Philosophy Discussion Forums

Granth wrote:.....When someone within this topic tells me what I am and what matter is, then I respond in kind within the very same topic. It is the respectful thing to do. It is also respectful to express disagreement where one sees it.

You are an observer inside the system of reality. You observe things happen in a sequential order (time).

Your virtual existence is within your own consciousness, as is everything that you observe.

Matter is energy that maintains its structure (organization) over duration.

Light is an effect that is produced from Matter. It therefore can produce an image of the source Matter.

This image maintains its relativity to the organization (structure) of the matter it came from but is expanded over duration.

This expansion allows it to move towards future observers. When the Light arrives at an observer, the more expansion that has occured will mean the observer is receiving a smaller percentage of the light. Therfore, the farther an image travels, the smaller it looks.

Light moves I've seen it.

Time is undefined to light it does not stop just because you say so btw. There's no reason to believe light experiences time as we do or does not but I'm damned sure the time component is meaningless to light because it is division by 0.

It's really just that easy and anything else is pointless arm waving.

Happy recluse:

I thought that relativity theory depends on the assumption that the speed of light is a constant irrespective of measurement or observers.

I'm clearly way too late here and someone else has probably answered this somewhere in the intervening pages but unfortunately don't have time to keep up. But, my answer is:

No. It's not irrespective of measurement. Relativity proposes that it will be found (by measurement), to be the same for all observers irrespective of how they are moving.

Granth:

If seeing if it will say something testable about the world as if the world is external to mind, then the test itself will be, as convention will have it, inherently flawed.

To keep things as broadly applicable as possible, I would say that it is this:

See if it will say something testable about observation events and the patterns that appear to connect them. Observation events happen in minds. So, no, the most general attempts to understand the patterns in our observations don't need to posit the existence of anything external to a mind.

However, one of the first and most basic simplifications and reductions that we make in our efforts to manage the complexity of our experiences is to notice that many observation events are very similar, with the only substantial difference between them being the character of the particular mind in which they occur. So it is sometimes but not always possible to factor out the mind variable from the equations, as it were. Like all such reductionist simplifications, you have to be aware that you've done it and aware that, in making the simplification and managing the complexity, you've lost something. It's a model. And whenever you make a model you lose something. But we still make models because we also gain something.

Calrid wrote:Light moves I've seen it.

Time is undefined to light it does not stop just because you say so btw.

I am not sure who "you" is referring to...but I'll take that question.

Within our reality (which is within the expansion component of the universal system), the speed of Light is observed as a constant. This constant is used by physicists to define distance (space) & time.

I agree, BTW, "Light does not stop".

Actually, if everything is actually wave-like, at its most basic level, then nothing ever actually "stops". Waves must move to exist. (Even perfectly balanced standing waves which show no "apparent" motion, are constructed of equal but opposite motions.)

However, observers can sense when a Light message arrives at the point of observation (provided the sensors are properly tuned for that wavelength). That "point of observation" can be defined by using space & time relationships. So that "point of observation", could be considered as, "stopped" or "fixed" in a space/time analysis.

Calrid wrote:There's no reason to believe light experiences time as we do or does not but I'm damned sure the time component is meaningless to light because it is division by 0.

Again, I agree. Light does not experience time as we do. Similarly, the wake of a boat does not have the same experience moving across the lake as the boat creating it. And my shadow does not move across the street in the same fashion that I do, relative to the ground.

Light is produced or reflected from matter and is passively expanded until it reaches more matter. From the Light's perspective, It is starts and stops at matter. The expansion in between is "meaningless" to the light.

Even more-so, the expanded light is the same light no matter how large it expands. Every expanding sphere of light is an entangled photon wave from a single source.

Calrid wrote:It's really just that easy and anything else is pointless arm waving.

Exactly what are you saying is "easy"?

-- Updated January 2nd, 2014, 11:22 am to add the following --

Happy recluse wrote:I thought that relativity theory depends on the assumption that the speed of light is a constant irrespective of measurement or observers.

