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.
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.
This is really good information, I really want to get into this more today but I have to focus on an assignment I'm doing for uni that's due today
I'm going to do a bit of research on this when I have time on the weekend and I'll get back to you with my thoughts/questions if that's ok. I'm a bit out of my depth with this because I don't have the foundation knowledge that I should but I'm always interested in both sides of an argument and I am especially interested in this argument because both sides are making sense to me and that is a rare thing. To me, Mystic's assertions rang true because I have heard the same things said from different sources.
There is a documentary series from BBC that is hosted by Dr Brian Cox who is part of the team at the LHC. He has a wonderful way of explaining physics and demonstrating it and I am sure I have heard him, or someone that he was speaking to, say virtually the same thing that Mystic is saying so I assumed that it was fairly uncontroversial. I would like nothing more than really getting into this today, it sounds infinitely more interesting than writing an analysis of a case study involving the impact of anxiety and depression on performance in IQ tests.
I will come back to this though. Thanks for taking the time to write an explanation for me.
The energy systems that comprise them are totally different aggregations of energy in quantity and form. It has NOTHING to do with unit equivalence. Moderator cut: deleted
The philosophical implications of the formulations have nothing to do with their USE. The measures are themselves energy events representing evidence about the fundamental "stuff" of our universe. The measures cannot be separated from what they are measuring. The relationships between them are symbolic representations of the fundamental nature and composition of our reality. The philosophical implications are derived from that . . . not their use or application.
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.
You are the one who is confused because you repeatedly misstate my views. Mass and energy are BOTH properties of a field. I have never said otherwise. I said that energy is the most reasonable characterization to use for the "same property". . . not mass. I presented the philosophical rationale for it.
Quote:
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.
OF course it has nothing to do with SPEED . . . because that was just an analogy to provide a comparative principle. That is also what my transportation system analogy was designed to convey as well. You insist on treating it literally in self-described deliberate ignorance of how I actually presented the analogies in my synthesis.
Quote:
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.
Nothing has mass. It is all energy within a field. What you refer to as bound energy . . . I call frequency traffic jams of aggregated energy of varying degrees and forms. Your devotion to matter when fields are the operative milieu is very luddite. Those with your preference have taken to calling them "matter fields" to keep their "physical" foundation under their feet.
Quote:
But what is important regarding this thread is that mass is not synonymous with "matter".
More misstatement and confusion on your part. I never said mass was synonymous with matter since it is really a field not matter at all.
Quote:
"Matter" or "fields" may express mass and energy, but mass an energy are properties of matter and fields.
What the hell do you think I have been talking about with the "same property" rationale?
Quote:
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.
This is a ludicrous analogy that is not remotely close based on your conditioned perspective of energy as something that is USED to accomplish something. That is a flawed perspective. Energy is THE property of the universal field that is responsible for the many aggregated forms (energy systems) that we experience as "substance." Energy is the vibratory "stuff" that exists in the universal field, period.
I don't know about all this stuff, but can one of you well educated people write me a formular to prove "The Will of Man" or "The Mental Energy of Man", I'm guessing not so lets assume thats "Unknowable"
Other than that, all I understand are the Principles of Correspondence, Vibration, Polarity, Rhythm, Cause and Effect, and Gender. These seem to explain everthing else.
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.
Yep, exactly. There's lots of equations which describe various types of energy in a system. In addition to E=mc^2, look at E=mgh. Here h is height and g is the acceleration of gravity and m is the mass of the object. What it's saying is pretty common-sense - it takes energy to lift something higher in a gravitational field. It takes more energy the higher you go and the heavier the object is We see this every day. Lifting heavy things takes energy, and dropping them turns that stored energy into motion. All pretty straightforward.
In certain situations, it makes sense to just say "X is 5 feet off the floor". In other cases, though, the math is easier if you work with the potential energy instead, so what the equation does is give you a way to convert back and forth between them. Kind of like converting between metric and imperial, in a way (stretching the analogy a bit, but you get the idea).
Since we see things moving up and down every day, though, no one would claim that this implies that lifting things off the ground turns them into pure energy, even though there's an E in the equation. Nor does it imply that matter is simply energy lowered close enough to the ground. Nor does it imply that there's no such thing as mass or matter - there obviously is, it is right there in the equation.
Likewise, E=mc^2 is just one way to calculate how much energy is gained or lost from a system through certain processes. For instance, it takes a bit of energy to "stick" sub-atomic particles together into atoms. When those atoms split, that energy is released. In some cases it's easier to measure the energy output of the reaction. In others it's easier to measure the difference in mass between the before and after states. E=mc^2 gives a convenient way to convert between the two measurements.
The only reason that E=mc^2 sounds like it implies more interesting things is because the processes where this kind of equivalence is used are a bit outside people's everyday experience. But it makes no more sense to use this to back various nonsensical claims about pure energy, vibratory acceleration, consciousness fields or whatever than it does to back these claims with E=mgh.
My views have nothing to do with the "radio" theory of consciousness
Weird. You tell me to search for a particular subject and author and then when I find results you say that his ideas have nothing to do yours.
Quote:
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).
What do you posit as the basis, and what measurements can we make to confirm or disprove your idea?
You are the one who is confused because you repeatedly misstate my views. Mass and energy are BOTH properties of a field. I have never said otherwise. I said that energy is the most reasonable characterization to use for the "same property". . . not mass. I presented the philosophical rationale for it.
OF course it has nothing to do with SPEED . . . because that was just an analogy to provide a comparative principle. That is also what my transportation system analogy was designed to convey as well. You insist on treating it literally in self-described deliberate ignorance of how I actually presented the analogies in my synthesis. Nothing has mass. It is all energy within a field. What you refer to as bound energy . . . I call frequency traffic jams of aggregated energy of varying degrees and forms. Your devotion to matter when fields are the operative milieu is very luddite. Those with your preference have taken to calling them "matter fields" to keep their "physical" foundation under their feet.
More misstatement and confusion on your part. I never said mass was synonymous with matter since it is really a field not matter at all. What the hell do you think I have been talking about with the "same property" rationale? This is a ludicrous analogy that is not remotely close based on your conditioned perspective of energy as something that is USED to accomplish something. That is a flawed perspective. Energy is THE property of the universal field that is responsible for the many aggregated forms (energy systems) that we experience as "substance." Energy is the vibratory "stuff" that exists in the universal field, period.
Trying the old "I never said energy was all that exists" line again?
From your previous posts:
"Our soul is in the high frequency range of pure energy."
"It [mass] becomes pure energy"
"Actually, the only thing that exists in our universe is energy."
These statements, which litter your posts, are false. Energy is not "the vibratory stuff". Energy is not all that exists. Mass is not "pure" energy. Again, it is strange that you choose to defend your mistakes instead of attempting to better your knowledge of physics. It is the mark of crank science, and crank philosophy.
Also, trying to pass off a mistake as an "analogy" won't fool anybody, as even the analogy fails completely.
--
Again, for the purposes of anyone who is reading this, I will reiterate that I have only highlighted a small fraction of the mistakes in MysticPhD's posts. If I do not mention something he has said (I.e. "His statements about matter fields"), it does not mean it is sound physics. It is just that the conversation becomes very unfocused if I have to chase after every inaccuracy.
I don't know about all this stuff, but can one of you well educated people write me a formular to prove "The Will of Man" or "The Mental Energy of Man", I'm guessing not so lets assume thats "Unknowable"
Other than that, all I understand are the Principles of Correspondence, Vibration, Polarity, Rhythm, Cause and Effect, and Gender. These seem to explain everthing else.
The question of consciousness is a genuinely interesting question, and there is plenty of sound literature out there. I have previously mentioned Roger Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind", which is a solid introduction to the both the topic, and the prerequisite physics. I think I might use this thread as an opportunity to explain some of the concepts in more detail.
As for explaining everything else: One of the most fascinating things about physics is nearly all the chemical, biological, and physical phenomena we see around us emerge from three simple actions:
1) A photon moves from place to place.
2) An electron moves from place to place.
3) An electron absorbs or emits a photon.
The only phenomena these don't explain are essentially gravity, nuclear radiation, and some exotic high-energy physics. I strongly recommend "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter" by Richard Feynmann (Amazon.com: QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (9780691024172): Richard P. Feynman: Books). It is small, cheap, doesn't require any prerequisite maths, and is fantastic at describing the underlying principles of quantum physics (and hence most physics).
This is really good information, I really want to get into this more today but I have to focus on an assignment I'm doing for uni that's due today
I'm going to do a bit of research on this when I have time on the weekend and I'll get back to you with my thoughts/questions if that's ok. I'm a bit out of my depth with this because I don't have the foundation knowledge that I should but I'm always interested in both sides of an argument and I am especially interested in this argument because both sides are making sense to me and that is a rare thing. To me, Mystic's assertions rang true because I have heard the same things said from different sources.
There is a documentary series from BBC that is hosted by Dr Brian Cox who is part of the team at the LHC. He has a wonderful way of explaining physics and demonstrating it and I am sure I have heard him, or someone that he was speaking to, say virtually the same thing that Mystic is saying so I assumed that it was fairly uncontroversial. I would like nothing more than really getting into this today, it sounds infinitely more interesting than writing an analysis of a case study involving the impact of anxiety and depression on performance in IQ tests.
I will come back to this though. Thanks for taking the time to write an explanation for me.
Brian Cox is great. I imagine he is responsible for the recent surge in science in school in the UK.
The energy systems that comprise them are totally different aggregations of energy in quantity and form. It has NOTHING to do with unit equivalence. Moderator cut: deleted
The philosophical implications of the formulations have nothing to do with their USE. The measures are themselves energy events representing evidence about the fundamental "stuff" of our universe. The measures cannot be separated from what they are measuring. The relationships between them are symbolic representations of the fundamental nature and composition of our reality. The philosophical implications are derived from that . . . not their use or application.
Hmmm, I'm chewing on this, but you'll have to give me some time because it's heady stuff.
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.
