Relativity?

[ken]

What is this "real truth of life" that you see but real Scientists don't see, most of us understand that Creationists only see the world through the filter of their Mythology, like Peacegirl only sees the world through the filter of her Daddy's writings. If it's in the Bible it's got to be true, if it's in Seymour Lessans Book it's got to be true, if it wasn't true he would have said so, like the Bible says it's the infallible word of God. (Actually it is, it's just that people have fucked up the interpretation).

What are you saying now, that the truth is in the bible?

Why did the bible even come into the question?

What is the 'real truth of Life' IS what EVERY thing can agree with.

Since everyone can't even agree with the time order of events, that's going to be a tough nut to crack!

What has the time order of events got to do with what every thing can agree with?

[ken]

Surreptituous57 is the only one that has provided some responses that will lead to further questioning by Me, in order to show what it is that I want to show, in regards to travelling at the speed of light.

Then go ahead and show it, Genius! Who's stoppin' ya?

No thing.

I was just waiting for some more answers.

[uwot]

Being completely open and observing from Everything's perspective allows ALL things to be known and understood, almost instantly. Far more can be seen and understood from a unified collective viewpoint then could ever be discovered from a separate individual viewpoint.

Sounds great. So, how do we achieve this in practice?

[ken]

And, yes I will keep asking clarifying questions to people who keep responding in a way as though they KNOW the absolute answers.

No, we do not do that. We merely tell you, accurately, what our current best theories describe.

I do NOT want to know what "best" theories describe. That is very easy to find. Just like you I could read them.

What I want to know is what people, themselves, observe. That is people who can think for themselves, instead of people just reading, and then copying what others have written.

Neither I nor uwot nor anyone else that I know of here has denied that theories can change. That is that is the whole point of science!

Well YOU certainly do NOT come across that way, and, as I have already stated this is far more about you then any one else. Why consistently bring others into this?

The reason I ask you more than others for clarification is because of the way you write.

Are you now saying that the distance between planets travelling closer to the speed of light may not actually become shorter to the person in the spacecraft?

Or, are you going to hold onto to what you said previously, and that is, "It actually is shorter. Really and truly"?

The latter appears unchangeable. You were even asked, by another person in fact, for clarity, to which you replied, "It's actually really true in his frame. In the earth frame, it's not true."

Also, and by the way, HOW do you KNOW this "fact"? How do you KNOW that the distance is REALLY and TRULY ACTUALLY shorter to the person in the spacecraft? What evidence do you have for this apparent unchangeable absolute real and true fact?

I do this so that either they will come to realize that they in fact do not know the absolute answer or that in fact do know the answer and by clarifying enough times then they will eventually be able to demonstrate the absolute answer.

No one here has claimed to know "absolute answers.'

Are you absolutely sure of this?

HA HA HA HA, you have repeatedly claimed to know the truth!

Is that what I have actually claimed?

If so, can you direct us to it?

[ken]

What was your answer?

Why do you snottily insist on people giving you yet again the same answers that they have already repeatedly given you?

Because the question is usually dismissed. Your answer is it is impossible, is this right?

We do NOT only have to guess at. We CAN also remain open and see It for what It really IS.

What is it? Really?

What is WHAT, exactly?

[ken]

No, this is wrong, a Creationist tries to prove his predetermined set of values and beliefs no matter how much he has to distort the evidence or lie. Scientists set their own personal beliefs aside and looks at what the evidence tells them and draw conclusions from the evidence even if it contradicts what was believed before looking at the evidence. And if it does the Scientist will change beliefs according to the evidence. Quite different from a Creationist who will do or say anything rather than change beliefs according to the evidence

If you believe that ALL people labelled "creationists" and ALL people labelled "scientists" behave the way you say here, then you will be sadly mistaken.

ALL human beings behave differently, depending on their thinking. ALL human beings have different thoughts. ALL people are different.

Perhaps a small minority of scientists and creationists behave as you imply buy they have very little to no effect on the rest of the professionals who are in the fields of endeavor.

What effect happens or not was not what I was pointing out. The absoluteness of your statement was what I was showing. By the way, what way did you assume I was implying? I NEVER implied any person behaves in any certain way.

[Walker]

I do NOT look at and follow theories. I look at what IS and observe that.

If all the books said that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, would you believe them?
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=22827&start=255#p336869

[ken]

Haven't we all?

What was your answer?

