Lifegazer's special relativity "proof"

[Disbeliever]

^ Sad but true. The continuing motif I find in this thread is lifegazer's unwillingness to become educated through established physics, and his want to just receive the information he requests without explanation. In my physics class, there are many students who do this all the time, not realizing they have to go through the basics before grasping the more complex aspects.

 

[Andonyx]

^ Sad but true. The continuing motif I find in this thread is lifegazer's unwillingness to become educated through established physics, and his want to just receive the information he requests without explanation. In my physics class, there are many students who do this all the time, not realizing they have to go through the basics before grasping the more complex aspects.

Welcome, DB!

What kind of physics class do you teach?

 

[Darat]

This thread rates a popcorn concession....

 

[Hexxenhammer]

It is getting to epic proportions. Especially when considered with the only slightly more vindictive sequel "Lifegazer is a..." thread in Flame Wars, and the "Open-minded, close minded" spinoff.

 

[Upchurch]

It is getting to epic proportions. Especially when considered with the only slightly more vindictive sequel "Lifegazer is a..." thread in Flame Wars, and the "Open-minded, close minded" spinoff.

I had no idea lifegazer was a franchise. Question is, is it just a fad or will it rival the Wanko franchise?

Can't wait for sweeps week.

 

[hgc]

I had no idea lifegazer was a franchise. Question is, is it just a fad or will it rival the Wanko franchise?

Can't wait for sweeps week.

His beliefs certainly have tremendous staying power, and his imperviousness to new data and bad reviews is astounding. Also, hints of more to come pressage a tremendous store of sub-philosophies to follow. lifegazer is here to stay.

 

[Upchurch]

His beliefs certainly have tremendous staying power, and his imperviousness to new data and bad reviews is astounding. Also, hints of more to come pressage a tremendous store of sub-philosophies to follow. lifegazer is here to stay.

You forgot that he's an attention wh*re, which only furthers the point.

 

[sackett]

Confucius said it:

"Knowledge without thought is useless. Thought without knowledge is dangerous."

I would have kept the placemat but I spilled duck sauce on it.

 

[lifegazer]

^ Sad but true. The continuing motif I find in this thread is lifegazer's unwillingness to become educated through established physics, and his want to just receive the information he requests without explanation. In my physics class, there are many students who do this all the time, not realizing they have to go through the basics before grasping the more complex aspects.

Sad but true, that so many people learn physics assuming that what they learn relates to an external [to awareness] reality.
You squire are ignorant to the issue at hand. Even if you were a physicist of the stature of Einstein himself, your knowledge would tell us nothing of reality: inner or outer.

 

[lifegazer]

And I would appreciate it if we could keep to the issues in this thread. Those that want to heap praise upon me can do so in the flame war forum.

 

[Upchurch]

You squire are ignorant to the issue at hand.

Okay, see, "ignorant" means to not have knowledge of. The issue at hand is Special Relativity. Disbeliever, who is apparently a teacher of physics, has knowledge of Special Relativity. Therefore, Disbeliever is, by definition, not ignorant of the issue at hand.

You, on the other hand, have demonstrated ignorance of the issue at hand. Further, you've shown ignorance of the term "ignorance" and even of your own ignorance, which is the actual underlying topic of the thread.

So, in discussing your ignorance of Special Relativity, Disbeliever has kept to the issue. I'm glad you have an appriciation for that.

 

[lifegazer]

Okay, see, "ignorant" means to not have knowledge of. The issue at hand is Special Relativity.

The issue at hand is reality - external or internal - and whether relativity has clues to tell us which.
You could be Einstein yourself and recite every detail of the theory, and in so doing, you would not have touched upon the issue at hand as described.
It's time to up your brain a gear upchurch, or you will be left behind in the conversation. Your choice.

 

[RussDill]

The issue at hand is reality - external or internal - and whether relativity has clues to tell us which.
You could be Einstein yourself and recite every detail of the theory, and in so doing, you would not have touched upon the issue at hand as described.
It's time to up your brain a gear upchurch, or you will be left behind in the conversation. Your choice.

