Lifegazer's special relativity "proof"

[Yahweh]

We give bodies the actual value of their velocity. The velocity of all universal bodies is given to them by us, wrt our stationary position upon the Earth.

My point is that velocity is a concept defined by human judgement, with values given to bodies wrt our scale of judgement. If I say, for example, that a body in space has a velocity of 10,000 m/s, then that value is, significantly, given to that body wrt a scale devised from my relationship with the earth.

The value of a body's velocity should be independent of our awareness wrt the Earth. In fact, it truly is if it exists externally to us.

Good, you've isolated the defintion of "velocity" and figured its a human defined concept.

Now, you need to understand the relationship between measuring the velocity of an object and the frame-of-reference of an object. Without a frame of reference, the movement of the object cannot be described.

Einstein's equations work for values which we pump into them, and which are judged from our subjective perspective. Clearly, the equations mirror our own awareness of existence and have little to say of things external to our awareness.

Einstein's equations and science describe the external world. The bridge between the first person nature of observation and the 3rd person nature of reality is science. It is necessary to use concepts (such as velocity, measurements, etc.) to describe reality in terms that humans can understand.

I think this is significant. And it's only one of the points I want to raise. You guys were premature in cracking-open the bubbly.

Its never too early to have a Capri Sun...

 

[RussDill]

We give bodies the actual value of their velocity. The velocity of all universal bodies is given to them by us, wrt our stationary position upon the Earth.

No body has an "actual" velocity, galilean and special relativity allow each observer to calculate a different velocity for every body. To get a velocity, you must first define what inertial frame of reference you want to describe that velocity against, and then, because of special relativity, you must define which reference frame to define that velocity from.

We give no quality to any moving body. The body has kinetic (and relativistic) energy in relation to other bodies regardless of what we do.

The velocity of any body in relation to the earth is only meaningful in the earth's inertial reference frame, it says nothing of other reference frames.

My point is that velocity is a concept defined by human judgement, with values given to bodies wrt our scale of judgement. If I say, for example, that a body in space has a velocity of 10,000 m/s, then that value is, significantly, given to that body wrt a scale devised from my relationship with the earth.

Velocity is a human description of a physical process. Also, our scale of judgement really has no bearing, we can use any scale or inertial frame of reference you like, it doesn't matter.

The value of a body's velocity should be independent of our awareness wrt the Earth. In fact, it truly is if it exists externally to us.

Score one for lifegazer, the velocity of a body is independent of our awareness with respect to the earth. This is one of the important points of galilean and special relativity, I think you failed to understand either before you started agreeing with them, because clearly, you only agree with little parts of them.

Einstein's equations work for values which we pump into them, and which are judged from our subjective perspective.

The equations don't do any actual work, they simply model what we expect to see in the external world.

Clearly, the equations mirror our own awareness of existence and have little to say of things external to our awareness.

The equations which model relativistic effects are within our awareness and model processes that are external to our awareness. You seem to have backwards the purpose of physics.

Maybe if you'd actually study physics, you'd understand the significance of these theories, equations, and constructs. Do you have any clue the power that the lone wave equation for the electron has in describing complex chemical properties?

I think this is significant. And it's only one of the points I want to raise. You guys were premature in cracking-open the bubbly.

You always think your misinterpretations of physics are significant. BTW, you agreement or disagreement with fact have nothing to do with my celebratory activities, as evidenced by my vegas trip. I'm sure Upchurch would agree, but he's probably still hung over from last night (j/k)

 

[RussDill]

Its never too early to have a Capri Sun...

The ivory tower has a Capri Sun stash too? Man, the perks just keep adding up! Pass one over here

 

[lifegazer]

Good, you've isolated the defintion of "velocity" and figured its a human defined concept.

A human concept not just in terms of language, but in terms of the numerical-values [of velocity] assigned to those bodies that are in motion as perceived within human awareness.

Now, you need to understand the relationship between measuring the velocity of an object and the frame-of-reference of an object. Without a frame of reference, the movement of the object cannot be described.

Sure. But I discussed this myself. The scale of velocity begins with zero, and represents our stationary relationship with the earth. Then, low-value velocities are judged with regards the motion of bodies wrt the Earth. From this, every other velocity known to mankind has been assigned to the heavens.

Einstein's equations and science describe the external world.

Are you saying that Einstein's equations prove the existence of an external (to awareness) reality? I challenge anybody to support this assertion with reason. In fact, this was going to be one of my next few points: nothing Andonyx or anybody else here has said has proven the existence of an external reality.

I shall label this point 2 of a summary I shall present at a later date. It's highly significant to this discussion..
Do not forget that the whole purpose of this debate is really to discuss the reality behind everything. This is a philosophical debate, and not one merely of physics.

