Laws of physics 'are different' depending on where you are in the universe
- Thread starter bngenoh
- Start date
Ðekel
The Living Force
apropos the subject of this thread AND "spacetime address", i would like to share this find on youtube;
first a short explanation
the solar system is most often depicted as having a fixed sun that does not move in space, and as having planets which orbit in fixed space and retrace the same space while orbiting.
this way of depicting the solar system and the planets motion through space is simply outdated.
in reality, the galaxy is constantly spinning, and along with it, the solar system is moving through space.
while the planets do accompany the sun, their trajectories through 3d space is not circular at all. it is rather coil-shaped.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBlAGGzup48&feature=related
first a short explanation
the solar system is most often depicted as having a fixed sun that does not move in space, and as having planets which orbit in fixed space and retrace the same space while orbiting.
this way of depicting the solar system and the planets motion through space is simply outdated.
in reality, the galaxy is constantly spinning, and along with it, the solar system is moving through space.
while the planets do accompany the sun, their trajectories through 3d space is not circular at all. it is rather coil-shaped.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBlAGGzup48&feature=related
Buddy
The Living Force
Indeed, transientP. All reality is in motion on every level and scale, OSIT.
I think so too. Maybe the basic problem to deal with relates to how, in order to retain classical 'objectivity' in theories, 'time', 'space' and whatever must be treated as geometrical in a real sense? Space-time identity is, at least, partially built up from assuming space is a proxy for time, right? A classical notion calls for a 'space' that can "stand still" due to space's classical analyticity, OSIT. I'd say that a useful "tell" related to any Classical view assumes you and I or any'thing' stands still (aka "has zero momentum").
Using Minkowski's space-time triangle, you can think in two modes, or in 1 or 2 additional dimensions: time-like or space-like. If you think time-like (say to calculate an age of a traveler as perceived by self or an observer), then time's dimension is real and space's dimension is imaginary (time-like separated events appear earlier or later in 'real' time for all observers. Earlier/later relations for time-like events are preserved).
If you think space-like (say to calculate a distance traveled as perceived by self or an observer), then space's dimension is real and time's dimension is imaginary, but it's still all classical, I think - at least when Minkowski came up with that.
I'm also thinking that eventually, if people in general want to tie an acceptance of Superluminal Communication to their experiential knowledge and being, it seems to me that they might want to at least explore a layman's understanding of this Quantum vs Classical stuff. Fortunately, that's not all that difficult, OSIT.
Unless I'm mistaken, Superluminal essentially means no latency. Though Einstein kind of abhorred 'action at a distance', these days we seem to be waking up to a new reality - a 'multi-verse' (as contrasted with a uni-verse) where quanta of some sort can travel much faster than light speed when this quanta spends less 'time' traveling through the 'actuality' part of reality than through the quantum level of non-actuality (the realm of limitless possibilities).
Another way of saying it: quanta may travel faster than light speed in actuality when it can dip into "non-actuality quantum flux" where correlations are instantaneous and then reemerge (so to speak) in actuality!
If this is still confusing, then imagine that you exist partially immersed in a realm of limitless possibilities (quantum realm) like being half in and half out of the ocean at the beach. Then, try to imagine this ocean is all around you already - just undistinguished, since there'd be no'thing' as great to compare with and distinguish from.
To travel faster than light, you would probably need to be temporarily willing to let go of all classical (particle) notions of "I" - all 'actual' (classical) notions of yourself (as currently physically actualized) and submerge into a wavy realm of quantum flux where more of you exists as 'waves of potential' already connected to all other waves. Without classical 'resistance' in a classical reality, travel can likely be at speeds of thought so that when you "think you're there", you reemerge into actuality and see that it's true, perhaps!
Kewl plot for a fiction novel huh? Actually, I think this was already partially done by Brian Lumley in his "Vamphyri!" series starting with "Necroscope" where the protagonist uses a door to a Möbius strip. Probably explains why I liked Lumley's writing so much at that time. :)
At any rate, as fantastic as all this may seem, it still speaks to the need for emotional discipline, intellectual discipline and all forms of self-control (G's self-mastery) from the Work, OSIT.
