Is the speed of light the fastest speed possible?

[TheFaithfulStone]

What do you mean?

 

TFS

[Buffy]

What do you mean?

Read it at the speed of light...

 

Every thing is ob vious if you read it the right way,

Buffy

[Tormod]

What do you mean?

 

TFS

 

I think she is just a musing.

[Buffy]

I think she is just a musing.

Yes, I'm a muse to many people! :cheer:

 

Not a posed to that,

Buffy

[Pyrotex]

...Not a posed to that...

Hmmmmm. Obviously, an amateur muse.

 

Not a pro posed at all. :)

 

Gosh, let's change to some random subject! Let's see, how about...

the speed of light. Here's what I found online:

 

The speed of light in a vacuum is exactly equal to 299,792,458 metres per second (approximately 186,282 miles per second). This exact speed is a definition, not a measurement, as the metre is defined in terms of the speed of light and not vice versa. According to standard modern physical theory, all electromagnetic radiation, including visible light, propagates (or moves) at a constant speed in vacuo, known as the speed of light, which is a physical constant denoted as c. According to the theory of special relativity, all observers will measure the speed of light as being the same, regardless of the reference frame of the observer or the velocity of the object emitting the light.

 

Interesting about the meter, yes?

 

This subject is 75% wacko for many reasons. People want to understand the speed of light in terms of a sensible speed of some mundane object. Like the speed of a rifle bullet. Or a bullet train. Or a trained sparrow. (English)

 

Unfortunately, this kind of thinking leads to contradictions with observation and experiment.

 

There's the "speed of sound" metaphor, so easy with which to confuse. But we broke the sound barrier! Why can't we...

 

That which we do not understand, we desire to replace.

[Farsight]

Trying to go faster than c is like trying to jump more than 3 feet to the yard.

[rocket art]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Very entertaining. Keep the day job, rocket art.

 

Here's a much more entertaining fact to further multiply your emoticons (and a mirror for you to reflect along with it :hyper: ):

 

Even at quantum level the concept of past, present, future gets blurred as subparticles behave in such a way that 'debris' occurs even before the 'explosion'.

 

The Zero Point Energy of "nothingness" is so vast it would take a mere cubic centimeter of it to contain all the galaxies you see via Hubble Telescope. The race for Zero Point Technology is now ongoing and it's said that 9 are already in the US patent office.

 

This may also confirm another of my 'rocket philosophy': "It takes one to know everything before he can say he knows nothing. I may not know everything, so I can't say I know nothing." - rocket

 

I do know something, and you may refrain from flattering me by reacting as if I know "nothing" (as I may continue boogling (from my 'rocket dictionary') yer logic :hihi: ).

 

But here's a far more entertaining scenario that would elicit from me various emoticon reactions: the 'scientific' quest for fictitious graviton! :eek: :) :lol: :doh:

 

Trying to go faster than c is like trying to jump more than 3 feet to the yard.

 

Actually you've been doing that 'all' the time all along (it's just that we're not Aware of it, until now perhaps), because in Einstein's equation, he incorporated,relative to physical dimension, your consciousness as observer in the realm of twice the speed of light, hence you being a conscious observer, subjects reality at twice the speed of light such that, according to my "rocket philosophy", (since no material instrument from any of your science labs would be capable at achieving beyond lightspeed by itself) the matter we see relative around us 'duplicates', hence you will create a dimension when you decided to open a cookie jar, and another parallel dimension when you decide not to open the cookie jar (and another dimension if you decide to behave like cookie monster).

 

It's that simple, the Infinite (for the meantime bounded with the physicality of E=mc^2 relative to our being observer) Conscious Energy is faster than the unit measurement lightspeed and renders the physicality as 'observed'. You may refer to my thread "Parallel Dimension and Ideal Future" at the Philosophy and Humanities forums for info and whatever reactions.

[InfiniteNow]

Even at quantum level the concept of past, present, future gets blurred as subparticles behave in such a way that 'debris' occurs even before the 'explosion'.

This is something that has interested me as well. Would it be possible for you to point us in the direction of this information, like a study or two that brought this assertion? I'd like to explore the concept, but struggle to find the proper presentation. Any help?

 

 

Cheers. :)

[rocket art]

This is something that has interested me as well. Would it be possible for you to point us in the direction of this information, like a study or two that brought this assertion? I'd like to explore the concept, but struggle to find the proper presentation. Any help?

 

That's because our 'intent' had subjected it to 'explode', but its consequence had 'exceeded' beyond our level of 'awareness' that we set our paradigms into, which is yet obviously limited. Which intrigued me why does society have to resort to the' explosive' means to extract knowledge from nature.

