PureBasic Forums - English

The 1 and the 0 are the end caps, if you will, of what exists in the physical universe and matter cannot move faster than the flip. We can only observe the previous state if we compare them to the current state [which is why we can't travel to the future - the flips haven't happened yet]. A simplistic way of viewing that is a zipper; each tooth fitting between the next. If we skip a tooth the zipper is misaligned and fails (or it isn't the same resulting zipper alignment we expected from the beginning). We can travel along the zipper at the speed of light watching each tooth slip between but we'd lose control if we got ahead of the moment of interconnection (flip) because we'd only be able to view the past and not calculate our next step - we wouldn't know if a tooth lies ahead.

K. Apart from that, let's say infinity is absolutely infinite. Represent nothingness with 0 and somethingness with 1. If we had the script, the entire layout of when the 0 and the 1 interconnect through infinity, we'd be able to travel through space time because we had the precise coordinates and binary states. BUT all of somethingness would have to swap with nothingness at once and we'd reappear at the coordinates not realizing anything has changed. IF we ever come to the point of instantaneous travel, we'd have to swap or displace an equal amount of matter on the opposite side so our matter could fit. This was observed with Schrodinger's cat.

Half a universe can not be a whole universe.

Negative. Without the negative, no positive can be realized. Thus, a 'whole' universe of existing particles (1) must have at least an equal amount of nothingness (0) to exist.

Nobody ever saw waves that just had crests, and no troughs. -Alan Watts

It might be hard to overcome a lifetime of misconception, but sure light can move (possess a relative velocity) away from other light travelling in the opposite drection, faster than the speed of light.

How? If you move North, you are not moving South. Your source might start moving South but the source is not you.

I do think a particle can move at the speed of light. However, once it reaches that moment, it breaks apart and is no longer the particle we knew it as. If that laser beam were to break the speed of light, it would appear to end abruptly; the slower radiation would be observable while the faster moves too fast to be recognized as belonging to the rest of the laser. The laser would never arrive at the destination because its information is scattered when the approaching binary could not flip fast enough to continue the stream, so the following definition is degraded and so forth until the laser is something else.

Anywho, you weren't conversing with me. Sorry to hijack.

Don't worry about it Jagermeister.
Anyhow, I don't think that you can hijack a hijacking.

When I posted

If the source were to start moving directly away from the beam's wavefront, then the velocity between the two things would be c+the source's speed.

I ignored the so called relativistic effects in the simplified v=c+ss calculation.
It still illustrates the point, but the 2c two laser beam example is better.

Including the so called relativistic effects might invalidate the simple math
(by postulating there is a special case where 1=0 when matter is moving at c)
when physical reality could proves that
the ratio of (the distance one item travelled from the other) to (elapsed time)
would actually be greater than the speed of light.
v>c
Also the matter (laser pointer) isn't moving very fast in the frame of reference of the example,
therefore the alleged relativistic effects are insignificant.

For good reason my original example examines the velocity between particle beam wave fronts,
rather than matter, to avoid unnecessary complication in the velocity discussion.

We can not exist in either of the particle beam's frame of reference,
but that does not invalidate the evidence of velocities greater than the speed of light.

If you can't tell by now, I'll share this with you, I've long thought that "special relativity" is BS.
"Since there is no absolute reference frame in relativity theory, a concept of 'moving' doesn't strictly exist,
as everything is always moving with respect to some other reference frame."
Can you say contradictory?

Is there anyone comfortable with the v>c concept?

Is the discomfort because both the frames of reference are in motion in the examples that I've given?

ve•loc•i•ty \ve-"la-se-te\ n, pl -ties : quickness of motion : speed <the ~ of light>

Nothing contained in the definitions for velocity that I've encountered so far, prohibit it. Or even consider it.

All velocity is relative.

Relative to the source the red wavefront's velocity is c, relative to the green light it's 2c.

Back to the roots: (But only for german speakers )

http://vcq.quantum.at/news/news/detail/506.html

The main point is:

You can use a different frequence for the spotting 'light' than the light which is detected by a sensor.

This means you can use a very sensitive sensor to show something wich is enlighted by a radiation of a total
different frequency which is not easy to detect by a sensor.

I hope my 'bad' english translated this in a understandable way.


I try now to describe what they have done in my simple words:

They genarated a light via a LASER.
This emitted photons are generated by 'jumps' of electrons.
Than they splitted this light in different frequences (red light and infrared light) via a crystal.

The infrared light beam was use to enlight a picture,
while the red light beam was directed to a camera.

The camera shows the picture which was 'seen' by the infrared beam.
Because the photons are still 'entangled', because they come from the same energy 'jump' of an electron.

Very impressive.

Bernd

heartbone wrote:

Nothing with a source can move faster than the speed of light (until proven otherwise...(neutrinos, i think, were the last detectable particles hypothesized to do this)).

You lost me there because velocity is a relative measure.
If the source were to start moving directly away from the beam's wavefront, then the velocity between the two things would be c+the source's speed.
If you can't agree with that, sorry because that is the basis of the logic that I intend to extrapolate.

It will still move at c. Thats the whole point of relativity, which is pretty much proven.
From the person with the laser pointer each laser goes at speed of c. Form the perspective of the laser they go at c relativ to each other. However time is what makes the difference in distance, not speed.
I am bad at explaining but you find a lot of sources to read about it.

Thorium wrote:It will still move at c. Thats the whole point of relativity, which is pretty much proven.
From the person with the laser pointer each laser goes at speed of c. Form the perspective of the laser they go at c relativ to each other. However time is what makes the difference in distance, not speed.
I am bad at explaining but you find a lot of sources to read about it.

Yes there certainly are, and they all end up spouting the same gibberish I've already linked to in an earlier post.
Thorium, I've got some importantly big news for you, 1=1 in all dimensions. In all ways, always.
However, as there are yet no members of this forum who agree that there are velocities faster than c, it really makes no sense for me to continue this here. (I'm hoping that c4s comments here.)

Now I get it!

Headlights at Light Speed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACUuFg9Y9dY

Light has no velocity because division by zero is impossible.

There is no lightspeed!