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 don't think this is too hard to understand. Mystic is right in this respect, that our reality consists of energy vibrating at a speed that is within our range of perception. I'm not sure why everyone is arguing against this. I'd be more inclined to argue that it isn't necessarily conscious but that is his belief that he has extrapolated from the science and it's really just a more complicated way of arguing for or against a God, unknowable at this stage of the game and therefore pointless to argue about.
The fact that we can't perceive energy outside of its potential wrapped up in matter is because that is the limits of our perception. We cannot experience anything faster than light (yet) which has mass. My understanding of it is that pure energy is vibrating at a speed that is too fast for us to comprehend while we are vibrating so slowly. So according to this theory energy does seem to be only wrapped up in matter for us but the implication in the formula is that there are different states of energy beyond our comprehension.
The particles in string theory are the point on the hypothetical string that is vibrating at our particular speed and therefore the point where our reality lies sandwiched in the whole string of realities vibrating at different speeds (different universes?).
Admittedly I don't know much about physics but that is my understanding of all this. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I won't mind at all. I'm not knowledgeable enough on this subject (and I don't have the time) to debate the issue with any confidence though.
The analogy succeeded in getting the basic concept across to you, Lady Ice . . . but do not take the terms "speed" and "motion" literally. The analogy makes the concept of different vibratory states of energy as the reference frames for experiencing and measuring our reality accessible to those not otherwise biased or closed off from a philosophical perspective. Your understanding of the symbolic nature of the mathematical formulations as indices of the underlying structure and composition of reality is excellent. Users of the math unfortunately do not take time to question such things. It has no relevance to them and their goals in the use of the models.
That you are baffled is not a surprise or even unexpected given what little I have seen of your philosophical acumen. I did not and do not misspeak, period. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. Your rejection is noted . . . but entirely unsubstantiated. I have rigorously shown that energy is the only reasonable "same property" interpretation of mass-energy equivalence . . . NOT mass or "strings" or any other specific form of energy. Point all you want . . . but until you rigorously address and contradict the philosophical rationale I presented for why energy (NOT mass) is the "same property" of the universal field . . . it is nothing but empty bloviation.
This reveals you do not yet comprehend the import of mass-energy equivalence that is philosophically resolved in favor of energy (not mass) as the "same property" of the universal field. The difficulties in dealing with fundamental particles (or fundamental "strings") is because there is no such thing. They are measured vibratory "particle" or "string" events. This is why the complex vibratory aspects alluded to are controlling . . . but poorly handled in the current wave mathematics. This is why I maintain that a fundamental evolution in the math and our measurement protocols on the order of the calculus will be necessary to deal with a purely vibratory milieu. The perceptual conditioning to "substance and particles" is strong.
Again, you are confusing "mass-energy" equivalence with your own nonsensical "matter-energy" or "field-energy" equivalence. Energy is a property of matter/fields. Mass is a property of matter/fields. Matter/fields are not "made of mass" or "made of energy". Instead, mass and energy are properties. Hence, an equivalence can be shown between mass and energy, but not matter/fields and energy. Your entire "synthesis" is based on incorrect physics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Ice
Einstein himself said in regard to the E=mc^2 formula that mass and energy are the same thing in different forms, the difference between those forms is the speed at which it is moving.
-
My understanding of it is that pure energy is vibrating at a speed that is too fast for us to comprehend while we are vibrating so slowly.
The c^2 in E=mc^2 is just an artifact of the units we choose. Our unit of time (the second) is very large compared to our unit of distance (the meter). If we use natural units, the equation becomes E = m. So the equivalence has nothing to do with speed. Instead it is the bound-state of energy that is related to mass. To use my earlier illustration: A photon has energy and momentum, but no mass, but if you place it in a reflective can, it will bounce around within the can, adding mass to the can+photon system.
But what is important regarding this thread is that mass is not synonymous with "matter". "Matter" or "fields" may express mass and energy, but mass an energy are properties of matter and fields. Energy therefore cannot exist on its own. The same way a race car is fast, but a race car is not made of "fast". "Fast" cannot exist on its own.
The closer you get to the end of existence (of human life) the more speed there is to the bounce of my own personal ball. Why does time speed up as you age and approach death? Some call it the quickening as all of humanity approach an end of an era or of human existence itself. It is a shrinking of time and mass. As a totally dumb layman...I imagine as the universe expands it seems to gather more speed as it hurtles towards a big crunch and contraction back to the start of it all. Could it be there is an anticipation taking place- a thinking - that might cause things to contract even before they are logically expected too?
What you might be talking about is the huge waves with one vibration that are the expansion and contraction of all that exists. In other words - big bang - big crunch- big bang - big crunch = anticipatory pre-mature reversal...kind of like the universe panics and makes a run from where it came before it reaches what could be the end. This huge vibration thinks..eternity might just be a conscious avoidance of nothingness?
"No serious researcher I know believes in an electromagnetic theory of consciousness," Bernard Baars wrote in an e-mail. Baars is a neurobiologist and co-editor of Consciousness & Cognition, another scientific journal in the field. "It's not really worth talking about scientifically."
I guess you're correct - Google really is my friend.
Again, you are confusing "mass-energy" equivalence with your own nonsensical "matter-energy" or "field-energy" equivalence. Energy is a property of matter/fields. Mass is a property of matter/fields. Matter/fields are not "made of mass" or "made of energy". Instead, mass and energy are properties. Hence, an equivalence can be shown between mass and energy, but not matter/fields and energy. Your entire "synthesis" is based on incorrect physics.
That is an important point, and it is what led to a lot of my initial confusion.
The units of measurement are what is equivalent, not the underlying things being measured.
That is an important point, and it is what led to a lot of my initial confusion.
The units of measurement are what is equivalent, not the underlying things being measured.
Moderator cut: Condescending Units are just "measures" . . . that are artificial constructs created for use in our artificial mathematical rubric. They are NOT real "things in themselves." Measurements ALWAYS represent discrete aggregation events (vibratory systems within the universal field) that are not discrete. They are comprised of the basic "substance" of our universe. To say that whatever is measured by those events are equal . . . means the underlying aggregations of the "substance" of our universe are equal.
What we name things are just conventions based on how we use them and energy is the most versatile (but also most poorly understood, IMO) of those terms. The Higgs field is the current candidate for the composition of the so-called "vacuum" of space (which is neither empty or a vacuum) and dark energy (cosmological constant) is posited as the source of the energy density in the Higgs field responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe and in speculations about the nature of the universal field. A universal field is all that establishes the reality we experience . . . despite the preference for matter and "particle" explanations of mass . . . ie. the Higgs Boson.
Nevertheless, energy within the field is the most reasonable "same property" by which to characterize the otherwise unknown "substance" that comprises that field. It is energy systems that we experience as matter in various forms of aggregation. The recent reappearance of aether-like theories and the discovery of actions that resemble a perfect fluid in high energy collisions are the most recent clues that suggest what the characteristics of that basic "substance" might be. I will concede that the "particle" physicists retain their preference for "particles"because their models absolutely require them in the math available today.
My views have nothing to do with the "radio" theory of consciousness and you know it. The brain responds to fields (EM fields being just one of the measurable kind we have proof that is responds to . . . but EM fields are NOT what I posit as the basis of the consciousness field).
No Box . . . don't let the concrete thinkers cloud your understanding. Units are just "measures" . . . that are artificial constructs created for use in our artificial mathematical rubric. They are NOT real "things in themselves." Measurements ALWAYS represent discrete aggregation events (vibratory systems within the universal field) that are not discrete. They are comprised of the basic "substance" of our universe.
I agree with this part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
To say that whatever is measured by those events are equal . . . means the underlying aggregations of the "substance" of our universe are equal.
I'm having trouble with this part.
If I said:
"3 feet of rope is the equivalent of 91.4 centimeters of chain."
That means the measurements (3 feet and 91.4 centimeters) are equivalent.
It doesn't mean the thing being measured, (rope and chain) are equivalent.
In other words, it doesn't matter very much what I am measuring, inches will always convert to centimeters. But that in no sense means the things being measured are equivalent.
In the same sense, it seems to me that saying "mass is the equivalent of energy" is different then saying "matter is the equivalent of energy."
Because the former implies an equivalence in two units of measurement, while the later implies an equivalence in the underlying things being measured.
It seems to me you are making a leap from mass equivalence to matter equivalence that I'm not sure is supported by science.
I agree with this part.
I'm having trouble with this part.
If I said:
"3 feet of rope is the equivalent of 91.4 centimeters of chain."
That means the measurements (3 feet and 91.4 centimeters) are equivalent.
It doesn't mean the thing being measured, (rope and chain) are equivalent.
In the same sense, it seems to me that saying "mass is the equivalent of energy" is different then saying "matter is the equivalent of energy."
Because the former implies an equivalence in two units of measurement, while the later implies an equivalence in the underlying things being measured.
It seems to me you are making a leap from mass equivalence to matter equivalence that I'm not sure is supported by science.
Does that make sense?
You are conflating apples with oranges, Box. Rope and chain are very different forms of energy systems and the units apply ONLY to USING two different substances for their equivalent possession of the characteristic of length. But when we are considering the fundamental stuff of which the energy systems are comprised . . . that is a different issue. Let's face it . . . understanding that is responsible for the fission and fusion bombs that pose a threat to our very existence.
You are conflating apples with oranges, Box. Rope and chain are very different forms of energy systems and the units apply ONLY to USING two different substances for their equivalent possession of the characteristic of length. But when we are considering the fundamental stuff of which the energy systems are comprised . . . that is a different issue. Let's face it . . . understanding that is responsible for the fission and fusion bombs that pose a threat to our very existence.
In what respect are they different?
For example: Weight is not the equivalent of length. There is no standard way to convert a measurement of weight into length.
But mass is equivalent of energy. Those units of measurements can be converted.
And in the above, it doesn't really matter what matter you are measuring with mass, the conversion is still the same.
But that is different then saying matter is the equivalent of energy. Because of course matter is not a measurement at all.
In my mind, just because you can measure two objects with the same unit of measurement, that does not mean the two objects are equivalent. For example, a road, a rope, and the distance to the moon can be measured in miles, but that doesn't make them all equivalent.
But perhaps your matter-energy claim doesn't rely on Einstien's mass-energy equivlancy, but on a different theory all together? If so, could you let me know the name of that theory so I can read more about it?
Thanks.
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.
