Quote:
Originally Posted by N0B0DY  This would be the contradiction, Fredrick, when we are trying to remain logically consistent. If light itself may continue unobstructed, what would be the cause exactly for obstructing part of it?
Lloyd's scalar waves are fine, but in an infinite universe there would be no point in particular for the in waves to contract - which is what his proposition is. If near-zero k has a contractive nature, and near-zero k exists to infinity, all points would contract toward every point. Do you see how that would be impossible?
So I have to remain an advocate of absolute zero, absolute speed, with the standing waves being virtual according to the time it takes for observations and categorizations to be made.
Which, I know, leads to the question of "how can you exist to categorize things if you don't really exist?" It is like proteins being required to make DNA and DNA being required to make proteins. We have to think in terms of the last effect being the first cause, and RNA being the abstract means of producing both.
The point about the king of the north building another pyramid was that even too much is never enough for someone who wants to be king. Desire itself preventing the negation of the ego. |
Allow me to use my own words here, Nobody, and make this discussion be about the nature of restriction, or of limitation. Let me then first emphasize that science may be based on repeatable results, but our reality in its most important feature — the universe — is not. Science itself is restricted, limited, for it cannot recreate the universe. The only 'success' physicists may achieve is getting so close to recreating the Big Bang that our local environment may get damaged, a situation by some described as unavoidable — for man does not know where to stop — and described by others as inconceivable — for the options available to us to examine our environment are infinite. If we do not have to repeat Lloyd's delivery, then it can indeed take place (have taken place). Recreating a new additional limiting standard in our universe is not possible, but that does not take the old one away. As such, he shows that he has a toe (and don't we all?).
Light can move unobstructed at any time, but doesn't; there are obstacles that change light. So we have two versions that are correct at the same time: emitted light and reflected light. I would say
never the twain shall meet, but that would be a contradiction then too, for it is the meeting point at which we find the distinction.
About the King of the North — thank you for sharing this — an important delivery.