• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Lifegazer's special relativity "proof"

RussDill

Philosopher
Joined
Oct 16, 2003
Messages
5,426
Location
Charleston
I think many of us have been wondering what lifegazer could possibly have that he considers proof, especially when it comes to special relativity. Wait no more. Due to the magic of google and cut and paste (I'm not the first, lifegazer has cut and pasted this across many forums and been banned from at least two) I bring you, lifegazer's iron clad proof!

First, his assumptions/knowledge about relativity:

Relativity
So; what have I got to go on? What am I going to discuss?
Well, specifically, I want to mould my argument around these relevant facts about observation:-
1) All observers will see oncoming light at a constant velocity - 'c' - regardless of their own velocity, and regardless of the direction from which they measure light's velocity. Because of this, we declare light-speed to be 'absolute' (universal).
2) The motion of the observer will affect the actual value of that observer's time and spatial experience. I.e., when an observer accelerates, he/she inadvertently alters the consistency of his/her time & space in relation to the experience of other observers. Hence, motion alters the value of time and space.
3) However, even though time & space are altered by motion, the observer will not notice anything different. His experiences will seem 'normal'.

and I'll add a little more of what lifegazer thinks of relativity:

However; at the heart of the mathematics of Relativity, there is an absolute-dependence on '1 second', and '1 meter', as being absolute-parameters of existence for all beings. How can there be a comparative age-difference between those "twins", for example, unless our mathematics rely on each observer to experience '1 second' and '1 meter', in an absolute-sense? **Hence the experience of '1 second' and '1 meter', is a constant, for all observers.** This may not seem like an axiom stated by Einstein - and it probably isn't - but it will be highly-relevant to what I want to say, soon. So if you disagree with it, I'd like to know why. Anyone.

and more:

If I accelerate through space, there must be a means (a reference) for knowing my own velocity at any given moment, and to know that I am actually accelerating. I'm not sure what this is (after reading your comments); but unless this is true, what price our mathematics of motion/relativity? What price 'motion'?

and more:

The point I wanted to make here is evident in the well-known twin-paradox. The twin who accelerates through space causes his experience of time & space to be relatively-different to the time & space he would be experiencing on Earth. The age-comparison with his twin, afterwards, is evidence to support the fact that the twin's acceleration has slowed down his own aging process - slowed down time for himself, relatively to his previous circumstance - since he is now relatively younger than his brother. Once back on Earth, he ages exactly like his brother. This shows that his own deceleration has again altered the 'substance' (for lack of a better word) of his own time and space. His brother now ages at the same rate as himself. Thus, his own velocity is responsible for how he ages, relatively, to everything else. Consequently, his own velocity/motion through space is the 'cause' of how he actually experiences his space & time.

and now, the proof:

We know that light's particular velocity through a specific medium, is a constant (as observed by everyone). We also know that the velocity/motion of the observer does not affect this. But we also know that the velocity/motion of the observer does affect the qualitative value of '1 second' and '1 meter', in comparison to other observers (as with the twin-paradox, for example) - even though the individual experience of these parameters seems constant (i.e., the experience of '1 second' and '1 meter' is a constant, for everyone).
Thus, I am now in a position to extend reason to this knowledge, to glean hitherto unrealised facts about the 'reality' in which this Relativity-scenario is occuring.

'Velocity' is a parameter of motion derived from distance and time.
Yet, as we have seen with those infamous paradox-twins, for example, there is a qualitative difference between everybody's experience of time and space, even though that difference is not noticed until the space-twin comes back to Earth and sees that his brother has aged faster than him.
Clearly, the space-twin's acceleration through space has tangibly affected his own body, and the other bodies which he observes whilst he is accelerating. His acceleration has kept him relatively-young, compared to his brother. Not just mathematically, but physically, we must assume. For if both bodies age at the same rate, then in what sense can we say that the minds have not?
The conclusion of this seems obvious to me: When an observer accelerates through space & time, he tangibly affects the space & time he can observe. So, significantly; it becomes apparent that the reality which all of us see (and feel) is unique to each individual. Just as significantly, the reality each individual observes is subject to a universal-distortion of space-time in accordance with the observer’s own velocity through the ‘things’ which he/she observes. Our willed-motion affects the space-time of our very own existences.
We are all seeing & feeling individual ‘realities’. The space-twin had a completely different reality to his own brother. So in what sense can we say that the brothers share the same reality? What’s certain, is that neither of them have shared the same 4-dimensional universe. Each mind embraces its own-unique vision of space-time. This means that each mind is the underlying-cause of the reality it is seeing. It alone sees what it sees. And its actions control how its space-time-universe shall be observed.
So let’s clear-up what this means. Each mind sees a unique-reality. When the mind thinks that it is moving within this reality, the value/consistency/substance of that individual’s space-time is universally-distorted (universally, in the context that everything which he perceives of must also be acting in accordance with his perceptions). His actions have affected the whole of his universe!! And your actions, yours! Given 6 billion extremely-fast rockets (and the ability to fly them, safely), we could create 6 billion very diverse-universes! Now that would confuse Historians. They’d all be different realities revolving around a common source. And that common source is Mind.

