Lifegazer's special relativity "proof"

[lifegazer]

A metalurgist?!? Yeah, that has absolutely nothing to do with physics and natural science at all.
Or, a natural philosophy should at least not contradict the natural world. Call me crazy...
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?

Look, Zero is to rational discussion what Geoff is to polite conversation. He's the general discussion moderator and spends most of his time talking about music and politics.
Why can't you stick to the issues and forget playing politics with me?

 

[Upchurch]

Why can't you stick to the issues and forget playing politics with me?

You're evading again, lifegazer. Answer the question: Was this your methodology in deriving your natural philosophy? If not, what was your methodology?

Not to mention your avoiding my trashing of your subjective velocity argument.

 

[Zero]

A metalurgist?!? Yeah, that has absolutely nothing to do with physics and natural science at all.
Or, a natural philosophy should at least not contradict the natural world. Call me crazy...
We can't trust you on this, Zero. You're a metalurgist.

Don't forget, I am also disquailified for discussing music and politics!! If I put my guitar in the closet and promise not to read the newspaper today, can I participate in this discussion, please?!?

As far as Lifegazer's methodology, let's look at a recent statement of his, shall we?

But I do know that my recent contemplation of 'velocity' is correct and that it is significant in regards my own philosophy.

Things that stand out for me:

1) He says that he he bases his ideas of velocity on 'contemplation', not 'research' or 'experimentation'.

2) He claims that his ideas, that don't seem to be based on any actual examination of facts or experiments, fit his 'philosophy' in a significant way. Surprised? I've never seen him contemplate something, and come to a conjclusion which doesn't fit his preconcieved philosophy, which is telling.

 

[Upchurch]

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

Actually, we're flirting with your assumption of the Divine Mind. And who was it that said, "Assumption is not much use to 'debate'"?

Originally posted by lifegazer
Assumption is not much use to "debate".

Oh, yeah.

 

[RussDill]

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

No lifegazer, I'm pointing out that you can't just say the velocity of x is y and be done with it. You have to define your parameters as I have laid out.

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.

Why? Your statement is meaningless. Please explain yourself in more detail. Clearly, bodies exist in motion (all bodies are in motion) that we are unaware of. Whatever situation you can imagine though, we can use our language to assign numerical vaules totheir velocities.

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?

When where they proven to relate to "subjective awareness" of events. Every proof of relativity I've seen have nothing to do with our subjective awareness. Some proofs don't even use numbers at all.

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

ok, from the earth, we say apollo 11 was traveling at x mph, from mars, they would say something completely different. The velocity that we calculated from earth's inertial reference frame is only usefull from earth's inertial reference frame. Calculations from other reference frames would have galilean and relativistic differences.

The equations are a mirror of existential behaviour, as perceived within inner-awareness.

We do perceive the external world...But we have also come up with these equations without any perception of the effects they cause. If it were a mirror, we would see the effect, and then fasion an equation.

The equations themselves are a proof that physics is observing internal reality, and not an external reality.

Again, you have to substantiate this leap in reason.

Did you win any money?

Course not, I gambled less than a dollar, btw, you don't win anything either, you do not pass go, you do not collect 200 dollars, you do not become the messiah, your philosophy is meaningless.

 

[RussDill]

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

Interested, he did reply, and yet, you ignore his reply. Like I said, you can't reason yourself out of a wet paper bag.

 

[RussDill]

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.

really, what experiments have you carried out to show that your idea of velocity matches the real world?

 

[RussDill]

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".

so our entire fossil history was placed by the mind. All the cosmic background radiation was placed by the mind. All the light streaming to us by stars billions of light years away, was placed there by the mind. The universe simply started when the first concious man arose? What happened when he fell asleep? What if concious man evolved once, died out, and than re-evolved, what happened to the universe in the meantime?? If it was a change in a gene, its likely that the gene may have skipped generations a few times and conciousness was a stop and go thing.

He is not assuming that they existed, he is carefully examining EVIDENCE, every hear of the process? probably not.

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

Yo, lifegazer, he bases that in EVIDENCE, not assumption, your mind is based in assumption, not evidence, I think you are getting the two things confused.

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

You still fail to see what velocity is. define velocity for us, will ya?

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

you've used this phrase "So what price" before, I'm not british, wtf does it mean?

You're just making the same points I made.

You fail to note the frame of reference portion, he is not making the same points, but, you are too think skulled to notice.

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.

