That would be consciousness.

That would be me.

I vibrate.

That is the big question though, you are correct.



Now you are talking my language! Yep, we are living in a holographic reality.

This means that just about anything is possible.

Time does indeed stand still for light. The faster we move through space the slower we move through time, the ceiling is the speed of light where all moment is through space, no movement through time.

To say light does not move is wrong from any reference frame we can work with.

The standard model of physics predicts a particle called a Tachyon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon (ok article, but its wiki so . . )

A Tachyon cannot slow down below the speed of light, in this sense it would be moving backwards through time . . .


Well then what makes this consciousness, is it fundamental and cannot be explained in terms of what it is made? Even so for it to effect the electromagnetic spectrum it would have to be a something.

Could you elaborate on this? Are you talking about a condition (of space or existence?) where there is no time and light has no speed through this space?

I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around it.

Yes it is "something" but I don't know what ~ other than some kind of awareness or some observer. You could call it God but then that does not describe what it is.

Copyright Friends of Jesus Christ, Inc.

Its the nature of spacetime. Time is not separate from Space, just like particle wave duality, time and space are intertwined. Perhaps 2 sides of the same coin . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Planet of the Apes anyone?

Yes I know that spacetime are one thing. But what do you mean by time stands still for light? Are you saying that if we moved at the speed of light there would be no time?

If there were no space there would be no time? All would be now.

If there were no spacetime what would there be?

jb

When an anything moves through space, it gains mass via energy density. Kinetic energy is energy and energy being mass means traveling through space adds mass . . .

So when you are in your car driving down the road you are more massive (by an infinitesimally small number) then someone standing on the road side watching you drive by.

so as you accelerate you are gaining mass . . . F=MA, Force = Mass x Acceleration.

So M = F/A, or A = F/M.

The larger the mass, the more force required to reach the same acceleration. To reach the speed of light would require an infinite amount of energy, so we can never get matter to travel at the speed of light through space. . .

So it is moot to say "if" I could move at the speed of light . . . But yes light does not age . . . If light had a memory it would not record things as a linear progression, everything would happen at once.

The problem here is our perception and how it is limited by our nature. We are creatures of 3 dimensions that exist within time, that never travel faster then a tiny tiny tiny fraction of the speed of light and so our brains have no basis to place these concepts into.

At the very edge of super massive black holes, black holes that are sucking in matter will corkscrew like a whirl pool, the matter has mass, mass effects spacetime by bending . . or twisting, or stretching. This effect stretches spacetime around with it in the circle when space moves matter that exists in that space moves with it . . . . this can cause that matter to move effectively at the speed of light.

If you could survive being sucked into a black hole time would slow down nearly to a stop for you compared to someone not in the grips of a super massive black hole. Time being relative would make it seem normal to the person in the black hole looking inward. Looking inward from the outside, it would appear the person falling in would stand still.

Fun stuff.

I just like to say quark, quark, quark, quark, quark, quark.........

Three quarks for Muster Mark!
Sure he has not got much of a bark
And sure any he has it's all beside the mark.

This is quite interesting, and here's why,...

Let's assume that reincarnation is true. Let's also assume that reincarnation only occurs for the life of the universe.

In other words, based on average biological lifespans, a typical creature would have many many reincarnations over the lifetime of the universe.

However, if you fall into a black hole, then the entire universe will be over within a matter of hours for you!

In other words, by the time you reach the bottom of the black hole (which may only take you a few hours), the whole entire universe will have passed through eons of time!

So, based on that information, if you want to get to the end of the universe real quick, just jump into a black hole!

The interesting thing is the question of whether you would lose all your incarnations then?

At the end of the universe everyone else that you might have known who didn't fall into the black hole will have lived thousands if not millions of lifetimes. But you would have only experienced a few hours over that same 'period'.

So if the whole idea of reincarnation is to evolve to a certain level by the end of the universe you will have missed your opportunity to have experienced thousands, if not millions of lives.

I wonder if the Buddhists ever considered that?

Of course Buddhists believe that there are infinitely many universes, so it might not matter. If you miss your chance to evolve in this one you just move on to another one.

In fact, if there truly are infinitely many universes then why should reincarnation be restricted to just one of them.

A lot of people think of reincarnation in a very limited way. They think that you can only come back to planet earth!

I have no clue why they limit themselves to such narrow-minded thinking when there are over 100 billion galaxies just in the observable part of our universe.

Alan Guth believes our universe is actually 10 to 23rd power times larger than what is observable. That's a huge universe, and that's just this one.

In fact, for all intents and purposes humans can't even begin to comprehend just how large the observable part is!

There are believed to be over 70 Sextillion stars in the visible universe. And that's just a snapshot in time!

While it's true that the stars that we observe that are far away also existed long ago, it's still resonable to believe that there are still galaxies and stars where they were even 'today'.

So not only is there 70 sextillion stars in the visible universe, but that really only represents on point in time so-to-speak!

In short, reality is far beyond anything we can even begin to comprehend. And I can even say that just about the part of our own universe that we can actually see.

And there are many reasons to believe that there is much more to reality than what meets the eye.

It is fun stuff.

Really? Who? I guess I never got into a lengthy discussion with "a lot of people" about reincarnation but the ones I have talked about it with seemed to realize that earth was just one of the many places to visit and incarnate on.

I have found however that most people think reincarnation happens in a linear time line when I believe your next life can be in the past or the future and back to the past again. You can even exist incarnate during the same time span. You may even run into your past or future self and not even know it.

I saw a movie once where a hypnotist doing past life regressions discovered that his patient's past life was living at that same time as a stock broker in New York and under hypnotism he was taken to that person's future which had not even happened yet in real time.

The hypnotist went to New York and found the guy and his interference in that guys life caused a backlash in his patients life. It was very interesting.

Fun stuff.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080918192941.htm

This article talks about a paper that analyzes the way gravity is effecting galaxies out to the edge of the visible universe.

It shows quite clearly that the horizon is merely the extant light has traveled, and in order for the movement we see, there must be some seriously massive systems past our view . . . hehe

Great Video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOi0xA9GvX8&feature=rec-fresh

I guess I'm thinking about people who don't actually believe in reincarnation.

A lot of Christians think of reincarnation in this very limited way.

But then again, their religion is a pretty human-centric religion.

Even though we now recognize that the earth is not at the center of anything, Christians still believe that mankind and the earth is at the center of 'creation'.

In other words, they accept that it may not be physical the center of the universe, but they still see it as being the focus of Creation.

God created the heavens and the earth. With the earth being the focal point of creation, and the heavens being relativity irrelavent.

So if they are going to entertain an idea of reincarnation, they tend to think of it in this limited view that earth and human existence is the epitome of creation.

But I think you are right. People who seriously consider reincarnation most likely do think more broadly about it.

Buddha taught that there are infinitely many universes and that they are all part of 'creation' (or existence).

So I guess Buddhists should automatically recognize the idea that reincarnation has infinite possiblities.

But Christians often talk about reincarnation as 'coming back' to earth.

I think they view reincarnation as just a different way to get to 'heaven'. You're just given more chances to be judged in the same overall picture they have.

Δp Δx ≥ h/4π

i know exactly where you are with this but
i have no idea where you are going!

Again, thank you all for being involved here...

See, I knew I was just missing something so obvious concerning the mass of light...




Regarding the double slit interference experiment...



Photons are the ultimate surfers... lol



The expression used to represent and test Bell's theorem does not allow for the nature of the photon's location while "riding" on the wave...

If only a component of the frequency makes it through a polaroid filter, then who is to say where the photon was riding on the wave?

This alone could account for the varying test results, could it not?


The fact that we can create twin photons which travel in opposing directions enables us to measure one's state. Whether it be the polarization, momentum, location, or whatever, these things are being measured. QM calls for both photons' state vector collapse simultaneously. This gives credence to the notion of a non-local cause and effect (observation).

The very idea that both are caused to be in a definite state when either one is observed removes the allowance for inconsistencies caused by the photon's location on the actual wave, not the probability wave.

Duh-n-it???

lol

That's the crux of it. If you can explain it you'll be the dude of this millennium! You'll instantly supercede Albert Einstein and all the rest.

I worked on this with some intensity many years ago. I beat my head against the wall with it.

Any reasonable explanation of quantum entanglement, or the collapse of the wave function which is basically the same thing, would be a boon fall in physics.

No one has been able to touch these things.

At one time I wrote a computer program to simulate the photon being created and flying apart. I felt that I might be able to see something in the program.

What I saw was that it is impossible to program it without 'cheating'.

By 'cheating' I simply mean telling the output what it needs to be after the program determines what it needs to be. But that's a no-no. That's superluminal communication.

Of course, if you accept superluminal communication then you're set to go!

The only problem is that to accept superluminal communication you must give up cause and effect!

In other words, the effect must know what it's going to be before the cause even happens!

So in other words, the only explantion is to abandon everything thing we know, LOGIC, PHYSICS, and EVERYTHING. And just toss up our hands and say, "It's magic".

The world runs on magic.

End of disscussion.

Oh don't be so melodramatic Abra. It's happened before and it will happen again.

Well, I always knew the world ran on magic. But the idea that science could actually confirm it is quite dramatic doncha think?