To the observer on Earth it will take 4 years, for the observer on the ship, it will depend on how fast they are traveling.

Would not the time it would take, to the observer on earth, also depend on how fast the ship is travelling?

For simplicity are you able to imagine the ship travels at the speed of light, from lift off from earth to landing on another planet, and so do you agree that it appears to take four years, to an observer on earth, for the ship to travel to a planet four light years away? If so, then how long does it appear to take for the observer in the ship?

[uwot]

Would not the time it would take, to the observer on earth, also depend on how fast the ship is travelling?

For simplicity are you able to imagine the ship travels at the speed of light, from lift off from earth to landing on another planet, and so do you agree that it appears to take four years, to an observer on earth, for the ship to travel to a planet four light years away? If so, then how long does it appear to take for the observer in the ship?

It's really not that complicated. Whatever the ship is doing has no effect on Earth's orbit. It will continue to go round the Sun 4 times. During those 4 years, if the ship travels at the speed of light, nothing will happen to it. Every atom will be travelling in a straight line, and no interactions between them can take place, because the exchange of photons, which is the basis of everything that happens, cannot take place. In other words, because no change happens, no time passes for anyone on the ship.

[ken]

all people distort the actual truth, and/or are completely blinded from the actual truth, because of and by their own previously held assumptions and beliefs.

That is your belief, Ken.

Surely you understand that I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.

So, in the first sentence, where you said all people, you considered yourself excluded?

Not necessarily so. A person does NOT have to believe any thing nor have to disbelieve any thing.

Such a statement does not apply to you?

No, of course not. If, and when, i am assuming, believing or disbelieving some thing, then i also am being distorted, and/or are completely blinded from the actual truth.

If so, please explain why it applies to all people but not to you.

Did you assume, think, or believe that what I said would apply to all people but not to me?

If so, WHY did you assume, think, or believe that?

So, YOU have views, whereas other people have assumptions and beliefs that blind them and distort the actual truth? Why would you make this distinction?

Because 'views', by their nature, can and do change. Whereas, 'beliefs' can not. Only during or after the dismissal of a belief, the belief returns to a view, when then be changed.

I made this distinction after I discovered, while talking to some people with relative power, of how destructive the power of belief can actually be. I decided then that I was not going to believe nor disbelieve any thing again. I then later also became aware of the power of assumptions too. Assuming also can close a person off from the truth.

Additionally, you often seem to imply that you are not as limited/distorted in the ways that other people are.

There is no thing in there that I can see that implies that, except of course when I say that I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing, and, I do not want to assume any thing. But that is more than implying. I state when you, any person, stops assuming and believing or disbelieving some thing, then they will be far more open, which means they will not be as limited/distorted as they were previously. Surely it is pretty well common knowledge already that the best, easiest, quickest, and simplest way to learn some thing new is to being open to it.

Do I? How do I imply that?

See above.

If you were to be a bit more specific, then we can all have a much better look at it, and then discuss it more thoroughly.

Did it ever occur to you to clarify, instead of just continually assuming?

I've just done that.

Yes you are clarifying now and see how much different My responses are. Hopefully I am coming across clearer, and better understood.

It seemed so obvious from your words, I didn't think I was assuming.

From My perspective there is a lot of assuming going on. But that is because really I am the only one who KNOWS, for sure, what is being said in My words. This applies for ALL people. Only they can KNOW, for sure, what is being said and meant in the words they use. And, only from clarification can what was being truly meant be truly discovered. That is what I find humorous with human beings always TRYING TO decipher what other people meant in the words they wrote, especially after the writer has passed on. No one ever really thinks to clarify what a person actually means, when they are alive and able to clarify. Second guessing or assuming seems to be the preferred option.

As you can now see, hopefully, what can appear to be so obvious, to a reader, may in fact not be true at all.

ALL readers, and listeners, come from differing experiences and so ALL have different preconceptions. But if we all can rid ourselves of those preconceptions, assumptions, and beliefs when listening to and/or reading others, then I am pretty sure a far bigger and truer picture can be formed and shared, and thus seen, and understood.

Thought experiment, Ken: Is not everything part of the actual truth of life?

In a sense that could be very well true.

So, when you say that people are not seeing the actual truth of life, that gives the impression that YOU DO see SUCH A DISTINCT THING (or why would you say it?).

Did I say they are not seeing it or that the assumptions and/or beliefs they have distort and blind them from the actual truth.

Obviously the truth of Life would NOT change. It is there 'staring us in the face', as some may say. The truth of Life is here for ALL of us to see, look at and observe.

The reason I say, what I say, is to evoke feelings to people, and then watch the reaction.

What will be observed is people instantly start assuming. People then write assumingly, which has been shown to happen multiple times throughout this forum already, with, only on the vary rarest of occasions clarification being asked for prior to the written assumption, belief, and/or already held conclusion.

Only once, maybe twice, if I recall correctly, in this forum, did a person, from the start of our discussion who was insistent that they were right and I was wrong finally come around to seeing what I was ACTUALLY saying, all because they started to ask Me clarifying questions. From then on they were able to fully understand WHAT I was saying, and in the end could see that what I said did make sense and appear correct.

I NEVER gave that impression that i see such a distinct thing. That was the impression you took on yourself, because of those past experiences you have had. I have experienced a way, which I think will show how to see such a distinct thing, BUT I can never know if that way is even close to being a satisfactory way until it is confirmed so. The only thing I can really do is express my past experiences as openly and as honestly as I can. But having the ability to remember all things as they happened perfectly is not one of my best assets. Not that I have an asset at all.

I am not here, in this forum, to be agreed with. I am just here to learn how to express better, and unintentionally also noticed to show how the Mind and the brain work. By how, and the way, people react to what I say is what I have wanted to a third person but have yet to find any person who has wanted to listen to me. I want to show how the brain has stopped what the Mind already sees and knows. What I am noticing more and more is that future readers will be able to see this more clearly in this forum. Once it is seen and understood it can then be seen just about everywhere where human beings communicate together.

I also actually did not even give the impression people are not seeing the actual truth of Life. I said they are distorted and/or blinded from it because of, the reasons given. The truth of Life is all around. People are looking at and seeing it all the time. But they are distorting that view or being blinded from it completely because of the way they are thinking. The thinking is preventing, or stopping, the knowing. That is, thinking from a somewhat closed perspective, instead of from a truly open perspective, stop what ACTUALLY IS from being seen and understood.

We're all here living out our vast and amazing collection of experiences.

Yes, you have told Me that a few times already. And, I have totally agreed with you on this previously, and again now.

It is, by the way, also with that vast and amazing collection of experiences WHERE the truth of Life lays, and where It is seen, understood, and KNOWN. ONLY when people come together, and NOT separate, is WHEN It is seen.

How many prophets, preachers, sages, gurus believe that they uniquely see some "important actual truth" that others don't? [/quote]

To many for this one little individual to count.

If the sacred flows through all -- which would make the most sense --

And which I totally agree with, and have agreed with.

then it would appear to be sheer fantasy and ego that drives some to set themselves apart from the whole as unique seers.

Yes, agreed.

Which if people have noticed what I have been writing from the outset in this forum, the Truth IS what is agreed upon and accepted by ALL. ALL means EVERY THING, as a unified collective One. There can only be one unique seer, and that is the One that is made up of EVERY one. That is the only One that I know of that could possibly be able to see, know and understand it ALL.

I'm listening to tribal drums while I write this. It makes me want to run outside amongst the trees in the moonlight. There is SO MUCH SPIRIT available in every moment. People can do whatever they want. It's all available. Fantastic!

Do you agree that that SPIRIT might also be in every moment I write? Or is that not possible?

I will not ask you go back and read what I have written from new fresh eyes and a clearer perspective now, but one day soon, hopefully, you will be able to see that I am NOT writing from the perspective that you have really been thinking I have. But I do write in a way, sometimes, to bring out that assuming/believing side in people. I can not demonstrate some thing, if I do not have the examples.

Also, what I want to, eventually, show is that SPIRIT that you talk about. I just do it in a roundabout way. I just need to show ITs existence from a scientific, religious, philosophical, spiritual, thoughtful, and emotion way so that I do not put any one off "side". A challenging and fairly slow process, but a very doable one.

[davidm]

I'm assuming that davidm still hasn't found time to do so, otherwise I'd knobble him for plagiarism, since his marble clock is more or less the example I use. I don't know which would pain me more.

Great minds think alike I guess!

No, I have not read it, but just for that, I'm going to buy it.

You could return the favor by buying a couple of books I have for sale, too. Or at least one of them.

[davidm]

What was your answer?

