Opposite of the speed of light

[snoopy]

Hi Snoop

 

Please read my post thoroughly rather than react, chemically. It can be chemistry but how do things get mixed by accident to create life? I personally believe it can only happen when the conditions are right, plus what I'm saying does not negate chemistry or science in general (see Physics of God thread in Theology section and my posts on the subject there too). My idea of creationism or intelligent design doesn't imply a little man sitting at home with a chemistry set either. The point I'm trying to make is that 'both' states exist i.e. mysticism and boredom, and the latter fuels the former through investigation and discovery (experiment and exploration). What I'm further trying to say is that I define God as this state of wonder when we discover something new as opposed to the hell of being stuck in the consciousness prison cell of going nowhere/ doing nothing. What I'm trying to do is find what definition applies to what word and why - as I say the word God applies to something but how would I define it and as I say to me it means positivism as opposed to negativity. You are going by what other people mean by it and have defined it as in the past as you are using other terms in their specific scientific fields meaning, which I am not. Hence the confusion and seeming argument rather than the truth of the situation which is that there is really no dispute but it seems so as positions are being defended, not moved from and investigated.

 

Happy X-mas (read my jokes in the Watercooler section: You probably wont like (understand them) either!

 

 

OH dear God,

 

I was only joshing with you or goofing around, which I do quite often on this site I dont take the site too seriously, I suppose what I was trying to say was can you expand a little more on the whole intelligent design thing, can you put some more meat on the bones for me if you will,

 

sometimes my charm is a little hard to understand and can be mistaken for rudeness but just imagine my posts with my angelic little face poking my tongue out at you....

 

I am a little hard to understand... I know but if its any consolation my wife understands me....she thinks im a nutcase.... which is somewhere in the neighbourhood of the truth....

 

again merry christmas and have a happy enlightened one.

 

Peace

:)

[Qfwfq]

sometimes my charm is a little hard to understand and can be mistaken for rudeness but just imagine my posts with my angelic little face poking my tongue out at you....

Well if it didn't come across that way, it isn't his fault.

[paigetheoracle]

OH dear God,

 

I was only joshing with you or goofing around, which I do quite often on this site I dont take the site too seriously, I suppose what I was trying to say was can you expand a little more on the whole intelligent design thing, can you put some more meat on the bones for me if you will,

 

sometimes my charm is a little hard to understand and can be mistaken for rudeness but just imagine my posts with my angelic little face poking my tongue out at you....

 

I am a little hard to understand... I know but if its any consolation my wife understands me....she thinks im a nutcase.... which is somewhere in the neighbourhood of the truth....

 

again merry christmas and have a happy enlightened one.

 

Peace

:D

 

My wife thinks I'm a nutcase too but then so does my psychiatrist (obviously not paying him enough to lie and stroke my ego!). By the way you don't have to go over the top and call me by my name (Oh Dear GOD!), signing off by calling me an enlightened one is enough for anyone. Yes life is tough in the oracle business just now and sometimes I don't know why I bother (The first 1,000 years was bad but the last 2,000 was even worse).

 

As for your charm being mistaken - I've just come off a forum where one guy took me literally too and felt offended by what I said (joke - what I said, not him). Fortunately a woman also replied with the facts and saw nothing in it at all but a request for help. Then I came back to this forum and had someone mistake my intent in another post and you in this - isn't life tragic (or funny?).

 

By the way why do you want peas on Earth - surely they'd be better on your plate?

[CraigD]

… I was wondering what makes you think the the universe is some kind of machine why could it not be just chemistry happening in a happy way that creates life …

Paige and snoopy, please pardon my intrusion on your whimsical romp into lands far off-topic ;) and allow me to throw in some serious (though equally off-topic) observations.

 

In the world of objective science, chemistry happening is the working of a machine – just an itty-bitty, not-like-what’s-made-in-a-machine-shop one, or, to borrow some awfully abused buzzspeak, chemistry is the working of “wet nanomachines”. Such talk is no longer mainly science fictional – profession and fortunes are being made with it, and soon if not already, some nifty and beneficial tiny, wet machines.

…do we really need to mystify life, I know the truth is somewhat boring and lacks pizazz but is it really better to mystify and have the universe as some sort of supernatural or magical place.

I’ve been trumpeting the horn of the pizzazz to be had via a strictly naturalistic worldview since long before “naturalistic worldview” was a buzzphrase. My reaction to the common claim that attempting to perceive reality entirely in terms of objective physical phenomena drains the wonder from life has long been one of puzzlement, as for nearly as long as I can remember, I’ve found far greater amazement and wonder exploring the world with the assumption that it is knowable in these terms than in assuming that it is knowable only via necessarily irrational, mystical ones. Even small, simple formal systems seem more attractive and beautiful to me than very elaborate mystical ones.

 

Much as many religionists and mystics have told me “if you’d just once felt the touch of <deity, demideity, or spirit-being, etc. of choice>, as I have, you’d believe what I believe”, I’ve a history of telling these same people “if you’d just once enjoyed doing math as much as I have, you’d believe what I believe”.

 

The world is a kinder and happier place, I think, the more people can accept that our worldviews are due largely to the kind of mental activity that gives each of us profound pleasure and contentment, and that in this sense, mystics and rationalists are very similar.

[HydrogenBond]

Mass, at the speed of light, it would increase to infinite mass. The opposite would mean that the mass would decrease to zero. At the speed of light, time would appear to slow such that infinite time in our reference would pass in an instant. So the opposite would speed up time, where only the smallest increment of time could be observed in that reference. At the speed of light, infinite distance in our reference would appear contracted to a point, so the opposite would be a reference where there is only a point overlapping a point. If you add it all together it would be a point in our reference, that only lasts an instant and appears to have zero mass.

 

One possible way to look at this is to use a microscope. We start with a mass M and zoom in. Since our observation reference is coming to a tiny focus we can only see a smaller and smaller fraction of the mass. If we zoom in all the way to a point, then the mass would break down so there is zero mass at that point. The events we would see, at that massless point, would happen so fast it would be an instant. At this reference, it is not mass anymore but the virtual world that is going on behind the scenes, that create what we call mass in our rather large-slow bulky reference.

[snoopy]

To Craig D

 

 

Hello mr Staff editor person,

 

I wasnt saying life had no mystery just attempts to mystify life had no appeal to me.

 

I am not that keen on the universe as a machine idea even an itty bitty not made in a machine shop type of machine.

 

My personal view is that the universe just is...

and because maths is so powerful that is you can use maths to describe anything doesnt mean the universe runs on mathematics.

 

You can use math to describe perfectly the workings of an internal combustion engine it doesnt mean that it runs on maths... more properly it runs on gasoline or petrol. :thumbs_up

 

I am not that keen on math for maths sake.... I only get interested if I know what the maths is for and I can do some useful practical calculation with it... then it becomes rather intensively absorbing for me....

 

This is just as well as there is so much math in the world you could spend your entire life being caught up in it and do nothing else.

 

I dont know what the universe is or what its for, my own view that it will probably have been born in a black hole and be trumpet shaped but I dont think that God is a trumpet player I think the universe is at is because it could be no other way.

 

A bit like me in fact sorry for going off topic but I cant help it... my neurons are dancing and off I go...

 

Peace

[Hulio]

Relative to what?

 

As I understand it, it's actually AT the speed of light that time itself becomes infinite (again, though, that's relative to a stationary observer).

 

Clown is correct about zero kelvin/absolute zero being the scale you seek, but I doubt also your statement about space itself being squashed to infinite density at c.

 

What is space itself, and why would this be squashed? It seems a misunderstanding of length contraction... or, at the very least, a misrepresentation of relativity. Can you clarify?

 

 

This thread will likely need to be moved to philosophy... unless, of course, you can represent these beautiful thoughts and intriguing contemplations with maths?

 

 

With the biting tongue of a harsh critic, but the curious eyes of an excited child... moi. :D

 

as i understand it, space is composed of dimentions that can vary in density and be disorted by forces such as gravity. As one approaches the speed of light, space and time should become distorted. so what i meant was that as your speed increases the density of space will increase, (that is, the lengh of the spacial dimention your travelling in the direction of will shorten and more space will be compaced into a smaller area).

 

P.S in my theory i was refering to the universe relative to the person experienceing the oppisite of the speed of light.

 

From what i understand and assuming that the big bang theory is correct, then the universe is expanding at the speed of light and it is this rate of expansion that governs the speed of light, so if the rate of expansion was to slow down then so would the speed of light and this would be proportional to the rate of deflation of the universe. So if the universe was to suddenly stop expanding and slowly begin its return journey back to its origin the point of singularity where all matter is infinitly compressed into a space so small it could said that it does not actualy exist at all, and it is then at this moment where it ceases to exist that it becomes the point where it begins to exist again a kind of zero point crossing, could this be termed as the opposite of the speed of light.

 

this zero point crossing is quite interesting, but then ur saying the exact speed of light is negative 3 000 000 and im not sure if you can have negative numbers to measure speed in reality (if i reverse my car, im still experienceing a speed of positive numbers.

 

when you say the universe governs the speed of light, are you saying that if the expansion rate slows down it's going to actually affect the laws of physics?

[InfiniteNow]

P.S in my theory i was refering to the universe relative to the person experienceing the oppisite of the speed of light.

Hi Hulio - I think the problem is that the universe is not a valid reference frame for comparison, especially since "the person experiencing the opposite of the speed of light" is PART of the universe... hence, not separate and distinct from it.

[paigetheoracle]

Paige and snoopy, please pardon my intrusion on your whimsical romp into lands far off-topic and allow me to throw in some serious (though equally off-topic) observations.

 

In the world of objective science, chemistry happening is the working of a machine – just an itty-bitty, not-like-what’s-made-in-a-machine-shop one, or, to borrow some awfully abused buzzspeak, chemistry is the working of “wet nanomachines”. Such talk is no longer mainly science fictional – profession and fortunes are being made with it, and soon if not already, some nifty and beneficial tiny, wet machines. I’ve been trumpeting the horn of the pizzazz to be had via a strictly naturalistic worldview since long before “naturalistic worldview” was a buzzphrase. My reaction to the common claim that attempting to perceive reality entirely in terms of objective physical phenomena drains the wonder from life has long been one of puzzlement, as for nearly as long as I can remember, I’ve found far greater amazement and wonder exploring the world with the assumption that it is knowable in these terms than in assuming that it is knowable only via necessarily irrational, mystical ones. Even small, simple formal systems seem more attractive and beautiful to me than very elaborate mystical ones.

 

Much as many religionists and mystics have told me “if you’d just once felt the touch of <deity, demideity, or spirit-being, etc. of choice>, as I have, you’d believe what I believe”, I’ve a history of telling these same people “if you’d just once enjoyed doing math as much as I have, you’d believe what I believe”.

 

The world is a kinder and happier place, I think, the more people can accept that our worldviews are due largely to the kind of mental activity that gives each of us profound pleasure and contentment, and that in this sense, mystics and rationalists are very similar.

 

I meant in my reply to Snoop, to mention that chemistry was an off-shoot of physics but your bringing up of wet mechanics (nanotechnology), did it so much better.

 

Your last statement is true too - common ground is what is important - not the surface difference or my God/love/interest is better than yours, na-na, n-nana! It is the experience itself and our positive reaction that matters, not which team (view) we support. As my brother once said 'If people stopped trying to convert others and just got on with enjoying their own lives, the world would be a better place' (Not selfish but sensible, sane and survival logic for the race as a whole).

[Little Bang]

Paige, I'm going to disagree with you, physics is an offshoot of chemistry.

[snoopy]

First, just because you have a constant value doesn't mean that there couldn't be a secondary opposite value.

Next, just because you were frozen doesn't mean that someone else couldn't be standing there watching you be frozen, so I think time would continue.

And last, I agree about the energy heating you up but now we're talking about what happens when an electron stops in it's orbit? (...Heisenberg has left the buliding...)

That one got you thinking didn't it?

:P

 

 

Ok then what is the opposite of pi and dont say it is -3.14159

because its not

 

pi is the ratio of any circles circumference to its diameter what is the opposite of that ??

 

What is the opposite of a circle for that matter ??

 

anyway

 

Peace

:hihi:

[Natural]

Ok then what is the opposite of pi and dont say it is -3.14159

because its not

 

pi is the ratio of any circles circumference to its diameter what is the opposite of that ??

 

What is the opposite of a circle for that matter ??

