Since the mind and life institute is trying to explain more about science and spiritualism I would like to tell my idea about consciousness. I think that men is looking in the wrong direction with A. Einstein’s relativity theory. Not the light is moving, we are moving trough time and space with the speed of "light". That's about 300.000km/sec. Light itself is only an energy leaving his source as a trail into the direction of the past time.
At the speed of light there is no time. So nothing can move. From the point of view from a person each distance is a possibility into the future. While we travel trough time we are able to see all options what the light is showing us from a point of view from a possible place in the future.
To make my idea clear I wrote the following text...
I would like to explain why the relativity theory of Einstein is wrong. Important to know is that I think that this must understandable for many people in a very simple way. The issue I try to prove with my idea is that our own consciousness ( the "now") is the absolute border of the universe. Tomorrow does not exist yet, so space and time of tomorrow do not exist. The only thing that really exist is the absolute moment what we call “now”. To explain this I have to prove that the speed of light is not 300.000km/sec but actually zero. I know that this sounds completely strange but read on and I will try to explain you in a short way how I think to prove this.
The first thing is that time seems to stop at the speed of light. So that there is no time. If time stops at light speed, how can something move if there is no time to move? Looking to the twin paradox a traveller trough space leaves the earth and comes back and is only 1 second older. The person on Earth is than for example 2 years older while he was traveling 30km/sec arround the sun.
If the traveller trough space only became one second older, he never could make a longer trip than 300.000km. He had only 1sec to travel! The person on earth was travelling in the same "period" at least 30km/sec trough space because that is the speed of earth around the sun. Well, 2 years x 30km/sec is a lot more than 300.000km.
Off course I have to explain a lot more than this, I just hope that I can open some eyes of the scientists working with this theory. If the relativity theory is relative, you also shoult try to look to it from a differrent perpective.. If light moves with 300.000km/sec one way, we are moving with the same speed the other way. Notice that we measure seconds, not the photon. You need time to move.
I would like to tell a lot more about the way it is possible that we can "see" things if light is not moving, also this is not to difficult to understand. From the point of view from the individual all other things you see are possibilities in the future. The person travels trough time (to tomorrow and so on...) while light leaves a trail into the past from the point of view in a possible futere.
I hope that you understand my idea and would like to show the people why Einstein was a bit wrong, he was just looking in the wrong direction. The idea of a multiversum is so a lot closer to mankind (everyone is the middle and the border of his own universe) and our consciousness is the border of the universe. We can choose our own future by acting.
I try to open a discusion about his theory.. My suggestion is that the lightspeed is the zero-point of time and space. We travel trough time with 1sec/300.000km. A different perspective, but why not?
Originally posted by rudolfh.: Thanx.. but I do not agree with Einstein..
I try to open a discusion about his theory.. My suggestion is that the lightspeed is the zero-point of time and space. We travel trough time with 1sec/300.000km. A different perspective, but why not?
There's no harm in reading up on the theory you say you disagree with so you know what you're disagreeing with.
You talk about the idea that time stops when you're travelling at the speed of light (if such a thing were possible). Where does that idea come from?
We can measure that "moving" clocks run slower. If it would be possible to travel with lightspeed, you would arive at the same time as your departure time.
We can use the twin paradox as an example to show what will happen if you travel almost at lichtspeed.
I would become 20 years older while my twinbrother make's a journey trough space, come's back and is only 1sec older.
( you know the twin paradox? )
How could my brother travel more than 300.000km if he only became 1sec older?
Originally posted by rudolfh.: We can measure that "moving" clocks run slower. If it would be possible to travel with lightspeed, you would arive at the same time as your departure time.
We can use the twin paradox as an example to show what will happen if you travel almost at lichtspeed.
I would become 20 years older while my twinbrother make's a journey trough space, come's back and is only 1sec older.
( you know the twin paradox? )
How could my brother travel more than 300.000km if he only became 1sec older?
In your first post you wrote: "To make my idea clear I wrote the following text... I would like to explain why the relativity theory of Einstein is wrong..." and then you write something that makes your idea extremely unclear. It sounds to me like your lack of clarity or lack of understanding is the problem here.
Originally posted by rudolfh.: Thanx.. but I do not agree with Einstein..
I try to open a discusion about his theory.. My suggestion is that the lightspeed is the zero-point of time and space. We travel trough time with 1sec/300.000km. A different perspective, but why not?
There's no harm in reading up on the theory you say you disagree with so you know what you're disagreeing with.
You talk about the idea that time stops when you're travelling at the speed of light (if such a thing were possible). Where does that idea come from?
Time seems to slow down our speed up when objects move.
You measure speed with a clock. If a clock moves slow and you measure a speed. The speed will be different as well.
If you always measure the same speed for light it must mean that the lightspeed is just a reffernceframe to measure our own speed trough time.
If the traveller trough space only became one second older, he never could make a longer trip than 300.000km. He had only 1sec to travel! The person on earth was travelling in the same "period" at least 30km/sec trough space because that is the speed of earth around the sun. Well, 2 years x 30km/sec is a lot more than 300.000km.
The resolution of this "paradox" is that space contracts. If you are stationary with respect to, say, Alpha Centauri, then Alpha Centauri appears to be 4 light years away.
However, if you are travelling towards Alpha Centauri at great speed, then the space between you and the star contracts (look up "Lorentz contraction"). The contraction is by a factor of 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) which is noticeable only when you are travelling very fast.
For example, if you travel towards Alpha Centauri at about 290,000km/s then the star will appear to be 1 light year away and it will take you just over a year to get there and another year to get back.