I've seen your arguments lifegazer, they only get worse from here.

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

Oh crap, I was sitting in the EAC ivory tower sipping on a Capri Sun, and I didn't notice the extreme importance of the situation. I didn't realize that if I blaspheme the DIVINE MIND, he will send me to hell with fire and brimestone. Where have I heard that before. The Divine Mind is a moron, he's so stupid, that his lone messenger cannot even convince members of himself. C'mon divine mind, rain down fire and brimestone on the unbelievers!

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

The equations are not what the theories are all about. The equations are RESULT of the theories, not the base. You challenge the theories, while accepting their results.

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

After ignoring just about any argument that someone throws at you (especially if its phrased in such a way that makes it very difficult for you to answer), I don't know how many people will take you seriously by argument number 2.

Just so you know lifegazer, you are considered a joke, an intellectual curiosity, we all want to know what is wrong with your mental process.

 

[lifegazer]

He is not assuming that they existed, he is carefully examining EVIDENCE, every hear of the process? probably not.

There is no evidence of an external reality. Stop wasting my time with kindergarten philosophy.

I've seen your arguments lifegazer, they only get worse from here.

Ah, you're psychic. What's my next argument then?

 

[Andonyx]

I'm still trying to figure out the ultimate point here.

I contend that by definition asking to prove or disprove that any obsrvable physical phenomena exists independant of the observation of the human mind is impossible.

I also contend that to try to do so is irrelevant because of the defintion of such phenomena.

Somehow LG has hinted that he believes there is something in relativity that supports the notion that these things are in fact products of the mind.

I cannot imagine where he's going with this....but in the meantime....

I think LG is having an issue with the fact that mathematics is an invented human construct, and for some reason this bothers him.

But that's sort of a philosophical discussion about the nature of the signifier versus the signified, and if he cannot deal with symbolic descriptions of physical phenomena then even asking questions about relativity is way ahead of the situations.

I mean can all of us here agree that while there is no such thing as "1" in physical reality, that using that symbol denotes something that each of us is able to observe indepedantly in the world around us, and agree on it's outsome in such a way that we can call it "1"?

And we all understand that this postulate of the definition of "1" is what allows us to go on and define "2", and that in a platonic sense if one fully understands the concept of "1" and the concept of "2" which we agreed upon in a prior manner, that by very definition, "1" + "1" must = "2" and nothing else?

And that this then becomes valid in the real world when we all ask each other to independantly verify:

1. Is that indeed 1 rock over there?
yes.
2. Do we all measure it as being wat we call 1?
yes.
3. What about this in my hand, how many rocks is that?
one.
4. Do we all agree, this in my hand is also 1 rock?
yes.
5. So when I put it down there next to the other rock, how many do we have?
two.
6. We all agree, this is two rocks?
yes.
7. Good then our definition of adition and "2" check out with the real world. Now you each try it in turn and see if our results match.

And from that one smart guy among us says, "Hey, I bet if I have 2 rocks, and take away 1 rock, I will have 1 rock left. I call this principle, subtraction." Then that guy takes away 1 rock, and discovers he has 1 rock left, and his theory of subtraction works in the real world. And then he has other people check it out for him, and that's how we build up evidence that our descriptions of th world are accurate?

I mean is everbody here clear on that?

And that even all the way up to a mathematical expression of velocity, we know that one foot has been one foot for hundreds of years, and we can use that measure and the measure of a second, for time to accurately describe how something moves?

And when we go back and have other people check our measurements using these concepts of "foot," and "second" our measurements turn out to be consistent?

We all understand that?

And then we make predictions based on how our mathematical descriptions can be manipulated...and check those to see if they are correct?

And when they are consistently correct and accurate we find we have a principle that accurately describes the world around us...

We all get this right?

Seriously, is that clear to everyone?

 

[Zero]

*snip*

Seriously, is that clear to everyone?

Nope. Someone will likely say that if three people are looking at the rock, there are 3 rocks, if no one is looking at it there is no rock, and if 4 people, a squirrel and a one-eyed duck are looking at it, there are 4.536287 rocks.

 

[Dancing David]

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.



Hmm, even Ian admits that the external world exists, the question is one of ontology.

On the behalf of the Neutral Sceptics Confederation, I would like to ask that all parties reduce thier flames to the flaming forum.

 

[lifegazer]

I'm still trying to figure out the ultimate point here.

