[unvanqx]

... so em-waves cannot travel at all but can move as an active in time and interrelating structure (this structure includes matter+++) thru transformation (as moving thru transformation) =to me: better explanation what i'm dealing with so is the em-spectrum just a local partial translation of this structure as an instant
example in phantasy: if a supernova happens somewhere within 'our' galaxy at whatever distance (i cannot use lightyears as another phantasy) for example right now and you have positioned yourself right in terms of having this space port within your sight cleared and maybe using a telescope then you'll also perceive the supernova near instantaneous as it is happening - and you do not have to wait years and suppose then it happened in the past - why not?
so i do suppose that a certain pattern of em-waves or rather favouring it a similarity as a not wavelike ray (in this context i also have to consider ai driven rays - ai mostly in terms of positioning for the availability in space and time) can move instantaneous from one point in space to another (any distance available to such a movement in a specific structure) and if so matter = its information can move near instantaneous or any speed (is infinite by then as only limited by distance) below and that in multiple ways ... the faster you go the cheaper it gets but distance matters somehow ... so does path matter most ...
is this somehow related to a specific string-theory or another theory? not really - is it?
my phantasy is telling me that not wavelike rays originate permanently(!) from a stars (as the most common origin probably) single superposition in space - stars interact thru this rays and also its transformed patterns or matter as another transformed product in general - only not wavelike rays are inactive in time - wavelike rays are time connected as generated/applied by not wavelike rays as an instrument.
if two not wavelike rays collide many things can happen - now i could write in eternity ... but i'm not into that ... just to mention that they can also collide linear even if rather rare probably (really rare i suppose !!!!!) ....
anyone interested in discussing as it could need some statements in detail but i'm having a hard time formulating it ...
instead of the expression 'move' i should rather use the expression 'be on/off' sometimes ... i know ...

[unvanqx]

as no reply yet i use i question from somewhere else ...

lag-time in interplanetary communication as a question ....

as a question for myself in here as additional information to you if interested in discussing...

first how to prove it takes actually 5 hours for the transmission to reach earth or rather how do you know in 2015 if receiving that it took 5 hours? we as matter transform so does our perception, the probe and its technology (somewhere else already thru transformation!again and within!) as matter transforms, the space in between transforms, em-waves transform, etz. etz. transforms and all that continous/in realtime with no way of proving without right technology ... our generous sun, similarities or other celestial bodies may still claim responsibility .... so we can just adapt to these pesky communication lags as they are not too bad .... just right right now if it takes 5 hours ... it is also very important i guess to get familiar with locals in first position .... but rather do not take them as universal ...

the supervova example was mentioned because lots of these not wavelike rays (as i suppose) are emitted rather suddenly and lots of power still available to keep (at least some of them) them linear (still not wavelike) over distance and show the light near instant as a transformation - call it: i tried to use a star to show what is near instantaneous - i could not use an example with a probe even if already at proxima centauri - it would need me to develop technology (for the example) to support transmission in being near instant ... copying the available is faster and better understood ...

as my model tells me it definately takes time (as not being instant - but my model cannot say universal how much time for us in a local position - time to me: either instant and then you can call next frame as a suns impuls for example - to me universal - if natural/celestial- but very hard to quantify if you do not controll it so can other stars/celestial bodies interfere-tricky but not impossible i guess) to transmit information thru em-waves over any distance as all this is happening probably within a time active space (i definately suppose time inactive space also exists! and if em-waves are directed towards either transform into not wavelike rays(as time inactive again) or somehow generate/initiate at position the beginning of time activity even though i think it is all very very very specific as it is approximately the same as the mentioned colliding of not wavelike rays - so there is also possibility to generate matter, etz.> interdependencies by any possible means...) -
once more: so how much time it takes you probably cannot measure easly for the local - my model suggests that you would need to control a star or rather star-like technology in terms of generating/controlling this not wave like rays - and the problem with my model we currently lack resources/knowledge by far .... it is just phantasy anyway - once more ...

overall i think if building technology on past and current (as mostly connected to the past) science theories you may always prove them right as one way to advance ...

AND even more i think humans special TIME awareness made them what they are now but i do not think time is constant ticking - the SUN(!), etz. sets pace > NOT(!) perceivable and if we are using numbers and our technology uses the same numbers - we may always think we are just right - using computing devices is also pretty interesting but i think you have to understand what they are made of: - matter - and the quantum world or beyond is more than accurate i guess . you cannot mess if always looking from a human perspective .. so are we made of matter (the same matter in time complexity for every laptop & tree +++ in the time active universe) - stars are not that dumb as they might seem especially if you look at them at clusters.... i do think that is true even though they do not think like me and you ....

