# Consciousness, the border of the universe..



## rudeonline (Jul 12, 2006)

Since the mind and life institute is trying to explain more about science and spiritualism I would like to tell you my idea about consciousness. The thing is that men is looking in the wrong direction with A. Einsteins relativity theory. Not light itself is moving, we are moving true time and space with the speed of light. Light is only an energy leaving his source as a trail. 

At the speed of light there is no time. So nothing can move. 
From the point of view from a person each distance is a possibility into the future. While we travel true time we are able to see all options what the light is showing us. 

To prove my idea I wrote the following text... 

I can prove that the relativity theory of Einstein is wrong. The good point is that I can make this understandable for many people in a very simple way. The issue I try to prove with my idea is that our own consciousness is the absolute border of the universe. To prove this I have to prove that the speed of light is not 300.000km/sec but actually zero. I know that this sounds completely strange but read on and I will try to explain you in a short way how I think to prove this. 

The first thing to know is that there is no time at light speed. How can something move if there is no time to move? Looking to the twin paradox a traveler true space leaves the earth and comes back and is only 1 second older. The person on Earth is than for example 2 years older. 

If the traveler true space only became one second older, he never could make a longer trip than 300.000km. He had only 1sec to travel! The person on earth was traveling in the same "period" at least 30km/sec, because that is the speed of earth around the sun. Well, 2 years x 30km/sec is a lot more than 300.000km. 

Off course I have to explain you a lot more than this, I just hope that I can open some eyes of the scientists working with this theory. If the theory is relative, you also should put it upside down. If light moves with 300.000km/sec one way, we are moving with the same speed the other way. Notice that we measure seconds, not the photon. You need time to move. 

I would like to tell you a lot more about the way it is possible that we can "see" things if light is not moving, also this is not to difficult to understand. From the point of view from the individual all other positions are possibility's in the future. The person travels true time ( to tomorrow and so on..) while light leaves a trail into the past from the point of view where it comes from. 

I hope that you understand my idea what I would like to show to the people. The idea of a multiversum is so a lot closer to mankind ( everyone is the middle of his own universe) ans consciousness is the border of the universe. We can chose our own future.

Rudeonline..


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 12, 2006)

You do realize there's a(?) major flaw at the very base of your argument, yes? If human consciousness is the absolute border... what about before and after humans? Even as a species, we're only a blip on the screen.....


----------



## Saeltari (Jul 13, 2006)

How do you know there is no time at light speed? Time is amorphous; or is it a stream that travels only in a certain direction? I think you might find that time is not set.


----------



## star.torturer (Jul 17, 2006)

> You do realize there's a(?) major flaw at the very base of your argument, yes? If human consciousness is the absolute border... what about before and after humans? Even as a species, we're only a blip on the screen.....


but before and after humans, there was no humans, so there was no human coined "universe" so you mr are rong


----------



## jof (Jul 18, 2006)

As i understand it, it is a proven fact that the universe is constantly expanding. This is proven by an effect called Redshift/blueshift. Whilst i cant explain in much detail for you as straight after my GCSE's (where it didnt come up /me shakes fist) i promptly forgot everything. But what i do remember is that as a light source moves further away the section of the spectrum it is in moves to the red side. As it is proven that the stars and planets are all moving outwards (this proves the big bang theory, because if they are all moving outward then they can all be pinpointed to of originated from an original point) this shows the universe is expanding.

Surely what you are proposing therefore is an attempt to void the big bang? (indirectly)


----------



## dustinzgirl (Jul 18, 2006)

star.torturer said:
			
		

> but before and after humans, there was no humans, so there was no human coined "universe" so you mr are rong


But, regardless of the coined phrase, the universe existed before humanity. Gamma rays from the farthest reaches of space tell us that. Furthermore, even before humanity began to have a concept of time, time existed. The fact that stars are born, have a lifespan, and die, is essentially a fact that time, in some form or another, exists beyond the human scope of understanding. That math, at least in our small and undeveloped understanding of math and physics, exist on the same rules in most of the universe (barring paradimensional, dark matter, ect) is further proof that the concept of time variables exists.


PS: I do not believe that time can not exist. It is a natural law of the universe, and exists in all things, even light speed and black holes. We simply can not always define it, but I promise once it is defined, the math will be the same no matter what point of the universe you are on.


----------



## star.torturer (Jul 18, 2006)

i wonder if time bends at worm holes


----------



## Marky Lazer (Jul 18, 2006)

I wonder if you can stop spamming...


