Graviphoton

And i say, in Dr Hawking's book, ''Baby Universes and Black Holes, among other essays, '' he states that we can make photons travel faster than light, using the Uncertainty Principle. It, is, again, incontravertible.

And now, Dr Hakwings book, ''Black Holes and Baby Universes, among other essays,'' he states that ''and we can make photons travel faster than light, for a short period of time using the Uncertainty Principle.'' Proof.

Well, things that move below lightspeed, move in real time, or imaginary space. A photon moves through nothing, and goes no where. And a thing that moves faster than lightspeed, moves through imaginary time, or real space. Basic Physics Mooey.

Or unless, the spacetime fabric itself was dragging the photon... and that would mean it didn't exceed ''c''. So many options open, the debates will continue.

If you mean, it doesn't travel faster than light, because it doesn't move through spacetime, it actually does, but a subspacetime channel, in which must be within the fabric of spacetime itself.

Not sure about the first one, but have you considered using the inverse-square law for the second?

There you go It Is All Relative! Speed Of Light Beaten |Sky News|World News16 Aug 2007 ... Sky News - Scientists claim to have broken the ultimate speed record - by making photons travel ... Could Time Travel Actually Be Possible? ... news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1280079,00.html - 31k - Cached - Similar pages

Or right. As the case may be. Lets not be narrow and dogmatic here.

Which they are, when holding onto the belief photons can't move faster than light, when we know they can.

I think the general view is that information is ethereal. It exists, only as a statistical ghost rusing through the imaginary dimension, or real space, which are the same thing. But this is quantum information, and this is the only way i think it can be defined, unless we are talking about an exchange of energy, or quantum entanglement.

I beleive the answer Dad, is ''antiquated.'' INow. Yup.Flamer.

I Now No, wrong way to see it. I see it that i answer people, if they give me the correct question. If they don't, how can i give a correct answer? Your Dad Hi. I might consider it. I wouldn't mind giving Mooey a few lessons on the theory so he can have a total understanding. Or is it not just Mooey? Is there others here who find my posts repulsively difficult to understand?

Yes, i know that they cite these things, but some of the information in these references needs to be looked at the point, where photons can and do travel faster than light. This is an incontravertible, irrefutable proof we have observed in the lab.

Overconfidence can be a weakness. I hold that you are wrong, but i am still open to the possibility you could be right.

Yes, a debate. Not a conference.

Oh my God... Does anyone here know anything about physics? Information CANNOT be destroyed. Its set in stone in physics. Mooey Its not philosophy at all. Its all down to chemistry and qauntum actions. No one except you will deny this FACT OF SCIENCE.

Well i disagree, and i think we should leave it it at that.

Fair enough, all i ask is that the questions being asked are most pivotal, not as remedial as i have seen so far, not to mention the quantity of them. Mooey Oh i give answers. Now who is being a troll. Ask a single question at a time, and i will answer. Never mind that, its a blatent lie to say i don;t reply to people. Totally blatent.

I think your objective is to oust me from this forum. I know you don't like me, and you know you don't, so instead, you announce the big rip, and graviphoton is not acting by protocall!!! Do what you want. You're a free human individual, i am sure. Report me, if you want. You call me acting like a child, and yet this is analogous to children in the pkayground shouting... ''I'm telling on you.'' Pathetic.

Wierd math? Have you seen a resident mathematician claim a mistake in them? And i am acting this way, because i will not entertain the sickiningly long post you made, on those again, mostly remedial claims. If you want to help me help you, stop trying to be over-rigorous. I ask that you take the time to go over with me the things that most bother you, instead of the massive wall you gave me to do.

In factm Mooey, lets do it this way. You don't know enough about physics to be commenting about its validity. For instance, t represents the internal experience t' represents the external experience, and the probability of an observational experience with the objective world, is found by sqauring the two. Ignoring why this is valid, and just flaming non-educated guesses to why it is wrong, you then flame the probability equations where irrelevant at the point of discussion. How was it? Do you even know what they say? INow Yes i was being annoying, because mooey posted a ridiculously long post, asking totally remedial questions not really due to the point of discussion. Well, until Mooey answers my last post, i won't speak to her again.

