Lifegazer's special relativity "proof"

[lifegazer]

Also, take the twin-paradox scenario again: it isn't just the spacetwin whose age has slowed relative to people on Earth- as expected, his clocks have also moved slower.
Now I do not deny that the age/timing of objects is unaffected by motion. But the age/time of those objects is relative to human awareness and the laws of physics.

I find your objection to be completely irrelevant.

 

[lifegazer]

That the effect occurs despite the lack of a mind being involved in any way shows that the effect is not a result of the mind but a consequence of some other mechanism.

A mind is always required to observe the effect.

 

[Upchurch]

Now I do not deny that the age/timing of objects is unaffected by motion.

I deny this. As does about 50+ years of experimentation and evidence. The age/timing of objects can and is effected by its motion relative to other objects, be they concsious or otherwise.

 

[Upchurch]

A mind is always required to observe the effect.

**cough**

Originally posted by Upchurch

I'm now expecting lifegazer to explain that the mind that observed the relativistic effects of the clock is sufficent to warp reality. To which, I will point out that his argument is entirely dependent that there be a mind on the relativistic trip for the "warping of reality" to occur. Then, I imagine, he'll get indignent that I'm not addressing his argument but attacking him personally.

Why repeat myself when I can copy and paste?

 

[lifegazer]

I deny this. As does about 50+ years of experimentation and evidence. The age/timing of objects can and is effected by its motion relative to other objects, be they concsious or otherwise.

Maybe I worded it wrong: the age/time of objects is affected by their motion (relative to other objects, obviously), as seen in awareness.

Everything is affected by relativity. Not just human awareness.
I think you are avoiding the main thrust of my argument.

 

[Upchurch]

Silly me, I went by what you actually said rather than what you meant. My appologies.

Everything is affected by relativity. Not just human awareness.

True. However, you seem to be confusing the causal relationship between relativistic effects and human awareness. The "main thrust" of your argument seems to be, as I read it, that human awareness of time dialation is what causes time dialation to occur. This is, of course, more circular reasoning. Time dialation must pre-exist the human awarness of it, not the otherway around. The theoretical deduction of time dialation was in no way dependent on human awareness and evidence of its existence pre-existed the definition of it.

You're streatching the facts (to the breaking point) to fit your preferred theory rather than fitting your theory to the facts. As I've said before, you are not reasoning, but rationalizing.

 

[lifegazer]

The motion of a body affects its experience of universal time & space.
Thus, the very substance of time & space are dependent upon the body experiencing them.

 

[Upchurch]

Thus, the very substance of time & space are dependent upon the body experiencing them.

Ah, this is a bit of a departure from the usual immaterialist claim, although just as circular. How, then, is the substance of spacetime dependent on the viewer? And how did the first viewer come about with no spacetime substance to come about in?

 

[RussDill]

The motion of a body affects its experience of universal time & space.
Thus, the very substance of time & space are dependent upon the body experiencing them.

There is no such thing as universal time and space. Thats the thing about relativity. Also, you like to mash words around that have no meaning to the theory at hand, but lend credibility to your theory. Particles and fields do not "experience" space time, they are a PART of space time. Matter, energy, space, and time are an inseperable. You cannot have one without the other, and you cannot effect one without effecting another. What I'm trying to say is, bodies don't experince space time, they are a part of it.

You add more matter? You bend space time. OK, now to explain something about relativity that you have trouble swallowing:

THE MOTION OF ANY BODY DOES NOT EFFECT ITS EXPERIENCES OF TIME AND SPACE. no matter how fast you say you are going, the laws of physics behave as if you are standing still. There is no frame of reference to give yourself a speed. Even more difficult to grok, if you are on a moon, and your friend passes you in a space ship at near the speed of light. You'll pull out your binoculars, look at him, and see that he's length contracted, and his clocks are moving very slowly, almost stopped.

Now, here is where it gets interesting lifegazer. What does your friend on the space ship see when he peers back at you with binoculars? I'll let you think. Does he, a) see you moving really really fast, since you see him with his time all slowed down, or b) does he see you moving really really slow. Its B, because there is no absolute frame of reference, only each observers frame of reference, and each observer is moving at exactly 0 times the speed of light.

Its difficult to determine how well you are getting the relativity thing, so I'll pose a question (just for lifegazer). There is a 100ft long craft traveling through the fields of skipton at near the speed of light. A barn operator who owns a barn that is 80ft long devises an experiment to disprove einstiens theories. He figures, that at the speed the craft is traveling, it will be length contracted to 60ft long. So, since he has ridiculusly fast barn doors, he'll close them as the craft is in the center of the barn (with 10ft clearence on either end), and then open them again. Haha he says, the craft will also see my barn length contracted, but to much less than 100ft, from his frame of reference, it would be impossible for me to close both doors at the same time with the spaceship still inside.

