Explaining the Unexplainable (A Strange Dream)

[Araye]

Awesome that you were able to remember such detail.  Probably due to the intensity of the experience.  So what do these images mean to you?  That's the first thing to ask yourself.  What do the aztecs represent for example (to you personally)?  I would also break it down into several dreams; one leading to another.  The brain has a way of trying to combine things into one, when it may have been a series of messages.  For example, when you very first looked upon the liquid, you may have thought "blood" which led to the rest of the images because when you think of blood, that's what "you" invision. 

I had a question though.  When you saw yourself in the mirror, was it you, but not you?  Or where you literally looking through the eyes of a stranger into the mirror?

I too see blacker than black (or true black), but in a conscious state.  Actually, I see yin yang spiralling in the back of my head, where white and black are extreme; the black is darker than the black surrounding.  So I can imagine the black you describe.

You said, it seemed totally real and that your current life faded away (to paraphrase).  Maybe it was real.

Araye

"In the beginning there was only pure energy. Then, the energy realized it existed, 'I am.'
With the first thought, everything spawned from the energy to which it will all return."

[Induane]

Sleep paralysis is not the same as a nightmare... a nightmare is a scary dream, sleep paralysis is waking up but not being able to move for a bit.

This strange dream was not accompanied by sleep paralysis however that is one phenomonon that I encounter often.  It was terrifying at first but now I can calm myself because I know it will pass eventually. 

edit: I think this dream is a delayed reaction from the time you hit me on the head with the radio...

Nah, no way a dream about that would be nightmare for me

ahahha but yeah....i really liked the vividness in how you described your dream Cheesy you must have a crazy cool memory.

I'm actually very forgetful, however the things I DO remember I seem to remember in an insane ammount of detail.  When I was very young, 3 and a half, I happened upon a large snake (turned out to be a rattle snake), ran to grandad and dad and told them I found a big bad snake.  I still remember the event from events such as dad firing the rifle a few times then handing it to grandad frustrated, - then grandad shot it once and it was all over.  I remember dad chopping the snakes head off, putting on gloves, coughing, then throwing the head into a trash barrel.  I can still recall the event quite clearly, yet most any other memory from that time is almost a fuzzy nothing. 

and then all of a sudden it was really dark and this anime girl fell out from the sky and then melted into a lake of blood and then i was in a schoolroom trying to get out of the attic and then the lake of blood was back and a guy was standing on one leg on a small branch sticking out of the blood and he was reciting the last testament or some other holy scripture like thhat

You should sign on to be a writer for "Grudge 3"  since they are obviously in need of some different ideas. 

You said, it seemed totally real and that your current life faded away (to paraphrase).  Maybe it was real.

Thats almost what I think I'm afraid of - at least to some extent.  Entering that dream felt more like waking up from one, instead of the other way around.  I woke up confused as to how I got to where I was (which was my own bed) and it almost felt like falling into a confusing dream... except now I was awake for real.

I had a question though.  When you saw yourself in the mirror, was it you, but not you?  Or where you literally looking through the eyes of a stranger into the mirror?

I'm not sure what it was.  It felt more like I was looking at pure evil if there is such a thing.  If I could imagine pure evil physically manifesting itself I thiink that is what I saw in my odd bright black reflection.

For example, when you very first looked upon the liquid, you may have thought "blood" which led to the rest of the images because when you think of blood, that's what "you" invision.

   

I didn't think of blood at the time, that was more in retrospect recalling the dream.  My feeling at the time was more of a river, except it was an enclosed tunnel with pulsating fluid stuff.  It also looked now that I think back... a grainy blueish color.  Grainy like old film grainy.  Blue but more like a very desaturated blue.  It was almost like a blue tinted black and white sequence.

I have weird dreams like that, too. But sometimes I actually know that they're dreams and choose whether to wake up or see them through. It's strange. =/

I've had dreams where I could wake up too, but this time I actually considered the fact that I was dreaming and almost disreguarded it as a silly notion. Weird...

"In the beginning there was only pure energy. Then, the energy realized it existed, 'I am.'
With the first thought, everything spawned from the energy to which it will all return."

Every once in a while I consider the possibility that a soul is the energy signature of a persons body.  That this energy is somhow the source of our consiousness.  Considering that matter is just a super concentrated form of energy, it almost seems possible.  The potential energy in a human body is actually insane if you consider the ammount of energy in each atom - E=MC2    E=MC2 isn't exactly a recipe for a nuclear bomb but it certainly explains why one is scientifically possible. 

[Araye]

"In the beginning there was only pure energy. Then, the energy realized it existed, 'I am.'
With the first thought, everything spawned from the energy to which it will all return."

