I will agree that within this vaccuum we call our spacetime universe, light does appear to travel. But that is not the underlying reality of the true situation or the true nature of reality. It is simply an attribute of the vacuum.

"Speed" (through space) is not an attribute of light.

You wanted PROOF. That link is the MATHEMATICAL FORMULAS if you know anything about science you should understand it.

But since you didn't even look I can see now that you don't want to realize, comprehend or examine any proof at all.

You just want to believe the illusion.

You just want to defend your (illusional) position and cling to the appearance of this perceived reality.

you really want to tell me that you believe that you do not exist?

now,explain to me then,since Light is standing still,how in heck Nuclear Devices,and the whole electromagnetic spectrum works,including our Communications,like all of the Internet!
I really wonder where you get those outlandish ideas from!
Definitely not from Einstein,since he used the Speed of light in his Energy-Equation!

and why should I believe anything you tell us here,since,by your own admission,you do NOT exist?

Because the universe we live in IS A VACUUM.

We call it the spacetime continuum. It is a vacuum.

"Speed" is not an attribute of light. It only has speed inside of a vacuum.




At least I can find comfort in knowing that Einstein would understand what I am saying. I gave you a link to the mathematical Proof.

Most physicists agree that matter is not solid, and that time does not actually exist.

David Bohm knows about the two realities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order_according_to_David_Bohm

David Joseph Bohm FRS[1] (20 December 1917 – 27 October 1992) was an American theoretical physicist who contributed innovative and unorthodox ideas to quantum theory, philosophy of mind, and neuropsychology. He is widely considered to be one of the most significant theoretical physicists of the 20th century.[2]

In physics, Bohm advanced the view that the old Cartesian model of reality was limited, in the light of developments in quantum physics. He developed in detail a mathematical and physical theory of implicate and explicate order to complement it.[3]

Bohm warned of the dangers of rampant reason and technology, advocating instead the need for genuine supportive dialogue which he claimed could broaden and unify conflicting and troublesome divisions in the social world. In this his epistemology mirrored his ontological viewpoint.[4]

He believed that the working of the brain, at the cellular level, obeyed the mathematics of some quantum effects. Therefore he postulated that thought was distributed and non-localised in the way that quantum entities do not readily fit into our conventional model of space and time.



I don't care what you chose to believe, its your life.

But you wanted proof and I gave it to you. You just don't know what to do with it.

I never said that "I" do not exist.

In fact, the only certainty we can have is that we exist and that something exists.

The nature of what we are or what that 'something' is -- well that's the real question you should be asking.

Quantum entanglement
David Bohm,

Central to Bohm's schema are correlations between observables of entities which seem separated by great distances in the explicate order (such as a particular electron here on earth and an alpha particle in one of the stars in the Abell 1835 galaxy, the farthest galaxy from Earth known to humans), manifestations of the implicate order. Within quantum theory there is entanglement of such objects.

This view of order necessarily departs from any notion which entails signalling, and therefore causality. The correlation of observables does not imply a causal influence, and in Bohm's schema the latter represents 'relatively' independent events in space-time; and therefore explicate order.

A common grounding for consciousness and matter

David Bohm

The implicate order represents the proposal of a general metaphysical concept in terms of which it is claimed that matter and consciousness might both be understood, in the sense that it is proposed that both matter and consciousness: (i) enfold the structure of the whole within each region, and (ii) involve continuous processes of enfoldment and unfoldment. For example, in the case of matter, entities such as atoms may represent continuous enfoldment and unfoldment which manifests as a relatively stable and autonomous entity that can be observed to follow a relatively well-defined path in space-time. In the case of consciousness, Bohm pointed toward evidence presented by Karl Pribram that memories may be enfolded within every region of the brain rather than being localized (for example in particular regions of the brain, cells, or atoms).

Bohm went on to say:

As in our discussion of matter in general, it is now necessary to go into the question of how in consciousness the explicate order is what is manifest ... the manifest content of consciousness is based essentially on memory, which is what allows such content to be held in a fairly constant form. Of course, to make possible such constancy it is also necessary that this content be organized, not only through relatively fixed association but also with the aid of the rules of logic, and of our basic categories of space, time causality, universality, etc. ... there will be a strong background of recurrent stable, and separable features, against which the transitory and changing aspects of the unbroken flow of experience will be seen as fleeting impressions that tend to be arranged and ordered mainly in terms of the vast totality of the relatively static and fragmented content of [memories].[8]

Bohm also claimed that "as with consciousness, each moment has a certain explicate order, and in addition it enfolds all the others, though in its own way. So the relationship of each moment in the whole to all the others is implied by its total content: the way in which it 'holds' all the others enfolded within it". Bohm characterises consciousness as a process in which at each moment, content that was previously implicate is presently explicate, and content which was previously explicate has become implicate.