Clearly, the Mind embraces the reality it is also ‘seeing’, for it is clear that the perceived-motion (within that mind) is affecting everything which it can actually see. Thus, “Everything is within the Mind”. And everything is caused to act, by that Mind.
Here, in the most significant post I think I’ve ever made, I believe that I have showed the reader that everything we perceive of is happening within, and controlled by, and thus therefore created by, the Mind.
Yet; since all minds are observing a fundamentally singular-universe, with singular-laws, I am also in a position to conclude that all minds are centred within One Mind… and that each unique perspective is created by; observed by; and judge by, itself.
Hence true reality is Mind, and the things which it perceives of are really only as real as the dream seems to be for each individual. What I mean by “each individual”, is what the Mind thinks it is, in relation to the things that it sees. Rather than in relation to everything… the whole of itself.


anywho, its a physics forum, so, they hit him pretty hard:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/548-1.html

His arguments degenerate further and further until he actually states that since the twin on the earth see the constellations rotate once every year, the twin in the spaceship will see them rotate once every two months and then proceeds to claim:

... Well; not really. What's really happened, and what can only have happened, is that the space-twin's mind's perception of space & time has become warped. His mind is responsible for the distortion.

Lifegazer, the statement above proves quite rightly that you do not understand special relativity.
 
like wow. Thank you for collating all that. I am reminded of JediKnight's discussion of gravity and Franko on relativity. We sure collect some interesting specimens.
 
I'm just trying to figure out what makes lifegazer believe what he does. Its not like homepathy, or remote viewing where there is a supposed benefit in believing in such clearly irrational things. lifegazer's belief/philosophy has no basis and no benefit, yet for some reason, he believes in his random, unsupported musings so strongly. I really don't think lifegazer can straight out answer this question except with some answer involving the "Mind". Virtually *all* of his points have been acurately and correctly disputed on other boards, and on this one, yet he consistently reuses those points as if saying them more will make them true.
 
RussDill said:
I tried to skim my way through that, but I only got about a third of the way down before I started feeling sympathy pains from the other posters beating their heads against the wall of lifegazer's vice-like closed mind.

The first and biggest flaw I saw in lifegazer's basic assumptions is that it requires a mind (or consciousness, if you will) moving at relativistic speeds to experience relativistic effects. The fact of the matter is, some of the first experiments that directly demonstrated time dialation where orbiting atomic clocks, which have no minds that I am aware of.

I'm now expecting lifegazer to explain that the mind that observed the relativistic effects of the clock is sufficent to warp reality. To which, I will point out that his argument is entirely dependent that there be a mind on the relativistic trip for the "warping of reality" to occur. Then, I imagine, he'll get indignent that I'm not addressing his argument but attacking him personally.

It feels so much better to just cut to the chase, doesn't it? Now I don't have to sit through all that.
 
Re: Re: Lifegazer's special relativity "proof"

Upchurch said:
I tried to skim my way through that, but I only got about a third of the way down before I started feeling sympathy pains from the other posters beating their heads against the wall of lifegazer's vice-like closed mind.

I chose to skip to the end, where the good stuff is.
 
RussDill said:
Lifegazer, the statement above proves quite rightly that you do not understand special relativity.
That's that then. Thanks Russ... saved me lots of effort.
 
PhysicsForums.com, looks like fun, I'll think about joining it sometime...
 
You can rarely cut and paste on the internet because the original data remains..
 
I'm just trying to figure out what makes lifegazer believe what he does. Its not like homepathy, or remote viewing where there is a supposed benefit in believing in such clearly irrational things. lifegazer's belief/philosophy has no basis and no benefit, yet for some reason, he believes in his random, unsupported musings so strongly
Another fine example of the perils of drug abuse.
 
Upchurch said:
Actually, this is when your earnest effort should begin.
There's no credibility in this thread. And definitely no sincerity. I will not be participating. I leave you free to hang me... again.
 
lifegazer said:

There's no credibility in this thread. And definitely no sincerity. I will not be participating. I leave you free to hang me... again.
You're one to talk about credibility.

My criticism of your argument was sincere. The only one hanging you ...again... is you by arguing from ignorance rather than taking the time to learn about these subjects.

But feel free to feel martyred, persecuted, and self-righteous.



...btw, you don't happen to be Christian, do you?
 
Upchurch said:
My criticism of your argument was sincere.
I haven't presented an argument.
The only one hanging you ...again... is you by arguing from ignorance rather than taking the time to learn about these subjects.
Spare me the same boring responses.
...btw, you don't happen to be Christian, do you?
Nope.
 
lifegazer said:

What is it you would like me to defend?
there really is nothing for you to defend. As I said in an earlier post,
The first and biggest flaw I saw in lifegazer's basic assumptions is that it requires a mind (or consciousness, if you will) moving at relativistic speeds to experience relativistic effects. The fact of the matter is, some of the first experiments that directly demonstrated time dialation where orbiting atomic clocks, which have no minds that I am aware of.
Unless you redo your argument in someway where it doesn't require a mind going on the trip in order for you conclusion to hold, you don't have anything to defend.
 
Upchurch said:
there really is nothing for you to defend. As I said in an earlier post,Unless you redo your argument in someway where it doesn't require a mind going on the trip in order for you conclusion to hold, you don't have anything to defend.
The laws of physics hold true for awareness. If those clocks hadn't have been affected, then the laws would be rubbish, wouldn't they? They don't just apply to human-beings but to everything within awareness.
 
Originally posted by Lifegazer

Each mind embraces its own-unique vision of space-time. This means that each mind is the underlying-cause of the reality it is seeing. It alone sees what it sees. And its actions control how its space-time-universe shall be observed.
So, if both twins stay home and they send a clock instead, how does the clock (which has no mind) embrace its own unique vision of space-time?

That the effect occurs despite the lack of a mind being involved in any way shows that the effect is not a result of the mind but a consequence of some other mechanism.
 

Back
Top Bottom