To the observer on Earth it will take 4 years, for the observer on the ship, it will depend on how fast they are traveling.

Would not the time it would take, to the observer on earth, also depend on how fast the ship is travelling?

For simplicity are you able to imagine the ship travels at the speed of light, from lift off from earth to landing on another planet, and so do you agree that it appears to take four years, to an observer on earth, for the ship to travel to a planet four light years away? If so, then how long does it appear to take for the observer in the ship?

Why do you keep asking this same question over and over, when it has been repeatedly answered?

[davidm]

'To repeat, for the final time: No ship can travel at light speed. It can get arbitrarily close, but not achieve light speed.

As I have explained AT LEAST TWICE NOW, if the ship were traveling at 90 percent of the speed of light, from the standpoint of earth it would take something a bit over four and a half years for the ship to reach Alpha Centauri. From the standpoint of the ship's crew, they would arrive at AC in about 2.2 years.

There! You've received the CORRECT ANSWER YET AGAIN!

[Viveka]

Someone please respond to this:

Thanks, Doc. This website explains it well. However, it doesn't mean the light is travelling a further distance even though it 'seems' that way through the mathematical machinations of the perpendicular motion of the moving clock. It's simply a mathematical trick to say so, as it always covers the same distance up and down.

Let us change the universe up a little. If light speed were 3 km per hour, and we had a light-clock, then if we moved the light-clock perpendicular to the path of the clocks' motion at 20 km per hour, (or whatever speed necessary) it would actually lag behind the mover and not even hit the mirrors that constitute the light-clock. Now, when we measure light moving at a speed, it actually is 'anchored' to whatever is giving off the light, or even use Galilean Transformations. The slow light would then, no matter what, move in synchronization with the up-down motion of the clock. Otherwise even if Light was invariant under this slow speed, we would observe huge length-contraction or huge time-dilation. And if we didn't, what would be better? A Galilean Transformation or Light-Anchoring, or SR?

One way of testing if this is true with real light is simply speeding up the train more and more and then observe if the light lags behind. However, we would have to move at faster-than-light-speed. Therefore, it is impossible to say if it is a Galilean Transformation or Lorentz Transformation.

Thus, the translational motion of perpendicular motion to the light-clock's velocity is simply an illusion and has no true meaning to an absolute frame of reference as deduced by many of my other posts, such as the Sagnac Effect, Absolute Rotation, the LIGO experiment echoing the Michelson-Morley Experiment, and so on.

For instance, say I am in a car throwing a basketball up into the air while driving. Did that basketball move more than the car itself and therefore there needs to be length-contraction or time-dilation with respect to the observers inside and outside of the car? Of course not!

Just because Light-speed is invariate supposedly means that there has to be length-contraction and time-dilation because you are taking the invariate speed of light, and then making time and space variate in order to keep the invariancy of the speed of light. That about sums up Special Relativity.

In other words, it's a failure of application of synonimity of mathematics as known and physics as observed when one claims that something within a car when moving perpendicular to the motion of the car moves extra distance. The fact that matter(s) [as in an atom or whatever] 'communicates' with each other proves this, as, for instance, Newton's Law for gravity requires the center of the Earth and the entirety of the earth 'communicates' with the rest so that this center of gravity occurs in its radius. Purely mathematical ideas require physical backing otherwise they are wrong. In other words, communication of matter is the reason why when we are on a ship and drop a bag it requires Galilean transformations in order to land in the right spot and not lag behind the ship. It's not really that there is such a thing as a Galilean transformation in real life, it's that the motion of the ship relative to its parts requires that there is a bag moving at a certain velocity if it is to be part of the ship's motion, which makes for a good candidate for Galilean Invariance. Enter Mach's Principle. It's that all of matter is connected requires our concepts of motion, force, velocity, etc.

[Lacewing]

If so, please explain why it applies to all people but not to you.

Did you assume, think, or believe that what I said would apply to all people but not to me?

So, I asked you some clarifying questions, and now you jump right into asking me if I assume, think, or believe -- rather than noticing/acknowledging the role that your communication plays in creating confusion (or revealing intent) that needs to be clarified. I will try to show you some examples in this post...

Your statement "Surely you understand that I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing", sounds like a very absolute statement, doesn't it? It could be taken as applying "in general" or "in this instance". You did not specify that detail when you said it.

