# Has E=MC^2 been replaced by Gravity=Light\*PHI^n? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 16, 2001, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-e-mc-2-been-replaced-by-gravity-light-phi-n/87683 "2001-10-16T07:52:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-e-mc-2-been-replaced-by-gravity-light-phi-n/87683/41 "2001-10-17T20:48:17Z")
Hiyruu, I read your Rick Anderson post, and I will wait to comment until after someone refutes it. But I must say that I consider it rude, particularly given that I defended you, that you ignored my question. I’ll even overlook Waverly’s ad hominem fallacy for now. But if you won’t answer inquiries that are sincere, then you leave me no choice but to abandon this debate. Between your mystical expressions and their taunting, I’m not getting anything out of this. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-e-mc-2-been-replaced-by-gravity-light-phi-n/87683/42 "2001-10-17T21:04:26Z")
> [@](#): > > **Libertarian** : I’ll even overlook Waverly’s ad hominem fallacy Waverly guilty of a logical fallacy? Impossible. Well, perhaps not impossible. Please expand and I will clarify or correct if necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Hiyruu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/7bcc69/32.png) [@Hiyruu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiyruu)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-e-mc-2-been-replaced-by-gravity-light-phi-n/87683/43 "2001-10-17T21:05:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*Hiyruu > > > [@](#): > > > > Let us agree then that the only geometry that allows waves to converge non-destructivley is phi. Phi allows converging wave fronts to both add and multiply non-destructivley, because in a phi-spiral the scale changes but the ratio does not. This is only true for the Phi-spiral, all other spirals will eventually cause two waves to converge destructivley, and thus interfere (cross eachother) > > What exactly do you mean by waves converging? \*\* Lib, I am not on here 24/7 I try to answer as many questions as possible. Waves converging refers to two or more waves in pos or neg interference, i.e (becoming a new wave) or cancelling eachother out. Phi-geometry allows waves to both add and multiply non-destructivly (perfect heterodyning). Yes Phi can be expressed as a geometry, as can any number. ---
**Author:** ![Hiyruu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/7bcc69/32.png) [@Hiyruu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiyruu)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-e-mc-2-been-replaced-by-gravity-light-phi-n/87683/44 "2001-10-17T21:23:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waverly \* > \*\*I gave you a cite. I asked you to talk to a draftsman or architect. I thought we dispensed with Dan Winter? I know I did when I found him angling his chin, contracting his [sphincter](http://www.ascending-star.com/merkaba.htm), and traveling at the speed of light when this topic was presented in [MPISMS](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=89260&pagenumber=1). In reality this a crosspost against **UncleBeer’s** advice. > > > [@](#): > > > > Mass/inertia/gravity - These terms are interchangeable > > This is all I needed to know. Thank you for making my point for me – you have no idea what you are talking about. > > **Mass** - a fundamental property of an object, which makes it resist acceleration, and which determines its gravitational attraction. _units: kilograms_ > > **inertia** - the property of a material body which it resists any change in its motion unless it is overcome by force. > > **gravity** - the force by which massive bodies are attracted to one another_units: Newtons_ > > While the terms are interrelated, it is irresponsible and incorrect to merely interchange them. \*\* I’ll quote Dan Winter on this one: > [@](#): > > We need to apply this mathematical ratio as the form of perfect self reference, > to the wave mechanics which allow self-reference to become self-embeddedness, > optimized spin density, perfect compression, and ultimately the wave form of > perfect self awareness. > > Wave mechanics essentially means that to understand waves IS to understand mass. Mass is the inertia we measure when waves cross and store spin like a gyroscope. The difficulty in understanding the field among waves, as a unified field, is to visualize and model how implosion is the link between gravity and magnetism. The key to understanding implosion, is to see that the GEOMETRY of implosion is everywhere the same. ( It was failure to geometrize infinite implosion which caused Einstien heartache in understanding Black Holes and their relationship to time distortion.) > > The inertia which waves store by virtue of their development of pattern out of the laws of symmetry is what we variously label as mass and as information and as we shall suggest… when the pattern is recursive, as self awareness ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-e-mc-2-been-replaced-by-gravity-light-phi-n/87683/45 "2001-10-17T21:26:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waverly \* > > > [@](#): > > > > **Libertarian** : I’ll even overlook Waverly’s ad hominem fallacy > > Waverly guilty of a logical fallacy? Impossible. Well, perhaps not impossible. Please expand and I will clarify or correct if necessary. What a refreshing attitude from a debator! I admire your willingness to examine your own argument for error. Whenever you dismiss a man’s argument simply because in some other argument he has angled his chin, contracted his sphincter, or traveled at the speed of light, you are presenting one form of [argumentum ad hominem](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem) called “poisoning the well”. ---
**Author:** ![Hiyruu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/7bcc69/32.png) [@Hiyruu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiyruu)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-e-mc-2-been-replaced-by-gravity-light-phi-n/87683/46 "2001-10-17T21:29:44Z")
Also consider: Since gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration (Einstein), and compression is indistinguishable from acceleration (Winter), and Golden Ratio wave nests are the ONLY successful way to collapse / compress non-destructively (philotactics) - THEREFORE: Gravity is caused by waves nesting in Golden Ratio. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-e-mc-2-been-replaced-by-gravity-light-phi-n/87683/47 "2001-10-17T21:42:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\* > Whenever you dismiss a man’s argument simply because in some other argument he has angled his chin, contracted his sphincter, or traveled at the speed of light, you are presenting one form of [argumentum ad hominem](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem) called “poisoning the well”. \*\* \ Two points, **Lib** 1. This is the same argument, or a continuation of the same arguement, (Hiyruu is still going on about Golden Spirals, “Phi” theory, etc. **Waverly** pretty thoroughly demolished Hiyruu in the previous debate, as far as I could follow) so it’s not entirely accurate to say it’s “some other arguement”. 2. From that link (_great site…thanks for the link!_) > [@](#): > > It’s not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won’t, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won’t alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make Thoughts/opinions? Fenris ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-e-mc-2-been-replaced-by-gravity-light-phi-n/87683/48 "2001-10-17T21:52:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fenris \* > > 1. This is the same argument, or a continuation of the same arguement, (Hiyruu is still going on about Golden Spirals, “Phi” theory, etc. **Waverly** pretty thoroughly demolished Hiyruu in the previous debate, as far as I could follow) so it’s not entirely accurate to say it’s “some other arguement”. Nevertheless, a man might be mistaken about a hundred matters not under discussion but correct about this one. Thus, the radio frequency and amplitude arguments might hold despite whether their author has been shown to be a nutcase in other arguments. The proper thing to do is to address the _argument_, not the man. > [@](#): > > 1. From that link (_great site…thanks for the link!_) > > > [@](#): > > > > It’s not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won’t, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won’t alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make That’s correct. It won’t. ---
**Author:** ![Hiyruu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/7bcc69/32.png) [@Hiyruu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiyruu)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-e-mc-2-been-replaced-by-gravity-light-phi-n/87683/49 "2001-10-17T22:05:12Z")
Is there anyone here that wants to have a scientific debate, or are you just going to make slanderous remarks that add nothing to this debate? Don’t delude yourselves into thinking I have been disproven by someone who doesn’t even provide evidence for the point they are making. Think for yourselves, and look at the facts, I will provide more links to back up my point of view, I hope the rest of you will do the same. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-e-mc-2-been-replaced-by-gravity-light-phi-n/87683/50 "2001-10-17T22:18:12Z")
**Lib** : Ah, I had been careful with my words when addressing Hiyruu, but as Dan Winter was not in the discussion [or is he?] did not elaborate on why I would dismiss him so quickly. I don’t think ‘dispense’ was a very objectionable term, but I can certainly expand on why I used it. > [@](#): > > _The [chin angle](http://www.ascending-star.com/merkaba.htm) and speed of light is not hyperbole_: > About a year later I spent some time with Dan Winter. In our conversations we discussed the merkaba, and he mentioned that the head needed to tilt back 32 degrees, entering the PHI golden mean ratio, before it could actually transcend the speed of light…. > …When your head tilts back and your merkaba spins faster than the speed of light, you may notice that your anus involuntarily contracts, and your kundalini becomes active along your spine. See Dan Winter links at the end of this article for details. From the description and terminology we see that Dan is spiritualist, not a physicist. Does the preclude him from working in physics? Of course not, unless he makes the mistake of… > [@](#): > > _From Hiyruu’s article:_ > wave mechanics which allow self-reference to become self-embeddedness, optimized spin density, perfect compression, and ultimately the wave form of perfect self awareness. Oops, now he has done it: confused spiritualism with physics. The “wave form of perfect self awareness”? What is the wavelength of _this_ type of wave? But surely Dan is not always so far out on the fringe? What is he selling here? [The Physics of Love and Compassion](http://theearthhistoryancientwisdomconnection.g-vision.com/dw_physics.shtml) For only $79 we get learn, > [@](#): > > The secret to avoiding all chronic