Discussing religion: Context is everything.

I've become quite tired of discussing religion, because most conversations these days use modern teachings (or 'talking points') that themselves often contradict the very scripture they are supposedly based upon. If one wants to discuss religion effectively, he or she must understand the origin and purpose of that religion, or forever be stuck in an endless tail-chasing argument of lawyerly manipulation around unprovable claims. Without fact, the only conclusive end to any religious discussion can only be a declaration of the religion 'does' for an arguer: one might as well discuss the positive and negative effects of different drugs, or promote the positive effects of 'your' drug (with someone else who has never taken it - mission impossible!).

Not only is modern christianity corrupt beyond recognition, it purposely avoids discussing its origins, because comparing modern teachings to these (especially through scripture) would be a danger to the very religion itself. Rather than go into a pages-long rant, I've just made a list of facts, in chronological order, that never seem to make it into most Christian religious discussions. Here goes...

1) Jesus was a Jew, and died a Jew without any thought to creating a new religion. He was (one of many) claiming to be the messiah prophesized in the Jewish teachings of the time (the Torah).
2) Judaism was still evolving in Jesus' time. The Talmud (Jewish laws) had not yet been written, and it was still uncertain whether Judaism would be exclusive to the 'sons of Israel', or open to the Gentiles as well.
3) Judaism was the (apparently) only monotheist religion at the time: the rest of the world was into their own localised multi-god paganism. The choice of 'one god to group them all' must have been enticing to many then.
4) The 'lingua franca' of the time was Greek, and even Jewish teachings of the time were translated into this language for the benefit of those not familiar with Hebrew.
5) The apostle Paul (who never knew Jesus, for those who don't know already) was of the greek-speaking faction that a) believed that Jesus was indeed the messiah and b) wanted to open Judaism to everyone. In spite of his difference of opinion, Paul was still a Jew. yet it was Paul who began the divergence between the teachings of Judaism and what was to become Christianity, in creating his own brand of Judaism which he intended to spread to the entire world. It is for this that most of the new testament is concocted from Paul's 'epistles' (or his correspondence with the 'new' religious communities he created). Christianity's definite origin can probably be placed at Paul's orders to his following to reject the teachings of anyone who did not accept Christ as the true messiah.

That is where the corruption began.

6) The only thing really known about Jesus in the time of Paul was his trip between his hometown and Jerusalem to his crucifixion. Everything in the bible outside of that (birth, miracles, etc) was written well after his lifetime.
7) Hell, marriage, and celibacy were inventions that appeared well after the origins of Christianism. All of these were creations to serve political or propagandist ends: Celibacy in particular, a rule inexistent before until the 13th century, was imposed on Christian teachers only to remove the 'threat' certain communities felt by evangelist missionaries (most of them single males) moving into their midst. Confession and marriage were invented as a means to better integrate and control communities. The saints, statues and the richness of many supposedly Christian institutions exist in direct defiance of scripture.

I could go on and on about wanton Christian destruction of 'other religion' temples (and replacement with their own), the effacement of pagan holidays (solstice, harvest, etc) by Christian ones (Christmas, All-Saints day), the Crusades and the inquisition, but the only real fact to retain in all this is that none of these later additions to Christianity appear in scripture. Protestantism can be credited with trying to remedy the situation through the 16th-century reformation, but only a few of its branches remain true to the original Christian form.

In short, the Christianity we see today is long, many-layered conclusion to a highly profitable institution designed to draw the fearful illiterate and ignorant, and such institutions should have no power, or even place, in our supposedly literate and well-informed society.

Comparative particle 'cycles' - back to Time Dilation?

Just a short entry here. In earlier posts I described my idea that E=m=A/C (or mass = wave amplitude / Constant C (speed of light)), but only examined that model relative to itself. What if we took two moving particles with this model? Not only would their 'speed' differ (in fact, for two particles relative to each other, their speed would be exactly the same), but so would their mass - two particles travelling towards each other would have a higher relative mass/Energy content (shorter wavelength), and two particles travelling away from each other would have the opposite. This means that one particle travelling towards another would go through more wavelength cycles than it would were it travelling at the same speed as the other particle, and the opposite for particles travelling away - but if one particle was to distance itself from the first, return and 'stop' next to it, wouldn't the 'age' (wave cycles vs. time) of both particles be the same?

Is C ~not~ constant for all observers?

I've been reading about EM waves again, and about known phenomena affecting them (spectral shift, time dilation, etc.). There is one constant between all articles and books I read: most physicists and mathematicians are going through acrobatics to maintain that C is constant for all observers. I don't agree with that at all - again, just because we haven't been able to create/detect a physical event that occurs at a speed faster (or slower) than the speed of light, that doesn't mean it isn't possible.