Steve3007 wrote:I'm clearly way too late here and someone else has probably answered this somewhere in the intervening pages but unfortunately don't have time to keep up. But, my answer is:

No. It's not irrespective of measurement. Relativity proposes that it will be found (by measurement), to be the same for all observers irrespective of how they are moving.

The important thing to consider here is to ask, how does one measure the speed of light?

We can NOT actually "watch the light move", we can only determine how long that it takes to go a "defined distance". (emission to reception)

Granth wrote:If seeing if it will say something testable about the world as if the world is external to mind, then the test itself will be, as convention will have it, inherently flawed.

Steve3007 wrote:To keep things as broadly applicable as possible, I would say that it is this:

See if it will say something testable about observation events and the patterns that appear to connect them. Observation events happen in minds. So, no, the most general attempts to understand the patterns in our observations don't need to posit the existence of anything external to a mind.

However, one of the first and most basic simplifications and reductions that we make in our efforts to manage the complexity of our experiences is to notice that many observation events are very similar, with the only substantial difference between them being the character of the particular mind in which they occur. So it is sometimes but not always possible to factor out the mind variable from the equations, as it were. Like all such reductionist simplifications, you have to be aware that you've done it and aware that, in making the simplification and managing the complexity, you've lost something. It's a model. And whenever you make a model you lose something. But we still make models because we also gain something.

Everything, both within and without is sensed within your consciousness. However there is an order to things. We are not actually examining "things" when we do experiments. Things are just the carriers. We are really testing theories of "relationships".

You can argue that "everything is just in the mind" or "things really do exist, in a real sense, outside of consciousness"...but this argument is extraneous to the action of studying the "relationships".

-- Updated January 2nd, 2014, 11:49 am to add the following --

AB1OB wrote:If you can understand the analogy of a 2-d circularly expanding water wave to a 3-d spherically expanding light wave, then I can describe absolute time and the speed of light using this "kiddie pool" analogy.

The basic APPARATUS (that you need to visualize) for this demonstration:

An enclosed, stadium-sized, circular, pool of water of equal depth. 4 observation points oriented around the pool. (like compass points-N/E/S/W). A train (or multiples of the same), on a straight and level track, to carry this stadium-sized pool room.

This train is running on a track that we will call "ABSOLUTE TIME". When it was constructed, each tie was placed the same distance apart from its neighbor. All of the ties have a magnet embedded in them. We have a "clock" on the train that works by counting the passing magnets.

OK. I think that should about do it for the stuff that you need to visualize. Now we need to visualize how all this stuff looks from 2 different perspectives. A god-like (external to the system) perspective, vs. an apparent (as seen from within) the system.

God-like perspective

From this perspective, we are not on the train. We can see the train moving along the tracks. This train is analogous to our galaxy. Our Galaxy travels a radius of expansion. Other galaxies are also on their radius of expansion. So what does this galactic expansion look like in terms of our experimental model?

From this external perspective we look down and see many tracks connecting at a hub and extending away like spokes on a wheel. Each track has another train, these are the analogy to other galaxies. Now it is easy to see why their relative expansion seems to be accelerating. (The spokes are lengthening at a constant rate and their divergence angle is constant but the relative space between the spokes "accelerates").

We can see that all the ties are equally spaced. We can see that all the tracks are straight. We can see that tie # 7654932 is exactly the same distance from the hub, no matter which track you check. We can see the train moving relative to the track. We see the track as stationary, on the ground. We see the waves in the pool move relative to the train and also relative to the ground. We can see the frequency and size of the waves and also the wavelengths.

Apparent perspective

Now we are within the system. I am going to describe some of the finer details of the methods for this demonstration; The "observation points", that I referred to above (compass positions around pool), are set up so that only the water waves create input. (The observers are blindfolded and soundproofed.) This isolates them from anything that is "outside of the system" from influencing them. They have a small access point that allows them to detect waves that reach them by feeling the waves. The observers also can initiate waves, from this small access point.

So "within" perspective does not feel the train moving at a constant speed. As far as "within" knows, he is stationary.

Each observer can receive messages in the language of waves that enter their "access position". Visualize that language. It consists of time between waves and size of waves. Just like Light.

I'm not done but I'd better stop and see if this is clear enough to understand before proceeding with tying it all together.

Since I've gotten no feedback on the above post, I am hesitant about bothering to proceed further.

I can say, to complete the model on your own, put the train in motion at the same speed as the waves traveling across the pool.

You will then have a model to see how everything expands into the future.

If anyone wants to discuss this seriously, and in more detail, ask me to explain further, I will. Otherwise, I'll assume that you are not interested, so I won't bother.

It will appear to be the same for all observers in their frame of reference but not if they are watching another's frame of reference from a spacialy distant point, it is travelling at c in all reference frames but since locality and time itself is unpreserved it can be perceived to be moving slower when it really is not from the local frame of reference, or disappearing into a black hole and someone is watching them fall over the event horizon into the singularity, to take two examples. See also the twins paradox, which isn't one and the triplets paradox, an affirmation that there are no fixed points in the universe which has "centre". Of which all else revolves around etc and all that implies.

If it were possible for a mass object to travel at c, and it's not impossible per se, just violates the laws of physics. Which as we know can be wrong. It is unlikely though without some sort of warp drive or some sort of distortion effect or jump gate. If you instantaneously achieve c, clearly this to would put you at c, because time has not passed, it's important to note the difference only then between acceleration and speed, and it becomes irrelevant. I suspect this may not be impossible also. Neutrinos only have left hand spin and are travelling very close to c, meaning they must have mass, as light cannot propagate at less than c in any material or a vacuum for that matter unless it is impeded by the lattice structure of the atoms which slows it and is what we call diffraction,

The slowest light has been perceived to travel is about 35 miles per hour in "liquid"/solid or Bose Einstein Condensate metals close to absolute 0, as for neutrinos, to see right hand spin you would have to be travelling at c. And that is presumably impossible except in the circumstances I mention.

The photons in any medium when they are propagating though are always at c it is naive to think absorption and re-emission is the cause of diffraction too, it is not they are not absorbed and re-emitted quite like that and if they were there is no guarantee they would be re-emitted anyway.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=718648

See this thread for concerns, although speculative it is correct at least mathematically, I somehow doubt though even quantum mechanics works at or with infinities which are not real in any meaningful sense of the world except the universe which is by a technicality infinite expanding as it does and containing everything to which as far as we can know there is nothing outside of it, I think this is merely a flaw in our understanding to assume there is infinite mass or infinitesimal distance and would suspect it's more likely a singularity is not actually infinite but who knows? the equations throw out infinity x infinity which is of course meaningless as you can't perform operations on infinity it is always infinite.

AB10B:

The important thing to consider here is to ask, how does one measure the speed of light?

Yes. That's always important. Ultimately, all the things that we propose to "exist", whether they're light or material objects or other things, are inferred from acts of measurement.

Everything, both within and without is sensed within your consciousness. However there is an order to things. We are not actually examining "things" when we do experiments. Things are just the carriers. We are really testing theories of "relationships".

I think there's an element of semantic quibbling here. A relationship, by definition, must be between things. So whether you think of yourself as examining things, or the relationships between them, it all amounts to the same: models to describe/predict patterns in perceptions.

You can argue that "everything is just in the mind" or "things really do exist, in a real sense, outside of consciousness"...but this argument is extraneous to the action of studying the "relationships".

If you're talking about relationships between "things", then you are already assuming their existence. I agree more if you're talking about relationships between perceptions, or "observation events".

And I wouldn't say it is extraneous; I would say it's not absolutely necessary. I would say that assuming that they correspond to external things is not strictly necessary for examining our perceptions. It's just one of the first and most universal and useful models, or tools, that we use in that examination. In fact, it's so useful as to be difficult to imagine rejecting and still being able to live in any way.

