Community > Science & Philosophy

Topic: quantom entanglement... faster than light?
Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sun 03/17/13 03:41 PM
Light has no speed so you can say that the speed of light is zero. Light is the constant. If everything is relative but you have to have something that is constant. Everything is frequency and vibration, so you might consider that matter is on the negative side of the frequency (speed) of light. Therefore, it appears to us that light has a speed because we measure it in relation to us. In order to measure anything you must have a constant. Light is the constant. Therefore, you need to measure the frequency or speed of everything else in relation to light. yep,a Constant of about 300'000km/sec on this Earth! And that is the number used in every computation be it Energy or Electromagnetic Radiation Wavelength! Without that 300'000km/sec Constant you couldn't do any of those computations! But since you claim that Light has no Velocity,one would have to use Zero as the Constant! There is no such thing as nothing or zero. it either moves at 300'00km/sec,or it moves at Zero Speed! You can't have it both ways! When you state it moves at 300'00km/sec you are assuming that time (and space) actually exist. If you want a premise to assume that time and space and matter actually exist, then I have no argument with your reasoning or calculations. What I am saying is that time (spacetime) and matter do not actually exist. Using that premise, none of your arguments even apply. and your proof is? You want proof how your arguments don't apply? Or do you want proof that time does not actually exist?

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Sun 03/17/13 03:43 PM
Light has no speed so you can say that the speed of light is zero. Light is the constant. If everything is relative but you have to have something that is constant. Everything is frequency and vibration, so you might consider that matter is on the negative side of the frequency (speed) of light. Therefore, it appears to us that light has a speed because we measure it in relation to us. In order to measure anything you must have a constant. Light is the constant. Therefore, you need to measure the frequency or speed of everything else in relation to light. yep,a Constant of about 300'000km/sec on this Earth! And that is the number used in every computation be it Energy or Electromagnetic Radiation Wavelength! Without that 300'000km/sec Constant you couldn't do any of those computations! But since you claim that Light has no Velocity,one would have to use Zero as the Constant! There is no such thing as nothing or zero. it either moves at 300'00km/sec,or it moves at Zero Speed! You can't have it both ways! When you state it moves at 300'00km/sec you are assuming that time (and space) actually exist. If you want a premise to assume that time and space and matter actually exist, then I have no argument with your reasoning or calculations. What I am saying is that time (spacetime) and matter do not actually exist. Using that premise, none of your arguments even apply. and your proof is? You want proof how your arguments don't apply? Or do you want proof that time does not actually exist? actually you can't do either!

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Sun 03/17/13 03:45 PM
Light has no speed so you can say that the speed of light is zero. Light is the constant. If everything is relative but you have to have something that is constant. Everything is frequency and vibration, so you might consider that matter is on the negative side of the frequency (speed) of light. Therefore, it appears to us that light has a speed because we measure it in relation to us. In order to measure anything you must have a constant. Light is the constant. Therefore, you need to measure the frequency or speed of everything else in relation to light. yep,a Constant of about 300'000km/sec on this Earth! And that is the number used in every computation be it Energy or Electromagnetic Radiation Wavelength! Without that 300'000km/sec Constant you couldn't do any of those computations! But since you claim that Light has no Velocity,one would have to use Zero as the Constant! There is no such thing as nothing or zero. it either moves at 300'00km/sec,or it moves at Zero Speed! You can't have it both ways! When you state it moves at 300'00km/sec you are assuming that time (and space) actually exist. If you want a premise to assume that time and space and matter actually exist, then I have no argument with your reasoning or calculations. What I am saying is that time (spacetime) and matter do not actually exist. Using that premise, none of your arguments even apply. and your proof is? and would you care to explain how the Electromagnetic Spectrum works without the Speed of Light? Every Computation used the Speed of Light(300'000km/sec) as a constant in the Equations,a thing that,according to you does not exist! Come on! Bring some proof of your assertions,instead making assertions to prove your previous assertions! And,according to you,you also do not exist!

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sun 03/17/13 03:56 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Sun 03/17/13 04:00 PM
and your proof is? You want proof how your arguments don't apply? Or do you want proof that time does not actually exist? actually you can't do either! Regardless of what you think I can or cannot do, I asked you which of the above do you want proof of? I can already prove the first one. I stated that using MY premise that time, space and matter do not exist, your arguments don't apply. Here is my statement: What I am saying is that time (spacetime) and matter do not actually exist. Using that premise, none of your arguments even apply. In your argument, you used speed and time which can't apply if they don't exist. So first, if you want to progress in the context of the argument properly you have to win the argument that time, space and matter do actually exist. Start with time. Prove that time exists. If you can't prove that, then you have no chance of proving the others exist because they are all interconnected.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sun 03/17/13 03:58 PM
So prove that time exists. Then I will present my proof that it does not.

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48926	Sun 03/17/13 05:09 PM
A false dilemma is being presented. Time does not have to exist as something tangible in order for light to have a speed.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sun 03/17/13 05:31 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Sun 03/17/13 05:32 PM
A false dilemma is being presented. Time does not have to exist as something tangible in order for light to have a speed. How do you figure that? Prove that time actually exists.

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48926	Sun 03/17/13 05:38 PM
The topic of this thread is the speed of light, not time.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sun 03/17/13 05:42 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Sun 03/17/13 05:51 PM
The topic of this thread is the speed of light, not time. You cannot separate the topics from each other, silly. If light has speed, then you have to measure it using time and space. Time (as we have invented it) is measured according to the movement of matter -- or bodies through space. If light has speed, then what is that speed in relation to? How is it measured? It is measured using space and time. (Time is an invented concept using the movement of matter through space.) There is no separating the topics.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sun 03/17/13 05:55 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Sun 03/17/13 05:56 PM
Here is the dilema: Eliminating time from all physics would be an extremely useless thing to do. It is much easier to describe all event as if they were function of this wonderful, but unobservable construct of man, we call time. But the "passing of time" is not the cause of anything. (Events cause events.) Time is a very convenient invention of man, a parameter in our equations. Time can not be observed. Time does not cause or modify anything that can be observed. Time is not necessary for a complete description of the universe or the changes of its state. Time’s existence is a “natural assumption” of most humans and a very useful parameter in the equations of physics. Even more of a dilema: What is real? If time isn't real, then energy isn't real, because QM tells us E=hf, where f is frequency and h is plancks constant. But then mass isn't real either, because E=mc^2. The fact is, we don't know if any of our physical quantities are really real, but they are helpful in making predictions, and that's all they need to do. It is very possible this reality is a holographic simulated mental construct. But we can call it real if we want to.

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Sun 03/17/13 06:03 PM
Light has no speed so you can say that the speed of light is zero. Light is the constant. If everything is relative but you have to have something that is constant. Everything is frequency and vibration, so you might consider that matter is on the negative side of the frequency (speed) of light. Therefore, it appears to us that light has a speed because we measure it in relation to us. In order to measure anything you must have a constant. Light is the constant. Therefore, you need to measure the frequency or speed of everything else in relation to light. yep,a Constant of about 300'000km/sec on this Earth! And that is the number used in every computation be it Energy or Electromagnetic Radiation Wavelength! Without that 300'000km/sec Constant you couldn't do any of those computations! But since you claim that Light has no Velocity,one would have to use Zero as the Constant! There is no such thing as nothing or zero. it either moves at 300'00km/sec,or it moves at Zero Speed! You can't have it both ways! When you state it moves at 300'00km/sec you are assuming that time (and space) actually exist. If you want a premise to assume that time and space and matter actually exist, then I have no argument with your reasoning or calculations. What I am saying is that time (spacetime) and matter do not actually exist. Using that premise, none of your arguments even apply. and your proof is? You want proof how your arguments don't apply? Or do you want proof that time does not actually exist? actually you can't do either! time doesn't exist... it's a perception, a unit of measurement, like a gallon or a mile...

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sun 03/17/13 06:03 PM
Events cause events. Time appears to "move forward" because casualty only moves in one direction. If you drop a glass and it breaks into pieces, you can't reverse the casualty and cause the glass to reassemble. Because you can't reverse casualty, you cannot "go back in time" and change or reverse an event that has already unfolded.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 03/18/13 10:21 AM Edited by Jeanniebean on Mon 03/18/13 10:22 AM
The link between Matter, energy, space and time is so intimately connected, if you eliminate one of them, you eliminate all of them. If you can't prove that time exists, or what it is, the whole system falls apart. It is essential that we reexamine the entire nature of reality. I don't know why scientists have not been doing this more. You can't measure the speed of light without matter, energy space and time. If matter energy space and time do not actually exist, then light has no speed. It only has frequency. If you have no solid argument, then you have to agree that this reality is a construct and projection of the universal mind which is some kind of brain or computer. We live in a hollow-graphic reality or dream world.

