Energy is Mass "accelerated" (frequency of vibration) to C^2 (points, soul)

[Boxcar Overkill]

Originally Posted by Morbert

No, and I am sure it is irrelevant, since the energy-momentum equation does not say everything is mass, just as it does not say everything is momentum, or everything is energy.

I could be wrong, but I think Mystic is making the rhetorical point that matter is a transitional state of energy, and from one point of view, matter is a description or a measurement of energy. To my limited understanding of physics, that doesn't sound like an unreasonable point.

It's been awhile since I've discussed this with Mystic, but I think my disagreement with him resides in his description of consciousness. Even if the composite of conscious were to exist outside the brain in a meaningful form, it would only be a recording of what was "thought" and not be able to produce intelligence.

Consciousness is an ongoing process requiring sensory input and analysis. As such, it can't exist without a functional brain, (or it's equivalent.) Old "thoughts" can not create new "thoughts". We need a brain or it's equivalent to do that. It's never been clear to me how Mystic solves that problem.

(If the above was non sequitar to this thread I apologize. I haven't had a chance to read it all.)

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

I could be wrong, but I think Mystic is making the rhetorical point that matter is a transitional state of energy, and from one point of view, matter is a description or a measurement of energy. To my limited understanding of physics, that doesn't sound like an unreasonable point.

It's been awhile since I've discussed this with Mystic, but I think my disagreement with him resides in his description of consciousness. Even if the composite of conscious were to exist outside the brain in a meaningful form, it would only be a recording of what was "thought" and not be able to produce intelligence.

Consciousness is an ongoing process requiring sensory input and analysis. As such, it can't exist without a functional brain, (or it's equivalent.) Old "thoughts" can not create new "thoughts". We need a brain or it's equivalent to do that. It's never been clear to me how Mystic solves that problem.

(If the above was non sequitar to this thread I apologize. I haven't had a chance to read it all.)

It is a bit off topic so we can perhaps discuss it elsewhere more fruitfully, Box. But to answer your main objection . . . the consciousness we experience is the "recording" or "delayed broadcast." The neuroscience is clear that our experienced conscious awareness is NOT the active "thinker" or "decider" (that is the part I refer to as our embryo Spirit). The brain records the processes that produce our consciousness and it is those "recordings" and the "delayed broadcast" of them that we use to think, interpret and experience our reality. This is why when the brain or its components and recordings are damaged, or diseased, or drugged . . . we lose access and functionality.

[Morbert]

Originally Posted by peter-1

Well...even I can comprehend what mystic is getting at with the implications in what the mathematical models are ...implying....with regards to the form of creation...as well the idea in all is energy and our time state in perception so, I gotta wonder with members having way more science knowledge then myself, why the knowledge is being used to reject the suggested shaping of existence, when it complies with an objective collection of all the facts, but without the individual relative specificities, which allow for the biased reference point by their own limited self explained ability to do so.

It is not impling any such thing.

E^2 = p^2 + m^2 is an equivalence statement, and not implying any vague notions of "existence shaping".

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Philosophers of science have long known that it is quite typical for a proficiency in the use and application of mathematics to exist simultaneously with a complete lack of insight into the philosophical implications of the formulations about the structure and composition of reality. It is an extension of the old saw that "to someone who uses a hammer everything looks like a nail."

What you have been saying, and what you are saying, is wrong. Moderator cut: delete

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

I could be wrong, but I think Mystic is making the rhetorical point that matter is a transitional state of energy, and from one point of view, matter is a description or a measurement of energy. To my limited understanding of physics, that doesn't sound like an unreasonable point.