One may indeed say that our memory is a special case of the process described above, for all that is recorded is held enfolded within the brain cells and these are part of matter in general. The recurrence and stability of our own memory as a relatively independent sub-totality is thus brought about as part of the very same process that sustains the recurrence and stability in the manifest order of matter in general. It follows, then, that the explicate and manifest order of consciousness is not ultimately distinct from that of matter in general.[9]

Hello? Hello?





So Conrad, have you read the material and the math and figured out what I am saying yet?

Do you understand why I say that "speed" is not an personal attribute of light?

Do you understand why light only appears to us to have speed because it is in a vacuum?

We as human observers are also in the vacuum and that is why it appears to us that light has 'speed.' That is why all of our numbers (that we invented) and measurements (that we invented) work.

Everything in the vacuum moves from our perspective and is, as Einstein says, relative to everything else.

Because the natural forces (like gravity) in the vacuum are constant the "speed of light" is the constant by which we measure everything else.

BUT IT IS ALL RELATIVE.

If we could move at the speed of light, time slows and disappears.

Light itself IS "the speed" of light and in that place, (if we could be there)...there is no time and no space.. and no "speed."


It is not a simple thing to grasp mentally, but the numbers do prove what I am saying is correct.

http://mathpages.com/rr/s2-01/2-01.htm

That is why Einstein said "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

What all of this tells me is that science has already connected the dots between what we see and perceive as our reality and the underlying reality that "does not actually exist" as we define "existence."

(Except physicists like David Bohm have gotten it figured out for the most part.)

They just don't know exactly how to say that it is consciousness because they have always thought that consciousness was something that arises out of matter.

What all this proves is the opposite. Everything arises out of consciousness. The problem with that is, they don't know what exactly that (consciousness) is.

i thing you're right about physics

yes...

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/gulfstreamspeed.html

i think your misinterpreting what is being said... our minds are our own reality, we all perceive/interpret everything differently... things in your reality might not exist the same way as in someone elses reality. our minds are what control everything we see and how we interpret it.

our minds do not create reality, it interprets it...

Actual quote is "Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

I'm not convinced that is correct. He may have said both. They are two different quotes.

maybe... here's about 800 quotes from AE...

http://www.1-famous-quotes.com/quotes/author/Albert/Einstein/pg/5

Well the theory is that Quantum entanglement happens instantaneously. So it would be infinitely faster than light. It would be like gravity, how fast does the gravity from the Earth effect the moon? Gravity doesn't travel outwards towards the moon, It exists at all times, it is a constant effect. If you want a fun visual. Imaging we somehow turned the gravity off on Earth. It would effect the moon instantly. It would not have to wait for the speed limit of light for gravity to catch up to the moon. Quantum entanglement works on a similar basis but on the quantum level.

Personally I dont believe in Quantum entanglement and there is better explanations as to what is happening.

It has already been proven with evidence. The name "quantum entanglement" is just what they call the effect which is a condition of the fact that everything in the entire universe is connected as a single organism.

Scientists just don't want to admit that.

Oh and saying "I don't believe in it." is like saying something like "I don't believe in the sun."

yea, i was reading an article yesterday about how they found a way to find faster proof of quatum entanglement, but the way i was reading it, it seemed like they were ignoring any evidence of it not being there, while only looking at what could be it... i'll see if i can find the article and post it here...

http://www.livescience.com/37244-quantum-entanglement-heralding-efficiency.html

I understand quantum entanglement has been verified by many experiments. I understand the sun has been verified as a giant ball of gas. And no, I do not believe in the sun. Now when I say I do not believe in it I mean I do not believe what is told about them. Its like saying I believe this novel I am holding is about love and romance and I came to this conclusion just from looking at a single letter from a random page somewhere in the middle of the book.

gottcha. I have to agree. Scientists don't have all the facts.

They have quite a few.