The bridge between the first person nature of observation and the 3rd person nature of reality is science. It is necessary to use concepts (such as velocity, measurements, etc.) to describe reality in terms that humans can understand.

Of course. The only way we can define things within our awareness is to assign labels and values to those things. But I contend that those labels and values exist purely as a figment of human awareness. Clearly, the actual velocity of a body external to the mind has no relation to the value we assign to it wrt our stationary position upon the Earth. If that body has a velocity, the value of that velocity is not what we say it is. Not if that body exists beyond our awareness of it, anyway.

I contend that the equations of relativity 'work' for the values we pump into them, because the equations of relativity mirror the order of events occuring within inner-awareness. I.e., the equations of relativity tell us nothing about an external reality. Nothing at all.
In fact, the equations of relativity relate to the motions of bodies within the awareness of an observer.

Does anybody have any reasonable comments to make about this before I move on to other substantial points?

 

[lifegazer]

No body has an "actual" velocity

Really? So you admit that the motion of bodies is a figment of human awareness?

galilean and special relativity allow each observer to calculate a different velocity for every body.

We know this. But if bodies exist that are in motion beyond our awareness of them, then those bodies must have a velocity with a numerical-value that is independent of the values we assign to them. Hence, the equations of relativity are proven to be equations which relate to subjective awareness of events (the values we pump into those equations), and have no bearing on any (supposed) external reality.
Gettit?

The velocity of any body in relation to the earth is only meaningful in the earth's inertial reference frame, it says nothing of other reference frames.

Give me an example. I'm not sure what you mean.

The equations don't do any actual work, they simply model what we expect to see in the external world.

The equations are a mirror of existential behaviour, as perceived within inner-awareness. The equations themselves are a proof that physics is observing internal reality, and not an external reality.

Do you have any clue the power that the lone wave equation for the electron has in describing complex chemical properties?

QM is another issue. I will be discussing it at some point in the future.

You always think your misinterpretations of physics are significant. BTW, you agreement or disagreement with fact have nothing to do with my celebratory activities, as evidenced by my vegas trip. I'm sure Upchurch would agree, but he's probably still hung over from last night (j/k)

Did you win any money?

 

[Wudang]

Sure. But I discussed this myself. The scale of velocity begins with zero, and represents our stationary relationship with the earth. Then, low-value velocities are judged with regards the motion of bodies wrt the Earth. From this, every other velocity known to mankind has been assigned to the heavens.

But,as has been repeatedly, said: this is exactly the sort of mistake that shows you completely fail to understand velocity, never mind frames of reference. You remind me to some extent of Latour's attempts to treat relativity as a "text". You said elsewhere you were reading "Einsteins book". I hope you are reading some kind of introduction to science with it.
"I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question -such as, What do you mean by mass, or accceleration,which is the scientific equivalent of saying, Can.you read? - not more than one in ten of the highly educated would have felt that I was speaking the same language. So the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their neolithic ancestors would have had." C.P.Snow

 

[Zero]

I swear, I didn't intentionally follow Lifegazer here...but this just cracks me up!!

The only think I can figure is that he simply doesn't want to understand modern physics. I know from bitter experience that he has been given the relevant information, and he still insists on...well, whatever it is that he insists on, which doesn't make a lot of sense, and doesn't match the experimental results.

Good times though, right?

 

[Upchurch]

I swear, I didn't intentionally follow Lifegazer here...but this just cracks me up!!

Where ever you knew him from, did he have persecution and messiah complexes there too?

 

[lifegazer]

I swear, I didn't intentionally follow Lifegazer here...but this just cracks me up!!

The only think I can figure is that he simply doesn't want to understand modern physics. I know from bitter experience that he has been given the relevant information, and he still insists on...well, whatever it is that he insists on, which doesn't make a lot of sense, and doesn't match the experimental results.

Good times though, right?

Hello Zero.
Why don't you first introduce yourself as a staunch materialist. Why don't you then introduce yourself as somebody who has limited knowledge of physics but who also abhors philosophy and reasoning beyond what science says about reality. A favourite phrase of yours comes to mind: "Navel gazing is a complete waste of time.".
Nice to see you again Zero, for old time's sake. But if you want to discredit my philosophy then address that philosophy.

 

[lifegazer]

Where ever you knew him from, did he have persecution and messiah complexes there too?

Upchurch, do you have an opinion on my recent posts, or not? I'm waiting before proceeding.

 

[Upchurch]

But if you want to discredit my philosophy...

