[Reference: Mindful Subject Clearing (MSC)]
.
From Wikipedia:
Physics (from Greek φυσική (ἐπιστήμη), i.e. “knowledge of nature”, from φύσις, physis, i.e. “nature”) is the natural science that involves the study of matter and its motion through space and time, along with related concepts such as energy and force. More broadly, it is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves.
This is an open thread where the fundamentals of physics shall be discussed. This post shall be added to with meaningful ideas as the discussion develops.
The fundamental concepts seems be the following (Note: we shall be using SI units):
Mass – kilogram (M), Length – meter (L), Time – second (T)
From these we derive the following concepts in mechanics:
Velocity – m/s (L/T), Acceleration – m/s2 (L/T2), Force – Newton (ML/T2),
Work, Energy – Joule (ML2/T2), Power – j/s (ML2/T3)
In Mechanics, two fascinating concepts are Motion and Inertia.
.
In Electricity, I am looking at the following concepts:
Charge – Coulomb (C), Current – Ampere (I), Voltage – Volt (V)
The most fascinating concept is that of Charge.
-
Charge is quantized as a multiple of the electron or proton charge (e). One Coulomb of charge is the charge which would flow through a 120 watt lightbulb (120 volts AC) in one second.
-
The influence of charges is characterized in terms of the forces between them. Two charges of one Coulomb each separated by a meter would repel each other with a force of about a million tons!
-
Charge produces electric field and voltage.
.
A more fascinating concept is that of field from Wikipedia:
Maxwell, at first, did not adopt the modern concept of a field as fundamental entity that could independently exist. Instead, he supposed that the electromagnetic field expressed the deformation of some underlying medium—the luminiferous aether—much like the tension in a rubber membrane. If that were the case, the observed velocity of the electromagnetic waves should depend upon the velocity of the observer with respect to the aether. Despite much effort, no experimental evidence of such an effect was ever found; the situation was resolved by the introduction of the theory of special relativity by Albert Einstein in 1905. This theory changed the way the viewpoints of moving observers should be related to each other in such a way that velocity of electromagnetic waves in Maxwell’s theory would be the same for all observers. By doing away with the need for a background medium, this development opened the way for physicists to start thinking about fields as truly independent entities.
A charge produces a field. A brief acceleration of the charge produces a disturbance in the field that propagates at the speed of light. The animation provided at the preceding link is insightful.
When we look at this animation, the viewpoint is covering the whole extent of motion without moving itself. This may be considered the “viewpoint of the universe” with respect to actual propagation of light in cosmic space. The “velocity of the observer” does not enter the picture.
We run into problem when the viewpoint is reduced to that of the “body of the observer” and much smaller than the size of the universe. Now the “velocity of the observer” enters the picture.
Einstein assumes that the viewpoint is limited to the body of the observer and, therefore, the viewpoint has a velocity. But when we expand the viewpoint to the size of the universe then no “velocity of the observer” is necessary.
The special theory of relativity seems to depend on the assumption that viewpoint can have a velocity.
.
In mindfulness, there is no viewpoint separate from what is being observed. So, the “velocity” of the viewpoint is the same as the velocity of what is being observed.
Science is observing the universe. So, the correct viewpoint is that of the universe. A universe is all that exists.
The net velocity of the universe shall be indeterminate because there is nothing else to compare it to. The net velocity of the universe relative to itself shall be zero.
So, the velocity of a scientific viewpoint shall be zero.
In other words, the velocity of the scientific observer shall be zero relative to the resultant velocity of the universe. From the viewpoint of the scientific observer, the maximum velocity of light shall always be c.
.
The velocity of a wave on the surface of the pond depends on the properties of water filling that pond.
The velocity of sound wave depends on the properties of the medium, such as, air, in which it is travelling.
The velocity of the light wave also depends on the properties of the medium, such as, glass, in which it is traveling. The problem has been that light can travel in space where, apparently, there is no medium.
The medium in outer space is not made up of atoms and molecules. It is made up of the “field” that also exists within an atom, but much concentrated.
The vacuum of space seems to be a field similar to the field existing within the atoms of matter.
.
Albert Einstein stated in 1920: ”We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”
To me, this medium is a universal field. This field has indeterminate motion because there is nothing else to compare its motion to. Its motion is zero relative to the universe as a whole. Therefore, this field also acts as the universal frame of reference for all the velocities within the universe.
