Bruce Lipton’s ‘Biology of Belief’ – Annotated With Facts: Part 29 (Lipton gets confused: is it E=Ec2, or E=m [where m=matter], or E=mc and then squared?)

February 5, 2018

New Age spiritual people use the word energy, and so do physicists. So New Agers think they are all talking about the same thing. Only they think they can do it better because they can use their intuition. (If it’s fancy cryptic symbols you want, there are enough of those in alchemy.)

We are about to pick up the action again, immediately after Lipton has just surprised Trekkies by claiming that energy signature is a term from quantum physics — not sci fi, and then picked up by New Agers and filtered through a marketing and promotional department (before being declared ancient mystical wisdom that smells of incense).

There is no matter, they say, only energy. Matter is an illusion.

In the previous post, when I was trying to elucidate the problem with that idea, I wrote the following:

“The air is also invisible, but we can feel it when it moves. But no one would say that the wind is an illusion just because you can’t see it.”

I must now admit that with this, I made a factual error.

It turns out that there is indeed one person in this universe stupid enough to say that the wind is an illusion because you can’t see it.

That person now continues:

If it were theoretically possible to observe the composition of an actual atom with a microscope, what would we see? Imagine a swirling dust devil cutting across the desert’s floor. Now remove the sand and dirt from the funnel cloud. What you have left is an invisible, tornado-like vortex….

Factual error.

What you have left is air; not an “invisible tornado-like vortex”, but a real tornado made up of real air molecules. Time to stop mowing the lawn.

A number of infinitesimally small, dust devil-like energy vortices called quarks and photons collectively make up the structure of the atom.

Factual error.

Again, Lipton’s peculiar use of “energy” is a clue that the term “energy vortex” is not likely to turn up in a physics text book or any of the long list of academic references at the end of his book. Nor will you find one, even, in a hadron collider. The best place to find one, it seems, is Arizona.

These friendly Sai Baba followers explain.

“The vortexes in Sedona are swirling centers of subtle energy coming out from the surface of the earth. The vortex energy is not exactly electricity or magnetism, although it does leave a slight measurable residual magnetism in the places where it is strongest.”

Lipton compounds his error when he tries to describe what you would see if you could see an atom:

You would see nothing. In fact, as you focused through the entire structure of the atom, all you would observe is a physical void. The atom has no physical structure — the emperor has no clothes!

Factual error.

Atoms have a physical structure, at least in terms of physics. Or what does Lipton mean by “physical” here? And again, he messes up an analogy — what he is actually saying is that there is no emperor, only clothes.

Remember the atomic models you studied in school, the ones with marbles and ball bearings going around like the solar system?

This will be a revelation for those beastly linear thinking reductionist biologists — the universe is not made out of ball bearings.

….atoms are made out of invisible energy….

Factual error #1 atoms have mass, not merely “energy”.
Factual error #2 if atoms were made of invisible energy, those photons Lipton just mentioned would not do anything visible, would they now?

But the sentence isn’t done yet.

….not tangible matter!

Factual error #3: atoms, if you can get a few of them to stick together, are tangible. If you can get a few to explode that can also be tangible.
Factual error #4: By any sensible definition of matter, atoms are made in part of matter; i.e. particles that take up space.
Factual error #5: Even by an extremely stupid definition of matter, like the one Lipton is about to use below — equating it with mass — matter is tangible.

So in our world, material substance (matter) appears out of thin air.

Factual error.

I think readers can be trusted to spot this one unassisted.

Matter can simultaneously be defined as a solid (particle) and as an immaterial force field (wave).

Factual error #1: “solid” is a meaningless word here. Is a photon, having no mass, solid?
Factual error #2: there can be a wave of matter, but matter cannot be defined as nothing but a wave.
Factual error #3: “matter” is not “immaterial”, because it is, surprisingly enough, matter.

When scientists study the physical properties of atoms, such as mass and weight, they look and act like physical matter.

Factual error.

Well, admittedly the scientists do indeed look and act like physical matter, as the sentence literally says; but being true, it is not what Lipton meant. (He does have a proof reader, but I can forgive her for being a little dazed by this point.) 

Lipton meant of course, that weight is a “physical property”, which it isn’t. It is, rather, a measurement of the force exerted by gravity on something. But at least this is proper high school physics he is getting wrong here, rather than advertising material from Sai Baba followers.

The fact that energy and matter are one and the same is precisely what Einstein recognized when he concluded: E = mc2.

Factual error. An incredibly stupid one even by Lipton’s standards.

Had Einstein wanted to say that energy and matter are one, he would have stopped at E=m. No one makes this mistake… Okay, obviously Lipton just made it. But no one else. Ever.

Simply stated, this equation reveals: Energy (E) = Matter (m, mass) multiplied by the Speed of Light (c)….

Factual error #1: that is not simply stated; it is wrongly stated.
Factual error #2: m stands for mass, not matter; not even if you capitalize the M in matter. Does any other scientist apart from Lipton not know this?

And the sentence isn’t finished yet.

….and then squared.

Factual error #3: if you multiply m by c and then square it you get the wrong answer.

Lipton dedicated this book, incidentally, to Albert Einstein.

First-time comments moderated to prevent spam

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: