Pardon? — Zophie

Say what?

Exactly, actually.

Exactly, actually. — Zophie

Is this an attempt to diss me or something? If so, enjoy yourself thoroughly!

Sorry, nothing like that. I just thought that it was trivial that values are without absolute intrinsic x parameterization in the context of anything. That the rational representation of the speed of light expressed by whatever formulae can be disproved or proved is a feat of deduction. Why, though?

That the rational representation of the speed of light expressed by whatever formulae can be disproved or proved is a feat of deduction. Why, though? — Zophie

I guess what was proved, and this is based on books about physics I've been reading, is that frequency (energy) is inversely proportional to time, and when distance or occupied space shrinks much faster than energy, this also causes time contraction. I was curious about the implications for theories of what matter does, so was hoping to get some insight from posters at this site, and I have!

If time contracts enough due to relatively large energy concentration within very confined space, such as in an atom, or extremely large total concentration, such as a big ball of electricity like the brain, this might account for entanglement effects that seem to happen faster than the speed of light, in essence synchronicity, and spooky action at a distance isn't so spooky after all, but in fact a mundane consequence of 19th and early 20th century formulas.

If I can give you an example of increasing energy -- a chemical reaction -- or a system in energetic equilibrium -- such as a body at rest -- what would that mean for your proof?

What is 'occupied space'? Matter? If energy and matter were equivalent states of information, what would that mean for your proof? And what exactly is time as opposed to spacetime, anyway?

You're talking about physics, but whose physics do you mean? The spookiness only happens to someone looking for the primacy of objects (in this case particles) in an object-oriented ontology.

If I can give you an example of increasing energy -- a chemical reaction -- or a system in energetic equilibrium -- such as a body at rest -- what would that mean for your proof?

What is 'occupied space'? Matter? If energy and matter were equivalent states of information, what would that mean for your proof? And what exactly is time as opposed to spacetime, anyway?

You're talking about physics, but whose physics do you mean? The spookiness only happens to someone looking for the primacy of objects (in this case particles) in an object-oriented ontology. — Zophie

Earthbound matter is a steady state energetic system: energy goes in and comes out, but the total quantity remains fairly constant.

Most of the chemical bonding energy of atoms is contained in relatively small concentration within electron orbitals, and this density of energy combined with the equation wt=d/f implies that since 'd' is extremely small while the 'f' value comprises most of matter's energy, 't' probably becomes minuscule also, and energetic matter apparently links up in a system of pervasive synchronicity at the nanoscale. To put it simply, much of atomic motion is coordinated almost instantaneously.

The brain is an extremely concentrated ball of high energy electricity, so it participates in the same dynamic as atoms but on the macroscopic scale. Consciousness thus transcends principles belonging to the four dimensional substrate of motion called spacetime. Spacetime-based concepts model certain macroscopic phenomena such as light and extremely large mass, but consciousness and quantum entanglement might surpass the parameters of these models according to 19th and early 20th century science.

Maybe someone else can explain the difference between time and spacetime in a succinct way.

Most of the chemical bonding energy of atoms is contained in relatively small concentration within electron orbitals, and this density of energy combined with the equation wt=d/f implies that since 'd' is extremely small while the 'f' value comprises most of matter's energy, 't' probably becomes minuscule also, and energetic matter apparently links up in a system of pervasive synchronicity at the nanoscale. To put it simply, much of atomic motion is coordinated almost instantaneously. — Enrique

How is this relevant to what I said? In any case I assume you're not interested in the process-oriented ontology which supposedly fixes the superposition.

The brain is an extremely concentrated ball of high energy electricity — Enrique

It is?

It participates in the same dynamic as atoms but on the macroscopic scale — Enrique

It exists?

Consciousness thus transcends principles belonging to the four dimensional substrate of motion called spacetime. — Enrique

Are you just picking theoretical components?

Spacetime-based concepts model certain macroscopic phenomena such as light and extremely large mass, but consciousness and quantum entanglement might surpass the parameters of these models according to 19th and early 20th century science. — Enrique

I see. So it's like some supremely spicy quantum consciousness thesis.

So it's like some supremely spicy quantum consciousness thesis. — Zophie

You're getting the idea!

Look at these threads for much more about the consciousness angle:

Qualia and Quantum Mechanics
Qualia and Quantum Mechanics, The Sequel
Qualia and Quantum Mechanics, the Reality Possibly

Thanks for the information. :)

Thanks for the information. — Zophie

You're welcome. Its amazing how little traction I can get with these ideas considering its a #$!&ing scientific revolution. Sometimes it seems that I'm more likely to end up in traction thinking about this stuff.

Aryamoy Mitra is right. The analogy is supposed to elucidate the idea of a measured spatial difference between two things being, on the one hand, the effect of an expansion of the framework used to measure distances, and, on the other, being the effect of the motion of things measured within that framework. The effect only becomes noticeable at relatively large distances, which is why it will be difficult to see the changes in the expansion of small dots on a balloon, but relatively easy to see the gaps between them increasing. — jkg20

Thank you, very much, for corroborating. I've been promulgating this for ages, albeit with an increasing self-doubt. At the very least, I now know I'm not laying forth a particularly naive concept.

