For light. time does not exist!

[Atlan0001]

When I said this, my explaining it, it was called word salad and nonsense and I was verbally assaulted:

Can you see the "time dilation" in light (the imaging within light itself) across a distance, any distance, being addressed in the article?

For light, time does not exist ð

How does light manage to travel billions of light-years without ever slowing down? This is a question that seems to...

www.techno-science.net

 

[DaveC426913]

There is no valid reference frame for photons, that is true.

Where did you say this such that it was rejected?

 

[Atlan0001]

There is no valid reference frame for photons, that is true.

Where did you say this such that it was rejected?

In all our verbal sparring over the observed and observable universe ("past histories"), versus an unobserved and unobservable universe ("future histories"). I went on explaining those universes as I see them.

I quoted Stephen Hawking to have said the grand total of all the mass and energy of the observed and observable universe, the light time universe, is exactly zero ('0') and always been exactly zero ('0').

I approached but I didn't quite get around to saying, exactly, that an infinitely dense universe is at once a holed universe, infinitesimal in density (if that (relatively speaking, exactly zero in its mass and energy)).

There is no "rest mass," or energy of rest mass, to the universe. All "rest," inclusive of any "rest mass" at all, is local relative across its universality, never absolute. Dr; Samuel Johnson's kicking the stone to refute Bishop George Berkeley's assertions is irrelevant when it comes down to whether any finite of any kind whatsoever is finite absolute.

And so on and on my takes on physics and cosmology being forced out of physics and cosmology as being non-science word salads and nonsense. I speak my language, see and interpret the same data you might see and interpret differently my way. I don't and won't necessarily speak your jargon, your language, according to your dictation of conventions (your tyranny of dictatorship). I've learned over a long time I might have to come down many different but similar spokes of a wheel, a picture in and of many facets and dimensions, before there is any understanding of the hub I see.

 

[exchemist]

When I said this, my explaining it, it was called word salad and nonsense and I was verbally assaulted:

Can you see the "time dilation" in light (the imaging within light itself) across a distance, any distance, being addressed in the article?

For light, time does not exist ð

How does light manage to travel billions of light-years without ever slowing down? This is a question that seems to...

www.techno-science.net

Untrue. What you actually wrote, which I described as word salad, was in post 16 of this thread: https://www.sciforums.com/threads/something-about-physics.166862/#post-3757610

That is incomprehensible nonsense from start to finish and nowhere says that for light time does not exist.

What you have now written, in post 3 of this new thread of yours, is also word salad. Have you ever been diagnosed with schizophrenia?

 

[DaveC426913]

Untrue. What you actually wrote, which I described as word salad, was in post 16 of this thread: https://www.sciforums.com/threads/something-about-physics.166862/#post-3757610

That is incomprehensible nonsense from start to finish and nowhere says that for light time does not exist.

What you have now written, in post 3 of this new thread of yours, is also word salad. Have you ever been diagnosed with schizophrenia?

Thanks. That's what I expected.

There are only three certainties in life:
1. Death
2. Taxes.
3. Any request for the clarification of a word salad description will be met with more word salad description.

 

[Atlan0001]

Untrue. What you actually wrote, which I described as word salad, was in post 16 of this thread: https://www.sciforums.com/threads/something-about-physics.166862/#post-3757610

That is incomprehensible nonsense from start to finish and nowhere says that for light time does not exist.

What you have now written, in post 3 of this new thread of yours, is also word salad. Have you ever been diagnosed with schizophrenia?

No, it's comprehensible, just not to a 1-dimensional mental stick human. Hawking once wrote he sometimes had trouble thinking in 2-dimensionality, much less three or more dimensions. My problem throughout two highly successful information systems careers, and a lifelong student of history and its general physics, natural laws and lessons (however redundant they become) back to back has always been just the reverse for being being an "intuitive visual mathematician." I'm a natural at seeing and dealing in the complexity and chaos in what I choose to think into. Just because you can't get there into the higher, larger and greater, dimensions is not my problem.... I travel on more roads, such as in a triangle triangulating (expanding or contracting) with a third, Trojan, point and line, than going down one road at a time (thus dealing in wrong premises and over them coming to poor to bad logical conclusions).