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Mon 03/18/13 11:28 AM
The link between Matter, energy, space and time is so intimately connected, if you eliminate one of them, you eliminate all of them. If you can't prove that time exists, or what it is, the whole system falls apart. It is essential that we reexamine the entire nature of reality. I don't know why scientists have not been doing this more. You can't measure the speed of light without matter, energy space and time. If matter energy space and time do not actually exist, then light has no speed. It only has frequency. If you have no solid argument, then you have to agree that this reality is a construct and projection of the universal mind which is some kind of brain or computer. We live in a hollow-graphic reality or dream world. you can be happy saying that reality doesn't exist, but it does. time is only thing you've gotten right so far, even though it doesn't exsit, it still is being used as a unit of measurement... a mile doesn't exist either, but we have to use it in equations...

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 03/18/13 11:54 AM Edited by Jeanniebean on Mon 03/18/13 11:57 AM
you can be happy saying that reality doesn't exist, but it does. time is only thing you've gotten right so far, even though it doesn't exsit, it still is being used as a unit of measurement... a mile doesn't exist either, but we have to use it in equations... I didn't say that reality doesn't exist. Reality does exist. I said: It is essential that we reexamine the entire nature of reality. I don't know why scientists have not been doing this more. If you agree that time does not exist, and if you understood the intimate relationship between our concept of 'time' and matter, energy and space, you would understand what I am talking about. Our concept of time only exists because of space and matter. Matter is only energy in a different form. The Higgs-bosen particle is not "matter" and yet it is supposed to be the building block of all matter. "Matter" is only atoms and the space between them. Reality exists, it is just not what we think it is.

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Mon 03/18/13 11:58 AM
you can be happy saying that reality doesn't exist, but it does. time is only thing you've gotten right so far, even though it doesn't exsit, it still is being used as a unit of measurement... a mile doesn't exist either, but we have to use it in equations... I didn't say that reality doesn't exist. Reality does exist. I said: It is essential that we reexamine the entire nature of reality. I don't know why scientists have not been doing this more. If you agree that time does not exist, and if you understood the intimate relationship between our concept of 'time' and matter, energy and space, you would understand what I am talking about. Our concept of time only exists because of space and matter. Matter is only energy in a different form. The Higgs-bosen particle is not "matter" and yet it is supposed to be the building block of all matter. "Matter" is only atoms and the space between them. Reality exists, it is just not what we think it is. If you have no solid argument, then you have to agree that this reality is a construct and projection of the universal mind which is some kind of brain or computer. We live in a hollow-graphic reality or dream world. why would i have to agree to that? your saying nothing is real, and i think everything is real... you people watch the matrix to much...

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 03/18/13 12:06 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Mon 03/18/13 12:09 PM
you can be happy saying that reality doesn't exist, but it does. time is only thing you've gotten right so far, even though it doesn't exsit, it still is being used as a unit of measurement... a mile doesn't exist either, but we have to use it in equations... I didn't say that reality doesn't exist. Reality does exist. I said: It is essential that we reexamine the entire nature of reality. I don't know why scientists have not been doing this more. If you agree that time does not exist, and if you understood the intimate relationship between our concept of 'time' and matter, energy and space, you would understand what I am talking about. Our concept of time only exists because of space and matter. Matter is only energy in a different form. The Higgs-bosen particle is not "matter" and yet it is supposed to be the building block of all matter. "Matter" is only atoms and the space between them. Reality exists, it is just not what we think it is. If you have no solid argument, then you have to agree that this reality is a construct and projection of the universal mind which is some kind of brain or computer. We live in a hollow-graphic reality or dream world. why would i have to agree to that? your saying nothing is real, and i think everything is real... you people watch the matrix to much... If you have no explanations and can't present a convincing argument or explain what "time" actually is if it exists, then I am suggesting that a reexamination of the true nature of reality is in order. I am not saying that "nothing is real." I am saying that the nature of reality is NOT WHAT WE THOUGHT IT WAS. Ultimately, we define what is real. Ultimately we decide what is real. If you define reality as a place full of solid objects with permanent lasting integrity and a particle as a marble of matter, then you are wrong. Objective reality is an illusion. This reality, is a persistent illusion. So says Einstein. Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. Albert Einstein He knew this, although I'm sure he knew that most people would not get it.

