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 have explained in more rigorous mathematical detail during the exchange with Morbert whereupon he abandoned the discussion. I tire of the unwarranted attacks on my character and competence . . . especially from those who have exhibited neither.
The walls have ears, MysticPHD.
You did not "explain" anything in more rigorous mathematical detail. Instead, when I exposed your horribly inaccurate use of scientific terminology, as well as your fundamental misunderstanding of the core of modern physics, you tried to pass off your mistakes as efforts to "dumb down" content for a general audience. It was an excuse that not only made no sense, but was also insulting to the "general audience".
I left the conversation when your responses became sufficiently contrived, and when I was confident enough that anyone unfortunate enough to read our exchange would not be fooled by your word salad.
You did not "explain" anything in more rigorous mathematical detail. Instead, when I exposed your horribly inaccurate use of scientific terminology, as well as your fundamental misunderstanding of the core of modern physics, you tried to pass off your mistakes as efforts to "dumb down" content for a general audience. It was an excuse that not only made no sense, but was also insulting to the "general audience".
I left the conversation when your responses became sufficiently contrived, and when I was confident enough that anyone unfortunate enough to read our exchange would not be fooled by your word salad.
Horse-puckey! The walls still have deaf ears! You still don't understand the different purposes of the material I presented. The underlying physics which I accurately presented to YOU re: energy/mass equivalence and the relationship of momentum (kinetic energy) and potential energy (inertial rest mass) as the "same property" of the universal field was accurate. The analogies I used in the Synthesis to highlight the implications of those relationships for a lay understanding our reality is what bothered you because you evaluated them as physics and not as analogies. You STILL do not seem to grasp the difference. I suspect that failure to grasp the different purposes of the presentations is what motivates you to continue to misrepresent the issues.
The underlying physics which I accurately presented to YOU re: energy/mass equivalence and the relationship of momentum (kinetic energy) and potential energy (inertial rest mass) as the "same property" of the universal field was accurate.
That statement is wrong on a basic physical level.
Momentum is not kinetic energy, nor is it the same property as potential energy (which is also not intertial rest mass). The fact that an object's energy does not have to equal its momentum is what allows objects to have rest mass, as rest mass is simply a measure of the difference between energy and momentum.
But that is, of course, beside the point. Your original assertion was something along the lines of "Energy is mass accelerated to the speed of light" or some such nonsense, and your contrived attempt to pass such statements off as "analogies" is also incoherent.
Horse-puckey! The walls still have deaf ears! You still don't understand the different purposes of the material I presented. The underlying physics which I accurately presented to YOU re: energy/mass equivalence and the relationship of momentum (kinetic energy) and potential energy (inertial rest mass) as the "same property" of the universal field was accurate. The analogies I used in the Synthesis to highlight the implications of those relationships for a lay understanding our reality is what bothered you because you evaluated them as physics and not as analogies. You STILL do not seem to grasp the difference. I suspect that failure to grasp the different purposes of the presentations is what motivates you to continue to misrepresent the issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbert
That statement is wrong on a basic physical level.
You are wrong on a basic philosophical level. My entire Synthesis is metaphor. The mathematics model reality . . . but are NOT reality. What is measured and manipulated by the mathematics IS. The symbolic constructs being manipulated represent an underlying reality. Using the manipulations to predict and describe what is going on in reality is ONE use and the only one you seem familiar with. But I am using them for another entirely different purpose . . . understanding what the reality represented by the symbolic constructs (equations) ACTUALLY IS. That is why I presented Einstein's expanded equation and discussed its interpretation and implications for the concept of matter. You say what I presented about the equation was wrong. Please elucidate. Here it is again for your convenience. If you want to revisit the Stanford material here it is.
The relationship between mass-energy equivalence and hypotheses concerning the nature of reality rest on assumptions concerning the nature of matter. The actual relation derived from special relativity is:
E = (m − q)c^2 + K,
K just fixes the zero-point of energy and is conventionally set to zero. However, unlike the convention to set K to zero, setting q = 0 involves a hypothesis concerning the nature of matter . . . because it rules out the possibility that there exists matter that has some mass which can not be “converted” into energy. This relates directly to the issue of conversion/transformation and physicists have no evidence whatsoever that there exists ANY matter for which q is NOT equal to zero. The view that mass and energy are the same property of physical systems requires that q = 0. Mass and energy cannot be the same property if there exists matter that has any mass that cannot be “converted” into energy. Bottom line: Rainville, et al. have empirically demonstrated the mass-energy equivalence directly as recently as 2005 with an accuracy for Einstein's equation of 0.00004%.
What can we take away from this equivalence philosophically about the structure of reality and the nature of matter? Actually Einstein's classical distinction between matter and fields has given way to an ontology entirely comprised of fields. This makes the preferred view of 'particle" physicists that the "same property" is physical mass questionable (Lange, et al. . . . such physical bias is to be expected from physicists I suppose). But Einstein's ontological field view (universal field) requires that energy be the "same property" rest state (basic "substance") . . . NOT mass.
