Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Granth]

For AB1OB

AB1OB writes: "Light has no internal acceleration and so it does not become oriented, or reoriented, or tethered to other Light."

What do you mean by "other light"? How many "lights" are there?



AB1OB writes: 'So we (Matter) "exist through time" by traveling a radius of an expanding sphere. This speed is the "speed of light". It doesn't really matter what that "actual" speed is, it is really the "special relativity", of the radius to its sphere, that creates the appearance of a "constant speed of light".'

Isn't a key word here "appearance"? As I posted; Light is but wave motion simulating the idea of Light. Appearance = simulation.


AB1OB writes: 'Science is a "defined perspective" with the intent of producing a "reproducible observer". They commonly call this "objectivity", which is arguable but to make experiments "legitimate", all they really need is consistency. Therefore, it doesn't really need to be "objective", just consistent.

Why?

Because science always depends on the observer. Without a consistent observer, results are meaningless.'

So sciences itself produces (invents) its observer and then science depends on its invention. So it then merely observes invented results. The results will never, apparently, have come from some objectivity but from an invented objectivity just as long as it is consistent. For consistency it would require results that fit with sciences initial presumptions. Yes it does sound meaningless. Meaningless invented to be meaning.

So far, then, whatever I may seem to be inventing is more relevant.

I am not leaving Steve3007 out of a discussion by not addressing his concerns directly, but where Steve calls my posts pseudo-science and where AB1OB seems to suggest science is a producer/inventor of its own equations and conclusions appears to throw everything into the pseudo category.

[Geordie Ross]

[AB1OB]

For AB1OB

AB1OB writes: "Light has no internal acceleration and so it does not become oriented, or reoriented, or tethered to other Light."

What do you mean by "other light"? How many "lights" are there?

I am just pointing out the difference between Matter & Light. I am trying to show that there is an underlying perspective, from which light can be explained in "normal concepts" as opposed to mathematical approximations.

I am trying to describe the proper perspective. Think of being on the inner-side of an expanding sphere. As the shpere expands, you are moving in a straight line (a radius) away from the center of the sphere. You are "tethered" to the inside of this expanding sphere by gravity, locking you into that relative point on the inside of this growing shell.

Now look down at the inside of your sphere. You see all the growing space (volume) inside. That growing space is expansion. It carries Light from the past, to you.

AB1OB writes: 'So we (Matter) "exist through time" by traveling a radius of an expanding sphere. This speed is the "speed of light". It doesn't really matter what that "actual" speed is, it is really the "special relativity", of the radius to its sphere, that creates the appearance of a "constant speed of light".'

Isn't a key word here "appearance"? As I posted; Light is but wave motion simulating the idea of Light. Appearance = simulation.

Sorry if I confused you. I meant that at long as the ratio of the differential expansion was the same (radius:sphere), the actual speed of the growing radius could vary (the speed of light constant could be different).

The is much to be said about "appearance". This perspective that I am describing has some aspects that are not intuitive at first. For example, instead of the normal idea that we are sitting here and "time is passing", I see us as an energy front being beamed at the speed of light. This means that our "world line" is pretty much a straight radial, as any relative motion is minuscule compared to that.

AB1OB writes: 'Science is a "defined perspective" with the intent of producing a "reproducible observer". They commonly call this "objectivity", which is arguable but to make experiments "legitimate", all they really need is consistency. Therefore, it doesn't really need to be "objective", just consistent.

Why?

Because science always depends on the observer. Without a consistent observer, results are meaningless.'

So sciences itself produces (invents) its observer and then science depends on its invention. So it then merely observes invented results. The results will never, apparently, have come from some objectivity but from an invented objectivity just as long as it is consistent. For consistency it would require results that fit with sciences initial presumptions. Yes it does sound meaningless. Meaningless invented to be meaning.

So far, then, whatever I may seem to be inventing is more relevent.

I don't agree with your conclusion totally but you have a point. Science (done properly) is the best that we have at testing how things happen. But having the correct perspective is a must for trying to understand why they happen. Science can give us clues (pieces of the puzzle) but it takes more to understand how they fit (and work) together.

But without science, how do you get the clues?