In time dilation theory, since, by today's rules, C should be constant for both observers moving in directions opposite to each other, it is time that 'changes' for each observer. Yet were we to consider that it is possible to emit a photon at a speed greater than light, and we were to add the velocity of the light source (relative to the observer) to the constant C, there would be no need for time dilation. Yet modern physics insists that this is not possible!

Spectral shift (redshift) would also explain a particle's ability to travel at speeds faster and slower than C. If a star moving away from us shot a light particle in our direction, it is fact that the wavelength of that photon would appear lower (redder) on the light spectrum. Yet modern theory calculate that that shift occurs because of a change wavelength based on the constant C. What if, instead, we calculate the frequency of the photon relative to itself (its own constant C), subtract the receding star's velocity (relative to our own) from C? If a green-light photon's frequency was divided by its speed relative to our own (say, .98 C), the math would still work out - the photon's frequency would appear slower from our point of observation (thus 'redder'), as would its wavelength appear longer, but there would be no need to 'maintain' C.

I'm not sure of modern science's ability to detect the 'C speed' of particles with any accuracy - all we seem to be able to do for now is measure frequency and wavelength, and that only from our point of observation and our own of the 'constant C'. It would make things so much simpler if we could calculate particle interaction first by calculating the behaviour (frequency) of each particle relative to itself (compared to its own constant C), then adjusting based on the relative 'C speed' of both objects. No more need for time dilation theories. I can again argue that instead of maintaining our 'biased' method of measure (constant C, time from our point of observation, our wavelength instead of frequency to avoid touching ), by measuring a particle's energy level compared to its own constant C, that we can almost take time out of our equations altogether.

Everything is light: A layman attempts to explain his idea.

I'm sure that I've made it quite clear in earlier posts that I am increasingly persuaded that mass is the result of an EM (electromagnetic) wave's frequency surpassing its forward momentum, the universal constant C (the speed of light).

Research on the EM waves known to us show that the higher the frequency of a wave, the higher amount of energy it contains. The highest known Em wave we know, the gamma ray, has an energy content of ~1.24 MeV (Electromagnetic Volts). Now consider the smallest mass-bearing particle known to us, the quark, that has an energy content of ~2.4 MeV in its smallest ('up') form. Notice anything going on here?

There may be some confusion on the use of MeV (Mega electron Volts) to measure both energy (in EM waves) and mass (in Quarks), but this is due to the fact that an object's mass is actually its energy content - a phenomenon explained in physics' mass-energy equivalence definition.

If there is one constant in the universe, it's C - the forward speed of 'light', or in other words, the forward speed of Em waves. My idea lies around a 'transition point', and a different light behaviour, between the highest frequency EM wave known to us, and the smallest mass-bearing particle.

My question is this: what would happen if an EM wave's frequency surpasses its forward motion (or simply nears it)? I am playing with the idea that an EM wave, should this happen, would cease its forward motion and circle on itself, becoming a mass-bearing particle that has a charge (the direction of its circular direction) and energy content (or 'mass').

Considering this, does an EM wave have gravity? I can imagine that a wave's oscillation across its directional pole is due to some sort of 'central' force, but this force, spread out over the path (and speed) of its wave, must be practically immeasurable. Now imagine that force concentrated into a central point, that 'ring' created when an EM wave's frequency surpasses C - wouldn't that force be concentrated, perhaps even in an exponential way, around it? Could this be the origin of gravity?

Also explained would be the 'charge' a particle has: this would simply be the direction (clockwise or counterclockwise) of a 'light ring's oscillational direction.

And the binding force? We know that two particles of the same mass (energy mass) but opposite charges annihilate each other, and we know that two particles of differing mass and opposite charges can't. Yet note that particles that bind without annihilating each other are strict in their proportions - 'up' quarks (2.4 MeV and a +2/3 charge) bind only with 'down' quarks (having a 4.8 MeV mass and a -1/3 charge) - there is something going on in the mass/charge differential that creates a stable bond, or a constant 'over-under compensating' annihilation struggle. I'm sure that a meeting between particles are outside their respective 'ideal partner' criteria would result in an absorption, explosion and/or annihilation.

With this model I could propose that the beginning of the universe was an explosion in a spectrum of energy much wider than that we thought existed until now - only that the energies, or Em waves, with a frequency higher than C became the mass (quarks) that formed the base of all we know today, and that those lower-frequency energies just spread outward from their point of creation as our present knowledge determined they did.

The Atkins Diet: Why it makes sense (from even an evolutionary point of view).

While working three years at a relatively low-movement job, I managed to avoid gaining weight, but all the same accumulated a bit of fat in places none too flattering (a visual discomfort made worse because I had little fat elsewhere on by body). I started a no-carb diet (commonly known as the 'Atkins Diet') in mid-June, and two weeks later, that normally hard-to-eliminate fat is gone now.

