Hello Adrian,
I assume that the concept of an all-permeating ether corresponds to the quantum metaphysics concept of multi-dimensional reality that is immanent in all phenomena.
Greetings!
Jo.
Greetings Joe,
Thanks for your observation!
Yes, that is definitely the way I would interpret that. Not only do we have an "ether" that encompasses multiple dimensions, but which also has properties outide the range of scientific understanding.
The ether is constituted from the four universal elements, fire, air, water and earth, the fifth being the quintessence, the Akasha principle, or what Einstein refers to as the ether. These elements are not of course the physical fire, air, water and earth, but rather the univeral attributes that are analogous to them and from which everything in the universe, in all dimensions was created. The first element to descend from the ether was fire, the properties of which are heat, light and expansion, it was this that gave rise to the "fiat lux" let there be light!
Once science discovers these things, and advances the fields of quantum mechanics, then all of the books will have to be re-written, and man will have a true basis upon which to move forward.
With kind regards,
Adrian.
E=MC2 . I am not a scientist, so if I'm way off the mark then just tell me! I was thinking about this while biking home from work last night. I think it means energy equals mass times acceleration squared (again, if this isnt the case, then whoops! ignore this) I can sort of understand this from a basic point of view, but one thing that I dont understand is why it is acceleration squared. Why does it have to be squared, does this just signify that acceleration isnt a given and that it alters due to the weight of the mass?
sorry if this all sounds like rubbish, but either way I would appreciate an answer.
hello there Lysear !
its energy = mass X (speed of light)squared. Basically it shows that all matter is composed of fantastic amounts of energy. When you break down a large atom e.g uranium, its mass reduces slightly, and the energy given off is a function of the mass that disappears.
E=MC2 is ONLY for rest-mass. C2 is a constant, and is equal to 1 if you use the same units for distance and time.
E = M C2 / sqrt(1 - V2/C2)
Energy goes to infinity as Velocity goes to C.
I think thats the right formula. I could be missing a V.
thanks for that guys.
Hey Adrian,
Not sure how many follow, but anyhow...
Today there are more than just a few "unifying" theories to englobe the 4 forces of the universe (gravity, weak and strong forces - in the nuclei, and electromagnetic). There are basic differences between electromagnetism and gravity such as: in electromagnetism there are dipoles (+ and - charges) while in gravity there are only monopoles (only mass attracting, no repulsion or anti-mass). One also describes the gravity acting through waves and experiments have shown the exitence of gravitational waves. The gravitational waves have their homologues to the photons in electromagnetism: the gravitons. And there is a zoo of sub-atomic particles interacting through waves (other particles). However, one must understand that no matter what theory we have, these are our 'abstract' ways of interpreting what scientific experimentations reveal. Some more advanced theories that try to generalize all the forces (Grand Unified Theories) are very weird. Some have the need for 10 dimensions... other works with strings... other with vibrations of elementary entities... Before embarking onto a journey into the world of the Grand Unified Theory, I still find it extremely difficult to understand the duality of matter/energy: particles such as the photon, the electron, etc.. can be seen either as waves or as quanta. We are on the macroscopi side and really understand only the classical view of these as quanta (particles) and while we agree on the reality of the quantum world (our computers are based on the tunneling effect in a p-n junction of the 'transistors') none really can picture that world with his/her physical mind. All that to say that there might come some new theories with a concept of Ether, but that really I feel I still have trouble understanding the basic duality of microscopic particles, it is really a paradoxal situation.
Hello shaman,
Our problem with matter/energy duality is due to our limited view of reality, IMO. We have the same problem with the Einstein/Minkowski 4-dimensional spacetime and with body/mind. Our minds are limited to 3D thinking whereas reality is unlimited. It's like trying to enjoy a symphony when we can hear only three notes. Think, for instance, of the transcendent dimensions discussed in this Forum.
There is a way to overcome this problem, however, and I have no difficulty visualizing the particle/wave situation. For every duality, there is a common, unifying whole. It's the old Hegel thesis/antithesis/synthesis idea, or the philosophical whole-versus-parts problem. If we can't see the synthesis/whole, it is not because it does not exist but our perception is impaired, usually because of our limited concepts of reality. In my www.quantum-metaphysics.com website I have explained this with the help of Abbott's "Flatland" 2-D creatures who cannot visualize our 3-D environment. Maybe you want to have a look (click [Quantum Metaphysics] button). Once you understand the holistic relationship between a whole and its parts, you can enjoy the "Grand Design" of Everything, sort of a Grand Unified Theory [;)].
Greetings!
Jo.
Food for thought, check out the Robert Lomas site, he claims Tesla came up with the Eienstein theory first, then realized it was not a total theory because of the curverture of space/time around the planets. The action/ reacton law nulls out the possibility so there is still something missing. He wrote a book about Tesla called The Man Who Invented The 20th Century. You use inventions by Tesla everyday, even if you do not get out of bed.
Cheers,WGT
can it be E=MCB
Question:
Instead of talking about 10 or 11 dimensions, lets go the other way. Astro-physicists are generally convinced that we live in a finite universe that exploded into existence from a point of singularity some 20 billion years ago. Given Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, a photon (at least if it were somehow conscious) would experience the universe as point-like, and perhaps infinite, since for the photon, time=0, space=0. Thus, these massless, timeless, spaceless little creatures, in essense, would appear to continue to exist (at least from their point of view) in their original dimension-less form, i.e. singularity. My second point is that photons carry and transmit information very efficiently. Moreover, bio-physicists have found that all living systems continually emit light/information. It seems to me that that these findings (Special Relativity/bio-physics), when considered together, offer a potential lead to an eventual understanding of "soul" or "spirit". It also seems to me that information that is maintained in a coherent informational/timeless/spaceless/massless field may not only explain "spirit", but OBEs as well. So the question is, does this make sense? I'm about to publish these ideas in a book, but I'm a psychologist, who has discovered a way to communicate with the deceased (see www.induced-adc.com), and I'm not a physicist. I'm looking for a way to make some sense out of this. Dr AL
Dr.AL
Your post is "overflowing" with content [:)] and I'm not sure whether I am following your train of thought. Therefore I'd like to address just the first portion for now.
