Hi Dan, Thanks for the feedback. I don't want to debate physics with you as this is a metaphysics forum. I believe what I said was correct, I studied physics for a number of years, particularly in its applications to biology (biophysics). Now I use that knowledge to build medical products which helps alleviate suffering in Man. A lot of compassion flows from science.
My post was to present that the current understanding of physics can be used to support the notion of Quality. It can explain how quality can be outside of time, and how we can sense it being outside of time. I can be used to explain how Quality can be the foundation of all, even time. This can be done simply by realizing that time stops a the speed of light. The equations show this. A second does not elapse for a photon. Google "time dilation". Oh, and Dan, I meant the speed of light is constant in a vacuum. Don't know if the physics is real or not, or whether it will change tomorrow, but that is where physics is today. I think this is a good thing for Quality. The more support we get from all fields of knowledge, the better off we will be in maintaining the philosophy. So take it for what it was meant, a support of Quality through physics. This makes it more real for some, maybe not the non physicists, but at least some. Science supports Quality! If you don't agree, give me some examples. Cheers, Willblake2 On May 25, 2009, at 11:43:34 PM, "Dan Glover" <[email protected]> wrote: Hello everyone ---------------------------------------- > Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 20:24:28 -0700 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] LC: Expanded Annotation 57 > > > On May 25, 2009, at 11:09:02 AM, "Dan Glover" wrote: > > > Hello everyone > > ---------------------------------------- >> Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 08:47:17 -0700 >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [MD] LC: Expanded Annotation 57 >> >> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 12:39 PM, MarshaV wrote: >> >>> >>> 57. In the MOQ time is dependent on experience >>> independently of matter. Matter is a deduction from >>> experience. >>> >> >> So we just toss E=mc2 out the window? >> >> I think (unless it can be explained better to me) that the realization of >> object precedes or arises with the realization of time. Time = change and >> you can't have "change" without some"thing" changing. > > Hi John > > In the MOQ, matter arises from experience, not the other way around. Time > arises from experience as well, so it arises independently of matter. > > I am unsure what you mean when you say: So we just toss E=mc2 out the window? > Equations do not arise from matter. They are ideas. They arise from > experience independently of matter. > > Does this help to better answer your question? > > Dan > > > Hi all, Willblake2 here, > > I saw E=mc2, thought I'd jump in to see if physics has any bearing on MoQ. > > What this equation symbolizes is that energy and matter are identical. We can > convert one to the other simply using a constant number, that is the speed of > light times itself. A very large number compared to numbers we are used to > dealing > with, but just a number like "2". To simplify, we could say that one mass is > two energies. Dan: I believe the "2" is actually "squared" so, according to Einstein, energy is equal to mass times the square of C, the constant, or the speed of light in a vacuum. >Willblake2: > In the equation is the speed of light, which is distance traveled over time. > This is > where time comes into the picture. That is time separates distances. Dan: I think I disagree. C as a constant stands outside of time. At least, according to Einstein... Willblake2: Einstein loved > this kind of metaphysical stuff. Was a mystic in his own way, non of this > spiritual > unity stuff, but in trying to sort out the underlying fabric of reality. Dan: That and they say his feet smelled. >Willblake2: > So what is so special about the speed of light? Well for one a photon (pure > energy) > zips around at that speed. More importantly, it is thought that the speed is > constant. That is if you are traveling at half the speed of light, and shine > a flashlight > it will appear to leave you at the speed of light, to someone standing by the > road, > the light from the flashlight will also leave at the speed of light (not 1 + > a half speed). Dan: As we know, the speed of light is not constant, which is why Einstein specified C as the speed of light in a vacuum. In water, light slows down. Also I believe it slows down as the temperature drops close to absolute zero. In respect to your above paragraph, though, I believe very precise experiments have not turned up any difference in the speed of starlight anywhere along the earth's orbit. Since the earth moves in different directions as it orbits the sun, the speed of light should vary. It does not. So even were we traveling at half the speed of light, any light we sent out would still be traveling at the speed of light. >Willblake2: > Einstein got to thinking about this and said that what is happening is that > time is slowing down the faster you go. Dan: This isn't exactly what he said... Einstein used thought experiments whereby one observer is traveling at speeds close to that of light in relation to another observer at a relative standstill. They both notice a discrepancy, or a relativity, in the way they measure the passage of time. Until Einstein showed how time is relative to the observer, it was assumed that time was a constant in the universe. When Robert Pirsig writes: "In the MOQ time is dependent on experience independently of matter" it would appear (to me) that he's talking about relativity. Time is dependent upon the experience of the observer. It isn't a constant. Time doesn't depend on matter. Willblake2: >Therefore since the speed of light should > be going at one and a half times, time goes slower to make up for this. > That time slows down with speed has been shown in the lab, and in fact > satellites > and GPS systems take this slowing down into account for accuracy. > > OK, nothing new there. Now the limits of speed are 0 (zero) and the speed of > light (SOL). Nothing goes slower than zero, nothing goes faster than SOL. Dan: I don't agree. If I recall, Einstein had no explanation so he called it "spooky": Entangled photons react to each other instantly no matter how far apart they may be. Though he worked on the problem for many decades, I do not believe Einstein was able to reconcile quantum forces with his theory of relativity in any meaningful manner. Willblake2: > Now, at the SOL, time does not move, it stays at 0. Dan: Again, this isn't exactly right. Let's say an intrepid astronaut is traveling at close to the speed of light. No matter how much energy is used, the astronaut will never be able to achieve light speed since (according to Einstein) it would take an infinite amount of energy to do so. Willblake2: At our speed time > moves along. Lets say, for metaphysical purposes that we switch the limits, > and say that the speed of light is zero, and we are moving at close to the > speed of light. This is just using a different reference. It makes sense to > use > the speed of light as zero, since time is stopped at that point. Therefore, > light is > dead still, and we are rushing through it. Imagine the wind of time blowing > through your hair, you can feel it. When you are stopped along with light > there is not wind, no time passing by. I would reference this thought > experiment > but I have not found it on the internet yet. > > OK, so we are moving very fast and we experience time. However at every > instant time does not move. At every instant we are dead still, because > an instant is so small that no time has passed. This is the Now. If the > perception of Quality into our consciousness happens during this instant > we could feel it. We would be going through infinitely short starts and stops. > This would be a physics analogy of how Quality comes before time, in fact > it is the background upon which time happens. Dan: It reads as though you take time as a real, physical entity. It is not. Einstein taught us that time is relative to the observer. We as observers build intellectual constructs and call them minutes, hours, days, etc., to mark the passage of time. Being submerged in culture as we are, these constructs become real as concrete. They are how we measure our lives. But underlying all are intellectual patterns of value, patterns of Quality. >Willblake2: > An analogy of all this would be that Quality is the white background on a page > in a book, and time is the written words. Although we are jumping through > time, > Quality is always there in the background. Time is caused by speed which is > distance per time. This would mean that for time to appear by itself, distance > would have to dissapear. There is no distance between us and Quality. > You take out time by stopping and you have just Quality left. > We could say that light is pure Quality (no time). And once > again we can worship the Sun. Dan: I do enjoy sitting in the sun... > > Hope this made some sense, thanks for your time. Dan: I am no physics expert and everything I say should be taken as such. Please correct me as you see fit. It is all good fun. Plus I found this while surfing for info on Einstein. I thought it was kind of cool; it sidetracked me for a bit before I solved it: http://www.naute.com/puzzles/puzzle13.phtml Thanks, Dan _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail® has a new way to see what's up with your friends. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/WhatsNew?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_WhatsNew1_052009 Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