The introductory line to the Atkins Diet Wikipedia article sums the science of the program up quite nicely: "The Atkins diet involves limited consumption of carbohydrates to switch the body's metabolism from metabolizing glucose as energy over to converting stored body fat to energy." I hadn't realised until now that the body's metabolism phases were so simple, yet when looking back at the evolution of human diet, this makes perfect sense.

One must remember that before the Neolithic age (around 10,000 BC), processed carbohydrates were almost non-existent in human eating habits. Until then our diet consisted mostly of meat, berries, roots, fruit and other greens that could be consumed 'as found' from their plant source. The agriculture developing around then produced wheat (bread and beer), rice, maize and later potatoes (south America only until the 16th-century colonisation there) - all of these are the main source of our modern carbohydrate-rich diets. So, in considering the 200,000-year evolution of the modern human, one can easily assume that the diet most adapted to the human body is a low-carbohydrate one.

The consumption of carbohydrate-rich food (and sugars, but carbohydrates in reality are sugars), transformed by our digestive process into glucose, triggers a production of insulin in the human body; insulin 'deals with' carbohydrates (and sugars) in the bloodstream by forcing fat tissue to take up excess glucose, and by transforming glucose into glycogen that is stored in muscle and liver. So, in this light, could insulin be considered almost as a defence mechanism against 'modern' eating habits?

If there is little or no glucose present in the bloodstream, the body enters a state of 'ketosis', or when ketone bodies produced by the liver (because of a lack of glycogen therein) begin breaking down fats into a form ('good' cholesterol and glycogen) usable by the human body. The state of ketosis is seen as almost abnormal today, but could it once have been the standard for the human metabolism? Or, in other words, is the Atkins Diet simply a return to our eating habits of 10,000 years ago?

Everything is Light - A few simple Rules.

It's been a while since my last post, but since then I have found no other solutions more satisfying to me than my earlier conclusions. In short, I am of the opinion that:

• there is no 'ether' (a mysterious substance limiting speeds at which energy/matter can travel)
• I still retain my doubts about 'time dilation'.
• I am still persuaded that it is indeed possible to attain velocities higher than the speed of light.
• I am still persuaded that matter is basically light energy whose frequency surpasses its forward momentum.
• I am still persuaded that reducing time in quantum mechanics equations to the constant 'C' (the speed of light) would simplify things greatly.

If, at the beginning of the universe, there was a great explosion from a single source, all energy/matter would be projected at a maximum velocity of C. All energy whose frequency surpasses C would form matter (quarks), group into our most basic atomic form (hydrogen) and slow (hindered by the gravitational attraction of other mass-bearing elements), and energies below 'C speed' would travel, as light, at light speed, away from the epicentre of the explosion. In other words, no energy or matter was projected from the singular point of emission (the explosion) at a speed superior to C, an event that agrees with Einstein's conclusion that an energy source will always emit its rays at a speed of C, no matter what velocity it is travelling at.

So from the 'point of observation' of the big bang explosion, C was the fastest velocity that this universe knew. We seem to be stuck on the concept that that limitation - from that singular point of observation - is the fastest speed possible. I can't disagree more: if there is no 'ether', there should be no speed limit. Just because the big bang didn't create light-emitting bodies travelling at speeds at, above, or near C, doesn't mean that such a phenomenon isn't possible.

I am still persuaded that the velocity of waves emitted from a moving source should be C plus the velocity of the source itself. If the source was moving towards a (stationary) observer, the wave frequency would seem higher (in accordance with the Doppler effect), but only because, relative to the viewer, the waves are arriving at speeds superior to C. This phenomenon can be observed in the spectrum 'light shift' of stars; it is used to calculate whether the light-emitting object in question is moving towards or away from us (yet, don't forget, relative to the light-emitting object, the rays produced are still travelling at the constant C).

The problem is that, in order to test this theory, we would a) have to accelerate a light-emitting object at speeds close to C and b) devise a way of measuring the speed of the rays emitted from that object (that are at speeds superior to C). At present, even with our latest and greatest particle accelerators, we are only able to accelerate elements to a speed of C - which is the maximum speed we can attain relative to ourselves.

Calculating the energy created by colliding near-C-speed objects.

If we were to apply the above to two colliding objects, let's say photons, it wouldn't be the relative speed that would be centre of any calculation, it would be the relative frequency of the colliding elements that would predict the outcome of such an encounter. Let's take, for an extremely simple example, two equal-frequency photons colliding from exactly opposing directions (although a such collision, to this date, has not yet been created): from the point of view of one photon, the other would be travelling at twice the speed of C. This would mean that the resulting energy would be the frequency of each photon multiplied by their relative speed. If the frequency of either or both the photons was high enough, the created frequency would surpass C, meaning that matter would be created. This theory is already being actively researched through two-photon physics.

