Curvature as Energy

[Eodnhoj7]

Opinions?


Curvature As 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

[Harbal]

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

? =

[Eodnhoj7]

The translation key for the equations, assuming someone didn't understand the symbols. Would integrating into article have been better?

[Harbal]

Would integrating into article have been better?

Not really. I don't think it would have diminished the effect that the sudden realisation of my mental limitations had on me.

[uwot]

I can't make head or tail of your argument, but the basic idea of energy being equivalent to curvature (if that is what you are claiming), is one way to interpret gravitational energy, as expressed in general relativity. At a push, you can extend that to quantum field theory, which asserts that energy and matter are excitations/fluctuations/perterbations, depending on which physicist is speaking, in one or other quantum field. These are described topographically, and could be said to be curvature, if that is what you mean.

[Eodnhoj7]

I can't make head or tail of your argument, but the basic idea of energy being equivalent to curvature (if that is what you are claiming), is one way to interpret gravitational energy, as expressed in general relativity. At a push, you can extend that to quantum field theory, which asserts that energy and matter are excitations/fluctuations/perterbations, depending on which physicist is speaking, in one or other quantum field. These are described topographically, and could be said to be curvature, if that is what you mean.

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.


What I am attempting, that is the key "word", is to point to the inherent fact that all wavelengths have a numerical structure synonymous in this case to a degree of "3". It is because of this numerical structure, that one cannot limit speed to any strictly physical wavelength (in this case light) as the numerical nature means:

A: Energy, through wavelengths, requires abstract properties (i.e. "number") therefore may be equal to the inherent speed of what we
observe as the "fastest matter", but is simultaneously greater as these abstract properties are not limited to the physical.
B: Energy, through wavelengths, requires abstract properties (i.e. "number") that manifest physically, therefore numbers in theory can
be physicalized.
C: Both of the above.

Opinions? Argument should have been worded better?

[uwot]

Opinions? Argument should have been worded better?

I'll say. For all I know, you're onto something, but it would help a great deal if you could explain your premises simply, in English, rather than stating them as facts.

[Eodnhoj7]

A continuation of Curvature as Energy

These sets of arguments observe the possibility of all numbers having possible "physical" features as wavelengths; therefore all numbers have properties as "Energy". If this is the case, then the speed of light may not be the "fastest" physical property.

This is just an argument.


Argument Set 1

1) All structures are equal in definition to stability because all structures require stability to maintain structure:
(∀Ω ≜ ◻) ∵ (∀Ω ↔ ◻)

2) All stability is self-reflective to maintain itself. This manifests further possible stability:
{∀(◻ ≡ ◻) → ψ◻

3) As all structures are equal in definition to stability therefore all structures are self-reflective to maintain structure. This manifests further possible structures:
(∀Ω ≜ ◻) ∴ ∀(Ω ≡ Ω) → ψΩ

4) All reflection is equal to the propagation of structures/stability through flux; therefore all reflection is equal to flux.
(∀≡) = (Δ → ◻Ω) ∴ (∀≡) = Δ


Argument Set 2


1) One is equal in definition to a structure because one is congruent in structure to stability:
(1 ≜ Ω) ∵ (1 ≅ ◻)

2) The most primitive structure is one because of a deficiency in actual definition. Definition is equal to curvature and flux.
(1ᚦ > ∀ᚦ) ∵ (-d)

(d = ∮ = Δ)

3) All structures deficient in definition manifest possible stability because of self-reflection.
{∀Ω(-d) → ψ◻} ∵ (Ω ≡ Ω)


4) All stable structure are self reflective; therefore one is self reflective.
∀(◻Ω ≡ ◻Ω) ∴ (1 ≡ 1)


5) All reflection is equal to the propagation of structures/stability through flux; therefore possible reflections of one are equal to the propagations of one through the manifestation of rational numbers as complex
structures of one:
(∀≡) = (Δ → ◻Ω) ∴ ψ(1 ≡ 1) → 1n

