uwot jackles?

[uwot]

you do not have to measure c.to know your position regs it .and your position regs it .how ever it is measured isthat you are stationary in the event regs it and thats wether you measure it or not.sorry bruv but yas stationary.ha

A lot of silly nonsense is written about special relativity, often by people who understand the maths very well, but have no idea what actually happens. It's a bit like having Ptolemy explain the solar system. The point is you cannot measure the speed of light in a vacuum, you have to be somewhere and wherever that somewhere is, it is moving relative to the rest of the universe. The instant light comes into contact with any medium that is part of any inertial frame, it can only be measured according to the conditions in that frame. The point about Special Relativity is that it is a means to measure the apparent differences in other inertial frames, as if the one you happen to be in is stationary; Einstein was acutely aware that there is no stationary inertial frame anywhere in the universe, but in any (actually moving) inertial frame, all physical processes are dilated exactly as time is, so you don't notice any difference. I've tried to show why in this cartoon, but it doesn't reproduce very well in this format. If you can't read it, I'll do a blog or something.

[jackles]

thanks for that uwot.ive just booked an appointment to get some new specks.
how ever back to the problem.if i am driving my car and i switch the head lights on then relative to the photons which are totaly independent of the source the car i will not be moving.if i switch the head lights of in the same respect i still will not be moving because of the relativity to the c limit.in other words i aint moving regs the limit.but my brain is still moving in the relative time and space event relative to other obects.so forget light its the limit thats causing the not moving effect.the limit is a certainty and relative to that certain limit we are not moving.why .because consciousness is an indistinguishable certainty.

[uwot]

thanks for that uwot.ive just booked an appointment to get some new specks.
how ever back to the problem.if i am driving my car and i switch the head lights on then relative to the photons which are totaly independent of the source the car i will not be moving.if i switch the head lights of in the same respect i still will not be moving because of the relativity to the c limit.in other words i aint moving regs the limit.but my brain is still moving in the relative time and space event relative to other obects.so forget light its the limit thats causing the not moving effect.the limit is a certainty and relative to that certain limit we are not moving.why .because consciousness is an indistinguishable certainty.

Look at it this way, jackles: we'll talk about sound, because the speeds aren't so silly and we all have experience of it.
If you are driving your car and a fire engine with it's siren blaring is racing towards you at 70mph, that's roughly 10% the speed of sound. When the fire engine goes DEE!, by the time it goes DAH!, it is appreciably closer to you and the DEE! DAH! gets squeezed together. As it goes by and goes DEE!, by the time it goes DAH!, it is further away and the DEE! DAH! is stretched out; it's the Doppler effect.
Now, it doesn't matter if it is the fire engine that is moving, you in your car, or a combination of both: the amount of 'time dilation' in the DEE! DAH! is a product of your relative speed.
The sound travels through the air at roughly 700mph, it does that irrespective of how fast anything else is moving. It does that in the air between you and the fire engine, but crucially, it does that in your 'inertial frame'; in other words, sound travels through the air in your car at 700mph: that is the only speed you will measure sound travelling through the air in your inertial frame.
With a few wrinkles to iron out, that is more or less what happens with light; we know we are not stationary relative to other objects, because we see the Doppler effect in the from of galactic red shift wherever we look.
Now, I am not going to insist that is what actually happens: there may be people who read this and think, "Pah! It's all to do with 'tired photons.'" There is also the chance that your thesis that everything is moving relative to your, or my consciousness. Who knows? Anything might be true, but the simplest explanation is the best place to start. Why make things complicated?

[jackles]

i am in agreement on what you are saying uwot.but everything you describe is brain orientation.and light is different because it has independents.so it is an independent certainty.the exact samething as what i beleive consciousness to be.

[Arising_uk]

I'd still appreciate an answer to my question jackles.

Given that it's a machine thats doing the measuring, where is the consciousness involved? Or do you think that an unattended machine is not measuring anything?

[jackles]

reckon its a bit like the detector in the double slit light duality ex.its the conscious interface that important.arising you are the only other person that has been able to place them selves in the position of being the relativity in the event.maybe you can explain it better than me.as no one seems to see it other than your self.plus me of course.

[uwot]

i am in agreement on what you are saying uwot.but everything you describe is brain orientation.

Well, the thing is, there is no evidence of any consciousness independent of brains. It looks as if whatever we think, to some degree is determined by our brain orientation.
If you are trying to find support for your beliefs, have a look at solipsism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism or block universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism ... y_of_time) to see if they are anything like what you are trying to express.

and light is different because it has independents.