So imagine the energy created by the collision of two mass-bearing elements travelling at speeds close to C. Already our present-day space programs have problems dealing with micro-fissures caused by particles travelling a super-high speeds (some near-atom-sized particles can penetrate even the thickest metals), so imagine if we actually managed to accelerate an object, say a bullet, to near-light speeds towards another: were the combined energy (frequency) high enough, the result could be close to — or even be, were the energy created high enough to overcome the atomic structure of one or both of the colliding objects - a nuclear explosion! With all the micro-junk our universe contains, this would make near-C-speed space travel very problematic.

The 'mass' of Moving Objects.

Yet another concept that puzzles me is the thought that it would take 'infinite energy' to accelerate a mass-bearing object to the speed of light, and that the mass of that object increases with its speed. We have to be careful in our examinations here, because examining the behaviour of objects between themselves is not at all the same as observing the physics of an object itself. According to relativity, every state of reference has equal value. That is to say any object travelling at any 'speed' can be at a state of rest; whether one object is 'moving' or not (is irrelevant) only comes into question if it is compared to another.

A star all alone in space will shed its light at speeds only relative to itself; without anyone to observe it, it would have no idea (combustion, fusion, etc) that it is moving. The same goes for its gravitational force and mass. If somehow we could push and pull the star to different speeds, no matter what point we stopped our alterations and left the star to its own devices, it would continue as before, standing seemingly still and alone in space. No matter at what 'speed' the star was travelling, its mass would remain the same - the force we needed to move it was expended in moving the star, no energy given to the star itself.

Now, another star enters the picture, hurtling towards the first. How would we calculate what will happen when the stars collide? It his here that the idea of 'mass' becomes confusing, and the word 'inertia' comes to mind. Yet if the mass of each object is the calculated same, from where comes the energy created when the two giants collide?

It was perhaps a bad idea to use stars as an example; one has both to calculate the energy contained within the star's atoms themselves, as well as relative velocity. Let's go instead to the opposite end of the spectrum and compare the energies contained in two converging light waves.

The speed of light, c, is indeed a constant, and I am persuaded that it should be a yardstick by which to measure the interactivity of all energy - I especially like the idea of giving it the constant of 1. Anyhow, an electromagnetic wave (always travelling at light speed relative to itself) will have an x amount of energy (its frequency) - should we assume that they are following 'normal' patterns (within the realm of the laws we have created until today), they both should be travelling at c, and their interaction should be relatively easy to predict. Not much would happen between two photons, but let's compare their energies relative to each other.

Say two photons were zipping in opposite directions of, say, 10¹⁸mhz (x-rays). Since their direction is opposing, it would seem to one photon that the other was travelling by at, not only twice its speed, but twice its frequency. Photons have no polarity, as far as I know, so there is little chance of them annihilating each other - I used photons just for the speed/frequency comparison example.

Imagine then the force between two mass-bearing objects, say, electrons - but the math gets fuzzier here when we consider that we have to calculate the 'kinetic force' for each object (in my opinion, things would be simpler if we calculated one 'k' value between the two), and the laws seem to change when speeds near light speed c. Anyhow, you get the picture. Add into the equation the force needed to break each particle (when we get up the scale to nuclei and individual hadrons) and things get really complicated.

I'd like to stay at the electromagnetic wave level for an instant, and go back to my earlier idea about what happens when a lightwave's amplitude nears its forward momentum. Exactly how much energy is contained within an electron? Imagine that it is in fact a wave pattern itself - orbital, or stagnant? - any electromagnetic wave interaction with it would amplify its (already enormous) frequency, but a photon (as far as I know) wouldn't have the power to 'break' it (unless the photon was travelling at a speed superior to light speed? But I digress) - already modern physics has concrete proof that a photon will indeed 'excite' an electron into a higher orbit.

So what, again, of quarks, and why is their 'charge' (-1/3 and 2/3 for 'down' quarks and 'up' quarks respectively) at odds with electrons (which have a -1 charge), and why do quarks bind into hadrons (two 'up' quarks and one 'down' quark for a proton, the opposite for a Neutron), and why do 'down' quarks have more 'mass' (despite their 'puny' -1/3 charge) ...and what is that particle 'charge'? Are positive elementary particles circular waveforms orbiting 'forward' (at super-high frequencies) in one (clockwise?) direction, and negative particles the same in the opposite direction? How would such waveforms, if they existed, interact? What if gravity was the force maintaining an electromagnetic wave to its path, wouldn't it be much greater (if not amplified) when maintained in a circular path, and could magnetism simply be an 'amplified gravity' caused by the synchronisation of these waves? If everything were interacting waveforms, that would explain so much about the binding and energy levels of the elementary particles known to us. I have so many ideas and questions remaining.