A FEW THOUGHTS ABOUT PHYSICSI got into an intense discussion with my friend "M" on the subject of physics. I originally posted a few thoughts which you can see below:I don't have the usual respect for Albert Einstein possessed by most people. It's not that I think he was a bad guy, or that he was terribly wrong or anything like that. No. But neither do I place him on any sort of pedestal, and his work as having been downloaded from Heaven while harps and trumpets played. I try to question everything. The biggest lesson I learned as a teenager while avidly reading the sci-fi novels of Robert Heinlein was that I should do my own thinking, and not allow anyone else to do it for me. Therefore Einstein is not taken as gospel by me. Let's take his famous formula E=MC squared. Okay, mass is convertible into energy, that's excellent! But why C squared? Eh? Why the speed of light multiplied times itself?This was a mixture of things I know directly and reasoning about it. Like any such mix, it's only as good as the direct knowledge, and as screwy as data upon which the reasoning is based. Problem is, I'm a much better mystic than I am a mathematician!
That one bothered me. I had experienced plenty of light bouncing off objects into my eyeballs, and it sure moved fast too. And that velocity was called C (speed of light). Great. So what was a "C squared"? I never saw one of those, sorry.
Let me interupt this train of thought for a paragraph or so, by pointing out that mathematics is a method of symbolically representing abstracted ideas. Some of these ideas stand for real objects, for example "11" can be an abstraction of a supermarket carton designed to hold a dozen apples which has one apple missing, i.e. "11 apples". Other mathematical abstracts are of things which have no real existence, such as the square root of minus one, or irrationalities such as Pi. It's not uncommon for mathematic formulas to contain impossibilities, especially complex formulas. But it bugged me to find it in a formula that simple. What could it represent?
Either C squared is an impossibility, or something out there in the universe moves at that velocity. For one thing, it's not even a proper velocity, it isn't merely the number multiplied times itself, with the distance per elapsed time placed after it. Instead even the distance/time is multiplied times itself, so that if the distance is expressed as miles and the time as seconds, then it's miles/second times miles per second; which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in the real world. Even if we didn't do that and only multiplied the numbers, I still don't know of anyone observing anything travelling at at velocity, so I'm going to shelve that and assume it's impossible. And if C squared is impossible, what does that do to the formula? It turns it into E=MC: energy equals the mass times the velocity.
THAT MAKES SENSE. Sounds rather like Napoleon's favorite dictum that the impact of a military force equals its mass times its velocity.
I mulled this over for a while.
Then I got to thinking about objects traveling at the speed of light, which some people have said would acquire an "infinite" mass. Also I've read physics books which claim that light has no mass. But light is energy which was converted from mass, and light travels at C! That's contradictory! How can it have an infinite mass and no mass at the same time? Both of those have to be wrong because: 1. light exerts a small amount of pressure against anything it shines on. So it has SOME mass, but not much. Also: 2. light is bent by gravity, witnessed by graviational lensing effects seen by astronomers. So the zero mass and the no mass ideas are both wrong. Direct observation can prove it, so toss those old theories!
So I next went back to basics and asked, what happens when a mass is travelling at a high speed? It has more impact, i.e. more energy. You can observe that just by getting hit by a baseball. Therefore the correct formula is:
ENERGY EQUALS MASS TIMES VELOCITY.
And at some point in accelerating, a mass should lose its characteristics of a solid and behave as energy.
We aren't finished. Einstein was good, but he should have paid closer attention to Heisenburg. Heisenburg noticed that (roughly) the more you know about the location of a particle, the less you know about its energy. AND the converse: the more you know about something's energy, the less you know about its location. Add Hubbard into this next: the basic formula in universes is start-change-stop. In order to know something's position you must stop its motion. In order to know something's energy, you must measure the span of its changing positions, which means to treat it as though it has a vast multitude of locations all at once. Change is motion, that is to say an altering location, which is energy. And stop is a fixed location, and anything stopped has no energy. Which means:
MASS EQUALS ENERGY WITHOUT MOTION.
All of the above was done treating physical reality as a triangle of nothing-energy-mass.
Well that was a relief! What else can I clarify? Let's drop the triangle and rise one level in the structure of reality to dichotomies, and deal with zero. If a zero is an impossibility, then why is it so useful?
It's not impossible. This is going to sound horribly like bad mahayana Buddhism, but zero is an existence which has no existence.
Whew! That one was painful! Allow me to explain that, okay?
When I spotted the primal dichotomies I realized that all of existence in universes (the apparencies) is arranged in these pairs. My study of the Book of Lies (Crowley) had paid off, because I could see that:
EVERY EXISTENCE IS BALANCED/OPPOSED BY A NON-EXISTENCE.
So the physicists are flubbing badly in their search for anti-matter to balance all the matter in the universe. They are correct that matter is equally balanced by something. But it's not anti-matter composed of positively charged electrons and negatively charged protons.
MATTER IS BALANCED BY INFINITE NOTHINGNESS.