Wouldn't that be a tad pointless since your philosophy has already been punched so full of holes already? I'd be more interested in finding out if other forums found the same holes or completely different ones.

 

[lifegazer]

But,as has been repeatedly, said: this is exactly the sort of mistake that shows you completely fail to understand velocity, never mind frames of reference. You remind me to some extent of Latour's attempts to treat relativity as a "text". You said elsewhere you were reading "Einsteins book". I hope you are reading some kind of introduction to science with it.

I have no idea what you are talking about. But I do know that my recent contemplation of 'velocity' is correct and that it is significant in regards my own philosophy. So either address what I said or don't bother saying anything.

 

[Upchurch]

Upchurch, do you have an opinion on my recent posts, or not? I'm waiting before proceeding.

Oh, sure I have an opinion. I think they were complete dren. You've utterly ignored everything I've said as demonstrated by this post:

But I discussed this myself. The scale of velocity begins with zero, and represents our stationary relationship with the earth. Then, low-value velocities are judged with regards the motion of bodies wrt the Earth. From this, every other velocity known to mankind has been assigned to the heavens.

This shows that you have utterly disregarded everything I posted about some of the background history of relativity and its principles as well as the experiments that conclusively proved that it is nonsensical to speak in terms of absolute rest frames. In real terms, even the Earth is a non-inertial reference frame.

But, hey, why let little things like facts interfer with your theism, eh?

 

[Wudang]

I have no idea what you are talking about. But I do know that my recent contemplation of 'velocity' is correct and that it is significant in regards my own philosophy. So either address what I said or don't bother saying anything.

I know you have no idea what I'm on about. You might want to think about that for a second. And your assertion that you "know your contemplation of velocity is correct" is invalid if you do not know what velocity means.
You can't base anything on your understanding of relativity if you don't understand frames of reference. You can't understand frames of reference if you don't know what velocity means,. It's not a subtle point I'm making.

 

[Dancing David]

Einstein's equations work for values which we pump into them, and which are judged from our subjective perspective. Clearly, the equations mirror our own awareness of existence and have little to say of things external to our awareness.

I think this is significant. And it's only one of the points I want to raise. You guys were premature in cracking-open the bubbly.

I haven't been thinking for at least a year!

I would like to point out that this is the basic disagreement, they are not human valkues which create the thery of relativity. It is an attempt to describe the thing called 'the physical world'.

Are you telling me that a scale (used to measure weight) measures from a subjective experience or that i see the numbers on the scale as a subjective experience. I think that there is a crucial difference.

I assume that the world behaves as i percieve it, which is a big assumption. But it does protect me from car crashes!

 

[Upchurch]

I have no idea what you are talking about. But I do know that my recent contemplation of 'velocity' is correct and that it is significant in regards my own philosophy.

So, let's take a minute to talk about velocity.

As we all know, at relativistic speeds, there are phenomena called length contraction and time dialation. Mathematically, they look like this:

l' = l / gamma

and

t' = t / gamma

where l' is the relativistic length, t' is the relativistic time, l is the rest length (that is the length measured with no velocity relative to the object), t is the rest time, and gamma is the relativistic gamma and a function of velocity.

specifically, gamma = 1 / sqrt( 1 - (v^2 / c^2))

velocity = distance/time so dividing the above equations we se

l' / t' = (l / gamma) / (t / gamma)

l' / t' = (l / t) (gamma / gamma)

l' / t' = (l / t) (1)

v' = v

Velocity between the two reference frames are conserved throughout the length contraction and time dialation. In other words, between two inertial reference frames, both frames see the same velocity.

It is not based in any way on the observers interpretation or perception as you have assumed, lifegazer. Contrary to what you "know is correct," you are not. It's time to go find another aspect of relativity theory that you can claim supports your theology. This one mathematically does not.

edited to add a third party reference concerning the equations used here:
Special Relativity
Relativistic Gamma

 

[Andonyx]

Let me simply ask one question...

Before human beings looked at them, did bodies move?

Before we were conscious thinking animals, did the Earth revolve around the Sun?

Before man had written symbolic language in order to express the relationships of entities, could he still throw a spear at running buffalo, and hit it?

If the aswer is yes, then I would argue that that is fairly strong evidence that the vector quantity of speed and direction were properites extant with bodies prior to human involvement. And that regardless of our awareness, objects posess these properties at all times.

For instance even stationary objects have inertia, and velocity.

For although it is a reletively recent discovery in human history there is not such thing as a "stationary object." All objects are hurtling through space at unimaginable speeds realtive to some other object on perhaps a distant solar system.

An object's velocity is only '0' here in its same frame of reference.

