What is the speed of dark?

[Thaigrr]

I feel compelled to take a "stab in the dark" here. Attempting to define dark I am reminded of the EM spectrum of which only a tiny percentage is visible.

Thus the invisible portion is "dark". Any laws of speed would seem to be universal throughout the entire EM spectrum, whether visible or not.

Am I even on topic here?

 

[Joe]

I feel compelled to take a "stab in the dark" here. Attempting to define dark I am reminded of the EM spectrum of which only a tiny percentage is visible.

Thus the invisible portion is "dark". Any laws of speed would seem to be universal throughout the entire EM spectrum, whether visible or not.

Am I even on topic here?

I think so. The part of the spectrum that our eyes/brains can't perceive is called "dark" by us. Then again, the spectrum itself is probably limited since it only extends to what we can measure with out measly prostheses. So basically, us talking about "dark" and any of its supposed qualities, is like a blind person talking about, well, anything visible.

It seems to me that if science were to be applied properly, it would be to broaden the scope of what it is we do not know.

 

[casper]

If a nearby lamp highlight finger and projects a picture of him on a nearby wall and wave your finger will notice and that the hay move faster than your finger. If you move your finger parallel to the wall velocity is multiplied by the factor D / d where D is the distance from the lamp to the finger Inc. distance from fingertip to the wall. In fact it can be much faster, if the wall is tapered at an angle. What is a distant wall movement shadows will be slower time needed light to reach the wall, but the speed of shadows is still enhanced by a factor of D / d. Speed ​​shadows is therefore not limited to a speed less than the speed of light.

15.6 1996 Laura held a session.
At the end of the session she asked.
I quote: What is light?
Gravity ...
According to what I understand it at the speed of light has no mass, no
time, and no gravity. How can this be?
She got the answer .:
I quote: There is no mass, no time, but has gravitas.Gravitas exceeds the speed of light.
To the question: Gravity waves are faster than light, gets the answer: yes.

My question would be, given the shadow on this has gravity, given the shadow can be seen as gravitational wave?

 

[obyvatel]

[quote author=Casper]
If a nearby lamp highlight finger and projects a picture of him on a nearby wall and wave your finger will notice and that the hay move faster than your finger. If you move your finger parallel to the wall velocity is multiplied by the factor D / d where D is the distance from the lamp to the finger Inc. distance from fingertip to the wall. In fact it can be much faster, if the wall is tapered at an angle. What is a distant wall movement shadows will be slower time needed light to reach the wall, but the speed of shadows is still enhanced by a factor of D / d. Speed ​​shadows is therefore not limited to a speed less than the speed of light.
[/quote]

Yes, this is true. Shadows have no mass. So it does not violate the special theory of relativity as far as I know.

[quote author=casper]
My question would be, given the shadow on this has gravity, given the shadow can be seen as gravitational wave?
[/quote]

I do not know if the shadow is like a gravity wave or not. However, let me share an idea I recently came across from author Sam Avery who wrote a book called "The Dimensional Structure of Consciousness". His idea is consciousness transcends space-time-mass, which is not a new idea but IMO he expresses it well.

Avery considers "dimensions" as contexts of perceptual experience. He uses 4 dimensions of space-time and treats mass as the 5th dimension. Mass is treated as a dimension since mass can be measured or felt through acceleration or deceleration - or through action of forces. The tactile perception senses mass - it can be said that mass arises out of tactile consciousness in this paradigm. Chemo-tactile consciousness is what each living cell has - in that sense it is quite fundamental. Similarly, the 4-D space time arises out of using visual, auditory and olfactory consciousness. Space-time-mass as we experience them can be treated as contexts to organize the perceptual information we obtain through our senses in a meaningful way. However, this is not the only way to organize information.

Light can be treated as visual consciousness which coordinates the perceptions from all other senses providing a whole "picture" of reality that is far greater than the individual experiences of cells of various types and numbers. Visual consciousness per my understanding is not restricted to the physical use of the eyes. Consider as an example the perceptual information coming from sophisticated instruments as an extension of the normal range of human perceptions in this context.

Why "choose" visual consciousness or light rather than auditory consciousness or sound or the other forms of perception? It could be because of the capacity to organize experience is the highest for light. The world would be different if we oriented primarily by sound (like bats) or smell, but doing so by light possibly provides more information.

In this paradigm, light (as visual consciousness) is not "in" space-time-mass reality. Rather, space-time-mass reality that we experience is "in" light. If this is true, then the absolute limit of the speed of light that we measure is a measure of the limits of our perceptual consciousness. As we approach conditions of the speed of light, the fabric of our space-time-mass box gets distorted and we are left with anomalous phenomena in the material world - be it in the relativistic or quantum realms.

