Re: Mindfulness practice explained

On Fri, 09 May 2008 16:07:28 +0000, Wilson wrote:

> Keynes wrote:
>>> The speed of light is -apparently- constant in all cir***stances due
>>> to the variable curvature of space-time.
>>>
>>> Michelson-Morely's failure to detect any ether wind established the
>>> apparent constancy of light 'speed'. Einstein accounted for the
>>> appearance of constancy by proposing a plastic (not flat-static)
>>> universe.
>>>
>>> There are two ways of looking at this issue. Yours is simple-minded
>>> and parochial in my opinion. Yes, c is a measurable constant. 
>>> Granted.  But it can only appear constant because it is actually
>>> variable.
>>>
>>> (This is a relativistic argument over the terms 'constant' and
>>> 'speed'.  Taking them at face value [which we probly should not] light
>>> 'speed' cannot be 'constant' across reference frames. Or even in our
>>> own, as shown by the ether wind experiment.)
>>>
>>> In flat earther terms (science before Einstein) there is no way to
>>> view the ether wind experiment but to say that light catching up to a
>>> moving object MUST travel faster than light that the object approaches
>>> for there to be no measurable difference in light speed.
>>>
>>> This is counter-intuitive. All material objects work the other way --
>>> cannon balls are slower as you flee them and faster as you approach,
>>> just the opposite of light in the ether wind experiment.
>>>
>>> (BTW didn't Einstein establish the particle nature of quanta-photons
>>> in 1905?  Little cannon balls fer sure.)
>>>
>>> I agree with your explanation that light propagates at the speed of
>>> the non-material phenomena, and that it's just the nature of the
>>> unimaginable shape of space. Of course.  If you want to go that way
>>> why even speak of any constancy when even space is inconstant?
>>>
>>> Light speed can only appear constant because it is not. If c were a
>>> true constant (rather than a mathematical convenience in any
>>> particular local frame) then it couldn't appear to be constant.
>>>
>>> In the famous case of the twins, the one who traveled near 'light
>>> speed' would return to earth younger than his twin. Each twin lived
>>> (for a 'time') in different space-times with different light speeds
>>> relative to each other even if they seemed the same to each twin in
>>> their different space-times.
>>>
>>> Anyway, in the case of light, the term 'speed' isn't the same as we
>>> use the term for the speed of material objects.  My argument is that
>>> if you speak of light 'speed' being a measurable constant, that is an
>>> impossibility in terms of 'speed' as we know it, and constancy as we
>>> know it.
>>>
>>> Being a hypothetical measurable constant, you can't use local light
>>> speed to measure the shape and time of local space.  Everywhere it's
>>> curved, but everywhere it looks perfectly flat.  How can one 'speed'
>>> fit all?
>>>
>>> Relativity denies flat space and constant measurability of everything
>>> altogether.  Local conditions are never the same as any other local
>>> conditions, yet they all look just right, because the variability of
>>> light 'speed' -appears- to flatten all curved spaces.
>>>
>>> For instance, if we lived in a black hole --
>>>
>>> Oh wait.
>>>
>>>
>> Slow day.  Must be relativity.
>> So I'll talk to myself.
>>
>> The more or less spherical earth has
>> 24 time zones that split the 24 hours into geographical regions, making
>> 'time' a rock solid reality.  This makes sense until you get near the
>> poles.  There, all 24 hours would converge on a point, and the polar
>> bears wouldn't know whether to get up or to go to bed.
>>
>> The whole 24 hour day is made materially manifest, and simultaneously
>> present as well.  We actually experience 2 separate days at once taking
>> the international dateline into account. Two days often of two
>> different weeks, months, and years. All at the same time.  It's noon on
>> one side of the earth while it's midnight on the other (east to west).
>> Summer on one side while it's winter on the other (north to south).
>>
>> Standing at the north pole one would just revolve once in 24 hours at
>> zero MPH.  But sitting still on the equator a person is traveling
>> around 1000 MPH eastward.  Half a day adding to orbital speed, and half
>> a day subtracting from it.
>>
>> The radius of eliptical orbit of the earth averages 93,000,000 miles or
>> so.  So the planet is traveling at around 500,000 MPH. (Add or subtract
>> 1000 at the equator at noon and midnight,
>> but not at the poles.)  Average speed. Orbital speed is not actually
>> uniform but variable according to distance from the sun.
>>
>> (It has always made me wonder how one solid un-jointed object, like a
>> vinyl disk or the spherical earth, can move at more than one speed at a
>> time.)
>>
>> The earth is about 3/4 out from the center of the galaxy which I've
>> heard is some billions of miles across and which we orbit in some
>> millions of years, scooting along pretty smartly.
>>
>> (Beware my figures. I'm often off by a factor of 10.)
>>
>> But wherever we are, at whatever speed, the speed of light looks just
>> the same.  Einstein said that this is because of the
>> contraction-warping of space in the direction of motion, slowing down
>> the apparent speed of light as we approach it.  Behind us there is no
>> such effect, so lightspeed ahead and behind looks exactly alike.
>>
>> In a way, you could say light speed is constant. (As we observe and
>> measure it.)  But translating massless light into the terms of massy
>> material, light speed must be called infinitely variable.
>>
>> (In the direction of motion at least, at these slow normal speeds. 
>> Approaching light speed itself, even the light speed from behind is
>> altered and 'time' slows down, but not so that anyone could notice or
>> detect it in that particular frame.)
>>
>> It's been said that if a photon could experience 'time', for it no time
>> has passed since the big bang. At light speed, there is no time.
>>
>> On this planet we are all in very similar frames and don't notice any
>> differences.  But as we use the electro-magnetic light spectrum to
>> observe the cosmos, we're unlikely to get information unaffected by the
>> relativistic variability of light which misleads us in terms of times
>> and spaces.
>>
>> The farther we look into space it is assumed the farther back we look
>> in time, according to the assumed 'constant' speed of light. We say the
>> cosmos is of a certain age, but what do we know of time (other than our
>> own local frame)?
>>
>> Relativity gives us nowhere to stand in terms of time, sequence,
>> simultaneity, or the 'true' rather than apparent shape of space.
>>
>> Nowhere to stand.
> 
> 
> I'm of the opinion that the universe isn't as big as it looks to us and
> that deep space images are actually looking the whole way around the
> curved donut shaped universe and back on past us.  Several times.  So
> some of those galaxies in the deep space images are actually our own
> galaxy in the past.
> 
> No evidence, just opinion.

Opinion by definition is a conclusion based on evidence.
What you evinced is articulated emotion, or plonk.

Plonk is not opinion
opinion is not plonk

plonk as no other than opinion
opinion as no other than plonk
is how we got where we are today