lifegazer said:
Which part of this is wrong. Tell me and tell them. Stop waffling.
I didn't realize I was. Shame on me. I prefer pancaking much more. Takes less time to cook.
I guess this calls for one of my critically acclaimed analyses, also known as "Proof that Upchurch has no life if he has the time to write a post that long and involved."
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.
Initial claim. Although ackwardly phrased ("...to link to a realization that eventually links too..."?), we are led to believe that with a simple factiod concerning relativity (presumably Special Relativity since he has never mentioned the more complete General Relativity), lifegazer managed to bring together a string of arguments that that "links" "The Mind" as the creator of all perceived existence.
Ignoring, for the moment, the assumptions inherent in the latter part of the claim, I will assume that by "links", lifegazer means that Relativity shows that "The Mind" is the same as "the creator of all perceived existence". Based on past conversations, I will further assume that "The Mind" refers to the collective consciousness lifegazer assumes is universally present and indivisibly whole.
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.
By "essential value", I will assume that lifegazer is referring to measurements of distance and duration.
The first mistake involves the using phrase "as perceived by men" in relation to objective measurements. If one simply wanted to make the case that different people
qualitatively have different perceptions of different distances and durations, it isn't necessary to involve relativity. A simple everyday world example will suffice, say, a family road trip: For the parents, the trip may be a simple 3 hour journey. For the children however, the trip takes
forever, at least 3 years!!
However, Relativity does not take qualitative measurements into account nor is it dependent on human perception (men or women). In fact, the effect has never been noticeably measured in a human being. Further, the effect
has been measured on objects that experienced the effect
without any humans present. The very usage of Special Relativity is inappropriate due to the fact that lifegazer is attempting to apply to an area that is outside it's scope: human perception. As I've stated before, this is much more appropriate for the field of psychology.
In other posts, lifegazer has tried to make the counter argument that (were a clock sent on a relativistic trip) the perception of the humans who measure the clock versus the Earth clocks is somehow sufficent for the "perception" criteria. However, if a human were to discover a clock that did not go on a relativistic trip but he is somehow convinced that it did, is that perception enough to change the reality of the situation to match the human's perception? If so, and later he is convinced otherwise, does it change reality a second time to match the new perception?
This counter argument is inconsistent within itself. If human perception had the property of warping reality, then all first impressions would be necessarily correct. Hallucinations would be reality. Illusions would be fact. That any of these things are shown to not be true shows that reality is not effected by our perceptions but merely effect our perceptions, as do other things like emotions and pre-conceived ideas. (Once again, we're back to psychology rather than physics.)
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.
I'll conceed the scenerio, if not that it proves anything towards lifegazer's argument as that has yet to be seen.
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.
Here, then, is lifegazer's second mistake.
In one sense, it is an error of consistency. By using the term, "in the same period", lifegazer is referring to time in an absolute sense. That is, that there is one period or duration that both twins took the trip in. Then, in the same sentince, lifegazer correctly says (paraphrasing for accuracy) that time isn't measured in an absolute sense. In essence, lifegazer is claiming that the period during which the speace twin took the trip is both absolute and not absolute at the same time, which is logically inconsistant.
In another sense, it is an error of misconception. By using the term, "in the same period", lifegazer demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding concerning the nature of spacetime, specifically that there is a defined period of time in which the two events (the twin leaving and the twin returning) took place. It is perfectly valid and consistent for the duration between those two events to differ and yet no modifications be made to the unit lengths of 1 meter and 1 second. As I've mentioned in an earlier post, such a situation is quite adequetly explained in General Relativity which, of course, is a correction to Special Relativity.
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.
Again, the perception of the duration of a second is matter for psychology, not physics. Likewise for the length of a meter, as time and space are entirely the same thing. In physics, the integrety of the unit "length" is maintained throughout.
Perhaps, this is really the fundamental point where merely a "simple" understanding of Relativity is in sufficent to understand the nature of time and the twin paradox.
Also, the motion of a body does distort the experience of time which that body shall have.
This is only in relation to other frames of reference. For example, right now, on the Earth, we are hurling away from other celestial objects at near light speed. However, this does not distort our local experiences, or even perception I imagine, of time.
Only if another object were to pass the Earth at near light speeds would we considerably notice the effect and even then, it would be the other object that would appear to be effected, not us.
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!!!
This is rather like asking us to contemplate the act of stepping on the accelerator of our car and the whole car begins to move!
Or asking us to turn on a light switch and conteplate that light is given off just for us!!
Relativistic effects are nothing special or unique. It's something that anything can experience, but rarely does in a significant way. As Arthur C. Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indestinguishable from magic."
Think people, for heaven's sake. This alone is a proof that the universe dances to your tune, and not vice versa."
This, then, is your conclusion? Where is the eventual link to The Mind as creator of all perceived existance? What is the chain of logic that leads from what we see is your misperception of spacetime that leads to the abstract concepts of Minds and creators and whatnot?
I've shown the factual errors that you've made but I cannot refute your overall argument because you have not made it! You have a claim at the beginning, but you fail to show how your premise leads to the "eventual conclusion".
I hope I'm done waffling, I'm ready for some pizzaing.