It requires some primitive form of energy to disturb this field. A disturbance of this field gives birth to space and time with the manifestations of electromagnetic radiation. This disturbance has a frequency. This frequency increases as more energy is pumped in.
At some point frequency causes discreteness (wave packets, photons) to appear. These photons may not have mass, but they have inertia (resistance to motion). This inertia occurs because the speed of the disturbance cannot be increased beyond that allowed by the physical properties (permittivity and permeability) of the field.
As more energy is pumped in, this inertia acquires the appearance of mass. Thus, the following evolution seems to take place:
Energy + Field = disturbance
>>> wave + frequency
>>> photon + inertia
>>> particles + mass
>>> atoms and molecules
Thus, expansion of this space-time universe occurs as energy of some primitive form gets pumped into this field.
.
Here is how this conjecture is developing:
-
The universal field of modern aether is pre-spacetime.
-
Spacetime is generated from the disturbance of this universal field.
-
The fundamental harmonic of this disturbance manifests as the basic spacetime, where the frequency of the disturbance is close to zero, the wave-length is almost infinite, and the period is infinite too.
-
Subsequent harmonics have higher frequencies and shorter wavelengths and period. Each harmonic acts as an overlay of spacetime.
-
Increasing frequency generates increasing inertia.
-
At sufficient higher frequencies, inertia generates discreteness, such as that of photon.
-
At still higher frequencies and shorter wavelengths, inertia generates particles with mass.
-
There are particles of increasing complexity until electrons, protons and neutrons are generated.
-
Thus come about atoms, elements, the periodic table, the molecules and compounds.
-
And, so we have a universe of objects with forms.
This model explains why Michelson-Morley’s experiment shall detect no “aether wind.”
.
Conjecture #5 above postulates, “Increasing frequency generates increasing inertia.” Thus the speed of the electromagnetic radiation shall be slower at higher end of the frequency spectrum compared to the lower end. This seems to be confirmed by the following article.
High Energy Gamma Rays Go Slower Than the Speed of Light?
And also by Wikipedia entry: Markarian 501
.
Conjectures #3 and #4 above may be expressed further as follows:
The universal field may be viewed as “Disturbance = 0″. The frequency is 0. The space (wavelength) and time (period) associated with this field are infinite. This is like a theoretical absolute for space and time.
The next level of disturbance is “Disturbance = 1″. The frequency is 1 (20) Hz. The space (wavelength) and time (period) associated with this disturbance has finite value yet to be determined. These would supply some constant units of space and time.
The next level of disturbance is “Disturbance = 2″. The frequency is 2 (21) Hz. The space (wavelength) and time (period) associated with this disturbance would be half of the constants determined above.
The next level of disturbance is “Disturbance = 3″. The frequency is 4 (22) Hz. The space (wavelength) and time (period) associated with this disturbance would be quarter of the constants determined above.
…
The nth level of disturbance is “Disturbance = n″. The frequency is 2n-1 Hz. The space (wavelength) and time (period) associated with this disturbance would be 1/2n-1 of the constants determined above.
And so on.
.
The “disturbance” parameter for visible light of frequency 4 x 1014 to 8 x 1014 shall be approximately 49 to 50 compared to the “disturbance” parameter of 1 for a 1 Hz electromagnetic wave. The “disturbance” parameter at the upper end of the electromagnetic spectrum would be about 66-67.
The velocity of light is 3 x 105 km/sec. The velocity of electromagnetic radiation of low level “disturbance” shall be greater than the velocity of light because it has much lower inertia (resistance to motion). The opposite shall be the case for high level “disturbances.”
The “disturbance” levels beyond 70 shall be those of particles with mass variety.
The layer of “Disturbance = 0″ shall have infinite velocity. This would be the layer of fundamental spacetime, which would gradually transition to electromagnetic type disturbance.
Electromagnetism may start from “Disturbance = 1″ but the velocity at this low level shall be much higher than the velocity of light.
Beyond “Disturbance = 67” electromagnetism may gradually transition to disturbances of particles with mass variety such as the electron. Here the velocity shall be much lower than the velocity of light.
Thus the universe seems to be made up of layered “disturbances” that are expanding at different rates. The lower level “disturbances” are expanding at much higher rates than the high level “disturbances.”
.
Comments
How did Coulomb measure the charge when he came up with his famous law? He must have measured the charge somehow independently of force of attraction between charges.
Wish you a very good year!!!!! but why are you reading my post?? we have nothing in common… absolutely nothing,,, not even being a human because by now what I have learned-realized through my confrontation of lies I have leaned so far—- brought me to the understanding that I am not one… be well.
Wish you a very good year too. I don’t think I am reading your post because you haven’t been in my universe.
the link when I have pushed it has taken me to your blog. no problem
The special theory of relativity seems to depend on the assumption that observer can have a velocity. Is this assumption correct?
Here is excellent animation of what happens in an electric field when a charge accelerates.
http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/empulse.html
This acceleration causes a disturbance in the electric field that travels at the speed of light.
When we look at this animation, the viewpoint is covering the whole extent of motion without moving itself.
Therefore, isn’t the “velocity of observer” an arbitrary assumption?
[See further details in the post above.]
In mindfulness, there is no viewpoint separate from what is being observed. So, the “velocity” of the viewpoint is the same as the velocity of what is being observed.
Science is observing the universe. So, the correct viewpoint is that of the universe. A universe is all that exists.
The net velocity of the universe shall be indeterminate because there is nothing else to compare it to. The net velocity of the universe relative to itself shall be zero.
So, the velocity of a scientific viewpoint shall be zero.
Or, we may say that the awareness from the scientific viewpoint is instantaneous. It does not depend on the speed of light.
.
In other words, the velocity of the scientific observer shall be zero relative to the resultant velocity of the universe.
.
From the viewpoint of the scientific observer, the maximum velocity of light shall always be c.
.
The velocity of a wave on the surface of the pond depends on the properties of water filling that pond.
The velocity of sound wave depends on the properties of the medium, such as, air, in which it is travelling.
The velocity of the light wave also depends on the properties of the medium, such as, glass, in which it is traveling. The problem has been that light can travel in space where, apparently, there is no medium.
The medium in outer space is not made up of atoms and molecules. It is made up of the “field” that exists within an atom, but much diluted.
What we think of as space, is actually this field.
.
If we take the universal viewpoint then the idea of simultaneity boils down to when the light waves from two different events intersect at a location in space. Obviously, what appears to be simultaneous at one location won’t appear to be simultaneous at another location.
We can have a universal location and a universal time from a universal viewpoint (universal frame of reference).
I don’t understand why you think this.
The following link might help you understand it.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html
.
Please state the inconsistency as it appears to you.
The Theory of Relativity starts making a lot more sense if we replace the “velocity of the observer” by “the velocity of awareness”.
The “velocity of awareness” is same as the “speed of light”. There is the moment of change, and then there is the moment when the observer becomes aware of that change. The difference between these two moments is determined by the speed of light (in the universal field of space).
We can look at both these moments (the moment of change, and the moment of awareness of that change) simultaneously in the universal frame of reference. This is because, in this frame, we are dealing with thought, which is not dependent on the “speed of light.”
This universal frame of reference introduces the element of “instantaneous thought” into the Theory of Relativity.
Now this is getting to be more interesting.
c seems to be a velocity, not just a speed.
Speed / Time = Velocity = c
Relativity seems to describe a constant relationship rather than only a speed. I am trying to understand the ramifications of this, how it relates to time dilation, and not keep getting hung up on speed.
Velocity is a vector while speed is a scalar.
Velocity = speed + direction.
Speed is the magnitude part of velocity.
Did you understand it?
Speed / Time = acceleration, and not velocity.
We’ll discuss it in our session on Skype today evening.
You make a very good point about Einstein’s assumption of a viewpoint limited to the body of the observer. The textbook diagrams showing relativity of simultaneity constrained by the speed of light collapse if we take a viewpoint large enough to include both the points under consideration.
An observer outside the MEST universe, or bigger than that universe, would be in a universal frame of reference – i.e. a static.
Welcome to this blog, David, and thanks for your comment.
One can only go as broad as the universe in “real” terms when constructing a viewpoint.
I do not know if the universe has a boundary, but when one models beyond the universe one gets into the domain of “imagination”.
There is nothing wrong with imagination. That is where creativity seems to lie.
STATIC to me would be a universal viewpoint with respect to itself, which can be real and not imaginary.
.
In 3 occasion in sessions I have found my self outside of the MEST Universe.. and where I was there was only intangible infinite -ness as I ”’looked”around I have seen one point a light but it was just a tinny dot.. As I pondered what that dot could be I realised that it was the Universe the MEST.
