Lifegazer's special relativity "proof"

[UndercoverElephant]

In my "imagined" paradise there would be no suffering for any being.

WOULD THE LIONS LAY DOWN NEXT TO THE LAMBS?

Is being eaten not suffering?

Is starving not suffering?

YOU HAVE NO LOGIC.

 

[lifegazer]

WOULD THE LIONS LAY DOWN NEXT TO THE LAMBS?

Is being eaten not suffering?

Is starving not suffering?

YOU HAVE NO LOGIC.

You asked me about "imagination" Geoff, not logic. In my childish imagination, the lions would even clean the lambs and no entity would hunger for anything.
If you want a rational discussion, don't ask me to give you an imaginary vision.

 

[Dancing David]

In my "imagined" paradise there would be no suffering for any being.

ooops, now you sound like the buddha.

 

[RussDill]

Nice job running away from my points and instead just calling me a "kid" again. The only butt kicking you are doing is exclaiming "I'm right, you're wrong, I'm right you're wrong". How about arguing against the points I've made instead?

Not true. I just fight when I have to. Russ is a young upstart who needs his butt kicking now and then. lol

Just because you are pushing 40 doesn't mean you are endowed with some magical intelligence, but you certainly seemed to be endowed with a huge superiority complex. Might I remind you how old einstein was when he published his theory of special relativity (including other work that won him the nobel prize)?

If only The Mind exists, then the passage of energy between what it creates and becomes aware of must be linked... from creation to awareness. The eye is part of the order inherent within the machinery which brings the wheel full-circle from creation to awareness.

Why must that be? If the mind is going to imagine something, why bother imagining something so complex, when we could simply "perceive".

Even in our dreams, we have eyes to see.

Mabye you dreams. But certainly not in mine. I do not require eyes to see in my dreams. In fact, I would argue (and this could probably be studied, probably already has been) that our process of visual perception is completely different in our dreams.

 

[RussDill]

My truth? It's the world's truth uppy. Your truth. My happiness rests upon the shoulders of billions, not just myself. When national borders are erased and all weapons are recycled into something else, you will see me smiling.

I'd argue that there are thousands of other ways to create that result that do not include your philosophy. Also, I rather like national borders, diversity is good. Last person I remember that decided that diversity was a bad thing committed suicide in a bunker somewhere in berlin.

 

[RussDill]

In my "imagined" paradise there would be no suffering for any being.

You'd think if the mind imaging this world, the mind wouldn't have created so much uneccesary suffering. For the mind so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten HIV virus, and his only begotten mentally handicap childern, and his only begotten polio virus, and his only begotten starvation, and his only begotten man eating sharks, and his only begotten asteroids and comets that strike the earth, and his only begotten earthquakes, and his only begotten tidal waves, etc, etc, etc

 

[Zero]

Zero, why did you conspire to have me banned if you want to talk about my philosophy?

That's cute, bub...I didn't conspire to have you banned, boss. You apparently conspired to have yourself banned, and did a bang-up job about it. Don't be modest, you get all the credit!!!

I mean, being arrogant and abusive to those who are leaps and bounds ahead of you in knowledge of the topics you talk about , is no way to win friends and influence people....and neither is offering 'butt kickings' to people who, again, know alot more than you on a subject, and are simply correcting your numerous logical errors.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You asked me about "imagination" Geoff, not logic. In my childish imagination, the lions would even clean the lambs and no entity would hunger for anything.
If you want a rational discussion, don't ask me to give you an imaginary vision.

I am asking you how your imagined paradise could ever logically work. And it couldn't, which is why you have failed to answer the question.

According to the answer above you believe there would be no hunger even though the lions no longer ate anything.

You have totally lost it, mate.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

ooops, now you sound like the buddha.

No, he doesn't. The Buddha did not say there could be a world where there was no suffering. He said that if people followed his path that they could be free of suffering. Lifegazer is telling everybody about a paradisical world where there is no suffering, but does not believe in killing his own ego - he just believes in lecturing others about it. The Buddha, in sharp contrast, lectured nobody, promised no paradise for the world, and told people to work on their OWN relationship with the Divine. He realised that peoples perception of pain and suffering was related to the size of their own ego. Lifegazer believes the pain and suffering is caused by everyone else but him, and revels in his ego because "it means nobody will worship him".

This is why the Buddha found peace and Lifegazer finds nothing but pain.

There is no such thing as a world where there is no suffering, apart from in the deluded dreams of Jehovas Witnesses, 7th day Adventists and Lifegazer.

 

[lifegazer]

Let's get back on track. There's a thread in flame-wars forum if you want to praise me, and there's another thread about buddhism in here. Let's talk relativity.

First, let me remind you of points 1 & 2.
Credible points worth remembering before I proceed.

Basically, point-1 is that Einstein's equations use values [of velocity] that are subjective. These values bear no relation to the true velocity-values of bodies. They relate to our perspective wrt our relationship with Earth.
Basically, point-2 reminds you that even a physics genius cannot show you that Einstein's equations relate to an external reality. This has just been assumed.
Enter me, to prove otherwise, and to engage you in some serious discussion.

I fail to see how you can disagree with any of the above and keep a straight face. Regardless, I shall proceed shortly.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Mere variation does not imply subjectivity. For example genes and heights vary i.e. are relative, but hardly subjective.

 

[lifegazer]

Mere variation does not imply subjectivity. For example genes and heights vary i.e. are relative, but hardly subjective.

