Eucharist and Einstein's Miracle Year of 1905

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike_Rizzio
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mike_Rizzio

Guest
There are good reasons why we CATHOLICS should follow the lead of Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen and Fr. Benedict Groeschel to ponder Albert Einstein’s great burst of creative energy from 1905. His E=MC2 formula has revolutionized science and made relativity a household word. By learning more about Einstein, we can better understand the Eucharist that is source and summit of our existence.
 
Mike Rizzio:
There are good reasons why we CATHOLICS should follow the lead of Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen and Fr. Benedict Groeschel to ponder Albert Einstein’s great burst of creative energy from 1905. His E=MC2 formula has revolutionized science and made relativity a household word. By learning more about Einstein, we can better understand the Eucharist that is source and summit of our existence.
Click to expand...
Can you explain relativity to me? Thank you.
 
40.png
Theodora:
Can you explain relativity to me? Thank you.
Click to expand...
Special or general?
 
I had my tongue in my cheek a little bit on my last post, but if you really do want to know, I’d be more than happy to give it a crack. Science isn’t anything more than a hobby for me, but hopefully I can explain it adequately and simply (note: this won’t be brief, and I don’t know what any of it has to do w/ Catholicism or the Eucharist, and I don’t claim technical accuracy so much as I claim the ability to conceptual accuracy)

Special relativity came first in 1905, and it is what gives us E=mc^2. The theory is based on two premises:
  1. The speed of light is the same for all observers
  2. All static frames of reference are equally valid with respect to the laws of physics (static=not accelerating or decelerating).
The roots of the first assumption are borne out of a series of late-19th and early 20th century experiments trying to figure out what medium light travelled through - after all, sounds waves are oscillation in the air, ocean waves are oscillations in the water - but what is the “medium” of light? Scientists proposed a number of experiments to verify the existence of a hypothetical medium for light. One easy way to do this is essentially to measure the speed of light at right angles to each other in the direction of the earth’s motion - as the earth moves through this invisible light-medium, one would be facing the medium “head on” and the other “from the side” - the one facing head on would obviously be slower, yet no differential could ever be found. Also, equations on electromagnetics developed by a man named Maxwell implied that the speed of light never changed.

The second assumption is what makes this “relativity.” If you and I are in different spaceships, and I see you move left-to-right across my window at 100MPH, what do you see? Well, you see me moving left-to-right across your window at the same speed. Are we both moving at 50 MPH? Is one of us moving and one of us standing still? There is absolutely no way to tell. Therefore, it is equally valid for you to say you are standing still and I am moving and for me to say the opposite. Only if one of us is accelerating can we tell any difference. And it doesn’t matter, because the laws of physics are the same, even if we describe events differently.

Say, for instance, I bounced a rubber ball on the floor of my spaceship as you passed. To me, the ball went straight down and straight up, just like it should. To you, the ball moved in a “v” pattern, as it moved both down and up and across your window. Even though the rubber ball travels a longer distance in your eyes, that’s OK since it has more momentum (100MPH worth) relative to your perspective.

continued…
 
Now, let’s keep using the spaceship example, change the facts a bit, and throw in a third player - an imaginary spaceship made of light. Let’s also pretend that the speed of light is 100 MPH, and I am going 95 MPH relative to you.

So, you look out your window, and see light moving at 100 MPH, and me moving at 95 MPH. I look out my window, and I also see light moving at 100 MPH. How can that be? If this were “normal” physics, light would only seem to be moving at 5 MPH relative to me! This is where strange relativistic effects take place:
  1. If I look out my window and see light moving at the same speed you do, and I am moving 95 MPH relative to you, my experience of time must be slower than yours. You can even calculate how much slower I must be experiencing time - if light moves 100 ft for me in the same amount of time that it moves 5 ft for you, I am experiencing time 20x slower than you. Note that when I look at you, you seem to be the slower one. How does this get reconciled? That’s where acceleration will be key (in general relativity) - it helps us decide which one of us “actually” started moving.
  2. Length contraction. If my ship is 100 ft long, and light is going at the same speed for each of us, light will pass my entire length in the same amount of time that light took to pass only 5 ft of your ship. So, when you look out your window, my ship will appear scrunched into 5 ft of space, even though the tape measure I have with me inside the ship measures it as 100 ft.
  3. And, finally, e=mc^2. If all of this is true, no matter how fast I go, whenever I look out my window light will be going at the same speed. it doesn’t matter if I go 1, 2, 57, or 99 MPH. But all the energy used to propel me has to go somewhere, and Newtonian physics hasn’t been thrown out the window - the more energy you apply to a certain mass, the faster it will go. But I can’t ever go any faster, relative to light. If I’m not going faster, the energy is not converted into speed - but into extra mass, piling me down more and more so that as I try to reach light-speed, it takes proportionately more energy to do so. In the end, no amount of energy is sufficient. That is why we say energy and mass are equivalent - energy can be transformed into mass, and, therefore, it seems that mass can be transformed into energy. The atomic bomb proved that possibility quite nicely.
Note that since the real speed of light is so large, we don’t notice these effect on a day-to-day basis. Also note that the size of the speed of light means that a very small amount of mass is equal to a very large amount of energy.
 