6) These complex structures are equivalent to rational numbers
ψ(1 ≡ 1)
ex: (1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1) = 3
(1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1) = 4

7) All reflection of one manifests as further possible ones equivalent to rational numbers.
∀(1 ≡ 1) → {(ψ1) = 1n}

8 ) All flux is curvature; therefore all rational numbers, as reflections of one, are curvature.
(∀Δ = ∮) ∴ (1n = ∮)



Argument Set 3

1) The line is equal in definition to a structure because the line is congruent in structure to stability:
(⟺ ≜ Ω) ∵ (⟺ ≅ ◻)

2) The most primitive structure is the line because of a deficiency in definition. Definition is equal to curvature and flux.
(⟺ᚦ > ∀ᚦ) ∵ (-d)

(d = ∮ = Δ)

3) All structures deficient in definition manifest possible stability because of self-reflection.
{∀Ω(-d) → ψ◻} ∵ (Ω ≡ Ω)

4) All stable structure are self reflective; therefore lines are self reflective.
∀(◻Ω ≡ ◻Ω) ∴ (⟺ ≡ ⟺)

5) All reflection is equal to the propagation of structures/stability through flux; therefore possible reflections of lines are equal to the propagations of lines through the manifestation of structural curvature
as complex structures of the line.
(∀≡) = (Δ → ◻Ω) ∴ ψ(⟺ ≡ ⟺) → Ω∮


6) These complex structures are equivalent to a wave functions/forms:
(Ω∮) = ⇶


7) All reflection of lines manifests further possible lines equivalent to wave functions.
∀(⟺ ≡ ⟺) → {(ψ⟺) = ⇶}

8 ) All flux is curvature; therefore all wave functions/forms, as reflections of the line, are curvature.
(∀Δ = ∮) ∴ (⇶ = ∮)


Argument Set 4


1) The line is equal in definition to one because the line is congruent in structure to one:
(⟺ ≜ 1) ∵ (⟺ ≅ 1)

2) The line is equal to one; therefore all rational numbers are wavelengths:
(⟺ = 1) ∴ (∀1n = ⇶)

3) All wave functions/forms are equivalent to energy as a flux; therefore all rational numbers reflect energy.
{(∀⇶ = E) ∵ Δ} ∴ (∀1n ≡ E)

4) As all rational numbers are abstract; All Energy has abstract qualities.
(∀1n = [A]) ∴ (∀E ∋ [A])

5) As all energy is physical; All rational numbers have physical qualities.
(∀E = [P]) ∴ (∀1n ∋ [P])

6) The reflectivity of the abstract and physical is equal to a unifying dimension or dimensional ether.
[A]≡[P] = UΩ

[Eodnhoj7]

I have noticed some confusion on forums in regards to the analytic logic I have applied. I have written the English translation above in hopes it would be a "simple translation", however I have notice it still causes confusion. Here is a simpler, "just english" argument.

Looking for opinions, criticisms, questions.




The below argument observes that numbers possibly have physical elements as wavelengths. If this is the case, then the nature of energy must be redefined.


Argument Set 1

1) All structures, whether physical or abstract must manifest stability because all
structures require stability to maintain structure.


2) All stabilizing dynamics, whether physical or non-physical, must have a degree of reflective properties to maintain itself. These reflective properties manifest
further possible stability.


3) As all structures require stability, all structures require a degree of reflectivity to maintain structure. This manifests
further possible structures.


4) All reflective acts are acts of flux that manifest inherent stability of a structure while simultaneously manifesting new structures.



Argument Set 2


1) "1" is equal in definition to a structure because "1" reflects a degree of stability in both form and function, and is a stabilizer.


2) "1" can be observed has a highly primitive structure, because it is deficient in definition as all definition is an inherent flux.

3) All structures that lack definition must be inherently self-reflective so as to manifest stability.

4) All stable structures have a degree of self-reflectivity; therefore "1" is self reflective.