:)

 

That's why I used the word "value".

Pi is a concept not a number. The number that represent pi is 3.14159...

So the opposite of 3.14159 is -3.14159.

It would be hard to say what the opposite of a concept is.

And the opposite of a circle would probably be pretty hard to examine in 2 dimensions. (in which a circle resides)

(just philosophical meanderings...)

:D

[CraigD]

Ok then what is the opposite of pi and dont say it is -3.14159 because its not

In conventional math, the term “opposite” generally refers to some sort of inverse operation or value pairs for an operation. So the opposite of [math]\pi[/math] (pi) would be [math]-\pi[/math] for the operation of addition, [math]\frac1{\pi}[/math] for multiplication, etc.

pi is the ratio of any circles circumference to its diameter what is the opposite of that ??

Applying the idea of opposites to mathematical concepts is more difficult. Since a possible interpretation of the concept of [math]\pi[/math] is, as snoopy says “the ratio of any circles circumference to its diameter”, we can reasonably say the concept includes the concept that such a number exists. The opposite of this concept might be said to be the concept that such a number does not exist – that is that the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is not constant for different circles.

 

Mathematically, this is not a particularly strange concept. For example, in spherical space, circumference/diameter is always less than [math]\pi[/math] and greater than or equal to 2. Being as we live on a spheroid, this is actually rather relevant for ordinary tasks like navigation.

What is the opposite of a circle for that matter ??

I give up – that’s too much of a conceptual stretch for me :)

 

Having gone to some lengths in the thread to show that the original post’s question about “the opposite of the speed of light” has no real number answer, we should perhaps extend the question into the complex numbers.

 

The question was, essentially

is there a relative speed v for which the the observed time dilation ([math]\frac{t_{\mbox{observed}}}{t_{\mbox{observer}}}[/math]) is infinite, rather than zero, as it is for v = c ?

For units of c = 1, we can find the answer for solving for v the equation [math]\infty = \sqrt{1-v^2}[/math]

which is [math]v = \infty i[/math], where [math]i = \sqrt{-1}[/math]. In other words “imaginary infinity”.

 

The physical interpretation of such a number is hard to imagine. But at least we can provide a mathematically valid answer to the original question:

The opposite of the speed of light is imaginary infinity.

[Jet2]

Of course we never really stop moving, the earth spins and revolves around the sun and so we are always moving. If you can travel into space and escape from any kind of orbit then your no longer moving forward. If that happens then theoretically you should have no mass and time should become infinite.

 

I am thinking when we die, would it be the case that we really stop moving and relatively time will no longer move forward for us?

 

Hard to find somebody to answer this after death question I think.

But we may all know it one day...

[CraigD]

I am thinking when we die, would it be the case that we really stop moving and relatively time will no longer move forward for us?

I’d say no. :)

 

After your death, the particles that make up you body continue to change with time, not, from a purely physical perspective, much differently than they did before your death. Your biologically dead body doesn’t cease to “move forward in time”, it just does so in a new way, no longer exhibiting signs of life, and in most cases decaying to be mostly taken up in other living organisms.

 

Jet2’s question is essentially a variation of “if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to see it, does it really fall.” The answer give by physics is “yes”. In the same sense, when a human permanently looses the ability to perceive – that is, dies – that which is perceived continues to occur.

[snoopy]

The opposite of the speed of light is imaginary infinity.

 

 

 

Ooh never thought of that.... thats actually quite cool in its own way....

 

Peace

:)

[Qfwfq]

Say, guys, what topic of discussion would be the opposite of this one?

 

One that makes sense!

/forums/images/smilies/devilsign.gif

 

The only kind of sense of 'opposite' that could be reasonable here is Craig's idea which basically amounts to saying the zero rather than the pole of the term:

 

[math]\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-z^2}}[/math]

 

but I disagree with saying:

The opposite of the speed of light is imaginary infinity.

because the zero is actually the whole of [imath]z\rightarrow\infty[/imath] without any phase prescription. Mathematically, it needn't be restricted to the imaginary axis at all (which is the meaning of what you loosely call [imath]z = \infty i[/imath] and “imaginary infinity”). In short:

 

[math]\lim_{z\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-z^2}}=0[/math]