Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2015 - 12:19pm PT
|
Here’s what’s been showing up in my display recently.
• Nothing I do makes any difference to the way things are. Best just to do “whatever shows up.” It’s all I’ve got. :-)
• Everything is tricky. Everything in my display is unique. Any pattern I see is my own.
• Everything DOES take care of itself. There’s nothing to do.
• Energy is everywhere. That’s really all there is. Just unresolvable energy. I’m learning how to surf it.
• I’m coming to a full grasp of “I don’t know.” It’s pounding me into dust.
• Surrendering is the only thing to “not do,” if you get what I’m saying. I can’t “work at it.”
• Other beings are sharp tools that are cracking me open.
• The more I go along with what shows up, the more I find I can’t be sure of anything. Even a “falling into line” with what shows up answers no questions. What I see is, no predictability.
• I’m enjoying watching this “I,” that I call myself. It’s like watching a movie. Each time it happens doesn’t last all that long, but when it does, it’s eerie and amusing.
I’m sorry that so many beings are unhappy these days.
I think I wrote this 7+ years ago here, but it’s such a great story. It’s about the current Dalai Lama (HHDL).
At about the age of 7, HHDL experienced samadhi for the first time in contemplation. He lived in a palace of sorts, with his teacher always in the next room. When the event occurred, HHDL called out to his teacher, “Rinpoche, Rinpoche, . . . come quick, come quick, . . . it’s happening, it’s happening!” His teacher calmly walked into the young boy’s room, leaned over and looked into his eyes, and said: “Relax. Don’t get too excited, don’t get too excited . . . . In the end, it’s neither good nor bad.”
Everything is like that. Don’t get too excited. Everything is fine. Relax. Breathing is probably the most important thing one has to do in this life. Leave things alone; everything works its way out.
Light, energy, being, measurement, anger, thoughts, no-thing, meditation, radiant presence, god, . . . it’s all the same thing. There is no difference among any of them.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2015 - 03:51pm PT
|
I thinks there's a good outside chance that the supercomputers of the future,working with various experimental results, might just crack the puzzle of how our universe is constructed, down, and up , to the most precise detail. The results are probably guaranteed to astound everyone..
Until then, have fun speculatin'---especially you mathematicians and physicists.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2015 - 04:42pm PT
|
The first artistic artifacts were female figures carved in soft stone some 35,000 years ago. They
may have been worshipped, much as they are worshipped today, but there seems no way to
know. Then 5000 years ago people began practicing agriculture which allowed much larger
numbers of people to live in close proximity. It can be argued that proximity increased the need
to control people's behavior. Mythical stories with some sort of embedded ethical truth were
tried first and those eventually evolved to the ultimate control mechanism. Religion and laws.
Those two artifacts share a weakness. Laws have to be interpreted by someone and religions
are based on untested opinions that seem never to be resolved, much like this thread. (A nod
to Lynne.) When we adhere to things that have been tested we get Fermi Dirac statistics for
the behavior of electrons, and immediately thereafter get things like this computer which are
often useful and do not generally cause unresolvable arguments.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2015 - 07:31pm PT
|
to Lynne.) When we adhere to things that have been tested we get Fermi Dirac statistics for the behavior of electrons, and immediately thereafter get things like this computer which are often useful
Jstan
There has been millions, billions of people born with handed down evolutional traits such as; murderous, thievery, adulterous, deceitful, destruct fullness, gossiping, etc. that have after hearing the Word of God become "enlightened" to their genetic miscombobulation and through their Will/Freedom of choice along with practice have changed their genetic makeup enough to never again act out on these eniquities.
God's word has been tested and proven on man's behavior far far far more then the fermi dirac.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2015 - 08:15pm PT
|
Apr 29, 2015 - 10:45am PT
Of course I can measure myself.
No you can't and you''ll soon see why.
You think you are your body.
But that is not your "self".
You don't have a clue who you really are.
After that you'll post your next simplistic poor fund of knowledge .....
Waiter, I have a hair in my word salad.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2015 - 12:16am PT
|
I don't see any direct link at all beyond a somewhat vague idea of consciousness/mind being mapped over / out of a myriad of underlying subconscious processes (as opposed to Lago's no-thing). But regardless, I suspect some serious projection is involved in both cases.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2015 - 10:01am PT
|
Until then, a photon strikes a detector, such as the eye or a camera film or what have you, and that strike impacts the receptor. The more photons that strike the receptor, the greater the greater the light sense. That is called measuring physical extent, my curious friend, and light has mass until proven otherwise IN THE REAL WORLD.
--
Sorry Dingus, your ideas per physical extent are bunk, according to the physicists who teach this stuff. I put forth your argument and one referred me to this article to hopefully get you clear on it and put this rather simple fact to rest.