"Going the other way" form 10 or 11 dimensions implies assuming fewer than three dimensions, perhaps no dimensions at all. According to Quantum Metaphysics, the Ultimate Reality, that is the integral Whole of Everything (All-Entity), is dimensionless because all is unified into One at that highest level. Everything is included in a homogenous, undifferentiated Entity. It's a singularity if you will. The concept of dimensions makes only sense from a lower point of view, where the Whole appears differentiated because the lower consciousness is only a part of the Whole and therefore cannot encompass the whole unit all at once.
Looking up towards the top of the multi-dimensional hierarchy from our physical world, reality appears to have more and more dimensions simply because we become aware of other regions of the Whole beyond our present limited consciousness.
Do we live in a finite universe? It may appear so if we stick to our 3 space dimensions that we perceive. However quantum physicists now generally accept that an infinite number of "parallel" universes exist. This corresponds to Quantum Metaphysics. My opinion is that ultimately it makes no sense to ask whether our universe is limited or not because space and time, as we experience them, do not exist in ultimate reality.
Greetings!
Jo.
Mmm, a photon would not experience the universe point-like.
For the photon time!=0, space!=0. It has a relativistic mass, since it has energy.
Yes, if the photon was at rest then its 'mass' would be null, but is a photon ever at rest?
The text below is mostly credited to Matt Austern, who's writings can be found at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/index.html
The relation between the mass and energy of an object can be written as
E = m c2 / sqrt(1 - v2/c2),
or as
E2 = m2 c4 + p2 c2,
where v is the object's velocity, and p is its momentum.
The "relativistic mass" of photons is frequency dependent.
UV photons are more energetic than visible photons, and so are more "massive" in this sense, a statement which obscures more than it elucidates.
Regarding your communication with the deceased, well...
unless you fully understand what you're doing, I personally believe you could be fooling yourself.
I refer to several theories explaining such phenomenons, where we can find several arguments common to most of them. Of these, the idea of "empty shells" or "essenceless" cacoons containing ideas, thoughts, emotions and energy (which is the 'material' or 'foundation' of the astral plane) after someone dies, could explain many 'communications' with the deceased. In these essenceless cocoons can be found indeed many thoughts, ideas etc... from someone who departed, and could easily fool someone into believing they were in fact communicating with their loved ones, but in reality they are an empty shell, deprived from the person's true essence.
I am not an expert in the area, so I do assume this could be wrong.
Nevertheless, good luck to your book!
To Adrian, that was a brilliant post, I will read it some more times! Thank you so much for it!
all the best,
sky
quote:
Originally posted by Dr AL
Question:
Instead of talking about 10 or 11 dimensions, lets go the other way. Astro-physicists are generally convinced that we live in a finite universe that exploded into existence from a point of singularity some 20 billion years ago. Given Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, a photon (at least if it were somehow conscious) would experience the universe as point-like, and perhaps infinite, since for the photon, time=0, space=0. Thus, these massless, timeless, spaceless little creatures, in essense, would appear to continue to exist (at least from their point of view) in their original dimension-less form, i.e. singularity. My second point is that photons carry and transmit information very efficiently. Moreover, bio-physicists have found that all living systems continually emit light/information. It seems to me that that these findings (Special Relativity/bio-physics), when considered together, offer a potential lead to an eventual understanding of "soul" or "spirit". It also seems to me that information that is maintained in a coherent informational/timeless/spaceless/massless field may not only explain "spirit", but OBEs as well. So the question is, does this make sense? I'm about to publish these ideas in a book, but I'm a psychologist, who has discovered a way to communicate with the deceased (see www.induced-adc.com), and I'm not a physicist. I'm looking for a way to make some sense out of this. Dr AL
Yum Eini,
My fave bud!!! Mine eyes too tire to read entire thread but will bookmark it for later.
I channeled Eini for 8 years. He wasn't finished...not by a long shot. But now he is understands Light the Universe and everything!! Got kinda mad when he ascended to a higher plane, as soon as he was through...just like a man!!!! Although he pops back in from time to time. And no I don't have any further equations, just the understanding, it was all in a visual experiencial format.(who knows maybe in a hypnotised state I could do the blackboard thing, just never thought of that til now) But I will tell you this he took me beyond our limited concept of time and space, through a worm hole oh and there are at least 23 dimensions that I experienced. But heres a thought I'll bet there are an infinite number of dimensions ...Tee Hee
I think this is where I start wading in WAY over my head, but here goes anyway.
I've been reading about String Theory, which proposes multiple dimensions; and also about "Dark Matter" and "Dark Engergy" as explanations for cosmic/microscopic behaviours. One article suggested the universe is kept in balance by the periodic addition or subtraction of Dark Energy or Matter (whichever is needed) but sort of fell apart in theorizing where these new supplies would come from.
All of this, after making my head hurt, starts me thinking about some possible explanations for various metaphysical effects. What if OBE's and the Astral Plane are, assuming more than dreams, our perception of these extra dimensions. It could be that we don't quite have the technique to cross dimensions, and thus our perception is not clear. That would tie in to the String Theory, at least as I understand it.
And could "communication with the dead" be actually some sort of cross-dimensional contact with an alternate someone who is not dead in their dimension?? Same thing with telepathy, etc.