----------



## star.torturer (Jul 18, 2006)

that was a compleatly serious thought mr snarky marky


----------



## mosaix (Jul 18, 2006)

I realise that this may be losing something in the translation but I think I understood Einstein more easily.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jul 18, 2006)

First unprovable (and unlikely) statement "time does not exist at light speed" Try "a photon does not experience duration", but as a photon seems unlikely to experience _anything_ (particularly if it lacks duration in which to experience it) this is not a basis for argument. To accelerate anything with a finite rest mass up to light speed, assuming the contraction equations which give us the time dilation effect are right, would take an infinite amount of energy (not a very great deal, an infinite quantity; more energy than has ever existed in the universe, by an infinite factor)
Thus, if we want our space travellers to achieve c, either we're going to have to transform them into photons, or encode them onto a beam of photons, in which case they'll cease to experience duration until downconverted (and probably prefer this situation considerably; you can't even admire the view out of the window if you're a mass of photons)
An external observer can, however, measure the speed of electro-magnetic radiation (encompasing light, of course, but radio waves and gamma and X-rays) by a simple technique (dividing the distance travelled by the time taken; cunning, eh?) and come up with a figure that is more or less constant (would be constant in a vacuum) Amazingly, this would seem to be true for any observer, moving at any speed in any direction, a detail that gave us all those other improbable results. 
Mind you, accelerating that twin up to very near lightspeed in less than half a second is going to leave him experiencing verry little, and make him a less than relyable observer (and, as another slight inconvenience, dead) And the difference between an accelerating closed path and the special theory of relativity, which deals with linear fixed velocities (the general, encompassing acceleration and gravity is still a bit sketchy now, a century later) 
However, since this is a _discussion_ thread, the expansion of the universe is not a "proven fact" It's a theory to explain certain observations, and it's a good theory which has survived the passage of quite a lot of time, and has a good chance of containing  a fair amount of truth, but only theologians deal in Truth with a capital "T". If certain physical constants of the universe have been modifying since the Big Bang, then there doesn't need to have been a Big Bang at all. 
I am now attacking the concept of bent time. To bend it, you are forced do do so through another dimension. Here I need either two dimensional time (and no, for this I can't accepi probability as a dimension) or one of the tiny little ones curled up inside atomic nuclei, which make wormholes in which case  it's only little bits of time that get bent and… A discontinuous time stream is nearly as disturbing as bent time itself.


----------



## Milk (Jul 22, 2006)

Also--I dont particularly believe in consciousness itself.  From what ive read about brains, and ugh--ive been trying to dig up this book I loaned out and I  regret that I gave it away ..

It was written by some famous norwegian brain specialist called Conscious Eye or Conscious I ? something like that.  Also I saw a book called Conscious Eye on borders website and this was not that book.  Anyhow the Norwegian brain specialist made a really convincing argument that the ideas of consciousness, any consciousness,  unconscious, subconscious, regular old consciousness etc are a complete farce, and are at complete odds with what scientists of the brain now know about how minds function.  He even added thought experiments you could do, which pretty much verified for the reader.. that no we dont have a central consciousness and memory is exactly what we dont think it is. 

There isnt a CPU within the brain that is its center, or even stored memory, or any set place where identity resides.  Just like Zen buddhists would have us think.  The brain is a very chaotic place with a bunch of competing thoughts fighting for a chance to become *the* louder thought, these thoughts run simultaneously.  There is no consciousness thought... no operating system thought, a thought that inherantly says "I am me, this is what I am... this is my consciousness." There are just a bunch of competing thoughts, stronger neural connections, no actual consciousness center or even data store that is consciousness, that is identity.    Consciousness is really just a concept and one that can't be proven with physical evidence.  Or possibly it could be redefined to fit evidence, but as scientists learn more about the brain..  that fit is increasingly more awkward and outdated.   We accept that it exists because so many people believe it exists. but evidence is starting to say otherwise.

The way I see it, believing in consciousness, even though its widely accepted (like a belief in god)  is no different then any other spiritual idea.   Its also one I'm willing to be skeptical about.  One I add to the list of all the stuff im skeptical about.


----------



## galligator (Nov 30, 2006)

id kind of agree with ^ conciousness is only there because we made it all a human being (or any being for that matter) is, is a lot of atoms cleverly arranged to make you wat u are. everything in you is made of atoms. the section of our brain that would make us think that we ahve some kind of soul is ironically also made of atoms and when we die our atoms are dissambiguated to go on and make another thing its called the cycle of life haha


----------



## El_L1 (Dec 6, 2006)

'-void the big bang'-that's funny


----------

