uwot jackles?

[uwot]

For a moment, jackles, I thought I had it. I thought you were talking about consciousness being the only real thing, perhaps there was one block consciousness, 'god' perhaps, a 'we' are all little pirouettes through it, or that 'we' are individual consciousnesses and our lives are paths through it. But I don't see what c has got to do with the fundamentals of something that doesn't move.

[jackles]

yes you got it uwot.its just i mention c.to confound the likes of arising and blags.and measurin c does show that somethings moving(the brain).and somethong aint moving and thats.consciousness.something thats omni present cant be moving at the sametime as being omni present.measuring c shows the consciouness of the measurer is not moving.and so it follows that nonmoving consciousness is omni present to a moving brain event.so con
sciousness exact as you describe it uwot is unmoving.

[Arising_uk]

... its just i mention c.to confound the likes of arising ...

It doesn't confound me. Now your writing does, as its pretty much a mess but what thoughts I can find are in a long line of metaphysical idealism mush-mashed with religious mysticism and on the whole I think them a waste of thought but if you have the time to waste then fair play to you, however don't be mistaken that you are explaining anything, philosophically that is.

[jackles]

how come the observer is stationary to c arising.the knowing(of c) observer must be taking on the position of relativity between moving objects in the event to do that.the thing thats doing that is the consciousness not the brain of the observer.you are a thinker.think it out.

[Ginkgo]

how come the observer is stationary to c arising.the knowing(of c) observer must be taking on the position of relativity between moving objects in the event to do that.the thing thats doing that is the consciousness not the brain of the observer.you are a thinker.think it out.

It doesn't really matter if the observers are stationary or moving. All observers are accurate with their observations within their own reference frame.

[jackles]

could you please expand that ginkgo.

[jackles]

ok as you know ginkgo theres time space dialation between observers in there diffrent reference frames.this equalises the moving of the different observes brains as regs the photon being measured.so the indivdual brains are moving relativly. whilst there consciouses share the same unmoving point of reference.no matter what speed below c.you knowing the speed of light are as stationary to that known speed.just knowing the speed makes you part of the mover of moving things.relativity or in other words nonlocality.the knower of c in the universe knows that they aint movin in consciousness terms.the lord doth move in mysterious ways.

[Arising_uk]

how come the observer is stationary to c arising.the knowing(of c) observer must be taking on the position of relativity between moving objects in the event to do that.the thing thats doing that is the consciousness not the brain of the observer.you are a thinker.think it out.

Not stationary jackles but something weird as it doesn't mater if we are moving or not, light appears to measure out at the same speed. Now you say thats because 'consciousness' is some outer thing that we partake of but this makes a mockery of the term "consciousness" and ignores that our consciousness is very much the product of this body, so you have to have two 'consciousness' operating within this body and to me that just unnecessarily complicates matters as my guess is that the issue of the speed of light will be to do with how we measure things and especially due to the speed of light being the fastest thing possible for matter. Given your position I assume you'd say that if we set up two measuring instruments and sent one flying and kept the other 'stationary' on the earth and had no observers checking those instruments they wouldn't be measuring the speed of light nor would they measure it as a constant? Lets say that we had them send the results back via email, would you accept that two instruments had then measured the speed of light with no need for a knowing observer to take this 'position of relativity'?

[Ginkgo]

ok as you know ginkgo theres time space dialation between observers in there diffrent reference frames.this equalises the moving of the different observes brains as regs the photon being measured.so the indivdual brains are moving relativly. whilst there consciouses share the same unmoving point of reference.no matter what speed below c.you knowing the speed of light are as stationary to that known speed.just knowing the speed makes you part of the mover of moving things.relativity or in other words nonlocality.the knower of c in the universe knows that they aint movin in consciousness terms.the lord doth move in mysterious ways.

I don't really follow this jackles, but in relation to your original question this wiki article might be useful.


www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox

[jackles]

yes ginkgo i think arising has seen what i was trying to explain about the measurer of c taking on the position of the object relativity in the moving event.its as if the moving event stops but obviously that cant happen so the observers awareness finds its self being as a part of the the mover of the event.the mover and relativity being the samething.and arising seeing that i think almost counts as a bloomin miricale.

[Arising_uk]

... and arising seeing that i think almost counts as a bloomin miricale.

Lets go for two miracles and you answer this,

Given your position I assume you'd say that if we set up two measuring instruments and sent one flying and kept the other 'stationary' on the earth and had no observers checking those instruments they wouldn't be measuring the speed of light nor would they measure it as a constant?

Lets say that we had them send the results back via email, would you accept that two instruments had then measured the speed of light with no need for a knowing observer to take this 'position of relativity'?

[jackles]

ok there would be time dialation between the two readings of course.but that dosnt change the observers position in things as regs being the knower of c in the event.its the knowing that c is a certainty that then puts the observer as having the position of relativity in the event.in other words the observers consciousness is certain in the event in knowing c.and certainty is the mover so in knowing c relative to the movment in the event .you as it where join the mover of the event which is certainty.so to sum up.it is the certainty on knowing c that brings its self as consciousness to place its self as general certainty which in event terms is nonmovment.but nonmovment is the mover.so we find our selfs in the position of being general relativity as conscious observers.

[Arising_uk]

You're not answering my questions.

Would you accept that the machines would be measuring the speed of light even tho' no-one was there?

If the results were emailed back to you would you accept that this shows that the speed of light can be measured without a consciousness being present?

[jackles]

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

[Arising_uk]

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

Pardon?

Are you saying that when the machine you use to measure the speed of light measures the speed of light its not measuring the speed of light?

Or try it this way,

Is the machine that measures the speed of light stationary to the light it is measuring and if so where is the consciousness involved?