3 ms·

but that the timing of the motion of atoms in distant stars is not synchronized with our own What is this "synchronised timing" of which you speak? Atoms in di

but that the timing of the motion of atoms in distant stars is not synchronized with our own What is this "synchronised timing" of which you speak? Atoms in distant stars move in some way that is fundamentally different to movement of atoms in nearby stars, but that movement isn't different in space, but in time? This makes no sense. On the face of it "synchronised in time" means "contemporary". If the argument is that I can only experience the present, and that I can't interact with the past or the future (although light emitted in the past that reaches me in the present is of course on the table), that seems true but not really very relevant.

SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago
> What is this "synchronised timing" of which you speak? I think this text should help you understand: https://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Vibrations-H-P-Blavatsky/dp/0766149994 https://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Vibrations-H-P-Blavatsky/dp... H. P. Blavatsky, 1926
- nixtaken 7y ago
  Prior to her post-doctoral work, she wrote her thesis on the synchronization of particle beams with light, but it didn't have anything to do with mysticism. This contains a sample of some of that work: https://kirstenhacker.wordpress.com/posts-deleted-by-quora/ https://kirstenhacker.wordpress.com/posts-deleted-by-quora/
nixtaken 7y ago
The atoms in the distant stars are the same as the atoms here, but they are being shaken around relative to where we are - that is an explanation in terms of space. It relies on the motion of the atoms in the distant star being faster than the speed of light relative to us. The atoms in the distant stars are the same as the atoms here, but they are emitting light at a different time relative to where we are - that is an explanation in terms of time. It relies on destructive interference between the light we emit and the light the distant star emits. The two explanations are geometrically equivalent. They are consistent with the worldview of people like Maxwell, Bjerknes and Hertz. They looked up at the sky and saw stars in jiggling jello. It isn't a bad heuristic. It just went out of fashion.

SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago

> What is this "synchronised timing" of which you speak? I think this text should help you understand: https://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Vibrations-H-P-Blavatsky/dp/0766149994 https://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Vibrations-H-P-Blavatsky/dp... H. P. Blavatsky, 1926

nixtaken 7y ago
Prior to her post-doctoral work, she wrote her thesis on the synchronization of particle beams with light, but it didn't have anything to do with mysticism. This contains a sample of some of that work: https://kirstenhacker.wordpress.com/posts-deleted-by-quora/ https://kirstenhacker.wordpress.com/posts-deleted-by-quora/

nixtaken 7y ago

The atoms in the distant stars are the same as the atoms here, but they are being shaken around relative to where we are - that is an explanation in terms of space. It relies on the motion of the atoms in the distant star being faster than the speed of light relative to us. The atoms in the distant stars are the same as the atoms here, but they are emitting light at a different time relative to where we are - that is an explanation in terms of time. It relies on destructive interference between the light we emit and the light the distant star emits. The two explanations are geometrically equivalent. They are consistent with the worldview of people like Maxwell, Bjerknes and Hertz. They looked up at the sky and saw stars in jiggling jello. It isn't a bad heuristic. It just went out of fashion.