---------------------
Edit: wording
bngenoh said:
I think so too. Maybe the basic problem to deal with relates to how, in order to retain classical 'objectivity' in theories, 'time', 'space' and whatever must be treated as geometrical in a real sense? Space-time identity is, at least, partially built up from assuming space is a proxy for time, right? A classical notion calls for a 'space' that can "stand still" due to space's classical analyticity, OSIT. I'd say that a useful "tell" related to any Classical view assumes you and I or any'thing' stands still (aka "has zero momentum").
Using Minkowski's space-time triangle, you can think in two modes, or in 1 or 2 additional dimensions: time-like or space-like. If you think time-like (say to calculate an age of a traveler as perceived by self or an observer), then time's dimension is real and space's dimension is imaginary (time-like separated events appear earlier or later in 'real' time for all observers. Earlier/later relations for time-like events are preserved).
If you think space-like (say to calculate a distance traveled as perceived by self or an observer), then space's dimension is real and time's dimension is imaginary, but it's still all classical, I think - at least when Minkowski came up with that.
I'm also thinking that eventually, if people in general want to tie an acceptance of Superluminal Communication to their experiential knowledge and being, it seems to me that they might want to at least explore a layman's understanding of this Quantum vs Classical stuff. Fortunately, that's not all that difficult, OSIT.
Unless I'm mistaken, Superluminal essentially means no latency. Though Einstein kind of abhorred 'action at a distance', these days we seem to be waking up to a new reality - a 'multi-verse' (as contrasted with a uni-verse) where quanta of some sort can travel much faster than light speed when this quanta spends less 'time' traveling through the 'actuality' part of reality than through the quantum level of non-actuality (the realm of limitless possibilities).
Another way of saying it: quanta may travel faster than light speed in actuality when it can dip into "non-actuality quantum flux" where correlations are instantaneous and then reemerge (so to speak) in actuality!
If this is still confusing, then imagine that you exist partially immersed in a realm of limitless possibilities (quantum realm) like being half in and half out of the ocean at the beach. Then, try to imagine this ocean is all around you already - just undistinguished, since there'd be no'thing' as great to compare with and distinguish from.
To travel faster than light, you would probably need to be temporarily willing to let go of all classical (particle) notions of "I" - all 'actual' (classical) notions of yourself (as currently physically actualized) and submerge into a wavy realm of quantum flux where more of you exists as 'waves of potential' already connected to all other waves. Without classical 'resistance' in a classical reality, travel can likely be at speeds of thought so that when you "think you're there", you reemerge into actuality and see that it's true, perhaps!
Kewl plot for a fiction novel huh? Actually, I think this was already partially done by Brian Lumley in his "Vamphyri!" series starting with "Necroscope" where the protagonist uses a door to a Möbius strip. Probably explains why I liked Lumley's writing so much at that time. :)
At any rate, as fantastic as all this may seem, it still speaks to the need for emotional discipline, intellectual discipline and all forms of self-control (G's self-mastery) from the Work, OSIT.
---------------------
Edit: wording
Graalsword
Jedi Council Member
Just searching another quote for another thread I found this one that might be somewhat related to this subject:
Ðekel
The Living Force
Buddy,
yup, he called it "spooky action at a distance" :P
i tend to think that everything is connected always, and that what changes at some point is only one's realizing this connection and how real it is.
this also helps put into perspective the notion that if "reincarnation" exists, it does not have to be viewed as incarnating in a succession over time,
but rather having incarnations simultaneously (from a point of view outside of time) with each one embedded at a different "time" coordinate.
and then i look at the spiral that the planets create when accompanying the sun through space, and it kinda looks like some sort of DNA helix mirroring on a larger scale in space.
there seems to be a higher-level understanding of nature that points to the fact that nothing is circular. every motion that we once thought of as circular and closed is now thought rather as spiral shaped / coil shaped.
just some more thoughts..