For light, time does not exist:

c=1....

Collapsed cosmological constant Planck (BC/BB) Horizon / Singularity unsigned '0' and/or unsigned '1' (Fundamental Binary Base2 (and there be also the Trojan (+/-) || (-/+))).

 

[C C]

[...] https://www.techno-science.net/en/news/for-light-time-does-not-exist-N27103.html [...]

ADDED EXCERPT: For a photon (the particle of light), it's even more counterintuitive: by traveling at the speed of light, time completely stops from its perspective. In other words, its journey from one point in the Universe to another seems instantaneous to it. Its "life" is limited to its birth (emission) and immediately its death (absorption), even if its birthplace and place of death are billions of light-years apart. For us, it will have taken billions of years to cover that distance. For the photon, it's instantaneous.

But since it lacks consciousness, a particle would have no capacity for a literal presentational perspective of changing space, regardless. There is no "experience" for the photon, as the video below figuratively frames the question, as if the photon could otherwise indulge in sensory perceptions and conceptual understandings of them.

Even a macroscopic, dead brain traveling slower than light "enjoys" the same "absence of everything" bliss. Its neural tissue no longer harbors any internal manifestations of its environment -- whether static or undergoing alterations. When alive, a functioning memory system is required to store one information state and compare it to another ("newer") one, in order to cognitively discern a difference between the two and interpret that as an increment of time (i.e., construe that a change in the universe has occurred).

So even if there was a mind-independent version of "time flowing" (as the person on the street believes or the commonsense view entertains), it would still be the mediating brain-dependent version that we experienced, that is restricted to irregular millisecond units. Whereas change in the objective environment would have to be narrowed down to at least a rontosecond measurement, in order to accommodate subatomic events.

Our elephant-sized temporal units (actually divisions of cognition) would have to extend over a vast sequence of co-existing objective, different states of the universe (i.e., the former can't remotely "fit" into the one of the latter's units). Ergo, something like the block-universe conception of time seems to rear its head again, without even having to philosophically fall out of relativity (and far older, as well as contemporary arguments of that era, like McTaggart's).

Do photons experience time? (Fermilab)

 

[exchemist]

No, it's comprehensible, just not to a 1-dimensional mental stick human. Hawking once wrote he sometimes had trouble thinking in 2-dimensionality, much less three or more dimensions. My problem throughout two highly successful information systems careers, and a lifelong student of history and its general physics, natural laws and lessons (however redundant they become) back to back has always been just the reverse for being being an "intuitive visual mathematician." I'm a natural at seeing and dealing in the complexity and chaos in what I choose to think into. Just because you can't get there into the higher, larger and greater, dimensions is not my problem.... I travel on more roads, such as in a triangle triangulating (expanding or contracting) with a third, Trojan, point and line, than going down one road at a time (thus dealing in wrong premises and over them coming to poor to bad logical conclusions).

For light, time does not exist:

c=1....

Collapsed cosmological constant Planck (BC/BB) Horizon / Singularity unsigned '0' and/or unsigned '1' (Fundamental Binary Base2 (and there be also the Trojan (+/-) || (-/+))).

My experience is that people who can’t communicate clearly cannot think clearly.

 

[Atlan0001]

But since it lacks consciousness, a particle would have no capacity for a literal presentational perspective of changing space, regardless. There is no "experience" for the photon, as the video below figuratively frames the question, as if the photon could otherwise indulge in sensory perceptions and conceptual understandings of them.

Even a macroscopic, dead brain traveling slower than light "enjoys" the same "absence of everything" bliss. Its neural tissue no longer harbors any internal manifestations of its environment -- whether static or undergoing alterations. When alive, a functioning memory system is required to store one information state and compare it to another ("newer") one, in order to cognitively discern a difference between the two and interpret that as an increment of time (i.e., construe that a change in the universe has occurred).

So even if there was a mind-independent version of "time flowing" (as the person on the street believes or the commonsense view entertains), it would still be the mediating brain-dependent version that we experienced, that is restricted to irregular millisecond units. Whereas change in the objective environment would have to be narrowed down to at least a rontosecond measurement, in order to accommodate subatomic events.