Every once in a while I consider the possibility that a soul is the energy signature of a persons body.  That this energy is somhow the source of our consiousness.  Considering that matter is just a super concentrated form of energy, it almost seems possible.  The potential energy in a human body is actually insane if you consider the ammount of energy in each atom - E=MC2    E=MC2 isn't exactly a recipe for a nuclear bomb but it certainly explains why one is scientifically possible. 

The above bit is from our Guild's Tome of Enlightenment.  It wasn't really for your dream analysis.  "Concentrated" is a nice way to look at it.  I call matter "slow" energy.  In being "slow", higher order energetics required to mantain the mass become trapped as they are the glue that binds.  This can be seen when you break it apart (as in an atomic accelerator), you allow these things to escape and return to their origin.  They show up as "particles" with extremely short lifespans.  Also, in our guild, the "soul" is conscious thought.  Conscious thought changes energy into matter (or reality, etc.) or vise versa.  Conscious thought being what gave rise to reality (as we know it) and our quest to answer the first question, "what am I?"

Araye

[zanzibar]

Every once in a while I consider the possibility that a soul is the energy signature of a persons body.  That this energy is somhow the source of our consiousness.  Considering that matter is just a super concentrated form of energy, it almost seems possible.  The potential energy in a human body is actually insane if you consider the ammount of energy in each atom - E=MC2    E=MC2 isn't exactly a recipe for a nuclear bomb but it certainly explains why one is scientifically possible. 

Matter is not concentrated energy.  E=mc^2 describes how matter can be converted into energy.  Even then, "energy" is just the ability to do work.  Heat is a form of energy, but I doubt anyone would say that it accounts for conciousness.

[Induane]

Matter is not concentrated energy.  E=mc^2 describes how matter can be converted into energy.  Even then, "energy" is just the ability to do work.  Heat is a form of energy, but I doubt anyone would say that it accounts for conciousness.

Ahh delving into physics, meta physics, and theoretical physics!   Not my area of expertise though one thing to me stands out.  The simple law of conservation of energy.  As far as we know energy can be neither created nor destroyed according to the law of conservation.  It can only be changed from one form to another.  To quote people smarter than me:

Conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy (often expressed as the sum of kinetic energy and potential energy) in an isolated system remains constant. In other words, energy can be converted from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. In modern physics, all forms of energy exhibit mass and all mass is a form of energy.

You see mass is simply an exotic form of energy.. or maybe not so exotic.  The theory of things like "The BIg Bang" requite unification of forces and thus energy.  Essentially this means that at one point all things were one.

E=mc^2 describes how matter can be converted into energy.

Normally I don't pick quotes out of quotes I just quoted...   but this is simply wrong.  It describes how the total ammount of energy in a system is equal to the total mass of an object multiplied by the speed of light squared.  It isn't a mass times the speed of light squared converts into energy formula.  I have been out of school for ages and I failed college but Einstein fascinates me

What is more fun is trying to decide of things like gravity are actually energy or if they are a side effect of warped space time.  If it were a force how come it is so much weaker than all other forces for instance.  A small magnet has more power than gravity, as it can pull an object away from the earth despite the massive size of the earth.  If the earth had a gravitational field, it should be strong enough to overcome the force of a small object, and yet it cannot.  An interesting conundrum of physics is that for most equatinos to work all  field type force energy must exibit the exact same ammount of energetic pull.  Gravity is the only "force:" that violates this.requirement.  This tells me that it isn't really a force... but thats just thinking with logic not equations.... I've never had a good head for math.

Anyways just random thoughts!

[zanzibar]

That says "mass", not "matter".  Matter is not energy.  Matter has energy, and matter can be converted into energy.  To my understanding.

The "Conservation of Energy" principle is an outdated term.  It's better to say "Conservation of matter-energy" principle.  To my understanding.

The Big Bang theory does not require the unification of particles and forces.  Our modern understanding of the beggining of the universe has shown such things to be true given the current model, but the Big Bang theory in its simplest form states that everything in the universe began at a single point and exploded outwards.  To my understanding.

Why should gravity be stronger any more than it should be even weaker than it already is?  You're asking the wrong questions in my humble opinion.

[Araye]

Hey Induane, I didn't mean to highjack your post.  Sorry for that.

Zanzi, don't get too caught up in the definitions.  Yes, it should be matter, not mass.  As for gravity being a weak force, in ribbon theory (they added yet another dimension) the "missing force" is balanced in another dimension.  So in this dimension, gravity is relatively weak, but in another it is very strong.  Our guild believes that the universe is all that exists.  This includes all these dimensions, blah blah.