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Mon 03/18/13 12:09 PM
you can be happy saying that reality doesn't exist, but it does. time is only thing you've gotten right so far, even though it doesn't exsit, it still is being used as a unit of measurement... a mile doesn't exist either, but we have to use it in equations... I didn't say that reality doesn't exist. Reality does exist. I said: It is essential that we reexamine the entire nature of reality. I don't know why scientists have not been doing this more. If you agree that time does not exist, and if you understood the intimate relationship between our concept of 'time' and matter, energy and space, you would understand what I am talking about. Our concept of time only exists because of space and matter. Matter is only energy in a different form. The Higgs-bosen particle is not "matter" and yet it is supposed to be the building block of all matter. "Matter" is only atoms and the space between them. Reality exists, it is just not what we think it is. If you have no solid argument, then you have to agree that this reality is a construct and projection of the universal mind which is some kind of brain or computer. We live in a hollow-graphic reality or dream world. why would i have to agree to that? your saying nothing is real, and i think everything is real... you people watch the matrix to much... If you have no explanations and can't present a convincing argument or explain what "time" actually is if it exists, then I am suggesting that a reexamination of the true nature of reality is in order. I am not saying that "nothing is real." I am saying that the nature of reality is NOT WHAT WE THOUGHT IT WAS. Ultimately, we define what is real. Ultimately we decide what is real. If you define reality as a place full of solid objects with permanent lasting integrity and a particle as a marble of matter, then you are wrong. Objective reality is an illusion. This reality, is a persistent illusion. So says Einstein. i'm not wrong, your wrong... but i don't care, whatever makes you happy...

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 03/18/13 12:13 PM
you can be happy saying that reality doesn't exist, but it does. time is only thing you've gotten right so far, even though it doesn't exsit, it still is being used as a unit of measurement... a mile doesn't exist either, but we have to use it in equations... I didn't say that reality doesn't exist. Reality does exist. I said: It is essential that we reexamine the entire nature of reality. I don't know why scientists have not been doing this more. If you agree that time does not exist, and if you understood the intimate relationship between our concept of 'time' and matter, energy and space, you would understand what I am talking about. Our concept of time only exists because of space and matter. Matter is only energy in a different form. The Higgs-bosen particle is not "matter" and yet it is supposed to be the building block of all matter. "Matter" is only atoms and the space between them. Reality exists, it is just not what we think it is. If you have no solid argument, then you have to agree that this reality is a construct and projection of the universal mind which is some kind of brain or computer. We live in a hollow-graphic reality or dream world. why would i have to agree to that? your saying nothing is real, and i think everything is real... you people watch the matrix to much... If you have no explanations and can't present a convincing argument or explain what "time" actually is if it exists, then I am suggesting that a reexamination of the true nature of reality is in order. I am not saying that "nothing is real." I am saying that the nature of reality is NOT WHAT WE THOUGHT IT WAS. Ultimately, we define what is real. Ultimately we decide what is real. If you define reality as a place full of solid objects with permanent lasting integrity and a particle as a marble of matter, then you are wrong. Objective reality is an illusion. This reality, is a persistent illusion. So says Einstein. i'm not wrong, your wrong... but i don't care, whatever makes you happy... Whatever. I'm just trying to get some people to think and expand their minds and their imaginations. Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. Albert Einstein He knew this, although I'm sure he knew that most people would not get it. But if you think you are so "right" prove to me that I am wrong and you are right if you can.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 03/18/13 12:15 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Mon 03/18/13 12:21 PM
I am always inviting anyone to present their arguments in the hope that I can be proven wrong, but that has not happened yet. These are ideas to explore. I'm not trying to "be right" I just enjoy exploring the nature of reality. Don't take it personal.