Someone on this thread also mentioned that our perception of multiple dimensions might be just an attempt to "see" the one whole "dimension", "point" (call it what you will). That sounds intriguing and has a ring of truth to it. An ant could build a lot of theories about its surroundings, but is very unlikely to have a realistic explanation of humans, and likely couldn't even conceive of planets, stars, solar systems, etc. They just wouldn't have the frame of reference. But if we are the ant in that scenario, then will we ever be able to really grasp "reality"??
My head's starting to hurt again [:)]! I would appreciate any comments on these admittedly unoriginal thoughts.
thanks for the above feedback...
further questions/thoughts...
Although a photon has relativistic mass (forget that for now), don't time and space (i.e Lorentz sp?) still both shrink to 0 for the photon, or anything else traveling at C? If we extend Einstein's "twin paradox" to a spaceship traveling at C, wouldn't space travel be instantaneous (ignoring time for acceloration)? And, if photons carry and transmit information (which they apparently do very efficiently), wouldn't all of the information encoded in the Big Bang (assuming it wasn't purely random--i.e. Paul Davies--which makes way more sense to me than the parallel universe theory) still continue to exist in a point-like universe (for light), which is 4 dimensional for our brains (which evolved to respond and survive in a world after energy congealed into matter)? And if photons play a central role in DNA, RNA, and intercellular communication, wouldn't the emission of these photons add to the overall information (i.e. "life")in the universe? (reason for the universe?) And life, although seemingly stuck in a 4 dimensional universe, actually, from a more subtle point of view, continually transcends our 4, or even 10 illusory dimensions? Thus, our illusory world of multi-dimensions is just that--an illusion in the overall scheme of things...I think I'm getting lost--I need a drink, now I have to think about time and space again...AL (PS I have no idea what a cacoon is)
You are on the right track, greatoutdoors. Talking about "the universe being kept in balance by addition or subtraction of Dark Energy or Matter", please realize that such scientific discussions assume that there is only one physical universe. In reality, our physical universe is only a rather limited aspect of an unbelievably vast reality that is way beyond human perception. Your analogy of an ant trying to understand the entire system is quite appropriate.
Based on my experience of higher reality, the ultimate Whole of Everything is an undivided, undifferentiated Entity that includes everything as un-manifested ideas, as it were. This "All-Entity" *) is the essence of everything: energy, consciousness, life, you name it. It has no divisions and therefore It is in total harmony. And since it embraces absolutely everything, it accepts everything and thus is identical with unconditional Love.
Now, when someone suggests that "the universe is kept in balance by the periodic addition or subtraction of Dark Energy or Matter", he is simply not talking about the entire comic whole (All-Entity) but only a part of it, our limited physical universe. There is, of course, a continuous exchange between all parts of the Whole because All-Entity, being the essence of life, is dynamic and in a constant state of flux.
Since our limited 'ego'-minds are only minute parts of the overall cosmic consciousness of All-Entity, we perceive only bits and pieces of the total reality. From our view, these bits and pieces are organized into categories. For instance your body and mind are parts of you, you are a part of humanity, humanity is a part of living beings who are parts of the Earth, which is part of the solar system, which is part of our galaxy, and so on all the way up to being part of All-Entity. Clearly, everything appears organized in a hierarchy of wholes and parts with different organizational levels where the wholes embrace ever-larger aspects of reality. We say that the wholes encompass more 'dimensions' than each of its parts. A 'dimension' simply means an extension in some direction, whereby the nature of the direction can be anything, such as space, time, ideas, feelings, love, anything we can think of. Rather than talking about dimensions, we could also say that the wholes have more characteristic aspects than their parts, for instance, the category of living beings has more aspects than humans, such as wings.
Given this scenario, every time we discover a hereto-unknown characteristic of the world around us, we become aware of a 'new dimension' of reality. Our consciousness is then a little less limited. So when you say, "could 'communication with the dead' be actually some sort of cross-dimensional contact with an alternate someone who is not dead in their dimension??", you are talking about a hereto unknown characteristic of the world around us, you become aware of a 'new dimension' of reality. Yes, we are communicating across dimensions when we contact people in the afterlife, but please understand that this is extraordinary for us only because our normal consciousness doesn't allow this. In reality we are not separated from the afterworld.
Within our known environment we make no big deal about crossing dimensional lines. During a walk, we change directions without ever thinking about crossing over from the "forward dimension" to the "sidewise dimension". It wasn't so long ago that we could not communicate over long distances in real time. Now, through the 'new dimension' of telecommunication, we take it for granted because in today's reality we are not separated communication-wise.
Keep on talking, greatoutdoors, you are on the right track [:)].
Jo.
*) See my website.
A 'dimension' simply means an extension in some direction, whereby the nature of the direction can be anything, such as space, time, ideas, feelings, love, anything we can think of.
First I have a straight question that needs to be answerd before I make any misunderstandings....
Are these dimensions the same dimensions defined by the "astral theory"? It tells us that we ascend of descend to a higher or lower dimension everything we "die"
Within our known environment we make no big deal about crossing dimensional lines. During a walk, we change directions without ever thinking about crossing over from the "forward dimension" to the "sidewise dimension".
So out of this I make up you say it is totally different...cause when I change from forward to sideward very easily even without killing myself!
But...you also tell us the following:
A 'dimension' simply means an extension in some direction, whereby the nature of the direction can be anything, such as space, time, ideas, feelings, love, anything we can think of.
Now you are not talking about the same dimensions as I understand....(please tell me what I understand incorrectly)
If you talk about the dimensions like forward-sideward-upward...you talk about the 3 dimensional space...and we human beings have 3d eyes so we can not see the others...the super string theory tells us there are 7 more (including time) So you can (if you know how) go into the tenth dimension just as easy as you go to the second.
I've read a lot about all kind of theories about the whole...but I always want to argue...i dont care if it I sound stupid:-)
Well argue me now!
quote:
Originally posted by LOISEAU
I channeled Eini for 8 years.
