Hello,

My name is Eodnhoj. I would like some opinions on this subject, of which I am arguing as true.

Curvature and Energy

The purpose of this article is to address Einstein's equation of E=MC2 and the nature of energy relevant to the nature of curvature. This article will not address E=MC2 from the perspective of Physics, but rather from the perspective of Philosophy and curvature. From this perspective an argument will be given as to the nature of not only what constitutes energy, but also the constitution of curvature. E=MC2 is incorrect, when taken from the sole perspective of physics, as energy is not equivalent to light. It is correct when only viewed as an element of energy, and in this case the equation needs to be adjusted. This is due to the propagative nature of curvature simultaneously be subject to speed, while manifesting it, through numerically proportional quantum degrees of curvature that are synonymous to numerical frequencies. Curvature and energy are congruent in structure, with curvature not being limit to, or by, the nature of light particle-waves.

The speed of light is equal to the speed of light (or is stable) when its dimensions of curvature are equal. The internal and relative external curvature must always be proportional for the speed of light to be stable.

C=C ↔ ∝ (∂∮)

Any deficiency within proportionality manifests a deficiency in stability, corresponding with flux, and a deficiency in proportionality. This deficiency can be reflected through "probabilism" or "approximation" within an inherent nature. Light, being a particle-wave, is subject to this nature.

C ≅ ⟨⇶|Φ⟩ ∴ ϕ

{(C ≅ ϕ) ∴ (C∂∮≈C∂∮)} ↔ C≠C

If the degrees of the curvatures are "approximately" equal, then light is simultaneously both faster and slower than itself. This is a contradiction, in regards to the nature of light being a constant unless it is proportional (relative/reflective/corresponding) to further dimensions that stabilize the flux to a degree.

(C≠C → C=C) ↔ (c=xΩ) ∫ (yΩ)

This "approximation" has to be considered as a possibility due to the inherent probabilistic nature of particle-waves. From an external perspective, it is this separate curvature of "dimension limit" that enables a stability in light particle-wave speed by providing separate constant curvature through relative dimension(s). This separate dimensional median which stabilizes the flux, to such a degree that it is "probabilistic", must be equal to or greater than the speed of light. In this respect it is reflective of the nature of light particle waves without being subject to them.

Ωy ≥ xΩ ∴ {C= ∂(yΩ) ∐ (yΩ) ≡ C}

From an internal perspective, all abstract and physical particle-waves (in this respect "light") must manifest equal proportions of vertex, amplitude and depth in order to manifest a non-probabilistic stability. Vertex (V), Amplitude (A), and Depth (D) must be equal.

∝ (V, A, D) → ¬ (ϕ)

The issue becomes a fundamentally mathematical one of basic proportions as 3 variables cannot be equally proportional to manifest 1 non-probabilistic nature.

1/3=.333333...∞

V=.333333...∞

A=.333333...∞

D=.333333...∞

Even if one were to round them in order to gain stability with:

V=.3, .03, .003...∞, A=.3, .03, .003...∞ and D=.3, .03, .003...∞

the stabilization of the particle-wave beyond any form of probability would require a variable (structurally congruent to .1,.01.,001,...∞) to be inserted into any one of the above three "equal" variables, leading to an inherent form of inequality within vertex, amplitude, and depth manifesting as:

V>A=D

A>V=D

D>A=V

The issue of having to "round" or "curve" the mathematics in order to gain a non-probabilistic stability is an interesting observation for the problem occurs as to whether V>A=D, A>V=D, or D>A=V can be true as V,A and D as are all equal through the necessity of stabilization of 3 degrees of curvature. Even if this were so, reapplying the above mathematical argument again to take the probabilistic nature out of "3" leading to a circular argument summed as "a single degree of probability".

Probability is both an element of and has element of a numerical universally reflective binary code of "1" and "0" which is approximately equal to "1". This is structurally congruent to probability, as being an element of and having an element of 1 degree with "1" itself containing a probabilistic element. "1" is evident of containing a probabilistic element through the flux between "being" and "non-being" reflected in binary code, and the proportional method of "rounding" equivocating .999...∞ as "1".

(ϕ ∈∋ (1, 0) ≈ "1") ≅ (ϕ ∈∋ 1∂)

It is this inherent degree of probabilism, reflected as 1 degree of curvature (ψ1/0) relative to 2 degrees of curvature (1,0) and their summation equaling 3 degree of curvature, which gives evidence as to the inherent nature of "3" being an element of and having as an element exponentiation curvature.

{∂ϕ ≅ ∑ (1∂∮∫2∂∮) = (3∂∮→∮∧x)} ▻ (3n ∈∋ ∮∧x)

We can observe that in all curvature magnification the element of "flux". Flux is an element of and has as elements vertex, amplitude, and depth that are structurally congruent to a degree of 3

Θ ∈∋ {(← →), (↑ ↓), (↔ ↕) ≅ ∂3}

Because of this structural congruency, "3" is an element of and has elements of curvature magnification or "flux". All of this is proportional to Pi.

(3 ∈∋ Θ) ∝ π

Observing deeper into the natures of vertex, amplitude, and depth a trinity of duals are observed. Up/down, left/right and forwards/backwards all reflect 2 dimensional movements. 2 degrees of curvature fundamentally is the root to further curvature.

(2∂∮) → √∮

It is this flux, which can be observed as having inherently positive or negative proportions, that is structurally congruent to 2 degrees. Because of this structural congruency, "2" is an element of and has elements of curvature root or "stability".

◻ ∈∋ (Δ∇ ≅ 2∂)

It is in this nature of degrees being a necessary element within curvature that it can be implied that all degrees of curvature are quantum curvature. It is this quantum curvature that manifests proportionality through a structure congruent to the structure of number. This gives theoretical evidence as to a resonance between the nature of curvature and the nature of number.

(∂=ᚦ∮) ⊃ (∂=q∮) ≅n

The inter-joining of these degrees through (*,/,∧,√,+,-) manifests further flux and/or stabilization of curvature as the structural congruency of number to curvature allows correspondence between the two, and can be viewed as reflective duals due to an equality in definition.

{∂x⋈∂x → (*, /, ∧, √, +, -)} → {ψ ⟨Θ|◻⟩} ∵ {(x ∪ ∮) ≜ ⟨∮|n⟩}

Because of this inherent "numerical" nature to curvature, all particle-waves may manifest speed through degrees of relativity that are bound through inherent "numerical degrees". It is because of this nature of curvature through "numerical degrees", that is required in order to manifest speed through relative curvatures, that "number" in and of itself a degree of curvature. In reality the equation E= MC2 should be:

MC2⊢E ∵ E ≅ ∮

(MC2 ∝ ∂∮) ≤ ᚦ∮

Mass times the speed of light squared is derived from energy because energy is structurally congruent to curvature. Mass times the speed of light squared is proportional to a degree of curvature, as a quantum, with curvature as a primitive element being greater than or equal to the degrees that compose it.

In summary:

Energy and curvature are synonymous, with speed being manifested through inherent frequencies within all curvature that reflect and manifest through numerical degrees. Because these numerical degrees are in and of themselves forms of quantum curvature, they are subject to speed while simultaneously transcending it due to the ability to manifest light through curvature.

***

C = speed of light

↔ = if

∝ = proportional

∂ = degrees

∮ = curvature

≅ = is structurally congruent

∴ = is therefore/so/hence

ϕ = probabilistic/probabilistic density

Ω = Dimension limit

≈ = approximately equals/approximate

∫ = relative too

∐ = coproduct of

≡ = reflective of

⟨⇶|Φ⟩ = wave-particle/particle wave

¬ = is not

▻ is an ideal of

∈∋ = has as an element/is an element of

Θ = Flux

(← →) = vertex spin cycle

(↑ ↓) = amplitude spin cycle

(↔ ↕) = intensity spin cycles

◻ = Stability

Δ = Positive Flux

∇ = Negative Flux

⊃ implies

∂ = the boundary of, degree of

ᚦ = elemental structure

q = quantum

n = number

## Curvature as Energy

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.

Return to “General Philosophy”

Jump to

- Philosophy Book of the Month Club
- ↳ The Honest Truth About Dishonesty
- ↳ *The Voice of Creation* by J. Hudson Mitchell
- ↳ *Justice* by Scott Hughes
- ↳ "The Meaning of Human Existence" by Edward O. Wilson
- ↳ Discuss "The No-Nonsense Guide to Islam" by Ziauddin Sardar
- ↳ Discuss "The Moral Arc" by Michael Shermer
- ↳ Discuss "Holding Fire"
- ↳ Discuss "The Road to Character" by David Brooks
- ↳ "The Message?" by Avam Hale
- ↳ Discuss "Irrationally Yours" by Dan Ariely
- ↳ Discuss "Burn Zones" by Jorge P. Newbery
- Argumentative Philosophy Forums
- ↳ General Philosophy
- ↳ Epistemology and Metaphysics
- ↳ Ethics and Morality
- ↳ Philosophy of Politics
- ↳ Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology
- ↳ Philosophy of Science
- ↳ Philosophy of the Arts and Philosophy in the Arts
- Special Philosophy Forums
- ↳ Interviews and One-on-One Discussions
- Community & Off-Topic
- ↳ Philosophers' Lounge
- ↳ Introductions
- ↳ Feedback, Support & Forum Announcements
- ↳ Most Popular Topics