I don't have a link. Folks already in the know about massless particles and no physical extent need not read on.
Original by Philip Gibbs
Does light have mass?
The short answer is "no", but it is a qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer "yes".
Light is composed of photons, so we could ask if the photon has mass. The answer is then definitely "no": the photon is a massless particle. According to theory it has energy and momentum but no mass, and this is confirmed by experiment to within strict limits. Even before it was known that light is composed of photons, it was known that light carries momentum and will exert pressure on a surface. This is not evidence that it has mass since momentum can exist without mass. (For details see the Physics FAQ article What is the mass of a photon?).
Sometimes people like to say that the photon does have mass because a photon has energy E = hf where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency of the photon. Energy, they say, is equivalent to mass according to Einstein's famous formula E = mc2. They also say that a photon has momentum, and momentum p is related to mass m by p = mv. What they are talking about is "relativistic mass", an old concept that can cause confusion (see the FAQ article Does mass change with speed?). Relativistic mass is a measure of the energy E of a particle, which changes with velocity. By convention, relativistic mass is not usually called the mass of a particle in contemporary physics so, at least semantically, it is wrong to say the photon has mass in this way. But you can say that the photon has relativistic mass if you really want to. In modern terminology the mass of an object is its invariant mass, which is zero for a photon.
If we now return to the question "Does light have mass?", this can be taken to mean different things if the light is moving freely or trapped in a container. The definition of the invariant mass of an object is m = sqrt{E2/c4 - p2/c2}. By this definition a beam of light is massless like the photons it is composed of. However, if light is trapped in a box with perfect mirrors so the photons are continually reflected back and forth in both directions symmetrically in the box, then the total momentum is zero in the box's frame of reference but the energy is not. Therefore the light adds a small contribution to the mass of the box. This could be measured--in principle at least--either by the greater force required to accelerate the box, or by an increase in its gravitational pull. You might say that the light in the box has mass, but it would be more correct to say that the light contributes to the total mass of the box of light. You should not use this to justify the statement that light has mass in general.
Part of this discussion is only concerned with semantics. It might be thought that it would be better to regard the mass of the photons to be their (nonzero) relativistic mass, as opposed to their (zero) invariant mass. We could then consistently talk about the light having mass independently of whether or not it is contained. If relativistic mass is used for all objects, then mass is conserved and the mass of an object is the sum of the masses of its parts. However, modern usage defines mass as the invariant mass of an object mainly because the invariant mass is more useful when doing any kind of calculation. In this case mass is not conserved and the mass of an object is not the sum of the masses of its parts. Thus, the mass of a box of light is more than the mass of the box and the sum of the masses of the photons (the latter being zero). Relativistic mass is equivalent to energy, which is why relativistic mass is not a commonly used term nowadays. In the modern view "mass" is not equivalent to energy; mass is just that part of the energy of a body which is not kinetic energy. Mass is independent of velocity whereas energy is not.
Let's try to phrase this another way. What is the meaning of the equation E=mc2? You can interpret it to mean that energy is the same thing as mass except for a conversion factor equal to the square of the speed of light. Then wherever there is mass there is energy and wherever there is energy there is mass. In that case photons have mass, but we call it relativistic mass. Another way to use Einstein's equation would be to keep mass and energy as separate and use it as an equation which applies when mass is converted to energy or energy is converted to mass--usually in nuclear reactions. The mass is then independent of velocity and is closer to the old Newtonian concept. In that case, only the total of energy and mass would be conserved, but it seems better to try to keep the conservation of energy. The interpretation most widely used is a compromise in which mass is invariant and always has energy so that total energy is conserved but kinetic energy and radiation does not have mass. The distinction is purely a matter of semantic convention.
Sometimes people ask "If light has no mass how can it be deflected by the gravity of a star?". One answer is that all particles, including photons, move along geodesics in general relativity and the path they follow is independent of their mass. The deflection of starlight by the sun was first measured by Arthur Eddington in 1919. The result was consistent with the predictions of general relativity and inconsistent with the newtonian theory. Another answer is that the light has energy and momentum which couples to gravity. The energy-momentum 4-vector of a particle, rather than its mass, is the gravitational analogue of electric charge. (The corresponding analogue of electric current is the energy-momentum stress tensor which appears in the gravitational field equations of general relativity.) A massless particle can have energy E and momentum p because mass is related to these by the equation m2 = E2/c4 - p2/c2, which is zero for a photon because E = pc for massless radiation. The energy and momentum of light also generates curvature of spacetime, so general relativity predicts that light will attract objects gravitationally. This effect is far too weak to have yet been measured. The gravitational effect of photons does not have any cosmological effects either (except perhaps in the first instant after the Big Bang). And there seem to be far too few with too little energy to make any noticeable contribution to dark matter.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2015 - 12:36pm PT
|
^^^ reminds me of (what's his name) who crossed the Atlantic in a plane for the first time.