You're welcome. Its amazing how little traction I can get with these ideas considering its a #$!&ing scientific revolution. Sometimes it seems that I'm more likely to end up in traction thinking about this stuff. — Enrique

I'm not denigrating them, but do you really believe that your ideas are constitutive of a scientific revolution? They're novel, certainly. I don't know if they have any veracity (admittedly, some of the terms and interrelations you've perpetuated are outside my understanding). To assert, nevertheless, that they're transformative - in comparison to the death of Classical Mechanics at the hand of Special Relativity, or Dirac's Equation foretelling the existence of Antimatter - is a bold, and perhaps even unfounded statement.

Consciousness thus transcends principles belonging to the four dimensional substrate of motion called spacetime. Spacetime-based concepts model certain macroscopic phenomena such as light and extremely large mass, but consciousness and quantum entanglement might surpass the parameters of these models according to 19th and early 20th century science. — Enrique

For instance, isn't this quintessential of the Quantum Mind, which is partly pseudoscientific? Where are the methodological relationships, interweaving the two? It's unprincipled.

For instance, isn't this quintessential of the Quantum Mind, which is partly pseudoscientific? — Aryamoy Mitra

Since I've studied quantum biology way more than relativity theory and this is for me an adjunct to the quantum subject matter, I don't mind diverting the thread in this direction. I've already posted about it a lot at this forum, but since you know your stuff it could be fruitful to get into it again. This is a short summary of the basic model:


In exactly what way consciousness emerged via evolution is a mystery, but we can be fairly certain about what had to obtain in order for it to be possible. Initially, electrical properties in aggregates of tissue such as the brain needed to be robust enough that a stable supervenience of electromagnetic field (EMF) was created by systematic electrical fluxing.

Quantum effects in molecules of the body are sensitive to trace EMF energy sources (similar to magnetoreception), creating a structural complex of relatively thermodynamic mass containing pockets of relatively quantum biochemistry integrated by sustained radiation.

EMF/quantum hybridization is likely responsible for our synthetic experience of qualia, how we perceive unfathomably minute and diverse fluctuating in environments as a perpetualized substrate, perturbed by its surroundings but never vanishing while we are awake and lucid, the essence of perceptual “stream of consciousness”.

Nonlocal phenomena are ever underlying the macroscopic substance of qualitative consciousness, its EMF properties as well as bulked matter in which nonlocality is partially dampened, and quantum processes in cells interface perception instantiated in bodies with nonlocality of the natural world which is still enigmatic to scientific knowledge.

Quantum features of biochemistry have likely been refined evolutionarily so that mechanisms by which relative nonlocality affects organisms, mechanisms of EMF/matter interfacing, mechanisms targeting particular environmental stimuli via functionally tailored pigments along with further classes of molecules and cellular tissues, and mechanisms for translation of stimulus into representational memory all became increasingly coordinated until an arrangement involving what we call ‘intentionality’ emerged, a mind with executive functions of deliberative interpretation and strategizing, beyond mere reflex-centric memory conjoined to stimulus/response.

Qualitative consciousness precedes the degree of unification we experience as humanlike awareness, for qualia can exist and perform a functional role in consort with quantum effects and additional gradations of nonlocal reality while an organism is almost entirely lacking the centralized control we would classify as intention.


Every facet of this consciousness theory is observable via research: quantum biochemistry in a thermodynamically physiological substrate that also includes more traditionally neuronal mechanisms, integrated by EMFs. All we require is to find the anatomical systems and classes of molecules involved, then correlate with subjectivity and the dynamics of nonlocality in general. Some of this will be psychology, some traditional chemistry, some quantum, and some will exceed what has thus far been discovered of nonlocal processes in nature by physical science.

Also key to the model is the assertion, yet to be verified, that many forms of quantum process such as entanglement and superposition produce qualia at a fundamental level. Essentially, it is intrinsic of matter to perceive and feel, or at least contain fragments of perception and feeling, and these quantum resonance properties will be as objective as shape and size.

Try to be mature about this Tim.

If you have a reason why you feel that my suggestion is wrong then say so, but saying that it is wrong simply because other people have said something else is just crass.

I try. In this - your - case your claims either constitute no obligation whatsoever on my part, lest all of us at all times be hostage to any claim anyone makes, or depending on the nature of the claim, acknowledgement and appropriate regard for the nature and substance of the claim made. And it seems to me that a reasonable skepticism is in order given the nature and substance of your claims, and that in being skeptical I appear to be in good and numerous company.

I noted above you are free to theorize as you like, and if your theories even achieve inner consistency, then good for you. But the test is applicability outside of fantasy land. You have not met that test. And in making your claims, you have neglected/contradicted what by all accounts is good and sound science, without yourself having offered any evidence or proof to ground such claims.

I started a new thread for the philosophy of mind topic we began to address titled "A Model of Consciousness" in case , or anyone else wants to discuss.

But the test is applicability outside of fantasy land. You have not met that test. And in making your claims, you have neglected/contradicted what by all accounts is good and sound science, without yourself having offered any evidence or proof to ground such claims. — tim wood

What a load of rubbish.

