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 want to thank you for sharing you 'syntheses' with me. Yesterday I copied and pasted your initial post (above) and all 5 syntheses into a word document and printed them off so that I could read them all together (you realise that this amounted to about 34 pages, right!)
As you have probably deduced by now, I have a fairly solid understanding of physics and cosmology (no expert but a good grasp of the concepts), so I'm guessing what I'm about to say may not come as a surprise to you.
I said I would get back to you with a considered response – I feel I would be doing you a disservice if my response wasn't an honest one so I have to give you the good, the bad and the ugly – I'm sure you understand.
::Sigh:: I have no problem with the bad and the ugly, Cruithne. I have experienced plenty of it here. My Synthesis is neither a physics lesson nor an article for the Journal of Physics. I was not attempting to teach physics . . . except at the most basic level. I was attempting to bring to a lay audience the philosophical implications of physics for our understanding of reality. My philosophical objective for this discussion with you is not to teach the USE of physics or the rationale for USING it. I am trying to make the philosophical implications of the science accessible to a mass audience by analogy . . . and this routinely has been abused by taking them literally to denigrate me and my understanding. I am saddened that you seem to have taken a similar tack.
My Synthesis uses metaphor as a symbolic parallel construction to the ones in physics represented in the symbols of mathematics. Mathematics simply symbolically model the underlying reality using our measurements (energy events). My analogies are parallel symbolic representations that illustrate the experiential relationship of our consciousness to the same reality . . . so that a lay audience can relate to it. As long as you misunderstand what the Synthesis really is about and do not consider the philosophical implications of the symbolic representations (and not the actual physics, per se) . . . of course it will seem wrong to you. Existentially, there is no such thing as matter . . . just field manifesting as "energy events" (systems) of varying vibratory states.
My goal for the Synthesis was to make the concept of different vibratory states of the unified field as the manifestations of energy systems relative to our reference frames for experiencing and measuring our reality . . . accessible to those not typically used to a philosophical perspective. Your understanding of the physics and the symbolic nature of the mathematical formulations as indices of the underlying structure and composition of reality is excellent. But typically, 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.
Clearly you have not read the Synthesis by thinking about these issues philosophically. Speed and acceleration have nothing to do with the actual physics . . . they are communication vehicles for the relational experiences of reality. When I use the terms to interpret the philosophical implications of the mathematics for the underlying reality they represent . . . I am not using them literally. When I say that molecular activity is the "slowest" form of "energy event" due to aggregation of energy vibratory field constituents (massing and slowing of vibratory rates) and that photons and sub-atomic "particle events" are the "fastest" . . . I am not talking about any physical speeds. When I say that energy is mass accelerated to the square of the speed of light . . . I am not talking about any actual acceleration or speed. I am referring to implications for the underlying reality that is only symbolically modeled by the relationship.
Energy is ALL that exists in a universal field that establishes the parameters for the aggregation of "energy events" into mass of varying "spherical standing waveforms" we interact with as matter. Einstein's equation reveals this mass-energy equivalence that leads me to the philosophical implications for the composition of reality I have tried to analogize.
To understand this philosophical significance of E = mc^2 as regards the nature of reality . . . we need to understand the meaning of the symbols. Unfortunately, these symbols are not used univocally by physicists and philosophers. Nevertheless a relatively unequivocal understanding is that E represents the total energy of a physical system. The symbol (m) represents the relativistic mass of the system as "measured" by an observer moving with a constant velocity (v) relative to the system. (Note the use of quotes to emphasize the importance of measurement in all these speculations. See my synthesis for a discussion of the implications of such measurements as themselves unique energy events.)
When the observer and the system are in a relative state of rest . . . the mass is called the inertial rest mass . . . or the tendency of the system to resist changes in velocity. The value of the energy in the rest state is the rest energy . . . and is a measure of all of the energy (including the potential energy) of the constituents of the system. This is the form of Einstein's equation we are exploring the implications of for the nature of reality . . . because at rest the Lorentz factor is 1 and disappears.
