Do we look at lightspeed in the wrong way??

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Hi


Just wondering what others think about the speed of light...

en.wikipedia.org...

A physical constant is a physical quantity that is generally believed to be both universal in nature and constant in time. It can be contrasted with a mathematical constant, which is a fixed numerical value but does not directly involve any physical measurement.

does this mean i am infact light?.. lets continue!

The gravitational constant is perhaps the most difficult physical constant to measure.[2] In SI units, the 2006 CODATA recommended value of the gravitational constant is:[3]

Hmm??

The predictions of general relativity differ significantly from those of classical physics, especially concerning the passage of time, the geometry of space, the motion of bodies in free fall, and the propagation of light. Examples of such differences include gravitational time dilation, the gravitational redshift of light, and the gravitational time delay. General relativity's predictions have been confirmed in all observations and experiments to date. Although general relativity is not the only relativistic theory of gravity, it is the simplest theory that is consistent with experimental data. However, unanswered questions remain, the most fundamental being how general relativity can be reconciled with the laws of quantum physics to produce a complete and self-consistent theory of quantum gravity.

--

Quantum mechanics is a set of principles underlying the most fundamental known description of all physical systems at the microscopic scale (at the atomic level). Notable amongst these principles are both a dual wave-like and particle-like behavior of matter and radiation, and prediction of probabilities in situations where classical physics predicts certainties. Classical physics can be derived as a good approximation to quantum physics, typically in circumstances with large numbers of particles. Thus quantum phenomena are particularly relevant in systems whose dimensions are close to the atomic scale, such as molecules, atoms, electrons, protons and other subatomic particles. Exceptions exist for certain systems which exhibit quantum mechanical effects on macroscopic scale; superfluidity is one well-known example. Quantum theory provides accurate descriptions for many previously unexplained phenomena such as black body radiation and stable electron orbits. It has also given insight into the workings of biological systems

let me point out one thing here after you read this...

It has also given insight into the workings of biological systems

You are infact able to "think" faster than the constant of the speed of light..

how crazy is that? well some say "well we knew that"...

How can one BE going at the "c" and still "think" faster than c?

i love physics dont you?

my point is Lightspeed is a preception Not infact something we are bound by and if you need any futher proof then think about going to the moon and back...

you just smashed lightspeed



any thoughts?




posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by theresult
 





You are infact able to "think" faster than the constant of the speed of light..


Have you any link to this data .
The other Wiki link is interesting , though it is now 3.08 AM on this corner of the Earth and i smell burnt out neurons .


How does going to the moon and back smash lightspeed ?



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Interesting question... I myself wonder at the speed we are traveling at right now. We are on a planet circling the Sun at high speed in a solar system swirling around in a galaxy of solar systems. This galaxy is among many other galaxies that probably move in unison in some larger pattern.

Where is the fixed point in space that true speed can be measured from? What if all visible galaxies form another galaxy of galaxies that circles in yet another even larger pattern? Assuming there was a fixed point in space we could be moving a 1000x lightspeed away from it right now along with everything else in this mega galaxy. If two particles of light are moving away from each other at the speed of light are they not then traveling at x2 speed of light in a way? I know these probably aren't new thoughts but oh well.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by UmbraSumus
 


hey there thanks for taking an intrest


well if you read above, it shows "thinking" about something is infact a physical thing based on matter?

just because you are not "going there in phsyical form" ie your body.. you can "imagen" going to the moon and back faster than light can get there and back?

think about scale ? If your brain can qauntify going to the moon and back "in the small space we call our brain".. "over a large distance" "c" that means you smash light speed via physics?? "quatum"

If you can think about mars "technicaly" you just smashed the speed of light beause you was infact @ mars and then back again befor light!

if you read the part on quantom physics it says that its the underlying principle "underlying" behind phyics? ie we are "quantom" things??? im not sure myself in some ways.. but looking at the evidence its clear we can "think" faster than light.

i dont know how that would work out "traveling" as in a "space ship" but it does make one think about scale distance and destination ?

if you get what im saying?

trust me im as confused as you are hehe but look at the posts really carefully and what it is saying..

we are objects of atoms / waves . we are no different than the speed of light but yet "quatum mechanics" says we can predict



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Mentaltraveler
 


Im not sure, myself but with the evidence, what is fixed? what is constant? is it a preception?? i know and understand mass / light ect, but i can think about going to the moon "and technicaly" im on the moon not in my body i agree but if i can think im there that means i just moved faster than light via "distance".. scale??

think about it in this way if i can think |--/ and going to the moon is \-----j then in a respect of distance did i not just smash the speed of light in repsect to scale?

my brain is ment to work @ the speed of light but yet i can "think" going to the moon and back faster than "light takes" to infact reach me from the moon to the earth "ie me"?

is that scale or is that me moving at "c" in relitivy to the "c" ??



distance "thought" phsycial? "but yet im physical" moving at "c" ?



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by UmbraSumus
 


its 3:32 here


what data would you like im happy to help out coz i wanna try understand this aswell


and thanks for posting



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by theresult
 


Thanks for clearing up what you meant . I`m going to have to put an hour or twos reading into ........ so i should have answers for you around lunch time tomorrow
............................ i`ll U2U you


On a more serious note , it is a fantastic subject to delve into !

On the thinking faster than the speed of light (an ironic subject to be discussing for my mind at 3:35 AM)
..... Is not the process of imagining a chemical/electrical one ? with its inherent time lag ..
Technically we are "experiencing" the past sensory speaking ...
All our senses take time to process , we don`t instantaneously experience them .



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   
yeah thats my point, how can we "think" of being in a place? but not be there? even tho we are aware of it?

i know this is a crackpot thread but im just trying to understand the constant of both mass/light vs distance "scale"


hehe
will be happy to get a u2u, im abit of a math geek and i see things in logic alot "tho please dont talk about my grammer or spelling i fail on all accounts"


But i find it odd that i can "think" being there yet the "c" is still relitive?

do we as humans think on a "qautum" level? but exsist on a "em2=c" precteption???

ie are we only seeing things because our live move at "c" but our brains work faster? than "c"

it would give a reasnbale reason for all the odd stuff we see right? or "procivie"??



its like we are infact on 2 levels?? both "c" and "q"?



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by theresult
 


But when you say you can think of "there" i.e the moon , what necessesarily does that entail ?
A collection of images / memories etc. Do they constitute "the moon"?

Do you get me.



I was about to sent you a u2u , hit buttons .sent nothing



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
hehe


thats what im not sure about., I mean if we can "think" of being on the moon.. then we are "and i understand the none physical part" but in genral relitivity it infact says we are @ the moon" beacuse we are all connected? some how i dunno its all kinda abit mental...

if we "me and you" can sit here and say ok lets think about being on the moon, that means we "us" connected with the "unknown" and phsyicaly in our mind "as you said pictured it" being there in our own minds right?.. so is that not a scale thing???

my brain "physicaly" just went to the moon faster than light "assumed" and came back then gave me an hypotherisis for it? "speed of light in my head" but not "c" as in the speed of light it takes to get to the moon and back "mass"/"light" in "body"/physical"???

do we infact beat light using out minds via thought beause we are a quantum computer "biological" enterty" that is bound by the phyiscal " boundery" of our body " matter" bigger "scale" than our "minds" work on??

hence why we see light as a "c" but yet we can understand that light is just a "c" as we procive it?

is this scale law "nassim harmie" i cant spell his name its late" but scale law.. is light just a matter of scale but yet wrorks on the same "line" that is the basis for qautom physicis or why would we understand it?

I know this is heavy but i think the emc=2 is correct but it only applies to our physical form and not our "spirit"? i dunno :/

anyone got anything to add coz right now i feel like im on 2 paths one is emc=2 and the other is saying emc=2 is only a preception of scale in that repsepct..

i need to email some people





new topics
 
4

log in

join