//‘’Every point recognized in our visual bubble of spacetime correlates to a point in external space and time. The relationship between the two corresponding variables are found to be equal to the law, that the rule that the absolute square of the variable t gives the probability of an act between an observer and an observed system.’’ // Mooey I don't know where you take that quote from, but it makes no sense. For one, visual bubble is not defined (as I pointed out before). What corresponding variables? What law? what's t? why the square? who said this and in what context?? > If you had read it properly, this is my Law on the spacetime theory of consciousness. And it does make sense, it is just you are ignorant of quantum laws. And again, if you had read it correctly, i reduce the internal world and the external world down into variables, so we can deal with the two mathematically, but you will soon see what is meant by this, if you are still lost. // \\ means my words he qouted, [Mooey] - refers to what he said in response, and > This is my reply //The probability of a spacetime occurrence is proportional to the magnitude of the external time variable with the internal time variable, which will be described as t and t’, so the probability equation is given as// Mooey Where do you bring this? Where's your supporting EVIDENCE? Facts? Observations? Explanations? ANYTHING? You just throw around a claim, call it a sentence, and make out math to support it. Besides, I utterly disagree. The proposed relationship between the mind's gamma wave at sleep is proportional to the proper posture of an adult male pan paniscus when it is in its verge of externalizing his internal fluids from digesting local flora. The variables accompanied are in direct and opposite relation to the square root of the size and length of the pan paniscus external organ when it is lifted and ready to pick a fruit, hence the equation given proves its fruitfulness. > My Law must state this, and even if its not a real thing, even if its not true otherwise, it is still absolutely allowed by physics, and agrees with my line of thought, even if it doesn't with yours.

As for bubble of existence, this refers to the world we come to see, this ''round'' sphere of perception, which is not the real world outside, but a strange hyperdimension of holography which has all the attributes observationally of an outside three-dimesional freedom. And a sense of time passing us by. Don't interrupt me, and you will see i am answering each question seperately, thank you. //The Relationship between Internal and External Spacetime (a.k.a Reference Theory)// Mooey Didn't you just claim that spacetime we percieve does not exist in time and space? I don't quite understand which "internal" and "external" spacetime you are talking about now. Reference theory is a bit clearer, but the jump from spacetime to the statement, or idea of reference, hence - "Points-of-View dictate reality" - is quite a large one. You still need to explain what is the 'visual bubble of spacetime'. If you claim that what we see is not what exists, you need to base it, not just claim it. If you claim that our perception is a bubble that represents the reality (pretty much the same as the other claim) you need, again, to support it with science. Explain that term and SUPPORT it with science before you move on to build premises from it, let alone conclusions on top of it. > Look, you need to put some thought into this. My theory isn't a walk in the park. Now, there is an internal spacetime, and the external spacetime. subjective and objective. Our consciousness may not exist in the external dimensions. This is what is meant here. And i don't claim a new idea about the bubble of perception not being the outside world. It is a KNOWN FACT of nueroscience.