You need to read back a page or two. I argue that the velocity-value of a body is borne of a scale devised wrt our relationship with the Earth.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

And what os your basis for this? Some premise about variation equaling subjectivity correct?

 

[Upchurch]

Basically, point-1 is that Einstein's equations use values [of velocity] that are subjective. These values bear no relation to the true velocity-values of bodies.

This last sentence is true, as there is no such thing as "true velocity-values of bodies." The first sentence is completely untrue.

Basically, point-2 reminds you that even a physics genius cannot show you that Einstein's equations relate to an external reality. This has just been assumed.
Enter me, to prove otherwise, and to engage you in some serious discussion.[/b]

You're right. Materialism is an assumption, but then so is immaterialism. You've just assumed that the mind exists. Prove otherwise.

(I'm going to leave the "Enter me" comment alone. That's just creepy.)

I fail to see how you can disagree with any of the above and keep a straight face. Regardless, I shall proceed shortly.

It's true. I do have a hard time keeping a straight face, but only because what you've said is so darn ignorant.

 

[Upchurch]

You need to read back a page or two. I argue that the velocity-value of a body is borne of a scale devised wrt our relationship with the Earth.

So do you, I proved mathematically that the variation in duration and length cancel each other out when used to calculate velocity.

 

[RussDill]

Let's get back on track. There's a thread in flame-wars forum if you want to praise me, and there's another thread about buddhism in here. Let's talk relativity.

First, let me remind you of points 1 & 2.
Credible points worth remembering before I proceed.

I realize that what you are attempting to proceed to requires these two points, but you need to prove them before you move on, not simply ignore critizism and then claim credibility. Before going forward with any credibilty, you are going to have to face these arguments, and stop running away.

Basically, point-1 is that Einstein's equations use values [of velocity] that are subjective.

1) you have not shown velocity to be subjective.

2) Einsteins equations do not "use values of velocity". Einsteins equations stem from the mathmatics of special relativity and have nothing to do with human values chosen for velocities.

These values bear no relation to the true velocity-values of bodies.

Again, saying the "true velocity value" is meaningless. Its like asking for the true value of how far something is away. Nothing has some magic, absolute velocity. Velocity only makes sense when taken in relation to three things. a) the body's inertial frame of referenc. b) the vs inertial frame (ie, it is traveling x m/s in relation to the sun) c) the observers inertial reference frame (necessary for relativistic effects).

Its been a long time since anyone has seriously thought that bodies have an absolute velocity. Galileo shattered that notion with his galilean relativity (added b). Einstein shattered the notion even further (added c).

Please tell me in relation to what three reference frames the absolute value of velocity is measured?

They relate to our perspective wrt our relationship with Earth.

No, we can choose ANY reference frame.

Basically, point-2 reminds you that even a physics genius cannot show you that Einstein's equations relate to an external reality. This has just been assumed.
Enter me, to prove otherwise, and to engage you in some serious discussion.

Again, its not possible to prove that we are all suckers in some elaborate illusion. However, you are attempting to prove that we are all suckers of some elaborate illusion, hence the argument.

Before you go on your merry little way, you should respond to these points, and the points on the bottom of page 9, otherwise, you have no credability.

I fail to see how you can disagree with any of the above and keep a straight face.

Everyone you talk to disagrees with the above. Do you think they have a problem with their disagreement? Do you think that deep down, inside, they all know your right (like the rr's claim, deep down inside every atheist believes in god, but simply does not want to follow his word, so renounces god).

Regardless, I shall proceed shortly.

Your argument is simply 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.

Firstly, you haven't proven that we are all in seperate perceived relalities, and secondly, you haven't proved a mind. Your argument is meaningless. Claim on one hand that our perceived reality is inconsistent, and then on the other hand that the mind somehow makes them consistent. If the equations are inconsistent in reality, then they are inconsistent with the mind.

 

[lifegazer]

Looks like I won't be making any progress here soon. Hoped to be finished with this before the weekend.

"Basically, point-1 is that Einstein's equations use values [of velocity] that are subjective. These values bear no relation to the true velocity-values of bodies."

This last sentence is true, as there is no such thing as "true velocity-values of bodies." The first sentence is completely untrue.

If the last sentence is true, then so is the first. How can the velocity-values we assign to bodies be 'objective' if there is no such thing as true velocity-values?
All bodies are in motion. True? Thus either those bodies move with the velocity we assign to them, or they do not. And if they do not, then we have assigned a subjective value upon those bodies.

You're right. Materialism is an assumption, but then so is immaterialism. You've just assumed that the mind exists. Prove otherwise.

I'm trying, remember? Though in my "order" thread, and others, that proof does already exist.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm trying, remember? Though in my "order" thread, and others, that proof does already exist.

Trying, yes. But you're assuming that the mind exists in order to prove the mind exists. We tend to call that "circular logic" and it isn't considered "proof"

 

[lifegazer]

So do you, I proved mathematically that the variation in duration and length cancel each other out when used to calculate velocity.

My argument discusses values we pump into the equations. I.e., the equations work for the subjective values we pump into them.

 

[Upchurch]

My argument discusses values we pump into the equations. I.e., the equations work for the subjective values we pump into them.

Yes, you've said that. The values are not subjective and even if they were, unless you're saying that Einstein's theory is completely self-inconsistent, the changes in time and space balance out to the same velocity as seen by both reference frames in question. Take another look at my post.