The three main philosophical questions concerning the interpretation of E = mc^2 are:
1. What is mass-energy equivalence and are mass and energy the same property of physical systems?;
2. Are we dealing with conversion or transformation of mass into energy in some physical interactions?;
3. Are there any ontological consequences of Einstein's equation? If so what?
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.
The most recent efforts relying on this "same property" view have shown that the very structure of timespace must be altered to account for any transformations. (See my other analogies in the Synthesis for more simplified explanations of what is going on) Minkowski's topological analysis of timespace is instructive. I deliberately reverse the typical "spacetime" expression to "timespace" because it is increasingly evident that time is the more crucial and "real" aspect of reality and that "energy events" are the true "structural components."
If you have any relevant corrections to my "non-analogy" views and wish to subject them to discussion and further clarification please do so. Otherwise, my assertion that a unified field establishes our reality and energy is the basic property (manifestation) of timespace stands . . . Einstein's universal field is validated . . . and consciousness as energy is supported (since there is nothing else for it to be!)
I would ask you to keep this audience in mind in the discussion . . . and not obfuscate the essential point about mass-energy equivalence for this non-physicist lay audience. For all intents and purposes of this discussion I am correct in what I assert. This audience is likely to have difficulty dealing with this depth of understanding. Pursuing the deeper issues in the actual physics can obfuscate the main points being made while adding nothing to the interpretation of the philosophical implications. The deeper understanding, especially in the quantum arena (e.g., the double slit experiements and their non-intuitive effects of observation or spooky action at a distance) only further support my overall assertions. But it is apt to be far less accessible to this audience . . . as I have hinted at in my synthesis.
My analogies are designed to provide easy to understand relational principles that have mass appeal and provide comparative validity in understanding the relational aspects of our experiencing of reality. I have consistently maintained a philosophy of science focus on the implications of what we have measured and how they relate mathematically as clues to the underlying structure and composition of our reality. None of my critics have and seem disinclined to do so. So I would appreciate it if you would engage the philosophical issues. If you do not feel comfortable doing so . . . I will still welcome your presentation of your understanding of the physics . . . especially that given above. Of course . . . your understanding of what the physics implies about the structure and composition of our reality would have more relevance to the discussion. If you can make the deeper understanding accessible to this audience . . . be my guest.
I doubt seriously that anything I say will be of effect, but nevertheless I would feel remiss if I didn't chime in here.
Imagine for a moment that I made the following statements:
1. Sodium is a light metal that reacts violently - even explosively - with water.
2. Chlorine, at room temperature, is a toxic gas.
3. Common table salt is composed of the two elements above.
4. Given this, it should be clear to the reader that eating too much salt is unhealthy.
Even if all of the facts that precede my conclusion are true (and they are) and the conclusion is true (and it is) I am giving the reader a false impression. Certainly it simplifies the issue for the reader (after all, who can't understand explosions and poison?) but I am not giving the reader a fair perspective on the situation. The reason that excessive salt is unhealthy has nothing to do with the constituent elements, giving my reader a false concept of how reality works...in this case the fact that the properties of a compound are independent of the properties of the elements from which it is composed. Even if I confess that I am only using the properties of sodium and chlorine as an instructive tool, it does not change the fact that I have supported my conclusion with evidence that I know to be faulty.
If you believe that your thesis stands up to the proper application of physics (which you seem to) why not correct it to accurately reflect the interconvertable nature of matter and energy? Why stand with a flawed depiction of the science behind your claims? I realize that you intended to write for those with minimal scientific background, but just as it is with my salt metaphor, providing inaccurate information on top of relative ignorance only makes matters worse in the bigger picture - even if the conclusion is true. Besides, I dare suggest that us "lay people" (whatever you mean by that) can handle more information than you seem to think.
I doubt seriously that anything I say will be of effect, but nevertheless I would feel remiss if I didn't chime in here.
Imagine for a moment that I made the following statements:
1. Sodium is a light metal that reacts violently - even explosively - with water.
2. Chlorine, at room temperature, is a toxic gas.
3. Common table salt is composed of the two elements above.
4. Given this, it should be clear to the reader that eating too much salt is unhealthy.
Even if all of the facts that precede my conclusion are true (and they are) and the conclusion is true (and it is) I am giving the reader a false impression. Certainly it simplifies the issue for the reader (after all, who can't understand explosions and poison?) but I am not giving the reader a fair perspective on the situation. The reason that excessive salt is unhealthy has nothing to do with the constituent elements, giving my reader a false concept of how reality works...in this case the fact that the properties of a compound are independent of the properties of the elements from which it is composed. Even if I confess that I am only using the properties of sodium and chlorine as an instructive tool, it does not change the fact that I have supported my conclusion with evidence that I know to be faulty.
If you believe that your thesis stands up to the proper application of physics (which you seem to) why not correct it to accurately reflect the interconvertable nature of matter and energy? Why stand with a flawed depiction of the science behind your claims? I realize that you intended to write for those with minimal scientific background, but just as it is with my salt metaphor, providing inaccurate information on top of relative ignorance only makes matters worse in the bigger picture - even if the conclusion is true. Besides, I dare suggest that us "lay people" (whatever you mean by that) can handle more information than you seem to think.
Thanks.
Thank you, Hyker. Of course what you present will be of effect. I read what is posted to me from those who have not shown themselves to be antagonists for the sake of being antagonists. I have stalkers . . . some of whom I no longer read . . . they are on ignore. Others I read but seldom respond to them. They are just an annoyance. I do not use the term "lay audience" pejoratively . . . but modern physics is extraordinarily abstract. The philosophical implications that can be drawn from it are not simple and the speculations that are possible using them are legion. I am looking at the forest . . . but my antagonists are looking at the differences in the composition of the bark on the trees.
You make an excellent point and I see why you may have drawn it as an analogy to my thesis. Your caveat . . . "even if the conclusion is true" . . . particularly resonates with me. The properties of the chemicals reflect the truth about the "bark" on the trees. The gap between those truths and the conclusion about the effects of sodium chloride on health is where the fault lies. It is necessary to draw many distinctions about chemical compounds, the conditions affecting our health and the processing of chemicals in the body (the "forest") . . . to eliminate the mistaken appearance of a direct effect on health from the separate properties ("bark") of the chemicals.
I hope to get into the issue of consciousness with Cruithne more directly to draw the kinds of distinctions and conditions necessary to explain how I support my conclusion from the basic field properties of energy/mass and the unified field. The difficulty I face in doing that is manifold. Of course it is my analogies, metaphors and ultimate conclusion that seem most problematic for everyone . . . but the truth value of my conclusion is unequivocal TO ME . . . for personal reasons.
the beauty of quantum mechanics is that in certain circumstances we can eliminate the notion of speed because some things that happen in quantum mechanics happen instantaneously and at great distances.
Cruithne, do you know of any experiments that support your statement?
Do you have any scientific references that even use the word "instantaneous"?
::Sigh:: I have no problem with the bad and the ugly, Cruithne. I have experienced plenty of it here. My Synthesis is neither a physics lesson nor an article for the Journal of Physics. I was not attempting to teach physics . . . except at the most basic level. I was attempting to bring to a lay audience the philosophical implications of physics for our understanding of reality. My philosophical objective for this discussion with you is not to teach the USE of physics or the rationale for USING it. I am trying to make the philosophical implications of the science accessible to a mass audience by analogy . . . and this routinely has been abused by taking them literally to denigrate me and my understanding. I am saddened that you seem to have taken a similar tack.