disease > > How to bend galaxies with emotion. > > How the Borgs controlled our sector of the galaxy. > > The role of Phi in the measurement of love Too many gems to list, browse on your own. Does ‘Spiral of the Golden Mean’ look familiar? Dan’s site is down, but here are some words from Dan himself in an ([http://www.mkzdk.org/globalrecursion1.html](http://www.mkzdk.org/globalrecursion1.html) ). He refers to oft debunked new age maven [Dr. Chopra](http://www.skepdic.com/ayurvedic.html) in the first sentence. He goes on the espouse on many topics including Hiyruu’s unified theory model. _This_ is why I ‘dispensed’ with Dan Winter. I realize it may not have been obvious at first, but hopefully this now makes sense. It is not always necessary to take _any_ theory which can be formed into words seriously. This is why we peer-review findings. This is why we perform experiments to test our ideas. This is why we say ‘incredible claims require incredible proofs.’ I will re-assess Dan Winter when his finding have been submitted to a credible journal with peer reviewed. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-e-mc-2-been-replaced-by-gravity-light-phi-n/87683/51 "2001-10-17T22:36:37Z")
As you wish, but here is my worthless advice: do not assess Dan Winter; assess Dan Winter’s _argument_. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-e-mc-2-been-replaced-by-gravity-light-phi-n/87683/52 "2001-10-17T22:40:28Z")
And not the other ones; _this_ one. ---
**Author:** ![Hiyruu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/7bcc69/32.png) [@Hiyruu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiyruu)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-e-mc-2-been-replaced-by-gravity-light-phi-n/87683/53 "2001-10-17T23:07:53Z")
Waverly, what is your point? I never said I believed **everything** Dan Winter talks about, otherwise I would of quoted all of his work. I am focusing on a specific topic, nameley that of waves nesting in a golden ratio vortex to create gravity. You can’t just type “Dan Winter” into a search engine, pick something at random, and then try and attribute it to this arguement. Waverly, If you want to argue my point, then talk to me directly ok? Don’t go off on tangents. I think I am being more than reasonable, asking for such courtosy. So, everyone, can we agree that waves can only continue to nest non-destructivley (add and multiply) when the wave attractor is a golden spiral? ---
**Author:** ![Hiyruu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/7bcc69/32.png) [@Hiyruu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiyruu)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-e-mc-2-been-replaced-by-gravity-light-phi-n/87683/54 "2001-10-17T23:15:00Z")
Please dispense with attitudes and opinions, and stick to facts and figures! ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-e-mc-2-been-replaced-by-gravity-light-phi-n/87683/55 "2001-10-17T23:42:23Z")
Well I say that stuff falls down because it would look funny if stuff fell up. **Lib** , when a man claims anyone can learn how to create gravity by force of will, I say he’s deluded. I say he’s deluded _because of his claims._ If Dan Winter got anything right, it was by accident. Even a blind pig finds a truffle now and then. ---
**Author:** ![dna\_man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d2c977/32.png) [@dna\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dna_man)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2001, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-e-mc-2-been-replaced-by-gravity-light-phi-n/87683/56 "2001-10-18T00:11:49Z")
OK… first off, this is not a theory it is a hypothesis. Second, hypotheses must be tested. Design an experiment which will show the mathematical relationship you describe and then tell us how to perform the experiment so we can verify your findings. When your findings have been verified by multiple experimenters then we can start to look for predictions your hypothesis relates to and try to see if the predictions are accurate as well. If you can show that gravity can be described, understood and predicted in terms of light (or speed of light) and a geometrical constant then you will surely rock the physics world as we know it and probably be eligible for a Nobel prize or at least be known as the Einstein of this century. As of today… gravity can not be universally described in relationship to the other four known forces. Light can. Thus your equation if it were correct would amount to nothing less than a Theory of Everything, and we all know those don’t exist 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2001, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-e-mc-2-been-replaced-by-gravity-light-phi-n/87683/57 "2001-10-18T00:21:09Z")