Well, let me just get my crystal ball, to see which parts are ambigous... Right mooey... just coming to you and your post. //Actually, i think going over the points in the system i have provided, would keep it clearer, and also would refresh and perhaps make clearer what is meant. Of course you do.// Mooey Fine. Yet again, here are my *initial* analysis, ignoring the mathematics for now since until the premises are clearer and the conclusions sorted out, the math is utterly irrelevant. > We shall see yes? //Initial Thoughts on Spacetime Theories Its seems that spacetime theories are quite a mainstream theory. I don't mean to be picky, but you really should be more specific. There are many types of theories and many hypotheses in relation to Spacetime. Many of them are actually not quite mainstream and are, still, hypotheses. If you claim such a thing, you need to specify which of the theories you are about to critique or replace. Even if to make sure we are all on the same "page". Mooey I don't mean to be picky, but you really should be more specific. There are many types of theories and many hypotheses in relation to Spacetime. Many of them are actually not quite mainstream and are, still, hypotheses. If you claim such a thing, you need to specify which of the theories you are about to critique or replace. Even if to make sure we are all on the same "page". > No, it is mainstream. Check ''Spacetime Theories, Consciousness,'' and you will find the experiments and the history there. // came up with the idea of treating the mind as a dimension of spacetime, and I wasn’t aware of this. Its actually good, because then it cannot be so crack pot. The idea, is that consciousness is related to geometrical features, and are therefore called spacetime theories. // Mooey ''So your premise relies on the mind being separate than the physical brain? You need to prove this, or at the very least give an explanation of why this is valid. The existence of the mind as a separate entity is NOT something people just take for granted. In fact, scientific advancements currently lead towards the strict connection between physiology and what we call 'consciousness'. Hence that consciousness is NOT separated from the physiology, is inherently IN the brain and dependent on neural circuits. If you disagree with that, you need to first explain why and base it on actual science, not just your own opinion.'' > No, actually. The mind requires the matter, so that consciousness can survive in the state it does. The single mind, or consciousness, which has been proven by a Vedantic metaphysical physicist, is that which i refer to being beyond matter. // believe it was Arthur Eddington who first came up with the name to the theory, and advanced by Dr. John Smythies. It seems that the theory is based upon the proposal that the spacetime continuum we perceive in the four dimensional phenomenon, neither exists in time nor space… But we do have points and places in space and time as though our bubble of perception has these degrees of freedom. // Mooey ... what? Spacetime is both space and time. I'm not sure about this proposal since I haven't read what it says (And I couldn't find it online... do you have anywhere we can read it more thorroughly?) but it sounds a bit like wordsalad. Spacetime is Space+time connected. To say that spacetime has no space and no time is illegible. I don't understand what it means that it doesnt exist in time or space but we have points in our 'bubble' of perception that allows for degrees of frteedom... to do what? To see timespace? To be timespace? To notice timespace?... I'm sure the proposal has more merit behind it than "Space Time Continuum" (Startrek?) and the wordsalad that the rest of that paragraph entails. Just give us the original proposal, please, so we can understand what it is you're proposing after them. > Much to learn you still have, don't you? Space and time are the same thing, because Minkowski, Einsteins teacher proved that they play the exact same roles. He said, ''We can no longer thing of space and time seperate.''

Yes, in much the same sense it states i am not necesserily wrong either. In fact, i consider this: Faster-than-light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAs with the Alcubierre drive, travelers moving through the wormhole would not locally move faster than light which travels through the wormhole alongside ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster_than_light_travel - 100k - Cached - Similar pages Take a leap into hyperspace - fundamentals - 05 January 2006 - New ...5 Jan 2006 ... New Scientist Space uncovers the curious tale of the rocket driven ... the speed of light could be several times faster than we experience. ... space.newscientist.com/article/mg18925331.200-take-a-leap-into-hyperspace.html - 73k - Cached - Similar pages Faster than the speed of light - 01 April 1995 - New ScientistSo if light can travel faster than light, shouldn't it be possible to send .... The angles of incidence for both photon tracks are arranged to be the same, ... http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14619714.200-faster-than-the-speed-of-light.html - 64k - Cached - Similar pages As a proof that quantum information moves superluminal. If a photon by terminology is also a unit of information, then these sources state a proof that certain information DOES TRAVEL FASTER THAN C, showing Einstein to be wrong again, this time not only about entanglement, but also the fact information can and does. Remember also, entanglement is not proof information cannot, because it relies on the notion that the universe in non-local, and there is no theory suggesting it can't be non-local as well as local. It also depends on the new physics, providingnew answers, which would make Bell's theorem antiquated.