Wonderful explanation, now someone tie it to Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen and Fr. Benedict Groeschel. Please.
 
General relativity throws accelaration into the mix. Pretend that my spaceship is accelerating up past your window. Right as we make eye contact, I release a ball with no energy. Even though the ball has no “energy,” it “falls” to the floor (as the spaceship floor rises up to meet it.) Note that this is exactly what happens with gravity - if you were in a small room with no windows your whole life, you would not be able to tell whether you were in a constantly accelerating spaceship or a planet with gravity.

Note that if we graphed the position of the ball relative to my spaceship floor through time, we would have an acceleration curve - this is not just a curve of the energy of the spaceship, but also a curve of the ball’s motion through space and time. Conceptually, this is what gravity must do in order to hold us to a planet - mass must somehow curve space and time. Imagine space as a big, flat rubber sheet - you have this on your spaceship, so there’s no gravity. Now, if you press down on one part of it and send a ball rolling on the sheet (let’s say that the ball, somehow, once on the sheet, is stuck there and can’t fly off somewhere), it’s path will curve around the bend. If the curve is big enough, the ball will “orbit” - if the curve is “sharp” enough, the ball will “fall” into it.

Then you get into question of how three-dimensional space is curved, whether space is infinite or closed (theoretically testable), black holes (the curves that are “sharp” enough to capture even light - note that the speed or size of the ball on the sheet has no bearing on the “gravity” that other objects have on it - size only matters when considering the effect the object will have on other things, which is why massless light can be effected by gravity - it just doesn’t exert any of its own), etc.
 
40.png
gilliam:
Wonderful explanation, now someone tie it to Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen and Fr. Benedict Groeschel. Please.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that I’m clueless on. Mike’s job.
 
40.png
GULaw:
General relativity throws accelaration into the mix…
Click to expand...
Yep, next time you fall off the roof, you can ponder your weightlessness… at least until the ground smacks you out of it! 🙂
 
Theodora, relativity as a “household word” includes both moral relativism and its scientific and social counterparts. By accepting deviations from what used to be considered ABSOLUTE, the relative mind is free to pursue goal oriented activities without consideration of law, God’s, natural or otherwise. This freedom can very well turn into license.

Father TIME was an absolute, a CONSTANT before the two Theories of Relativity, SPECIAL AND GENERAL.

After Einstein’s hypothesis showed TIME slowing down as one approaches the speed of light…TIME was no longer on the pedestal it once occupied. Man could now think “outside the box.” Since TIME was no longer sacred, then it could become man’s domain to be used (and abused) any way we please. We can see how a non-sacred LORD’s DAY has been relegated to the pursuits of man.

Theodora and others, the point I really want to raise is this:

There is a correlation between E=MC2 and ABSOLUTE and RELATIVE TRUTH as applied to the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass

Even a cursory look at Einstein’s life reveals a relationship with God: Einstein’s called God the Father the “OLD ONE”…his life was filled with mystery…he had significant associations to the Catholic Church…he appreciated of Jesus as a luminous figure in history…and he had a keen interest in the “concept” of TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

So…I tend to think that if E=MC2 is TRUTH, it may have more significance than we have come to know, a hidden TRUTH that Einstein was unable to see because he was not Catholic but Jewish (and a minimalist Jew at that)

I have a theory that this simple formula represents GOD WITH US as we in the Catholic Church have come to know Emmanual, Eucharist and Eternity.

Pope John Paul II is fond of referring to Jesus as “SPIRITUAL ENERGY.”

JESUS IS LIGHT FROM LIGHT AND THAT LIGHT BECOMES PRESENT ON THE ALTAR AT TWO CONSECRATIONS AT EACH MASS.