My Synthesis uses metaphor as a symbolic parallel construction to the ones in physics represented in the symbols of mathematics. Mathematics simply symbolically model the underlying reality using our measurements (energy events). My analogies are parallel symbolic representations that illustrate the experiential relationship of our consciousness to the same reality . . . so that a lay audience can relate to it. As long as you misunderstand what the Synthesis really is about and do not consider the philosophical implications of the symbolic representations (and not the actual physics, per se) . . . of course it will seem wrong to you. Existentially, there is no such thing as matter . . . just field manifesting as "energy events" (systems) of varying vibratory states.
My goal for the Synthesis was to make the concept of different vibratory states of the unified field as the manifestations of energy systems relative to our reference frames for experiencing and measuring our reality . . . accessible to those not typically used to a philosophical perspective. Your understanding of the physics and the symbolic nature of the mathematical formulations as indices of the underlying structure and composition of reality is excellent. But typically, 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.
Clearly you have not read the Synthesis by thinking about these issues philosophically. Speed and acceleration have nothing to do with the actual physics . . . they are communication vehicles for the relational experiences of reality. When I use the terms to interpret the philosophical implications of the mathematics for the underlying reality they represent . . . I am not using them literally. When I say that molecular activity is the "slowest" form of "energy event" due to aggregation of energy vibratory field constituents (massing and slowing of vibratory rates) and that photons and sub-atomic "particle events" are the "fastest" . . . I am not talking about any physical speeds. When I say that energy is mass accelerated to the square of the speed of light . . . I am not talking about any actual acceleration or speed. I am referring to implications for the underlying reality that is only symbolically modeled by the relationship.
Energy is ALL that exists in a universal field that establishes the parameters for the aggregation of "energy events" into mass of varying "spherical standing waveforms" we interact with as matter. Einstein's equation reveals this mass-energy equivalence that leads me to the philosophical implications for the composition of reality I have tried to analogize.
To understand this philosophical significance of E = mc^2 as regards the nature of reality . . . we need to understand the meaning of the symbols. Unfortunately, these symbols are not used univocally by physicists and philosophers. Nevertheless a relatively unequivocal understanding is that E represents the total energy of a physical system. The symbol (m) represents the relativistic mass of the system as "measured" by an observer moving with a constant velocity (v) relative to the system. (Note the use of quotes to emphasize the importance of measurement in all these speculations. See my synthesis for a discussion of the implications of such measurements as themselves unique energy events.)
When the observer and the system are in a relative state of rest . . . the mass is called the inertial rest mass . . . or the tendency of the system to resist changes in velocity. The value of the energy in the rest state is the rest energy . . . and is a measure of all of the energy (including the potential energy) of the constituents of the system. This is the form of Einstein's equation we are exploring the implications of for the nature of reality . . . because at rest the Lorentz factor is 1 and disappears.
The three main philosophical questions concerning the interpretation of E = mc^2 are:
1. What is mass-energy equivalence and are mass and energy the same property of physical systems?;
2. Are we dealing with conversion or transformation of mass into energy in some physical interactions?;
3. Are there any ontological consequences of Einstein's equation? If so what?
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.
The most recent efforts relying on this "same property" view have shown that the very structure of timespace must be altered to account for any transformations. (See my other analogies in the Synthesis for more simplified explanations of what is going on) Minkowski's topological analysis of timespace is instructive. I deliberately reverse the typical "spacetime" expression to "timespace" because it is increasingly evident that time is the more crucial and "real" aspect of reality and that "energy events" are the true "structural components."
If you have any relevant corrections to my "non-analogy" views and wish to subject them to discussion and further clarification please do so. Otherwise, my assertion that a unified field establishes our reality and energy is the basic property (manifestation) of timespace stands . . . Einstein's universal field is validated . . . and consciousness as energy is supported (since there is nothing else for it to be!)
