Lifegazer's special relativity "proof"

Re: Re: Let's just suppose

lifegazer said:

Please consume more omega-oils. They are an aid to intelligence.
...
Is that supposed to be funny in your universe? You sure have a lot of ways to insult people's intelligence, but here's the thing I like about jokes: humor. It's like the keg at the company picnic -- without it what have you got?
 
You guys have a debt to pay life. It's called self-integrity. Would you lie to yourselves to preserve the status-quo of your cosy little worlds? Then sobeit. You are responsible.
 
I'd say we have a bigger responsibility towards intellectual honesty and exploring the world as it is, rather than as we wish it to be. I make it a point to lie to myself and others as little as possible and, if I found I've made an error, I own up to it. I've had to back down from a number of arguments on this board either because I was wrong or I could back it up. That is all I ask of others in return.
 
Re: Re: Re: Let's just suppose

hgc said:
Is that supposed to be funny in your universe? You sure have a lot of ways to insult people's intelligence, but here's the thing I like about jokes: humor. It's like the keg at the company picnic -- without it what have you got?
Listen egghead; that bozo's first post to me was an idiotic assault upon myself and my philosophy, which he doesn't even understand. His other posts have also exhibited complete disrespect and indifference. So spare me the violins. I'm just not interested in the pleas of insincere hypocrites.
 
Upchurch said:
I'd say we have a bigger responsibility towards intellectual honesty and exploring the world as it is, rather than as we wish it to be. I make it a point to lie to myself and others as little as possible and, if I found I've made an error, I own up to it. I've had to back down from a number of arguments on this board either because I was wrong or I could back it up. That is all I ask of others in return.
Speaking of insincerity.

"I only have to understand one small thing about relativity to link to a realisation that eventually links to The Mind as the creator of all perceived existence. And that thing is that the essential value of space and time, as perceived by men, is not absolute. I.e., there is no absolute meaning of time or space.

This is proven by the twin-paradox in that two men can compare experiences of time. One man can experience 10 years whilst the other may experience, say, 20 years, inbetween their present meeting and their previous meeting.
Clearly, when one experiences 10 years to the others 20, in the same period between meetings, then time is clearly not perceived in any absolute sense.
Any rational contemplation of relativity cannot fail to recognise that the second is in a state of perceived flux. I.e., the value of the second is unique to each individual. Same with the meter. And hence, the same with velocity, being meters/second.

Also, the motion of a body does distort the experience of time which that body shall have. Hence, I ask you to contemplate the reality of a situation whereby when you begin to move, the whole universe around you is distorted just for you!!! Think people, for heaven's sake. This alone is a proof that the universe dances to your tune, and not vice versa."

Which part of this is wrong. Tell me and tell them. Stop waffling.
 
lifegazer said:

If, in your awareness, you accelerate and the whole of your perceived universe distorts itself just for you, do you not see that this universe is in your mind alone?


I think the point that I tried to make earlier is still valid, it is an apparent distortion, it is caused by the speed of light being contant. the space ship only compresses in reference to the universe and vis versa, the laws of nature still hold true for either frame of reference.

That is the really difficult part to understand about relativity, the compression or dialation is only between the two frames of reference, not in the frame of reference.

As I said before, it is as though each particle carries and generates it's own three dimensions, those dimensions may distort in reference to each other but they are absolute for each frame of refererence. Seems to be more of a unity in plkuarlity thing.

But now I do undertsand your argument. thanks.

Under what circumstances do you imagine that the whole of space and time, as you perceive it, would be distorted by your actions, except within and by your mind?



It is an apparant distortion caused by the effects of comparing two frames of reference. My space is not distorted by an electron at fermi lab approaching the speed of light. It's frame stays the same and my frame stays the same , what changes is the comparison between the two. Now I will grant you that the electron's mass does seem to increase from our frame of reference, but my space time does not compress. the electron takes a tangential path through space time, producing an apparent distortion.


Take into account the relative differences which exist between you and all men of the universe you have experienced.
Consider the twins again. Both experience different universes in the period inbetween their two meetings. Clearly, there can only be one reality yet here we see evidence of two realities (of spacetime).


Unlike Russ i would say that each particles carries it's own reality, what Russ and Upchurch have tried to tell you is that the space twin has cut through a different angle of the time dimesion than the eath twin.


It is not difficult to comprehend that your mind is responsible for what you see.


Yes I understand that but except for internal stimuli, they are correlated tro the external world.


Everything in awareness is subject to Einstein's laws of relativity. But the key phrase is in awareness. Try discovering the experience of things external to your awareness before you complain that my theory is nonsense. Can't be done of course.


I understand that argument but again maintain that reality behaves as though it exists independant of observation. I can give you directions to a tree that i made a mark upon.


