Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Culture
»
Things I used to think were true
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
masukuma wrote:mv_ufanisi wrote:murchr wrote:mv_ufanisi wrote:digitek1 wrote:Jews are disproportionately richer than any other religion and they are very religious as a simple Google search of wealth vs religion shows
capitalism also owes it's spread to the Protestant work ethic
What's the GDP per capita of Israel an almost entirely Jewish country? Not among the top 10 highest in the world. Christians like to tout Jewish exceptionalism as some kind of "god-given" trait while Muslims probably see the oil wealth of the middle east as some evidence of "super-natural" providence. Fuzzy statistics to confuse those who don't cross check stats. Per wikipedia 2013 - GDP -290.6B; PPP - $36,051.15; Size of Israel - 8,019m2 (about 2 Nyanza provinces) Population 8M Jews abroad esp those in Europe and America are real rich..To name a few, the Rothschild; Larry Elison - Oracle, Michael Bloomberg; The google boys - Larry Page and Sergey Brin, George Soros Mark Cuban etc If you want to understand this read Gldwell's "Outliers" Culture plays a very big part in shaping a people Your stats don't discount the FACT that Israel is not among top 10 richest countries in the world on a GDP per Capita basis. Indian-Americans are the richest ethnic group in America yet India which I assume to have the most Hindus in the world is a real laggard in terms of wealth. The fact of the matter is that an Indian tech entrepreneur will have more in common with a Silicon Valley entrepreneur than with a guy pushing a rickshaw in Bangalore.
and thus "culture" is the determining factor! culture is everything... Not true. Culture is determined by intelligence and is very dynamic.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,634
|
tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:Caramba wrote:Back to the title of this thread, used to think that crime does not pay.
Some dude is just about to collect 11billion from some hospital deal.
Crime does seem to pay. Just like, rarely does any good deed go unpunished. But then again, no man escapes himself. When is payment or punishment established? I believe the greatest punishment is self inflicted. This way everybody ends up paying eventually, whether you were caught or not. But then I am told there are people who have no conscience setting...so I could be wrong. "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:Caramba wrote:Back to the title of this thread, used to think that crime does not pay.
Some dude is just about to collect 11billion from some hospital deal.
Crime does seem to pay. Just like, rarely does any good deed go unpunished. But then again, no man escapes himself. When is payment or punishment established? I believe the greatest punishment is self inflicted. This way everybody ends up paying eventually, whether you were caught or not. But then I am told there are people who have no conscience setting...so I could be wrong. Even without blunting conscience is mostly flawed and even harmful.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,634
|
Muriel wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:digitek1 wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:mv_ufanisi wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:Muriel wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:If you know something to be true or not true then the knowledge is most likely obsolete. How does this fit in the cause-and-effect scheme of things? Assuming that the cause and effect model is valid - there are grounds for skepticism - the instance of knowledge is subjected to a process driven by the sociology of knowledge and forces of paridigm shifts as illustrated by Kuhn. Then again cause and effect is always conditional, and conditions will always vary. In a timeless Universe there can be no cause and effect. Everything that can ever BE, already IS. What we have is simply REVELATION, namely a process by which we apprehend and internalize different things and events that already exist (in other words 'create' them anew in our experience). This revelation process is conditioned on: a) a three dimensional reality, in which we have inserted the illusion of time (thus the erroneous perception of cause and effect etc) b) the limitations of the human Earth instrument (the body) with its sensory tools etc that simply limit how much experience we can process and c) the terms of our Earth walk, which require, for instance, that we handicap ourselves, say, by deliberately suppressing much of what we already know so as not to interfere with our 'learning' experience on Earth Is the universe currently timeless? I think it is. One of the accepted definitions of the Universe says that it contains everything that could possibly exist (Quantum physics, not Metaphysics). This includes all permutations of all things in all forms. In such a scenario, nothing came before anything else. Everything simply IS. The need to order things in linear form is a convention forced on humans by the need to overcome the limitations of 'living' in a 3 dimensional reality. It is no more real than space or gravity, for instance. No time. You need to have a lot of guts to tell people that time doesn't exist. Contrary to their daily experience. Not guts. So long as you have found Einstein, and let him into your personal life, it is easy.  "...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one." [Einstein] to paraphrase einstein Time is relative but it does exist -since the speed of light is finite...hence the future is real, cause and effect is real The implication of this statement is even more strange. To a beam of light, time does not exist.Time and the speed of light have an inverse relationship. The faster you go, the slower time flows. To anything that travels at the speed of light time stops completely. It ceases to exist. What you call 'future' or 'past' is simply our interpretation of the reality of us traveling at sub-luminal speeds. If we could travel at the speed of light, such interpretation would not be necessary, or even noticeable. Time is not real. Light is invisible. For light to be known light has to be reflected off something. Hence, light depends on matter otherwise, there is 'no light', light does not exist. Hence light and it's speed are not a standard because they are relative. Are we sure that the concepts we build around light can stand? Can it then be said for certain for instance that we are not currently traveling at the speed of light through space? I am not sure about this. How can light be invisible if it is the medium that enables us to use our most important sense? And how would you explain the behavior of plants in the absence/presence of light? As to whether the speed of light is relative, you still need to answer the question 'relative to what?' The other variables in Einsteins equations are relative to an observer or a location. But the speed of light seems to be the only constant allowed and this has not been disproven yet. How do we know that we are not traveling at the speed of light? Because Newton said so? From our seat on spaceship Earth we move at 1600 Km/hr on its axis, 100,000 Km/hr around the Sun and close to 800,000 Km/hr around the Galactic center. Quite an impressive clip but nowhere near the speed of light. "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,634
|
tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:Caramba wrote:Back to the title of this thread, used to think that crime does not pay.
Some dude is just about to collect 11billion from some hospital deal.
Crime does seem to pay. Just like, rarely does any good deed go unpunished. But then again, no man escapes himself. When is payment or punishment established? I believe the greatest punishment is self inflicted. This way everybody ends up paying eventually, whether you were caught or not. But then I am told there are people who have no conscience setting...so I could be wrong. Even without blunting conscience is mostly flawed and even harmful. Why do you say this? Me I would say guilt is harmful, if overdone. But conscience is useful as it is the internal brake that stops us from becoming our basest instincts. "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
Wakanyugi wrote:
I am not sure about this. How can light be invisible if it is the medium that enables us to use our most important sense? And how would you explain the behavior of plants in the absence/presence of light?
As to whether the speed of light is relative, you still need to answer the question 'relative to what?' The other variables in Einsteins equations are relative to an observer or a location. But the speed of light seems to be the only constant allowed and this has not been disproven yet.
How do we know that we are not traveling at the speed of light? Because Newton said so?
From our seat on spaceship Earth we move at 1600 Km/hr on its axis, 100,000 Km/hr around the Sun and close to 800,000 Km/hr around the Galactic center.
Quite an impressive clip but nowhere near the speed of light.
Then consider it 'new information'. Light is invisible. What you see is not light. You see a reflection of it. As to the question on what is the speed of light relative , I have given myself no such burden. I have instead added to the burden by intimating that we, with our measurements, have determined the speed of light from a 'stationary' point. Like the housefly in a bus that is moving at whatever speed and the housefly flies from the back of the bus to the front. So, according to a passenger in a wheelchair moving in the moving in the bus, what is the speed of the housefly? What is the speed of light? What is 'light'? What is 'time'? Registration is almost opening.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,634
|
Muriel wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:
I am not sure about this. How can light be invisible if it is the medium that enables us to use our most important sense? And how would you explain the behavior of plants in the absence/presence of light?
As to whether the speed of light is relative, you still need to answer the question 'relative to what?' The other variables in Einsteins equations are relative to an observer or a location. But the speed of light seems to be the only constant allowed and this has not been disproven yet.
How do we know that we are not traveling at the speed of light? Because Newton said so?
From our seat on spaceship Earth we move at 1600 Km/hr on its axis, 100,000 Km/hr around the Sun and close to 800,000 Km/hr around the Galactic center.