I would ask you to keep this audience in mind in the discussion . . . and not obfuscate the essential point about mass-energy equivalence for this non-physicist lay audience. For all intents and purposes of this discussion I am correct in what I assert. This audience is likely to have difficulty dealing with this depth of understanding. Pursuing the deeper issues in the actual physics can obfuscate the main points being made while adding nothing to the interpretation of the philosophical implications. The deeper understanding, especially in the quantum arena (e.g., the double slit experiements and their non-intuitive effects of observation or spooky action at a distance) only further support my overall assertions. But it is apt to be far less accessible to this audience . . . as I have hinted at in my synthesis.
My analogies are designed to provide easy to understand relational principles that have mass appeal and provide comparative validity in understanding the relational aspects of our experiencing of reality. I have consistently maintained a philosophy of science focus on the implications of what we have measured and how they relate mathematically as clues to the underlying structure and composition of our reality. None of my critics have and seem disinclined to do so. So I would appreciate it if you would engage the philosophical issues. If you do not feel comfortable doing so . . . I will still welcome your presentation of your understanding of the physics . . . especially that given above. Of course . . . your understanding of what the physics implies about the structure and composition of our reality would have more relevance to the discussion. If you can make the deeper understanding accessible to this audience . . . be my guest.
My overall reaction to the comments on your thesis:
Quote:
I am trying to make the philosophical implications of the science accessible to a mass audience by analogy
Except you weren't using analogy in some part of your thesis. You were outright emphasizing them as though they were facts.
Quote:
As long as you misunderstand what the Synthesis really is about and do not consider the philosophical implications of the symbolic representations (and not the actual physics, per se) . . . of course it will seem wrong to you.
It doesn't seem wrong. It is wrong.
Quote:
I would ask you to keep this audience in mind in the discussion . . . and not obfuscate the essential point about mass-energy equivalence for this non-physicist lay audience. For all intents and purposes of this discussion I am correct in what I assert. This audience is likely to have difficulty dealing with this depth of understanding. Pursuing the deeper issues in the actual physics can obfuscate the main points being made while adding nothing to the interpretation of the philosophical implications.
Mystic can we please be honest here. You made a series of errors in your thesis mainly in relation to discussing the various implications of the equation E=mc2.
And now you are saying that you we framing the equation philosophically and that I should:
Quote:
consider the philosophical implications of the symbolic representations (and not the actual physics, per se)
Lets get one thing straight here and now.
There are no philosophical implications about the equation E=mc2. It's an equation. A math problem. You might as well tell me 2+2=24, ask me to believe it and ask me to understand the philosophical significance of why 24 represents the leaves on a pineapple.
You can discuss the philosophical significance of the physics behind Einsteins equation (no problem, I welcome it) and its place within the universe but not when you have the physics wrong to start with!
You say your thesis is about philosophy – but 90% of it focussed on physics. Just like the vast majority of the post above.
I'm very interested in what you have to say about it philosophically – you definitely have the advantage over me by a long way on that one, but I can't do that when I'm blinded by the whole thing being based on an error.
You are an intelligent person Mystic. So am I and so are most of the contributors to this forum. How on earth are you going explain a lay audience the philosophical significance of an equation that you have wrong? And you know as well as I do that it is wrong. How is that helping anyone or teaching them anything? Just tell them the right version!
Also you are making assumptions about peoples intelligence. Any person here could understand Einsteins equation if it is properly explained – why not do that and then go from there!
You have followers on this forum who look to you as a teacher. I'm trying to help you. Please do not continue to present this thesis to them without making the corrections, otherwise you are just leading them up the garden path. You are telling them things that simply aren't true.
Any student worth his salt would not have a problem with doing this, it's part of the learning process. This is not an attack on your character, I am simply pointing out the error. I'd be saddened if you felt it was anything else.
I promise you, this is absolutely the last time I will bring the subject up unless you bring it up yourself and I am simply responding to your reply. I have no interest in flogging a dead horse or making you feel I am denigrating your character in any way, so I will leave it at that.