Oi! That's cheating! [:P]
---
Dimensions are usualy called space and time dimensions as to signify what they are.
You could have a dimension for everything you could think of, but that might not be very purposeful.
Hello Adkha,
You are bringing up a very good point. The term 'dimension' is often applied in a somewhat loose manner that can lead to misunderstanding. I am using the term as in science, where 'dimension' is also called 'degree of freedom'. That latter expression captures the meaning more accurately. In its most basic application, we think of three-dimensional space having width, depth, and height and a two-dimensional plane has only width and depth. The world consists of more than just 3-D space, for instance also electro-magnetic energy and gravity. Therefore we can say that the world has more dimensions than three. Ultimately, all life phenomena represent additional dimensions that represent more 'degrees of freedom' along which to evolve.
Are these scientifically defined dimensions the same as those defined by the "astral theory"? How exactly does astral theory define 'dimension'? I have not found a specific definition yet, but I know what you mean: in astral theory the term 'dimension' is used for an entire environment or spiritual plane. This implies that an 'astral dimension' includes many dimensions of the scientific kind mentioned above. For instance our whole earthly environment would be called 'a dimension' although it includes countless dimensions of the scientific kind. Therefore, the astral dimensions are not the same as the scientific ones.
Yet, I am saying that total reality has more dimensions than 3D space and time, and I don't believe that 10 dimensions will do. Whatever the number, you cannot go to higher dimensions as easily as you go to the second dimension because your consciousness is limited to our four space and time dimensions. Your mind cannot perceive the 10th dimension and therefore it cannot go there, not mentally and certainly not physically, because the 10th dimension does not exist physically. It takes a spiritual Awakening to experience the higher dimensions.
You had such an incredibly long post, that I didn't read it... and for the I appologize. I am simply giving my response on the title of the post. My only thought is this... quite recently astronomers have discovered that the light we recieve from stars may in fact have been slowed down during it's journey across space. Though further research is still in progress, if this proves to be true then Einsteins theory of relativity will mean absolutely nothing at all. If light from stars does in fact slow down, then this may support the idea of speed of light travel, because it would mean that the speed of light could be manipulated. If the speed of light can slow down, then it's possible that it could speed up as well, which would shed powerful new light on the possibility of space travel!
AlphaOmega,
Which post are you referring to?
P.S. to my 06 January post:
The 'dimensions' in astral theory correspond to the 'dimensional levels' in quantum metaphysics.
E=MC2 can be simplified to E=M (energy equals mass, mass equals energy). The C2 (the speed of light squared) is just a constant used for quantification purposes, i.e., "this much energy equals this much mass." The fundamental insight of Einstein was that mass and energy are interchangable.
quote:
Originally posted by Lysear
E=MC2 . I am not a scientist, so if I'm way off the mark then just tell me! I was thinking about this while biking home from work last night. I think it means energy equals mass times acceleration squared (again, if this isnt the case, then whoops! ignore this) I can sort of understand this from a basic point of view, but one thing that I dont understand is why it is acceleration squared. Why does it have to be squared, does this just signify that acceleration isnt a given and that it alters due to the weight of the mass?
sorry if this all sounds like rubbish, but either way I would appreciate an answer.
Hello everything in life does not have to have an explanation. But I guess it is fun talking about it. To some it's like an energy lines it just flow through you.
Cheating is the point. Even in the astral level we still create our own reality. Think about it. You do it everyday without thinking about it. You wake up deciding wheither or not you are going to be happy or sad. At least I do and many others. You should learn how to apply Metaphysics to your life then you will understand with practice. But who knows this could all just be bluburrish stubberish. There is no confirm or dney to htis ssegagem.[?]
Theory of reletivity may turn out to be just that. Just a side note on this topic, some physicists have very recently discovered that the speed of light may in fact not be relative. By studying distant stars they have found that the light from those stars may have slowed down before actually reaching earth. That too is still just theory, but research into that matter is currently being conducted.
According to some scientist the speed of light is relative... Water can slow down light in theory.
Now, At the quantum level its more interesting, again according to some scientist, there is nothing such as distance when you transcend from matter to the subatomic level, everything seems to be in one place . Experiments conducted with splitting electrons indicate that they can communicate with each other instantaneously, irrespective of locality.
Amazing isn't it?
So much information, so many different observations and answers running though my mind.
In answer to the Either question, does it exist or not. Yes. Even though it may not as yet have been proven scientifically, lets delve into a realm not so scientific. The observation of common sense without the need for physical proof.
For every action there is an equal an opposite reaction.
Therefore for every "thing" there is an equal and opposite "thing".
Therefore for every thing physical there is an equal and opposite non-physical thing. Either is in short a form of nonphysical matter.
Can the speed of light be manipulated? At one time we did not know it could be bent. At one time we arrogant humans literally brought a man to the stake and were going to burn him because he stated that the sun was the center of the solar system, not the most important of all human infested planet Earth.
I understand the physics of why this question is technically wrong, but it prompts the mind to think. If light could not be slowed down, would it not reach the bottom of the ocean?
Since my child hood, growing up through school I disagreed with many aspects of science. I had an inner knowing, something that I could not fundamentally even describe until enough schooling to put it into words of science.
Imagine if you will that all things vibrate. We have invented great and wonderful machines that allow us to "see" sound waves, and light waves. We have even categorized them from low frequency to high frequency. Then science discovered that they go out in both directions that our eyes and ears cannot observe.
Now lets take that simple theory and apply it to the world around us. Every thing has a vibrational frequency. If we were able to measure every known physical thing we would find that everything from a blade of grass to a bird has it's own unique vibrational frequency. If we then were able to crate a chart, we would see that everything there is in our physical Universe as we perceive it could be laid out end to end so to speak.
We believe that there are many different forms of matter. This is wrong, there is only one. In the above example we could see that everything is just like sound or light. It vibrates and has a sine wave.
