## Relativity

There is relativity of motion. Relative motion of two trains side by side is a good example of it. When you are sitting in one train, it is hard to determine which train is moving unless one looks at the “stationary” ground, or feels the vibration of motion.

But we find that there is relativity of location also. We may measure distances from a particular reference point. We may then refer that reference point from another reference point. We may keep doing that but we will never find some absolute reference point.

Similarly, we may find that there is relativity of duration. How long something endures may be measured relative to how long something else endures. We may keep doing that but we will never find some absolute duration.

#### So, location in space, and duration in time, are relative in themselves.

.

• vinaire  On June 19, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Einstein’s Special theory of relativity assumes the speed of light as an absolute. The whole theory of relativity is based on this assumption. What if this assumption is valid only in a narrow window, just as classical mechanics was?

What would be a wider scenario in which the speed of light may be found to be relative? How about if we consider the dimension of abstraction? What about the speed of the lightest thought in mental space?

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 19, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Trying to follow you. The speed of light being constant for all frames of reference is not to me the same as being absolute. Maybe I don’t know what you mean by absolute.

Like

• vinaire  On June 19, 2013 at 7:52 PM

For current science, the speed of light is being treated as absolute.

Earlier, space and time were being treated as absolute by Newton. But science got over that hump.

.

Like

• vinaire  On June 19, 2013 at 9:18 PM

The dimension beyond 4-D is the dimension of abstraction (from physical to mental). When we think of what is beyond physical space, we immediately get into speculation, which is part of the mental space. Also, as we move from physical perception to experience to information to hypothesis, theory, principles, axioms, etc., we are moving from the physical to mental in the dimension of abstraction.

So, the dimension beyond 4-D is the dimension of abstraction. There is physical space. Beyond that there is mental space of increasing abstraction.

I see electromagnetic wave as a ripple moving through the fabric of physical space. Similarly, I see thought as a ripple moving through the fabric of mental space. There are gradations of thought with increasing abstraction.

If we look at light, or electromagnetic wave, as a form of “physical” thought then we can think in terms of the speed of light being relative to the speed of “mental” thought.

Here we are looking at physics being the “outer shell” of a much wider subject of metaphysics.

.

Like

• vinaire  On June 19, 2013 at 9:34 PM

The physical perception itself is short of being absolutely objective per Kant.

So even the speed of light is to some degree subjective or abstract, by the fact that it is being received into awareness through perception,

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 20, 2013 at 8:33 AM

Vin: So, the dimension beyond 4-D is the dimension of abstraction.

Chris: All dimensions seem to be abstractions.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 19, 2013 at 10:17 PM

” When we think of what is beyond physical space, we immediately get into speculation, which is part of the mental space.”

This speculation is still part of the physical space. Just as what could not be seen over the horizon was physical space to the early sailors.

Like

• Anonymous  On June 19, 2013 at 10:23 PM

EM as you describe a wave moves only as a disturbance, not particle, and arrives as a similar disturbance to the original disturbance, but in space which is not transmitted foreign space.

EM as a particle would itself travel and this foreign particle from a distant source would finally arrive.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 19, 2013 at 10:42 PM

(This previous post was from me)

Probably both these two models are lacking.

Like

• vinaire  On March 2, 2016 at 9:50 AM

Chris said:
“EM as you describe a wave moves only as a disturbance, not particle, and arrives as a similar disturbance to the original disturbance, but in space which is not transmitted foreign space.

“EM as a particle would itself travel and this foreign particle from a distant source would finally arrive.”

I don’t understand what is meant by “original disturbance”.

Like

• vinaire  On June 20, 2013 at 4:00 AM

The String Theory is part of the mental space.

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 20, 2013 at 7:41 AM

Vin: The String Theory is part of the mental space.

Chris: But also of physical space. Is it important to make the difference? I am not convinced this is the 5th dimension or is it? Why?

Like

• vinaire  On June 20, 2013 at 12:09 PM

The String Theory is an abstraction. It is a conjecture still,

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 21, 2013 at 7:13 AM

Vin: The String Theory is an abstraction. It is a conjecture still,

Chris: We are weaseling our way back to the considerations. What in this context is not a conjecture?

Like

• vinaire  On June 21, 2013 at 7:18 AM

Conjecture is part of a hypothesis. When hypothesis is proved to be consistent with reality, it becomes a theory.

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 21, 2013 at 8:06 AM

We seem to be talking about two kinds of consistency. “Consistent” and also “consistent with reality.” We should keep this in mind.

Like

• vinaire  On June 21, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Consistency is relative too, and I don’t worry too much about consistency. My focus is on resolving inconsistencies because that is how I discover something new for myself.

I am very interested in inconsistencies at a fundamental level and that is the strategy that has been guiding me.

.

Like

• vinaire  On June 20, 2013 at 4:30 AM

Constancy of the speed of light in physical space means that space and time are intertwined. They are part of the same reality. Tinkering with the measure of time unavoidably affects the measure of space.

Similar thing may happen with thought in mental space at each level of abstraction. Mental time and mental space may be intertwined. The subjective sense of time when slowed may increase the details of mental perception as the mental ‘distance’ gets stretched. This we experience during the moments of extreme urgency as in a car accident.

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 20, 2013 at 7:44 AM

Vin: This we experience during the moments of extreme urgency as in a car accident.

Chris: Good analogy. This tells me that our own abstraction may be slowed or accelerated.

Like

• vinaire  On June 20, 2013 at 5:07 AM

What is setting an upper limit to the speed of light is the degree of physicality. As we move into the subjectivity of abstraction, this upper limit of this speed may change.

Physicality is where science seems to operate. Here one is dealing with physical matter, energy, space and time. As we move toward the abstraction of thought, we move into the abstraction of matter, energy, space and time.

What is the abstraction of matter? It is our ideas. Each idea may be viewed mentally as a thing. Symbols and mental images representing physical things, become mental matter.

The abstraction of mental energy would be the activity among these symbols and mental images. There is mental pressure. There is mental force. There is mental attraction. There could be mathematical relationships operating here that are yet to be discovered.

This mental matter and mental energy may operate in mental space and time. Principles of relativity may be applied to mental space and time. There may be an upper limit to the propagation of mental energy. There may be some mental equivalent of light.

What could be that equivalent?

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 20, 2013 at 8:31 AM

Vin: What is setting an upper limit to the speed of light is the degree of physicality.

Chris: What is setting the lower limit is as important a clue as the upper limit. Also use of the word “limit” may be misleading in this philosophical context.

Like

• vinaire  On June 20, 2013 at 12:15 PM

The lower limit will always be zero in totally opaques substances.

.

Like

• vinaire  On June 21, 2013 at 4:26 AM

I have so far identified 5 independent dimensions as follows:

(1) Space x
(2) Space y
(3) Space z
(4) Time
(5) Abstraction

.

The least degree of abstraction is associated with physical perception. Abstraction increases with the following steps:

Experience,
Information,
Hypothesis,
Theory,
Principles,
Axioms
self.

Self seems to be the most abstract form of reality.

.

All these dimensions are aspects of the same reality.

At the moment, when I say “space” I am inclusive of all these dimensions. Einstein’s concept of space-time includes the first 4 dimensions. I can call it ‘space-time-abstraction’ but that is too cumbersome. Maybe I can represent it by space-T-A.

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 21, 2013 at 7:30 AM

Vin: Self seems to be the most abstract form of reality.

Chris: I can see how you would say that. Now we should look at the abstraction of identification which is the glue of self.

Like

• vinaire  On June 21, 2013 at 4:44 AM

The dimensions considered in String Theory are mathematical conjectures. Conjectures become real abstractions only when they are found to be consistent with reality.

That is why Einstein’s Theory is so powerful. But the String Theory has gotten no where. This is the difference between theory and hypothesis.

As one moves in the direction of abstraction, more reality is gained. So, the direction of abstraction may also be referred to as the direction of reality.

.

Like

• vinaire  On June 21, 2013 at 4:52 AM

There can be local inconsistencies at each level of abstraction, such as, the following:

Perception –> Engram
Experience –> Unwanted feeling or emotion
Information –> Indoctrination
Hypothesis –> Belief
Theory –> Doctrine
Principles –> Fixed ideas
Axioms –> Fixed viewpoints
Self –> Fixed identity

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 21, 2013 at 7:32 AM

So then in this view, ideologies are both more abstract and more consistent.

Like

• vinaire  On June 21, 2013 at 7:42 AM

Let’s get on Skype this weekend. My skypename is ‘vinaire’.

Sent from my iPhone

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 21, 2013 at 8:19 AM

I think mine is christhompson85301.

Like

• vinaire  On June 21, 2013 at 1:57 PM

I have sent you a request to be on your contact list.

.

Like

• vinaire  On June 21, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Being fixed is not the same thing as being consistent. Scientology is an ideology. It is quite fixed like any ideology. It may be consistent to a degree within itself. But I don’t think it is very consistent with broad reality, especially at a fundamental level as I have pointed out.

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 21, 2013 at 6:59 PM

This is for me a 3-D fractal and difficult to embrace. We have to be careful what conclusions we jump to or we will end up with another ideology. Consistency can be viewed a few ways using a few metaphors. Example: Solve a Rubic’s Cube so that all colors are consistent on each face. Quite a few gyrations but in the end, one has a cube with consistent colors on its faces. How do you suppose this applies to this discussion?