Two different experiences of reality is a clear indication that the observers are having a subjective (mind-generated) experience of reality.

This is why i asked you about cultural anthropology, I would say that the resolution to the time paradox is that the space twin took and angle tangential to the earth twin through the time dimensions. Not a paralel line , but a curved one.


I strive for unity, which equates to the integration of cultures into one cosmopolitan culture, where diversity of expression reigns.

Ook, that sounds a lot like cultural imperialism, but hey you and the buddha have the same goal, differnet paths but same out come.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's just suppose

Oh, someone doesn't understand your philosophy? I can help. I've underlined the relevant parts below...
lifegazer said:

Listen egghead; that bozo's first post to me was an idiotic assault upon myself and my philosophy, which he doesn't even understand. His other posts have also exhibited complete disrespect and indifference. So spare me the violins. I'm just not interested in the pleas of insincere hypocrites.
No one is offended. Perhaps bemused that you think argument by insult is effective.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Come on, youze guys!

Upchurch said:
It's outside my field so, fair enough. I retract.

continue sidetrack, I think -thal refers more to a valley somewhere along the rhine
 
Re: Let's just suppose

sackett said:
for a minute that what Master Slight Dazer says is true: everything is a Big Giant Head. So what? Quite aside from being undemonstrable, it's nothing but the old mind-of-god assertion, and oh man but it's BORING.

The whole notion was expressed much more poetically a long time ago in the Hindu conception of the Dream of Brahm.

Actually, he has prestented many things that could be proven:

a) Although the effects of realitivity are fact, the causes for those effects are not what we think they are. They are instead the result of us all being in little seperate universes. Thus, maxwells equations are wrong and should be thrown out. Also, the speed of light is not a constant.

b) Conciousness and concious action are caused by the mind. Therefore, we should be able to find through neuroscience and physics a previously unknown effect on neuron behavior. A generation of electrical stimuli coming from "nowhere", the mind. Whats interesting here is that this would also disproves newton's "for every action, there is a reaction" because although the mind would be exerting a field or force on neurons in the mind, what would be exerted back to the mind.

c) The universe has 4 space dimensions. Although we are familiar with the three spacial dimensions, and the likely shape of the universe as the surface of a hypersphere. Lifegazer takes this a step further, and actualy makes the universe a 4 dimensional hypersphere bounded by the "mind", therefore, if lifegazer's "theory" is correct, we are in a thin layer of a 4 dimensional space surrounded on both sides by a mind.

heh, I just realized something point C means that the mind is divided in half. one half on the inside of the hypersphere, and one half on the outside.
 
lifegazer said:

Speaking of insincerity.

"I only have to understand one small thing about relativity to link to a realisation that eventually links to The Mind as the creator of all perceived existence. And that thing is that the essential value of space and time, as perceived by men, is not absolute. I.e., there is no absolute meaning of time or space.

This is proven by the twin-paradox in that two men can compare experiences of time. One man can experience 10 years whilst the other may experience, say, 20 years, inbetween their present meeting and their previous meeting.
Clearly, when one experiences 10 years to the others 20, in the same period between meetings, then time is clearly not perceived in any absolute sense.
Any rational contemplation of relativity cannot fail to recognise that the second is in a state of perceived flux. I.e., the value of the second is unique to each individual. Same with the meter. And hence, the same with velocity, being meters/second.

Also, the motion of a body does distort the experience of time which that body shall have. Hence, I ask you to contemplate the reality of a situation whereby when you begin to move, the whole universe around you is distorted just for you!!! Think people, for heaven's sake. This alone is a proof that the universe dances to your tune, and not vice versa."

Which part of this is wrong. Tell me and tell them. Stop waffling.

I think that you have been given the explanation and will be given many more, you can believe what you like!
Part One
Imagine that the twins are walking across a floor. One twin can accelerate to the speed of light (well .9999999), but this floor does not represent the actual paths taken by the wtins but instead is a representation of the twins journey through time.
If we say that they both start in the same direction that will be sufficient (again this is a meta room) prior to the acceleration, for each step the earth twin takes, the space twin takes a similar step. they experience an equal time. But as the space twin accelerates something happens, the space twin still takes a step for each step that the earth twin takes but they are shorter steps.
Part Two:
Imagine now that we have the same situation except that the room will now have a way of representing space and time both. the space twin will say goodbye to the earth twin and hello when they start and finish thier journey.
This represents that paradox , the twins both start at the same point and end at the same point, but the space twin will arrive at the second point in time not having traversed an eqaul amount in the time dimension.

AAARRGGHH! Confusion reigns.

To make it work the floor of the room has to be come a cylinder or a sphere. The earth twin will walk on the surface of the floor, which still looks flat to him. The space twin will still walk on the surface of the floor which still looks flat to him.