5) All reflection is equal to the propagation of structures/stability through flux; therefore possible reflections of "1" are equal to the propagation of "1". This is through the manifestation
of rational numbers as complex structures of one.

ex: 1≡1≡1 = 3
1≡1≡1≡1≡1 = 5

6) These complex structures of "1" self-reflecting are equivalent to rational numbers.

7) All reflections of "1" manifests as further possible "1"'s equivalent to rational numbers.


8 ) All flux is curvature; therefore all rational numbers, as reflections of "1", are curvature of "1" reflecting upon itself.




Argument Set 3

1) The "line" is equal in definition to a structure because the "line" reflects a degree of stability in both form and function, and is a stabilizer.


2) The "line" can be observed has a highly primitive structure, because it is deficient in definition as all definition is an inherent flux.

3) All structures that lack definition must be inherently self-reflective so as to manifest stability.

4) All stable structures have a degree of self-reflectivity; therefore the "line" is self reflective.

5) All reflection is equal to the propagation of structures/stability through flux; therefore possible reflections of a "line are equal to the propagation of a "line". This is through the manifestation
of wave functions as complex structures of the "line".

ex: ⟺≡⟺≡⟺ = ⇶
⟺≡⟺≡⟺≡⟺≡⟺ = ⇶

6) These complex structures are equivalent to a wave functions/forms.

7) All reflection of lines manifests further possible lines equivalent to wave functions.

8 )All flux is curvature; therefore all wave functions/forms, as reflections of the line, are curvature.

Argument Set 4


1) The line is equal in definition to "1" because the line is reflective in structure to "1".

2) The line is equal to "1"; therefore all rational numbers are wavelengths.

3) All wave functions/forms are equivalent to energy as a flux; therefore all rational numbers reflect energy.

4) As all rational numbers are abstract; All Energy has abstract qualities.

5) As all energy is physical; All rational numbers have physical qualities.

6) The reflectivity of the abstract and physical is equal to a unifying dimension or dimensional ether.

[Greta]

Can we please have a simple, plain-English one short paragraph summary without any symbols? Cheers.

[Harbal]

Can we please have a simple, plain-English one short paragraph summary without any symbols? Cheers.

But if we knew what he was talking about wouldn't he be running the risk that we may realise he isn't talking about anything?

[Eodnhoj7]

Can we please have a simple, plain-English one short paragraph summary without any symbols? Cheers.

I gave one above. Here is a shorter version.

One is the base primitive structure of all numbers.

As the base primitive structure it reflects upon itself to form further numbers.

This curvature of reflection of one upon itself manifests all rational numbers.


The line is a one dimensional structure that is a base primitive of all structures.

As the base primitive of all structure it reflects upon itself to form further lines.

This curvature of reflection on the line upon itself manifests all wavelength.


One and "the line" are equivalent in both form and function.

Because of this equivalence, theoretically all numbers should have equivalent wavelength "properties". Theoretically numbers could be physicalized as wavelengths (as 3 would have a specific wavelength, 4 would have another, etc.) It this proposition is true is would redefine the nature of what we understand as energy.

That is the "paragraph" version.

[Greta]

So 1 could be thought to be an "atom" of rational numbers? Not sure I understood how the numbers curve, aside from certain algorithms.

[Eodnhoj7]

So 1 could be thought to be an "atom" of rational numbers? Not sure I understood how the numbers curve, aside from certain algorithms.

"1" is equivalent to both the Line and the Point in both structure and form.

The Line reflective upon itself within Time/Space manifests the wave.
The Point reflective upon itself within Time/Space manifests the particle.
"1" reflective upon itself within Time/Space manifests Rational Numbers.


1 reflecting 1 reflecting 1 is equivalent to "3". 3 it simply 1 reflecting upon itself, and this "curvature as reflection" is what manifests "3".

So to answer your question, because of the congruency in both form and function with "1" and "the line" and "the point", all rational numbers in theory should have corresponding particle-wave "equivalents" in physical reality.

[Impenitent]

are atoms perfectly stable?

what is your scale of structure?

abstractions are neither stable nor structural...

some curves have great energy

-Imp