Do Physics Equations Disprove the Speed of Light as a Constant?

Next
• 450
Pardon?

Say what?
• 176
Exactly, actually.
• 450
Exactly, actually.

Is this an attempt to diss me or something? If so, enjoy yourself thoroughly!
• 176
Sorry, nothing like that. I just thought that it was trivial that values are without absolute intrinsic x parameterization in the context of anything. That the rational representation of the speed of light expressed by whatever formulae can be disproved or proved is a feat of deduction. Why, though?
• 450
That the rational representation of the speed of light expressed by whatever formulae can be disproved or proved is a feat of deduction. Why, though?

I guess what was proved, and this is based on books about physics I've been reading, is that frequency (energy) is inversely proportional to time, and when distance or occupied space shrinks much faster than energy, this also causes time contraction. I was curious about the implications for theories of what matter does, so was hoping to get some insight from posters at this site, and I have!

If time contracts enough due to relatively large energy concentration within very confined space, such as in an atom, or extremely large total concentration, such as a big ball of electricity like the brain, this might account for entanglement effects that seem to happen faster than the speed of light, in essence synchronicity, and spooky action at a distance isn't so spooky after all, but in fact a mundane consequence of 19th and early 20th century formulas.
• 176
If I can give you an example of increasing energy -- a chemical reaction -- or a system in energetic equilibrium -- such as a body at rest -- what would that mean for your proof?

What is 'occupied space'? Matter? If energy and matter were equivalent states of information, what would that mean for your proof? And what exactly is time as opposed to spacetime, anyway?

You're talking about physics, but whose physics do you mean? The spookiness only happens to someone looking for the primacy of objects (in this case particles) in an object-oriented ontology.
• 450
If I can give you an example of increasing energy -- a chemical reaction -- or a system in energetic equilibrium -- such as a body at rest -- what would that mean for your proof?

What is 'occupied space'? Matter? If energy and matter were equivalent states of information, what would that mean for your proof? And what exactly is time as opposed to spacetime, anyway?

You're talking about physics, but whose physics do you mean? The spookiness only happens to someone looking for the primacy of objects (in this case particles) in an object-oriented ontology.

Earthbound matter is a steady state energetic system: energy goes in and comes out, but the total quantity remains fairly constant.

Most of the chemical bonding energy of atoms is contained in relatively small concentration within electron orbitals, and this density of energy combined with the equation wt=d/f implies that since 'd' is extremely small while the 'f' value comprises most of matter's energy, 't' probably becomes minuscule also, and energetic matter apparently links up in a system of pervasive synchronicity at the nanoscale. To put it simply, much of atomic motion is coordinated almost instantaneously.

The brain is an extremely concentrated ball of high energy electricity, so it participates in the same dynamic as atoms but on the macroscopic scale. Consciousness thus transcends principles belonging to the four dimensional substrate of motion called spacetime. Spacetime-based concepts model certain macroscopic phenomena such as light and extremely large mass, but consciousness and quantum entanglement might surpass the parameters of these models according to 19th and early 20th century science.

Maybe someone else can explain the difference between time and spacetime in a succinct way.
• 176
Most of the chemical bonding energy of atoms is contained in relatively small concentration within electron orbitals, and this density of energy combined with the equation wt=d/f implies that since 'd' is extremely small while the 'f' value comprises most of matter's energy, 't' probably becomes minuscule also, and energetic matter apparently links up in a system of pervasive synchronicity at the nanoscale. To put it simply, much of atomic motion is coordinated almost instantaneously.
How is this relevant to what I said? In any case I assume you're not interested in the process-oriented ontology which supposedly fixes the superposition.

The brain is an extremely concentrated ball of high energy electricity
It is?
It participates in the same dynamic as atoms but on the macroscopic scale
It exists?
Consciousness thus transcends principles belonging to the four dimensional substrate of motion called spacetime.
Are you just picking theoretical components?
Spacetime-based concepts model certain macroscopic phenomena such as light and extremely large mass, but consciousness and quantum entanglement might surpass the parameters of these models according to 19th and early 20th century science.
I see. So it's like some supremely spicy quantum consciousness thesis.
• 450
So it's like some supremely spicy quantum consciousness thesis.

You're getting the idea!

Qualia and Quantum Mechanics
Qualia and Quantum Mechanics, The Sequel
Qualia and Quantum Mechanics, the Reality Possibly
• 176
Thanks for the information. :)
• 450
Thanks for the information.

You're welcome. Its amazing how little traction I can get with these ideas considering its a #$!&ing scientific revolution. Sometimes it seems that I'm more likely to end up in traction thinking about this stuff. • 156 Aryamoy Mitra is right. The analogy is supposed to elucidate the idea of a measured spatial difference between two things being, on the one hand, the effect of an expansion of the framework used to measure distances, and, on the other, being the effect of the motion of things measured within that framework. The effect only becomes noticeable at relatively large distances, which is why it will be difficult to see the changes in the expansion of small dots on a balloon, but relatively easy to see the gaps between them increasing. Thank you, very much, for corroborating. I've been promulgating this for ages, albeit with an increasing self-doubt. At the very least, I now know I'm not laying forth a particularly naive concept. • 156 You're welcome. Its amazing how little traction I can get with these ideas considering its a #$!&ing scientific revolution. Sometimes it seems that I'm more likely to end up in traction thinking about this stuff.