Regarding consciousness: An open question in physics and neuroscience is whether or not consciousness can be simulated (More rigorously, we ask whether or not a Turing machine can produce consciousness). The mainstream opinion is that yes, consciousness can emerge from a sufficiently robust neural computer. Though Roger Penrose has written a couple of excellent books arguing that processes in the brain that result in consciousness cannot emerge from a computer/simulation. But it must be pointed out that such arguments are completely unrelated to the waffle MysticPhD is putting out here.
Moderator cut: de;ete

As for mass being a transient form of energy: It is true that mass is not conserved under relativity. Physical processes can change the amount of mass in a system, and mass and energy are intimately related, but this does not mean energy is all that exists. Energy is a property of things, things have "energy", but you cannot have energy alone, just as you cannot have "fast" alone or "momentum" alone. Take light as an obvious example: A photon is a quantized excitation of the electromagnetic field, it possesses energy, but this does not mean it is energy. Similarly, it possesses momentum, but this does not mean it is momentum.

To extend the example further. Consider this photon in a perfectly reflective can (not technically possible, but bear with me). The photon has energy and momentum, but no mass. Yet since the photon is bouncing back and forth within the can, the system's inertia, and hence mass increases. Similarly, two particles with a given mass might annihilate to produce the photon(s) with no mass, but a given energy equivalent to the amount of annihilated mass. This might help illustrate the relation between mass and energy, but notice that the system never reduces to just energy. Even string theory, which postulates particles as representations of string vibrations, does not say all that exists is energy. In String theory, it is the strings that have energy.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

[mod]delete[mod].

Moderator cut: delete.

[peter-1]

Just for the record Morbert, either I explained improperly or whatever, but you missed my thinking there...no biggy. (edit...that was a good question boxcar and the effects of it are appreciated with understood meaning. Anyway it seems an analogy is needed for the analogy and that would be difficult. Enjoy all the effort at contribution basically

[Narcissus23]

Maybe this will help explain..... Lisa Randall and Raman Sundrum proposed the 5-dimensional warped geometry theory (also referred to as the Randall-Sundrum model) in 1999. They were looking to solve the hierarchy problem of the Standard Model; that is, why the other three forces are so much stronger than gravity. Their solution, in simplistic terms, is a five dimensional (four of space, one of time) Universe containing four dimensional (three of space, one of time) brane(s). The two branes are the "gravity brane", where gravitons exist, and the "weak brane" for all the other elementary particles. The weak brane is "our" world. The two branes are separated in the fifth dimension and carry opposite brane energy, which has the affect of warping the fifth dimension. Gravity is strong on the gravity brane, but falls off as it crosses over to the weak brane. The separation proposed is such that the strength of gravity is equal to what we measure when it reaches the weak brane. This implies a change of 16 orders of magnitude. By applying this to superstring theory, the strings are the proposed length of 10-33 cm on the gravity brane, but enlarge by 16 orders of magnitude to 10-17 cm on the weak brane. In this model, therefore, it is possible that strings could be detected by the LHC in the future. A second version of the model proposes that, rather than being a fixed length, the fifth dimension is, essentially, infinite putting the two branes infinitely far apart, with gravity having its "natural home" in the bulk.
In the Randall-Sundrum Model, all the fundamental particles and forces (except gravity and gravitons) are represented as open strings that have their ends stuck in our 3-brane, the Weak brane, and cannot extend into the extra, warped dimension or into any of the other possible branes within that bulk. Photons, for example, cannot leave our brane or enter it from the bulk, so that all we see is the three space plus one time dimension of our Universe. Gravity and gravitons are represented as closed loop strings that exist either in the bulk, or in another brane, the Gravity brane.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Narcissus23