Quite an impressive clip but nowhere near the speed of light.
Then consider it 'new information'. Light is invisible. What you see is not light. You see a reflection of it. As to the question on what is the speed of light relative , I have given myself no such burden. I have instead added to the burden by intimating that we, with our measurements, have determined the speed of light from a 'stationary' point. Like the housefly in a bus that is moving at whatever speed and the housefly flies from the back of the bus to the front. So, according to a passenger in a wheelchair moving in the moving in the bus, what is the speed of the housefly? What is the speed of light? What is 'light'? What is 'time'? Registration is almost opening. You said: "Hence light and it's speed are not a standard because they are relative"My question still stands. As for light being a reflection....lets skin one cat at a time, shall we? "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 1/15/2010 Posts: 625
|
Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:Caramba wrote:Back to the title of this thread, used to think that crime does not pay.
Some dude is just about to collect 11billion from some hospital deal.
Crime does seem to pay. Just like, rarely does any good deed go unpunished. But then again, no man escapes himself. When is payment or punishment established? I believe the greatest punishment is self inflicted. This way everybody ends up paying eventually, whether you were caught or not. But then I am told there are people who have no conscience setting...so I could be wrong. Crime/corruption does seem to pay especially in Kenya where law enforcement is non-existent. The chances of getting away doing corruption in Kenya are so high that there is a strong incentive by lots of people to do it - hence institutionalized corruption. If one day a corrupt person is put to death publicly, and a new policy is announced, corruption will suddenly come down by a large margin. If we left people to self govern - via their conscience we'd have a disaster. Punishment is definitely a deterrent for committing crimes. That's why when punishment is absent there is more crime.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:Caramba wrote:Back to the title of this thread, used to think that crime does not pay.
Some dude is just about to collect 11billion from some hospital deal.
Crime does seem to pay. Just like, rarely does any good deed go unpunished. But then again, no man escapes himself. When is payment or punishment established? I believe the greatest punishment is self inflicted. This way everybody ends up paying eventually, whether you were caught or not. But then I am told there are people who have no conscience setting...so I could be wrong. Even without blunting conscience is mostly flawed and even harmful. Why do you say this? Me I would say guilt is harmful, if overdone. But conscience is useful as it is the internal brake that stops us from becoming our basest instincts. Conscience is of the womb, and psychological maturity and spiritual enlightenment is about overcoming the womb and being born of a 'rock'. Consequently reliance on conscience is reliance on what doesn't count for the highest good.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
mv_ufanisi wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:Caramba wrote:Back to the title of this thread, used to think that crime does not pay.
Some dude is just about to collect 11billion from some hospital deal.
Crime does seem to pay. Just like, rarely does any good deed go unpunished. But then again, no man escapes himself. When is payment or punishment established? I believe the greatest punishment is self inflicted. This way everybody ends up paying eventually, whether you were caught or not. But then I am told there are people who have no conscience setting...so I could be wrong. Crime/corruption does seem to pay especially in Kenya where law enforcement is non-existent. The chances of getting away doing corruption in Kenya are so high that there is a strong incentive by lots of people to do it - hence institutionalized corruption. If one day a corrupt person is put to death publicly, and a new policy is announced, corruption will suddenly come down by a large margin. If we left people to self govern - via their conscience we'd have a disaster. Punishment is definitely a deterrent for committing crimes. That's why when punishment is absent there is more crime. That punishment is a deterrent is a moot point.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,634
|
tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:Caramba wrote:Back to the title of this thread, used to think that crime does not pay.
Some dude is just about to collect 11billion from some hospital deal.
Crime does seem to pay. Just like, rarely does any good deed go unpunished. But then again, no man escapes himself. When is payment or punishment established? I believe the greatest punishment is self inflicted. This way everybody ends up paying eventually, whether you were caught or not. But then I am told there are people who have no conscience setting...so I could be wrong. Even without blunting conscience is mostly flawed and even harmful. Why do you say this? Me I would say guilt is harmful, if overdone. But conscience is useful as it is the internal brake that stops us from becoming our basest instincts. Conscience is of the womb, and psychological maturity and spiritual enlightenment is about overcoming the womb and being born of a 'rock'. Consequently reliance on conscience is reliance on what doesn't count for the highest good. And yet we rely on it, as one of the biggest pillars of self and social regulation. The chief reason you are able to casually go for a walk among people is the predictability wrought by human conscience. In other words, you are fairly confident that the next fellow you meet will not suddenly decide to chop off your head or run over you with a car. "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,634
|
mv_ufanisi wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:Caramba wrote:Back to the title of this thread, used to think that crime does not pay.
Some dude is just about to collect 11billion from some hospital deal.
Crime does seem to pay. Just like, rarely does any good deed go unpunished. But then again, no man escapes himself. When is payment or punishment established? I believe the greatest punishment is self inflicted. This way everybody ends up paying eventually, whether you were caught or not. But then I am told there are people who have no conscience setting...so I could be wrong. Crime/corruption does seem to pay especially in Kenya where law enforcement is non-existent. The chances of getting away doing corruption in Kenya are so high that there is a strong incentive by lots of people to do it - hence institutionalized corruption. If one day a corrupt person is put to death publicly, and a new policy is announced, corruption will suddenly come down by a large margin. If we left people to self govern - via their conscience we'd have a disaster. Punishment is definitely a deterrent for committing crimes. That's why when punishment is absent there is more crime. Back to the cause effect argument: The threat of punishment, it seems, is a greater deterrent than the actual punishment. Which offers one explanation for the high incidence of inmates who re-offend after leaving jail. "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:Caramba wrote:Back to the title of this thread, used to think that crime does not pay.
Some dude is just about to collect 11billion from some hospital deal.
Crime does seem to pay. Just like, rarely does any good deed go unpunished. But then again, no man escapes himself. When is payment or punishment established? I believe the greatest punishment is self inflicted. This way everybody ends up paying eventually, whether you were caught or not. But then I am told there are people who have no conscience setting...so I could be wrong. Even without blunting conscience is mostly flawed and even harmful. Why do you say this? Me I would say guilt is harmful, if overdone. But conscience is useful as it is the internal brake that stops us from becoming our basest instincts. Conscience is of the womb, and psychological maturity and spiritual enlightenment is about overcoming the womb and being born of a 'rock'. Consequently reliance on conscience is reliance on what doesn't count for the highest good. And yet we rely on it, as one of the biggest pillars of self and social regulation. The chief reason you are able to casually go for a walk among people is the predictability wrought by human conscience. In other words, you are fairly confident that the next fellow you meet will not suddenly decide to chop off your head or run over you with a car. You are now talking of 'normal' behavior and the attempt to keep people under it. In a multicultural context however it becomes 'not so useful' if not oppressive. Not that the oppressiveness is absent within a culture.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 1/15/2010 Posts: 625
|
I used to place wealthy people on a pedestal, until I realized the vanity that makes people keep piling up money and staying in the rat race. Comfort is somewhat injurious to man, you need a minimum level of stress and variability of emotions in order to actually be happy.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
Wakanyugi wrote:Muriel wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:
I am not sure about this. How can light be invisible if it is the medium that enables us to use our most important sense? And how would you explain the behavior of plants in the absence/presence of light?
As to whether the speed of light is relative, you still need to answer the question 'relative to what?' The other variables in Einsteins equations are relative to an observer or a location. But the speed of light seems to be the only constant allowed and this has not been disproven yet.
How do we know that we are not traveling at the speed of light? Because Newton said so?
From our seat on spaceship Earth we move at 1600 Km/hr on its axis, 100,000 Km/hr around the Sun and close to 800,000 Km/hr around the Galactic center.
Quite an impressive clip but nowhere near the speed of light.
Then consider it 'new information'. Light is invisible. What you see is not light. You see a reflection of it. As to the question on what is the speed of light relative , I have given myself no such burden. I have instead added to the burden by intimating that we, with our measurements, have determined the speed of light from a 'stationary' point. Like the housefly in a bus that is moving at whatever speed and the housefly flies from the back of the bus to the front. So, according to a passenger in a wheelchair moving in the moving in the bus, what is the speed of the housefly? What is the speed of light? What is 'light'? What is 'time'? Registration is almost opening. You said: "Hence light and it's speed are not a standard because they are relative"My question still stands. As for light being a reflection....lets skin one cat at a time, shall we? Yes your question still stands, so does mine. And so the unanswerable questions about light hence time keep piling. With so many unanswered questions on our plate surely can we still say with confidence 'there is no time'? That will be my wedge in the gap no.1
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
mv_ufanisi wrote:I used to place wealthy people on a pedestal, until I realized the vanity that makes people keep piling up money and staying in the rat race. Comfort is somewhat injurious to man, you need a minimum level of stress and variability of emotions in order to actually be happy. How does wealth preclude stress and variability of emotions? Don't we all need some comfort? Why should some people be put on a pedestal?
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 2/3/2010 Posts: 1,797 Location: Kenya
|
Wakanyugi wrote:digitek1 wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:mv_ufanisi wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:Muriel wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:If you know something to be true or not true then the knowledge is most likely obsolete. How does this fit in the cause-and-effect scheme of things? Assuming that the cause and effect model is valid - there are grounds for skepticism - the instance of knowledge is subjected to a process driven by the sociology of knowledge and forces of paridigm shifts as illustrated by Kuhn. Then again cause and effect is always conditional, and conditions will always vary. In a timeless Universe there can be no cause and effect. Everything that can ever BE, already IS. What we have is simply REVELATION, namely a process by which we apprehend and internalize different things and events that already exist (in other words 'create' them anew in our experience). This revelation process is conditioned on: a) a three dimensional reality, in which we have inserted the illusion of time (thus the erroneous perception of cause and effect etc) b) the limitations of the human Earth instrument (the body) with its sensory tools etc that simply limit how much experience we can process and c) the terms of our Earth walk, which require, for instance, that we handicap ourselves, say, by deliberately suppressing much of what we already know so as not to interfere with our 'learning' experience on Earth Is the universe currently timeless? I think it is. One of the accepted definitions of the Universe says that it contains everything that could possibly exist (Quantum physics, not Metaphysics). This includes all permutations of all things in all forms. In such a scenario, nothing came before anything else. Everything simply IS. The need to order things in linear form is a convention forced on humans by the need to overcome the limitations of 'living' in a 3 dimensional reality. It is no more real than space or gravity, for instance. No time. You need to have a lot of guts to tell people that time doesn't exist. Contrary to their daily experience. Not guts. So long as you have found Einstein, and let him into your personal life, it is easy. "...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one." [Einstein] to paraphrase einstein Time is relative but it does exist -since the speed of light is finite...hence the future is real, cause and effect is real The implication of this statement is even more strange. To a beam of light, time does not exist.Time and the speed of light have an inverse relationship. The faster you go, the slower time flows. To anything that travels at the speed of light time stops completely. It ceases to exist. What you call 'future' or 'past' is simply our interpretation of the reality of us traveling at sub-luminal speeds. If we could travel at the speed of light, such interpretation would not be necessary, or even noticeable. Time is not real. Agreed upto the last part. since we cant travel at the speed of light time becomes relative. Speed = distance over time and the speed of light is actually a known constant-you cant go faster than that theoretically. I may be wrong..but then I could be right
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 2/3/2010 Posts: 1,797 Location: Kenya
|
Muriel wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:digitek1 wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:mv_ufanisi wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:Muriel wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:If you know something to be true or not true then the knowledge is most likely obsolete. How does this fit in the cause-and-effect scheme of things? Assuming that the cause and effect model is valid - there are grounds for skepticism - the instance of knowledge is subjected to a process driven by the sociology of knowledge and forces of paridigm shifts as illustrated by Kuhn. Then again cause and effect is always conditional, and conditions will always vary. In a timeless Universe there can be no cause and effect. Everything that can ever BE, already IS. What we have is simply REVELATION, namely a process by which we apprehend and internalize different things and events that already exist (in other words 'create' them anew in our experience). This revelation process is conditioned on: a) a three dimensional reality, in which we have inserted the illusion of time (thus the erroneous perception of cause and effect etc) b) the limitations of the human Earth instrument (the body) with its sensory tools etc that simply limit how much experience we can process and c) the terms of our Earth walk, which require, for instance, that we handicap ourselves, say, by deliberately suppressing much of what we already know so as not to interfere with our 'learning' experience on Earth Is the universe currently timeless? I think it is. One of the accepted definitions of the Universe says that it contains everything that could possibly exist (Quantum physics, not Metaphysics). This includes all permutations of all things in all forms. In such a scenario, nothing came before anything else. Everything simply IS. The need to order things in linear form is a convention forced on humans by the need to overcome the limitations of 'living' in a 3 dimensional reality. It is no more real than space or gravity, for instance. No time. You need to have a lot of guts to tell people that time doesn't exist. Contrary to their daily experience. Not guts. So long as you have found Einstein, and let him into your personal life, it is easy. "...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one." [Einstein] to paraphrase einstein Time is relative but it does exist -since the speed of light is finite...hence the future is real, cause and effect is real The implication of this statement is even more strange. To a beam of light, time does not exist.Time and the speed of light have an inverse relationship. The faster you go, the slower time flows. To anything that travels at the speed of light time stops completely. It ceases to exist. What you call 'future' or 'past' is simply our interpretation of the reality of us traveling at sub-luminal speeds. If we could travel at the speed of light, such interpretation would not be necessary, or even noticeable. Time is not real. Light is invisible. For light to be known light has to be reflected off something. Hence, light depends on matter otherwise, there is 'no light', light does not exist. Hence light and it's speed are not a standard because they are relative. Are we sure that the concepts we build around light can stand? Can it then be said for certain for instance that we are not currently travelling at the speed of light through space? For light to be perceived there must be an observer, who unfortunately'interferes' with its nature I may be wrong..but then I could be right
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 2/3/2010 Posts: 1,797 Location: Kenya
|
Muriel wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:
I am not sure about this. How can light be invisible if it is the medium that enables us to use our most important sense? And how would you explain the behavior of plants in the absence/presence of light?
As to whether the speed of light is relative, you still need to answer the question 'relative to what?' The other variables in Einsteins equations are relative to an observer or a location. But the speed of light seems to be the only constant allowed and this has not been disproven yet.
How do we know that we are not traveling at the speed of light? Because Newton said so?
From our seat on spaceship Earth we move at 1600 Km/hr on its axis, 100,000 Km/hr around the Sun and close to 800,000 Km/hr around the Galactic center.
Quite an impressive clip but nowhere near the speed of light.
Then consider it 'new information'. Light is invisible. What you see is not light. You see a reflection of it. As to the question on what is the speed of light relative , I have given myself no such burden. I have instead added to the burden by intimating that we, with our measurements, have determined the speed of light from a 'stationary' point. Like the housefly in a bus that is moving at whatever speed and the housefly flies from the back of the bus to the front. So, according to a passenger in a wheelchair moving in the moving in the bus, what is the speed of the housefly? What is the speed of light? What is 'light'? What is 'time'? Registration is almost opening. in metaphysics it is possible not to have time. which explains concepts like omnipresence. However if you have a beam travelling at the speed of light it must take a time t to travel from point a to b even if we cant measure it I may be wrong..but then I could be right
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 2/3/2010 Posts: 1,797 Location: Kenya
|
tycho wrote:mv_ufanisi wrote:I used to place wealthy people on a pedestal, until I realized the vanity that makes people keep piling up money and staying in the rat race. Comfort is somewhat injurious to man, you need a minimum level of stress and variability of emotions in order to actually be happy. How does wealth preclude stress and variability of emotions? Don't we all need some comfort? Why should some people be put on a pedestal? @Mv  How do you know you have 'arrived'  Kiyosaki defines wealth as a minimum of $1m in passive income per year which translates to Kes 8m per month. again stress is not good case in point adebayor I may be wrong..but then I could be right
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Culture
»
Things I used to think were true
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|