Our elephant-sized temporal units (actually divisions of cognition) would have to extend over a vast sequence of co-existing objective, different states of the universe (i.e., the former can't remotely "fit" into the one of the latter's units). Ergo, something like the block-universe conception of time seems to rear its head again, without even having to philosophically fall out of relativity (and far older, as well as contemporary arguments of that era, like McTaggart's).

Do photons experience time? (Fermilab)

The "consciousness," the "experience," for the microcosmic photons, and the macrocosmic photo-frames, is always the crossroads' matrix of interference patterns . . . adding to / subtracting from the "Cantor" and the "Mandelbrot" Sets. The multiverse universes are so overloaded, infinitely overloaded, in light and times ("histories" past and future, paralleling and crossing) they go dark . . . are dark, but renormalizable.

 

[Atlan0001]

My experience is that people who can’t communicate clearly cannot think clearly.

Aha! What is your doctrinal-ideological bent here in our decline and fall of Civilization today?! The Orwellian barbarism rising the world over. What you probably helped quite largely in producing! Can you, do you, think clearly?! Do you even know how(?) . . . or even know how to resist the Orwellian ministries of truth?! You appear to me a 1-dimensional being, to wit, a "useful...." Why? Your oh so limited width.

 

[C C]

The "experience" for the microcosmic photons, and the macrocosmic photo-frames, is always the crossroads' matrix of interference patterns . . . adding to / subtracting from the "Cantor" and the "Mandelbrot" Sets. The universes are so overloaded, infinitely overloaded, in light and times ("histories" past and future) they go dark . . . are dark, but renormalizable.

Yes, "doubletalk" can be a nostalgic venture back into vintage entertainment. Perhaps the thread could be moved to Art and Culture.
_

 

[Atlan0001]

Yes, "doubletalk" can be a nostalgic venture back into vintage entertainment. Perhaps the thread could be moved to Art and Culture.
_

Are you another member, of far too many around now in this darkening day and time, of academia's lords of the flies ('The Lord of the Flies', by William Golding)? I would hope not.

 

[Atlan0001]

"Quantum tunneling" (a "wormholing") in the microcosm, and a "soliton wave" shortcut in the macrocosm, can be the one and same quicker passage way of both worlds.

 

[Pinball1970]

This is hard science. Reported to be split

 

[exchemist]

Aha! What is your doctrinal-ideological bent here in our decline and fall of Civilization today?! The Orwellian barbarism rising the world over. What you probably helped quite largely in producing! Can you, do you, think clearly?! Do you even know how(?) . . . or even know how to resist the Orwellian ministries of truth?! You appear to me a 1-dimensional being, to wit, a "useful...." Why? Your oh so limited width.

Enough of this tomfoolery……..[click]……

 

[(Q)]

(Fundamental Binary Base2 (and there be also the Trojan (+/-) || (-/+))).

It's been a long time since I've seen the use of triple parentheses. Well done.

 

[DaveC426913]

intuitive visual mathematician

This is what everyone who doesn't know physics calls themselves.

Thing is, nature is not intuitive.

 

[Killjoy]

I travel on more roads, such as in a triangle triangulating

Pure gold. Likely the title of my memoirs.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, "doubletalk" can be a nostalgic venture back into vintage entertainment. Perhaps the thread could be moved to Art and Culture.
_

I was not aware of this term. Though my mother used to recite what I suppose is a c.18th example of the genre, known as the “Great Panjandrum”, by Samuel Foote: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Samuel_Foote

 

[James R]

Atlan0001:

In all our verbal sparring over the observed and observable universe ("past histories"), versus an unobserved and unobservable universe ("future histories"). I went on explaining those universes as I see them.

I quoted Stephen Hawking to have said the grand total of all the mass and energy of the observed and observable universe, the light time universe, is exactly zero ('0') and always been exactly zero ('0').

I approached but I didn't quite get around to saying, exactly, that an infinitely dense universe is at once a holed universe, infinitesimal in density (if that (relatively speaking, exactly zero in its mass and energy)).

