Absolute time and the speed of light

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
Xris
Posts: 5962
Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Cornwall UK

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Xris » January 4th, 2014, 3:16 pm

The more I understand others objections to the accepted concept, the more I believe Billl Gaede has nailed it. Strangely he worked for the CIA .

Calrid
Posts: 263
Joined: December 5th, 2013, 7:47 pm
Favorite Philosopher: your mum
Location: Portsmouth and out in space

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Calrid » January 4th, 2014, 3:19 pm

Xris wrote:The more I understand others objections to the accepted concept, the more I believe Billl Gaede has nailed it. Strangely he worked for the CIA .
Quite mate, I should take you off my ignore list you seem to be making a lot of sense. :)

Granth
Posts: 2084
Joined: July 20th, 2012, 11:56 pm

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Granth » January 4th, 2014, 6:05 pm

AB1OB wrote:
"And so from matter's conclusions, yes, matter thinks it is seeing matter when it senses light."

There you go! You got one right!!
I got that right because it is as right as the others you presume are wrong. Matter sense light as motion. It is acts of matter detecting Light as light-waves. The senses move. What the senses do, therefore, is sense their own motion - their own vibration as they relate with phenomena arising WITHIN them. Therefore "other" phenomena, that only our thinking presumes is external to sensory perception - external to 'body', exist only as vibration - as waves, TO the sensory system.

This same sensory system/perception presumes 'body' to be outlined/defined by matter we call "skin", and that we as consciousness are living within only this falsely presumed definition. But, again, that is not one's actual body. The one described below is one's actual body.

"Your actual body reaches a long way under the earth, and very high into the heavens above the earth. You are seemingly separated from that other visible and invisible part of your body, but actually you are not, for what you think of as your body could not survive five minutes if severed from its extensions from earth and space.

You are separated from your extensions by equators only. Half of what your body needs is on the other side of the equator which divides your electro-positive visible body from its electro-negative negative mate. Conversely, half of what your invisible body needs is within you. It is absolutely imperative that each part of your body constantly give to the other half, and it is as certain that each giving shall be re given as that night will be followed by day.

What you think of as your body is a patterned extension of the earth, to which you are inescapably rooted, and it is also an extension of space surrounding the earth, within which you are temporarily compressed. It is merely a small nucleus of a very extended dual body which is hundreds, if not thousands of times larger than your visible body."

And this is also why perception can change within one's 'actual body', such as as so-called "out of body experience".

The only change an OBE is is the change of view-point. One is still the actual body while viewing, merely from a changed physical perspective, the falsely presumed 'body'. "Physical" is a dynamic and fluxing process. What is conventionally presumed to be matter and light and body is a matrix within which things link and therefore appear to follow an order. However, this is within a matrix and therefore it does not see the Actual and therefore does not Understand the matrix. Within a matrix 'speed' is presumed. It is an experience of presumption.

Calrid
Posts: 263
Joined: December 5th, 2013, 7:47 pm
Favorite Philosopher: your mum
Location: Portsmouth and out in space

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Calrid » January 4th, 2014, 6:09 pm

Granth wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


I got that right because it is as right as the others you presume are wrong. Matter sense light as motion. It is acts of matter detecting Light as light-waves. The senses move. What the senses do, therefore, is sense their own motion - their own vibration as they relate with phenomena arising WITHIN them. Therefore "other" phenomena, that only our thinking presumes is external to sensory perception - external to 'body', exist only as vibration - as waves, TO the sensory system.

This same sensory system/perception presumes 'body' to be outlined/defined by matter we call "skin", and that we as consciousness are living within only this falsely presumed definition. But, again, that is not one's actual body. The one described below is one's actual body.

"Your actual body reaches a long way under the earth, and very high into the heavens above the earth. You are seemingly separated from that other visible and invisible part of your body, but actually you are not, for what you think of as your body could not survive five minutes if severed from its extensions from earth and space.

You are separated from your extensions by equators only. Half of what your body needs is on the other side of the equator which divides your electro-positive visible body from its electro-negative negative mate. Conversely, half of what your invisible body needs is within you. It is absolutely imperative that each part of your body constantly give to the other half, and it is as certain that each giving shall be re given as that night will be followed by day.