Energy—Emmanuel—Eucharist—Eternity

=

Mass (in relative terms: in English, the language that brought us the atomic bomb…to gather, the density of matter, the relative representation of the absolute Holy Sacrifice at Calvary)

C (the speed of LIGHT (Christ)) Consecration of Body of Christ

C (the speed of LIGHT (Christ)) Consecration of Blood of Christ

IT FITS SO PERFECTLY…IT SEEMS TO BE A BLUEPRINT FROM GOD…and Einstein even called the C2 term the “CONVERSION CONSTANT”

St. Padre Pio of Pietrelcina once stated:

“It would be easier for the world to survive without the sun than to do so without the Holy Mass.”

The sun is a tri-part reality that closely resembles the persons of our Triune God…St. Francis didn’t pen “Brother Sun” for nothing.

When you ponder this reality and also the electrodynamics of LIGHTNING, you begin to see what the world missed in 1905.

I have yet to find any info that refutes this idea…and not one of eight priests that I have pitched it to has cried HERESY…

I might be on a limb here but in E=MC2 we see a BRIDGE, a RAINBOW BRIDGE, that might be a missing UNIVERSAL link between FAITH AND SCIENCE…and wouldn’t that be helpful in this Third Millennium when SCIENCE is running full steam ahead into unknown areas that are causing us Catholics grave concern.

I have loads of support for anyone who’d care to read or listen.

I have been researching this as part of a book for over nine months.

I am still hoping to find a collaborator whose gift of writing far exceeds my own…HINT, HINT…

God Bless You,

Mike
 
To Gilliam and others:

“RELATIVE” to Archbishop Sheen and Fr. Groeschel, and Pope JPII please consider these quotes:.

“Einstein is mysterious; that is why the world likes his religion. The human mind likes mystery for the simple reason that it is meant for the mysterious infinite. But here the modern mind falls into a queer inconsistency. On the one hand, it refuses to accept anything beyond reason or without proof and declares that henceforth religion must be free from dogmas and mysteries. On the other hand, it accepts the dogmas of Einstein—every scientific statement is a dogma— and makes a religion out of them because they are mysterious. ***That brings up the question why the world should accept the mysteries of Einstein rather than the mysteries of Christ” ***
Old Errors and New Labels, 1950
Fr. Groeschel is fond of telling the story about Einstein having a deep conversation with a Catholic priest on the topic of the Church’s definition of transubstantiation. After a pause, he to asked this priest (a Fr. McTeague still living in NJ) to:

‘Please get him all the books he could find that are written in German on the subject of transubstantiation.’ (Paraphrase)

This was duringthe time that Einstein was stymied in his attempt to find a UNIFIED theory of energy, the last 33 years of his life.
Pope John Paul II
The Theology of the Body p. 243

This escatological experience of the living God will not only concentrate in itself all man’s spiritual energies. But at the same time, it will reveal to him, in a deep and experiencial way, the self-communucation of God to the whole of creation and, in particular, to man. This is personal self-giving by God, in his very divinity, to man, to the being who, from the beginning, bears within himself the image and likeness of God. In this way, in the other world the object of the vision will be that mystery hidden in the Father [OF LIGHTS]]] from eternity, a mystery which in time was revealed in Christ [LIGHT FROM LIGHT]]] in order to be accomplished incessantly through the Holy Spirit. That mystery will become, if we may use the expression, the content of the escatological experience in the form of the entire human experience in the dimension of the other world. Eternal life must be understood in this escatological sense, that is, as the full and perfect experience of that grace (charis) of God, in which man becomes a participant through faith during earthly life [MASS]]] and which, on the contrary, will not only have to reveal itself in all its penetrating depth to those who take part in the other world [BEATIFIC VISION]]], but also will have to be experienced in its beautifying reality.

Note: I added the ]]] words to show what is clearly implied but not stated.
 
Mike Rizzio:
There is a correlation between E=MC2 and ABSOLUTE and RELATIVE TRUTH as applied to the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass
…
I have a theory that this simple formula represents GOD WITH US as we in the Catholic Church have come to know Emmanual, Eucharist and Eternity.
…
JESUS IS LIGHT FROM LIGHT AND THAT LIGHT BECOMES PRESENT ON THE ALTAR AT TWO CONSECRATIONS AT EACH MASS.
…
Energy—Emmanuel—Eucharist—Eternity
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I think you are looking for something that is not there. It doesn’t make sense either as physical science or metaphysical philosophy.

Matter and energy (including light) are aspects of the material world. God is spirit. He is not-material. He is wholly without matter, and does not take up space or time.

Transubstantiation does not involve the speed of light or relativity. It is to be understood through use of the metaphysical concepts of substance and accident.