I would love nothing more than to have a discussion with you about our mutual interest in consciousness or any aspect of physics, or indeed philosophy, I feel we would have a lot to talk about. We have had some great conversations in the past which I have enjoyed greatly. I see you as an ally not an enemy and still do.
However it would be nice if we could start with a clean slate.
I'm sorry I haven't responded yet to some of the rest of your comments above. Frankly I was a little shocked by your response to the thesis.
I'll have a think about the rest of it and get back to you when I have got my head on straight again.
It's a bit complicated but basically all you need to know is 2 particles (these can be photons or other types of particle) become 'entangled' with each other. The movement of one determines the movement of the other even though they are physically separated. There doesn't to be any restriction on how far apart the particles are away from each other and the effects seem to be instantaneous.
NASA is looking into quantum entanglement in a big way and tests will soon be made in space to see how far apart particles can be and still interact with each other:
Except you weren't using analogy in some part of your thesis. You were outright emphasizing them as though they were facts.
It doesn't seem wrong. It is wrong.
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 one you are 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.
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.
The most recent efforts relying on this "same property" view have shown that the very structure of timespace must be altered to account for any transformations. (See my other analogies in the Synthesis for more simplified explanations of what is going on) Minkowski's topological analysis of timespace is instructive. I deliberately reverse the typical "spacetime" expression to "timespace" because it is increasingly evident that time is the more crucial and "real" aspect of reality and that "energy events" are the true "structural components."
If you have any relevant corrections to my "non-analogy" views and wish to subject them to discussion and further clarification please do so. Otherwise, my assertion that a unified field establishes our reality and energy is the basic property (manifestation) of timespace stands . . . Einstein's universal field is validated . . . and consciousness as energy is supported (since there is nothing else for it to be!)
Quote:
Mystic can we please be honest here. You made a series of errors in your thesis mainly in relation to discussing the various implications of the equation E=mc2.
NO I did not . . . but I await your corrections of the above.
Quote:
I would love nothing more than to have a discussion with you about our mutual interest in consciousness or any aspect of physics, or indeed philosophy, I feel we would have a lot to talk about. We have had some great conversations in the past which I have enjoyed greatly. I see you as an ally not an enemy and still do.
However it would be nice if we could start with a clean slate.
I'm sorry I haven't responded yet to some of the rest of your comments above. Frankly I was a little shocked by your response to the thesis.
I'll have a think about the rest of it and get back to you when I have got my head on straight again.
I look forward to your correction of my error in interpreting Einstein's equation . . . then we can start from a clean slate. Do you understand the symbolic use I am putting the mathematics to . . . and why it differs from the use you are familiar with in physics? Do you understand that the measures are merely energy events capturing aspects of the underlying reality in a form we can relate to and manipulate in the symbolic language of mathematics? Do you agree that the measures are only symbolic representations of that underlying reality? Do you agree that the relationships between the constructs (equations) employing the measures can reveal the nature of the underlying reality?
Cruithne, I read through the references you mentioned and the last one seemed to contradict what you wrote earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne
the beauty of quantum mechanics is that in certain circumstances we can eliminate the notion of speed because some things that happen in quantum mechanics happen instantaneously and at great distances.
As I read it, the last reference said just the opposite:
"In quantum mechanics, all the forces of nature are mediated by the exchange of particles such as photons, and these particles must obey this cosmic speed limit. So an action "here" can cause no effect "over there" any sooner than it would take light to travel there in a vacuum."
On the other hand, that same reference said:
"But two entangled particles can appear to influence one another instantaneously, whether they're in the same room or at opposite ends of the Universe."
However, that reference did not say how the particles have been observed to do this instantaneously.
I have no problem with the entanglement stuff because, from what I read, scientists have observed it. I do have a problem with the "instantaneous" part. Maybe the information from one particle can travel to another particle without using photons and therefore exceed the speed of light, but I doubt it can be instantaneous.
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,
Mystic, could you please provide a link to show where you found this equation? Thank you.
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.
