Comments on: Slower than the Speed of Light http://www.sciscoop.com/2008-10-30-41323-484.html Scooping up science news and dropping it on your desk Thu, 11 Mar 2010 04:23:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: http://www.sciscoop.com/2008-10-30-41323-484.html/comment-page-1#comment-4913 Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:51:38 +0000 http://localhost/~arielschwartz/wordpress/sciscoop/?p=3021#comment-4913 Of course, all the theorizing in the world cannot *yet* answer that ultimate question even if we bow to Heisenberg (on uncertainty) and Hawking (on time). Of course, all the theorizing in the world cannot *yet* answer that ultimate question even if we bow to Heisenberg (on uncertainty) and Hawking (on time).

]]> By: deanlsinclair http://www.sciscoop.com/2008-10-30-41323-484.html/comment-page-1#comment-4716 deanlsinclair Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:31:30 +0000 http://localhost/~arielschwartz/wordpress/sciscoop/?p=3021#comment-4716 I agree that the idea that beings made up mostly of "nothing" can contemplate such things is bizarre. <p> However, I'm just crackpot enough to consider that perhaps beings existing in a universe made up of a substance consisting of oscillators, rather than empty space, might be able to answer the various questions. Also, such a substance might account for the phenomena that you mention....<p>  However, of course, we are still stuck with "Where did the oscillators come from...??"<p>  For more of Dean Sinclair's ideas check  groups.google.com/group/oscillatorsubstance.theory I agree that the idea that beings made up mostly of “nothing” can contemplate such things is bizarre.

However, I’m just crackpot enough to consider that perhaps beings existing in a universe made up of a substance consisting of oscillators, rather than empty space, might be able to answer the various questions. Also, such a substance might account for the phenomena that you mention….

 However, of course, we are still stuck with “Where did the oscillators come from…??”

 For more of Dean Sinclair’s ideas check  groups.google.com/group/oscillatorsubstance.theory

]]> By: http://www.sciscoop.com/2008-10-30-41323-484.html/comment-page-1#comment-4481 Tue, 03 Feb 2009 03:13:05 +0000 http://localhost/~arielschwartz/wordpress/sciscoop/?p=3021#comment-4481 It's just as bizarre an idea that sentient beings composed almost entirely of empty space can exist and ponder such things? It does, however, beggar questions regarding the nature of consciousness if "we" are projections from a distant horizon. But, it also might solve such anomalies as double slit interference, spooky action at a distance etc. It’s just as bizarre an idea that sentient beings composed almost entirely of empty space can exist and ponder such things? It does, however, beggar questions regarding the nature of consciousness if “we” are projections from a distant horizon. But, it also might solve such anomalies as double slit interference, spooky action at a distance etc.

]]> By: deanlsinclair http://www.sciscoop.com/2008-10-30-41323-484.html/comment-page-1#comment-4175 deanlsinclair Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:38:25 +0000 http://localhost/~arielschwartz/wordpress/sciscoop/?p=3021#comment-4175 From the short description given, I'm afraid that I can't take the idea too seriously. It implies tha a pictire formed from light wave patterns would have independent action possibilities. <p> How do we get living, self-aware creatures to exist within a holgram?  An interesting challenge in robotics and artificial intelligence to say the least.  DLS From the short description given, I’m afraid that I can’t take the idea too seriously. It implies tha a pictire formed from light wave patterns would have independent action possibilities.

How do we get living, self-aware creatures to exist within a holgram?  An interesting challenge in robotics and artificial intelligence to say the least.  DLS

]]> By: http://www.sciscoop.com/2008-10-30-41323-484.html/comment-page-1#comment-3598 Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:54:47 +0000 http://localhost/~arielschwartz/wordpress/sciscoop/?p=3021#comment-3598 What's your take on the Susskind publicised theory that the universe is actually a giant holographic projection from an unimaginably distant event horizon? http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html Essentially, we are the manifestation of quantum fluctuations at the surface of a giant black hole that encompasses/is the universe itself. What’s your take on the Susskind publicised theory that the universe is actually a giant holographic projection from an unimaginably distant event horizon?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html

Essentially, we are the manifestation of quantum fluctuations at the surface of a giant black hole that encompasses/is the universe itself.

