Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Evidence This Reality Is A Computer Simulation
18 views
Skip to first unread message
Ryan B
Oct 10, 2014, 9:12:34 PM10/10/14
to
Some scientists are actually attempting to determine whether reality is a computer simulation by looking for certain clues. I don't know if anybody else has thought of this yet but the most significant clue, if you ask me, is that there appears to be evidence of a "sampling rate" within reality, defined by the constant speed of light, C.
Nothing can actually be observed to travel at a velocity faster than light because strange phenomena occurs which is identical to what happens when a fanblade spins faster than half the speed of a strobe light flash frequency or even at the speed of a strobe light flash frequency. The fan will appear to slow down the faster it goes once it's RPM rate gets past half the flash frequency (for example if the flash frequency is 100 Hz then once the fan starts spinning faster than 50 RPM it appears to slow down). Once the fanblade rotation rate equals the flash frequency the fan will appear to have stopped.
This is why tires sometimes appear to spin backwards in movies. This is the basis behind "sampling rate" in digital recording and what is called the "Nyquist limit". An identical phenomena occurs when things travel at more than 1/2 the speed of light or faster than light. This suggests that there is a sampling rate for reality.
The constant speed of light also defines the pixel size (for subatomic quanta), which is called the "Planck length" or "Planck scale, named after Max Planck. In light of such evidence, it seems undeniable to me that reality is a computer simulation.
Nothing can actually be observed to travel at a velocity faster than light because strange phenomena occurs which is identical to what happens when a fanblade spins faster than half the speed of a strobe light flash frequency or even at the speed of a strobe light flash frequency. The fan will appear to slow down the faster it goes once it's RPM rate gets past half the flash frequency (for example if the flash frequency is 100 Hz then once the fan starts spinning faster than 50 RPM it appears to slow down). Once the fanblade rotation rate equals the flash frequency the fan will appear to have stopped.
This is why tires sometimes appear to spin backwards in movies. This is the basis behind "sampling rate" in digital recording and what is called the "Nyquist limit". An identical phenomena occurs when things travel at more than 1/2 the speed of light or faster than light. This suggests that there is a sampling rate for reality.
The constant speed of light also defines the pixel size (for subatomic quanta), which is called the "Planck length" or "Planck scale, named after Max Planck. In light of such evidence, it seems undeniable to me that reality is a computer simulation.
Ryan B
Oct 11, 2014, 3:25:32 AM10/11/14
to
Ryan B
Oct 11, 2014, 10:25:57 AM10/11/14
to
On Friday, October 10, 2014 6:12:34 PM UTC-7, Ryan B wrote:
It has often been said that as you approach the speed of light your mass increases and at the speed of light your mass increases to infinity, thus preventing you from not only going past the speed of light but also reaching the speed of light. New equations suggest that once one reaches a velocity of half the speed of light the energy required to increase acceleration begins to decrease. I suspect that this due to the fact that the combined velocity of EM radiation emitted by you and also from objects at rest then becomes greater than C.
To understand this, imagine two particles travelling towards each other with each travelling a velocity of 1/2 C. What is the combined speed between them (and also ask yourselves, what is the combined velocity of the photons emitted from them which are heading towards each other). It would be C. If they travel at a speed greater than 1/2C then the combined velocity between them is greater than C. What happens when their individual velocities exceeds 1/2C, causing their combined velocity to exceed C, is that the EM radiation (known as "cosmic microwave background radiation") which impinges upon them gets Doppler shifted to such an extent that it's energy becomes less positive as velocity increases...and so exerts a progressively weaker pressure upon the particles. So, instead of becoming progressively harder to reach an actual (as opposed to combined relative) speed of C, where both particles are actually travelling at the speed of light, it actually becomes progressively easier to increase velocity once speed increases past 1/2 C.
To be clear, it is this "light pressure" from cosmic microwave background radiation (sometimes called ZPE or vacuum "flux") which causes inertia and mass. Or rather, the doppler shift when a an object accelerates which causes mass. Keeping in mind that this is what causes mass, imagine what must happen when the particles actually each (individually) reach C, the speed of light. The EM radiation of the cosmic microwave background radiation impinging upon them is Doppler shifted to a zero wavelength. And so there is no longer any radiation pressure from the ZPE flux impinging upon them and so their mass becomes effectively zero since there is no longer any resistance to acceleration. In other words, no inertial forces. What then is to forbid exceeding the speed of light? What does this mean for black hole formation and dynamics where the infalling matter reaches the speed of light at the event horizon?