If a persons work is going to be submitted as a cite under the premise that they be taken as an authority, it **is** relevant if someone wishes establish their credentials or lack thereof. This is not to say every debater need have credentials, but work used as source material (cites) should be of a credible nature. In sum: it is acceptable to consider the source. I appreciate Lib’s input, and understand Hiyruu would like to get back on topic, but I don’t believe I have been on a tangent. That being said, I believe I can make the rest of my points from quotes within this selfsame thread. > [@](#): > > _Hiyruu_: Since gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration (Einstein), and compression is indistinguishable from acceleration ( **Winter** ) **Hiyruu** , here you are using him as a cite. Please tell me why it is not relevant to question his work? Einstein’s work is widely reviewed and studied, please provide similar support for Mr. Winter’s assertion that “compression is indistinguishable from acceleration” from an independent source. > [@](#): > > _From Dan Winter as posted by Hiyruu:_ We need to apply this mathematical ratio as the form of perfect self reference, to the wave mechanics which allow self-reference to become self-embeddedness, optimized spin density, perfect compression, and ultimately the wave form of perfect self awareness. Please provide mathematical constructs in the context of a pier reviewed article for the terms: ‘perfect self-reference’, ‘self-embeddedness’, ‘perfect compression’, and most interestingly ‘perfect self-awareness. All of the above were brought into the discussion by Hiyruu, not though my web search, and it is perfectly reasonable to ask that such nebulous terms be defined, proven, and found credible by relevant authorities. Form earlier posts, **Hiyruu** has still not provided mathematical proof that ‘gravity’ and ‘inertia’ are one and the same concept despite their differing accepted definitions. Once again I must insist that such a proof would be significant enough to warrant publication in a physics journal. Please point me towards it. I’ll also ask that we not use Dan Winter as an authority until we find his work has been similarly published. Where are the terms for period and amplitude, as they are essential to a discussion on constructive interference? It should be possible to graphically and mathematically demonstrate the wave behavior inside the spiral. My question on which wavelength of light we are using was also unanswered. They differ, and whatever causes one to constructively interfere in a quantifiable way will not work with another. An finally > [@](#): > > So, everyone, can we agree that waves can only continue to nest non-destructivley (add and multiply) when the wave attractor is a golden spiral? No, Hiyruu, I cannot. You are a long way from reaching this waypoint. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2001, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-e-mc-2-been-replaced-by-gravity-light-phi-n/87683/58 "2001-10-18T00:25:38Z")
Well, most of what Hiyruu has said has been gibberish, not false because to be false something must be a meaningful claim, but one of the few meaningful claims that Hiyruu has made is (surprise, surprise) false: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hiyruu \* > Since gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration (Einstein), \*\* EInstein never said that gravity is indistinguishible from acceleration. They are easily distinguished by tidal forces. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2001, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-e-mc-2-been-replaced-by-gravity-light-phi-n/87683/59 "2001-10-18T01:17:18Z")
To expand on **The Ryan’s** excellent point, this was illustrated by the elevator frame of reference thought experiment. It describes indistinguishable _effects_, not _causation_ in my understanding. [Mildly helpful link](http://www.stargazing.net/yizen/general_relativity_frame.html) I’m sure someone can explain this better than I. **Lib** : You are correct, I meant to convey that I would assess the arguments, not the person. ---
**Author:** ![dna\_man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d2c977/32.png) [@dna\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dna_man)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2001, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-e-mc-2-been-replaced-by-gravity-light-phi-n/87683/60 "2001-10-18T02:51:40Z")
That portion of General Relativity explains (!) why _observations made_ in an accelerating frame of reference will not differ from observations made in a gravitational field of equal strength. It does not mean that gravity and acceleration are _the same thing_. And unless you are locked in an elevator, it’s easy to see what’s going on around you, and you are able to tell whether you are in a gravitational field or whether there is another force causing the acceleration in your frame of reference. However, they are indistinguishable by an objective experiment, such as observing the curvature of a light beam. The light beam will curve the same amount on earth as it would in space if you were accelerating at 9.8 meters/sec^2. Thus, you can not distiguish gravitational acceleration from acceleration by another force unless you can observe the thing causing said force. That does not mean that everything that causes acceleration is gravity, which I think is what you’re trying to say. I don’t know what you mean by “compression is equal to acceleration”, but I think you (and Winter) are simply misunderstanding an effect which is also explained (surprise!) by General Relativity. I’m probably going to kick myself for making this gross oversimplification, but it basically means that _relative velocity_ is proportional to the compression observed along the velocity vector in an object or wave. Relative velocity being the operative term there, not acceleration. This explains how the cops catch speeders among other things. It does not mean that light waves cause gravity – whether they’re in the presence of a golden spiral whatever the heck that is, or not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-e-mc-2-been-replaced-by-gravity-light-phi-n/87683.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-e-mc-2-been-replaced-by-gravity-light-phi-n/87683.md?page=4)