Oh and to add there are at least 6 states of matter Gas, liquid, Solid, plasma, BEC??? Condensate. There may be more as yet undiscovered for example super fluid states at close to c where atoms can pass through each other, which is speculative at best; naively disobeying the or Paul I exclusion principle although of course they are nor as position is not certain here either.

Damn couldn't post because apparently super fluid is not a word nor is f erm with ionic on the end apparently. lol

-- Updated January 2nd, 2014, 12:45 pm to add the following --

on an even more odd tangent the group name for nun, is super fluid.lol

And I can't post the full word of that either but you can figure out what the word is for yourself. :S

Sf is real I am super cereal!

Calrid wrote:It will appear to be the same for all observers in their frame of reference but not if they are watching another's frame of reference from a spacialy distant point, it is travelling at c in all reference frames but since locality and time itself is unpreserved it can be perceived to be moving slower when it really is not from the local frame of reference, or disappearing into a black hole and someone is watching them fall over the event horizon into the singularity, to take two examples. See also the twins paradox, which isn't one and the triplets paradox, an affirmation that there are no fixed points in the universe which has "centre". Of which all else revolves around etc and all that implies.

I assume the "it" that you are talking about is Light. I just posted above, how the speed of light is measured. That is from time of emission to time of reception of the light. That is an independent frame of reference. It is the frame of reference for the light. All other observers adjust their frame of reference, to that of the light. Which is why the speed of light is considered a constant.

Calrid wrote:If it were possible for a mass object to travel at c, and it's not impossible per se, just violates the laws of physics. Which as we know can be wrong. It is unlikely though without some sort of warp drive or some sort of distortion effect or jump gate.

By "travel", in the sense that you have used it, you are referring to relative speed. That is a movement within relative time. On the other hand, if you are talking about "absolute time" then you would be talking about the speed of "existence of" matter (which is c, the rate of radial expansion of the spherical expansion process).

Calrid wrote:If you instantaneously achieve c, clearly this to would put you at c,

Clearly!

Calrid wrote:because time has not passed,

Would you mind explaining how the concept of "instantaneous acceleration" works?

Calrid wrote:it's important to note the difference only then between acceleration and speed, and it becomes irrelevant.

What becomes irrelevant? A constant speed is the same as a stationary position (relative to applied physics). Acceleration is not equivalent to speed. Acceleration is a change in a speed or its direction.

Calrid wrote:I suspect this may not be impossible also. Neutrinos only have left hand spin and are travelling very close to c, meaning they must have mass, as light cannot propagate at less than c in any material

Wrong.

Calrid wrote:or a vacuum for that matter unless it is impeded by the lattice structure of the atoms which slows it and is what we call diffraction,

If its a vacuum, then there is no "structure"

Calrid wrote:The slowest light has been perceived to travel is about 35 miles per hour in "liquid"/solid or Bose Einstein Condensate metals close to absolute 0, as for neutrinos, to see right hand spin you would have to be travelling at c. And that is presumably impossible except in the circumstances I mention.

First you said, "light cannot propagate at less than c in any material", now you say "35 mph"....? I think you are confused.

Calrid wrote:The photons in any medium when they are propagating though are always at c it is naive to think absorption and re-emission is the cause of diffraction too, it is not they are not absorbed and re-emitted quite like that and if they were there is no guarantee they would be re-emitted anyway.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=718648

See this thread for concerns, although speculative it is correct at least mathematically, I somehow doubt though even quantum mechanics works at or with infinities which are not real in any meaningful sense of the world except the universe which is by a technicality infinite expanding as it does and containing everything to which as far as we can know there is nothing outside of it, I think this is merely a flaw in our understanding to assume there is infinite mass or infinitesimal distance and would suspect it's more likely a singularity is not actually infinite but who knows? the equations throw out infinity x infinity which is of course meaningless as you can't perform operations on infinity it is always infinite.

Kindly rephrase all that in something understandable. " it is not they are not absorbed and re-emitted quite like that and if they were there is no guarantee they would be re-emitted anyway."

???????????????