Like

• vinaire  On June 21, 2013 at 7:09 PM

i·de·ol·o·gy noun, plural i·de·ol·o·gies.

1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.

2. such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.

3. Philosophy .
___ a. the study of the nature and origin of ideas.
___ b. a system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation.

4. theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature.

[Ideology = a body of ideas]

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 22, 2013 at 3:07 AM

I think it is correct to talk of relativity, but I also think that much relativity is abstraction of our own. Do you?

Like

• vinaire  On June 22, 2013 at 5:32 AM

These are all thought experiments. What inconsistency do you see?

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 26, 2013 at 12:27 AM

Vin: These are all thought experiments. What inconsistency do you see?

Chris: A natural tendency for us to abstract models, and then upon viewing our working models, declare them objective. Not pointing any fingers, just wanting to be careful. I’m saying I don’t want to assert my own delusion as the solution for cosmic censorship, etc.,.

Like

• vinaire  On June 26, 2013 at 7:17 AM

The solution to any delusion is mindfulness. That is where TRAINING IN MINDFULNESS comes handy.

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 26, 2013 at 8:04 AM

Mindfulness is a mechanism we all have which manifests in many metaphors, degrees, and forms such as “conscience.” It also seems to be a skill which can be honed and sharpened. It also has the potential of being structured thereby becoming an ideology. I am being careful of this.

Like

• vinaire  On June 26, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Mindfulness will become an ideology only by not being mindful.

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 26, 2013 at 3:15 PM

More tautology! We may be getting nowhere which may be somewhere!

Like

• vinaire  On June 26, 2013 at 4:12 PM

But that is the truth! 🙂

My operating basis is just to be mindful and not worry about ideology.

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 26, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Understood! But there is a certain circularity to this which may be showing us something.

Like

• vinaire  On June 26, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Please explain some more. I am not quite sure what inconsistency you are looking at.

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 26, 2013 at 9:12 PM

i·de·ol·o·gy /ˌīdēˈäləjē/

Noun

A system of ideas and ideals, esp. one that forms the basis of economic or political policy: “the ideology of republicanism”. The ideas and manner of thinking of a group, social class, or individual: “a critique of bourgeois ideology”.

Chris: The circularity is that we work up these models for understanding and the models become ideology. I’m trying not to let ideologies do my thinking for me. Then I’m being mindful and looking at all the ramifications of that and pretty soon I’m looking through a new filter of mindfulness. I’m not sure there is a way around this.

Like

• vinaire  On June 26, 2013 at 9:29 PM

In mindfulness one does not resist but experiences fully. The number 7 from 12 STEPS OF MINDFULNESS is

7. Experience fully what is there.

An important aspect of mindfulness is to fully experience what is there, such as, feelings, emotions, efforts, etc. But before you do that, make sure that your environment is safe and free of disturbance. The mind should be free of stimulants. If the mind is racing, then simply experience that racing phenomenon without contributing to it. There should be no resistance when experiencing. Fully experience whatever the mind presents naturally.

.

So go ahead and experience the ideology fully.

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 26, 2013 at 9:46 PM

Vin: So go ahead and experience the ideology fully.

Chris: LOL! Ok, I will!

Like

• vinaire  On June 22, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Mass is simply postulated from the resistance of an object to change in velocity. If there is no such resistance then there is no mass. This resistance decreases as acceleration increases. What is the direct explanation for this phenomenon?

.

Motion is not going to provide an escape from this universe. Motion may entangle one more, and that is what seems to be happening. Uniform velocity and ‘being at rest’ seems to be the same thing in this universe. Any change in velocity brings in inherent resistance. How can one get rid of this resistance?

.

Looking at the transition from physical to mental to spiritual as the dimension of abstraction removes a lot of mystery attached to this area. Material or force can be mental and spiritual too. It is simply more abstract.

Physical universe does not exist in isolation. Physical, mental and spiritual are different aspects of the same reality. It is an error to consider them as standalone.

.

It is better to look at mass as ‘tendency to resist’, generally known as inertia. The whole universe is made up of this tendency to resist becoming solid. The more one resists, the more one seems to be trapped in this universe physically, mentally and spiritually. All the objects that are there seems to be there because they are resisting change.

.

Like

• vinaire  On June 23, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Duration of something may be a measure of how much resistance has taken place. Unwinding of resistance may make something enduring to disappear.

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 26, 2013 at 12:30 AM

Vin: What is the direct explanation for this phenomenon?

Chris: Cosmic Planck Second appearances per second.

Like

• vinaire  On June 26, 2013 at 7:12 AM

Is Planck second an absolute duration? What makes it a constant?

