I like your opinion . =. Today's common opinion will say: you are absolutely wrong. So, I am also absolutely wrong because I agree with you But why am I agree with you? QED try to understand the interaction between photon and matter. This interaction is possible to observe in crystals and in vital organisms. (every living being needs light / photon.) Now everyone think that photon is an undeveloped particle and it seems nonsense to say that photon can evolve taking interaction from simple to complex system and be bearer of information / consciousness.
But on the one hand, nobody knows that photon is. On the other hand , photon can move with different speeds: constant speed c=1 , and faster c>1, and in my opinion can have zero speed c=0. ( the common opinion that photon never can stop is not a law, it is a supposition) And if photon can use two different inner impulses (spin) h ( photon behaves like corpuscular ) and h*=h/2pi ( photon behaves like wave ) for its independent movement ( it means photon itself decided how to act, what kind of movement to do) then I say: to take decision can only a thinking particle. =. In ancient Veda is written that the consciousness develops from a vague wish to a clear thought. ==. All the best socratus == On May 17, 3:25 pm, awori achoka <awori.ach...@gmail.com> wrote: > In my very unscientific ways---I have always treated photonic energy as the > organising principle of nature. It fuels our consciosness, it is the life > force behind inter/intracellular communication---and so on. To me, > Reality/consciousness--simply refers to photonic energy, Am I absurdly > wrong? > > ** > *Committed to strategic visioning and the state of our nationhood. > * > ** > > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:33 AM, i.sadovnik socratus > <is.socra...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > Answer for nominal9 > > =. > > A black hole can be Vacuum. > > 1. > > A black hole has a temperature within a few > > millionths of a degree above absolute zero: T=0K. > > / Oxford. Dictionary./ > > 2. > > A stellar black hole of one solar mass has a Hawking > > temperature of about 100 nanokelvins. This is far less > > than the 2.7 K temperature of the cosmic microwave background. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole > > 3. > > Previous Picture of the Day articles about black holes suggested that > > the terminology used to describe “gravitational point sources” > > is highly speculative: space/time, singularities, and infinite density > > are abstract concepts, precluding a realistic investigation into > > the nature of the Universe. > > / Oct 12, 2011. Black hole theory contradicts itself. By Stephen Smith / > > =. > > My heretical idea: > > The ‘black hole’ with thermodynamic temperature about - –--> T= 0K. > > is a Homogeneous Energy Vacuum Space between billions Galaxies. > > =. > > Best wishes. > > Israel Sadovnik Socratus > > ===. > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:26 PM, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> Question for you....Socratus..... > > >> How much of this "dark-matter/energy" is held in "black hole" > >> conditions... or is there.. other > >> non-gravity-compressed "dark-matter/energy" floating around nearby (so to > >> speak) but "we" just can't sense it near us in any known way? > > >> On Thursday, May 16, 2013 12:41:14 PM UTC-4, sadovnik socratus wrote: > > >>> Who created the material Universe? > >>> About 96% of the matter in the whole Universe is unseen > >>> dark matter/energy. Nobody knows what it is. > >>> And only about 4% is physical /classical matter. > >>> It is possible to suggest that from > >>> 96% of unseen dark matter/energy was created the 4% > >>> of the known matter. > >>> It is possible to suggest that this unseen dark matter/energy > >>> consist on virtual particles (according to Dirac) and they can become > >>> (in some way, for example - through vacuum fluctuation) > >>> real particles (for example: photons and electrons|). > >>> And these real particles created the visual matter universe. > >>> =. > >>> What you can say about this subject? > >>> ==. > > >>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:37 PM, awori achoka <awori....@gmail.com>wrote: > > >>>> The idea of a universe that orders and organises itself--wears me down. > >>>> So, i wouldn't even try. > > >>>> ** > >>>> *Committed to strategic visioning and the state of our nationhood. > >>>> * > >>>> ** > > >>>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 6:48 PM, i.sadovnik socratus < > >>>> is.so...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>> Why don't you wish ''even'' to try? > > >>>>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 1:01 PM, awori achoka > >>>>> <awori....@gmail.com>wrote: > > >>>>>> LOL---I wouldn't even try. > > >>>>>> The nature of events in nature always amaze me. Who determines the > >>>>>> causality of events in the universe? I wouldn't mind the crushing of > >>>>>> stars > >>>>>> and the formation of all manner of objects--but then, you bring in > >>>>>> humans > >>>>>> (conscious) and the whole story changes. > > >>>>>> ** > >>>>>> *Committed to strategic visioning and the state of our nationhood. > >>>>>> * > >>>>>> ** > > >>>>>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 6:46 AM, sadovnik socratus < > >>>>>> is.so...