YaDinghus

18 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Yes, I know this is a purely speculative idea anyway and beyond me anyway... I'll stick with the postulates of relativity. Maybe mordred might know.

I say we are free to speculate and guess - it's fun for me to do so - as long as we are honest about our limitations. @Mordred what is yoir take on all of this?

47 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Tell me how a consciousness, as in the self at the core of my very being, is explained by science. You can't, because science explains a reality existing around a central point of observation, which is the self or "I am" point of consciousness. Nothing around this self can explain its existence of experiencing reality.

And how about you tell me what started the big bang? Or more specifically, what need was there for the universe to exist such that there had stop be a starting point as a big bang?

My point is that the "I' exists within the external reality, but that the "I" is what fundamentally creates the reality around it in order for it to exist within it as an "I". The creation of the reality around it is what is done a higher power, or simply a power, which is not distinguished from the "I".

Just saying a lot of confusing and garbled words will make me ignore you instead of believe you

8 hours ago, Strange said:

I know that was Descartes intention

It was his intention to logically prove the existence of god, but in the prologue to one of his books, he actually apologizes to his benefactors in the Vatican that he was unable to do so, and the only conclusion he could come to was that the only thing he could be sure of was his own existence, because he could perceive himself, hence 'cogito, ergo sum'. I really recommend reading Descartes if you are interested in the history of modern philosophy. Also, 'cogito, ergo sum' is only the popular half of his famous conclusion. It's:"dubito, ergo cogito, cogito, ergo sum"

Quote

While we thus reject all of which we can entertain the smallest doubt, and even imagine that it is false, we easily indeed suppose that there is neither God, nor sky, nor bodies, and that we ourselves even have neither hands nor feet, nor, finally, a body; but we cannot in the same way suppose that we are not while we doubt of the truth of these things; for there is a repugnance in conceiving that what thinks does not exist at the very time when it thinks. Accordingly, the knowledge, I think, therefore I am,[d] is the first and most certain that occurs to one who philosophizes orderly

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum

6 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

The idea of my argument is not that consciousness exists independently from the body. Instead, it is about a higher power creating everything around the consciousness, through physical processes, in order for the consciousness to exist in. That essentially means that the consciousness creates it's own existence.

You really need to try and effectively argue that Descartes is wrong, and Hegel, and Kant, and Shopenhauer, and Camus, you might try your hand at Nietzsche, too. Really fascinating literature. 

6 hours ago, MigL said:

So Rosanne Barr displays to the world that she doesn't just play 'white trash' on TV; she IS white trash.
And she gets herself and a lot of others , on the unemployment line.
Whether you think that's fair to the rest of the cast or others who worked on the show, is irrelevant, as the network has the right to protect its 'image'.

Now Samantha Bee calls Ivanka Trump a "c**t' on national TV and no action is taken by the network.

Is this the double standard Republicans are always complaining about ?
Are TV networks trying to project an Anti-Trump image, so this is OK ?
Is this a non-issue ( because it agrees with your sensibilities ) ?
Or is hateful speech to be called out no matter what your political leanings ?

 

I tend to agree that personal attacks on national TV are unprofessional, and the c word in particular expresses a very big deal of disdain. It's like calling the turkish president a goatf**ker, which happened in Germany on TV, albeit in a satirical setting. Btw that comedian still is on national TV in Germany, even though the Turkish president filed a lawsuit against him, and when Bundestag denied him, Erdogan got pretty angry at Germany and Chancellor Merkel in specific. 

I never cared for Roseanne Barr and her show in the first place, and I'm not shedding tears for her. As little as I care for Duck Dynasty. I mostly accept that characters in a movie or show have racist tendencies or prejudice towards other religions or are sexist, because it's part of the dramaturgical structure, and often it is criticized inside the film. As long as the actors don't behave like that IRL. But Roseanne posted that on her persona twitter account, and that is unacceptable. I wouldn't want to be associated with her. 

1 minute ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Denying my reasoning is not refuting my reasoning.

Deflecting is not answering my question:

6 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

Why invest more energy?

2 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

It's not about a god, it's about a higher power. The reasoning is supposed to show how a higher power creates around consciousness.

You're saying the same thing in different words over and over again. We've demonstrated that we are not inclined to accept your reasoning, or lack thereof. Why invest more energy?