You've attempted to show that relativity shows that external reality is inconsistent, we have pointed out again and again why you are wrong, you have not countered these arguments, and instead have admitted that you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

 

[lifegazer]

I'm hoping to have finished my points before the weekend. In the meantime, perhaps you can explain to this forum how the knowledge gleaned by Einstein links to an external reality?
Otherwise, take a back seat.

 

[RussDill]

I'm hoping to have finished my points before the weekend. In the meantime, perhaps you can explain to this forum how the knowledge gleaned by Einstein links to an external reality?
Otherwise, take a back seat.

It links to NEITHER. You are claiming proof of a direct link to an simply internal reality, your proof is based on a complete misunderstanding of relativity. If you want to prove that reality is an elaborate illision, you'll have to do better.

 

[lifegazer]

It links to NEITHER.

I see. So the laws of physics relate to neither an internal or external realm? Perhaps they relate to the land of Oz then Russ?

 

[RussDill]

I see. So the laws of physics relate to neither an internal or external realm? Perhaps they relate to the land of Oz then Russ?

The laws of physics say nothing about the possibility of reality being a massive, elaborate illiusion.

[edited to add: physics also says nothing about anything that isn't scientific (ie, not provable/disproveable)]

 

[lifegazer]

The laws of physics say nothing about the possibility of reality being a massive, elaborate illiusion.

[edited to add: physics also says nothing about anything that isn't scientific (ie, not provable/disproveable)]

Let's cut the bs and admit that science assumes that the laws of physics relate to an external realm. Hell, last week, you stated that physics was materialism. lol

Now that the assumption has been exposed as such, the issue on the table is as stated. Now you're either in a position to argue for internal-reality or external-reality... or neither. If neither, then please join the sheep in the back rows.

 

[Dancing David]

I noticed that you just ant to fight Lifegazer!

So if all that exists is internal awareness, why do you need an eye to see.

I think that you are farid to answer the question, Ian has answered it and I think that Hamme has an answer do you Lifegazer?

Why do you need an eye to see?

Well what the answer?


Do external events apear to lead to the internal awareness, or do you think that your anima shoots beams from your eyes.


I will ask you again, and you won't answer again, because that is the precipice you hang over!

 

[RussDill]

Let's cut the bs and admit that science assumes that the laws of physics relate to an external realm. Hell, last week, you stated that physics was materialism. lol

Now that the assumption has been exposed as such, the issue on the table is as stated. Now you're either in a position to argue for internal-reality or external-reality... or neither. If neither, then please join the sheep in the back rows.

How many times must I explain this, here is the definition for physics:

The science of nature, or of natural objects; that branch of science which treats of the laws and properties of matter, and the forces acting upon it; especially, that department of natural science which treats of the causes (as gravitation, heat, light, magnetism, electricity, etc.) that modify the general properties of bodies; natural philosophy.

If thats not from a materialist's perspective, I don't know what is.

Physics does assume that what you see is what you get. Physics assumes that we aren't being fooled, or tricked. While this is an assumption, it is an assumption necessary for physics to go forward. Physics justs assumes that we aren't all suckers in a vast complex illiusion.

Firstly, I don't see how thats a huge assumption, you can continue your assumption that we are victims of a vast illusion. However, if you assume that we are a victim of a vast illusion, you must then ask, what about the reality that is creating ours, is that just an illusion too? and you have the problem of layers.

Since it is impossible to prove that we aren't all being suckered by an evil, misceaveous god, there will always be those that argue it.

However, this isn't what you argue, you profess to have proof that we are all suckers in a vast illusion. You have attempted to use your poor understanding of physics to prove otherwise, but unfortunately, all your points have been without merit.



BTW lifegazer, stop going in circles, all you stated in your post was that you are right, and everything that everyone else says is BS. Lets hear some substance.