yup, he called it "spooky action at a distance" :P
i tend to think that everything is connected always, and that what changes at some point is only one's realizing this connection and how real it is.
this also helps put into perspective the notion that if "reincarnation" exists, it does not have to be viewed as incarnating in a succession over time,
but rather having incarnations simultaneously (from a point of view outside of time) with each one embedded at a different "time" coordinate.
and then i look at the spiral that the planets create when accompanying the sun through space, and it kinda looks like some sort of DNA helix mirroring on a larger scale in space.
there seems to be a higher-level understanding of nature that points to the fact that nothing is circular. every motion that we once thought of as circular and closed is now thought rather as spiral shaped / coil shaped.
just some more thoughts..
Buddy
The Living Force
transientP said:
To view reincarnation at all, how could such a conjectured process be viewed otherwise?
transientP said:
How sure are you of a POV outside of time? I think one meaning of "simultaneously" could be "all happening 'now'", but 'now' is also a placement in 'time', eh?
transientP said:
You see existence as being overlaid with a grid of "time" coordinates? What would serve as "zero-point time" for that reference frame?
Please note: I'm not chopping up concepts in the name of reductionist fun or whatnot, I genuinely enjoy dialog on this subject area to help identify missing pieces of a larger puzzle.
Thanks for participating. :)
In this reality, the entire Solar System passes from the South of the Galactic Plane to the North. It crosses it next year. That's the centerline of our galaxy, the Milky Way. Our galaxy is like a laminated structure of stars, gas & dust.
What is not entirely clear is what laminations are crossed when. As our galaxy is a spiral, it's many arms are wound around a nucleus (the core is in the general direction of Saggitarius). When our Sun has a Coronal Mass Ejection, the path that the plasma and energy travels is likewise wound around the Sun....like a spiral. The Galactic Core could also be sending shock waves (of who know what) outwards in the spirals, or space between the spirals.
What would a Galactic Core wave do to our Solar System and the physics of it when one struck?
The density might come up a tad or a whole bunch, or add an energy not presently apparent.
Sure, one of those could easliy upset the Gravity applecart, and many like it in adjacent areas of the galaxy.
And who knows what our Local Group Galaxy Cluster, Virgo SuperCluster and voids do.
For all we know, we have been in a 'sheltered area' and are about to exit into the driving winds.
Or, we could plunge headlong into a dampening field or cloud of dust.
We also might be leaving one.
Serenity in Space is an illusion.
Food for thought, fractically speaking.
What is not entirely clear is what laminations are crossed when. As our galaxy is a spiral, it's many arms are wound around a nucleus (the core is in the general direction of Saggitarius). When our Sun has a Coronal Mass Ejection, the path that the plasma and energy travels is likewise wound around the Sun....like a spiral. The Galactic Core could also be sending shock waves (of who know what) outwards in the spirals, or space between the spirals.
What would a Galactic Core wave do to our Solar System and the physics of it when one struck?
The density might come up a tad or a whole bunch, or add an energy not presently apparent.
Sure, one of those could easliy upset the Gravity applecart, and many like it in adjacent areas of the galaxy.
And who knows what our Local Group Galaxy Cluster, Virgo SuperCluster and voids do.
For all we know, we have been in a 'sheltered area' and are about to exit into the driving winds.
Or, we could plunge headlong into a dampening field or cloud of dust.
We also might be leaving one.
Serenity in Space is an illusion.
Food for thought, fractically speaking.
Ðekel
The Living Force
Buddy,
well.. in order to discuss anything we need to use language.
english wasn't created to discuss hyperdimensionality and so it can be difficult sometimes to successfully convey a thought about hyperdimensionality.
in the view i was referring to above, the word "sometimes" can be misleading, but alas, there is no other word to use. :)
the point was, and this is all hypothetical.. NOW is wherever anyone can say "now".
if there will ever be any part of us that exists outside of time, and this IF is the IF in discussion... then it was always there. before any past or future "incarnations".
and here the word "before" is problematic.
that's why i previously opted for the word "outside". saying "before future incarnations" tends to get us back into thinking about time linearly, or thinking about it cyclically at best.