I'm not denigrating them, but do you really believe that your ideas are constitutive of a scientific revolution? They're novel, certainly. I don't know if they have any veracity (admittedly, some of the terms and interrelations you've perpetuated are outside my understanding). To assert, nevertheless, that they're transformative - in comparison to the death of Classical Mechanics at the hand of Special Relativity, or Dirac's Equation foretelling the existence of Antimatter - is a bold, and perhaps even unfounded statement.

Consciousness thus transcends principles belonging to the four dimensional substrate of motion called spacetime. Spacetime-based concepts model certain macroscopic phenomena such as light and extremely large mass, but consciousness and quantum entanglement might surpass the parameters of these models according to 19th and early 20th century science.

For instance, isn't this quintessential of the Quantum Mind, which is partly pseudoscientific? Where are the methodological relationships, interweaving the two? It's unprincipled.
• 450
For instance, isn't this quintessential of the Quantum Mind, which is partly pseudoscientific?

Since I've studied quantum biology way more than relativity theory and this is for me an adjunct to the quantum subject matter, I don't mind diverting the thread in this direction. I've already posted about it a lot at this forum, but since you know your stuff it could be fruitful to get into it again. This is a short summary of the basic model:

In exactly what way consciousness emerged via evolution is a mystery, but we can be fairly certain about what had to obtain in order for it to be possible. Initially, electrical properties in aggregates of tissue such as the brain needed to be robust enough that a stable supervenience of electromagnetic field (EMF) was created by systematic electrical fluxing.

Quantum effects in molecules of the body are sensitive to trace EMF energy sources (similar to magnetoreception), creating a structural complex of relatively thermodynamic mass containing pockets of relatively quantum biochemistry integrated by sustained radiation.

EMF/quantum hybridization is likely responsible for our synthetic experience of qualia, how we perceive unfathomably minute and diverse fluctuating in environments as a perpetualized substrate, perturbed by its surroundings but never vanishing while we are awake and lucid, the essence of perceptual “stream of consciousness”.

Nonlocal phenomena are ever underlying the macroscopic substance of qualitative consciousness, its EMF properties as well as bulked matter in which nonlocality is partially dampened, and quantum processes in cells interface perception instantiated in bodies with nonlocality of the natural world which is still enigmatic to scientific knowledge.

Quantum features of biochemistry have likely been refined evolutionarily so that mechanisms by which relative nonlocality affects organisms, mechanisms of EMF/matter interfacing, mechanisms targeting particular environmental stimuli via functionally tailored pigments along with further classes of molecules and cellular tissues, and mechanisms for translation of stimulus into representational memory all became increasingly coordinated until an arrangement involving what we call ‘intentionality’ emerged, a mind with executive functions of deliberative interpretation and strategizing, beyond mere reflex-centric memory conjoined to stimulus/response.

Qualitative consciousness precedes the degree of unification we experience as humanlike awareness, for qualia can exist and perform a functional role in consort with quantum effects and additional gradations of nonlocal reality while an organism is almost entirely lacking the centralized control we would classify as intention.

Every facet of this consciousness theory is observable via research: quantum biochemistry in a thermodynamically physiological substrate that also includes more traditionally neuronal mechanisms, integrated by EMFs. All we require is to find the anatomical systems and classes of molecules involved, then correlate with subjectivity and the dynamics of nonlocality in general. Some of this will be psychology, some traditional chemistry, some quantum, and some will exceed what has thus far been discovered of nonlocal processes in nature by physical science.

Also key to the model is the assertion, yet to be verified, that many forms of quantum process such as entanglement and superposition produce qualia at a fundamental level. Essentially, it is intrinsic of matter to perceive and feel, or at least contain fragments of perception and feeling, and these quantum resonance properties will be as objective as shape and size.
• 112

If you have a reason why you feel that my suggestion is wrong then say so, but saying that it is wrong simply because other people have said something else is just crass.
• 6.5k
I try. In this - your - case your claims either constitute no obligation whatsoever on my part, lest all of us at all times be hostage to any claim anyone makes, or depending on the nature of the claim, acknowledgement and appropriate regard for the nature and substance of the claim made. And it seems to me that a reasonable skepticism is in order given the nature and substance of your claims, and that in being skeptical I appear to be in good and numerous company.

I noted above you are free to theorize as you like, and if your theories even achieve inner consistency, then good for you. But the test is applicability outside of fantasy land. You have not met that test. And in making your claims, you have neglected/contradicted what by all accounts is good and sound science, without yourself having offered any evidence or proof to ground such claims.
• 450
I started a new thread for the philosophy of mind topic we began to address titled "A Model of Consciousness" in case , or anyone else wants to discuss.
Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
tweet

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.