[N0B0DY]

I don't think information can ever travel instantaneously from one locale to another, but I think over time when people move to mars the method of cloning and storage for transport will allow individuals from earth to disappear from earth and be created on mars.

That is if we are to abide by the Pauli Exclusion Principle, otherwise we would have duplicate or multiple individuals with the same dna existing at the same time.

[unvanqx]

what i meant exactly in my first post is that there are ON's or OFF's of availablity and that available at any distance ( if allowed by the stucture or available to change structure) and if off now and on the next timeframe then you may call it instant in appearing in distance as linear available as this not wavelike rays (rather call it something different as not really rays) my phantasy came up with ....
also: only one universal can exist in one universe as mentioned at one instant (call it the largest ray in the universe in its local is that instant and sets for its existance a timeframe applied to the rest of the universe-a timestamp and really meaning in being a timestamp-by sustained transformation (until it meets in space and time a stronger transformed pattern - it "knows" already where it is and if stronger is transformed that way and if weaker another way -many intertransformed,etz.ways... infinite ...) but still interdependent but loosing strength after transforming into cosmic-rays for example at first (everything else followed already) and being time active by then as a close relative to itself and to me known relative in em-spectrum but still different as time active or not time active) but all this happens continous/realtime in various locals and resulting so in time complexity anyway-so it is hard to explain in letters for me as a local .....i may go and make a visual if not just for myself ...)
so does information sent like this probably require the impossible (as slowing down again) but it can be used to support other transmission technology - so it will appear near instantaneous at the end > to a living creature .not that bad.as it cannot tell the difference.. sure a machine (the generator) will "know" how long it took but cannot tell and you cannot "smell"... but the not wavelike connection should be active for the time of transmission to keep it cheap ....
transmission thru transformation does not come up with a "clone" call it "normal travelling" with no rest species to get rid off. as we move on planet earth for example - to me it is the same.. i only suppose in terms of energy & calculating power it may get expensive .... but mostly i think it is calculating power ... and in addition to that it cannot be controlled/checked by a living creature anyway ....
one instant move thru the universe = everything else is still
even if not perceiveable .... this is happening continously but rather "short-distance" in locals (a stars proximity,interstellar, intergallactic, or beyond in a similar meaning) .... for one move thru the universe initiated by intelligence - you will need lots of path preparation even if linear so you need lots of energy and overall lots of calculating power - probably not available in the complete active universe the latter but if available lacking speed in connection as once it is starting building size - everything is still again even if not perceivable ...it may get perceiveable and at least recognizeable (not functioning.) to a machine (for example at first checkpoint) as not being involved in ray-generation but checking on such "time -interruptions" .... but even such a checking-machine requires probably a galaxy (or more depending on real size of the universe) constisting of technology only to support checking only .... we as a living creature would not recognize such a still but it may have impact - i actually think it has ... does not mean is has to be bad but can be bad too - as mentioned the sun emits that permanent i suppose ... to solve that problem you would have to slow down or speed up the universe targetted or align synchron in complete in terms of activity in time by generating/applying ai driven rays - an artificial universe ....

[mkirkpatrick]

Unvanqx,to me all is interconnected,universally all is in touch with all,speed,motion,
movement,are all relative to the relative universe,they do not exist in the timeless
absolute universe/or whatever other name one would call it,absolute void prehaps.

As all is connected by consciousness,and consciousness is transcendent and ubiquitous
so communication anywhere in the universe can be instantaneous,and is indeed so.

Time/space are cancelled out,as consciousness is transcendent.


regards michael

[unvanqx]

your comment: consciousness is transcendent
yes if supported by technology controlling itself - but not naturally supported to be exploited - not to me.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by unvanqx your comment: consciousness is transcendent yes if supported by technology controlling itself - but not naturally supported to be exploited - not to me.

Although technology has its uses,it is also very limiting,whereas consciousness has
none of these drawbacks,such as being limited to light speed,it is instantaneous communication anywhere,where you aware that both American and Russian astronauts
experimented with telepathy,in preparation for deep space travel.


regards michael.

[unvanqx]

if someone is interested - i started the same thread somewhere else and kind of finished there - location:

http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php...sb=5&o=0&fpart=

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by unvanqx if someone is interested - i started the same thread somewhere else and kind of finished there - location: http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php...b=5&o=0&fpart=

Will take a peek at the link when time permits,thanks,unvanqx.




regards michael.

[N0B0DY]

On second look, and judging from your response in the other forum, for what it's worth I think you're right.

Though I had a bit of trouble getting my head around your response here. Perhaps you could try different ways of explaining your ideas, step by step, so I could follow more easily. In particular I'm interested in the telescope idea and the on/off. Maybe you could speak more on them.