AAAARRRGH! Confusion two, david zero.

The cool thing is that actualy the space twin takes a shorter path through time in relation ship to the eartyh twin. they both walk on the floor it looks flat to each of them, but when we compare the two flors, from a third frame of reference we will see that the floors are actualy curved and that when the space twin accelerates the curvature of his floor is less than the curvature of the floor of the earth twin.

So in essence the space twin cuts inside the curved floor of his twin and takes a shorter path , but still ends up on the same spot on the floor of the meta room after they are done accelerating. But from the non existant absolute frame of reference the space twin has cut a path through the space time sphere of the earth twin. They both start and end at the same point on the earth twins floor, but because of the lesser curvature of the space twins relative floor, he actualy traverses less distance through time, but arrives at the same point in spacetime as the aerth twin.

AAARRGGHH. Confusion set and match!
 
lifegazer said:

If, in your awareness, you accelerate and the whole of your perceived universe distorts itself just for you, do you not see that this universe is in your mind alone?

again, how is this any different from rotating. The entire universe distorts in a rotatation around you. Explain the difference. Is it because the former also involves the time dimension?


Under what circumstances do you imagine that the whole of space and time, as you perceive it, would be distorted by your actions, except within and by your mind?

Again, it is not truly a distortion, nothing about space and time has changed, just your direction of travel through space and time has changed.


Take into account the relative differences which exist between you and all men of the universe you have experienced.
Consider the twins again. Both experience different universes in the period inbetween their two meetings. Clearly, there can only be one reality yet here we see evidence of two realities (of spacetime).
It is not difficult to comprehend that your mind is responsible for what you see.

You are right, it is easy to not try to understand the physical world and just say that a god made the volcano blow up. That is the easy way out. I'm so proud of you, taking the easy way out, and then proclaiming yourself a genius above all other men (and speaking down to those who disagree).

Special relativity however is difficult to comprehend. The concept are very simple, but reconciling them with out day to day experiences is difficult. You have not bothered to take the time to understand special relativity.


Everything in awareness is subject to Einstein's laws of relativity. But the key phrase is in awareness. Try discovering the experience of things external to your awareness before you complain that my theory is nonsense. Can't be done of course.

how about someone elses awareness. Clearly, all the awarenesses of all the people in the world cannot be contained in my own little universe.


Two different experiences of reality is a clear indication that the observers are having a subjective (mind-generated) experience of reality.

hahahah, really? Just like If I stand over here, and you stand over there? We are in two different positions in the same universe.


I strive for unity, which equates to the integration of cultures into one cosmopolitan culture, where diversity of expression reigns.

ya, and we don't strive for unity? The Mind doesn't apear to be about unity anyway. Why, with all the viruses, genetic diseases, etc, I'm not sure what the mind is all about.
 
lifegazer said:

And? I have no dispute with Einstein's laws or equations. In fact, my philosophy rests upon the complete validity of Einstein's works. Do you have any idea of what it is that I'm trying to say or upon what I found these conclusions?

The equations that einstein wrote out are not the basis for his law of relativity, they are the result. You take the result, but ignore the reason. You disagree 100% with einstein's reasoning. You make up completely different reasoning for these results (ie, we are all in different universes). Why? because you say there are no reasons for einstein's results. Why? because you don't bother to take the time to comprehend special relativity, or is just because you want to believe you are special.


Are you reading what I say: "... the essential value of space and time, as perceived by men, is not absolute.". [first paragraph, yesterday's post]

but not for particles, right?


Make your mind up. You just agreed that the value of time and space is not absolute.
Anyway, how do you propose that two men can have different experiences of time or space unless the perceived values of their space and time could flux?

Sorry, bit of a miswording there, what I meant to express was that space and time are interchangeable. Again, right now, I'm having a different "experience" than you, but it has nothing to do with space and time being in "flux". If you want to view space as three space dimensions, and one completely seperate time dimension, surely then, there is a problem. However, this is not the way reality is. There are three space dimensions and one time dimension that are all part of one coheshive reality. Once you view relativistic effects in this way, there are *no* distortions.

Everything is the universe has a different point of view, not a different reality. Prove otherwise.


It's time to engage a little reason Russ. I'm not going to make many more posts in this thread, repeating obvious conclusions from obvious facts. If you don't believe me, then sobeit.

You have made no such conclusions. If they were obvious conclusions on odvious facts, why can you not answer my simple questions? Why do you just repeat yourself rather than argue rationally?


There is no such thing as a paradox Russ. There is only ignorance.

Like I said, Wow, you've been basing your whole belief structure (at least partially) on the twin paradox being unresolveable. Who is the true ignorant one? I understand each of the points you are making, and could argue them for you, and yet you don't even understand special relativity (or much less, general relativity).


Argument from amazement does not suffice to discredit the argument presented.