Light and sound are the same thing just at different perspectives of the sine wave. We perceive them to be two different things, because of our limited physical perception.
Therefore, all things are fundamentally "made" out of the same thing, just at different vibrational frequencies.
Now we have come down to the fact that there is only one form of matter, and this one matter makes up the entirety of everything.
So then what is this one form of matter? Either? Love? God?
Doesn't this mean that we are all one, everything is a "part" of this All One? This everything? The Universal Source? The Great Id, as I believe it was Emerson who called it?
All of the great thinkers throughout time have told us that we are all the same. Matter is fluid, no matter (sorry for the pun) how "solid" it may seem.
All matter is amenable to thought. Science is now discovering that our thoughts can alter matter. We all know that our thoughts can alter our lives, and perceptions there of.
It is only a matter of time...
The entirety of the universe, all aspects of what we perceive to be physical "reality" is an illusion.
Not of it is actually real. It is a sort of holographic image built for one reason. So that the nonphysical can venture into a physical realm for various different purposes. Much akin to our inner minds venturing into the dream state when we are asleep.
This is why everything we perceive to be real is just that a perception.
We are but a minute speck in a grander reality, that only now are a few people starting to grasp its comprehension.
Water can slow down light in theory
Only on average. Photons move at the normal speed of light between atoms, but when photons hit the electrons in water, they are absorbed and ejected a short time later when that electron goes back down to a lower energy level. Light in mass moves at the same speed as the mass.
E = M C2 is only for rest-mass
E = M C2 / sqrt(1 - speed2/C2) is the general formula
Relativity is a lot simpler if you define the speed of light to be 1.
V = speed / C = Distance / Time
E = M / sqrt(1 - V2)
E sqrt(1 - V2) = M
E2 (1 - V2) = M2
1 - V2 = M2 / E2
1 = M2 / E2 + V2
1 = (M/E)2 + V2
Its the formula for a circle with radius 1. M/E is 1 dimension and V is an other. Energy is mass turned on its side in the time direction. Its the same kind of particle. When we move fast, we see those particles from a different angle so its mass appears to exchange for energy, but it doesnt really change, only our viewing angle.
1 = (M/E)2 + (D/T)2, M <= E, D <= T
The mass to energy ratio is circularly proportional to the distance to time ratio. Mass and energy appear to be similar to our normal 4 dimensions.
Notice how Mass and Distance are aligned, and so are Energy and Time.
When D = 0, the particle is not moving, and E=M.
When M = 0, the particle appears to be pure energy, and is moving at the speed of light.
This formula shows that energy and mass are the same kind of particle viewed from different angles.
Mass and Energy are symmetric to Distance and Time. They appear to be dimensions just as valid as our 3 distance and 1 time. Does this mean there are 3 mass dimensions? Maybe it shares 3 with distance.
It is confusing how a particle ever becomes a photon (M = 0) or rest-mass (D = 0). I dont think rest-mass has ever been observed (because of 3-degree-kelvin background radiation), but photons have.
<font size="4">Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein,
an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, University of Leyden</font id="size4">
How does it come about that alongside of the idea of ponderable matter, which is derived by abstraction from everyday life, the physicists set the idea of the existence of another kind of matter, the ether? The explanation is probably to be sought in those phenomena which have given rise to the theory of action at a distance, and in the properties of light which have led to the undulatory theory. Let us devote a little while to the consideration of these two subjects.
Outside of physics we know nothing of action at a distance. When we try to connect cause and effect in the experiences which natural objects afford us, it seems at first as if there were no other mutual actions than those of immediate contact, e.g. the communication of motion by impact, push and pull, heating or inducing combustion by means of a flame, etc. It is true that even in everyday experience weight, which is in a sense action at a distance, plays a very important part. But since in daily experience the weight of bodies meets us as something constant, something not linked to any cause which is variable in time or place, we do not in everyday life speculate as to the cause of gravity, and therefore do not become conscious of its character as action at a distance. It was Newton's theory of gravitation that first assigned a cause for gravity by interpreting it as action at a distance, proceeding from masses. Newton's theory is probably the greatest stride ever made in the effort towards the causal nexus of natural phenomena. And yet this theory evoked a lively sense of discomfort among Newton's contemporaries, because it seemed to be in conflict with the principle springing from the rest of experience, that there can be reciprocal action only through contact, and not through immediate action at a distance.
It is only with reluctance that man's desire for knowledge endures a dualism of thls kind. How was unity to be preserved in his comprehension of the forces of nature? Either by trying to look upon contact forces as being themselves distant forces which admittedly are observable only at a very small distance and this was the road which Newton's followers, who were entirely under the spell of his doctrine, mostly preferred to take; or by assuming that the Newtonian action at a distance is only apparently immediate action at a distance, but in truth is conveyed by a medium permeating space, whether by movements or by elastic deformation of this medium. Thus the endeavour toward a unified view of the nature of forces leads to the hypothesis of an ether. This hypothesis, to be sure, did
not at first bring with it any advance in the theory of gravitation or in physics generally, so that it became customary to treat Newton's law of force as an axiom not further reducible. But the ether hypothesis was bound always to play some part in physical science, even if at first only a latent part.
When in the first half of the nineteenth century the far-reaching similarity was revealed which subsists between the properties of light and those of elastic waves in ponderable bodies, the ether hypothesis found fresh support. 1t appeared beyond question that light must be interpreted as a vibratory process in an elastic, inert medium filling up universal space. It also seemed to be a necessary consequence of the fact that light is capable of polarisation that this medium, the ether, must be of the nature of a solid body, because transverse waves are not possible in a fluid, but only in a solid. Thus the physicists were bound to arrive at the theory of the ''quasi-rigid'' luminiferous ether, the parts of which can carry out no movements relatively to one another except the small movements of deformation which correspond to light-waves.