His was to calculate if a Fly flying around in the cockpit added weight.
Has anyone really ever trapped light in a box? Or froze it? Come'on now..
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2015 - 03:58pm PT
|
Devastatingly brilliant...
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/nick-cohen/2015/04/charlie-hebdo-the-literary-indulgence-of-murder/
Don't tell me the world's not getting its act together.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/pen-has-every-right-to-honor-charlie-hebdo?mbid=nl_043015_Daily&CNDID=&mbid=nl_043015_Daily&CNDID=&spMailingID=7706832&spUserID=MjY0MzU4MzA2NTES1&spJobID=662967180&spReportId=NjYyOTY3MTgwS0
Where there is internet and social media and reason and evidence and science education...
there is consciousness-raising... and there is hope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEN_International
.....
Note the words "Islamist" and "Islamism" (cf: Islam) are really starting to take hold now. Progress!
.....
FYI...
(1) Joel Osteen, # of followers @ twitter: 3.4 M
(2) Sam Harris, # of followers @ twitter: 294 K.
Sam Harris on Joel Osteen (via HuffPostLive)...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAdy0f_BbMw
.....
John Brockman's video interview with Richard Dawkins on replicators, vehicles, survival machines, etc....
http://edge.org/conversation/richard_dawkins-this-is-my-vision-of-life
.....
The crux of the biscuit...
“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice."
"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2015 - 04:59pm PT
|
Largo, you have fallen in love with particle physics because some of it fits your pre-conceived notions. In science, this is fraught with danger, because if you fall in love with your idea and then ferret through everything that agrees with your pet idea, you can step on your dick, which it appears that you are doing.
A photon is not "nothing." Just because the photon has a zero rest mass and is dimensionless, something is very clearly there. If you don't believe me, go stare at the sun for 8 hours and see what happens. Although they have zero rest mass, the do have energy, which varies by frequency.
With every particle, something is there. Whether it is a dimensionless particle or one with physical extent, you can't say that it is no-thing. You are ignoring energy, for one thing, and a photon has energy. Just turn on your car radio. Tune it to your favorite station, and listen to the jive that is carried by photons to you in your car.
Same with TV. Same with x-rays. They are just photons with various energies.
So, standing next to an atomic bomb can kill you with nothing more than gamma rays, which is high frequency (and energy) light.
Light does not always travel in a straight line, even in a vacuum. Its path can be bent by something massive. Light actually follows every possible path. Feynman's path integral is interesting, if you read his thin little book, QED.
An electron is also interesting. It is a fundamental particle that does have rest mass. It is a vast topic. Nobody has seen an electron, so perhaps the religious folks here will deny it.
With all of these particles, something is there. Just because something doesn't have physical extent doesn't mean that there is no-thing. Quite the contrary. Right now you are being pierced by lots of neutrinos and live within an electromagnetic field. You stay on the ground because of the Earth's gravity. Electrons create the photons on your computer screen. You are swimming in a soup of particles.
Sorry, but your belief that just because something has no physical extent doesn't mean that SOME-THING isn't there. The best example is a singularity. It is a dimensionless point. However, supermassive black holes are the biggest single object in the universe.
So meditate on that. Meditate on the nature of a singularity.
I await the criticism from your car pool. Do they read this thread? Do any of them post here under avatars? We need to know that.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2015 - 05:19pm PT
|
Basically what I'm saying is that Largo, personally, had zero interest in the topic of matter until somebody told him about some facet of it which fit his belief in no-thing. Namely, physics students in his carpool.
He didn't get there...to photons...by meditating. This is a downright religious behavior.
Which type of Buddhism meditates on loving-kindness? Are there any of those hanging around here?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2015 - 06:20pm PT
|
^^^ i think it's called Meta?
Love is first and foremost what our body's and minds were created to conceive and experience. Do you have any argument against that?
Sam Harris recognizes by saying Love is the most important aspect of the human condition, well that and intellectualism. He also sez Buddhaist or anyone can go and sit and conjure up a warm glowing sensation of love for one another..
I wonder if it's his "intellectualism" that's doing his conjuring?
If we're ALL in agreement that Love is in fact the most important aspect of being human. Shouldn't we ought at least hear the testimonies of men and women that have declared interaction with the one so-called "God of Love"? The one and only "Man" that has ever had the audacity to speak of such an uncontriveable notion. The one and only "Man" who has EVER proclaimed to have known You before your parents and guaranties, no, swears through His Love a life everlasting.