Note that when I speak of mass being the product of light or radiation pressure I was speaking of inertial mass as opposed to rest mass. But perhaps my belief in the Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff theory of Stochastic Electro-Dynamics (SED) tainted what I wrote. This particulary theory of SED claims that inertia is what causes the illusion of mass. They claim that inertia is due to interaction of an object with the ZPE vacuum flux. Acceleration causes a relative Doppler shift of the ZPE flux which exerts an increase of radiation pressure upon the accelerated object. What is most interesting about this theory is that if the ZPE flux is truly universal (a questionable assumption) then this can be used as a reference frame by which motion can be regarded as absolute as opposed to relative.
I suspect that the reason Einstein's E = mC^2 uses C^2 is because when a mass is put into motion, we must take into consideration not only the Doppler shift of the ZPE flux impinging upon the accelerated mass but also the Doppler shift of EM radiation emitted by the accelerated mass (and the effect the Doppler shift from the accelerated mass will have on that which it is moving relative to).
A similar convention is used in calculating gravitational force, where r^2, the square of the radius of the distance between two masses, is used. Of course, the value of r^2 might continually change as the masses attract each other and the distance between them decreases. But that is beside the point.
The point I'm trying to make is that instead of simply denoting the distance between the centers of mass or gravity, the square is used. That is to represent the fact that both masses are acting upon each other simultaneously as opposed to merely one mass acting on the other.
In the case of C^2, this is probably used to denote that EM radiation is emitted from 2 sources, one of which is the mass (regardless of whether that mass is in motion or at rest), with the combined velocity between them being analogous to v^2...hence the similarity of Einstein's famous equation to Liebniz's equation for energy (E = 1/2mv^2).
Before continuing, I need to point out that there are different methods of measuring entropy, there is the Gibbs definition and then there is the Boltzman definition? This is why a super hot plasma can be regarded as having an absolute negative kelvin temperature.
Here's a great introduction to the subject of absolute negative Kelvin temperatures.
http://www.quantum-munich.de/research/negative-absolute-temperature/
I disgree with the claim that positive zero and negative zero do not form a continuum. I believe one can invert energy from negative to positive when one exceeds the speed of light, which is effectively what is happening in a plasma. One can continually break the light barrier, again and again as velocity continues to increase. Each time you reverse your energy state from positive to negative or negative to positive. It is like how a fan blade appears to stop and even spin backwards once it exceeds a certain speed.
For similar reasons, one cannot see a wave or particle travelling faster than light, because there are two components to an EM wave, the phase velocity and the group velocity. One is FTL but the other is slower than light. If one goes slower than light then the other goes faster than light. So, if group veolocity is slower than light then phase velocity is faster than light. If group velocity is faster than light then phase velocity is slower than light by a corresponding amount so that the difference between the phase and group velocity is always C (186,000 miles/second).
Although one cannot see a wave travelling faster than light, one can measure some interesting effects such as instantaneous FTL signals (supposedly corresponding to an infinite velocity, which in the realm of temperature corresponds to an infinite temperature, but this is actually due to infinitely fast reactance if you ask me). Then there is the more interesting phenomena of wavefront reversal and/or backwards travelling waves (corresponding to negative energy states). This is akin to how a fanblade can appear to spin backwards in a strobe light. Also, there is the phenomena of Cherenkov radiation.
On either side of the plasma frequency (or frequencies...wherein the temperature is claimed to be infinite due to the velocity of vibration being "infinite") lies the positive and negative energy states. Which side it is on depends upon the material's magnetic and perhaps electric (permeability and permitivity) properties. When you are on the negative side..."wavefront reversal" (AKA "phase conjugation" or "anomalous dispersion") occurs.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I suspect the reason they are putting the maximal energy state (where there is no difference of energy states in the particles) is due to the use of the Boltzmann definition of entropy. If they used another definition of entropy (the Gibbs definition perhaps) then the (internal) temperature (of the system) could probably be regarded as zero at this point. Keep in mind that this explanation of infinite temperature is probably coming from people who believe mass increases to infinity at the speed of light but as I explained that is not the truth. Otherwise how could one get to the other side, where energy is negative? That would pose a limit. The mass-energy of the system having an infinite temperature would become infinite. But that does NOT happen.