Mechanically, somethingnesses are held apart from one another by nothingness. The nothingness is infinite (since a something is an object to be perceived, this placed awareness in the nothingness and unawareness in the somethings). The apparent distance between somethings is purely a matter of consideration at a level of affinity, which is to say that distance is determined by degree of communication. That is the way it works in private universes. In the physical universe there's an added factor of rhythm involved which interferes. The physical universe is pulsing and vibrating, appearing and disappearing rapidly. This vibration seems to do two things: regularizes time in adjacent space, with the uniformity of time diminishing with increased separation and differences in relative velocity; and it regularizes distances so that they also appear to follow a uniform pattern.
Physicists had better forget anti-matter and start looking for the real balance opposite matter and energy. It will appear to be nothingness sometimes, and infinity at other times. And in mathematics it will even show up as irrational numbers such as Pi.
Excellent! Now that you have done all that from a viewpoint, let's try to expand beyond a viewpoint into pervasion...
(One of the several flaws in Hubbard's approach after the mid 50s is that he mostly abandoned pervasion, i.e. being WHOLE SPACES rather than single viewpoints in them.)
M jumped on it, and a discussion erupted that was pure joy: exchanging from very different points of view without resistance. It eventually culminated in the following tentative conclusions:
(Three carats "> >>" and one carat ">" are M. Two carats "> >" and none are Ouran.)
On Wed, 30 May 2001 09:48:05 +0100 (GMT+02:00), Xxxxxxxx@XXX.com wrote:
> >> PS: Oh. I just thought of something, which I found many years ago.
> >> What is movement? what happens when a particle moves?
> >> Answer: it is not continuous! It is appear,disappear, appear a bit
> >further, disappear, etc.
> >> Like you said it also somewhere in your mail. I figured the same.
> >Great! I'm so glad someone else spotted that! I realized that about
> >10 years ago, and wrote it up. No one I showed it to believed me, it
> >was way
> >too strange of an idea, complete break in reality. So be careful who
> >you tell that, they may look at you as if you are crazy!
> Yes. Everybody know that the Earth is flat! To the stake, the heretic!
> >> So again: even versus this last point, what would mean: "stopped
> >> Could this mean: "appearing, disappearing, appearing in the same
> >> disappearing, appearing in the same place, disappearing, etc."
> >You GOT IT! That's it! Matter is attempting (not perfectly, it does
> >around) to stay stopped, to stay in one place and appear/disappear at
> >that location. Like I said: inertia. :)))
> Now, in the above paragraph, I stumble on the next "undefined" or "misdefined"
> word/concept: unmoving, or stopped, or "speed = 0".
> How does one define the speed of an object?
> The relativity introduces a concept of "observer's frame of reference".
> Because, when we say that a particule is "appearing / dissapearing /reappearing"
> in "the same place", what does that mean? This is ALSO something relative,
> and not absolute. If I am viewing from a viewpoint in my body, which is
> on Earth, then, the atoms in my laptop are staying (to a marked degree,
> or macroscopically) at the same place. (Fortunately, or I would have difficult
> to type this mail). But if my viewpoint is in the sun, all those atoms are
> moving at a high speed (speed of the earth), and changing place continuously.
> Axiom 1: STAYING IN THE SAME PLACE IS A RELATIVE CONCEPT, and HAS NO ABSOLUTE
> "Stopped" means simply: vibrating in a very close fixed space, related to
> an observer.
> Corollary: MOVING IS ALSO RELATIVE (to the observer).
> Corollary: TIME IS ALSO RELATIVE (to the observer).
This is going to be hard as hell to describe... If a Being is 10 lightyears in diameter, all matter is seen as stopped; the only things moving are photons and cosmic rays and other quanta moving at c. Being a whole space or a large space changes the view completely. Matter becomes this stuck stuff which is being pushed around slowly and with effort level force. The only stuff perceived as free and loose is the energy. (This is roughly the same level of perception as Einsteinian relativity, which gives us some idea where Albert was seeing.) Your mention of anchoring is the perfect way to describe the phenomenon:
(this is written from a pervasive view)
Axiom 2 (restated): MATTER HAS FIXED ANCHORS WITHIN A LARGER SPACE. MATTER HAS FIXED ANCHORS IN RELATION TO OTHER MATTER; ITS MOTION IS ONLY RELATIVE TO OTHER MATTER.
Corollary: "fixed anchors" consists of matter being embedded in the anchors of a larger space.
Corollary: energy is not anchored to matter or spaces; when it becomes anchored that turns it into matter.
Corollary: the action of anchoring energy consists of stopping its inherent free-flowing (unanchored) motion.
Corollary: by not being anchored to spaces, energy moves rapidly beyond the borders (anchor points) of spaces, thereby extending them.
Corollary: spaces are created by free moving energy, which only later become fixed with anchor points.
(A friend [who has done the entire bridge both church and freezone] has been teaching me how to extend beyond the edges of spaces and dissolve through anchors. He has some very fascinating techniques.)
> It has only meaning relative to the observer, the viewpoint and its fixed
> (relative to him, again!) anchorpoints.
