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
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
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.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
It is?The brain is an extremely concentrated ball of high energy electricity — Enrique
It exists?It participates in the same dynamic as atoms but on the macroscopic scale — Enrique
Are you just picking theoretical components?Consciousness thus transcends principles belonging to the four dimensional substrate of motion called spacetime. — Enrique
I see. So it's like some supremely spicy quantum consciousness thesis.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
So it's like some supremely spicy quantum consciousness thesis. — Zophie
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
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
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? — Aryamoy Mitra
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
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 wood
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
If you're going to resort to blatant lies, your credibility is shot. — Gary Enfield
And you have evidence of matter moving relative to any observer at greater than c?doctrine of a fixed C - doctrine over reality. — Gary Enfield
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
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
That's because it was only ever invented as a way to preserve the doctrine of a fixed C - doctrine over reality. — Gary Enfield
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.