That group is also the ones who boast about negative temperatures after "cooling" some atoms with lasers. This prevents the atoms from vibrating and is similar if not identical to the Bose-Einstein Condensate experiments involving laser cooled atoms. So, if the atoms are not vibrating doesn't this mean that the temperature is zero and NOT infinite? If so, you're probably wondering how the temperature could be negative if it's zero? That would be due to an inversion of the spin state (electric and magnetic permitivity and permeability). So, they stop vibrating and invert their spin state alignment with the applied EM field (the laser beams) cooling them. A similar phenomena also occurs in NMR spectroscopes. I believe this also occurs in lasers and is what is meant by "population inversion".
Note also the info at the above link (the Quantum Munich link) states that gasses cannot go into a negative absolute temperature state. This is misleading since a gas can be converted into a plasma which most certainly can enter a negative absolute temperature state. When they say gas they are referring to a classical gas but not plasmas.
Also, I must say, the applause surrounding the recent experiments where negative absolute kelvin temperatures were demonstrated using laser cooled atoms seems mostly undeserved to me because it has been known for a long time that plasmas and the excited materials in lasers exist in a negative absolute temperature state. Note that lasers and plasmas are also examples of "macroscopic quantum coherence" and probably also even actual Bose-Einstein Condensates. So, nothing new here folks.
Here's a demonstration of how a fan blade can appear to slow down and stop then reverse direction increase velocity then slow down and stop then reverse direction again while the speed is actually increasing the entire time. For the same reason, I believe one can actually cross the -0 and +0 points and also continually break the light barrier again and again...an infinite number of times (reversing it's energy state each time).
ATI / AMD Demo PC Strobe Effect 2: http://youtu.be/7pBTytLvlc4
benj
Oct 11, 2014, 6:53:28 PM10/11/14
to
never seen anything quite like it. It is only matched by your arrogance
at thinking your jargon terminology salad has any actually meaning
contained in it. Are you an AI bot? I think so. Your software needs
work. How do you feel about constantly making a fool of yourself?
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
Ryan B
Oct 12, 2014, 7:39:47 AM10/12/14
to
On Saturday, October 11, 2014 3:53:28 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
> On 10/11/2014 03:25 AM, Ryan B wrote:
>
> > On Friday, October 10, 2014 6:12:34 PM UTC-7, Ryan B wrote:
>
> >> Some scientists are actually attempting to determine whether reality is a computer simulation by looking for certain clues. I don't know if anybody else has thought of this yet but the most significant clue, if you ask me, is that there appears to be evidence of a "sampling rate" within reality, defined by the constant speed of light, C.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Nothing can actually be observed to travel at a velocity faster than light because strange phenomena occurs which is identical to what happens when a fanblade spins faster than half the speed of a strobe light flash frequency or even at the speed of a strobe light flash frequency. The fan will appear to slow down the faster it goes once it's RPM rate gets past half the flash frequency (for example if the flash frequency is 100 Hz then once the fan starts spinning faster than 50 RPM it appears to slow down). Once the fanblade rotation rate equals the flash frequency the fan will appear to have stopped.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> This is why tires sometimes appear to spin backwards in movies. This is the basis behind "sampling rate" in digital recording and what is called the "Nyquist limit". An identical phenomena occurs when things travel at more than 1/2 the speed of light or faster than light. This suggests that there is a sampling rate for reality.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> The constant speed of light also defines the pixel size (for subatomic quanta), which is called the "Planck length" or "Planck scale, named after Max Planck. In light of such evidence, it seems undeniable to me that reality is a computer simulation.
>
> >
>
> > I noticed an error. I wrote 50 RPM. That should be 50 RPS (Revolutions Per second) or 50 Hz.
>
>
>
> And unbelievable demonstration of total ignorance! I've quite frankly
>
> never seen anything quite like it. It is only matched by your arrogance
>
> at thinking your jargon terminology salad has any actually meaning
>
> contained in it. Are you an AI bot? I think so. Your software needs
>
> work. How do you feel about constantly making a fool of yourself?
>
>
Just because you can't comprehend what I'm saying doesn't make ME a fool. It makes YOU and all others who don't get it (or can't get it) a fool. Stop projecting. OK?