No it doesn't. James Clerk Maxwell showed that in ideal conditions, light propagates at a certain speed. Those conditions are mathematical, they don't exist anywhere in the real universe. Light, despite the quasi mythical properties people attribute to it, is part of our universe, and it interacts with it in ways that even mortals can understand.

so it is an independent certainty.the exact samething as what i beleive consciousness to be.

It is a mathematical certainty. Even in 'empty' space the light from distant supernovae has been measured to take longer to reach us than the neutrino burst; a few seconds over millions of years isn't a lot, I grant you, but nothing is as perfect as the ideal world of numbers. Not even light, and certainly not minds.

[jackles]

its not the light uwot that we are interested in.cos like you say physics can alter that a bit here and there.no its the limit thats certain.it means there is an omni present limit beond which things cannot go.an when we measure c we are relating to that omni limit in a conscious way. which is why we get the effect of not moving.no you understand what i mean uwot.

[uwot]

no its the limit thats certain.

It would be very surprising if there was not a speed that light always goes under ideal conditions. It is perfectly reasonable to expect events to be identical, if the conditions are exactly the same.

it means there is an omni present limit beond which things cannot go.

Well, there's an omnipresent limit beyond which 2+2 cannot be. That is more certain than the speed of light, which is contingent: it just happens to be that speed. There are different ways of understanding why matter is restricted to the speed of light, but they will be wasted if I cannot persuade you that everything really is moving.

an when we measure c we are relating to that omni limit in a conscious way. which is why we get the effect of not moving.

No it isn't. The reason we get the sense of not moving was identified by Galileo; it is the principle of relativity. Nothing feels like it is moving unless it undergoes a change in velocity: ie a change in speed or direction. We don't know we are moving away from distant galaxies because of any change in the speed of light, but because the wavelength of the light is stretched as Doppler explained.

no you understand what i mean uwot.

I'm not entirely sure I understand even that sentence.

[jackles]

ha .no i dont think you know wot i mean u wot.no matterial thing can get beond c.its and omni limitation.

[uwot]

ha .no i dont think you know wot i mean u wot.no matterial thing can get beond c.its and omni limitation.

Well, jackles, like I said, there are different ways to understand why no material thing can get beyond, or even reach c, so I get that bit. But any meaningful explanation of why this should be so is much better for incorporating references to actual events, or, much as it pains me to admit, mathematics. Labelling something an omni limitation doesn't explain anything. Why is something an omni limitation?

[jackles]

well the way i c it.ha.no the way see it uwot light speed is the fastest a local thing can move and keep a location.so the omni limit prevents nonlocality from eating everything up.uncertainty can never reach certainty by phsical means.i think.?by certainty i mean absolute with no relative thing.

[Arising_uk]

reckon its a bit like the detector in the double slit light duality ex.its the conscious interface that important.arising you are the only other person that has been able to place them selves in the position of being the relativity in the event.maybe you can explain it better than me.as no one seems to see it other than your self.plus me of course.

You're missing my point. Try this, when a machine to detect the speed of light is operating and doing just that without a human present, would you say it is measuring the speed of light or not?

[jackles]

the anwser is yes and no arising until the imfomation reaches an unmoving consciousness through probability waves.ha this is what you call going back in time arising.

[uwot]

well the way i c it.ha.no the way see it uwot light speed is the fastest a local thing can move and keep a location.

Funnily enough, you may have stumbled upon a sequence of words that a physicist could make sense of. Locality, in the context of c, just means that the presumed cause doesn't reach the effect faster than light could have got there. It is 'local', because a photon could have caused it; ie a known particle collides with something, somewhere, in a way that can be (rather poorly) compared to the causal chain of billiard balls knocking into each other. An event that is non-local is one in which the apparent cause creates an effect quicker than a photon travelling at c could have, in practice this means entanglement. No one knows what entanglement means in terms of the physical process that causes the effect, which makes it a playground for all sorts of mystics and nutjobs. But as ever, the effect is solid physics, it is routinely produced in labs everywhere, and whatever anyone thinks is responsible makes no difference to what happens.

Mind you, I'm not sure that's what you mean by locality.

so the omni limit prevents nonlocality from eating everything up.

Erm? You're going to have to help out a bit here, jackles.

uncertainty can never reach certainty by phsical means.i think.?by certainty i mean absolute with no relative thing.

Well, physical things are not as certain as mathematical or logical things. Einstein made that point: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."