The point is whether Einstein's equations relate to the inner-world of perceived things within awareness, or whether they relate to things external to our awareness.
Point-1 takes us to the reality of mind, I think, since the values of velocity are scaled via human experience and bear no relation to the actual velocities of bodies.
The numbers we pump into the equations reflect subjective experience of velocity values. Yet the equations work for those values. Which, imo, points to the fact that the equations of relativity mirror the realm of the mind... deal with things within the mind... and speak nothing of an external (to the mind) reality.

This is only point-1. I mentioned point-2 also, which you agreed with. Therefore, serious contemplation should be given to what I am saying and what I will say soon with regards to your posts before the weekend.
So please don't discard my philosophy until you have heard it.

 

[Andonyx]

The point is whether Einstein's equations relate to the inner-world of perceived things within awareness, or whether they relate to things external to our awareness.

If that's ONE of the questions your facing...

Then it seems to me that logic would dictate the answer is no. The reason being that ONE person, or ONE measuring device in ONE frame of reference can never experience relatavistic effects. Relativistics effects only ever manifest themselves when TWO frames of reference are compared with regards to measurement.

For instance one of the twin astronauts, if he never spoke to the other would never deduce from any form of measurement whatsoever that anything unusual happened. He merely had 10 minutes pass, while traveling for ten minutes and that's the end of the story. The only appearance of anything relativistic happens when he compares his measurements with those of an EXTERNAL source.

As such relativistic effects cannot be the product of an internal process, since they cannot even manifest without an external frame of reference.

Does that make sense?

 

[RussDill]

Thanks again for ignoring the important and difficult (for you at least) to answer portions of my post.

There is no evidence of an external reality. Stop wasting my time with kindergarten philosophy.

Again, we must assume, is reality part of some elaborate illision, or is it just reality. If its part of an elaborate illision, than what about the reality of how that illision is created? The illision approach just creates another layer, it doesn't explain anything and it solves no problems.

Every experiment done thus far has produced no evididence of an illision.

He is refering to evidence that points to the earth revolving around the sun before we were here. I'd say there is evidence to that, where is your evidence to counter it?

Ah, you're psychic. What's my next argument then?

that because we are all in seperate percieved realities, but our motion ruled by these "equations" we are all immersed in the same "thing" and that thing is the mind. Do I get the JREF million dollar prize?

 

[RussDill]

The point is whether Einstein's equations relate to the inner-world of perceived things within awareness, or whether they relate to things external to our awareness.

The way einstein postulated them, they definately refer to things external to our awareness. To come up with equations, he first understood how space and time external to our perception behave (we definately have a different perception of how space and time should behave). He then set out some postulates, and out of those postulates, came equations.

Point-1 takes us to the reality of mind, I think, since the values of velocity are scaled via human experience and bear no relation to the actual velocities of bodies.

really? I'd say the velocity value we give to a body relative to our frame of reference has a definate relation. An easy way to see that is in the bodies kinetic and relativistic energy.

The numbers we pump into the equations reflect subjective experience of velocity values.

Velocity is not a subjective concept and you have made no attempt to show otherwise.

Yet the equations work for those values.

Thats because the values we choose have a direct correlation to reality.

This is only point-1. I mentioned point-2 also, which you agreed with. Therefore, serious contemplation should be given to what I am saying and what I will say soon with regards to your posts before the weekend.
So please don't discard my philosophy until you have heard it.

You point was an either or...

 

[Yahweh]

Nope. Someone will likely say that if three people are looking at the rock, there are 3 rocks, if no one is looking at it there is no rock, and if 4 people, a squirrel and a one-eyed duck are looking at it, there are 4.536287 rocks.

Crazy crazy existentialism...

If there were 4 rocks, why can each person or animal observing the 4 rocks only see one at a time?

 

[Zero]

Crazy crazy existentialism...

If there were 4 rocks, why can each person or animal observing the 4 rocks only see one at a time?

Because each person observing creates their own universe...and ducks and squirrels aren't as 'real' as people are, so they only get a fraction of a universe each?

 

[Wudang]

There is no evidence of an external reality. Stop wasting my time with kindergarten philosophy.

As has been pointed out before (rather clearly by Mercutio for one) there is rather less evidence for internal reality. You may know have noticed a whooshing sound high overhead at the time.

 

[Upchurch]

So please don't discard my philosophy until you have heard it.

But it's okay to discard science once you've heard it and just don't understand it? Interesting...