If Lifegazer's final argument is that there is no reality outside our own awareness, I'm going to be awfully disappointed. We have interesting Ian here for that kind of rehashed nonsense. And it's the same argument any remotely curious person has been debating in our own heads since we were 11 or 12 years old.

No, I will concede, God help me, that nothing in relativity theory proves there is an external reality to our awareness.

But who cares?

That's not what they set out to prove, and it does nothing to degrade the legitimicay and predictive value of those equations.

To ask someone to conclusively prove that reality is independant of our awareness is the same as asking them to prove there is no giant blue turtle floating outside our universe. By definition it cannot be done. How on Earth do you expect someone to make a statement of real value about something which is, by definition, beyond their ability to measure, view, understand, or be affected by?


But what YOU don't seem to understand is that nothing in any of these equations, theories, or properties lends any creedence to the idea that it is all a product of our minds either. Nothing in relativity theory, or even basic Newtonian mechanics of motion requires our awareness of it. It is there weather we pay attention to it or not, and these things we have been debating are merely scientific tools to help us describe, quantifiy, and record the world around us.

To try and use these tools, incorrectly I might add, to prove some age old philisophical debate whose ultimate point has been demonstrated moot by countless philosophers, is not only misguided and irresponsible, it is a complete and utter distortion.

 

[Zero]

Where ever you knew him from, did he have persecution and messiah complexes there too?

Oh, absolutely...I mentor over at Physics Forums, he's a good guy, but he covers his lack of actual physics knowledge in a security blanket of percieved victimhood.

For Lifegazer's sake, let me introduce myself...LOL. Yes, I have a 'limited' understanding of physics, on account of being a metalurgist and not a physicist by trade, but I've got a basic grasp of principles. I also think that a philosophy that addresses the natural world cannot be based on 'navel gazing' alone; a little input of data from the natural world is a pretty useful part of any natural philosophy IMO. The linchpin of Lifegazer's philosophy as I understand it is that he meditated on teh subject without all teh facts, and then came to conclusions that his heart tells him are true.
It has been awhile, but I also recall Lifegazer being tutored on relativity once on Physics Forums, and he was fine up until the facts stopped fitting his 'philosophy', at which point his thinking hit a wall he wasn't inclinded to climb over. My memory may be fuzzy, but it looks as though he hasn't changed from my recollection.

 

[Upchurch]

I have a 'limited' understanding of physics, on account of being a metalurgist and not a physicist by trade, but I've got a basic grasp of principles.

A metalurgist?!? Yeah, that has absolutely nothing to do with physics and natural science at all.

a little input of data from the natural world is a pretty useful part of any natural philosophy IMO.

Or, a natural philosophy should at least not contradict the natural world. Call me crazy...

The linchpin of Lifegazer's philosophy as I understand it is that he meditated on teh subject without all teh facts, and then came to conclusions that his heart tells him are true.

We can't trust you on this, Zero. You're a metalurgist.

What about it, lifegazer? Was this your methodology in deriving your natural philosophy? If not, what was your methodology?

 

[lifegazer]

Before human beings looked at them, did bodies move?

Before we were conscious thinking animals, did the Earth revolve around the Sun?

Presumably, you're assuming that they did. I.e., you're assuming that these bodies do exist beyond the realm of the Mind. Assumption is not much use to "debate".

If the aswer is yes, then I would argue that that is fairly strong evidence that the vector quantity of speed and direction were properites extant with bodies prior to human involvement. And that regardless of our awareness, objects posess these properties at all times.

Your conclusion is founded upon the aforementioned assumption and, therefore, has no relevance to this rational debate.

For instance even stationary objects have inertia, and velocity.

Exactly. Yet we assign values of zero-velocity to some objects upon the Earth's surface. This was what I recently discussed myself.

For although it is a reletively recent discovery in human history there is not such thing as a "stationary object."

Exactly. So what price those velocity-values which we pump into those equations?

An object's velocity is only '0' here in its same frame of reference.

You're just making the same points I made.

If Lifegazer's final argument

It's not my final argument. It was point-1 of a few points I wanted to make. I still want to address something you said before the weekend also.

No, I will concede, God help me, that nothing in relativity theory proves there is an external reality to our awareness.

But who cares?

Who cares?! Squire, we are flirting with the Divine Mind here and you say "Who cares?".

That's not what they set out to prove, and it does nothing to degrade the legitimicay and predictive value of those equations.

I haven't challenged the legitimacy of the equations. My argument is to link those equations to a reality of Mind.

But what YOU don't seem to understand is that nothing in any of these equations, theories, or properties lends any creedence to the idea that it is all a product of our minds either.

I disagree and hopefully we can discuss this more when I make my final points.