This theory also called the theory of the stationary luminiferous ether moreover found a strong support in an experiment which is also of fundamental importance in the special theory of relativity, the experiment of Fizeau, from which one was obliged to infer that the luminiferous ether does not take part in the movements of bodies. The phenomenon of aberration also favoured the theory of the quasi-rigid ether.
The development of the theory of electricity along the path opened up by Maxwell and Lorentz gave the development of our ideas concerning the ether quite a peculiar and unexpected turn. For Maxwell himself the ether indeed still had properties which were purely mechanical, although of a much more complicated kind than the mechanical properties of tangible solid bodies. But neither Maxwell nor his followers succeeded in elaborating a mechanical model for the ether which might furnish a satisfactory mechanical interpretation of Maxwell's laws of the electro-magnetic field. The laws were clear and simple, the mechanical interpretations clumsy and contradictory. Almost imperceptibly the theoretical physicists adapted themselves to a situation which, from the standpoint of their mechanical programme, was very depressing. They were particularly influenced by the electro-dynamical investigations of Heinrich Hertz. For whereas they previously had required of a conclusive theory that it should content itself with the fundamental concepts which belong exclusively to mechanics (e.g. densities, velocities, deformations, stresses) they gradually
accustomed themselves to admitting electric and magnetic force as fundamental concepts side by side with those of mechanics, without requiring a mechanical interpretation for them. Thus the purely mechanical view of nature was
gradually abandoned. But this change led to a fundamental dualism which in the long-run was insupportable. A way of escape was now sought in the reverse direction, by reducing the principles of mechanics to those of electricity, and this especially as confidence in the strict validity of the equations of Newton's mechanics was shaken by the experiments with b-rays and rapid kathode rays.
This dualism still confronts us in unextenuated form in the theory of Hertz, where matter appears not only as the bearer of velocities, kinetic energy, and mechanical pressures, but also as the bearer of electromagnetic fields.
Since such fields also occur in vacuo i.e. in free ether the ether also appears as bearer of electromagnetic fields. The ether appears indistinguishable in its functions from ordinary matter. Within matter it takes part in the motion of matter and in empty space it has everywhere a velocity; so that the ether has a definitely assigned velocity throughout the whole of space. There is no fundamental difference between Hertz's ether and ponderable matter (which in part subsists in the ether).
The Hertz theory suffered not only from the defect of ascribing to matter and ether, on the one hand mechanical states, and on the other hand electrical states, which do not stand in any conceivable relation to each other; it was also at variance with the result of Fizeau's important experiment on the velocity of the propagation of light in moving
fluids, and with other established experimental results.
Such was the state of things when H. A. Lorentz entered upon the scene. He brought theory into harmony with experience by means of a wonderful simplification of theoretical principles. He achieved this, the most important advance in the theory of electricity since Maxwell, by taking from ether its mechanical, and from matter its electromagnetic qualities. As in empty space, so too in the interior of material bodies, the ether, and not matter viewed atomistically, was exclusively the seat of electromagnetic fields. According to Lorentz the elementary particles of matter alone are capable of carrying out movements; their electromagnetic activity is entirely confined to the carrying of electric charges. Thus Lorentz succeeded in reducing all electromagnetic happenings to Maxwell's
equations for free space.
As to the mechanical nature of the Lorentzian ether, it may be said of it, in a somewhat playful spirit, that immobility is the only mechanical property of which it has not been deprived by H. A. Lorentz. 1t may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility. How this is to be understood will forthwith be expounded.
The space-time theory and the kinematics of the special theory of relativity were modelled on the Maxwell-Lorentz theory of the electromagnetic field. This theory therefore satisfies the conditions of the special theory of relativity, but when viewed from the latter it acquires a novel aspect. For if K be a system of co-ordinates relatively to which the Lorentzian ether is at rest, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations are valid primarily with reference to K. But by the special theory of relativity the same equations without any change of meaning also hold in relation to any new system of co-
ordinates K' which is moving in uniform translation relatively to K. Now comes the anxious question: Why must I in the theory distinguish the K system above all K' systems, which are physically equivalent to it in all respects, by assuming that the ether is at rest relatively to the K system? For the theoretician such an asymmetry in the theoretical structure, with no corresponding asymmetry in the system of experience, is intolerable. If we assume the ether to be at rest relatively to K, but in motion relatively to K', the physical equivalence of K and K' seems to me from the logical standpoint, not indeed downright incorrect, but nevertheless inacceptable.
The next position which it was possible to take up in face of this state of things appeared to be the following. The ether does not exist at all. The electromagnetic fields are not states of a medium, and are not bound down to
any bearer, but they are independent realities which are not reducible to anything else, exactly like the atoms of ponderable matter. This conception suggests itself the more readily as, according to Lorentz's theory, electromagnetic radiation, like ponderable matter, brings impulse and energy with it, and as, according to the special theory of relativity, both matter and radiation are but special forms of distributed energy, ponderable mass losing its isolation and appearing as a special form of energy.
More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether,; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity.
Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else with the help of small floats, for instance we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics if, in fact, nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the
water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of inovable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium.
We have something like this in the electromagnetic field. For we may picture the field to ourselves as consisting of lines of force. If we wish to interpret these lines of force to ourselves as something inaterial in the ordinary sense, we are tempted to interpret the dynamic processes as motions of these lines of force, such that each separate line of force is tracked through the course of time. It is well known, however, that this way of regarding the electromagnetic field leads to contradictions.
Generalising we must say this: There inay be supposed to be extended physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied. They may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time. In Minkowski's idiom this is expressed as follows: Not every extended conformation in the four-dimensional world can be regarded as composed of worldthreads. The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in itself in conflict with the special theory of relativity. Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a state of motion to the ether.
