Blog Ekkehard Friebe

By Marvin E. Kirsh
The California State University Los Angeles Department of Anthropology

Abstract
The theory of relativity (1) is considered form a perspective of folklore. Abstracted entities in the theory of relativity are stripped of units in order to provide explanation, to expose an ordinary meaning that employs a fulcrum for visual description.
It is suggested that components of the theory’s construction are not only unusually compatible with religious and spiritual but are also unaccounted for scientifically; they may not render the expected power struggle of church doctrine with scientific notions but an opposite situation in which logical contradiction at the root level of physical meaning and symbolism is absent and might exist only with respect to active perceptual structuring, either functioning on the unknown or belief.

This situation, is projected to exist in a volatile mythological form as a ‘fulcrum’ like bridge between points of dispersion in which the (invisible) entity of mass assumes an added social (or physical) weight imposed by the assumption of the existence of massless space; especially, should its’ logically non excludable converse situation, of exclusively “mass and force containing space” for all phenomenon, find future explanation and validity.

Discussion
If one tries to visualize points of farthest dispersions of myths in attempts to correlate culture with history, hidden within the concept of geographical distance is the more rudimentary concept of distance. One might not avoid to consider lengths in terms of triangulations as he visualizes the transit by word of mouth or by written works the physical paths assumed in the migration of folklore, myths, and tales as they relate to culture. Consider the notion of “concept” itself and meaning. For example one might not find physical correlations for the idea of “color”, but for a specific color. One might affirm the existence of ‘blue’ for instance, and in the same breath cannot dispute the existence of color, but if he tries to image it cannot produce but particulars in example. In the world of mythology language and learning is rendered to familiar distances of relation to topics of meaning; the body of works seem to increase in mass with both temporal and physical distance to proximal relations. If one tries again to visualize entities from the theory of relativity, mass for instance, he can assume only images of colored objects, still unable to refuse the existence of mass. If one can delete factors of time, replace them with a notion of distance, (which also like time, mass cannot be visualized but for particulars of situations, but for the ones plus ones equals twos, one step per second for two seconds amounts to two steps along the brown earth) he arrives with a relation, analogy from the relation from the special theory of relativity, E=mc^2, of weight with respect to distance.

On reading or with advanced study one might accept this associative description of the theory of relativity, in full form, a coherent mathematical rendition of the laws of nature as myth, but it may seem relevant, if not just for the purpose of learning and curiosity to pursue this more tangible visualization to compare it with, in a step by step correspondence, with the abstractions, content and meaning of actual concept of the theory as almost complete and totally conceptual in nature, as none of its components (energy, mass, time, velocity) are tangibly conceivable in a single step, much less two or more steps, before entities are visualizable as colored quantities with which to relate. Energy must be reduced to force with time, mass to weight in a gravitational field (e. g. force but then we have an equation that describes force with respect to force), velocity to physical distance with time, time to change to any example one might conceive of that involves physical comparison, and we arrive at an expression of force over time as a relation of force to its’ rate of change; in essence the theory of relativity, as it is commonly told, states that time is relative.

In reverse if one begins with weight and distance, working backwards, the equations of the theory of relativity proclaim weight as a function of distance, less for, but including, in strict interpretation of the mathematics, the quantity of mass which one might only visualize as a variable which renders weight in proximity to other masses. Light, which can only be visualized in terms of color is also given a component of mass because the figures do not add up if one assumes that light possess energy, as energy is stated as the multiplication product of the velocity of light times mass. It has also been discovered that light rays bend in the presence of other masses so that it seems reasonable to attribute this to the interaction of the mass of light with other masses to balance the equation.

Theory and test now seek to account for the mass property of light, as mass is apparently a hidden factor to the senses; time is more easily constructed abstractly than mass and it seems absurd also to it to attribute weight, as mass can be visualized, to time, but paradoxically in weight reduction classes, based on facts of biochemical metabolism which rest upon knowledge of the physics of energy. It is at this level of individual experience, transmitted notions of self and others, i. e. myth that the sciences intersect conceptually with the self. 

Practical sensory experience of the world comes to test at this intersection, concept with example, the theory of relativity can make sense abstractly at the same time that it appears as an absurdity, confrontation, to consider a proportionality, time passing relatively one frame to the next other than just passing. The relation, though, weight is proportional to distance is not as hard to construe. Consider a lever, fulcrum with which to move a heavy weight, at the far end the weight is less and it is not so difficult to claim with respect to notions of distance in mythology, that if the weight of a myth seems greater at the distal end that the most leverage, influence on culture, is not proximal. The point of furthest dispersion of myths, considered to be the most stabile, are indeed the most proximal, as one might expect to be the case of a weight on the end of a lever.

This distance, the length of a lever, in relativity theory places the first person perspective at the short end, distances as vast as light years at the distant end, ideas of length contraction/expansion along an abstractly defined lever with mathematical examples of travel along the lever as time travel; a man parting from the earth at very high speeds and returning can be calculated to have aged less at a distal point where, with ratio, the relative forces applied in order to move either end are made. On the surface of this a visualization may be created as a construction to move the present, change its’ age via a mechanism of fast travel via the conceptualization of a weightless entity, mass, from which weight is derived, and light, which possesses scientifically the source of all biological energy, also possesses. Thus one might think to convert light into mass, move it and recover it, and this has been accomplished, though the intensity of the light is observed to be decreased (suspect that it exerted change of some form without self change).

Lesen Sie bitte hier weiter!

Siehe auch in diesem Blog:
The Einstein Mystique (2003)
und
The Remarkable Myth of Relativity (2011)