There is no "rest mass," or energy of rest mass, to the universe. All "rest," inclusive of any "rest mass" at all, is local relative across its universality, never absolute. Dr; Samuel Johnson's kicking the stone to refute Bishop George Berkeley's assertions is irrelevant when it comes down to whether any finite of any kind whatsoever is finite absolute.

And so on and on my takes on physics and cosmology being forced out of physics and cosmology as being non-science word salads and nonsense. I speak my language, see and interpret the same data you might see and interpret differently my way. I don't and won't necessarily speak your jargon, your language, according to your dictation of conventions (your tyranny of dictatorship). I've learned over a long time I might have to come down many different but similar spokes of a wheel, a picture in and of many facets and dimensions, before there is any understanding of the hub I see.

None of this has any relevance to the topic "For light, time does not exist". But I'll take a quick look.

I quoted Stephen Hawking to have said the grand total of all the mass and energy of the observed and observable universe, the light time universe, is exactly zero ('0') and always been exactly zero ('0').

Okay.

I approached but I didn't quite get around to saying, exactly, that an infinitely dense universe is at once a holed universe, infinitesimal in density (if that (relatively speaking, exactly zero in its mass and energy)).

That's nonsense. An infinitely dense universe can't simultaneously being infinitesimal in density.

There is no "rest mass," or energy of rest mass, to the universe.

Yes there is. The concept of "rest mass" is well defined in physics. The universe contains mass.

All "rest," inclusive of any "rest mass" at all, is local relative across its universality, never absolute.

Wrong. Rest mass is absolute.

Dr; Samuel Johnson's kicking the stone to refute Bishop George Berkeley's assertions is irrelevant when it comes down to whether any finite of any kind whatsoever is finite absolute.

If you say so. Why talk about irrelevancies, though?

And so on and on my takes on physics and cosmology being forced out of physics and cosmology as being non-science word salads and nonsense.

You haven't posted any scientific content in this thread, so far.

I speak my language, see and interpret the same data you might see and interpret differently my way. I don't and won't necessarily speak your jargon, your language, according to your dictation of conventions (your tyranny of dictatorship). I've learned over a long time I might have to come down many different but similar spokes of a wheel, a picture in and of many facets and dimensions, before there is any understanding of the hub I see.

Er... okay?

No, it's comprehensible, just not to a 1-dimensional mental stick human.

1-dimensional mental stick humans don't exist.

Hawking once wrote he sometimes had trouble thinking in 2-dimensionality, much less three or more dimensions.

That's interesting. Where did he once write that?

My problem throughout two highly successful information systems careers, and a lifelong student of history and its general physics, natural laws and lessons (however redundant they become) back to back has always been just the reverse for being being an "intuitive visual mathematician." I'm a natural at seeing and dealing in the complexity and chaos in what I choose to think into. Just because you can't get there into the higher, larger and greater, dimensions is not my problem.... I travel on more roads, such as in a triangle triangulating (expanding or contracting) with a third, Trojan, point and line, than going down one road at a time (thus dealing in wrong premises and over them coming to poor to bad logical conclusions).

Does that ever produce any useful outcomes?

Have you made any original contributions to knowledge?

For light, time does not exist:

You haven't explained why.

c=1....

Well, in the right units it does. So what?

Collapsed cosmological constant Planck (BC/BB) Horizon / Singularity unsigned '0' and/or unsigned '1' (Fundamental Binary Base2 (and there be also the Trojan (+/-) || (-/+))).

Word salad. The purpose of writing stuff on a public forum is usually to communicate something to other people, is it not? Maybe give it a try.

The "consciousness," the "experience," for the microcosmic photons, and the macrocosmic photo-frames, is always the crossroads' matrix of interference patterns . . . adding to / subtracting from the "Cantor" and the "Mandelbrot" Sets.

Word salad.

The multiverse universes are so overloaded, infinitely overloaded, in light and times ("histories" past and future, paralleling and crossing) they go dark . . . are dark, but renormalizable.

Word salad.

Next time you start a thread, try to post coherently.

This one is now closed.