6 hours ago, StringJunky said:

How would the 'old' photons know how to change, which are zipping merrily along through the aeons; where would the instructions come from to change velocity?

I think it's about the propagation speed of the waves. I'm not entirely sure since I've never done the kind of math required to describe a change in c in physics. Photons as massless particles aren't inertial, which is why they 'can' go the speed of light in the first place, but they can't go any slower, either. Rather than c being slower at the instance of the big bang, I would guess that if it changed at all, it would be higher, maybe even infinite, but that is not anything I could hope to provide evidence or even a sound theory for

19 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I'm saying, or pondering, that if the velocity was 1% less then, those photons would be  1% less now.

Well, no, probably not. The speed of photons is always the speed of causality, and if that speed changed, they would change with it. Unless the fundamental properties of photons changed at that point, but then they wouldn't be photons anymore, but something that decays into photons and something else at lower energy. 

21 minutes ago, Strange said:

And the consciousness in this human doesn't understand or belief any such thing. As far as this consciousness is concerned, you are just making it up

Second that. +1

40 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

No, flying unicorns is crazy.  Variable c is within the domain of questionable physics.

Flying Unicorns are real. We just haven't observed them yet. Neither have we observed anything that changes in c would explain better than other, more sensible theories

Self-replicating molecules might even be a necessity emerging from thermodynamics itself, as they are really good at dispersing an imbalance in energy distribution. If this imbalance is sustained for a sufficient amount of time, molecules that reproduce more efficiently get the upper hand. E voila: evolution. https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/

1 hour ago, AbstractDreamer said:

2 hours ago, YaDinghus said:

A change in c would be quite a drastic change in the laws of nature. The only time I can imagine this happening is the first planck time after the big bang, but that doesn't mean that this would have been the case. 

Why would it drastically change the laws of nature, if these changes were simply beyond anything that might affect you?  Unless you were to travel a cosmologically long distance or time away, you wouldn't know any different.

I might have said it in another thread. c is not only the speed of light, it is the speed of causality. And it affects every interaction involving everything, because it is in the basic relationship of Mass, Momentum and Energy. Since Energy is a conserved quantity as long as there is a conserved symmetry, and changing c would change Energy, you would necessarily break symmetry, which only happens at force unification and diversification thresholds - major changes in the laws of physics. We are quite confident that c has not changed after the first planck time after the big bang.

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

Forces are mediated by virtual photons. This means (as I understand it) that there is no minimum value or range limit on the force.

EM certainly is Photons. Strong is Gluons, and they pretty much stop at the edge of the nucleus - though that is probably due to the special relationship of quarks and gluons, not so much of the Gluons' properties (Color Confinement). If Gravity is quantum, the Graviton would have much in common with the Photon. I'm using conditional for Graviton because we have yet to observe one in a lab. W and Z Bosons are the weak interaction transmitters. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So god doesn't exist when I die?

Exactly. Because you are your own god ;-)

2 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Consciousness is about the self more than what the self experience. That is, the consciousness is supposed to be the self that is experiencing the brain or the body in the present moment. The fact that a consciousness is affected when the brain is affected shows how the consciousness is really experiencing the brain and becoming the brain, with an existence that requires a brain.

That is a really nice and interesting idea. Alas, this idea doesn't get the status of hypothesis or even theory...

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

We have observational evidence  of length contraction and also time dilation: I pretty sure they both denote and require an invariant "c" 

Invariant over time?, what reason do we have to presume that "c"changes over time? How about the other physical constants?

A change in c would be quite a drastic change in the laws of nature. The only time I can imagine this happening is the first planck time after the big bang, but that doesn't mean that this would have been the case. 

1 minute ago, Endercreeper01 said:

The existence of the human as creatures is not what requires a higher power. It is the existence of a consciousness existing within a body that attributes a higher power to the existence of everything around it. When it is understood that the conscious self has an existence independent from everything around it, it becomes apparent how a higher power is responsible for creating everything around the consciousness for the self to exist within.

That is, if the consciousness is indeed independent of the body it inhabits. Since neurological phenomena have a strong impact on our perception and our consciousness, I am not convinced that this is the case

In my imagination of the matter, if spacetime is quantized, there would have to be a minimum energy for an accumulation of energy to contract spacetime by one granule. It's hard (damned near impossible) to give a specific value or even order of magnitude for this minimum energy because the granular size of spacetime isn't necessarily a (planck time)*(planck length)^3. 

The question is whether it is at all practical to think this way. There's not really a chance for Photons to influence eachother gravitationally because interference effects are much stronger - Photon-Photon gravitational effects should be smaller than any principle method of measurement according to Heisenberg uncertainty. Photon-electron electromagnetic interactions would similarly overpower photon-electron gravitational effects beyond them being recognizeable

5 hours ago, AbstractDreamer said:

How do you have momentum without mass?  Do all massless particles have the same energy?  Will a gamma ray photon have greater gravitational effect than visible light photon?

If gravity propagates at the speed of light, from a photon travelling at the speed of light, how does this effect the gravitational field created by the massless excitation in the electromagnetic field?

In classical mechanics of course this doesn't work. But luxons (Wikipedia: Massless particles) (particles that move at light speed) can't have mass, so they only have momentum. 

The coupling of Energy to Gravity is extremely weak. I suspect that it is possible that, if Spactime is granular (Wikipedia) in nature, that Energies of the scale of TeV are required to create a Spacetime change, and create their own gravity well. This is way outside of my expertise, and there might be other, better explanations that I am not thinking of now. But the consequence of this being at least a little accurate and applicable would be that there is nothing to consider because there is no gravitational field being created by the photon

Quote

Retrocausality is sometimes associated with the nonlocal correlations that generically arise from quantum entanglement,[23] including the notable special case of the delayed choice quantum eraser

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality

Retrocausality is very fringy in physics, but it does a better job of explaining the instantaneous communication of entangled particles than anything @Ant Sinclair has provided. 

Another conjecture that is better than anything @Ant Sinclair has provided for aforementioned phenomenon is ER=EPR (Wikipedia) :

Quote

ER=EPR is a conjecture in physics stating that entangled particles are connected by a wormhole (or Einstein–Rosen bridge)[1][2] and may be a basis for unifying general relativityand quantum mechanics into a theory of everything.[1]

Now that I've provided 2 targets, maybe you want to present 2 attack vectors to support your "theory"

2 minutes ago, Tanya said:

If you translated “welcome” then all is ok

I did indeed

1 minute ago, Tanya said:

Ukraine 

Ласкаво просимо!

I hope that's right. Google Translator is still not particularly reliable

2 hours ago, Tanya said:

In country where I’m living people say to their children that they should eat soup or they get gastritis, peptic ulcer or other disease. Does it true?

Parents will tell their children lots of things to make them behave the way they want. I still eat up everything on my plate to ensure the weather's going to be agreeable. Might I ask where you are from?

38 minutes ago, Ant Sinclair said:

Cry baby, oh dear

Who's crying? You're the one throwing a tantrum because you're not getting your way...

39 minutes ago, Ant Sinclair said:

I'll be generous and let you in on a little secret about Magnetism;

 

Length of Verse = 14.65 billion light years

Time until our Magnetic Cage fully formed = 78,000 years(Earth Years)

14.65^9 x 9.461^15 =  1.386^26 metres

78,000 x 365.24 x 24 x 60 x 60 = 2.461^12 seconds 

 

1.386^26metres /  2.461^12 seconds = 5.631^13 m/s

 

5.631^13 m/S / C(speed of light) = approx 187,700C

Magnetic fields propagate at over 187,000 times the speed of light Mordred!!! 

 

Spooky Action at a Distance' Speed

That wouldn't be a little secret - if it were true. In reality, however, as the speed of light is actually the speed of causality (Wikipedia Link): 

Quote

In classical physics, an effect can't occur before its cause. In the theory of relativity, causality means that an effect can not occur from a cause which is not in the back (past) light cone of that event. Similarly, a cause can not have an effect outside its front (future) light cone

It's not only the maximum speed for any particle, it is also the maximum speed with which anything can affect anything else, and since this happens via forces, a force or change in a field can't propagate faster than the speed of light. 

Why don't you tell us what premises you base your claims on, and how you come by your calculations? Not that I'm particularly interested in what you're saying, just in the interest of having a good discussion

6 minutes ago, Ant Sinclair said:

Get out of here - is that all you've got - shameful from a Man of "learning".

 

Would you Coyote, like to know where the real physics kick in???

I think we're beyond the point where this thread should be shut down. Attacks ad hominem are against forum rules