Consciousness, the border of the universe..

Since the mind and life institute is trying to explain more about science and spiritualism I would like to tell you my idea about consciousness. The thing is that men is looking in the wrong direction with A. Einsteins relativity theory. Not light itself is moving, we are moving true time and space with the speed of light. Light is only an energy leaving his source as a trail.

At the speed of light there is no time. So nothing can move.
From the point of view from a person each distance is a possibility into the future. While we travel true time we are able to see all options what the light is showing us.

To prove my idea I wrote the following text...

I can prove that the relativity theory of Einstein is wrong. The good point is that I can make this understandable for many people in a very simple way. The issue I try to prove with my idea is that our own consciousness is the absolute border of the universe. To prove this I have to prove that the speed of light is not 300.000km/sec but actually zero. I know that this sounds completely strange but read on and I will try to explain you in a short way how I think to prove this.

The first thing to know is that there is no time at light speed. How can something move if there is no time to move? Looking to the twin paradox a traveler true space leaves the earth and comes back and is only 1 second older. The person on Earth is than for example 2 years older.

If the traveler true space only became one second older, he never could make a longer trip than 300.000km. He had only 1sec to travel! The person on earth was traveling in the same "period" at least 30km/sec, because that is the speed of earth around the sun. Well, 2 years x 30km/sec is a lot more than 300.000km.

Off course I have to explain you a lot more than this, I just hope that I can open some eyes of the scientists working with this theory. If the theory is relative, you also should put it upside down. If light moves with 300.000km/sec one way, we are moving with the same speed the other way. Notice that we measure seconds, not the photon. You need time to move.

I would like to tell you a lot more about the way it is possible that we can "see" things if light is not moving, also this is not to difficult to understand. From the point of view from the individual all other positions are possibility's in the future. The person travels true time ( to tomorrow and so on..) while light leaves a trail into the past from the point of view where it comes from.

I hope that you understand my idea what I would like to show to the people. The idea of a multiversum is so a lot closer to mankind ( everyone is the middle of his own universe) ans consciousness is the border of the universe. We can chose our own future. All is one..

Einstiens Theory of relativity states that the speed of light is the same whatever speed you yourself are going, therefore it is not possible to set a frame of reference at the speed of that photon, because it will always be travelling at 3x10^8 m/s

the speed of light varys depending on gravity and presence of molecules, it only travels at the same speed in space

EDIT: and time only appears to stop for the photon travelling at light speed. Thus the light would experience an infinite amount of time before it reaches its destination. So really the axiom is a little flawed because it assumes an infinity, since light does not always travel at the same speed it doesnt take an infinite amount of time to reach its destination.

Einstiens Theory of relativity states that the speed of light is the same whatever speed you yourself are going, therefore it is not possible to set a frame of reference at the speed of that photon, because it will always be travelling at 3x10^8 m/s

Why don't we say the speed of time is 1sec/300.000km?

Wait, if I leave Earth at the speed of light, and am travelling for one second, doesn't that mean I am gone for one second?  Although I travel at light speed, I may see more, but as far as time goes, I have only been travelling for one second, regardless of where the observer is.

To me, I may be able to 'see' light as individual photons, but I could not see the future.  If I travel faster than the speed of light and look over my shoulder, the light 'from the past' will be behind me, and I will be able to see the past, but not the future.  Nor will I be able to interact with the past, as by the time I got to where the light is reflecting off the planet, I would be in the future.

There's nothing magic or mysterious about relativity.  Among other things, it's based on the idea that fundamentally you've got to worry about the issues that arise when you try to quantify time and space.

It starts with the assumption that anybody's idea of time is as good as anybody else's, provided they're not accelerating.  So if I've got a really precise watch, and I measure a time interval of ten seconds between two events, then those two events really are ten seconds apart.  However, I have no guarantee that other observers will make the same measurements.

The next basic assumption is that light travels the same speed in a vacuum, no matter what.  That is, no matter how fast you (the viewer) are moving, and no matter how fast the light source is moving.  The view is supported by the theory of electromagnetism.

Before I go on I'd like to point out that you're trying to show that relativity is internally inconsistent -- that is, that it says two things which can't both be true.  In other words, you aren't claiming that relativity disagrees with the way the universe really is.

Getting back, this is where your idea breaks down.  You're talking about what happens at the speed of light.  But if I get in a rocket which then flies away from the Earth at the speed of light, then according to relativity, I am not moving at all -- I am perfectly still, and the Earth is flying away from me at the speed of light.  Since I'm perfectly still, I don't have to worry about time ceasing to exist or anything like that.

Along the same lines, if the travelling twin became one second older, what that means is that a clock that he carried with him ticked one second.  However, the clocks that sayed behind on Earth would have ticked much more than that, so he could have moved quite a good distance away in two years (much more than 300,000 km).

Anyway, you need to correct your understanding of relativity if you want to really set up a solid case against it.