I have stated my evidence many times, as this thread easily shows, and quite clearly - the size of the universe compared to the age of the universe, and the faster than light experiments by Gisin.
You haven't denied or contradicted any of it.

To say what you did, is simply false.

The only thing that lacks real world evidence is your suggestion (along with others) that the universe is inflating.

So when you produce evidence that it is inflating we will all pat you on the back and say well done. But as you can't, you are still talking rubbish - just because others are.

I have stated my evidence many times, as this thread easily shows, and quite clearly — Gary Enfield

Well, just for you I have reviewed your posts to this thread, and you have done nothing of the kind. My guess is that you have fastened onto gee-whiz aspects of popularized reports of some pretty esoteric science without understanding them and now think you know something. The giveaway is your insistence that you have already posted your arguments and proofs when you have not, together with your unwillingness to provide them.

Tim - if you're going to resort to blatant lies, there's no point in continuing.
Your credibiilty is shot - and others who can read can verify what I am saying

Well, just for you I have reviewed your posts to this thread, and you have done nothing of the kind. My guess is that you have fastened onto gee-whiz aspects of popularized reports of some pretty esoteric science without understanding them and now think you know something. The giveaway is your insistence that you have already posted your arguments and proofs when you have not, together with your unwillingness to provide them. — tim wood

I have looked back on this thread and I first made the comments on 23rd March.

The two basic examples which break the principle that the speed of light is the fastest speed that anything can travel are:-

1 - the size of the universe, which on current estimates is more than 98bn light years across - and therefore more than 4 times the widest spread that could be achieved by an exploding singularity at the speed of light.

2 - the faster than light experiments conducted by Nicolas Gisin across lake Geneva which demonstrated that particles of light travelling away from each other in opposite directions (twice the speed of light) were still able to communicate instantly - (or technically, at least 10,000 times the speed of light). — Gary Enfield

I have also defended the same points to you and others on 24th, 25th and 28th March

So again - If you're going to resort to blatant lies, your credibility is shot.


In summary, you have asked me for evidence - and I have given 2 proven examples from science which you and others do not deny.

When I ask you for evidence of your inflation idea, you can produce none.
End of story

These are claims, not arguments. There is nothing of a persuasive nature about them. At best they call attention to some interesting apparent facts. Questions that arise from such seeming facts not even approached by your ranting. And it speaks poorly of even your basic understanding that you think you do. As to anything I presented, I referred to an authoritative video,

"Pretty good Youtube video on this, here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIJTwYOZrGU

And you simply dismissed this with contempt, as you have the comments of others who offered their own authoritative replies. It's clear you are only interested in yourself and not any sort of knowledge, and certainly not in any work it takes to earn knowledge. This site and others attract a certain kind of infant. I'm sorry to say you appear to be just that kind of infant. The end resut being not that you're wrong, but merely offensively irrelevant.

If you're going to resort to blatant lies, your credibility is shot. — Gary Enfield

I did answer the points, and my evidence is far beyond just claims. They are accepted basic science.
None of the others who advocate inflation could produce any evidence to justify that speculation either.
That's because it was only ever invented as a way to preserve the doctrine of a fixed C - doctrine over reality.

If you don't even know what real evidence is, you shouldn't be on this forum.
If you do have evidence for your claim then present it - as I have asked everyone to do.
But you can't, because there isn't any.

Scientists should go with the evidence - clearly you aren't.

doctrine of a fixed C - doctrine over reality. — Gary Enfield

And you have evidence of matter moving relative to any observer at greater than c?

Tim - if you're going to resort to blatant lies, there's no point in continuing.
Your credibiilty is shot - and others who can read can verify what I am saying — Gary Enfield

In relation to your latest bit of nonsense... why don't your read the previous posts?

The two basic examples which break the principle that the speed of light is the fastest speed that anything can travel are:-

1 - the size of the universe, which on current estimates is more than 98bn light years across - and therefore more than 4 times the widest spread that could be achieved by an exploding singularity at the speed of light.

2 - the faster than light experiments conducted by Nicolas Gisin across lake Geneva which demonstrated that particles of light travelling away from each other in opposite directions (twice the speed of light) were still able to communicate instantly - (or technically, at least 10,000 times the speed of light). — Gary Enfield

Tim - your credibility is shot, and you don't understand what real evidence is.
I'm done with you.

Just so. No evidence of any matter traveling at a speed greater than c. You need to learn how to understand these things.

That's because it was only ever invented as a way to preserve the doctrine of a fixed C - doctrine over reality. — Gary Enfield

I agree.

That's because it was only ever invented as a way to preserve the doctrine of a fixed C - doctrine over reality.
— Gary Enfield

I agree. — MondoR

Then why does it work so well?

Then why does it work so well? — tim wood

It doesn't.

@MondoR@Gary Enfield Have I got it right? According to you to, relativity doesn't work?

Have I got it right? According to you to, relativity doesn't work? — tim wood

For a very limited set of problems, the equations work. Beyond that, I have no idea what they offer other than paradoxes. Where there are paradoxes, there is failure.