Energy is Mass "accelerated" (frequency of vibration) to C^2 (nature, life)

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

You can reject and dispute the dark energy hypothesis because that is all it is at this time

What observation would falsify this "hypothesis"? Please be specific.

You can dispute the field aspects of consciousness but they are supported by current science.

References to articles in peer reviewed scientific journals, please. Remember that they have to include references to dark matter or energy to be consistent with your hypothesis.

But you have not disputed my rigorous (and not at all controversial) explanation of mass-energy equivalence

Because it has nothing to do with anything we're discussing. As I've mentioned before, the fact that you get a few bits of science jargon correct doesn't do anything to demonstrate that your field energy consciousness which is also universal god which created the universe idea has any merit.

that provides the rationale for my assertion that there is nothing but energy in vibratory energy event systems and transformations of the only thing that exists (energy) into different FORMS (event systems).

Again, please post references to articles in peer reviewed scientific journals backing up your claim that science says that there's no such thing as matter.

YOU keep talking about absorbing and emitting. The phrase "matter as we know it" refers to the mistaken idea that matter is some static, stable substance that exists throughout time and either absorbs or emits energy.

Who claims that matter is static and eternal? References, please.

Matter is a spherical standing waveform energy EVENT system that we experience as substance.

Please post references to articles in peer reviewed scientific journals backing up this claim.

Absorbing and emitting is the result of transformations by adding or removing higher frequency forms of the only thing that exists (energy) to the system.

So now you're saying that only high frequency EM can cause electrons to jump from the ground state? I thought it couldn't happen at all - the whole matter can't contain EM energy claim. Nice backtracking.

But now that you've claimed to know an actual science fact, let's see how it works in reality. What's the lower limit on the frequency which can excite an electron out of its ground state, specifically, and how do you mathematically derive this limit? And most importantly, please show us peer reviewed studies demonstrating this effect in action.

Come on, if it is science like you claim you should know this stuff off the top of your head. But if you're just making up sciencey-sounding word salad, feel free to respond with personal attacks and continue to claim that I'm not interested in really listening.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I think you are right. I am following this with great interest even though the subject is over my head. I am almost thinking that the knowledgeable people here are inadequate for making a definitive pronouncement on Mystic's hypothesis -and hypothesis it surely is at best.

It could be that you don't understand it because it's over your head, or it could be that you don't understand it because it's intentionally obtuse nonsense. I think the consensus from people here who understand physics is because it's the latter. Notice how specific questions never get answered - in my experience that's the sign of someone throwing around jargon they half-understand in an attempt to fool people. When a salesman or politician intentionally avoids a question, you should start watching your wallet - same idea applies here.

But if you want some entertainment value, you could post a link to the synthesis on a physics forum. I'd expect the response to be similar there as it is here - along with lots of excuses for why no one understands Mystic's self-described brilliance. Then again, it would add extra points to the Crackpot Index score if we can get him to say that the mainstream physics establishment is conspiring against him.

And yeah, I posted that link for a reason. This is how real scientists judge ideas, so it's hardly being unfair to someone who is claiming the support of science for his idea. Notice how many points this idea already has - including the biggest point scoring one "50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions".

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

It could be that you don't understand it because it's over your head, or it could be that you don't understand it because it's intentionally obtuse nonsense. I think the consensus from people here who understand physics is because it's the latter.

Too bad it is not from people who understand the philosophy of science . . . that would have more relevance.

Notice how specific questions never get answered - in my experience that's the sign of someone throwing around jargon they half-understand in an attempt to fool people.

Or it could be that the questions are completely irrelevant to the topic in question . . . the philosophical implications of the mathematical formulations routinely used to model our reality.

When a salesman or politician intentionally avoids a question, you should start watching your wallet - same idea applies here.

What does this say about your repeated refusal to address the real issues or the rigorous explanations I have already offered that produce them?

But if you want some entertainment value, you could post a link to the synthesis on a physics forum. I'd expect the response to be similar there as it is here - along with lots of excuses for why no one understands Mystic's self-described brilliance.

Cite places where I have extolled my "self-described brilliance." Since the synthesis is addressed to a mass audience using analogy . . . the analogies are likely to engender the same lack of philosophical acumen exhibited here.

Then again, it would add extra points to the Crackpot Index score if we can get him to say that the mainstream physics establishment is conspiring against him.

And yeah, I posted that link for a reason. This is how real scientists judge ideas, so it's hardly being unfair to someone who is claiming the support of science for his idea. Notice how many points this idea already has - including the biggest point scoring one "50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions".

Since your agenda is NOT understanding but ridicule of my ideas . . . we really do have nothing further to discuss, KC. My only objective is to EXPLAIN my views and the reasons I hold them to those legitimately interested in understanding. You clearly are NOT. Good day.

[Morbert]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

And you are incorrect. None of this conflicts with what I have said. In fact it reiterates it. The distinction made between matter and fields is obsolete. It is ALL fields now . . . and uncontroversially so. Absolutely true. You can add within a field, if it makes you feel better. I call the universal field a consciousness field. The only controversial aspect of field theory. Absolutely true. That is what an energy system IS . . . an aggregation of energy within the universal field.
This refers to my analogy that was used to make the concepts more accessible to a wider audience not familiar with the frequency/energy relationships. You do not like the analogy and insist on treating it literally because given your predilection for NOT reading my presentations . . . you probably didn't bother to actually read my use of analogy in my synthesis.
Absolutely true. There is nothing else it CAN be . . . since energy systems are all that exist.
Another use of analogy to convey the process nature of our composite consciousness and why it will continue to exist unless there exists some process for transforming it into some other form. This concept clearly flies right over your head.
More analogy to emphasize the relational aspects of the different energy states that exist . . . with pure or disaggregated energy comprised of the the highest frequencies. It also obtains from Minkowski's topological conception of the constancy of the world interval . . . where the relationship of time to the reference frame of the square of the speed of light is made explicit. More things from my synthesis you have not read but feel competent to judge.
A focus on the illusion of time (as we measure it). Since you do not believe in a soul and since a soul has no science-derived definition . . . totally irrelevant to the science part of this discussion. It is part of my BELIEF system that obviously is not restricted to the legitimate science that provided the basis for it.
Totally baseless and unsupported assertion that is refuted by extant field theories.
Another baseless assertion based on a refusal even to consider what I presented that anyone can see is baseless Thanks to Box and the Stanford Encyclopedia which I referenced, btw. You cannot be genuine. This entire presentation is based on what we "measure" NOT what it philosophically implies about what IS. I have said repeatedly that everything is in a universal FIELD (not MATTER)
and there is plenty of evidence that this is so. That you are not familiar with it or choose to retain the pragmatically useful (but philosophically blind) macro view of matter is not dispositive.
These " measured" energy events with useful names do not contradict anything I have said about the reality that underlies them. The "particle" (instead of particle event) perspective of physicists is understandable but not dispositive . . . all they have are their "measures." The inescapable fact that those "measures" are themselves "energy events" seems to get obscured in the penumbra of their considerations. But since they cannot function without them . . . any implications about what they philosophically reveal about reality are basically irrelevant. Philosophers of science are not surprised by this lack of philosophical perspective. They have more important and relevant work to do than consider what the implications of their formulations are for the structure and composition of reality.
Fortunately what you like or do not like is totally irrelvant to the physics or the philosophical implication for our reality. The fact remains that mass-energy equivalence is true and that energy is the most reasonable and rational candidate for the "same property" of the universal field that is our reality.Thank God they are YOUR inaccuracies born of your deliberate refusal to engage my presentations rigorously instead of proceeding from a point of ignorance about them. You are mired in the concrete world of measures and application and simply do not (or cannot) seem to grasp the philosophical perspective necessary.

This is very strange. Instead of saying "Oops Morbert, you're right. It is not correct to say all that exists is pure energy.", you have instead reiterated your incorrect assertions, and blatantly ignored the correction.

Pure energy, as that article makes clear, and as any elementary textbook makes clear, cannot exist by itself, since energy is a property of a system, not an independent substance. That modern quantum physics employs field operators to describe systems doesn't change that. The electron field is not pure energy any more than an electron is pure energy. The electromagnetic field is not pure energy any more than a photon is pure energy. Instead, these fields have a property called energy.

What's crazy is that this is a remarkably simple point to understand, that doesn't require any delving into quantum physics at all.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Morbert

This is very strange. Instead of saying "Oops Morbert, you're right. It is not correct to say all that exists is pure energy.", you have instead reiterated your incorrect assertions, and blatantly ignored the correction.

Pure energy, as that article makes clear, and as any elementary textbook makes clear, cannot exist by itself, since energy is a property of a system, not an independent substance. That modern quantum physics employs field operators to describe systems doesn't change that. The electron field is not pure energy any more than an electron is pure energy. The electromagnetic field is not pure energy any more than a photon is pure energy. Instead, these fields have a property called energy.

What's crazy is that this is a remarkably simple point to understand, that doesn't require any delving into quantum physics at all.

::Sigh: OF course it exists as the property of a field . . . EVERYTHING does. That has been my point . Our reality is established by the universal field (what I BELIEVE is a Consciousness field). The ONLY property that actually exists within that field is energy IN VARIOUS FORMS of aggregation and disaggregation . . . that we experience as matter or substance or EM radiation (and similar non-baryonic counterparts, presumably . . . since our reality is 95+% non-baryonic). What's crazy is this is a remarkably simple point to understand that seems to have philosophical implications that completely escape those most familiar with the pragmatic science of it.

[Boxcar Overkill]

Originally Posted by Morbert

What's crazy is that this is a remarkably simple point to understand, that doesn't require any delving into quantum physics at all.