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 26, 2013 at 8:00 AM

The oscillation of EM – light?

Like

• vinaire  On June 26, 2013 at 12:17 PM

How?

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 26, 2013 at 3:14 PM

I don’t follow – How it oscillates?

Like

• vinaire  On June 26, 2013 at 4:11 PM

My original questions were

“Is Planck second an absolute duration? What makes it a constant?”

I didn’t get your reasoning behind oscillation. Could you explain that please. Thanks.

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 26, 2013 at 6:37 AM

Vin: It is an error to consider them as standalone.

Chris: And we won’t anymore.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 26, 2013 at 7:26 AM

Vin: Uniform velocity and ‘being at rest’ seems to be the same thing in this universe.

Chris: I’ve tried to start a comment in this three times. I have a jumble of observations about this. Appearance, when it occurs, seems to have appearance in common with any appearance — more tautology. What of a “moving” wave vs a “standing” wave? What of the no mass of light (no pun) vs the all mass of black holes? What do these manifestations have in common? Next week, I’m going to try to publish a few observations on time and motion in space. This week I am slammed with getting out some paperwork for customers ending their fiscal year this month.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 26, 2013 at 7:26 AM

Looking at the transition from physical to mental to spiritual as the dimension of abstraction removes a lot of mystery attached to this area. Material or force can be mental and spiritual too. It is simply more abstract.

This is a good model.

Like

• vinaire  On June 22, 2013 at 12:44 PM

It is difficult to distinguish between something moving at a uniform speed and something at rest. How do we know that something that is at rest is not moving uniformly at the speed of light? How do we know that we are not moving uniformly at the sped of light?

How should something moving uniformly at the speed of light appear?

.

Inertia would manifest itself immediately after something, which is already moving at the speed of light, is pushed. Push back would exactly equal the push.

The upper limit of speed of light would apply to the relative speed of two objects. So, if an object already moving at the speed of light is pushed, the push back may reduce the speed of that which is pushing. Only the difference in two speeds would be perceived.

So, the inertia that would be perceived is relative only. It would relate to the reduction in mass of the object pushing, as it slows down from the speed of light. Looks like mass is a relative quantity.

What is negative inertia? Then what is matter? How is matter different from mass? Is matter the form of energy that is pushed beyond the upper limit of the speed of light? How does something abstract become more concrete?

.

Force seems to move one from one frame of reference to another. There seems to be a better explanation here of what force really is.

.

When everything in a frame of reference is at rest then the relative mass everywhere is zero. As soon as force is applied acceleration as well as mass (resistance) appears. It seems to shift the frame of reference. Mass then seems to be the property of the frame of reference.

What is the frame of reference, anyway?

.

Like

• vinaire  On June 23, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Anti-gravity may manifest itself when something already moving at its upper limit of velocity is pushed.

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 26, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Pushed, pulled, or gathered.

Like

• vinaire  On June 26, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Well pull will reduce the velocity which is possible. It is just that velocity cannot exceed the speed of light.

I have no idea what you mean by gathered.

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 26, 2013 at 9:31 PM

gathered = possible elasticity of space-time

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 29, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Some of this I followed and some of it I didn’t. The main thing I’m trying to understand right now is why we aren’t song the same thing with regards to the constant speed of light.

The reason I harp on this is that it is at the core of my concepts about the discreetness of the universe.

Like

• vinaire  On June 29, 2013 at 5:43 PM

I am very much aware of your ideology that discreteness is absolute. I see discreteness as an aspect of phenomenon and not as an absolute.

Whole math is based on discreteness, but math also says that this discreteness is just an aspect because there is the irrational number. Please see

Going Beyond Counting

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 29, 2013 at 6:41 PM

Vin: I am very much aware of your ideology that discreteness is absolute.

Chris: Never used the word absolute. That is your hobbyhorse. I’m just looking for how things can come together without riding a bias. The speed of light is constant whether through a vacuum or a consistent medium… It doesn’t appear to slow down nor speed up gradually. It is simply iterating as steady as a clock, and it either doesn’t need energy added to it as it travels to maintain its velocity or else something else is going on.

Number one question of the day is does the light emanated from a distant start reach us as particles emanated from that star or does the light emanated from a distant star reach us as a disturbance of the space which is conducted by that space?

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 29, 2013 at 9:15 PM

Every graphical description, (picture) of a massive heavenly body sitting in the fabric of space, has that space pictured as bending around the heavenly body rather than the grid lines bending inward toward the center of the massive object. This seems backwards to me.

Like

• vinaire  On August 30, 2013 at 6:25 PM

I am not quite sure what that grid represents, Maybe it represents a distortion of space without accurately representing that distortion.

To me a planet in space would be more like a tumor in flesh.

.

Like