From what you've responded, I'm thinking that maybe your response was applying only to "this instance". Is that correct? Or do you (and have you previously indicated that you) neither believe nor disbelieve any thing... in general?

'views', by their nature, can and do change. Whereas, 'beliefs' can not. Only during or after the dismissal of a belief, the belief returns to a view, when then be changed.

So here you're making up the definitions and distinctions and how they work, do you realize? Whereas, I could say that beliefs change all the time, without ever being "dismissed" and going through a view period. Beliefs can morph to and fro constantly. I think people are like oceans... and one day they may think and believe or respond one way, and another day they may think and respond another way. It could depend on all kinds of things... but they can very firmly believe it in the moment.

I made this distinction after I discovered, while talking to some people with relative power, of how destructive the power of belief can actually be. I decided then that I was not going to believe nor disbelieve any thing again.

Now, notice how your statement sounds absolute here. So, please clarify, do you or do you not -- in general -- believe or disbelieve any thing? Is your view that other people -- in general -- believe or disbelieve things more than you do?

Also, are you aware that some people here are trying to do for you, what you are trying to do for others?

When you appear to be telling people how something "is"... and they question you about that... the issue is NOT simply and automatically because they haven't asked enough clarifying questions of you. The issue can be that you incorrectly think you know how something "is", or the issue can be that there is an inconsistency in what you communicate. I don't think it is up to other people to "work through" what someone says to such a degree... as if the content is so important to be understood. There are countless eyes and minds seeing more than a single view can fathom.

The reason I say, what I say, is to evoke feelings to people, and then watch the reaction. What will be observed is people instantly start assuming. People then write assumingly,

You realize that you write assumingly too, correct? And you realize that you are not the only one aiming to evoke feelings and reactions, yes?

I want to show how the brain has stopped what the Mind already sees and knows.

I think a lot of people understand this, Ken. My question for you... repeatedly... has been: "Do you see this as a problem... as something to be overcome or fixed... and if so, why?" There appears to be an undercurrent to your writings that suggests we are not where we should be. Is that what you think?

I also actually did not even give the impression people are not seeing the actual truth of Life. I said they are distorted and/or blinded from it because of, the reasons given.

Those two statements can easily be seen to be saying the same thing -- even if you see them as saying something different. So, yes, it could be reasonably said that you DID give the impression, even if you didn't intend to. Being distorted and/or blinded MEANS not seeing. Again we go back to... are you speaking "absolutely", or are you saying "sometimes"? Are you sometimes saying absolutely, and sometimes saying sometimes?

The truth of Life is all around. People are looking at and seeing it all the time. But they are distorting that view or being blinded from it completely because of the way they are thinking.

So are they seeing it all the time, or are they being blinded from it completely? Which is it? If by "seeing it all the time", you mean "they have access to it", then it would help for you not to use such absolute phrases that contradict so much else of what you say. Speaking "absolutely" could be a tendency of someone who wants to proclaim "how it is". Do you see?

then it would appear to be sheer fantasy and ego that drives some to set themselves apart from the whole as unique seers.

Yes, agreed.

Which if people have noticed what I have been writing from the outset in this forum, the Truth IS what is agreed upon and accepted by ALL.

That's not what I said, and I don't agree that there is some unified total truth that must be agreed upon and accepted by all. For me, truth -- on the human level -- is an evolving vast field, to be experienced vastly. Beyond that, there is no such thing as truth -- it is only associated with human thinking.

Do you agree that that SPIRIT might also be in every moment I write?

Absolutely!

Spirit is wild and free and all things. Any of us can be sages at times... and demons at others... and so on. Isn't it all there, and aren't we all of it? Why wouldn't we be?

one day soon, hopefully, you will be able to see that I am NOT writing from the perspective that you have really been thinking I have.

And perhaps you will see that there's more to you than you realize there is? I think there's much more to all of us than we realize... on lots and lots of levels.

what I want to, eventually, show is that SPIRIT that you talk about. I just do it in a roundabout way. I just need to show ITs existence from a scientific, religious, philosophical, spiritual, thoughtful, and emotion way so that I do not put any one off "side". A challenging and fairly slow process, but a very doable one.

To me, this sounds like a laborious physical/mental effort to define something that is beyond definition... and that's why all the distortions and inconsistencies happen. The human mind and ego cannot contain and rule spirit. Spirit is beyond the human mind's concepts. Spirit is demonstrated through being. Words get in the way. Words are just for play.