I'm trying to give Mystic every benefit of the doubt, if for no other reason than because I appreciate new ways of looking at known facts. On the other hand, I don't wan't to be pulled into new-age quackery, based on fancy words with no real fundemental science behind it.

I think the only thing that gives me pause is my limited understanding of string theory, which I believe suggests that sub-atomic particles are really made of vibrating loops of energy, and the vibration of that energy is interpreted by us as particles.

That concept - that matter may really be a form of energy, and that everything in the universe is really vibrating strings of energy, sounds somewhat similar to the basic underlying concept that Mystic is basing his larger theory on.

Is that totally off-base, and unrelated to what is being discussed? If so, you don't need to spend the time going into details explaining why. You can just say it is unrelated.

I would appreciate your opinion, and thanks for breaking all this down for us laymen.

[Morbert]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

::Sigh: OF course it exists as the property of a field . . . EVERYTHING does. That has been my point . Our reality is established by the universal field (what I BELIEVE is a Consciousness field). The ONLY property that actually exists within that field is energy IN VARIOUS FORMS of aggregation and disaggregation . . . that we experience as matter or substance or EM radiation (and similar non-baryonic counterparts, presumably . . . since our reality is 95+% non-baryonic). What's crazy is this is a remarkably simple point to understand that seems to have philosophical implications that completely escape those most familiar with the pragmatic science of it.

"Actually, the only thing that exists in our universe is energy." -- MysticPhD

Again, I find this entirely baffling. Are you saying you misspoke? That, when you said "The only thing that exists in our universe is energy", you actually meant to say "It is not true that the only thing that exists in our universe is energy."? If you cannot even get the basic physics right, then how can you expect to say anything philosophically meaningful.

I should also point out that "Energy is all that exists" is by no means the only thing wrong with your posts, but we can start with the basics and work our way up from there.

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

I'm trying to give Mystic every benefit of the doubt, if for no other reason than because I appreciate new ways of looking at known facts. On the other hand, I don't wan't to be pulled into new-age quackery, based on fancy words with no real fundemental science behind it.

I think the only thing that gives me pause is my limited understanding of string theory, which I believe suggests that sub-atomic particles are really made of vibrating loops of energy, and the vibration of that energy is interpreted by us as particles.

That concept - that matter may really be a form of energy, and that everything in the universe is really vibrating strings of energy, sounds somewhat similar to the basic underlying concept that Mystic is basing his larger theory on.

Is that totally off-base, and unrelated to what is being discussed? If so, you don't need to spend the time going into details explaining why. You can just say it is unrelated.

I would appreciate your opinion, and thanks for breaking all this down for us laymen.

String theory does postulate that elementary particles are tiny vibrating strings, but these strings are not energy. Instead, the strings possess energy. It is the strings, not energy, that is the more fundamental thing. It is also not just the amount of energy a string has, but the patterns of vibrations and the behaviour of the string boundaries that determine the particle type.

String theory is largely motivated by the difficulties in dealing with the elementary particles of quantum field theories. Particles are point-like, and difficult to treat in a manner that is consistent with relativity. But by considering strings instead of particles, we have extended objects that make a lot of the problems go away (though not without introducing other problems). As it stands, it is very much an incomplete theory, but it is still light-years away from "everything is energy" woo woo.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Morbert

"Actually, the only thing that exists in our universe is energy." -- MysticPhD
Again, I find this entirely baffling. Are you saying you misspoke? That, when you said "The only thing that exists in our universe is energy", you actually meant to say "It is not true that the only thing that exists in our universe is energy."? If you cannot even get the basic physics right, then how can you expect to say anything philosophically meaningful.

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.

I should also point out that "Energy is all that exists" is by no means the only thing wrong with your posts, but we can start with the basics and work our way up from there.

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 . . .Moderator cut: deleted

String theory does postulate that elementary particles are tiny vibrating strings, but these strings are not energy. Instead, the strings possess energy. It is the strings, not energy, that is the more fundamental thing.[/quote] 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.

It is also not just the amount of energy a string has, but the patterns of vibrations and the behaviour of the string boundaries that determine the particle type.
String theory is largely motivated by the difficulties in dealing with the elementary particles of quantum field theories. Particles are point-like, and difficult to treat in a manner that is consistent with relativity. But by considering strings instead of particles, we have extended objects that make a lot of the problems go away (though not without introducing other problems). As it stands, it is very much an incomplete theory, but it is still light-years away from "everything is energy" woo woo.

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.

[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.


E=mc²: Einstein explains his famous formula - YouTube


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.

[KCfromNC]

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.

Can you provide a quote which says that speed has anything to do with it? It's nowhere in the video you posted.

Not to mention the obvious problem, which we've covered before, that c^2 isn't a speed or velocity in the first place.

My understanding of it is that pure energy is vibrating at a speed

Energy doesn't vibrate. It's a property of a system, not a physical object.