Let me indulge in a little more speculation here. The math of special relativity yields imaginary numbers if speed of any mass exceeds that of light. We cannot measure "imaginary" stuff objectively - we need to somehow generate real numbers (through mathematical operations on complex numbers which constitute of both real and imaginary numbers) for them to be measured. Talking metaphorically, thoughts are "imaginary" and we cannot measure speed of thoughts. However, with thoughts we can reach the far reaches of the earth and even the universe without restrictions imposed by the so-called finite speed of light.

If I recall correctly thoughts are said to produce gravity in one session and light is said to be the utilization of gravity. In the dimensional structure of consciousness model, just as light as visual consciousness organizes perceptual experience, thoughts/images as observational consciousness organizes not only actual perceptual experience but also potential experience - that which is not but could be. Expressed differently, paraphrasing Avery, an image in space-time is a perception, an image in time but not space is a thought. An image neither in space or time is perhaps what Jung called an archetype.

 

[casper]

For obyvatel
Thank you for the recommended book, it is now my first book I want to read.
Laura's first reading the transcripts, I realized how little I know about the things that everyday. dark, light, shadow, I experience them as something minor, and when I began to explore, questions are starting to pile up, the first answers are just opened a host of other questions ...
Thank you very much :)

 

[Peam]

If a nearby lamp highlight finger and projects a picture of him on a nearby wall and wave your finger will notice and that the hay move faster than your finger. If you move your finger parallel to the wall velocity is multiplied by the factor D / d where D is the distance from the lamp to the finger Inc. distance from fingertip to the wall. In fact it can be much faster, if the wall is tapered at an angle. What is a distant wall movement shadows will be slower time needed light to reach the wall, but the speed of shadows is still enhanced by a factor of D / d. Speed ​​shadows is therefore not limited to a speed less than the speed of light.

I'm probably not understanding this discussion very well, but this is what I am thinking. Lets say you are standing half a mile away from a very long wall and you swish a powerful laser light across the length of the wall very quickly. Could the light on the wall ever be able to travel faster than the speed of light?
Then shine that laser at a 50 light year long wall which is one light year away. It will take one year for the light to reach the wall, then when you swish it along will it travel the 50 light year long wall in a split second?

 

[Sol Logos]

Why "choose" visual consciousness or light rather than auditory consciousness or sound or the other forms of perception? It could be because of the capacity to organize experience is the highest for light. The world would be different if we oriented primarily by sound (like bats) or smell, but doing so by light possibly provides more information.

A bit of a bad pun but you could say we only sense what is sensible to us (at this point in time). The way I see it and I could be wrong is that auditory and visual perception is basically just a sense that's able to receive information / energy at certain levels of frequency. There's no reason therefore that we couldn't hear light or see sound, its just those apparatuses we use to sense information (eyes and ears) only detect a given frequency range.

Everything outside of what our current sensing apparatuses can recieve and translate into something perceivable you could call dark. Which is what Perceval said before. One thing we can sense but not necessarily see, hear, smell, taste or touch are feelings of others. I think that's a sense that really makes us who we are but is generally damaged for most of us, as a result of our upbringing. You know its probably a strong innate sense and babies come out crying because naturally coming into this world there's probably a lot to cry about :)

But coming back to the topic, essentially thoughts and feelings are energetic patterns that could be perceivable and at some point in our development could be in theory seen, heard, smelt, tasted, and touched.

 

[obyvatel]

If a nearby lamp highlight finger and projects a picture of him on a nearby wall and wave your finger will notice and that the hay move faster than your finger. If you move your finger parallel to the wall velocity is multiplied by the factor D / d where D is the distance from the lamp to the finger Inc. distance from fingertip to the wall. In fact it can be much faster, if the wall is tapered at an angle. What is a distant wall movement shadows will be slower time needed light to reach the wall, but the speed of shadows is still enhanced by a factor of D / d. Speed ​​shadows is therefore not limited to a speed less than the speed of light.

I'm probably not understanding this discussion very well, but this is what I am thinking. Lets say you are standing half a mile away from a very long wall and you swish a powerful laser light across the length of the wall very quickly. Could the light on the wall ever be able to travel faster than the speed of light?
Then shine that laser at a 50 light year long wall which is one light year away. It will take one year for the light to reach the wall, then when you swish it along will it travel the 50 light year long wall in a split second?

If you look at the attached picture, the light source is at point A. The object (finger) starts at point B with its shadow on the wall at B'. When the object moves to point C in a certain amount of time, the shadow moves to point C'. The distance from the A (light source) to the wall is D which means the line AB' has length D. The distance between the light source and the object is d which means line segment AB has length d.

