Return Home
It is currently Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:50 am

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:42 am 
Offline
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster

Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:26 pm
Posts: 65
Location: New York
This morning I read an article from the Washington Post which states, "A second experiment deep in an Italian mountain timed these subatomic particles, called neutrinos, traveling at precisely the speed of light and no faster, a team from the experiment, called ICARUS, announced Friday." Although more experiments will have to be done to put the question to rest, at the least it raises serious doubts about the first reports that neutrinos had exceeded the speed of light.

To me these new results make sense because the speed of light as I understand it, is a reflection of the refresh rate of our graphical interface with the PMR system, which is a pretty fundamental element of the rule set.

http://www.bendbulletin.com/article/201 ... 203170379/


Top
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:21 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Thank you whitcomb.
Love
Bette

edit: Why weren't the ftl results checked against the other group's results before this?

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:57 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:50 am
Posts: 13
I still stand by my best opinion that FTL is no problem - it's observing FTL that is the problem. That is why one experiment protocol which tests the results of FTL will show that FTL has indeed happened -- whereas, when the experimental protocol is designed to actually observe FTL, it cannot happen. JDLaw's New laws of Lightspeed. (note: these laws have not had peer review -- feel free to pooh pooh). It's kind of based on light cone theory and the Planck limitations (length and time).

Inertial Einstein equation
Image

Lorentz Transform (compare)
Image

JDLaws New Laws of Light-speed

1. The observed speed of light in any reference frame is approximately 299,792,458 meters per second.
2. No mass, energy, or quantum particle can be observed directly by another mass energy or quantum particle that has a greater relative difference in velocity than 299,792,458 meters per second.
3. Where two masses, energies, or quantum particles are moving, spinning, or vibrating with velocities separated by greater than 299,792,458 meters per second relative to each other they must exist in a different quantum realities. However, a third mass, energy or quantum particle whose relative velocity is between the two may observe them both.
4. This reality is finite, but the number of realities is infinite.
5. There is another reference frame in some reality that exists somewhere or sometime where this reference frame, you are in right now, is moving at the speed of light relative to that other reference frame.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:01 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:50 am
Posts: 13
oops!

Where v sub i = inertial velocity (of the thing you are measuring)
Where v sub r = the reference velocity (of the thing that is measuring)

Presupposes there is no universal velocity -- empty space exists, but is standing still.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:22 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Does this have a translation into Tom's terms where the velocity of light is the maximum rate at which a photon can be shown to translate from node point to node point where the VR is defined at the highest resolution possible of the digital reality?

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:38 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Hi JDlaw and welcome to Tom's MBT forums. I like that you are working on new "laws" and sharing it here as you have. I have one called "Conservation of Quality of Consciousness" CoQoC (oh I like that) regarding what happens at "death" in this VR. :)
Welcome again.
Love to you and yours,
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:42 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:50 am
Posts: 13
Oh! you guys are using VR as "virtual reality?" No?

I was just referring to the v sub r ("Vr") as in the reference velocity in the equation I posted.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:45 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Quote:
Oh! you guys are using VR as "virtual reality?" No?

I was just referring to the v sub r ("Vr") as in the reference velocity in the equation I posted.
Yes but I wasn't using it associated with your formula symbols at all and I think Ted was making sure you are aware of the Virtual Reality aspect of Reality too. :)
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:51 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:50 am
Posts: 13
It seems one of my posts got lost here. Maybe it will show up later. But, I had said I am new to Thomas Campbell.

I will either get the books or spend an evening watching some of the long Youtube videos.

As, long as Thomas' work recognizes that by definition my reality (observed) and your reality (observed) are by definition different, wherein our realities only need converge (collapse to some extent) on a shared or universal reality when we interact -- and the physical mode of making our reality existential for us is granular (or otherwise quantized in packets) then by all means yes, I do agree with Thomas.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:59 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Here is a link to Tom's book(s) you can read online. http://books.google.com/books?id=6To090 ... rs&f=false. Enjoy!
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:01 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
You might look here on the MBT Wiki at Tom's lectures. http://wiki.my-big-toe.com/index.php/To ... -_Lectures These lectures were taken by Tom from the forum questions mostly or purpose written to give an orientation to those attending his Events in order to produce a maximum comprehension of his talks. Check out the titles.

Tom's model of reality is here: http://wiki.my-big-toe.com/index.php/Th ... _Link_Page

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:39 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:50 am
Posts: 13
Thanks all! I apologize right off the bat, if I don't answer a post right away. Some people think if you don't add to forum threads every day that you are just a troller. I don't want to be that, so I am going to go and study Tom Campbell for a while and then stop back in here


Top
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2018 11:57 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:50 am
Posts: 13
Quote:
Does this have a translation into Tom's terms where the velocity of light is the maximum rate at which a photon can be shown to translate from node point to node point where the VR is defined at the highest resolution possible of the digital reality?
Ted
It does (as most things in a round about way) as the TOE of course relates to ... well ... everything. In short, all "observable reality" is packetized because of the uniform speed of light in all reference frames causes that limitation. When there is an inertial system and a reference system of matter moving in different directions, the invariant mass of the system is the analog of the rest mass, and the multiverse rest mass is the only mass that can ultimately remain the same for all observers, even those in relative motion. This is because there is a difference between "observable reality" and the broader encompassing "all that there is" reality. Theories of other dimensions, multi-universe, non-locality, etc. all support that invariant multiverse mass should replace the rest mass in Einstein's equation, but it only works if observable universe is limited by Planck length and Planck time. If the equation that replaces a universal rest mass for a system with invariant multiverse mass works out experimentally, it would prove the packetized nature of our observable reality - and in that respect (taking in to account Bells inequality) also prove that there is a "non-locality" which does have infinite acuity.


Top
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2018 1:59 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:44 am
Posts: 1251
The Planck length is only part of what is potentially observable. You exist at all points and at all times. You transcend the idea of scale and time as you/we have created those ideas. Light, Planck length, time, etc are constructs that have been created by Consciousness.

They, and anything else you could ever think of exist within you. You do NOT exist within them.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2018 8:53 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:50 am
Posts: 13
Quote:
The Planck length is only part of what is potentially observable. You exist at all points and at all times. You transcend the idea of scale and time as you/we have created those ideas. Light, Planck length, time, etc are constructs that have been created by Consciousness.

They, and anything else you could ever think of exist within you. You do NOT exist within them.
Agreed. Of course VirtualBrain. Thanks for reminding me with that perspective. But, this reality is still mine. The constructs are very real to me. The thing about a simulated reality is just that — It may be simulated, but it is still "reality." In other words, no matter how grandiose this reality has become at my age, it is the only one I've got. All those trees that fall in all those woods that are in my constructs ... always make sounds. Yes or No?


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited