Hi Dan, I hope I didn't come across that way. It is just an opinion, I have nothing figured out. I enjoyed your feedback, I just didn't want to get into a discussion about physics. My bad.
Willblake2 On May 26, 2009, at 8:25:33 PM, "Dan Glover" <[email protected]> wrote: Yeah thats fine. You were the one who brought up physics. You sound like you got it all figured out and certainly do not need any input from me. ---------------------------------------- > Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 19:55:03 -0700 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] LC: Expanded Annotation 57 > > 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" 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/ _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_BR_life_in_synch_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/