Maybe this will help explain..... Lisa Randall and Raman Sundrum proposed the 5-dimensional warped geometry theory (also referred to as the Randall-Sundrum model) in 1999. They were looking to solve the hierarchy problem of the Standard Model; that is, why the other three forces are so much stronger than gravity. Their solution, in simplistic terms, is a five dimensional (four of space, one of time) Universe containing four dimensional (three of space, one of time) brane(s). The two branes are the "gravity brane", where gravitons exist, and the "weak brane" for all the other elementary particles. The weak brane is "our" world. The two branes are separated in the fifth dimension and carry opposite brane energy, which has the affect of warping the fifth dimension. Gravity is strong on the gravity brane, but falls off as it crosses over to the weak brane. The separation proposed is such that the strength of gravity is equal to what we measure when it reaches the weak brane. This implies a change of 16 orders of magnitude. By applying this to superstring theory, the strings are the proposed length of 10-33 cm on the gravity brane, but enlarge by 16 orders of magnitude to 10-17 cm on the weak brane. In this model, therefore, it is possible that strings could be detected by the LHC in the future. A second version of the model proposes that, rather than being a fixed length, the fifth dimension is, essentially, infinite putting the two branes infinitely far apart, with gravity having its "natural home" in the bulk.
In the Randall-Sundrum Model, all the fundamental particles and forces (except gravity and gravitons) are represented as open strings that have their ends stuck in our 3-brane, the Weak brane, and cannot extend into the extra, warped dimension or into any of the other possible branes within that bulk. Photons, for example, cannot leave our brane or enter it from the bulk, so that all we see is the three space plus one time dimension of our Universe. Gravity and gravitons are represented as closed loop strings that exist either in the bulk, or in another brane, the Gravity brane.

I understand the mathematical rationale and desire to use more dimensions for the additional degrees of freedom acquired. But I am afraid I will stick with Minkowski's topological derivation of a four dimensional world. It seems more than adequate to explain things for now. We just need a breakthrough in the mathematics of wave mechanics on the order of the calculus to reconcile the quantum theories with the relativistic ones. For now the Maldacena conjecture provides a Rube Goldberg work around that seems promising.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I haven't the foggiest idea where the hell you get this stupid claim. I NEVER made any such claim .

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

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

Yes, where ever did I get the idea that you were saying that magical thought energy can't be transformed?

You persist in misunderstanding this and I seem unable to break your obsession with your misunderstanding of the points I was trying to illustrate. We are done here.

Declare victory and run away when you can't answer a simple question. Predictable, I guess.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by peter-1

Well...even I can comprehend what mystic is getting at with the implications in what the mathematical models are ...implying....with regards to the form of creation...as well the idea in all is energy and our time state in perception so, I gotta wonder with members having way more science knowledge then myself, why the knowledge is being used to reject the suggested shaping of existence, when it complies with an objective collection of all the facts, but without the individual relative specificities, which allow for the biased reference point by their own limited self explained ability to do so.

Why is it that new posters who magically appear to support Mystic's arguments also have the same writing style as him? In this case, you'll notice the abuse of ellipses (...) and reluctance to write in complete sentences, just like his main account.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

Yes, where ever did I get the idea that you were saying that magical thought energy can't be transformed?

The actual science question that you keep harping on that is adequately addressed by my responses is:

Which is your inability to explain what you meant when you said "EM energy (E=hf) is energy that cannot be contained in matter as we know it".

The dark energy hypothesis is plausible and adequately supported circumstantially to be a legitimate HYPOTHESIS. Don't pretend you have been harping on that aspect with the above statement.

Declare victory and run away when you can't answer a simple question. Predictable, I guess.

When you repeatedly demonstrate your lack of understanding no matter how many different ways I try to present the philosophical implications of the mathematics as representations of the structure and composition of our reality . . . it is time to acknowledge that the problem lies with the receiver. I repeat: What you seem unable to do is deal with the philosophical 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 structure and composition of reality require such abstract thought. If you are not interested or are incapable of it . . . we have nothing to discuss.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

Why is it that new posters who magically appear to support Mystic's arguments also have the same writing style as him?

Really . . . you find Peter-1's writing style the same as mine??? I frequently have difficulty understanding the point he is trying to make (I assume it is because English may not be his native tongue). But this explains a lot about your inability to understand my points. I wouldn't know how to create and or use whatever a "sock puppet" is that seems to be used by those who are banned from here . . . like evofreaks. But amuse yourself with such speculations, KC.