Certainly, from the standpoint of the special theory of relativity, the ether hypothesis appears at first to be an empty hypothesis. 1n the equations of the electromagnetic field there occur, in addition to the densities of the electric charge, only the intensities of the field. The career of electromagnetic processes in vacuo appears to be completely
determined by tliese equations, uninfluenced by other physical quantities. The electromagnetic fields appear as ultimate, irreducible realities, and at first it seems superfluous to postulate a homogeneous, isotropic ether-medium, and to envisage electromagnetic fields as states of this medium.
But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of
mechanics do not harmonize with this view. For the mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system hovering freely in empty space depends not only on relative positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also on its state of
rotation, which physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the system in itself. In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, inust be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or
rotation to be looked upon as something real.
It is true that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as real something which is not observable by endeavouring to substitute in inechanics a mean acceleration with reference to the totality of the masses in the universe in place of an acceleration with reference to absolute space. But inertial resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant masses presupposes action at a distance; and as the modern physicist does not believe that he may accept this action at a distance, he comes back once inore, if he follows Mach, to the ether, which has to serve as medium for the effects of inertia. But this conception of the ether to which we are led by Mach's way of thinking differs essentially from the ether as conceived by Newton, by Fresnel, and by Lorentz. Mach's ether not only conditions the behaviour of
inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.
Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that ''empty space'' in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the
gravitation potentials g), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.
What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations,; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same. The ether of the general theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation.
As to the part which the new ether is to play in the physics of the future we are not yet clear. We know that it determines the metrical relations in the space-time continuum, e.g. the configurative possibilities of solid bodies as well as the gravitational fields; but we do not know whether it has an essential share in the structure of the electrical elementary particles constituting matter. Nor do we know whether it is only in the proximity of ponderable masses that its structure differs essentially from that of the Lorentzian ether; whether the geometry of spaces of cosmic
extent is approximately Euclidean. But we can assert by reason of the relativistic equations of gravitation that there must be a departure from Euclidean relations, with spaces of cosmic order of magnitude, if there exists a positive mean density, no matter how small, of the matter in the universe. In this case the universe must of necessity be spatially unbounded and of finite magnitude, its inagnitude being determined by the value of that inean density.
If we consider the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field from the standpoint of the ether hypothesis, we find a remarkable difference between the two. There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational potentials; for these confer upon space its metrical qualities, without which it cannot be imagined at all. The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existence of space. On the other hand a part of space may very well be imagined without an electromagnetic field; thus in contrast with the gravitational field, the electromagnetic field seems to be only secondarily linked to the ether, the formal nature of the electromagnetic field being as yet in no way determined by that of gravitational ether. From the present state of theory it looks as if the electromagnetic field, as opposed to the gravitational field, rests upon an entirely new formal motif, as though nature might just as well have endowed the gravitational ether with fields of quite another type, for example, with fields of a scalar potential, instead of fields of the electromagnetic type.
Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnctic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or as they might also be called space and matter.
Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together as one unified conformation. Then for the first time the epoch of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a satisfactory conclusion. The contrast between ether and matter would fade away, and, through the general theory of relativity, the whole of physics would become a complete system of thought, like geometry, kinematics, and the theory of gravitation. An exceedingly ingenious attempt in this direction has been made by the mathematician H. Weyl,; but I do not believe that his theory will hold its ground in relation to reality. Further, in contemplating the immediate future of theoretical physics we ought not unconditionally to reject the possibility that the facts comprised in the quantum theory may set bounds to the field theory beyond which it cannot pass.
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only wonld be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable inedia, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.}
What if it wasn't E = MC2 but I = MC2
I standing for the same things, but with an added few
I meaning I myself am energy and matter
I also as in the "E" sounding "I" for example investigate.
I also meaning Illusion
I also meaning Eye as in the all Seeing Eye
Would removing the "E" and replacing it with an "I" make sense?
I think Einstein said something like if you travel close to the speed of light strange things will begin to happen, well I travel at the speed of light and thought, I see time as instances or different recognised co-incidences that are just so weird its strange, you get me?
Water has different depths with different electromagnetic pressure exerted upon it, this is why water slows down light, for light is electromagnetic light waves.
To guys walk down the street, one guy asks the other whats the time? he says 12:00, the other guy says, its dinnertime.
Quote from: beavis on July 16, 2003, 10:08:47
E=MC2 is ONLY for rest-mass. C2 is a constant, and is equal to 1 if you use the same units for distance and time.
E = M C2 / sqrt(1 - V2/C2)
Energy goes to infinity as Velocity goes to C.
I think thats the right formula. I could be missing a V.
...The speed of light is not a constant, though.
Adkha wrote:
QuoteFirst I have a straight question that needs to be answerd before I make any misunderstandings....
Are these dimensions the same dimensions defined by the "astral theory"? It tells us that we ascend of descend to a higher or lower dimension everything we "die"
What 'astral theory' is this?
Quote from: BirdManKalki on February 08, 2005, 10:12:57
I think Einstein said something like if you travel close to the speed of light strange things will begin to happen, well I travel at the speed of light and thought, I see time as instances or different recognised co-incidences that are just so weird its strange, you get me?
If you travel at near the speed of light as percieved from a stationary position, as fast as you go, the speed of light will still be the same speed in front of you (299,792,458 m/s). Apart from accelleration, you would also see no strange effects. Observers not realtive to your position/direction/speed might see you moving increasingly slower (dependent on their position/direction/speed). This is why it's often said its impossible to travel faster than the speed of light as you would need infinite energy to do it (i.e. as fast as you go, light will always be travelling 299,792,458 m/s ahead of you).
I have always thought that the idea of ether kind of corresponds with our modern idea of space- light propagates on it like a medium, it bends with gravity, etc. Any thoughts and ideas on this?