I think it would be intellectually irresponsible to not at least take a listen. And for me it is easy to reason that if The Creator of the universe wanted to walk on water, it wouldn't be nuthin but a thing chickenwing..
All He's ever asked,is for us to speak from the heart. And that's the only place you'll hear Him
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2015 - 07:52pm PT
|
So what about my apple question ? you came really close blue blocker. I am not really here I am trying to finish a deadline.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2015 - 08:07pm PT
|
I am not really here I am trying to finish a deadline.
Nutrition?
Is that why ur here?
Jus play'in. i'll try again:-)
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2015 - 08:45pm PT
|
Base:
What difference does it make where or how one gets insight? Largo could be channeling Einstein for all you know—or Alice Cooper. If the understanding holds up to scrutiny, who gives a frick? Most of what you claim you know was most likely heard or read from someone else who actually did the work—not you. What matters is the truth. (What’s “the truth?”)
If motivation and intention is the sine qua non of what’s important or what matters, then you’re going to have to open the doors to every outrageous religious nut who’s ever taken up space on the planet (as well as every other wierdo).
You’re not such a good scientist. You aren’t divorced from your own emotions when thinking about data or theory. Personality doesn’t matter when it come to data or theory. Don’t argue with the data. Be objective.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2015 - 08:47pm PT
|
Jammer:
Could we be clear what we are thinking or meaning about a hologram?
If one loses part of the database of a hologram, one can still construct the entire picture, but not with the same level of fine-grained clarity. Each specific entry into the database portrays the whole, but incompletely. Metaphysically, the idea of a hologram would imply that the universe is implied in every grain of sand, while the universe implies every individual grain of sand. As above, so below.
(I’m sure in a few more posts we’ll be having hologram experts telling everyone else they don’t know what the heck they’re talking about.)
Your insight into how holograms inform no-thing’ness and vice versa is interesting. Both are manifestations that would appear to be fundamentally insubstantial other than by perception. What is, for example, any set of numbers but a picture of something that appears to be substantial and real? On either side lies the instantiation of a projection. Which is real? The perception or the instantiation? Both? Neither? Neither-nor?
I’ll bet that DMT is going to say that phenomenon, instantiation, and projection are all material.
Base seems to think that subjectivity has been wrestled to the ground and accounted for, but I don’t. As DMT so aptly puts it, “I await [THE] proof, Sir. Its all talk and chalk, until then.”
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2015 - 10:04pm PT
|
The anger I have sometimes felt at the world and the ignorance of men is projected anger. I forget that it is actually the anger I occasionally feel at the meaninglessness and unanswered questions about my own life.
Bushy
I love how this thread makes me think
I wish you could have read my posts from a few years ago on the other scienceVreligion thread. I'll be the first to admit I was stuck in a clam shell, jus me and my faith. The first time I opened the thread I hear fruity bashing Christians with everything I thought to be a wrong opinion. Pissed me off. So I set out to set him straight! Little did I know this would whirlpool me into investigation, and typhone me into anger over how nobody out there knew God the way I did. The ugly part is that this anger strew out to other aspects of my life.. Well, that ain't to holy. But it is energetic. And God left me alone to fend for myself. That's how I feel about it anyway. You see, I don't think when one is open and receptive to hearing Gods voice, He just allows you hear anything you want to hear.. For a long time I was cradling, no condemning God to a box in which I could hold onto. But at no certain point did I realize that that box didn't fit inside the entire universe. So I let Him out. That's when I felt Him standing next to me, and not underneath me. I've never once thought He wasn't there. But I've always known His direct correlation comes from where I've been. Faith is; acting on what you believe. He's prescribed us all with a certain measure of faith, but it's up to us whether that amount grows. And if you don't see that amount growing, your prolly not going in the right direction. So to take a stab at growth I'll share some of my accumulative enlightenment. Surely I understand all of mankind are acknowledging to the same and one God; in which one of the names He goes by is Jesus. There are others but without translation meaning and understanding become foggy. Through the name Jesus we have a direct lineage back to Abraham. Why this is paramount is because it justifys the distinction between the new testament and the old testament. The OT, living under law, requires strict obedience and a paid penalty to regain right standing. This type can still be witnessed in religions such as chatholatism and Islam etc. Compared to the NT, and living under Grace. Where ALL penalties have been paid and there are NO actions required to be in right standing with God other than humbling oneself in the name of Jesus. My language maybe blunt and lacking, but I perceive all peoples, all nations, all religions falling under one of three categories; 1.The atheist, the deniers of any deity. 2.All religions that have not yet attested to Grace. 3. All those that attest to Grace through the name Jesus the Christ.
Amen
I'll now let God sort me out
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!