What I was aware of I still would call that my viewpoint-experience since I was aware of what I have seen as a Entity. In my reality if one is aware of, have knowledge of something than that knowledge which one is aware of belongs to self… but again I do not have a clue who else is aware at the same time of what I am experiencing=being aware of.
By now I am aware of that we.. any one can be aware of only their creation, what their experience is and cant say that others or the Universe too knows that… that would be assuming, guessing what others could know.
I don’t think that I understand what CREATION is.
.
your experience… what any person experience in any given moment.
your feelings, sensations, what you are aware of.. they would not exist if you would not put it there. the touch, smell, weight, colors, any sensation when you are in presence of your grand son. this is a example.
Does one pick it up from one place and put it in another? This makes one a conversion unit.
Creation is probably a [type of] change in awareness.
When one is observing multiple objects, one may see all those objects moving from one’s own frame of reference, which is assumed to be the body. Basically, The Theory of Relativity assumes the frame of reference to be an object within the universe. In my opinion, if one takes the viewpoint of the universe, it will make the observation much simpler. I plan to review the Theory of Relativity from the viewpoint of the universe.
.
Isn’t the speed of sound in air is also constant in all frames of reference, just like the speed of light?
The only difference is that sound cannot propagate in the vacuum of space. But the same math should apply to the wave nature of sound and light.
So, the contraction of space and time seems to depend on how we mathematically construct frames of reference. With the theory of relativity physics may be getting into the field of mind here.
I remain confused on the analogy of “sound vs light waves.” Sound is a compression wave of energy relying on a medium such as air or water and the energy disburses and peters out in a short distance.. Light is a (what?) “electromagnetic” wave. Does EM rely on a medium for transmission? Light attracted Albert Einstein’s curiosity supposedly because it did not require such a medium. Light travels in wave packets. What does this mean? I suppose I do not know. Written another way, do packets of energy travel from stars across vast distances and arrive to be received by our eyes and abstracted into images by our brains? Sound images arrive by movement of the medium and physically jiggle our eardrums before being abstracted or focused by our brains into images. Light waves jiggle metals that they pass by and induce electrons to kick of their orbits. Sounds operate in the macro frame of reference and light operates in smaller bits frame of reference. They seem to be analogous and yet:
1. Sound waves travel different speeds in different mediums and are transmitted more efficiently meaning farther and faster in more solid mediums. A “shock” wave and a sound wave seem to be similar. 2. Light waves travel different speeds in different mediums and are less efficiently transmitted in more solid mediums meaning nearer and slower in more solid mediums. A “shock” wave and a light wave to not seem to be similar.
What does this comparison mean about the analogy between the two? Though these disturbances in our environment are analogous, they do not seem to be very similar and so I do not have confidence that the physical calculations between the two are very similar.
Math tells us that the velocity of waves depends upon the properties of media it travels in. That is as true for light as it is for sound.
The theory of ether was invalidated by Einstein in 1905 because ether was thought to be made up for atoms, and evidence of it was not found. Later in the 20s, Eistein start to talk about ether as a medium for light in space, but this ether was not made of any particles. This ether was made up of a field.
Space has physical properties. Space is a physical entity, but it is not matter. Space is a field.
We have crossed the line where it is no longer useful to make analogies for the physics that underpin the Newtonian Physics layered on top. We are going to have to look until the quanta reveal themselves as they are and not as what they are like.
Chris.. love to read about the sound what is…. I never have recalled sound unless had a body which had the hearing instrument.. I recalled when had a body but did not have the hearing instrument installed that is called here deaf-ness .
But one of my interesting recall was when on purpose the hearing was destroyed and one’s universe was once more silent… [Some order of Monks dramatize these at the present time by agreeing to silence]
When one experiences total silence many barriers fall of way and one reality shifts tremendously and with that awareness opens up too [since noise holds ones attention and on this Planet total silence do not exist.]
the noise do hit the body from every direction and the main instrument inside which is the heart keeps one anchored 100% to the body. The heart is the main anchor and when that stops in that moment the Soul is released.
Sounds, hearing, is one of the major anchor for the entity.
Vinaire: With the theory of relativity physics may be getting into the field of mind here.
Chris: It seems that physics has always been in the field of the mind. Our ability to correctly interpret how that occurs is physics.