[Calrid]

There is no difference between matter and light, they are two sides of the same coin. Does anyone really grasp what e=mc^2 means? I think most people skip over that part of science and proceed to special relativity, which is nothing special ironically, with some caveats; but with no mass or no appreciable mass it looks like it is different

-- Updated December 30th, 2013, 6:50 pm to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)


I don't know a lot about Physics but I would really like to know why the speed of light is constant. Has it always been the same? Will it always be the same? Is it possible that it might be different way beyond the edge of the Universe?

As for time, my understanding of time is that it is the interval between events. An event happens now and then another event happens. We look at a watch or clock and see that a 'minute' has passed. At least that is what we call that interval, based on the divisions of time we have created. If 2 similar events happened in a space craft say traveling near the speed of light would the interval between be the same? Would it still be correct to call it a 'minute' bearing in mind that our minute is based on an hour which in turn is based on a day and so on.

I think 99% of the people who post on physics threads know barely enough to warrant posting. But the honestly curious are always welcome.

To answer your question though it is a consequence of the equations of special relativity, which ultimatley was a consequence of experiment, because like experiment in science is king, and despite what you may think you are not.

[Steve3007]

AB10B:

...Science is a "defined perspective" with the intent of producing a "reproducible observer". They commonly call this "objectivity", which is arguable but to make experiments "legitimate", all they really need is consistency. Therefore, it doesn't really need to be "objective", just consistent.

I think this part is well put.

The things which science searches for and from which it derives whatever predictive power it might have - symmetries, patterns etc. They are all about finding the things in a physical system that do not vary. The defining characteristic of that cornerstone of modern physics, symmetry, is constancy during a transformation. And, as you say, the concept of "objectivity" is one special case of a symmetry: the case in which the constant is the observer.

But I don't really understand the other stuff you're saying about expansion carrying light into the future. If I read your previous posts will it be clearer?

Happy recluse:

The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second. This speed is always the same, provided light travels in a vacuum. If that speed is always the same, then the length of a meter and the duration of a second is always the same. In fact, such is the case for every single observer.

I think the key thing to remember is that it only makes sense to define measured quantities like distance, speed and time with reference to the act of measurement. So the speed of light, the length of a metre and the duration of a second always have the same relationship to each other when measured in the reference frame of the observer. It is when you try to measure something like a distance or a time interval in a different reference frame to your own that you have to be very careful about precisely what you are doing and how you are doing it.

The Lorentz transformations arise naturally as a consequence of very careful consideration of precisely what you have to do to measure, for example, the length of an object as it moves past you at high speed.

Two observers have different readings on each other's amount of time. By this I mean, the length of a second is longer or shorter for different observers. That's fine.

So, for example, you have to be careful to examine what you're saying when you say something like this. The length of a second, as measured by a clock travelling with him, is the same for one observer as it is for another observer using a similar clock travelling with him. It is when one observer looks at the other observer's clock as it whizzes past and compares it with his own that the discrepancy arises.

However, all observers see light moving at the same rate because the length of a second for a beam of light is always the same.

And to examine this statement we'd have to define here what you mean by the length of a second "for a beam of light". Beams of light don't look at clocks. It might be clearer to say that the relationship between time and distance, when measured using a beam of light, has been observed to be the same for two observers that are moving relative to each other but are using the same beam of light.

If the endurance of second is always the same for beams of light, then those seconds are absolute in the sense that they are always the same, and they are always seen to be the same. If you want to know how long a second lasts, you cannot look at your own clock.

What do you mean by "how long a second lasts"? A second always lasts for a second.

You cannot look at someone else's clock. You can look at the speed of light and always know how long a second truly lasts. Thus, the true and absolute length of a second is that found in the speed of light.

You can certainly emit a beam of light and measure, with a clock, how long it takes to reach a detector. But an observer who is looking at that same beam of light but moving differently from you will get a different result because they will see the path taken by the beam of light as being of a different length.

The clearest way to imagine this is to imagine a kind of clock that works by bouncing a beam of light backwards and forwards and registering whenever it bounces. If you imagine this "clock" moving relative to you, such that the beam of light moves perpendicular to the direction of motion, then you can see that, from your point of view, the path length of the light beam is longer than it is for somebody moving along with the "clock".

[Calrid]

(Nested quote removed.)