I can't explain how instantaneous acceleration works because I have never seen it or there has been no experiment. Ok go there and look at FAQ, and then come back, it will clear it up without me having to explain it as time is of the essence atm.

It can be inferred that given enough energy something can instantaneously achieve c, but since this might also be impossible due to the energy requirements, I think warp drive or gate travel is more likely if indeed that is possible.

Michio Kaiku, not my favourite Scientist of all time but nonetheless his work on media is exposing people to the physical laws although he's a little too speculative for my liking.

He classifies sorts of possibilities

1) possible in future currently not possible 2) not possible now or in any time frame soon 3) Impossible as science stands now, but may be possible if new laws are found or overturned 4) never possible even if the laws are wrong. Such as perpetual motion etc.

1) hypothesis, conjecture that merely needs to be provable to exist as an idea at least 2) theory a hypothesis that is now tested and found to be at least evidential 3) Strong theory: something that is widely accepted to be true and has a lot of evidence and peer review 4) Law not necessarily as strong as a theory, one counter example would disprove it but as yet there are none, such as the laws of gravity, gravity is only attractive etc, etc.

Steve3007 wrote:AB10B: (Nested quote removed.)


Yes. That's always important. Ultimately, all the things that we propose to "exist", whether they're light or material objects or other things, are inferred from acts of measurement.


(Nested quote removed.)


I think there's an element of semantic quibbling here. A relationship, by definition, must be between things. So whether you think of yourself as examining things, or the relationships between them, it all amounts to the same: models to describe/predict patterns in perceptions.


(Nested quote removed.)


If you're talking about relationships between "things", then you are already assuming their existence. I agree more if you're talking about relationships between perceptions, or "observation events".

I understand your confusion. When we study a "thing", we normally assume that it exists in reality. However, all reality is perceived "internally" in the consciousness of the mind.

I was only using that "language" of abstract because that is what some people think reality really is. All I am saying is, the relationships that we study are the same, whatever your view of reality is. That is, whether that "thing" really is "out there in a real sense" or it is "just a mental construct of a computer generated reality". These repeatable results are due to relationships (physics).

Steve3007 wrote:And I wouldn't say it is extraneous; I would say it's not absolutely necessary. I would say that assuming that they correspond to external things is not strictly necessary for examining our perceptions. It's just one of the first and most universal and useful models, or tools, that we use in that examination. In fact, it's so useful as to be difficult to imagine rejecting and still being able to live in any way.

Yes, I totally agree. The normal model of how we see things is very natural. This is because we evolved within this environment. But on closer inspection, things are not always as we intuitively think they are.

-- Updated January 2nd, 2014, 1:58 pm to add the following --

Calrid wrote:I can't explain how instantaneous acceleration works because I have never seen it or there has been no experiment. Ok go there and look at FAQ, and then come back, it will clear it up without me having to explain it as time is of the essence atm.

Why do you talk about something that you don't even understand?

Calrid wrote:It can be inferred that given enough energy something can instantaneously achieve c, but since this might also be impossible due to the energy requirements, I think warp drive or gate travel is more likely if indeed that is possible.

What is your point?

Calrid wrote:Michio Kaiku, not my favourite Scientist of all time but nonetheless his work on media is exposing people to the physical laws although he's a little too speculative for my liking.

He classifies sorts of possibilities

1) possible in future currently not possible 2) not possible now or in any time frame soon 3) Impossible as science stands now, but may be possible if new laws are found or overturned 4) never possible even if the laws are wrong. Such as perpetual motion etc.

1) hypothesis, conjecture that merely needs to be provable to exist as an idea at least 2) theory a hypothesis that is now tested and found to be at least evidential 3) Strong theory: something that is widely accepted to be true and has a lot of evidence and peer review 4) Law not necessarily as strong as a theory, one counter example would disprove it but as yet there are none, such as the laws of gravity, gravity is only attractive etc, etc.

Again, what is your point?

Hence complementarity AB108.

My point is self evident. my point is that some things are possible some things aren't, as yet we don't know what they are. And speculation on what they are is philosophy at best and arm waving at worst

Why do you talk about something that you don't even understand?