Hi CFT,
I suppose we can't yet probe the space that exists between the earth and sun, is there fine strands that light propagates along on its journey to earth?
Could it not be that the chemical reaction actually triggers a resonance on a strand connected, rather than a photon emitted????
X-rays are kinda nasty and lucky for us don't get through to us naturally because of there poor transmission through our atmosphere, but in order to fabricate devices with 10's of nanometre resolution there needed in ever increasing doses, so our own vacuum and related technologies are improving and in so doing i'm sure a more resolute picture is on it's way!.
ubiq
That to me MisterJingo has always be an interesting theory, one not yet proven but yet very probable. I also see this as a parable of time perception in the astral. Within your own mental range everything seems normal, vibrating on a higher frequency but it all seem normal to the observer, then other things seem to be frozen on a different time scale. Which is a way of experiencing those special laws of relativity first hand but not a very scientific method of proof.
When you are discussing LIGHT you are only talking about visible light and that is only a very small part of the light spectrum, what about all the rest of the electromagnetic field known as the light spectrum?
Quote from: clandestino on July 16, 2003, 05:50:30
hello there Lysear !
its energy = mass X (speed of light)squared. Basically it shows that all matter is composed of fantastic amounts of energy. When you break down a large atom e.g uranium, its mass reduces slightly, and the energy given off is a function of the mass that disappears.
I have always wondered about the use of the speed of light squared when Einstein himself said the speed of light itself could not be overcome. If we cannot go faster then the speed of light how can it possibly be squared. In other words are we leaping over the absolute speed he said was not possible. It's my understanding we use of the square of c because Einstein recognized the speed of light was simply not fast enough to be equivlent to mass. The fundamental speed of light is set and we're really only pumping more energy into the formula to make it work. Therefore are we speaking of something else in place of light that completes the formula which light simply fits mathamatically. I think we square the speed of light for convience becasue it fits. As much as I hate to say it c2 may not be c. I've been trying to reconcile the c verus c2 question. Question. Is it c is not c2 or is it c2 has not been named or conceived yet. Clearly this tells me there is something faster then c and once you go c+1 mpr you simply move outside or reality and the formula has always told me, there is faster then c.
Quote from: shaman on September 04, 2003, 14:02:49
Hey Adrian,
Not sure how many follow, but anyhow...
Today there are more than just a few "unifying" theories to englobe the 4 forces of the universe (gravity, weak and strong forces - in the nuclei, and electromagnetic). There are basic differences between electromagnetism and gravity such as: in electromagnetism there are dipoles (+ and - charges) while in gravity there are only monopoles (only mass attracting, no repulsion or anti-mass). One also describes the gravity acting through waves and experiments have shown the exitence of gravitational waves. The gravitational waves have their homologues to the photons in electromagnetism: the gravitons. And there is a zoo of sub-atomic particles interacting through waves (other particles). However, one must understand that no matter what theory we have, these are our 'abstract' ways of interpreting what scientific experimentations reveal. Some more advanced theories that try to generalize all the forces (Grand Unified Theories) are very weird. Some have the need for 10 dimensions... other works with strings... other with vibrations of elementary entities... Before embarking onto a journey into the world of the Grand Unified Theory, I still find it extremely difficult to understand the duality of matter/energy: particles such as the photon, the electron, etc.. can be seen either as waves or as quanta. We are on the macroscopi side and really understand only the classical view of these as quanta (particles) and while we agree on the reality of the quantum world (our computers are based on the tunneling effect in a p-n junction of the 'transistors') none really can picture that world with his/her physical mind. All that to say that there might come some new theories with a concept of Ether, but that really I feel I still have trouble understanding the basic duality of microscopic particles, it is really a paradoxal situation.
I think you have to go inside the definition of the words, like electromagnetism, to explain anything that you are explaining.
Like, why is there two poles? Why is there positive negative? What causes these poles? Why is the globe getting warmer? Why is the ice melting?
All of these things can be summarized by one event. Heat.
Why does the earth spin and the moon not?
Why is there earthquakes?
What is in the center of the earth?
What is on the surface of the sun?
Those are the mono-poles.
Electromagnetism is caused by the friction of two separate bodies colliding or like a wheel within a wheel and the inner wheel is turning faster.
The earth is not totally heated by the sun, other than the sun is the center of the earth.
We know that an electron in the atom has a negative charge; it is constantly seeking an inner orbit. That is what creates the energy in the atom.
We also know that there is no anti-electron and I haven't heard of anti-quarks and according to Stephen Hawking, an anti-electron is a quark that has lost its charge. And in the nucleus of the atom, the proton is the positive charge and the proton has 6 quarks, I think, and if any of those quarks lost the charge, it would eliminate the opposite quark from the neutron and produce 2 anti-electrons.
A photon is produced by, can I say, friction from the collision of electron and positron which is the anti-electron which is the quark that has lost its charge annihillating both which defines the half-life.
Somewhere far above your head during the daylight hours is something produced during all those collisions called a neutrino. I wonder why?
What is a neutrino? Wow, this gets complicated. Neutrinos have to have some kind of mass because there is an anti-neutrino. But, they're neutral in electric charge. What is the positive and negative if there is a neutral.
So electromagnetism cannot be simply explained.
Here's some news regarding Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity (General Relativity to be specific): Gravity Probe B proves Eistein was right (http://www.newsytype.com/5896-gravity-probe-b-einstein/).
I'm no physicist, but it's so amazing to know that we are just recently able to prove something that someone from years ago have already thought of. I'm wondering what our development in the field of science are right now if a genius such as Albert Einstein did not exist. Was anyone else able to come up with the same theory as his? This discovery just shows that Einstein is truly one of a kind, during his time and even now. :)
I'm not sure where this discovery would lead our current generation of scientists, but I hope there's still another genius in our time that could make something of great contribution to the humanity out of this.