Andrew June 25, 2012 June 25, 2012 By the way, the joule per second is a unit of power (the watt), not energy. I am aware. Power is the rate of use/output of energy. It's possible that the speed of light, even in vacuum, is not the maximum speed (denoted by c) at which something can travel. Nope. Unless you want to take that up by Einstein. Who's theories have been tested time and time again. Even if something was moving 60% of the speed of light to the left, and something was moving 60% of the speed of light to the right, they would not even be travelling the speed of light, relative to each other, even though it appears, intuatively, that they should be travelling 120% of the speed of light, relative to each other. "What did you do today?" "Oh, you know, got called a hater by a schizophrenic's marijuana-fueled wolf hallucination." "Righteous!" I call her Philos. My BLOG is updated daily.
Virgil June 25, 2012 June 25, 2012 Nope. Unless you want to take that up by Einstein. Who's theories have been tested time and time again. Even if something was moving 60% of the speed of light to the left, and something was moving 60% of the speed of light to the right, they would not even be travelling the speed of light, relative to each other, even though it appears, intuatively, that they should be travelling 120% of the speed of light, relative to each other. Oh, that's not what I meant. I know how the Lorentz transformation works and that velocities can't be simply added, especially when they're close to c. What I had in mind was more along the lines that the speed of a photon depends on the medium it travels through and that it could be possible that even vacuum slows down a photon unlike the hypothesised particle that could travel at a constant, maximum speed through any medium. Still, its speed would be only negligibly higher than the currently accepted maximum speed, which, I'll be honest, I have no idea how it was determined. and regarding your example: If two projectiles travelling in opposite directions go past a point from which they're observed to travel each at 0.6 c, it'll definitely seem that they're moving at 1.2 c relative to each other. However, to one of the projectiles, the speed of the other would be c * (0.6 + 0.6) / (1 + 0.6 * 0.6), if I'm correct, which is 15/17 c. So yeah, that's still less than c. It's true: you can't observe anything moving faster than the maximum speed unless you disregard time dilation or length contraction, but special relativity doesn't prevent you from traversing our galaxy in a matter of seconds— well, a matter of seconds according to your frame of reference, that is. Let's keep this up; this thread deserves to be derailed. Bayesian inference
Mercurial June 25, 2012 June 25, 2012 ...it could be possible that even vacuum slows down a photon... It isn't. Light slows down in non-vacuums because it is absorbed and retransmitted by particles in the non-vacuum. By definition, a vacuum is devoid of particles, and so nothing is there to absorb and retransmit the light.
Bluesleeve June 25, 2012 June 25, 2012 e=mc²? Sure, this whole metaphysical thing is interesting, but this is just desperate. A Tulpa doesn't consist of energy, it's just how different neurons fire in your brain and therefore simulate a Tulpa. It does not exist, it's just a product of all these impulses, which are being processed by you. What is a Tulpa? Blog Rainbow 'Alyx' Dash Pronto
Virgil June 25, 2012 June 25, 2012 Light slows down in non-vacuums because it is absorbed and retransmitted by particles in the non-vacuum. By definition, a vacuum is devoid of particles, and so nothing is there to absorb and retransmit the light. The first part is true, but non-ideal, real vacuum is not as empty as it may appear. Furthermore, there may be other factors (such as gravitational time dilation, but it slows down time itself, so it's a crappy example). A neutrino is a particle that seems to be largely unaffected by physical objects or other particles, so it might travel slightly faster than EM radiation. Bayesian inference
ThatOneGuy June 25, 2012 June 25, 2012 What Bluesleeve said. All of it. Tulpae are only ever tangentially related to metaphysics at best and always will be. Orange juice helps with concentration headaches.
Guest June 26, 2012 June 26, 2012 e=mc²? Sure, this whole metaphysical thing is interesting, but this is just desperate. A Tulpa doesn't consist of energy, it's just how different neurons fire in your brain and therefore simulate a Tulpa. It does not exist, it's just a product of all these impulses, which are being processed by you. Ohoho, aren't we trying to act smart. The same can be said of you and me. We're no more magical than a tulpa. The metaphysical bit in either of them is the conscious/subjective experiences involved. I don't have anything else to contribute to this discussion because metaphysics is an actual branch of philosophy which can be approached seriously and appropriating it for less than likely theories seems to make the term what it is today instead of what it is supposed to mean.
oi-stein July 27, 2012 July 27, 2012 According to one of my friends who I told about tulpae, it's possible to manifest them into a physical form somehow. However, it requires a lot of training, and probably extensive control of one's own ki. What are your thoughts on the subject? Just a note: Ki is life-force and has nothing to do with Tulpae. Sorry. Om Mani Padma Hung
Pleeb July 27, 2012 July 27, 2012 Just a note: Ki is life-force and has nothing to do with Tulpae. Sorry. Interestingly, I know of a guy (who's a Psion) who did a scan on my tulpa's form, I was curious as to what he'd get, if anything; he described it as a psi construct with a moderate amount of energy that seemed to have the function of being controlled by a mind that wished to control it. (though it depends if you differentiate between psi and ki, as I consider them both flavors of the same things) Spoiler An image in a signature behind a hidden tag!
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.