibility becomes questionable. It's a vicious spiral.
OK, read it. It doesn't answer my question at all. In fact, despite your claims it doesn't mention emission spectra at all. Come clean - you're just throwing random links out there to try and confuse the issue, aren't you?
OK, read it. It doesn't answer my question at all. In fact, despite your claims it doesn't mention emission spectra at all. Come clean - you're just throwing random links out there to try and confuse the issue, aren't you?
In line with my new approach to sideline hecklers who refuse to counter with any substantive or rigorous arguments . . .I will accept at face value that you read it, that you understood it, and that you see all the implications of it but for some reason reject one or more of them. I would have thought the gold bar example that was morphed into the more mathematically amenable one of a gas would have resolved your obsession with absorption and emission. Since it hasn't . . . I am compelled to conclude that you simply do not accept mass-energy equivalence. Since you would not be the first . . . I would like to see your objections and alternatives . . . as all those I am familiar with have been dealt with.
I will accept at face value that you read it, that you understood it, and that you see all the implications of it but for some reason reject one or more of them.
Yes, I reject that they have anything to do with my questions because they don't. And given the fact you'd rather point me to a wall of text which is totally off-topic to my question tells me you don't have anything better to offer.
Quote:
I would have thought the gold bar example that was morphed into the more mathematically amenable one of a gas would have resolved your obsession with absorption and emission.
Why? It has nothing to do with showing that your claim that emission spectra don't happen, despite the fact that we see them all the time.
Quote:
Since it hasn't . . . I am compelled to conclude that you simply do not accept mass-energy equivalence.
I don't doubt that there's a mass-energy equivalence. I do doubt bizarre claims like "EM energy (E=hf) is energy that cannot be contained in matter as we know it". Why are you so anxious to change the subject?
I can see why you'd be very hesitant to discuss the actual science, considering how bad your track record has been so far when your understanding runs into reality. But retreating to vague nothingness like you're doing isn't much better. Do you really have nothing to support your claims?
Yes, I reject that they have anything to do with my questions because they don't. And given the fact you'd rather point me to a wall of text which is totally off-topic to my question tells me you don't have anything better to offer.
Why? It has nothing to do with showing that your claim that emission spectra don't happen, despite the fact that we see them all the time.
This is what I don't get . . . when did I ever say any such thing. You apparently inferred it from something I did say . . . but as I repeatedly told you . . . it is not what I said. You retain an "application of the math" focus and are obsessed with a high school level of physics. You either refuse to consider the existential implications of the various formula for the structure of reality . . . or you are incapable of it.
Quote:
I don't doubt that there's a mass-energy equivalence. I do doubt bizarre claims like "EM energy (E=hf) is energy that cannot be contained in matter as we know it". Why are you so anxious to change the subject?
::Sigh:: The very "forms" of energy that you consider "emissions" are what obviously cannot remain in matter form (or they wouldn't be "emitted"). You do understand it is only a change in the overall "form" of the energy, right? Our consciousness is a resonant composite of that "emission form" of energy . . . hence my analogy to fire and the flames of consciousness. But since the universe is just energy in various forms . . . there is nowhere for it to "emit" to because as far as we can tell only human brains can produce (transform) such energy. Since it cannot be further transformed . . . it must retain its "non-matter" (as we experience and measure such things) form within the universal field.
Quote:
I can see why you'd be very hesitant to discuss the actual science, considering how bad your track record has been so far when your understanding runs into reality. But retreating to vague nothingness like you're doing isn't much better. Do you really have nothing to support your claims?
What you seem unable to do is deal with the philsophical implications of science (abstract thinking) because you are so mired in the application level of understanding (concrete thinking). You have some agenda you are pursuing that causes you to obsess on the concrete and you refuse to deal in the abstract implications of our artificial mathematical models of reality. Existential considerations about the stucture and composition of reality require such abstract thought. If you are not interested or incapable of it . . . we have nothing to discuss.
This is what I don't get . . . when did I ever say any such thing. You apparently inferred it from something I did say . . . but as I repeatedly told you . . . it is not what I said.
So then what did you mean? For some reason you can't answer that simple question. For someone who claims to have such a massively superior understanding of the science, I'd expect it would pose no problem.
Quote:
You retain an "application of the math" focus
Before you get to the philosophical implications of science, we should first get the science right. As others have said, trying to extrapolate from falsehood and misunderstandings leads nowhere.
Quote:
obsessed with a high school level of physics.
Present something more advanced and we can discuss it.
Quote:
You either refuse to consider the existential implications of the various formula for the structure of reality . . . or you are incapable of it.
Or more reasonably, I just disagree with your baseless speculation on the matter. But yeah, keep up with the insults, that makes you look reasonable and logical.
Quote:
The very "forms" of energy that you consider "emissions" are what obviously cannot remain in matter form (or they wouldn't be "emitted").
Weird, just a few weeks ago you said it couldn't be contained in matter at all. Now it can be stored there before it's remitted. I guess I was right in correcting you in the first place.
Quote:
Our consciousness is a resonant composite of that "emission form" of energy
No it isn't.
Quote:
But since the universe is just energy in various forms . . . there is nowhere for it to "emit" to because as far as we can tell only human brains can produce (transform) such energy.
How do any of these ideas go together? The universe has mass & energy. OK. Thought requires energy to fuel the working of the brain. OK. Therefore there's nowhere for that energy to go since the universe is already full? What?
That's simply not how the physics works. Which is why I keep coming back to the physics you seem so reluctant to discuss.
Quote:
Since it cannot be further transformed
Sure it can. People's heads are warm for a reason - one of the waste products of the biochemical reactions in our brain is waste heat.
Quote:
What you seem unable to do
is accept made up nonsense as science. And I can see why that bothers you, since that's all you have backing your ideas.
Snipped more lame attempts at calling me stupid.
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.