Thanks for posting that! My earlier post was a digression, necessary to give you an idea of what I mean by "spherical expansion". But this all is intimately tied to perspective and perception.

Classically, we are creatures that base reality on our perception of the portion of the universal system in which we are a part. Science is actually a perspective. Yes, it has rules and formulas and data but that is the work and results of science. Science is a "defined perspective" with the intent of producing a "reproducible observer". They commonly call this "objectivity", which is arguable but to make experiments "legitimate", all they really need is consistency. Therefore, it doesn't really need to be "objective", just consistent.

Why?

Because science always depends on the observer. Without a consistent observer, results are meaningless.

If we have an observer on either side of a 2-sided billboard, they each have a different perspective which yields a different perception even though they are both looking at the same billboard.

OK, back to topic...so we creatures have our basic senses and the "objective observer" is actually very prejudiced. Thinking things like; the earth is flat, the sun is born is the east and dies in the west, matter is solid, the stuff we see is really 'out there', etc. The perspective has to evolve via scientific concepts and then the perception changes to accept things like; the earth is round and spinning on an axis around the sun, that matter is atoms (which are mostly space), that there really is not a blue sky 'out there', etc.

We think of things as, being 'out there', just sitting in reality...for our everyday world (the environment in which we evolved) this works fine. But when distances get really big (the light has been traveling a long time), 'position' starts to lose its identity as a proper interpretation of reality. So when we "look out a window and see a forest", we are really "interpreting data collected from light of different ages (amounts of expansion)" inside our minds.

Anyway my point is that this expansion is what carries light into the future, making sight (and life itself) possible.

-- Updated December 30th, 2013, 12:46 pm to add the following --

side topic: Entanglement While I have gotten to the idea of a light ray actually being a series of expanding spheres, in my view, each sphere is made of (what we view as) entangled photons.

Using this perspective, double slit results become easily explainable. We are always dealing with waves, although we can limit our focus of observation to a "part" of a wave (which makes them appear 'part'icle-like).

I think what scientists have been calling "instantaneous communication" between distant objects is really just 2 points on the same expansion sphere but diffrent vectors.

QFT.

I am afraid just winding around and waxing on our opinion will do nothing to advance either the subject or the post you are making. Science is hard alright, so hard that few people can stand it, 'cause it's like most things humans do a **** hole of self opinionated followers and herdsmen even in sc ience which will eventually drive you spare, unless you are right. So it's actually a good thing ultimately, well sort of. You do have to actually learn it before you are the worlds biggest authority on it. you have to learn it or, and let me make this perfectly clear no one is ever going to care.

The flaws of science are the flaws of human beings, but they are not as bad as the flaws of the self appointed opinionated person who really has no idea what he or she is talking about, because they are too lazy to learn the subject.

[AB1OB]

There is no difference between matter and light, they are two sides of the same coin. Does anyone really grasp what e=mc^2 means? I think most people skip over that part of science and proceed to special relativity, which is nothing special ironically, with some caveats; but with no mass or no appreciable mass it looks like it is different...................

There is a difference between matter and light. They may be able to convert from one form to another but each form has different properties.

If you think water & ice are the same thing, go do a high dive into a frozen pond.

[Happy recluse]

I think the key thing to remember is that it only makes sense to define measured quantities like distance, speed and time with reference to the act of measurement. So the speed of light, the length of a metre and the duration of a second always have the same relationship to each other when measured in the reference frame of the observer. It is when you try to measure something like a distance or a time interval in a different reference frame to your own that you have to be very careful about precisely what you are doing and how you are doing it.

I think I might be confused at the level of definitions, so let me ask the following:

Isn’t the speed of light the same even if there is no observer? If I produce a beam of light into a vacuum, then doesn’t the beam travel at C even if my eyes are closed?

[Granth]

I am just pointing out the difference between Matter & Light. I am trying to show that there is an underlying perspective, from which light can be explained in "normal concepts" as opposed to mathematical approximations.

I am trying to describe the proper perspective. Think of being on the inner-side of an expanding sphere. As the shpere expands, you are moving in a straight line (a radius) away from the center of the sphere. You are "tethered" to the inside of this expanding sphere by gravity, locking you into that relative point on the inside of this growing shell.

Now look down at the inside of your sphere. You see all the growing space (volume) inside. That growing space is expansion. It carries Light from the past, to you.

Within this imagined scenario, as "growing space" apparently carries Light from the past to me, what am I? What is this "you" in your little poem?

Sorry if I confused you. I meant that at long as the ratio of the differential expansion was the same (radius:sphere), the actual speed of the growing radius could vary (the speed of light constant could be different).

How could one not be "confused" (but I prefer 'unconvinced') that your poetic presumption, your imagined little picture, has anything to do with what light is or does?

The is much to be said about "appearance". This perspective that I am describing has some aspects that are not intuitive at first. For example, instead of the normal idea that we are sitting here and "time is passing", I see us as an energy front being beamed at the speed of light. This means that our "world line" is pretty much a straight radial, as any relative motion is minuscule compared to that.

I believe in no preconceptions that I sit here or anywhere, or that time is passing (passing what? Passing something that apparently sits here?). I never sit anywhere. I experience a something presumed as sitting in or on something presumed as a place, but this has nothing to do with me in terms of my identity or where my identity may be (and in any particular adopted position). An energy front that is beamed at something people presume is light which speeds? Light does not go anywhere. It is a constant.

I don't agree with your conclusion totally but you have a point. Science (done properly) is the best that we have at testing how things happen. But having the correct perspective is a must for trying to understand why they happen. Science can give us clues (pieces of the puzzle) but it takes more to understand how they fit (and work) together.

But without science, how do you get the clues?

Science creates its own puzzles and therefore gets its own clues to suit whatever science presumes science is. Science therefore creates its own correct perspective and then presumes it is correct regardless of any other perspective. It is therefore not particularly interested in any other clues and perspectives other than its own JUST in order to feel correct. Not really much different to religion. Science is also that snake with its own tail in its mouth. But at least it feels things have been done properly. It feels good about that (as it goes about killing off any other possible alternatives). Science, as you have described, seems like nothing more than a form of pride. Science doesn't seek to overcome itself and its pride. It is quite insular just as any ego is. It believes in itself.

[Steve3007]

Happy recluse:

Isn’t the speed of light the same even if there is no observer? If I produce a beam of light into a vacuum, then doesn’t the beam travel at C even if my eyes are closed?

I'd say the question has no physical meaning until it corresponds to a measurement.

[Granth]

Isn’t the speed of light the same even if there is no observer? If I produce a beam of light into a vacuum, then doesn’t the beam travel at C even if my eyes are closed?

The "speed of light" is the effect as perceived by observation. The effect, upon the senses, is that light speeds or travels generally. This effect of speed and the observer are one and the same event. Light is a constant and does not travel. Only perception senses it as travelling. Perception even perceives an observer. It is quite magical, but illusory (this observer and this travel thing). It is quite a trick of light.

The measuring device, the brain, indeed measures light. It is in this activity of measuring where travel and speed is perceived. This is because measuring is an activity. It is active. As it is active, therefore an action (it is moving), it cannot conceive of light, or perceive light, as still.

[Steve3007]

Granth:

I don't suppose you're interested in my opinion after my rants, but for what it's worth, I think I understand better what you're saying in your previous post, than in many others. Although I still have issues with it.

I agree with your concatenation of the observer and the observed into an observation event. But I think the main purpose of words, at least in this context, is to help us to describe and predict these observation events. With that in mind, I don't think it's particularly useful to regard light as "a constant that does not travel". The fact is that the idea that light travels has predictive and descriptive utility. That is true regardless of any arguments we may have as to the objective meaning of this idea that light, or anything else, can travel, or indeed whether there is such a thing as "objective meaning".

If you're going to say that "only perception senses it as travelling" and that the things we normally think about such concepts as light are "magical" or "illusions" then I think you're essentially going down the subjective idealist route. You are then left with the question of what exactly it means for something to be an "illusion" and why it matters. If it looks like a duck...

In your second paragraph you equate measurement, via activity, with movement and presumably conclude that nothing that is measured can ever be perceived as standing still.

I thought I'd seen some objects "standing still" but apparently not. I must be mistaken as to the meaning of this term. That's fine. If you like. But what use is this redefinition of words? It seems to simply require us to redefine the term "standing still" without adding any predictive power that I can yet see.