The definitions are what causes anguish because they are defined with our current understanding of that being defined.  Add a little knowledge and those definitions change.  Humans hold onto these definitions and will fight to the death to defend them even though they are outdated.  This, in my humble opinion, is the hurdle we as a species must traverse and the time to do it is now.  Most major religions teach the same thing, for example.  They just use different definitions and symbols in their teaching.  We humans fight each other over petty symbols that were meant to convey a unifying truth.  We can't get passed that and create hatred over symbology and outdated definitions, when the lessons taught are actually the same.  This is true in science as well.  Look at the anguish caused over whether or not Pluto is a planet.  The trick is, not to get caught up in the definitions, but learn the meaning behind the symbols and definitions, to see the truth (which may not be able to be defined in any written language).  This is the only way to answer the first question, "what am I?"

Araye

[Induane]

As for gravity being a weak force, in ribbon theory (they added yet another dimension) the "missing force" is balanced in another dimension.

So if my understanding of what you are saying there is correct then that is very interesting... gravity would exert itself in more than one dimension but its influence would be stronger in a different dimension than our own perceived one.  And some of the other forces either only influence this dimension or are weaker in the others... is that pretty much what you mean?  Of course I never understood how people can just add dimensions

Mass is a unit of measure.  Saying that everything with mass is energy is the correct way of stating that.  Mass is simply the amount of matter in anything, including sub atomic particles, light, etc... Though there are some highly rare super exotic tiny sub atomic particles which are said to have zero mass, so they must be energy in a different form.  Matter is a form of energy.

Asked the experts:
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/jun99/930571401.As.r.html

A good description of E=MC^2:

Albert Einstein discovered that energy is in the mass of an object.  When
that energy is released, when mass is converted into a more familiar form of
energy, the units of energy equals the units of mass multiplied by c^2, or
(3.00x10^8 m/s^2.  This released energy is usually as light or heat.  These
tend to be the easiest to create and the most difficult to control.

I think the keyword is released.  The energy in matter is released. Matter isn't converted to energy, its just the release of the energy into a different state. 

The definitions are what causes anguish because they are defined with our current understanding of that being defined.  Add a little knowledge and those definitions change.  Humans hold onto these definitions and will fight to the death to defend them even though they are outdated.

A good point.  It really helps to have a common set of definitions to base things on but with things like science, definitions are a moving target for some things because new information causes us to need to constantly re evaluate the universe.

Hey Induane, I didn't mean to highjack your post.  Sorry for that.

Don't worry.  Topics stray - I'll discuss anything that interests me - I go where the posts take me!

[zanzibar]

@Araye:  If we misuse terminology, then communication breaks down and suffers as a result.

@Induane:  A Dimension is something like width, length, height, or time.  In an alternate universe however, it is possible that the universal constants are different.  Matter is NOT a form of energy.  Matter can become energy, matter can HAVE energy, but it is NOT energy.  There is a big difference.

Matter isn't converted to energy,

No.  Matter IS converted into energy.  The matter disapears and new energy is left in its wake.

[Araye]

Zanzi, I am agreeing with you.  The problem is, not everyone uses the same terminology to express the same ideas.  Often times you have to look at a word with the knowledge of an entire culture before you truly understand what a single sentence is trying to convey (extreme example I know, but very applicable to the current state of the world).

And it is the belief of my guild, The Enlightened, that matter IS a form of energy.  This is the premise of the guild and yes, it bucks conventional understanding and definitions.  I am not claiming this to be true in real life (although I do actually believe this).  I'm not trying to convince you to believe this.  But many belief systems of the ancients and of today, do believe forms of this statement.  Even a growing number of true physicists (I am not one, but rather I am a electronics scientist) can see wisdom in the vedas for example.  There are many mythologies which think of the cosmos as if it were a "song", to include the Tolkien mythology.

Even the universe is accelerating (this has recently been measured but I can't site a source off hand), which (if you're insane  ) would support my statement that "matter is 'slow energy' trying to return to infinite frequency".  Another possible support would be the example of when ripping a proton apart, many things are displayed, most of which have extremely short existences.  They show up as spirals on film a lot of the time.  They accelerate into what I call "infinite frequency" (in other words, the state of the "orginal energy" before thought).  The act of thought changes the frequency of the "original energy" from infinite (only way to go is not infinite) which brings all the things we define as existing, into existence.  Thought is not matter or energy, but the enabler of one to exist from the other. 

Again, I'm not asking you to buy it, I'm just explaining the beliefs of "The Guild".  In the end, I'm not trying to justify it, just trying to have fun until maybe one day I have the required proofs to state it as fact (which may never come, as it could be crazy talk).  The Transcendental Meditators, being based in the vedas, are trying to prove a very similar premise.  If they end up being correct, then I'm one step closer...  lol!

Araye

[Induane]

This topic was so strangely interesting that I finally broke down and spent six or seven hours researching it.  I also played with some of the math but found most of it to be over my head. I just don't comprehend all of it well enough, and can't even derivate special relativity very far before I get highly confused and have nothing but a page of scribbles that are worthless gibberish at best.