Quote:
Momentum is not kinetic energy, nor is it the same property as potential energy (which is also not intertial rest mass).
They are separate MEASURED manifestations of the "same property" of the field . . . you know . . . "equivalence!"
Quote:
The fact that an object's energy does not have to equal its momentum is what allows objects to have rest mass, as rest mass is simply a measure of the difference between energy and momentum.
Duh! We are discussing what the measures symbolically represent . . . the underlying nature of the reality manifesting as those measures. Do you get it YET!
Quote:
But that is, of course, beside the point. Your original assertion was something along the lines of "Energy is mass accelerated to the speed of light" or some such nonsense, and your contrived attempt to pass such statements off as "analogies" is also incoherent.
That has nothing to do with describing the actual physics . . . it is communicating the relational principles using the metaphor of speed (as detailed in my Synthesis) . . . something you and your cohort tenaciously refuse to acknowledge.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 01-22-2014 at 02:12 PM..
You are wrong on a basic philosophical level. My entire Synthesis is metaphor. The mathematics model reality . . . but are NOT reality.
You keep saying this as if it is some sort of valid defense. You are not merely tendering a confusing ontology, you are getting basic relationships expressed by the mathematics wrong. What you have said about the relationships between momentum, kinetic and potential energy, and mass is wrong. If you cannot even understand what the equations are asserting about the variables in question, your ontology is automatically doomed.
With your new post, you have also introduced more errors. Your equation is wrong, for example. Under your equation, a system would lose energy as it gained momentum. Also, whether or not q = 0 is simply a statement about whether or not the object is at rest. So when you say
Quote:
This relates directly to the issue of conversion/transformation and physicists have no evidence whatsoever that there exists ANY matter for which q is NOT equal to zero.
you are wrong. Matter for which q is not 0 is simply matter that is moving.
Instead, a simple classical ontology to be derived from the (correct) equation is that energy and momentum are different facets of a quantity called 4-momentum ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-momentum ), and the magnitude of this quantity is the rest mass of the system.
Ok, I have read the Stanford article you posted. It seems the equation you have posted is not actually an attempt at the energy-momentum equation, but instead pertains to Einstein's derivation of mass-energy equivalence. Your statements about the relationships between momentum and energy are still wrong, but not for the reasons I mentioned in the previous post.
A quick clarification of the difference between matter and mass:
Rest mass is a measure of the difference between the energy and momentum of a system (you seem to have no objections to this).
Matter has no real formal definition. It it usually refers to the "stuff" that couples to spacetime. It is not relevant to any ontological questions, as more modern terms like "particles/fields" are more specific.
Energy (both potential and kinetic) and momentum are different properties of a system. Energy is not a substance that is "all that exists". Nor is it the sole property of whatever does exist. In the context of a 4-D spacetime, energy is the time component of a system's 4-momentum, while ordinary momentum (p) is the spatial component of a system's 4-momentum.
So, ontologically speaking, energy is not a fundamental substance, but rather one part of the description of the behaviour of substance.
Our argument was over your assertion that energy was a) A substance, and b) All that exists. I very clearly explained to you why this was wrong, and you responded with nothing but contrivances.
Oh crap. What was the original question? Oh yeah, do atheists believe the world was created or something like that. Yes I believe the world was created. Not by some supernatural being with a finger on a button but rather by some cosmic serendipitous event. Why can't we all just be respectful of the many different opinions and belief systems without trying to convince someone to change their way of thinking to your way of thinking? What does it matter how the world was created? It's here, we're here and in the end we all have to find our own way. Call me an idealist but wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone in the world could be united with the belief that we all live here on this planet together. We are children of the Earth first, everything else is just secondary. Hey, I'm going to start a new religion called Children of the Earth. Now everybody send me a dollar please.
You keep saying this as if it is some sort of valid defense. You are not merely tendering a confusing ontology, you are getting basic relationships expressed by the mathematics wrong. What you have said about the relationships between momentum, kinetic and potential energy, and mass is wrong. If you cannot even understand what the equations are asserting about the variables in question, your ontology is automatically doomed.
With your new post, you have also introduced more errors. Your equation is wrong, for example. Under your equation, a system would lose energy as it gained momentum. Also, whether or not q = 0 is simply a statement about whether or not the object is at rest. So when you say
you are wrong. Matter for which q is not 0 is simply matter that is moving.
Instead, a simple classical ontology to be derived from the (correct) equation is that energy and momentum are different facets of a quantity called 4-momentum ( Four-momentum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ), and the magnitude of this quantity is the rest mass of the system.
Another who comes to the same conclusion. I even recall that someone else found the mathematics wrong.
The admission that the whole synthesis is metaphorical is rather staggering. I knew it was full of speculation, but what is it supposed to be a metaphor of? That it is presented as science is unconvincing as it seems that some science - concepts (some still unknown. like dark matter) are pressed into service to try to pad out what is no more than god -belief.
Where did the monkey come from? Well it was just always there of course. It's magic- don't question it.
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.