The concepts of ‘frame of reference’ and ‘viewpoint’ are a reflection of each other across the physics-metaphysics interface.
.
Math associated with Frames of Reference in Lorentz Transformations and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is actually the math of viewpoint.
That is why Einstein has been so appealing. We are looking at the subjective-objective interface. We are looking at the mathematics of self.
”In mindfulness, there is no viewpoint separate from what is being observed. So, the “velocity” of the viewpoint is the same as the velocity of what is being observed.” this I understand and agree to but to the rest my English is not good enough..
Basically, the scientific viewpoint shall be that of the universe from which all the parts of the universe are then viewed. In my opinion, the scientific principles shall be based on the universal viewpoint.
looking forward to read your viewpoints and of course the post from others too… but I don’t know if I can comment since I never studied scientific stuff… not this life anyway. if you have question for me which would direct me to find the answer that could be help… but I cant ask since I don’t know what to ask…
I understand your dilemma. But I thinkt that you are young enough to start doing MSC (Mindful Subject Clearing) on Physics.
Let’s start with the word PHYSICS. Look it up in a good dictionary per
https://vinaire.me/2013/12/14/mindfulness-and-word-clearing/
.
Dear Vinaire… not interested… I love the magical reality: the universe of Fairies, Gnomes, Little People and Giants… dew drops an end of the grass, flowers …. nature… as you wont be looking into where the Fairies or the Giants originated from since not likely you have interest on those subjects you can understand than that subject of physics don’t belong into my universe, even knowing that the Magical Universe too is energy and nothing more but illusions but still I have love for illusions like that. But thank you anyway.
People who like illusions, live with illusions. But there is nothing wrong with that. One must follow one’s interest.
My interest is to understand what is there.
right…and science is not illusion?
Just as there are different types of animals, similarly there are different types of illusions.
.
and fairies are not there? millions of articles are written about that subject and interestingly they are painted , drawn by many artists. And most interesting that a person who never seen on artist’s painting of a fairy or a gnome will paint or draw a very similar or replica of those images even the coloring would be the same or very similar. Children believe in these transparent bodied beings and children can see them too!
every idea any scientist ever had was at first a thought, and from there that scientist went on to make that ”thought” happen in solid form… they do everything in order to prove that thought is real.. it exist… hehehe… very interesting. what are thoughts? where they originated from? and who is to say that one thought is more real, than other thoughts are? just because that child or me, or millions of others who believe in existence of Fairies our believes are same as any scientist the difference is that we believe totally and nothing can shake our belief but a scientist only believe in something when sees it in ”solid”shape” . now that do say something. you see simply knowing or one must prove that exist before one believes in,there is a big difference in the two.
Elizabeth, Of course we love the magical reality! This is what drives two old geezers like Vinaire and me to study everyday. You think we are in love with paper and pencils? (Well, actually, yes we do love paper and pencils but paper and pencils are also part of the magical reality.) We see magic in everything around us and it takes our breath away. Physics is just a word but it is a word that is big enough to embrace all that is. ~ Chris
PS: I sent off some spit in a test tube to have my DNA tested and mapped to show how my ancestors moved about the world for a few thousands of years. How many humans came and went to finally have me wind up here bloviating on Vinaire’s blog. This seems fun to me.
That sounds fantastic… I hope you will post the results! yes… you are right about the magic, what ever we experience is magic.. and there is nothing more to this universe. I guess I just look for magic in different directions… bloody hell, if you two call yourselfs old geezers and your body have not reached 70 yet, where that puts my body..? close to cremation…? But, being intangible and infinite that can not be called old, or young.. or anything at all. My poor little critter had her buster for rabies today, it must be bothering her because she is walking up and down and letting out huge yells! When we were blogging at Geirs I had session on what is light wave and I have seen it first hand how it traveled in space and how the flow lookedlike and what happened to it when the light wave reached the Planet and how those light particles some was integrated into the planets energy but some gotten back to space again and how they traveled -fanned out some particles hit some other surfaces but most of the light melted and become part of space-energy… that is when I realised that darkness don’t exist but to the ”eyes ” only and there is no such a thing as void-emptiness. something’s the ”eyes cant perceive” and those concepts only exist because one is ”looking” but by looking with eyes, well, that do not give the true picture..
True picture comes from using all six senses. Mind is one of the sense organs.
.