the part of us outside of time could hypothetically "see" all of its incarnations within time at different locales in timespace as though there were all simultaneous.
just like looking at all the frames on a roll of celluloid film at once, and this analogy has been used plenty.
regarding;
well.. again, i opted to use the word "coordinate" to convey a meaning, but i did not intend that meaning as "location".
i.e. specific numbers that are magically laid out onto the magical grid of the world, or something weird like that. :)
this is also what i found interesting about the phrase "space time address" from the article that bngenoh originally posted on this thread.
if you think about it, we are ALWAYS in a fleeting, temporary, non-fixed "space time address".
the sun is hurdling through space and the planets are accompanying it.. and endless other forces from gravity to time-dilation to others less-known-about / not-discovered, are constantly changing every "space time address".
which, i would imagine, would render using one very impractical or not very reliable.
wow, i wonder if this post is going to make sense to anyone but me in my current spacetime address.
Edit: clarity lol
well.. in order to discuss anything we need to use language.
english wasn't created to discuss hyperdimensionality and so it can be difficult sometimes to successfully convey a thought about hyperdimensionality.
in the view i was referring to above, the word "sometimes" can be misleading, but alas, there is no other word to use. :)
the point was, and this is all hypothetical.. NOW is wherever anyone can say "now".
if there will ever be any part of us that exists outside of time, and this IF is the IF in discussion... then it was always there. before any past or future "incarnations".
and here the word "before" is problematic.
that's why i previously opted for the word "outside". saying "before future incarnations" tends to get us back into thinking about time linearly, or thinking about it cyclically at best.
the part of us outside of time could hypothetically "see" all of its incarnations within time at different locales in timespace as though there were all simultaneous.
just like looking at all the frames on a roll of celluloid film at once, and this analogy has been used plenty.
regarding;
well.. again, i opted to use the word "coordinate" to convey a meaning, but i did not intend that meaning as "location".
i.e. specific numbers that are magically laid out onto the magical grid of the world, or something weird like that. :)
this is also what i found interesting about the phrase "space time address" from the article that bngenoh originally posted on this thread.
if you think about it, we are ALWAYS in a fleeting, temporary, non-fixed "space time address".
the sun is hurdling through space and the planets are accompanying it.. and endless other forces from gravity to time-dilation to others less-known-about / not-discovered, are constantly changing every "space time address".
which, i would imagine, would render using one very impractical or not very reliable.
wow, i wonder if this post is going to make sense to anyone but me in my current spacetime address.
Edit: clarity lol
bngenoh
The Living Force
Bluelamp said:
Yeah, they do, or when you try to explain to them that mathematics is just a language like any other language we have, in the words of Lancelot Hogben "Mathematics is a language like any other, but unlike our ordinary everyday language in which we use to describe the sorts of things iin the world, mathematics is a language we use to describe the sizes of things in the world."Thanks for that link Bluelamp, i am hooked. Reading the first paragraph, i especially liked this part:
YAY math, now to read & understand.
Ahh, math and humor, what a combination! :P :D
:P :DAs I read The Wave, I come up with the idea that our definition of gravity is NOT the same thing as the C's definition of gravity. I would even go as far as saying that the very idea of gravity, as our physics currently describes it, could not be any more 180 degrees out of whack with what the C's are saying it is.
The idea that I point at an orange, and say "that's an orange, with the properties of an orange".
Someone else points at an orange, and says "that's an apple, with the properties of an apricot".
Whoa. Hold the phone.
We got the concept of fruit (I hope) and the tree that it hangs on (or not).
Can we start the gravity conversation over again, and this time let's make sure we are all looking at the same thing?
The idea that I point at an orange, and say "that's an orange, with the properties of an orange".
Someone else points at an orange, and says "that's an apple, with the properties of an apricot".
Whoa. Hold the phone.
We got the concept of fruit (I hope) and the tree that it hangs on (or not).
Can we start the gravity conversation over again, and this time let's make sure we are all looking at the same thing?