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>> Take your time. > >>>>>>> = > > >>>>>>> On May 14, 11:00 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > sure.... give me five years to try to understand Faster than > >>>>>>> Light.... OK? > > >>>>>>> > On Monday, May 13, 2013 11:43:41 AM UTC-4, sadovnik socratus wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > More details > >>>>>>> > > ===. > > >>>>>>> > > The basis of SRT ( by an uneducated Socratus) > > >>>>>>> > > ===. > > >>>>>>> > > SRT is based on four facts. > > >>>>>>> > > Fact number 1: > > >>>>>>> > > The constant speed of photon in vacuum is minimal. > > >>>>>>> > > ( from vacuum's point of view and tachyon theory ) > > >>>>>>> > > Fact number 2: > > >>>>>>> > > The inertia of photon depends on its potential energy: E=Mc^2 > > >>>>>>> > > In 1905 Einstein asked: > > >>>>>>> > > “ Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content ?” > > >>>>>>> > > As he realized the answer was: > > >>>>>>> > > “ Yes, it depends on E= Mc^2 ” > > >>>>>>> > > It means that inertia of quantum particle (photon, electron ) > > >>>>>>> > > depends on E= Mc^2 ( nobody explains the details of such > > >>>>>>> > > possibility of inertia movement. How can E=Mc^2 > > >>>>>>> > > be responsible for inertial movement of quantum particle ? ) > > >>>>>>> > > Someone wrote to me: > > >>>>>>> > > “An old professor of mine used to say > > >>>>>>> > > that anyone who can answer that question > > >>>>>>> > > what inertia is, would win a Nobel Prize. “ > > >>>>>>> > > Fact number 3: > > >>>>>>> > > Every speed and energy > > >>>>>>> > > ( including the speed and energy of photon ) are relative. > > >>>>>>> > > Speed, energy, impulse . . . . etc they are physical parameters > > >>>>>>> > > which belong to one, single quantum particle. > > >>>>>>> > > If you change one parameter all others will change automatically > >>>>>>> too. > > >>>>>>> > > For example : > > >>>>>>> > > In 1916 Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c. > > >>>>>>> > > If you change one electron's parameter all others parameters > > >>>>>>> > > also will be changed and the electron's energy will change too. > > >>>>>>> > > Take, for example, electron in atom. > > >>>>>>> > > Electron tied with atom by the energy: E=-me^4/2h*^2= -13,6eV. > > >>>>>>> > > But if someone parameter changes, then electron jumps out from > >>>>>>> atom > > >>>>>>> > > with energy E=h*f ( it is said: electron emits quantum of > >>>>>>> light, > > >>>>>>> > > but where this quantum of light is hidden in the electron, in > >>>>>>> which pocket > >>>>>>> > > ?) > > >>>>>>> > > In vacuum the energy of electron is E=Mc^2 (according to SRT > >>>>>>> and Dirac), > > >>>>>>> > > but when someone parameter is changed then electron jumps out > >>>>>>> from > > >>>>>>> > > vacuum with energy E=h*f. ( effect of vacuum fluctuation > >>>>>>> ). > > >>>>>>> > > Fact number 4: > > >>>>>>> > > The Lorentz equations explain the transformations (revolving > >>>>>>> movement) > > >>>>>>> > > of quantum particles using the Goudsmit – Uhlenbeck inner > >>>>>>> impulse > > >>>>>>> > > of particle: h* = h/ 2pi. > > >>>>>>> > > ===. > > >>>>>>> > > All the best. > > >>>>>>> > > Israel Sadovnik Socratus > > >>>>>>> > > =====… > > >>>>>>> > > P.S. > > >>>>>>> > > " Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two > >>>>>>> postulates: > > >>>>>>> > > One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy > > >>>>>>> > > and universality of the speed of light. > > >>>>>>> > > Could the first postulate be true and the other false? > > >>>>>>> > > If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make > >>>>>>> two > > >>>>>>> > > postulates. But I don't think many people realized until > >>>>>>> recently > > >>>>>>> > > that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only > > >>>>>>> > > the second postulate." > > >>>>>>> > > / Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226. / > > >>>>>>> > > # > > >>>>>>> > > Question: > > >>>>>>> > > Can quantum of light change its constant speed ? > > >>>>>>> > > Answer: Faster-than-light. > > >>>>>>> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Faster-than-light<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light> > > >>>>>>> > > etc . . . > > >>>>>>> > > ===… > > >>>>>>> > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:05 PM, nominal9 > >>>>>>> > > <nomi...@yahoo.com<javascript:> > >>>>>>> > > > wrote: > > >>>>>>> > >> So... Socratus and Awori..... I guess I should ask the question > >>>>>>> > >> differently.... do photons have "mass"? > >>>>>>> > >>https://en.wikipedia.org/**wiki/Photon<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon> > >>>>>>> > >> Experimental checks on photon mass > > >>>>>>> > >> The photon is currently understood to be strictly massless, but > >>>>>>> this is > >>>>>>> > >> an experimental question. If the photon is not a strictly > >>>>>>> massless > >>>>>>> > >> particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light in > >>>>>>> vacuum, *c*. > >>>>>>> > >> Its speed would be lower and depend on its frequency. > >>>>>>> Relativity would be > >>>>>>> > >> unaffected by this; the so-called speed of light, *c*, would > >>>>>>> then not be > >>>>>>> > >> the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of nature > >>>>>>> which is > >>>>>>> > >> the maximum speed that any object could theoretically attain in > >>>>>>> space-time. > >>>>>>> > >> [21] > >>>>>>> > >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/**wiki/Photon#cite_note-23<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#cite_note-23>> > >>>>>>> Thus, it would > >>>>>>> > >> still be the speed of space-time ripples (gravitational waves<... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