#1. You would be called geezerette. Young and feminine form of geezer. #2. Yes, I see a universe full of waves of light in every direction, as you say just not with my eyes but in my mind. If we were able to see all the light that is present with our eyes, it would look very noisy to our eyes, like the inside of a storm. The eyes and ears see and hear only a little bit and that little bit is the human experience. A narrow little bit that prevents our minds from being trying to process too much information about the world. Thus we live and exist in a tiny little sliver of existence. Just my opinion of course except on #1 as you are definitely geezerette and a member of Unknowables as well!
Chris, You may initiate Elizabeth into the rank of UNKNOWABLES.
.
Yes, I believe it is time.
I know that she will be tremendously impressed by our company!
Make sure she understands all about that invisible tattoo that only the Unknowables can see.
.
Fairies and dragons are metaphysical objects. My current research is about studying the interface between physical and metaphysical.
yes, I do understand, Oh the interface… where is it.. ? good one.. I look forward reading your reality..
question here… if all solid objects are in fact not solid but moving particles as science has established than where the borderline can be if in fact nothing is solid but some objects–bodies are more compact than other objects..??? care to tell me that? I am very interested!
Solid objects are solid.
V…””Basically, the scientific viewpoint shal be that of the universe from which all the parts of the universe are then viewed. In my opinion, the scientific principles shall be based on the universal viewpoint.”‘
Human reality is to narrow and limited to view the whole Universe and to understand all what it contains.
Humans, scientist, most of them don’t believe that we lived before, and they are still at the guessing stage wondering if there are other life forms existing. How these humans would have reality of the universe it self?
One doesn’t need to know everything in this universe to have the viewpoint of the universe, I bet you don’t know everything about your body, and yet you can take the viewpoint of the body.
I am less apt to take the viewpoint that I know and the other person doesn’t. To me KHTK Postulate #0 directs me to have a humble viewpoint.
KHTK Postulate #0: There are no absolute certainties.
DEFINITION: Absolute means, “Viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic.”
.
no I don’t know everything about the body… that includes how the doctors of different science looks at it and understand how it works.. But I have reality-understanding of bodies of which scientist and doctors don’t have clue of. You search for facts by the method you know and in reality works.. I too do the same and that technology, its use taken me far beyond the human realities and because of that I see the universe differently. You are right, there are no absolute certainties, and there is no absolute truth.. truth: what is? that word it self just describe other considerations and truth is a consideration and no more.. truth as same as any other beliefs, are intangible+ therefore illusions. This is my reality..
When a wave is moving, there is only the wavefront seems to be moving. The particles of the medium do not propagate.
Let’s define motion as follows:
Motion of degree 1 – The particles of the medium propagate forward with a certain speed or velocity.
Motion of degree 2 – Only the disturbance of the medium propagates forward with a certain speed or velocity. The particles of medium oscillate about, but do not move from their average location.
These two motions are of different degrees. They cannot be compared in their speed.
When sound is moving through air, no particle is propagating forward. Later if a particle is propagating forward, we cannot compare its speed to the speed of sound. It would be comparing apples to oranges.
Therefore, saying that no object can travel at a speed greater than the speed of light is comparing apples to oranges.
But there is an exception.
It may be postulated that light waves can get compressed and acquire inertia, and this then becomes the object. Under these circumstances the object would not be able to travel at a speed greater than the speed of light, because the object is simply “light with much greater inertia.”
.
sound is energy therefore particles.. am I wrong on this?
Yes. You are wrong per the definitions used in science.
Sound is energy, but energy is not particles.
The speed at which a wave travel through a medium is directly related to the properties of the medium, because that wave exists due to a disturbance of the medium.
I believe that space is something physical. Space is actually a “field” that has physical properties, such as, permittivity and permeability. Light is actually a disturbance traveling through this field.
Let’s view the propagation of light from the viewpoint of the universe. We may visualize a light disturbance moving from left to right, and another light disturbance moving from right to left. They shall be moving towards each other with the constant speed of c, due to the properties of the universal space.
If we postulate that light always travels at speed c, this postulate is not violated if we find the relative speed between the two wave fronts to be 2c.
What experimental observation underlies the conclusion that this relative speed cannot exceed c?
Apparently, this conclusion was arrived at by Michelson-Morley’s experiment. But is it possible that the experimental results were incorrectly interpreted due the confusion in the understanding of universal viewpoint or frame of reference!
I have to look at this more closely.
Vin: At what speed a wave travel through a medium is directly related to the properties of the medium, because that wave exists due to a disturbance of the medium.
Chris: Because of this fact, I am going to begin thinking of these “mediums” as various qualities and quantities of space-time rather than something other than space-time. Maybe c can hold steady from the universal viewpoint when modified by the coefficients of mediums.
Actually, I want to say that is an analogy that I suspect may turn out to very not like what is actually going on. I have to remember I am just learning.
Vin: I believe that space is something physical. Space is actually a “field” that has physical properties, such as, permittivity and permeability. Light is actually a disturbance traveling through this field.
Chris: Yes, I’ve been thinking this for quite a while now. Permittivity and permeability may always have been and continue to be variables of space-time?
Vin: If we postulate that light always travels at speed c, this postulate is not violated if we find the relative speed between the two wave fronts to be 2c.
Chris: Yes, this is correct. But it does not agree with “constant for all frames of reference.”
The Michelson-Morley experiment was an attempt to detect the velocity of the Earth with respect to the hypothetical luminiferous ether, a medium in space proposed to carry light waves. First performed in Berlin in 1881 by the physicist A.A. Michelson, the test was later refined in 1887 by Michelson and E.W. Morley in the United States. The procedure depended on a Michelson interferometer, a sensitive optical device that compares the optical path lengths for light moving in two mutually perpendicular directions. It was reasoned that, if the speed of light were constant with respect to the proposed ether through which the Earth was moving, that motion could be detected by comparing the speed of light in the direction of the Earth’s motion and the speed of light at right angles to the Earth’s motion. No difference was found. This null result seriously discredited the ether theories and ultimately led to the proposal by Albert Einstein in 1905 that the speed of light is a universal constant.
May be the Michelson-Morley experiment was not sensitive enough to detect the difference. Per the reference Scientific American the speed of earth is 390 km/s. Compared this to the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 metres per second. The ratio is 390000/299,792,458 = .0013.
Anyway, I need to study Michelson interferometer to come up with a more definite answer.
.
Sunlight takes about 8 minutes 17 seconds to travel the average distance from the surface of the Sun to the Earth.
This simply means that the disturbance caused in space at the location of the sun takes 8 minutes 17 seconds to arrive at the location of the earth.
Light is a disturbance in the field called space. This is my conjecture.
.
If it takes the light to arrive 8min.17 sec.. than that light-energy particles need that much time to penetrated that energy field which is extended from the Sun to the Earths surface but of course that field is invisible, but it has particles of some kind.
An energy field is not made of particles, as particles are understood in science.
I am Ok with every label.. no matter what scientific explanation they contain.
There is no problem as long as the label is understood for what it is. Same label understood differently will cause problems.
Therefore there are different realities what is on ”energy field” there are awareness levels and Earthly science are still in. diapers
If we would believe in science that it holds only the truth than we should have stayed with the belief that Earth is flat.
Why are you putting down science? If you know better then can you express it in a way that others may also understand it?
V….. I don’t look at these subjects but your view of the above post makes sense to me.
What is ”universal viewpoint?” I don’t have a clue on that..
A universal viewpoint comes about when you are not viewing things as if you are inside the universe, but viewing things from the viewpoint of the universe.
V “A universal viewpoint comes about when you are not viewing things as if you are inside the universe, but viewing things from the viewpoint of the universe””””” Now, how a human could know how the Universe views the Universe… that statement of yours is absurd
A human is just an identity. Why can’t one be the universe?
V ”A human is just an identity. Why can’t one be the universe?””
E: if one would be more than a HUMAN than one would not be looking for understanding of the Universe but would know the Universe and would not have the need to question that subject.
HUMANS question, look for answers because they believe that they do not know.
My reality that the universe do not view the universe but it is… just it is… thinking is human, so is believing, and questioning and that happens when the one who questions do not believe in that has the knowledge already.
What one is aware of that is the extend of that persons universe.
A universe can be looked upon as an identity. I don’t see why one cannot take the viewpoint of the universe and look from that viewpoint.
V: Light is a disturbance in the field called space.
C: So then the space is disturbed and we abstract “light” or the “light” travels and disturbs our eyes when it arrives to our eyes receptors? This is quite a basic question. Possibly it is an ignorant question and not laid our correctly but with too many assumptions about radiation.
The answer is “Yes” as I see it.
Then we are still working with analogies rather the thing as it is.
It doesn’t matter what you call it. It will be replaced by something better when we have it.
The disturbance travels by disturbing what it touches, until it cannot do so anymore.
Right… but what happens to the disturbance when it is blocked by something?
Then the disturbance doesn’t progress any more.
.
Ch….”The eyes and ears see and hear only a little bit and that little bit is the human experience. A narrow little bit that prevents our minds from being trying to process too much information about the world. Thus we live and exist in a tiny little sliver of existence. Just my opinion of course except on #1 as you are definitely geezerette and a member of Unknowables as well!
E: long time back, [not in scientology yet] I read it in Time Mag that the scientist concluded that humans only use fraction of what ever and because of that the knowledge which is available not comprehended by humans and their assumption was that humans only use 1% of their capacity to know.
20 years back I had extensive 8 hours IQ test at the University of Washington.
The test result was that they could not measure my IQ because it ”’went over the roof” [professor used that expression] my point here is that since than the knowledge-understanding of the universe increased thousand fold since that test was taken and I still have the same reality that I only know a fraction of what is there to know of the MEST Universe and what more there is to know..
Human realities while one beliefs in such as life and death etc.. dont contain knowledge of other different realities.
Why does the speed of light appears to be constant in all frames of references?
Does it have something to do with the nature of instruments used to measure the speed of light, and the relationship of this speed to awareness?
It seems that the field that exists in vaccum also exists in all atoms, molecules, objects, instruments, nervous systems, etc.
.
My reality… the same persons invented the instruments who are aware of the speed of light therefore their awareness is at that level.. Some one with different awareness have different reality about the speed of light
And that person with the different awareness will establish and prove that the speed of light moves differently.. Remember, all records in sports have been broken by those who’s reality is different.
E Remember, all records in sports have been broken by those who’s reality is different.
C This is a good point.
right… and all inventions come to be because of different reality, and these inventors than collect agreements and than that agreement is being solidified, becomes fact.
once it was established that the Earth was flat.. end every one believed that fact.. now every one agrees to that the speed of light travels at that AGREEEEEEED speed.. Than some one discovered that the EARTH WAS ROUND! a GLOBE! WOW… and the person will be cheered who will discover more about the speed of light than the existing present agreement
In my reality science is not very reliable because people continually question that reality and prove it wrong.
Science does not depend on human agreements. Science depends on consistency among observations.
Ok… but who decide what is right or wrong?
Is there right and wrong?
you are answering a question with question.. you don’t have the answer I take it.
I do not see any right or wrong existing except in a person’s opinion.
We have the same reality. right or wrong that concept is strictly human invention.
who is doing the observation of these observations? and the conclusions are nothing but agreements… yes, your black cat looks like my black cat… but no way two entity has the same reality, sees the same way, can feel the same way.. that is not possible to know how other perspn sees something. What ever the science proves is exist because of agreement by the scientist and that is assumptions.
who is doing the ”observing”? who is comparing the observed?
In my opinion there is nobody doing the observing. This is just how the vectors of considerations, desires, and impulses add up at any moment.
Putting faith into science discoveries and believing that those are in fact true… well, first one should really question those discoveries and just how many times discoveries on the same subject exist..[ were changed] and just how much assumption are present in those stated facts… are those instrument are correct.. by who’s defamation they are? The instrument or any other machinery only good and can do as the inventors reality on the subject.
Science.. is not the path one can discover what is the Universe is about.. but looking into science one can understand only how the science works and one can see its limitations .. the limitations are the realities of the scientists. this is my reality about science .. 🙂
I am not here to make wrong but pointing out that any truth is a assumption because that has been proved over and over.[ officer, I seen that the light was green. I was positive that I will win the lottery, I felt it!. I knew you loved me.and mean while he had 3 other girl friends] ”Assumption” was a post in Geirs blog also.
KHTK Postulate #0: There are no absolute certainties.
DEFINITION: Absolute means, “Viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic.”
All certainties are relative. This statement does not degrade any certainty we have. It simply means that one can always come up with a better certainty. That is how science makes progress.
Einstein declared the speed of light to be a universal constant. This is a certainty for now, but I believe that there is possibly a wider context in which the speed of light may simply be a special case.
There is no progress possible for a person who believes his certainties to be absolute.
.
“There is no progress possible for a person who believes his certainties to be absolute. ”’ we agree on that
we agree, because all realities are intangible, just belief of something therefore illusions.