]]> By: deanlsinclair http://www.sciscoop.com/2008-10-30-41323-484.html/comment-page-1#comment-3048 deanlsinclair Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:37:33 +0000 http://localhost/~arielschwartz/wordpress/sciscoop/?p=3021#comment-3048 Actually, I may not be averaging anything. If the carriers of the information packets exist, and there is no good reason not to think they exist, if they have varying velocities in a given direction, then the speed of light would be the average of those varying velocities. <p> It may well be that in the unimaginable eons that these carriers (I think they are tiny oscillators) have existed, they have pretty well "done the averaging" themselves so that they have a constant rotation with a tangential velocity of "c" --or tangential velocities varying very closely around "c."-- and a quite constant torque of "H/c."  They apparently may even even have a constant average "size" of (h/c)^0.5. Actually, I may not be averaging anything. If the carriers of the information packets exist, and there is no good reason not to think they exist, if they have varying velocities in a given direction, then the speed of light would be the average of those varying velocities.

It may well be that in the unimaginable eons that these carriers (I think they are tiny oscillators) have existed, they have pretty well “done the averaging” themselves so that they have a constant rotation with a tangential velocity of “c” –or tangential velocities varying very closely around “c.”– and a quite constant torque of “H/c.”  They apparently may even even have a constant average “size” of (h/c)^0.5.

]]> By: http://www.sciscoop.com/2008-10-30-41323-484.html/comment-page-1#comment-2655 Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:29:03 +0000 http://localhost/~arielschwartz/wordpress/sciscoop/?p=3021#comment-2655 I'm not sure I understand what you mean by average speed. Light has an upper velocity, a speed limit as it were, which is c in a vacuum, it can go slower but no faster, what do you think you're averaging? I’m not sure I understand what you mean by average speed. Light has an upper velocity, a speed limit as it were, which is c in a vacuum, it can go slower but no faster, what do you think you’re averaging?

]]> By: deanlsinclair http://www.sciscoop.com/2008-10-30-41323-484.html/comment-page-1#comment-1734 deanlsinclair Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:39:52 +0000 http://localhost/~arielschwartz/wordpress/sciscoop/?p=3021#comment-1734 There is an idea about the speed of light which does not seem to have entered into scientific thinking, which comes from the way information is transferred. <p> If one tries to send information, it travels in "packets" which have a maximum propagation speed in any direction of the average speed of the "packet carrier wave." This would hold true whether the carrier wave be made up of Pony Express Riders, Sound Waves in Water, or Electromagnetic Waves in what ever constitutes the "vacuum" of space...<p> The speed of light is the carrier wave  velocity in any direction, in our universe; therefore, it seems logical to suspect it to be an AVERAGE value of the velocity in any direction of the motions of the entities "carrying" the information. <p> Taking off from this idea, has led to a new "Theory of Everything," which everyone is invited to help develop or refute.  The URL is<br> <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/oscillatorsubstance-theory">http://groups.google.com/group/oscillatorsubstance-theory</a> There is an idea about the speed of light which does not seem to have entered into scientific thinking, which comes from the way information is transferred.

If one tries to send information, it travels in “packets” which have a maximum propagation speed in any direction of the average speed of the “packet carrier wave.” This would hold true whether the carrier wave be made up of Pony Express Riders, Sound Waves in Water, or Electromagnetic Waves in what ever constitutes the “vacuum” of space…

The speed of light is the carrier wave  velocity in any direction, in our universe; therefore, it seems logical to suspect it to be an AVERAGE value of the velocity in any direction of the motions of the entities “carrying” the information.

Taking off from this idea, has led to a new “Theory of Everything,” which everyone is invited to help develop or refute.  The URL is
http://groups.google.com/group/oscillatorsubstance-theory

]]>