wazua Thu, Jan 30, 2025
Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Log In | Register

7 Pages«<34567>
Things I used to think were true
Muriel
#81 Posted : Wednesday, May 13, 2015 10:48:52 AM
Rank: Member


Joined: 11/19/2009
Posts: 3,142
digitek1 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.

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


Obviously not all things travel at speed of light. So what are you saying?
Muriel
#82 Posted : Wednesday, May 13, 2015 10:51:29 AM
Rank: Member


Joined: 11/19/2009
Posts: 3,142
digitek1 wrote:
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.smile smile smile

"...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one." [Einstein]


to paraphrase einstein smile 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


So light exists, even if unperceived? What else, then, exists unperceived?
mv_ufanisi
#83 Posted : Wednesday, May 13, 2015 12:50:58 PM
Rank: Member


Joined: 1/15/2010
Posts: 625
digitek1 wrote:
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?

@MvApplause Applause
How do you know you have 'arrived'd'oh! 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


In my mind, true wealth is defining what you want out of life and having the freedom to pursue it. Of course you need a certain minimum amount of money - perhaps large enough that rich people don't push you around or make you feel "scared" of them. But the ultimate prize is real FREEDOM. Waking up everyday and doing exactly what ever you want to do.
Stressors are important in life to a certain extent. Too much comfort turns you into a zombie. I see a lot of people over-eating just cause they can afford nyam-chom everyday and their bodies suffer for it. It's more a reflection of the lack of imagination and creativity that they have even with money.
After gaining a certain level of money, blindly pursuing money becomes a trap. You somehow manage to stay in the rat race as now you always want to buy the newest range rover and upgrade your house or even worse just hoard money in your bank account. Ultimately you become like a puppy chasing its tail.
Wakanyugi
#84 Posted : Wednesday, May 13, 2015 1:39:19 PM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 7/3/2007
Posts: 1,634
Muriel wrote:
Wakanyugi wrote:
Muriel wrote:
[quote=Wakanyugi]




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'?



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


You are the one who insists that there is time.

As for me, I am just waiting for you to convince me.

As for the speed of light, let me see if I can shed some light on your questions:

"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?"

This is the major difference between the speed of light and all other speeds. While the housefly riding in a bus will move at the speed of the bus, light does not behave in this manner. The speed of light is constant - irrespective of location or observer.

If you rode on a beam of light you would not experience the light beam if it were at rest, the way you might experience a moving bus to be at rest (if you didn't look out the window of course). The speed of the light beam would remain the same constant C, even though you would not experience any time passing (the faster you go the slower time flows). Someone observing you from Earth or another vantage point, would see you moving at the speed of light.

This is all basic Einstein et al...proof if any were needed, that time is an illusion created by the observer (us). If you introduce Quantum mechanics, the evidence becomes even more persuasive.

I am not denying the strange nature of light, which is quite weird. Indeed it could be an illusion, as you seem to imply (although I am not convinced). But then so is time.
"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)
Wakanyugi
#85 Posted : Wednesday, May 13, 2015 1:55:49 PM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 7/3/2007
Posts: 1,634
digitek1 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.

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


Good point. But what we perceive as time is simply the pattern which light describes as the beam interacts with 3D reality. This is interpreted by our senses as the light beam moving from point a to b and time passing as it does so. Both are illusions. Speed annihilates time, which would not happen if time had an independent reality.

Final point 'entanglement' where two quantum particles communicate instantly, despite the distance between them. Time/space = illusion.
"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)
Muriel
#86 Posted : Wednesday, May 13, 2015 2:59:59 PM
Rank: Member


Joined: 11/19/2009
Posts: 3,142
Wakanyugi wrote:
Muriel wrote:
Wakanyugi wrote:
Muriel wrote:
[quote=Wakanyugi]




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'?



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


You are the one who insists that there is time.

As for me, I am just waiting for you to convince me.

As for the speed of light, let me see if I can shed some light on your questions:

"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?"

This is the major difference between the speed of light and all other speeds. While the housefly riding in a bus will move at the speed of the bus, light does not behave in this manner. The speed of light is constant - irrespective of location or observer.

If you rode on a beam of light you would not experience the light beam if it were at rest, the way you might experience a moving bus to be at rest (if you didn't look out the window of course). The speed of the light beam would remain the same constant C, even though you would not experience any time passing (the faster you go the slower time flows). Someone observing you from Earth or another vantage point, would see you moving at the speed of light.

This is all basic Einstein et al...proof if any were needed, that time is an illusion created by the observer (us). If you introduce Quantum mechanics, the evidence becomes even more persuasive.

