[MD] LC: Expanded Annotation 57

Tue May 26 20:53:31 PDT 2009

Dan and Will,

This may be one of those 'times' when, out of the corner of my eye, I 
think I see something wiggling, but there is nothing there.

Thanks to you both.

Marsha

At 11:13 PM 5/26/2009, you wrote:
>Hi Marsha,
>
>I'm not sure if I understood your post, I am a little slow at times.
>
>Water is one of my favorite analogies for what we perceive as a
>world of many things.
>
>If Einstein is correct, then everything is energy.  Everything is
>  transforming into something else continuously.  That is
>  change.  But does anything really change?  Physics states
>that no energy is ever lost or created; there is conservation.  So at
>some level nothing changes, always the same energy.  At our level,
>Things to seem to change.  An illusion?  I suppose, as much as
>everything else is.  The word is confusing.  If everything is an
>illusion then so is that statement.  Don't believe anything I write
>(not even my telling you not to believe anything I write).
>
>So the water analogy.  Everything in this world are like waves on
>an ocean.  They appear from nowhere on the surface, and disappear.
>A constant flux of waves, just like matter, always changing shapes. 
>Big, small.
>I'll bet you have some of the electrons I had a while ago.  They are yours
>now, keep them for a while.  The waves are created from the great ocean,
>arising from it returning to it, but the water is always there to create new
>ones.  Does the wave try to survive as long as it can?  I don't think so,
>it just is.
>
>The speed of light is constant, because time disappears at that speed.
>Time gets slower and slower the faster you go, until poof! we are at the
>speed of light.
>Hard to change things with no time.
>
>Oh, time to go!
>
>Willblake2
>
>On May 26, 2009, at 12:02:41 AM, MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net> wrote:
>
>Greetings Will,
>
>Time and change have a relationship, yes? What does it actually mean
>to state that everything is always in a state of
>change? Everything! I'm thinking of the water analogy: If
>everything is water, and there is nothing that is not water, then
>there is no meaning to water, for there is no way of distinguishing a
>difference between water and nonwater. Seems if you translate that
>into change, then what humans have actually defined as change is
>illusion. And if our definition of change is an illusion, how can
>anything be conceived of as constant, as in Einstein's 'C', when
>everything is changing? Against what is it measured?
>
>Can you untangle this mess between water, change and time?
>
>
>Marsha
>
>
>
>At 11:24 PM 5/25/2009, you wrote:
>
> >On May 25, 2009, at 11:09:02 AM, "Dan Glover" 
> <daneglover at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Hello everyone
> >
> >----------------------------------------
> > > Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 08:47:17 -0700
> > > From: ridgecoyote at gmail.com
> > > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [MD] LC: Expanded Annotation 57
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 12:39 PM, MarshaV wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> 57. In the MOQ time is dependent on experience
> > >> independently of matter. Matter is a deduction from
> > >> experience.
> > >>
> > >
> > > So we just toss E=mc2 out the window?
> > >
> > > I think (unless it can be explained better to me) that the realization of
> > > object precedes or arises with the realization of time. Time = change and
> > > you can't have "change" without some"thing" changing.
> >
> >Hi John
> >
> >In the MOQ, matter arises from experience, not the other way around.
> >Time arises from experience as well, so it arises independently of matter.
> >
> >I am unsure what you mean when you say: So we just toss E=mc2 out
> >the window? Equations do not arise from matter. They are ideas. They
> >arise from experience independently of matter.
> >
> >Does this help to better answer your question?
> >
> >Dan
> >
> >
> >Hi all, Willblake2 here,
> >
> >I saw E=mc2, thought I'd jump in to see if physics has any bearing on MoQ.
> >
> >What this equation symbolizes is that energy and matter are
> >identical. We can
> >convert one to the other simply using a constant number, that is 
> the speed of
> >light times itself. A very large number compared to numbers we are
> >used to dealing
> >with, but just a number like "2". To simplify, we could say that
> >one mass is two energies.
> >
> >In the equation is the speed of light, which is distance traveled
> >over time. This is
> >where time comes into the picture. That is time separates
> >distances. Einstein loved
> >this kind of metaphysical stuff. Was a mystic in his own way, non
> >of this spiritual
> >unity stuff, but in trying to sort out the underlying fabric of reality.
> >
> >So what is so special about the speed of light? Well for one a
> >photon (pure energy)
> >zips around at that speed. More importantly, it is thought that the speed is
> >constant. That is if you are traveling at half the speed of light,
> >and shine a flashlight
> >it will appear to leave you at the speed of light, to someone
> >standing by the road,
> >the light from the flashlight will also leave at the speed of light
> >(not 1 + a half speed).
> >
> >Einstein got to thinking about this and said that what is happening is that
> >time is slowing down the faster you go. Therefore since the speed
> >of light should
> >be going at one and a half times, time goes slower to make up for this.
> >That time slows down with speed has been shown in the lab, and in
> >fact satellites
> >and GPS systems take this slowing down into account for accuracy.
> >
> >OK, nothing new there. Now the limits of speed are 0 (zero) and
> >the speed of
> >light (SOL). Nothing goes slower than zero, nothing goes faster than SOL.
> >Now, at the SOL, time does not move, it stays at 0. At our speed time
> >moves along. Lets say, for metaphysical purposes that we switch the limits,
> >and say that the speed of light is zero, and we are moving at close to the
> >speed of light. This is just using a different reference. It
> >makes sense to use
> >the speed of light as zero, since time is stopped at that
> >point. Therefore, light is
> >dead still, and we are rushing through it. Imagine the wind of time blowing
> >through your hair, you can feel it. When you are stopped along with light
> >there is not wind, no time passing by. I would reference this
> >thought experiment
> >but I have not found it on the internet yet.
> >
> >OK, so we are moving very fast and we experience time. However at every
> >instant time does not move. At every instant we are dead still, because
> >an instant is so small that no time has passed. This is the Now. If the
> >perception of Quality into our consciousness happens during this instant
> >we could feel it. We would be going through infinitely short starts
> >and stops.
> >This would be a physics analogy of how Quality comes before time, in fact
> > it is the background upon which time happens.
> >
> >An analogy of all this would be that Quality is the white background
> >on a page
> >in a book, and time is the written words. Although we are jumping
> >through time,
> >Quality is always there in the background. Time is caused by speed which is
> >distance per time. This would mean that for time to appear by
> >itself, distance
> >would have to dissapear. There is no distance between us and Quality.
> >You take out time by stopping and you have just Quality left.
> >We could say that light is pure Quality (no time). And once
> >again we can worship the Sun.
> >
> >Hope this made some sense, thanks for your time.
> >
> >Willblake2
> >
> >Moq_Discuss mailing list
> >Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >Archives:
> >http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> >http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> >Moq_Discuss mailing list
> >Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >Archives:
> >http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> >http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
>
>.
>_____________
>
>The self is a thought-flow of ever-changing, interrelated and
>interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual,
>static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.
>
>.
>.
>
>
>
>Moq_Discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
>
>Moq_Discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

.
_____________

The self is a thought-flow of ever-changing, interrelated and 
interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, 
static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.

.
.