What you think of as your body is a patterned extension of the earth, to which you are inescapably rooted, and it is also an extension of space surrounding the earth, within which you are temporarily compressed. It is merely a small nucleus of a very extended dual body which is hundreds, if not thousands of times larger than your visible body."

And this is also why perception can change within one's 'actual body', such as as so-called "out of body experience".

The only change an OBE is is the change of view-point. One is still the actual body while viewing, merely from a changed physical perspective, the falsely presumed 'body'. "Physical" is a dynamic and fluxing process. What is conventionally presumed to be matter and light and body is a matrix within which things link and therefore appear to follow an order. However, this is within a matrix and therefore it does not see the Actual and therefore does not Understand the matrix. Within a matrix 'speed' is presumed. It is an experience of presumption.

QFT. :)

Sorry shameless self promotion but I had to move the thread to make it conform to the rules without annoying too many people which incidentally is what that thread is about:

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... =6&t=10611


And can I just add it is hard to see The Matrix from inside The Matrix, sorry I just saw a black cat. Not that I believe OBE are anything more than an evolutionary strategy but the rest of it was very sensible and /i doubt you believe ?OBEs are religious experiences either judging by your posting style. And well I am agnostic. :).

Yadayada
Posts: 39
Joined: February 3rd, 2010, 10:50 pm

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Yadayada » January 4th, 2014, 8:36 pm

Calrid wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

waves are infinite so that makes sense, at least in there effect to the limit of 0.
Light isn't either particle or wave until it hits. Then it appears as whichever. In the meanwhile it's just a probability, a potential energy disturbance.

Calrid
Posts: 263
Joined: December 5th, 2013, 7:47 pm
Favorite Philosopher: your mum
Location: Portsmouth and out in space

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Calrid » January 4th, 2014, 8:43 pm

Yadayada wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Light isn't either particle or wave until it hits. Then it appears as whichever. In the meanwhile it's just a probability, a potential energy disturbance.

No **** Sherlock I've only said that like 20 times. :P

Yadayada
Posts: 39
Joined: February 3rd, 2010, 10:50 pm

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Yadayada » January 4th, 2014, 9:06 pm

AB1OB wrote: Light is an expanding sphere that begins at a point along a time line of matter.
A photon is different than mixed wave trains of a zillion photons. Starlight 'spreads' more or less uniformly in all directions, but a twinkle of green light from a star hitting the eye is only about a couple of hundred photons or less. To say spread is to say travel with a different word. It may be useful to talk that way in a large-scale model, but only the probability function spreads, not the actual photons. The actual photon wave or particle doesn't exist until it actually interacts. Think of it this way: if it were to spread spherically, then its energy would almost instantly disappear in decay, as the surface of the sphere grew, with the inverse square of the distance from the origin.
AB1OB wrote:You are a bit confused about the red/blue shift and Light speed. Light is always traveling @ c. If the observer's relative motion is towards the source of the light, the wavelengths become shorter (blue shifted). If the observer's relative motion is away from the source of the light, the wavelengths become longer (red shifted).
That's also true. One is the source's relative motion, the other is the observer's. The numbers come out the same either way. But the weirdness is different for the two in important ways. Is the measurement of distance or time only an appearance, or is the world actually, really twisted differently for each observation?
AB1OB wrote:Saying, " the light gets here sooner from the blue side and later from the red side" only means that one side is closer than the other, nothing about the "speed".
Right. distance/time is fixed at c. So if distance is shorter, so is time, just to maintain the ratio at c. The blue side appears closer and we see it sooner too. The galaxy looks slightly distorted to a precise measure.

-- Updated Sat Jan 04, 2014 8:17 pm to add the following --
Xris wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

So why do we give it speed?
Yea. And light has direction and momentum too. It has speed because Einstein's formula says so. It's useful for that purpose.

-- Updated Sat Jan 04, 2014 8:21 pm to add the following --
Calrid wrote: (Nested quote removed.)



No **** Sherlock I've only said that like 20 times. :P
But you said waves are infinite. That's only true for maths. For physics it's quantized, for engineering think of waves as a tsunami hitting the beach.

Moving Finger
Posts: 16
Joined: May 20th, 2011, 5:15 am

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Moving Finger » January 4th, 2014, 9:23 pm

Calrid wrote:"Time is not timeless, the question of time is moot at best since its passsage through time and space is undefined, accordingly."

Albert Einstein.
Could you provide a reference for the above quote please? As a stand-alone quote, it seems to make no sense.

Thanks

Calrid
Posts: 263
Joined: December 5th, 2013, 7:47 pm
Favorite Philosopher: your mum
Location: Portsmouth and out in space

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Calrid » January 4th, 2014, 11:03 pm

Moving Finger wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Could you provide a reference for the above quote please? As a stand-alone quote, it seems to make no sense.

Thanks
I already did but never mind.
But you said waves are infinite. That's only true for maths. For physics it's quantized, for engineering think of waves as a tsunami hitting the beach.But you said waves are infinite.
I said that too, come on read the thread people. :P

-- Updated January 4th, 2014, 10:11 pm to add the following --

http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm

People should read this before they continue it will save me having to repeat myself.

Excuse the context but it does tell the story neatly enough.

"The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once."

Albert Einstein

Moving Finger
Posts: 16
Joined: May 20th, 2011, 5:15 am

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Moving Finger » January 4th, 2014, 11:31 pm

Calrid wrote:I already did but never mind.
You did? I searched this thread for "Time is not timeless", and all I can find is the two posts we have just exchanged - with no reference included...

Calrid
Posts: 263
Joined: December 5th, 2013, 7:47 pm
Favorite Philosopher: your mum
Location: Portsmouth and out in space

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Calrid » January 4th, 2014, 11:36 pm

Well it's on a thread somewhere and i don't have the inclination or time to track it down.

Time is of the essence...

Moving Finger
Posts: 16
Joined: May 20th, 2011, 5:15 am

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Moving Finger » January 4th, 2014, 11:39 pm

Calrid wrote:Well it's on a thread somewhere and i don't have the inclination or time to track it down.

Time is of the essence...
I see. Unfortunately, it doesn't look at all like any quote from Einstein. A search on Google shows up nothing remotely similar to this attributed to Einstein, which is why I am interested to discover the source.

Thanks.

Granth
Posts: 2084
Joined: July 20th, 2012, 11:56 pm

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Granth » January 5th, 2014, 12:13 am

Calrid wrote: (Nested quote removed.)



QFT. :)

Sorry shameless self promotion but I had to move the thread to make it conform to the rules without annoying too many people which incidentally is what that thread is about:

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... =6&t=10611


And can I just add it is hard to see The Matrix from inside The Matrix, sorry I just saw a black cat. Not that I believe OBE are anything more than an evolutionary strategy but the rest of it was very sensible and /i doubt you believe ?OBEs are religious experiences either judging by your posting style. And well I am agnostic. :).
What do you mean by evolutionary strategy in relation to obe?

What do you mean by shameless self promotion? Was there a particular self I was promoting there? And if so, in what way?

And what did you think are the rules of this thread?

Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Obvious Leo » January 5th, 2014, 4:20 am

Is it not the case that in any physical model is should first be necessary to define one's terms? Since Special Relativity offers no ontological definition for space or time what ontological status can be granted to the notion of space-time? SR uses two different ontologies of time within the same model. Is this metaphysically kosher?

Just firing in a few questions to keep the pot boiling.

Regards Leo

Calrid
Posts: 263
Joined: December 5th, 2013, 7:47 pm
Favorite Philosopher: your mum
Location: Portsmouth and out in space

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Calrid » January 5th, 2014, 5:02 am

my own threads promotion.

And OBEs let us lose our fear of death, which is probably why it exists.

-- Updated January 5th, 2014, 4:03 am to add the following --
Moving Finger wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

I see. Unfortunately, it doesn't look at all like any quote from Einstein. A search on Google shows up nothing remotely similar to this attributed to Einstein, which is why I am interested to discover the source.

Thanks.
Well its out there I've seen it but the interweb is a big place.

Einstein wrote a few journals and books, do you really think the internet contains everything he ever said?

Post Reply