> On 10/11/2014 03:25 AM, Ryan B wrote:
>
> > On Friday, October 10, 2014 6:12:34 PM UTC-7, Ryan B wrote:
>
> >> Some scientists are actually attempting to determine whether reality is a computer simulation by looking for certain clues. I don't know if anybody else has thought of this yet but the most significant clue, if you ask me, is that there appears to be evidence of a "sampling rate" within reality, defined by the constant speed of light, C.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Nothing can actually be observed to travel at a velocity faster than light because strange phenomena occurs which is identical to what happens when a fanblade spins faster than half the speed of a strobe light flash frequency or even at the speed of a strobe light flash frequency. The fan will appear to slow down the faster it goes once it's RPM rate gets past half the flash frequency (for example if the flash frequency is 100 Hz then once the fan starts spinning faster than 50 RPM it appears to slow down). Once the fanblade rotation rate equals the flash frequency the fan will appear to have stopped.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> This is why tires sometimes appear to spin backwards in movies. This is the basis behind "sampling rate" in digital recording and what is called the "Nyquist limit". An identical phenomena occurs when things travel at more than 1/2 the speed of light or faster than light. This suggests that there is a sampling rate for reality.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> The constant speed of light also defines the pixel size (for subatomic quanta), which is called the "Planck length" or "Planck scale, named after Max Planck. In light of such evidence, it seems undeniable to me that reality is a computer simulation.
>
> >
>
> > I noticed an error. I wrote 50 RPM. That should be 50 RPS (Revolutions Per second) or 50 Hz.
>
>
>
> And unbelievable demonstration of total ignorance! I've quite frankly
>
> never seen anything quite like it. It is only matched by your arrogance
>
> at thinking your jargon terminology salad has any actually meaning
>
> contained in it. Are you an AI bot? I think so. Your software needs
>
> work. How do you feel about constantly making a fool of yourself?
>
>
Ryan B
Oct 12, 2014, 8:24:15 AM10/12/14
to
On Saturday, October 11, 2014 3:53:28 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
> On 10/11/2014 03:25 AM, Ryan B wrote:
>
> > On Friday, October 10, 2014 6:12:34 PM UTC-7, Ryan B wrote:
>
> >> Some scientists are actually attempting to determine whether reality is a computer simulation by looking for certain clues. I don't know if anybody else has thought of this yet but the most significant clue, if you ask me, is that there appears to be evidence of a "sampling rate" within reality, defined by the constant speed of light, C.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Nothing can actually be observed to travel at a velocity faster than light because strange phenomena occurs which is identical to what happens when a fanblade spins faster than half the speed of a strobe light flash frequency or even at the speed of a strobe light flash frequency. The fan will appear to slow down the faster it goes once it's RPM rate gets past half the flash frequency (for example if the flash frequency is 100 Hz then once the fan starts spinning faster than 50 RPM it appears to slow down). Once the fanblade rotation rate equals the flash frequency the fan will appear to have stopped.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> This is why tires sometimes appear to spin backwards in movies. This is the basis behind "sampling rate" in digital recording and what is called the "Nyquist limit". An identical phenomena occurs when things travel at more than 1/2 the speed of light or faster than light. This suggests that there is a sampling rate for reality.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> The constant speed of light also defines the pixel size (for subatomic quanta), which is called the "Planck length" or "Planck scale, named after Max Planck. In light of such evidence, it seems undeniable to me that reality is a computer simulation.
>
> >
>
> > I noticed an error. I wrote 50 RPM. That should be 50 RPS (Revolutions Per second) or 50 Hz.
>
>
>
> And unbelievable demonstration of total ignorance! I've quite frankly
>
> never seen anything quite like it. It is only matched by your arrogance
>
> at thinking your jargon terminology salad has any actually meaning
>
> contained in it. Are you an AI bot? I think so. Your software needs
>
> work. How do you feel about constantly making a fool of yourself?
>
>
You're just jealous.
>
> > On Friday, October 10, 2014 6:12:34 PM UTC-7, Ryan B wrote:
>
> >> Some scientists are actually attempting to determine whether reality is a computer simulation by looking for certain clues. I don't know if anybody else has thought of this yet but the most significant clue, if you ask me, is that there appears to be evidence of a "sampling rate" within reality, defined by the constant speed of light, C.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Nothing can actually be observed to travel at a velocity faster than light because strange phenomena occurs which is identical to what happens when a fanblade spins faster than half the speed of a strobe light flash frequency or even at the speed of a strobe light flash frequency. The fan will appear to slow down the faster it goes once it's RPM rate gets past half the flash frequency (for example if the flash frequency is 100 Hz then once the fan starts spinning faster than 50 RPM it appears to slow down). Once the fanblade rotation rate equals the flash frequency the fan will appear to have stopped.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> This is why tires sometimes appear to spin backwards in movies. This is the basis behind "sampling rate" in digital recording and what is called the "Nyquist limit". An identical phenomena occurs when things travel at more than 1/2 the speed of light or faster than light. This suggests that there is a sampling rate for reality.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> The constant speed of light also defines the pixel size (for subatomic quanta), which is called the "Planck length" or "Planck scale, named after Max Planck. In light of such evidence, it seems undeniable to me that reality is a computer simulation.
>
> >
>
> > I noticed an error. I wrote 50 RPM. That should be 50 RPS (Revolutions Per second) or 50 Hz.
>
>
>
> And unbelievable demonstration of total ignorance! I've quite frankly
>
> never seen anything quite like it. It is only matched by your arrogance
>
> at thinking your jargon terminology salad has any actually meaning
>
> contained in it. Are you an AI bot? I think so. Your software needs
>
> work. How do you feel about constantly making a fool of yourself?
>
>
Richard Isakson
Oct 12, 2014, 11:15:59 AM10/12/14
to
>"Ryan B" wrote in message
>news:c0d016f7-8d58-4577...@googlegroups.com...
>On Saturday, October 11, 2014 3:53:28 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
>> snip
>> How do you feel about constantly making a fool of yourself?
>Just because you can't comprehend what I'm saying doesn't make ME a fool.
>It makes YOU and all others who don't get it (or can't get it) a fool. Stop
>projecting. OK?
-----------------------------------
"Oh look", his mother said proudly as she watched the troop file by,
"everybody's out of step but MY Johnny".
Ryan,
You seem to be fairly intelligent but you have in the past you have
expressed a reluctance to accept mathematics. What you don't understand is
that mathematics is the language of physics. The essence of physics is in
the math not in the words. Without the math you'll never truly understand
the physics. There's tremendous beauty there. At the very least you
should read the Feynman lectures. Yes, there's math there but it's easy.
And don't be so gullible about the claims people make. People lie. All the
time.
Richard
>news:c0d016f7-8d58-4577...@googlegroups.com...
>On Saturday, October 11, 2014 3:53:28 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
>> How do you feel about constantly making a fool of yourself?
>Just because you can't comprehend what I'm saying doesn't make ME a fool.
>It makes YOU and all others who don't get it (or can't get it) a fool. Stop
>projecting. OK?
"Oh look", his mother said proudly as she watched the troop file by,
"everybody's out of step but MY Johnny".
Ryan,
You seem to be fairly intelligent but you have in the past you have
expressed a reluctance to accept mathematics. What you don't understand is
that mathematics is the language of physics. The essence of physics is in
the math not in the words. Without the math you'll never truly understand
the physics. There's tremendous beauty there. At the very least you
should read the Feynman lectures. Yes, there's math there but it's easy.
And don't be so gullible about the claims people make. People lie. All the
time.
Richard
Ryan B
Oct 28, 2014, 5:34:45 PM10/28/14
to
Ryan B
Oct 28, 2014, 5:42:45 PM10/28/14
to
On Sunday, October 12, 2014 8:15:59 AM UTC-7, Richard Isakson wrote:
You say without the math I'll never understand the physics. But the truth is that with the dcommonly acceptedf math one will never understand the physics.
Why is it you people must always devote so much time trying to discredit ther people's ideas? Semms like there are a lot of sadistic and mentally ill people who waste an extraordinary amount of time here to me. Have you people nothing better to do than make yourselves feel superior by incessantly insulting other people? seriously, your actions are as repulsive as someone who sits around masturbating in front of a computer screen all day and night. The self gratification you seek with your online activities is no different. Get a life!
Jos Bergervoet
Oct 28, 2014, 6:22:52 PM10/28/14
to
On 10/28/2014 10:42 PM, Ryan B wrote:
> On Sunday, October 12, 2014 8:15:59 AM UTC-7, Richard Isakson wrote:
...
> On Sunday, October 12, 2014 8:15:59 AM UTC-7, Richard Isakson wrote:
>> And don't be so gullible about the claims people make.
>> People lie. All the time.
>
>> People lie. All the time.
>
> Also, I am familiar with Feynman's work. I am not as
> naive and ignorant as you seem to believe me to be.
Proof?
> naive and ignorant as you seem to believe me to be.
--
Jos
0 new messages