Then from geometry (similar triangles), we can see that the ratio of B'C' (which is movement of the shadow) to BC (which is movement of the object) is D/d. Thus the speed of the shadow is enhanced by the factor D/d. Theoretically, if D is made very large and d small, the ratio can be very large. If this ratio is say 10,000 and the object moves at a speed of c/1000 (where c=speed of light), then the measured shadow speed will be c*10 or 10 times the speed of light. I think the point is that using this setup we can calculate arbitrarily large instantaneous speeds.

However, this movement is apparent movement. Nothing physical is moving at that speed.

 

[Sol Logos]

Then from geometry (similar triangles), we can see that the ratio of B'C' (which is movement of the shadow) to BC (which is movement of the object) is D/d. Thus the speed of the shadow is enhanced by the factor D/d. Theoretically, if D is made very large and d small, the ratio can be very large. If this ratio is say 10,000 and the object moves at a speed of c/1000 (where c=speed of light), then the measured shadow speed will be c*10 or 10 times the speed of light. I think the point is that using this setup we can calculate arbitrarily large instantaneous speeds.

However, this movement is apparent movement. Nothing physical is moving at that speed.

That's a really interesting way to look at it. To add, I think what we're looking at is the effect of a disruption to the path of light magnified by distance and time. In a real situation the effect of that disruption would also dissipate too because light bends, so the disruption effect (of the movement of the finger) over distance and time would diminish and at some point be so subtle it would be almost undetectable.

What's interesting is this concept of dark, being a complete void of information / energy. I think its somewhat flawed as physically it doesnt really exist because every space has information running through it. Light for example travels from the sun to us, so that's information that exists at every point between us and the sun. That's just the information pushing out, there's also the information pulling in like gravity, which at every point between the sun and us is rich with information. Like the sun, we also have energy / information coming out and being pulled in towards us. That's the same for everything else around us, all interacting in something more like and ocean of energy / information.

So this darkness we perceive in the "void" between large objects in space for example, isn't accurate as what exists are flows and currents of rich information at innumerable ranges of frequency all over the place. We just can't detect those flows / currents so they appear as they don't exist and look dark to us. That more so describes us and what we are blind to, rather than what is not there.

Added: what could also be seen theoretically is the wave, or perhaps its more like pulsating energy running through the universe at a higher volume which we're in the midst of, so there's that information too that's filling the "void". Obviously this is just my speculation, as I can't see these things but would be cool to be able to!

 

[Henchman 21]

Dark is essentially just a shadow. Or something getting in the way of light. It has no speed of its own. It only is relevant to the observer. For example: take a very very bright flashlight powerful enough to illuminate the moon (new moon not full moon). Now move your hand quickly over the front of the flashlight. Within a small fraction of a second the entire moon is flooded with darkness. Now take the same flashlight and illuminate something 1000 times farther away than the moon and repeat. You will notice that the darkness can travel much faster than the speed of light. It has no real speed of its own because it is not actually real. Just perspective makes it seem real.
Bring me a jar of darkness sometime and I will recant. In the mean time please don't burn me at the stake. Also just reiterating a lot of what was already said in lay mans terms.

 

[Mildain]

This is purely speculation, so don't know how helpful it is but there's probably a couple ways to look at it. If dark, in a pure sense is the absence of information / energy, it exists as the space between all bits of information / energy or in other words, void. Given this void as far as known surrounds and encompasses the universe, its distance is potentially infinite and because we cant locate one position of void, we could say it takes up all positions all the time. So its either infinite speed, or zero speed depending on how you want to look at it. As I said, not really helpful but I reckon these exercises just highlight the limit of our perception in the same way as trying to explain to a 2 dimensional cartoon character what its like to experience 3 dimensional space (or us grasping what experiencing 4d is)

This is a very good explanation, and sits with me well enough. Thanks alkhemst, I really like your thoughts on this ..

 

[Agron]

The speed of light is 299,792,458 m / s. But what is the speed of dark? Do darkness anyway has its own speed? Do we say that the dark ranges, however, replaced by light, then some kind of movement there ?!

If I may as a total newbie, but this thread poped up in the first thread I started and was interesting.

Id say that dark is the back side of the coin we call light. Light and Dark are two sides of the same coin in our 4dimensional space + time construct/simulation/holograph/dream.

They imply each other. No dark? No light! No Light? No Dark too... So if the Dark has a speed it would seem its the same as the speed of Light.

Also, if light is energy, then shadows are perhaps negative bodies of objects to which they are attached.

I guess if we evolved into higher dimensions we would stop seeing this narrow spectrum altogether. It would be cool if we could save this "skin" to be able to cycle through it if need arised.

Hope Im making sense, English is not my native lingo

Cheers

 

[jupiterbeings]

Does light travel, seriously? Walter Russell seems to think not, that it only reproduces itself.