It seems to me that if you're going to do something as radical as redefining the concept of motion then you have to show why it's necessary and what it adds.

[Granth]

Anything I say will not add to anything said by others who are convinced that what they say cannot be added to by what I say. The relevance of adding is dependent on what one wants.

An object that is apparently standing still is perceived as a standing still object by the same activity which is the observer. The observer itself perceives itself as standing still just in order to conceive of light as travelling. "Standing still" is a perception based on measuring. Standing still and not standing still (travelling) are relative concepts. Each presumed condition only exists when measured against the other. Relativity IS the measuring brain. That is where relativity is. That is where the "still" object is.

[Calrid]

(Nested quote removed.)


There is a difference between matter and light. They may be able to convert from one form to another but each form has different properties.

If you think water & ice are the same thing, go do a high dive into a frozen pond.

The difference is semantic since everything can be reconverted back to photons and then on to attenuation and heat death. In the end all that will be left is a sea of photons and blackholes and eventually time itself will grind to an almost stop as the lack of energy density makes even chemical reactions impossible, then quantum mechanics will be the only thing able to do anything which may well lead to anything even another big bang as even the weak force grinds to a halt.

water and Ice are the same thing if I freeze a glass of water it is semantically still water for all intents and purposes except for ice skating obviously.

H2O (S) H20 (l) H20 (g) H20 (P) H20 (BEC) it's all pretty much still hydrogen and oxygen. Or at least it's components.

-- Updated December 31st, 2013, 6:09 am to add the following --

I think your posts are pseudo science unless you have an experiment to back up your claims.


The problem with light is a scientific problem that as yet we have not found a way to see at least directly, we can see where it is not and build up a picture from that, that said we can still make use of it as QM rightly shows, even the probabilistic can be tamed with the right maths. It's responsible for almost every technological advance of the last decade if not century.

[Steve3007]

Granth:

Anything I say will not add to anything said by others who are convinced that what they say cannot be added to by what I say. The relevance of adding is dependent on what one wants.

In my experience it's true that people rarely openly and immediately admit to having been swayed by the words of others. But, after internally digesting their words, can often be gradually moved over time.

And of course, this invites the question: what do you want? Do you want to describe a new and more effective way of understanding the world than the current methods? Or do you simply want to show the flaws in the current methods? Do you want people to say "yes! you're right! Everything I've learnt so far is wrong!". If you want that, then of course you've got to work hard for it.

An object that is apparently standing still is perceived as a standing still object by the same activity which is the observer.

Yes. There is an act of observation, involving both an observer and an object, in which the observer watches an object for a period of time, perceives no change in position of that object relative to himself and concludes that the object is stationary relative to himself.

Or else he perceives no change in distance between two other objects and so concludes that they are standing still relative to each other, regardless of his own movement. (Note: You use the pronoun "it" for the observer. I use the pronoun "he" merely to avoid confusion as to whether I'm talking about the object or the observer.)

The observer itself perceives itself as standing still just in order to conceive of light as travelling.

I don't think that's necessarily so. Standing still relative to what? It's not necessary to perceive oneself as standing still relative to any third thing in order to conceive of light, or anything else, as travelling relative to oneself. One simply has to be aware that all motion is relative.

"Standing still" is a perception based on measuring.

...on measuring one's position relative to other people or objects.

Standing still and not standing still (travelling) are relative concepts.

Yes. Bearing in mind that the whole concept of "standing still" only makes sense as "standing still relative to something".

Each presumed condition only exists when measured against the other.

Yes. When one object's position is measured relative to another object's position or relative to one's self.

Relativity IS the measuring brain. That is where relativity is. That is where the "still" object is.

And this is where you lose me. Are you talking here in the subjective idealist sense and saying that all external objects only exist as perceptions in the observer's brain? Are you saying that the concept of relativity, and other concepts, exist only inside brains?

That appears to be what you're saying. If so, I think the answer is the same as the one given to Bishop Berkeley. I can't refute it, but it's not a very useful viewpoint. It's almost always useful to think of the world as existing externally.

I know you've used the term "mind stillness" before, so you do seem to want to convey some kind of consistently defined concept. I just don't think you've ever adequately explained what that definition is.