> OK. I think the above can be used as fairly correct axioms for the rest
> fof the discussion, and see where we arrive.
> With the above, we can try to define "matter" as "stopped motion".
> Axiom 2: MATTER IS STOPPED MOTION IN RELATION TO THE ANCHOR POINTS OF THE
> Definition: the anchor points of an object are its extreme "corners". They
> are the anchor points of the space occupied by the object. Like the 8 corners
> of an (cubical) ashtray, for example.
> Compared to those anchor points, the atoms stay more or less in a fixed
> relative position.
> Does this idea work?
> - For solid: yes
> - For liquids: less
> - For gas: no: in a gas, molecules can move freely around. They are not
> stacked and compressed like in a gas.
Hmm... the anchor points of matter are found, not in the edges of the object, but beyond them in the larger spaces within which the onject is found.
Reworked definition: the anchor points of an object are established by the anchors of the larger space within which it is found. (This allows one to anchor a gas.)
> Let's change our axiom to address that situation:
> Axiom 2RA: MATTER IS PARTICLES WHOSE MOVEMENT IS RESTRICTED WITHIN THE
> SPACE DEFINED BY THE ANCHOR POINTS OF THAT OBJECT.
> This works better: in a solid, atoms stay within the boundary of the object,
> very compact.
> In a liquid, they can move more, but still stay in the space of that liquid.
> In a gas, they can move even more!
> But the axiom is not 100% correct: in a solid, some atoms can leave the
> main object (sublimation).
> Hot water loosens water molecules, becoming gas and leaving the space of
> the water.
> With a gas, this is worse! A gas is not really an object with a precise
> boundary. Rather, it is make of "independent" molecules or atoms, trying
> to occupy all the available space. So in that context, axiom 2RA does not
> really make sense.
> Let's try to put axiom 2 and axiom 2RA together.
> AXIOM 2RB: MATTER IS COMPOSED OF ATOMS. ATOMS ARE COMPOSED OF SMALLER PARTICLES
> (electrons, protons, neutrons) WHOSE MOVEMENTS MUST STAY WITHIN THE CLOSE
> BOUNDARIES OF THAT ATOM.
> This works and fits even better. :)
> It works for solid, liquid and gas.
> It leads to energy, by corollary:
> AXIOM 3: ENERGY IS COMPOSED OF PARTICLES WHOSE MOTION IS NOT RESTRICTED
> TO SUCH A RELATIVELY CLOSE BOUNDARY.
> Shit. :)
> I am sailing toward similar conclusion than you regarding "energy is accelerated
> matter". :)
What I'm seeing is that matter can be accellerated to almost c, but so long as it is tied to its anchor points, it will never reach c. So...
Axiom 4: C IS ACHIEVED SOLELY AND ONLY BY UNTYING MATTER FROM ITS ANCHORS, AT WHICH POINT IT CONVERTS TO ENERGY.
Corollary: The use of force to untie matter from its anchors will always produce only a small fraction of the matter converted to energy.
Corollary: de-anchoring matter should achieve total conversion of it to energy.
(that last one gives me chills...)
> I am not totally happy with axiom 3 above.
Reworked Axiom 3: ENERGY IS NOT ANCHORED TO MATTER OR SPACES.
Corollary: the apparently high velocity of energy relative to matter is a product of energy being in a non-anchored condition.
> Partially because I used the word "particle" to define energy.
> Now, I am getting another idea with this, because the "space where movement
> is restricted" is also a relative notion! I am typing as I think, let's
> see where it leads.
> To an human observer, the space of the atom is a very small, space where
> the movement of electrons is confined. He (the observer) is viewing it from
> "outside that space". To him, the atom is matter.
> But if we take a viewpoint inside the space of the atom, for example, the
> viewpoint of a proton or a neutron.
> From that viewpoint, the electrons around him are moving very fast, and
> appear more like energy than like matter: they (proton, neutron) could not
> "stop" an electron or restrict its movement. For them, it is energy.
> Now I am happy! If we define "stop" as "restricting movement to a relatively
> limited space" (because there is no absolute stillness), axiom 2RB and axiom
> 3 work beautifully.
Right, anchored within a space, which is limited by definition.
> There I reach an agreement with your sentence "matter is stopped motion",
> "energy is unstopped motion".
> :)))))))))) Yippie!
> Next, I'll try to take up the process of conversion between both, analyze
> what is a wave, what is the speed of light doing there as a constant, etc.
> I am already getting trains of thought coming there.
> But it's your turn now. :)
Okay, just spotted this:
Axiom 5: BECAUSE ENERGY IS UNRESTRICTED MOTION THAT IS NOT ANCHORED TO OBJECTS OR SPACES, ITS VELOCITY APPEARS TO ALWAYS BE ROUGHLY THE SAME FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF MATTER.
Corollary: regardless of its relative velocity to anything, matter which is anchored in a space will always perceive c as approximately the same velocity relative to itself.
Okay my scientific friend, take THAT and run with it. Looks like Einstein was right...
back to index