Its interesting to note that this disagreement isn't just yourself and I zanzibar.  It appears that there are a couple major interpretations of these theories, and that the debate in the scientific community still exists.  The two common interpretations are:

1 The Same-Property Interpretation of E = mc2 : E = mc2 implies that mass and energy, which are treated as distinct properties in Newtonian physics, are actually the same.

Since mass and energy are numerically equivalent according to Einstein's famous equation, the properties mass and energy are the same. For example, Eddington states that "it seems very probable that mass and energy are two ways of measuring what is essentially the same thing, in the same sense that the parallax and distance of a star are two ways of expressing the same property of location" (1929, p. 146). According to Eddington, the distinction between mass and energy is artificial. We treat mass and energy as different properties of physical systems because we routinely measure them using different units.

2  The One-Stuff Interpretation of E = mc2 : Mass-energy equivalence brings the conclusion that there is only one fundamental stuff in the world.

in relativistic physics, the qualitative distinction between matter and fields is lost because of the equivalence of mass and energy. Consequently, Einstein and Infeld argue, the distinction between matter and fields is no longer a qualitative one in relativistic physics. Instead, it is merely a quantitative difference, since "matter is where the concentration of energy is great, field where the concentration of energy is small"(1938, p. 242). Thus, Einstein and Infeld conclude, mass-energy equivalence entails that we should adopt an ontology consisting only of fields.

(the names are stupid - but its what several comparison articles called them)

To further make things muddy though:

Interpretation suffers from a rather imprecise use of the terms "mass," "matter," and "energy." Using both "mass" and "matter" to designate a substance is a common error,  when clearly only matter designates a substance and mass designates a property.

And for extra fun:

Despite the difference in the ontological claims made by the two leading interpretations, there is one significant similarity. Both interpretations implicitly claim that mass-energy equivalence changes our knowledge concerning the extensions of the terms "mass" and "energy." Whereas the terms "mass" and "energy" had different extensions and intentions in pre-relativistic physics, SR teaches us that the extension of the two terms is actually the same. This is analogous to the discovery that the referents of "the morning star" and "the evening star" are the same. We can push the analogy a bit further. Just as it is possible to verify empirically that the planet Venus is the referent of both "the morning star" and "the evening star," it is possible to verify empirically that the extensions of "mass" and "energy" are the same. (See Section 4, Experimental Verification of Mass- Energy Equivalence.) Thus, the one-stuff interpretation merely goes farther than the same-property interpretation by drawing a conclusion concerning not just the properties of physical systems, but also about their very constituents.

And since mass refers to the amount of matter in anything

Mass is defined as the measure of how much matter an object or body contains

 I had concluded from the definition of mass and from both major theories here that matter is a form of energy. 

excerpt from quote a ways up: "matter is where the concentration of energy is great, field where the concentration of energy is small"(1938, p. 242). Thus, Einstein and Infeld conclude, mass-energy equivalence entails that we should adopt an ontology consisting only of fields" 

This interpretation shows that both our connotation of "energy" and our connotation of "matter" are not the same but that energy and matter are both comprised of the same thing.  More like a plastic squirt gun and a plastic toy car are not the same thing, but they are made of the same thing.  This seems to refute what both yourself and myself claim, though to me I consider fields "energy".  One Stuff tends to break down both into a simpler thing that fields make up everything, weak fields are what we call energy, concentrated fields are what we call matter.    The other theory, seems to imply more of what my claim was, however investigation of both shows that most consider the 2nd theory more accurate, though not because the first is less true, but more because it is less precise.  It is an over simplification of special relativity.

Something someone besides me may know since I understand jack about quantum mechanics, how does quantum mechanics differentiate the two?

[Araye]

I like that post so much that I'm going to link it into The Tome of Enlightenment with your permission Induane...

Araye

[Induane]

No need to ask.

[Gyerfry Stoemsaber]

Yep, I had a dream more wierd than yours, but mine was kinda silly. I fell asleep. Suddenly I'm being dragged to a macine by this old guy. I see my muxic teacher, I ask, 'What is he doing?!"
"Taking you you my machine," She answers. She was holding a strange ID card. I struggle. The old guy won't let go so I kick him right in the croch. He lets go, so i run away. I went to my teacher, and he gives me the exact data card my music teacher had. I had no idea what to do with it. Just then, a triceratops smashes right through the wall in my classroom. It looks like it's either a robot, or covered in grey armor. I yell, "RUN!" and run away, along with everyone else. So we're suddenly in this garden, the triceratops i chasing me. I tell my classmates to go left, while i go right. The dim-whitted triceratops chases me instead, and just before it gets me, I wake up.

It's wierd.