What will be the result of the barn operators experiment? What will the experiment look like from the ship's frame of reference?

 

[RussDill]

I haven't presented an argument.

The arguments that you have presented on previous threads are identical to the arguments that you have used on other boards. In fact, the flaws that the other board members point out in your reasoning are the same flaws we point out here.

Spare me the same boring responses.

oh yes, our silly logic and reasoning, why can't we just all understand that we are all part of the same mind, and just love eachother and bring about world peace.

Nope.

ya, I kinda wondered what made him think you a christian myself. I'm still curious what drove you to come up with your theories

 

[RussDill]

Maybe I worded it wrong: the age/time of objects is affected by their motion (relative to other objects, obviously), as seen in awareness.

If were all the mind, how would it make sense for some of us to experience reality faster or slower than another self. If we were all part of one mind, it would seem we would all experience reality at the same rate

Also lifegazer, it might be interesting for you to know that time is also effected by gravity. So two clocks may not be moving in relation to eachother, but still keep different time.

Everything is affected by relativity. Not just human awareness.
I think you are avoiding the main thrust of my argument.

no, your main thrust is that awareness causes relativistic effects. My main thrust is that human awareness is simply a prisoner of relativistic effects

 

[RussDill]

Ah, this is a bit of a departure from the usual immaterialist claim, although just as circular. How, then, is the substance of spacetime dependent on the viewer? And how did the first viewer come about with no spacetime substance to come about in?

duuuuddddeee.....its the mind man, its doing things

 

[Dancing David]

Finger:moon.

Lifegazer, we don't need the Apollo programs, we can all point out fingers at the moon and say 'moon'.

Lifegazer, it is silly to say that the effects of relativity are dependant on an obserer, the fact that they are observed is dependant on an observer.

But lets consider this, in the dpeths of space far acroos the something mistakenly called nothing, there is a dense object , so dense that light can not escape it.

Further, there is matter falling towards this object, as it rotates through tyhe objects magnetic fiel it generate radiation, some of this matter will fall around the object very quickly, and in fact will approach relativistic velocities.

So when we detect this radiation, be it through Chandra or a gamma ray observatory, it is radiation generated by matter traveling close to the speed of light and subject to relativity.
I grant you that our observations require our minds, but wait the radiation in some cases has travelled for thousands upon millions of years.

Did that radiation not undergo the effects of relativity prior to our observation?
Better yet, what if it is on a data base that isn't transmitted for a year.

The effects of relativity do not require our minds to happen, we observe the effects but the mind does not generate them.

A particle acceleartor will draw more energy as the electron/proton approaches the speed of light, even if no one looks at the power meter.

????

 

[Pahansiri]

Ah, this is a bit of a departure from the usual immaterialist claim, although just as circular. How, then, is the substance of spacetime dependent on the viewer? And how did the first viewer come about with no spacetime substance to come about in?

There was a farmer had a dog,
And Bingo was his name-o.
B-I-N-G-O!
B-I-N-G-O!
B-I-N-G-O!
And Bingo was his name-o!

 

[scribble]

Having never studied SR, I'd kind of like to know the answer to the barn door question.

 

[RussDill]

Having never studied SR, I'd kind of like to know the answer to the barn door question.

If anyone's curious, I'll private message them, but let lifegazer try to grok this one.

 

[lifegazer]

Ah, this is a bit of a departure from the usual immaterialist claim, although just as circular. How, then, is the substance of spacetime dependent on the viewer?

The motion of a body is the determining-factor of the relative-spacetime it shall experience.

 

[Pahansiri]

The motion of a body is the determining-factor of the relative-spacetime it shall experience.

I do not wish to speak for upchurch but as I am reading the thread your last response is irrelevant as the statement found below that upchurch commented on.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Thus, the very substance of time & space are dependent upon the body experiencing them.

 

[lifegazer]

If the very substance (of spacetime) of your universe is dependent upon you (your motion), then you (your subconcious-mind) shape your whole universe proportionally to your actions.

Also, the velocity of light, though numerically constant, has qualitative differences for all observers. This has never been taught by any educational establishment, but I claim that it is true and proves that the mind creates the universe that it sees.

This is obvious anyway, as I have said elsewhere, since 'light' is an inner-sensation created by the mind. Remember when I said that the stars in the nightsky are right within your awareness?

Relativity is a law pertaining to the order, given by The Mind to awareness of relations which exist between things in motion within that awareness.
Relativity is not a law pertaining to bodies existing externally to the mind.

I do not believe that anybody else has ever proposed this before. But I've been sticking by it for 18 months, and I still do. One day, it will be accepted.

 

[RussDill]

The motion of a body is the determining-factor of the relative-spacetime it shall experience.

As I have said before, the spacetime that everybody "experinces" is EXACTLY THE SAME. Thats the whole point of relativity. No matter what speed you think you are going, spacetime behaves EXACTLY THE SAME.