It is possible, perhaps, to conceive of the Eucharist as involving a singularity, but not in the scientific sense of the term. It is a singularity wherein the sacrifice of Christ is present simultaneously (in the “now”) at all times and all places where the Mass is celebrated. But this cannot be expressed in a mathematical formula.
 
I’ll throw in a little extra food for thought here…

When approaching the SPEED OF LIGHT, time slows down…with the botom side limit of zero time. This may be as close as we humans can get to figuring out eternity’s (constant present) time dimension.

But think about those priests who experience esctasy while in the midst of the act of CONSECRATION…(It has been stated that Padre Pio, held the Body of Christ aloft for upwards to an hour)

In LIGHT of his spiritual closeness to Christ isn’t this consistant with e=mc2 (can you see that for him, eucharist and eternity might both be present)

In the Lambs Supper, Scott Hahn paints a very compelling picture that details the UNIFIED Sacrifice that links the Eternal Heavenly banquet of the Lamb to our priests re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary.

With this as a backdrop, consider this scriptural passage:

For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the comingof the Son of Man. Matthew 24:27

Lighting moves at the SPEED OF LIGHT

PURE LIGHT IS BOTH FULLY PARTICLE…>Host

AND FULLY WAVE…>Cup

You can see that the red and white rays that flow from the DIVINE MERCY IMAGE take on special significance too.

So does the Shroud of Turin as the Easter imprint of Christ’s image do to gamma radiatIon?

And the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima…well, it speaks for itself.
 
40.png
JimG:
Sorry, but I think you are looking for something that is not there. It doesn’t make sense either as physical science or metaphysical philosophy.

Matter and energy (including light) are aspects of the material world. God is spirit. He is not-material. He is wholly without matter, and does not take up space or time.

Transubstantiation does not involve the speed of light or relativity. It is to be understood through use of the metaphysical concepts of substance and accident.

It is possible, perhaps, to conceive of the Eucharist as involving a singularity, but not in the scientific sense of the term. It is a singularity wherein the sacrifice of Christ is present simultaneously (in the “now”) at all times and all places where the Mass is celebrated. But this cannot be expressed in a mathematical formula.
Click to expand...
JIMG,

If I was trying to EVANGELIZE a nation that only knew Math, I would try to teach them by using MATH. (Meet people where they are…St. Paul did this)
For Example: I would use a bridge…1=1x1x1 as a way to provide LIGHT to the doctrine of the Trinity.
Three in one…

As for God being SPIRIT…I know you know Jesus is both Fully God and Fully Human…it’s a supreme mystery.

Jesus humbled Himself to become MAN. He submitted himself to the LAW, in all things, even unto his death.

He shead His Blood on the Cross. IT flowed to the ground because GRAVITY pulled it to earth.

JIM there is ample support in Eucharistic Miracles that He still respects the LAWS of a CREATION that were created through Him.

Jesus may suspend laws, but why would He not want to represent the FULLNESS OF TRUTH throughout his CREATION.

He has no need to violate “good” laws, nor is there any reason for a second set of Spiritual Laws.

BODY, BLOOD seem to require laws for they are on the human plain.

SOUL AND DIVINITY do not require laws…for they are on the spiritual plain…

THIS IS THE CRUX OF THE BEAUTIFUL MYSTERY OF THE EUCHARIST

I don’t think this is heresy.
 
So that is what the word relativity means. GUlaw, How come I got the feeling you’re pulling my leg. Mike Rizzio thank you for your earnest answer. I got more information than I bargained for. Just one word containing an explanation from here to eternity. 🙂 Household word, huh?
 
Mike, I do not see anything in the references you posted (in miniscule unreadable type) from Bishop Sheen or Fr. Groeschel that bear out your assertion that they use Einstein’s theory of relativity to explain or enlarge Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist.

Your original post may be true, but you have not given us anything to work with other than your own reflections, which I confess I found hard to follow.

Worked with a guy, cradle Catholic who is now outspokenly atheist, who legally changed his name to reflect his utter belief in E=MCsquared as an ideology and theology.
 
Well, according to special relativity, any accelerating body increases its mass by reason of the energy that is added to achieve the acceleration.

As its speed increases, so does its mass, but its length in the direction of motion decreases, and time slows down.

At the speed of light, in theory, a body would have infinite mass, zero length, and time stands still. At above-light speed, it would presumably have negative mass, negative length, and negative time. (Note that light itself has a rest-mass of zero.)

I still don’t think any of this has anything to do with the Eucharist. If the consecrated host was equivalent to physical light, I don’t see how it could also be the body and blood of the Lord. If we invoke relativity theory, his body would have infinite mass during Mass! (And that’s another good reason for always capitalizing Mass when referring to the Eucharist!)
 
To Annie:

PART 1

Thanks Annie…I’m sorry I goofed with the type size, I am new to this posting procedure…I will resend the three quotes and provide comment in a follow-up posting.

By the way, I found an atheist online who was insisting that GOD DOES NOT EXIST because of e=mc2. Like G.K. Chesterton in Orthodoxy, I look at this and say maybe through the double negation (ATHEIST/NO EXISTENCE) we might see more clearly the POSITIVE of what does exist. I could send you his website if you wish to check out his anti-logic.

As I previously stated …absolute and relative are terms that Catholic theologians use to discuss the truth of the Eucharist. Einstein uses the same terms to discuss his theories.

I did say that RELATIVITY HAS BEEN USED TO JUSTIFY A PERSON’S ACTIONS THAT DEVIATE FROM ABSOLUTES.

I know I was guilty of this for many years prior to my re-version.

I could quote ZENIT news articles over the past 45 days that show conclusively that the Holy See is very concerned about the relativism that is rampant in our secularized culture.

If this topic of discussion continues I would be glad to provide this source material.

The Encounter Groups of famed phychologist Carl Rogers and his followers bear ample proof of this. They decimated whole religious orders in the late 60s. Read about the IHM Sisters of Los Angeles to get a sobering dose of reality. ***I’m OK, you’re OK? ** * If you repeat the same lie long enough, people tend to believe it.

Could it be that the World has bought a lie about the UNIVERSAL applicability of relativity, much the same way as it bought the lie of God-less evolution? I think so, and I believe it is one key reason why so many people NO LONGER BELIEVE IN THE REAL PRESENCE OF JESUS IN THE EUCHARIST.

I haven’t stated that the theory of relativity will explain or enlarge our understanding of the Eucharist, I said there is a mysterious correlation that links the Eucharist to a now “sacred” law of a physics…e=mc2. I contend that this law may be a BRIDGE between Faith and Science.

It is very possible that Einstein was given a personal revelation from the “OLD ONE.” As a Catholic, when you ponder the facts surrounding Einstein’s mysterious life, you have to wonder…How and why him. TIME Magazines, Man of the Century?

Again this is the subject for follow-on discussions.

First though a few quotes:

((End of Part 1)
 
To Annie:

PART 2

First though a few quotes (items in red are mine):

The Catholic Encyclopedia relates:

The only distinction between the Mass and the sacrament lies in this: that the latter applies to the individual the fruits of the Sacrifice on the Cross by simple distribution, the other by a specific offering. In both, the Church draws upon the one Sacrifice on the Cross. (((THE SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS IS THE ABSOLUTE, from which the Church draws its life)))

This is and remains the one Sun, that gives life, light and warmth to everything; the sacraments and the Mass are only the planets that revolve round the central body. Take the Sun away and the Mass is annihilated not one whit less than the sacraments. On the other hand, without these two the Sacrifice on the Cross would reign as independently as, conceivably the sun without the planets. (((THIS IS THE ABSOLUTE SACRIFICE that would exist even without the RELATIVE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS)))

newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm
A non-Catholic Christian relates:

“With that lie of evolution out of my way, I began to see more clearly how the basic foundational understandings in our science, reflected the true nature of God. I can truly say that I had no idea what scientists were talking about when they were trying to explain Einstein’s equation of E=mc2 to me until I found out that God is really real. Then, their statements finally made sense. For example, when they say “If you travel at the speed of light, its like being everywhere in the universe at the same time.

”I now understand it more fully because God is (everywhere) Omnipresent. Or when they say, “If you travel at the speed of light you become timeless.” I understand that more fully now, because God is (timeless) eternal. E=mc2 also proves that all matter is really just condensed energy, which makes sense to me, cause according to the Bible, God created everything out of light. The amount of energy locked in matter is dramatically displayed by the hydrogen bomb, which E=mc2 enabled. Yes E=mc2 does a marvelous job of telling us how light reflects the omnipresent and eternal characteristics of our Creator, but what about our understanding of matter at the atomic level? Does it have any evidence that point to qualities of God? Yes, it does.

It turns out that the best understanding of science at the atomic level can’t fully explain the nature of atomic particles/waves.”

–Philip Cunningham “How Science Reflects God’s Glory”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top