But according to people watching you, you will travel 4 light years and appear to take a bit over 8 years for the journey. So when you return home your twin will have aged 8 years while you have aged 2 years.
(The exact figures might be wrong because conversion from one reference frame to another is not straightforward).
Ultimately, in a photon's reference frame it exists for zero time and travels zero distance.
Why does scientist never tought about the idea of a absolute zeropoint in time and space?
The path of a light beam is called a null-geodesic in space-time. This is used as the basis for building objects called Spinors and Twistors which are an attempt to build physics based on coordinate systems that are more fundamental than space-time points and use complex numbers.
So, that's why I suggest that the speed of light is actualy zero.
I can understand your concern with regard to the speed of light. It has recently been shown that the speed of light in vacuo (c0) is actually zero! How can this be reconciled with 'current day physics'! The short answer is, I don't know! There is however a long answer (or rather, a question). What can replace 'quantum physics'?
quote:
Light is only a trail what leaves his source. His source ( mass) travels trought time and space, the light itself does not move.
Unfortunately for physics, the light travels through time and space as well as the source of the light (mass). This makes the 'correlation' between them 'difficult', to say the least!
quote:
Why does scientist never tought about the idea of a absolute zeropoint in time and space?
I'm sorry, but this statement doesn't make any semantic sense as to 'what your question is'!?
It's a logical conclusion that an absolute vacuum must have a temperature of absolute zero. There just isn't anything in it to cause a temperature. However, when the temperature gets very near to absolute zero light 'stops', even if there is still some 'mass' around. Read this report http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/02/17/waa117.xml and then google 'Bose-Einstein condensate' to make up your own mind on this.
It's a logical conclusion that an absolute vacuum must have a temperature of absolute zero. There just isn't anything in it to cause a temperature. However, when the temperature gets very near to absolute zero light 'stops', even if there is still some 'mass' around.
I'm not 100% suricat, but I think this might be covered in the difference between "Speed" & "Velocity" as-in: It takes a million years for a photon to get from the center of the Sun to the surface;but eight minutes to strike the surface of the Earth. No better! Light speed is relative to the observer .Man light is ace
I'm not 100% suricat, but I think this might be covered in the difference between "Speed" & "Velocity" as-in: It takes a million years for a photon to get from the center of the Sun to the surface;but eight minutes to strike the surface of the Earth.
The only difference between 'speed' and 'velocity' is that 'velocity' is a 'vectored quantity' that includes 'direction of travel', but 'speed' has no implied direction.
How can you compare a few hundred cold atoms in a lab experiment to the 'enormous' mass of a sun?
quote:
No better! Light speed is relative to the observer .
The lab, experiment and observers are all stationary! No, don't tell me. They 'blinked'!
BTW. Did you actually read the link and then google?
How can you compare a few hundred cold atoms in a lab experiment to the 'enormous' mass of a sun?
Everything is relative suricat
quote:
The lab, experiment and observers are all stationary! No, don't tell me. They !
Now We're talking about observers outside the vacuum! The relevant observers inside the vacuum would perhaps see no change in the photons speed. Again, its all relative suricat
Now We're talking about observers outside the vacuum! The relevant observers inside the vacuum would perhaps see no change in the photons speed. Again, its all relative suricat
Yes, it is all relative isn't it muf! The guys inside the vacuum didn't see any photon speed change! They're dead!!!
Yes, it is all relative isn't it muf! The guys inside the vacuum didn't see any photon speed change! They're dead!!!
sorry suricat, I was speaking hypothetically, of course the "few hundred cold atoms" can't actually observe the photons velocity , but this doesn't mean the speed of the photons will be affected necessarily relative to them(I think??)
sorry suricat, I was speaking hypothetically, of course the "few hundred cold atoms" can't actually observe the photons velocity , but this doesn't mean the speed of the photons will be affected necessarily relative to them(I think??)
Wrong! Apparently, T0 = E0. As a result everything 'stops'. How does this bode for the 'fastest' speed of light existing in an absolute vacuum when light, apparently, can't propagate at v0 (absolute vacuum)? Don't know why it's termed v0, it would be better represented as M0, or -vABS.
I guess you didn't 'google', did you. There isn't much said about the 'condensate's' affect upon the 'normal properties' of light propagation. Perhaps this 'article' will help your understanding more than my last link. http://www.strangehorizons.com/2001/20011210/bose-einstein.shtml Make note of the 'penultimate' paragraph; "Perhaps most interestingly, BECs have been used to slow the speed of light to a crawl -- from 186,282 miles per second (3x108 m/s) in a vacuum to 38 miles per hour (17 m/s) in a sodium BEC.", as most renditions about BEC only speak of any possible 'quantum' implication.
The main problem for quantum physics here is, I only think this because I don't follow quantum physics, 'because of quantum entanglement we can't predict any outcome'. Well, all I can say to that is that 'Newton rules OK'! Relativists, get your 'time line' sorted. You seem to be too much into 'philosophy' and not enough into the science of the 'real world'!
Well, that site gives you a lot of 'toys' that helps the understanding of how BEC is made (if you have the 'required' 'Java scripts' installed on your computer). However, it says nothing about the consequences that arise from the observations of BEC.
When you are ready for these, post again (or read my last 'link', then post).
Wrong! Apparently, T0 = E0. As a result everything 'stops'. How does this bode for the 'fastest' speed of light existing in an absolute vacuum when light, apparently, can't propagate at v0 (absolute vacuum)? Don't know why it's termed v0, it would be better represented as M0, or -vABS.
All this does suricat is reduce the distance[of a mile] to zero(or very near!). The speed of light remains constant and relativity still holds water. Where are you going with this?