I am not denying the strange nature of light, which is quite weird. Indeed it could be an illusion, as you seem to imply (although I am not convinced). But then so is time.


I have not yet got to the point of insisting there is time. I have not started recruiting yet. Registration bado kidogo. I am merely driving wedges for now.

So you insist the speed of light is constant.

Have you considered that the light sources are other passengers in the moving bus? Yes, the bus carried a lot of people. Some on wheelchairs, some seated, some walking to the front, some walking to the back ,,,,, One light source could be moving to the front, the other to the back so pray tell, how can it be constant?

Your theory requires a stationary point which for obvious reasons will be outside the universe. A standpoint existing outside the universe, our bus. If it does exist who, where, when, what, how is it?
digitek1
#87 Posted : Wednesday, May 13, 2015 5:32:54 PM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 2/3/2010
Posts: 1,797
Location: Kenya
Muriel wrote:
digitek1 wrote:
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.smile smile smile

"...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one." [Einstein]


to paraphrase einstein smile 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


So light exists, even if unperceived? What else, then, exists unperceived?

I was agreeing with you
however light only makes up a very small percentage of the electromagnetic spectrum...so there is much more unperceived ...call it darkness for lack of a better word
I may be wrong..but then I could be right
Wakanyugi
#88 Posted : Wednesday, May 13, 2015 5:33:13 PM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 7/3/2007
Posts: 1,634
Muriel wrote:


I have not yet got to the point of insisting there is time. I have not started recruiting yet. Registration bado kidogo. I am merely driving wedges for now.

So you insist the speed of light is constant.

Have you considered that the light sources are other passengers in the moving bus? Yes, the bus carried a lot of people. Some on wheelchairs, some seated, some walking to the front, some walking to the back ,,,,, One light source could be moving to the front, the other to the back so pray tell, how can it be constant?



Sometimes you sound almost like me. Yet when I insisted, sometime back, that all reality is illusion you and Tycho nearly run me out of Wazua town.

Yes my fiend; there are no constants in the Universe. Welcome to the the rabbit hole.

Then you say:

Your theory requires a stationary point which for obvious reasons will be outside the universe. A standpoint existing outside the universe, our bus. If it does exist who, where, when, what, how is it?

And say I:

It is Einstein's theory of general relativity.

You might recall that even he agonized over these questions. But science has to date been unable to disprove his basic tenets : light has a finite speed (in a vacuum) and nothing goes faster; this speed does not change irrespective of observer or location; time dilation etc etc Essentially light behaves as if space/time does not exist.

My theory however is more radical. But let us not go into that again.


"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)
Wakanyugi
#89 Posted : Wednesday, May 13, 2015 5:38:32 PM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 7/3/2007
Posts: 1,634
digitek1 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.smile smile smile

"...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one." [Einstein]


to paraphrase einstein smile 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.



Thank you.

Now can you help me to convince Muriel?
"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)
Wakanyugi
#90 Posted : Wednesday, May 13, 2015 5:42:36 PM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 7/3/2007
Posts: 1,634
digitek1 wrote:
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.smile smile smile

"...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one." [Einstein]


to paraphrase einstein smile 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


For anything to exist there must be an observer. I believe the anthropic principle says something similar (the Universe exists because we do).

So we could actually argue that the only constant is the observer (or consciousness as some have posited).

Everything else is an illusion of our own creation.
"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)
Muriel
#91 Posted : Thursday, May 14, 2015 7:56:10 AM
Rank: Member


Joined: 11/19/2009
Posts: 3,142
Wakanyugi wrote:
digitek1 wrote:
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.smile smile smile

"...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one." [Einstein]


to paraphrase einstein smile 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


For anything to exist there must be an observer. I believe the anthropic principle says something similar (the Universe exists because we do).

So we could actually argue that the only constant is the observer (or consciousness as some have posited).

Everything else is an illusion of our own creation.


Hhmmm.
Muriel
#92 Posted : Thursday, May 14, 2015 7:59:15 AM
Rank: Member


Joined: 11/19/2009
Posts: 3,142
Wakanyugi wrote:
digitek1 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.smile smile smile

"...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one." [Einstein]


to paraphrase einstein smile 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.



Thank you.

Now can you help me to convince Muriel?


Laugh.
Laugh.
Laugh.

I love this.
Muriel
#93 Posted : Thursday, May 14, 2015 8:01:09 AM
Rank: Member


Joined: 11/19/2009
Posts: 3,142
Wakanyugi wrote:
Muriel wrote:


I have not yet got to the point of insisting there is time. I have not started recruiting yet. Registration bado kidogo. I am merely driving wedges for now.

So you insist the speed of light is constant.

Have you considered that the light sources are other passengers in the moving bus? Yes, the bus carried a lot of people. Some on wheelchairs, some seated, some walking to the front, some walking to the back ,,,,, One light source could be moving to the front, the other to the back so pray tell, how can it be constant?



Sometimes you sound almost like me. Yet when I insisted, sometime back, that all reality is illusion you and Tycho nearly run me out of Wazua town.

Yes my fiend; there are no constants in the Universe. Welcome to the the rabbit hole.

Then you say:

Your theory requires a stationary point which for obvious reasons will be outside the universe. A standpoint existing outside the universe, our bus. If it does exist who, where, when, what, how is it?

And say I:

It is Einstein's theory of general relativity.

You might recall that even he agonized over these questions. But science has to date been unable to disprove his basic tenets : light has a finite speed (in a vacuum) and nothing goes faster; this speed does not change irrespective of observer or location; time dilation etc etc Essentially light behaves as if space/time does not exist.

My theory however is more radical. But let us not go into that again.




I am sincerely sorry for the mistreatment we meted on you.

Please accept my heartfelt apologies on behalf of my brother too. We in the brotherhood sometimes sound almost like each other, that is why we are brothers. Grin.

You may have given too much weight to my wedge that there are no constants inside the universe at the expense of my other subtle point that there is a constant outside the universe.

Science has been unable to disprove Eintein's theory for the simple reason it has not accessed and utilised this constant that is outside the universe. That is why it still insists 'nothing goes faster than light' among other things. Science today is like Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot content that nothing goes faster than his 2.5mph contraption.

How radical is your theory? Is it more 'radical' than mine?
digitek1
#94 Posted : Monday, May 18, 2015 8:13:37 AM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 2/3/2010
Posts: 1,797
Location: Kenya
The Umvelt of reality
I may be wrong..but then I could be right
Muriel
#95 Posted : Monday, May 18, 2015 8:43:45 AM
Rank: Member


Joined: 11/19/2009
Posts: 3,142
Wakanyugi,

Surely, how and why am I your fiend? Why do you say such hurtful words?

Please don't leave. Who will I talk to or even recruit when you go like that?
Wakanyugi
#96 Posted : Tuesday, May 19, 2015 4:45:51 PM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 7/3/2007
Posts: 1,634
Muriel wrote:
Wakanyugi,

Surely, how and why am I your fiend? Why do you say such hurtful words?

Please don't leave. Who will I talk to or even recruit when you go like that?



Sorry I have distracted the last few days.

I would not leave without saying kwaheri
"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)
Wakanyugi
#97 Posted : Tuesday, May 19, 2015 4:56:14 PM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 7/3/2007
Posts: 1,634
Muriel wrote:
[quote=Wakanyugi][quote=Muriel]





"I am sincerely sorry for the mistreatment we meted on you."

Apology accepted smile

"Please accept my heartfelt apologies on behalf of my brother too."

I am not sure whether to accept Tycho's apology. I am not in a charitable mood today. However, let me think about it.


You may have given too much weight to my wedge that there are no constants inside the universe at the expense of my other subtle point that there is a constant outside the universe.

The definition of the Universe in and of itself is 'that which contains all.' It does not have an inside or an outside. Thus there can not be a constant outside the Universe. There is no outside.


"How radical is your theory? Is it more 'radical' than mine?"

Not radical to me but many people find it hard to accept. Its main premise is this: "The Universe does really not exist." QED.

"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)
tycho
#98 Posted : Tuesday, May 19, 2015 5:40:53 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
I'm not aware of the need to apologize. But I'd appreciate it if the need is brought to my attention.
Muriel
#99 Posted : Wednesday, May 20, 2015 10:51:34 AM
Rank: Member


Joined: 11/19/2009
Posts: 3,142
tycho wrote:
I'm not aware of the need to apologize. But I'd appreciate it if the need is brought to my attention.


Almost running someone, a brother, Wakanyugi, out of Wazua town is need enough for me.
Muriel
#100 Posted : Wednesday, May 20, 2015 10:56:00 AM
Rank: Member


Joined: 11/19/2009
Posts: 3,142
Wakanyugi wrote:
Muriel wrote:
Wakanyugi,

Surely, how and why am I your fiend? Why do you say such hurtful words?

Please don't leave. Who will I talk to or even recruit when you go like that?



Sorry I have distracted the last few days.

I would not leave without saying kwaheri


Pewa juice!

Of course you know there is no escaping from here. It was easier from Alcatraz or Sobibor. Not here. Not ever. Laugh.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (3)
7 Pages«<34567>
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.

Copyright © 2025 Wazua.co.ke. All Rights Reserved.