Thought experiment with light.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

CONTRADICTION.

FALSE FALSE FALSE.

You said something wrong. you said something untrue. You claim false is true. You are a liar, you are ignorant, you are wrong. You said wrong. You said bad. I am right. You are wrong. Lets play ball! I can prove everything I think I know and say, right. I can prove everything that I disagree with what you say, wrong. Yay, I will always win. I am right. I know I know what I know, and I know I dont know what I dont know. I know right from wrong. I know truth from false. I know possible from impossible. I know sense from nonsense.

Now, give me some clang and I'll have a bingo!

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: darkorange
..I can fly having no wings. Where this came from? I am sorry you live in this kind of reality.


DO.

Like fungi, you have no grasp on geometry. What's the definition of a point?

Both of you trying to do this with English. So sad.

what geometry? Like what geometry is involved and why it is worth mentioning? I know you can answer it in plain English.


DO)

originally posted by: darkorange

what geometry? Like what geometry is involved and why it is worth mentioning? I know you can answer it in plain English.

DO)

" I am sorry you live in this kind of reality. "

What's the extension of a point? You may use either geometry or physics. I live in the reality where that question has an answer, and that answer is none. Perhaps in yours it's different.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: darkorange
Here's what you said:

originally posted by: darkorange
If i move the lighter at the same speed as i move the paper strip, my 'space ship' is going to move with the 'tick', time for it ceases to exist. No ticks). It is going with the 'tick'.

DO.

You did say that didn't you?
Time can't cease to exist for your space ship, it would need to have infinite energy for that to happen.

Yes, but you can substitute 'space ship' for yourself. Key word of what I said was 'when I move a lighter'. Think of you start running. I bet if you plug your velocity into appropriate sequence of formulas then you would arrive at time dilation evidence if precision is kept like down to plank duration.

May be not. But some one should try it)))LOL))

a reply to: Arbitrageur

What they mean by wrong is; "not what I was taught was the standard way".

They should know this better than anyone, that when they say "anyone who knows math knows the way", that means 'the way that is able to be known' is 'set in and as math' and there are other ways 'math ways', that are able to be done.

Everything that is able to and unable to be achieved in math, is math.

Math creates itself, but create is the bad word, because it always exists, the truth of math always exists.

Humans create the aspects of the math that is able to exist or be created and realized by humans in that moment.

But if they are doing a self consistent rule, that is possible to be done by the rules of the thing itself;

They are only by proxy 'doing it or creating it', they are 'tracing something', more like it.

So if you say; + means +

= means +

1 means 1

2 means 2

etc.

( means (

etc.

Once you define those rules,

Is there something actually in those rules, which state anything about order?

Where does the knowledge of the order of operations come from?

They say, any one who knows math knows the right way,

Does that mean that most of the possible order of operations orders, result in unusable or inconvenient answers?

There must be good reason behind the nature of the right order of operations.

Like, it must intrinsically make sense.

Does it though just have to do with what math is and can be used for?

Hypothetically, what could the math results of interacting numbers using the other possible orders of operation, result in being useful for?

So like PEMDAS. EMDASP. MDASPE... etc...

What are the pure mathematical reasons as to why the others do not make 'ultimate math sense'?

why are those moves illegal, why are they meaningless, if they are possible to think of?

If math begins with the rules, and numbers, and putting the numbers and the rules in different orders, why is it stopped in this scenario?

A complex scenario in deed, it is all about complexity! Order of operations, that is very spatio temporal!

Multiple mechanisms interacting in sequence.

What is the meaning of one of the mechanisms, having to operate first?

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: admirethedistance
a reply to: ImaFungi

I've got to admit, I have no idea what the heck you're even trying to say anymore.
Photons are nothing like guitar strings, by the way. Terrible analogy.

Well, if they're not little yellow wooden balls, then maybe a guitar string is a nice substitute. But the question now is, gut, silk or steel, and plain or wrapped? Flat or round? It's an important question.

Wound phosphor bronze, of course.

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: admirethedistance
a reply to: ImaFungi

I've got to admit, I have no idea what the heck you're even trying to say anymore.
Photons are nothing like guitar strings, by the way. Terrible analogy.

Well, if they're not little yellow wooden balls, then maybe a guitar string is a nice substitute. But the question now is, gut, silk or steel, and plain or wrapped? Flat or round? It's an important question.

Wound phosphor bronze, of course.

So what is a photon?
)

DO)

a reply to: Bedlam

A person can gain some relevant information about a tree by looking at it; and then seeing the tree in their head, they can know some details about the trees existence; or if you want to argue the image a person perceives of a tree has nothing to do with how a tree physically exists in time and space, then I suppose the perception of the image of a tree has 0 information.


I would argue that it requires the 'seeing of the way the thing exists outside of your head, in your head' that does contain a non trivial amount of information and details about 'the thing you are attempting to see in your head'.

originally posted by: darkorange
So what is a photon?


DO)

Apparently a wound phosphor bronze guitar string. What's it tuned to?

a reply to: Bedlam

C

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Bedlam
A person can gain some relevant information about a tree by looking at it; and then seeing the tree in their head, they can know some details about the trees existence...

Absolutely! But what you won't get by visualizing, is how a chloroplast works.

originally posted by: admirethedistance
a reply to: Bedlam

C

The real C, or Nazi brain control C?

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: admirethedistance
a reply to: Bedlam

C

The real C, or Nazi brain control C?

I...I don't even know what this thread is about anymore.

The perception of light bending, is the resolution of light "burning off" of your retinal tissue. It's the same as when you stare at a bright source, and you close your eyes and see a phanthom silhouette, scored on to the dark canvas of your lens, slowly fizzle away. Light is information and memory.

a reply to: ImaFungi

I did this myself, and I arrived at an interesting area of thought, I am not sure what to think;


Suppose an observer, was riding on a photon;

And suppose the observer was (extremely hypothetically, imaginative) entirely composed of particles of light (cells, organs, eyes, brain, mind, was all fashioned out of separate light particles)

So what you are really imagining is for arbitrariness sake, 100 (though any number would work) photons traveling closely together; (1 photon, that 99 photons which composed a stable entity with a functioning mind of observation are riding);


And to make an observation, a relatively 'stream, or successive' quantity of information would have to be transfered into that light beings 'eyes', mind.

And then the mind would have to pass that information onward and connect it in various ways, and the 'observer' of the information in the mind would have to 'take the time to absorb, witness, the succession of information'.

Now... it seems like problems would arise but that would be similar to, say imagine nothing existing in space at all, except for a baseball that is moving, and a small bug is sitting on the baseball, and we are wondering if the bug observes time?

Well I recognize it is a different question, because the former, is wondering if observation can exist, if there is extreme movement, (or well.... i really made the initial idea of the being made of light, because I presumed that observation occurs in large part due to light, passing between objects in the brain, so I figured to escape the matter cant go as fast as light difficulty, to just imagine the entire being is composed of light, and separate light travels in the being from light particle to light particle; That, unavoidably lateral traveling, is the interesting part I think.


If a bug that knew how to count was on a moving baseball in absolute vacuum, the bug could count 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. and that would prove that the observer observed it was experiencing time?

If any type of observer was traveling at light speed, the entire argument is that they would not be able to interact the information of their body/mind to compute 1 2 3 4 5 6 7...

Imagine the 99 body, riding the 1 photon.

And there is other light, that is coming off, and lets say it can hit that 1 photon and interact with it;

Well again immediately we see interesting conclusions;

Because if out side light could interact with that 1 photon, then the 1 photon would 'move' (therefore accelerate) and the 99 photon observer would be able to detect the change, and therefore know time.

But lets say light could hit off the 1 photon, and the 1 photon would remain un effected on its course.

lets say 1000 photons hit off the 1 photon, and reflect into the 99 photon-bodys eyes

(one of the reasons for difficulties, is because any movement of any of the 99 photons, is acceleration, or it would necessarily result in 'getting out of line' with the traveling pack, as a body, on a single photon;

Human bodies contain lots of parts that do lots of movement, but other forces keep them on track

So no light could be passed from photon to photon (of the 99) unless might we say an ultimate caveat!

If the 1000 photons were heading straight towards, head on, the 1 and 99 photons, and they hit the 1 photon, and reflected into the path of the 99 photons, then perhaps the photons of the 99 body, could register these new photons interacting with them, in a 'trickle down type way'.

It would be like if you were driving a car at a steady speed, and I was driving another car at the same speed parallel with you, and I was trying to throw tennis balls at your car, and the speed I could throw the tennis balls were the same speed you were traveling.

The best chance of hitting your car, would be to be in front of you, and throw the balls toward you, opposite your direction of travel.

Such ways is how the 99 photon body, would have any means at all, of detecting the fact of succession, or the fact of 'happening'.

a reply to: ImaFungi
If you buy the "frozen time" for a photon idea, you couldn't observe anything for any amount of time because you wouldn't experience the passage of time, meaning there would be no time between your birth and death, they would occur with no time between them, if one posits there is no passage of time for a photon.

Einstein said "The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." Well if you buy this and buy that the photon has no time, then everything happens at once, the photon "birth" (or origin) the photon "death" or being absorbed by some distant atom. How can something that dies at the same time it's born observe anything?

I am driving my car at the speed of light and I turn on my headlights. What do I see?

What would the world look like in the reference frame of a photon? What does a photon experience? Does space contract to two dimensions at the speed of light? Does time stop for a photon?. . . It is really not possible to make sense of such questions and any attempt to do so is bound to lead to paradoxes. There are no inertial reference frames in which the photon is at rest so it is hopeless to try to imagine what it would be like in one. Photons do not have experiences. There is no sense in saying that time stops when you go at the speed of light. This is not a failing of the theory of relativity. There are no inconsistencies revealed by these questions. They just don't make sense.

This is what I've been trying to say, the question doesn't make sense. Now you can ask what would happen traveling at very nearly the speed of light and that question is answerable, but the infinite energy extension of this concept like "driving a car at the speed of light" or "riding on a photon" is not something which can be physically real. Even if photon beings you hypothesize were real, if they had frozen time they would "die" as soon as they are "born" and experience nothing.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You made some good points, and we could have the paradoxes, with the classical empirical concepts, but the empirical paradoxes would no longer apply, in the simulation model. Since we simulate reality, from input. The input as Einstein rationalised would require linear time, to stop everything happening at once. Which would mean a filter on input to stop chaos, the filter is the linear time field. Its hard to grasp that reality is created in your own mind, but the fact is we create this reality in our minds. Once the wave observations are decoded into,linear time, reality now is a coherent memory dump. Which we might to a degree share. Theirs no difference between waking normal life, and a lucid dream. Is the lucid dream another interpretation, in a parallel construct? probably. Because the light observed in this type of dream, is the same as the light, we observe normally, created from the memory dump.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


Something I was thinking of but I am not sure about.

The idea of particle and wave, and if wave, how exactly wave.

Say a photon was traveling toward you, and you have a mirror, and you can pause all time at your whim.


Well, what I am basically trying to ask and wonder, and it seems like the answer should be an obvious yes;

Does a single photon have the degrees of freedom to travel in 'every direction'.

This is such an interesting question because I think contained in the potentially degrees of direction is the 'size' of the 'particle'.

This question supposes thinking about the object in question as a point in the exact middle of a sphere;

And then asking, is that point physically able to be directed in any of the directions which would allow it to touch any of the surface of the sphere?

So I am wondering if this is equally true for photon and electron;

With a particle we can easily imagine such; hold a bouncy ball out in front of you, and you can imagine you moving it in any 3d direction;

The same goes for a line wave, a line wave being, just a long stretched particle (with potentially other interesting features, and I think this is the essence of string theory perhaps)

But difficulties might arise when thinking of photon as a wide ocean wave, as the double slit experiments that suggest single particle interference suggest must be the case.

But then again, dont see why a wide wave (which would be like the line wave, but that travels horizontally forward)
wouldnt be able to be redirected in any 3d direction.




This is cool regardless, geometry is always on topic: themetapicture.com...

a reply to: ImaFungi

Mind you when you consider the possibility, of the photon having exited linear time . Or anything exiting linear time for that matter . Their is always the possibility that its everywhere at once. One timeless event, being decoded with a linear time concept.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: ImaFungi

Mind you when you consider the possibility, of the photon having exited linear time . Or anything exiting linear time for that matter . Their is always the possibility that its everywhere at once. One timeless event, being decoded with a linear time concept.

I dont know what you mean by that or what you want it to mean. I dont know what you want the truth to be or why you want it to be that way, I dont know why and how you are satisfied with your knowledge enough to make such statements. Are you speaking for Truth? Are you an authority on Truth? Do you know what you just said is true? Or meaningful or sensical in any way?