Why do you?

What is philosophy to you is it arm waving and talking **** until you get bored or is it discussing truth and it's non existence and hence imagining what could be?

I think I've inadvertently stumbled across another debater who is chalking up wins on his win board, which is fine but I really don't give a **** if you win or lose.

Reality is not affected by your win board, and doesn't give a fig for your self proclaimed deity. Vacillation, gesticulation and any such drivel therein that no one thinks unless they are a moron, is anything but religion.

-- Updated January 2nd, 2014, 2:10 pm to add the following --

If you want to gesticulate and talk religion here is the best place tyo do it. I will not discuss your arm waving any further here, because we have exhausted the subject so take it to the judge, by which I mean anarchist, by which I mean pirate and pseudo religious God.

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... =6&t=10586

Calrid wrote:Hence complementarity AB108.

My point is self evident. my point is that some things are possible some things aren't, as yet we don't know what they are. And speculation on what they are is philosophy at best and arm waving at worst

YES!!! Exactly! Philosophy of science to be specific. I am trying to give a philosophical explanation for the basis of "absolute time and the speed of light" . It is based on easy to understand concepts. You are going totally OFF-TOPIC and talking about impossibilities of "instantaneous acceleration".

I thought this was a "discussion forum", where one could "discuss a topic". You seem to have some sort of complex that makes you believe you are somehow being relevant even when you are NOT.

Calrid wrote:(Nested quote removed.)


Why do you?

I don't use terms in a discussion (or a debate or an argument) to support my position, unless I have an "understanding" of their meaning.

Calrid wrote:What is philosophy to you is it arm waving and talking **** until you get bored or is it discussing truth and it's non existence and hence imagining what could be?

Philosophy, to me, is LOGIC. Philosophy of science, to me, is the logic "behind" the results of experiments (the data).

Calrid wrote:I think I've inadvertently stumbled across another debater who is chalking up wins on his win board, which is fine but I really don't give a **** if you win or lose.

Reality is not affected by your win board, and doesn't give a fig for your self proclaimed deity. Vacillation, gesticulation and any such drivel therein that no one thinks unless they are a moron, is anything but religion.

All I intended to do, was to offer a thorough explanation of my view of the topic of this thread.

All I hoped in return, was some intelligent questions, some clarifications and some critique and alternate opinions.

Calrid wrote:-- Updated January 2nd, 2014, 2:10 pm to add the following --

If you want to gesticulate and talk religion here is the best place tyo do it. I will not discuss your arm waving any further here, because we have exhausted the subject so take it to the judge, by which I mean anarchist, by which I mean pirate and pseudo religious God.

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... =6&t=10586

Is that a promise?

_____________________________________________________________

BTW is anyone actually intersested in discussing this topic?

You seem to rely on truth being true and logic being secondary to me. But hey whatever floats your boat.

It's a promise.

Very impressive thread. I, too, am deeply interested by science babble, and we have some nice examples of it, therein, as previously quoted. The first poster does not know that the gravitational attraction law was discovered (by a French scientist just before Newton was born) thanks to an analogy with light. In modern General Relativity, gravitation is supposed to go at the speed of light.

so is electromagnetism and the other forces for that matter, it just so happens that the strong force becomes stronger the furhter apart it is up to a point and the weak force is probably just the residual energy of the strong force which again only glues atmos to each other and is far weaker than electromagnetism and the strong force which essnetially do not dominate, gravity and EM are the primary means of interaction with the universe we can perceive the others are more of an inference, especial the strong force which has not been unified with the weaak force yet although recently Elctro weak was unified earning the two scientists a Nobel prize this is called super unificatio, grand unification is still some distance off. as it stands Elctro-weak-magentism are the forces that dominate all being the same force at different energy levels, strong is most likely the residual of gravity and vise a versa gravity the reidual of strong, gravity is simply energy at a certain level. I would doubt even that quarks existed if they were not found in some high energy interactions. But meh...