 

Perhaps the capacity of a simple flower to 'prod' and convert such subparticle concoctions into fragrance could well exceed the ability of a society's hugely funded particle accelerators that extract data from such subparticles by nonchalantly exploding it to smithereens.

[InfiniteNow]

Hmmm... What I was really asking for was a link, or a site with a citation... A tangible piece of data that I could ponder. Available, yay or nay?

[Pyrotex]

...Perhaps the capacity of a simple flower to 'prod' and convert such subparticle concoctions into fragrance could well exceed the ability of a society's hugely funded particle accelerators that extract data from such subparticles by nonchalantly exploding it to smithereens.

Okay, Toto, we're not in Physics/Relativity any more.

 

Admin Control, I think we should move this to Strange Claims.

[rocket art]

Hmmm... What I was really asking for was a link, or a site with a citation... A tangible piece of data that I could ponder. Available, yay or nay?

 

I have read Gary Zukav's book "The Dancing Wu Li Masters". A profound statement by William Blake may provide insights that a mathematical equation may yet achieve:

"Thou perceivest the Flowers put fourth their precious Odours;

And none can tell how from so small a centre comes such sweet,

Forgetting that within that centre Eternity expands..."

 

So, the thread is finally zapped to the Strange Claims forum for daring to ask such a question, after logic had exhausted itself until it became too weird for any other categories, which reminds me of another of my 'rocket philosophies':

 

"Why ask questions that already have answers? I prefer answers that unfold like questions." -rocket

 

Why does it seem as if a butterfly that flutters somewhere here causes a storm to rage somewhere there...

[InfiniteNow]

I have read Gary Zukav's book "The Dancing Wu Li Masters".

I've read it too. It is a fun read. Do you have other data, more scientific than a book?

 

So, the thread is finally zapped to the Strange Claims forum for daring to ask such a question, after logic had exhausted itself...

My sense is that logic never even awoke. The thoughts are interesting, but do not seem yet completely founded, hence the move. :eek_big:

[jackson33]

my answer to the original question; no i don't think light is the fastest entity. personally i feel we have yet to figure just what this might be and have offered suggestions elsewhere to prompt other ideas....without success.

 

everything is based on human concepts of what we can see through some form of equipment or our eye/brain. perhaps if we saw and perceived in other wavelengths, much of what we think now would be considered childish explanations. everything we do see is not what that thing really is. the sky is not really blue and the moon may not be as plain is we perceive, both you know as true.

[rocket art]

I've read it too. It is a fun read. Do you have other data, more scientific than a book?

 

Well then, brace yourself and partake of a load of Awareness with this video about sacred geometry, you'll be amazed you 'knew' about it all along even while you're still in embryonic, mitosis stage:

Drunvalo Melchizedek - Sacred Geometry 1 of 2 - Google Video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8673723312620286523&q=sacred+geometry

 

The guy is Aware, and if his comments on extraterrestrials would come as a shock, take another load of this that puppet corporate media didnt want you to know:

The Disclosure Project May 9th 2001 National Press Club Conference - Google Video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1166743665260900218&q=disclosure+project

 

everything is based on human concepts of what we can see through some form of equipment or our eye/brain. perhaps if we saw and perceived in other wavelengths, much of what we think now would be considered childish explanations. everything we do see is not what that thing really is. the sky is not really blue and the moon may not be as plain is we perceive, both you know as true.

 

I do sugest you take a look at my Rocket Theory. I tend to be an independent thinker and I have been consistent also with my other 'rocket philosophy' that Consciousness is the source of gravity. These views go even beyond the physical measurements of lightspeed, yet I did not contradict Einstein's equation.

[InfiniteNow]

Well, we're in strange claims already, so I guess there's not much to do with that one...

 

Here's the deal...You use terms impossible to define across observers, hence your truths are subjective interpretations.

 

"Consciousness is the source of gravity." Uhmmm, okay, but what then is consciousness? How can it be measured? What predictions does it make? How can we test that?

 

 

I've said it before, and I've been consistent... Purple leprachauns riding on 6 legged unicorns cause the uncertainty described by Heisenberg...

 

 

Conk shells make neat noises too.

[IDMclean]

I often refer to a paper I read in which the observed signal speed of light exceeds c via changes to the vacuum conditions using the Casimir effect. I don't pretend to understand it in full.

 

However it did provide an interesting view point to consider.

 

Faster than c, special relativity, and causality

 

In which it is postulated that the maximum speed of light in different vacuum conditions is potentially infinite, without causality violations. I highly suggest it as a more technical read.