I'm just asking you to gain a little retrospect


By sheer stubbornness. In the end, everyone will agree with me just to shut me up. :p

Uh-huh, no, really, what do you have hiding up your sleve in order to convince people.
 
Re: Re: Come on, youze guys!

lifegazer said:

Well you're obviously a bit thick, as you infer yourself. So where does the audacity come from to judge a philosophy that is obviously over your head?

hooray, lets insult people some more! You are all lost souls and will be damned when the truth of the great and powerfull mind comes out! Wheee!!!! This is fun and makes me feel great!

Anywho, seems a bit silly to base a philosophy on a scientific theory (special realitivity) that is way over your head.


You are without doubt a descendent of a neanderthal. I pity you not because you are stupid - an accident of birth that could happen to any man - but because you have the audacity to be a judge of rationale you clearly cannot comprehend. Your soul is lost already. You are a victim of society's crime and that is an awful shame.

more insults!!! Whee!!!!!! I feel so superior now!!!! hooray!!!!

BTW, Where does the concept of salvation come in?
 
lifegazer said:

What do you mean by what do I mean?
Aint word games a bitch?
Are you so desparate that this is what you revert to?

"Meaning" is not a property of space that anyone is familiar with. You'll have to be more specific. Its like If I asked you how heavy a thought was. "Mass" is not a property of thought that anyone is familiar with.


"Imagine"?
Look, your whole perception of existence dances to your actions and is unique for you in comparison to all others. If you cannot see what this means then you have a lower IQ than I gave you credit for.

Really? I coulda sworn that the actions of others have a very definate effect on my existence. Also, the effect of giant metorites could have a huge effect on my existence. And for some, who have had serious brain damage, they can have *no* effect on their existence, they only get to watch. (This also happens to some people temporarily, its called sleep paralasys)

Oh, btw, I'm bored, lets insult people some more. Yehaaaa!! Woo woo!!!!! hahaha!!!!!


Either that or you have decided that the truth of God must not be unveiled for your own sake or for the sake of humanity as a whole. Have you made this decision?

Has he in anyway tried to silence you? Has upchurch done anything but rationally discuss? Has he ever even insulted you?
 
lifegazer said:

Actually, it is thal. But let's not reduce this to a spelling test, okay.
Call me what you want dear. You've already called me a loon, remember?
But does calling me names reduce a philosophy to its knees? I think not.

You sure like to use the technique. Does it advance your philosophy, or just make you feel more superior?
 
lifegazer said:

Pardon me... maybe that word holds more offense in your nation. I don't look upon it as a swear-word.

He's either talking about a female dog, or asking you to define your terms better.


Then get me banned. It will surely save the truth from coming out.

so why so abrasive lifegazer? Oh, right, because being banned makes you feel like people knew you were right, but could not accept the truth. If a forum bans you, they've all agreed in their hearts that you are right.


I simply mean that the parameters of time and space are in flux and do distort to give a variable and unique meaning for each individual. That is why two people can have differing views of the same period of time - one twin can say 10 years have passed whilst the other says, "nay, 20!".

Really? If I drive to the store one way, and another person drives to the store another way, we have both crossed different regions of space and different distances, yet have arrived at the same point. Does this mean that space distored? That we both had our own unique universe? No, we simply took different paths through space. The same true for differing paths through spacetime.


I never said that existence was yours alone, as this seems to imply. I said that your individual perception of existence was a unique experience and is different to all others.

really? So we all have our own little universes, and so we all experience things differently, thus explaining realitivity.

Now, I must ask you this, and its a very important, but simple question, please respond. Does each particle also experience its own universe? (ie, when we speed a particle to near the speed of light in an accelerator)
 
lifegazer said:

You know I'm talking, specifically, about the parameters of space and time.

You have failed to explain whats so special about a different point of view in the time dimension as apposed to a different POV in the space dimension
 
lifegazer said:
Of course I'm not the first to think that a God exists, or indeed that God is everything.
But I'm pretty sure that my philosophy - leading to this conclusion - is largely original.

so what makes your definition of god correct, and all other definitions of god incorrect and logically inconsistent?
 
Re: Re: Let's just suppose

lifegazer said:

Please consume more omega-oils. They are an aid to intelligence.

If everyone consumes omega-oils, does the mind become more intelligent? Or does it just effect our reception of the mind's signal? Are you an excellent antena lifegazer?


You ask what if I am right. Well if I am right then everybody is an expression of God's own being, which leads to some pretty profound conclusions for humanity as a whole.
Please try to think about what you post because you're making a mug of yourself.

Was any proof presented? Nay. And did I claim to be a poet? Nay.

I listed above the consequences, non of which you have proven (and in fact, evidence shows the opposite)
 

Back
Top Bottom