Lifegazer's special relativity "proof"

[lifegazer]

This, again, is where you lose sight of the theory of relativity. Lemme explain where this all started.

No more evasiveness please.
I told you why x m/s is not the same for everyone. What I told you is a fact. The relative value of your meter and second is in comparative flux, whether you notice it or not. Your meter and your second have a unique meaning to you in comparison to a spaceman, for example. We can prove this through lorentz-transformation mathematics, or if we can find a volunteer (I vote for Pahansiri) to blast-off for a few years, we shall see him come back in about 25 years having hardly aged at all. Why bother with all that wrinkle cream?
Anyway, even though Pahansiri wouldn't have noticed a relative slowing of his/her own time, he/she is evidence that his/her meter and second have changed, qualitatively, allowing for this distorted state-of-affairs.

Stop waffling Russ and deal with the facts. Why talk yourself out of a perfectly good argument for God's existence? lol

 

[lifegazer]

Einstein's theory of relativity is a theory and not the creator of anything. Your English if rather poor at times, cold you word this correctly?

I don't claim to be the next Shakespeare. And you have some nerve pulling me for my English!
Anyway, the theory of relativity is an explanation of universal behaviour. But inherent within that explanation is a proof that The Mind is the creator of said universal behaviour. The Mind is the creator of the universe.

I hope you don't mind but I just volunteered you for a 25 year mission into oblivion. Don't forget to pack yer toothbrush.

 

[Dancing David]

The bozos from physics-forums didn't have the brains to realise that 'x' alone does not make a velocity absolute for all observers. The velocity-value is a combination of x and m/s... and if m & s are individualistic, then so is the velocity in itself of any and all values 'x'... or, in the case of light, 'c'.
I.e., light-velocity is not truly absolute in the sense it has been depicted (in our classrooms).

These are the essential points of my argument, and they are not difficult to comprehend.

More semantics, the value of the speed of light doesn't change, are you saying what?

That is the freaky thing about the theory of relativity, say you car is travelling at .999999 the speed of light and you turn on the headlights, common sense would say that the photons leaving the headlights of the car travel at .999999 plus the speed of light, but guess what it doesn't. The photons still travel at c.

Your argument seems to be saying that all frames of reference are unique and there the spped of light is not constant.

How would you demonstrate that in an experiment?
1. Which parameters of light are not constant, the frequency of the wavelegths change but the speed stays the same?
2. Which parameters can be tested for?


Have you heard of Lorentz and the Michealson-Morely experiments?

 

[Dancing David]

It doesn't matter whether the traveller's perception changes. Not noticing changes is not a proof that nothing is changing (for God's sake!) - which it is. The value of his meter and second are in qualitative flux, as proved by the twin paradox. Lorentz-transformation mathematics are there precisely to work out the relative-changes experienced by various bodies in various scenarios.


The issue is that you are comparing frames of referenece, and in doing so you are making your frame of reference the absolute one. When the car goes by at .999999 the speed of light, it appears compressed along it's line of motion. From the car's frame of reference you will appear elongated.
So what? There is no absolute frame of reference, the space time 'distortion' is only a distortion that appears by comparing the two frames of reference.

If either frame of reference measures the spped of light, it will have the same value, even if you measure the speed of light in another frame of reference it will have the same value.

You know this. So why are you dancing around the issue? Rather, dUncing around the issue. The others have the excuse of being ignorant. But you sir, claiming to be a physicist, have no excuse.


Attacking UpC shows you to be a spoiled little brat, shall you hold your breath next?


You have lost all credibility in my book. There is no established support for what I am saying because I am the first to say it. How dumb are you?

You are not the first, nor shall you be the last, your ego is swelling, you have yet to say anything new. Do you really think that you are the first to say this?

Lifegazer, do you understand that the speed of light doesn't change?

When the trolley goes by you at .999999 the speed of light, if you were able to measure the speed of light on the trolley as it went by you, it would be the same value.

What experiment can you devise to demostrate that the speed of light changes?

 

[Dancing David]

You haven't proved god yet, you have shown your belief, but an impartial and neutral force of nature provides the same results.

 

[Upchurch]

There is no established support for what I am saying because I am the first to say it. How dumb are you?

What, then, is your evidence for this claim that the metric for the traveling twin qualitatively changes? If you make the claim, you must be basing that claim on evidence previously undiscovered in the past 80+ years or so. What evidence do you have?

I know you aren't a trained scientist and, based on your implications for the Lorentz transformation (which is only valid between inertial reference frames, not accelerating ones), you aren't much of a mathemitician either. As such, let me explain to you once again that in order for argument or theory to be considered true, it must have empirical evidence to support it and no empirical evidence to contradict it. Argument alone proves nothing.

You claim that the "qualitative" change in metric occurs even if the observer doesn't notice it. First, how do you prove that? The age difference alone is not sufficient because it is explain theoretically, mathematically, and experimentally in other ways. Second, your original argument was based on the traverler's perceptions effecting local spacetime metric creating alternate universes and such. How can the traveler's mind do this if the "qualitative" change not only preceeds the traveler's perception but actually escapes the traveler's detection?

Earlier I said that argument alone proves nothing, but an inconsistent argument disproves itself.

If you are going to present scientific arguments that fly in the face of almost a century of evidence, you must be prepared to defend it with more than just bad rhetoric. Being an amateur "scientist" does not excuse you from the rigorous burden of proof that all scientists and their theories must comply.

Aside: do you not find it interesting that this conversation when in the exact order I predicted in my first post on this thread? I'm kicking myself for not adding the last part where you attack me personally.

 

[lifegazer]

More semantics, the value of the speed of light doesn't change, are you saying what?

The numerical-value of the speed-of-light is the same for everyone, but if you've followed the conversation, I have showed that velocity is a numerical-value qualified with parameters of distance and time. And since each observer experiences a unique perspective of distance and time, all velocities 'x' m/s actually mean something unique for each individual. They are not identical. The spacetwin, for example, experiences 1 second relatively more slowly than his brother on earth. I.e., 1 second is not an absolute value even though we all experience it. Same with 1 meter. Hence, the same with 1 m/s or x m/s or 'c'.

That is the freaky thing about the theory of relativity, say you car is travelling at .999999 the speed of light and you turn on the headlights, common sense would say that the photons leaving the headlights of the car travel at .999999 plus the speed of light, but guess what it doesn't. The photons still travel at c.

I'm aware of this and it's irrelevant.

How would you demonstrate that in an experiment?

My reasoning is derivative of experimentally-verified relativistic laws that Einstein unveiled a hundred years ago.

1. Which parameters of light are not constant, the frequency of the wavelegths change but the speed stays the same?
2. Which parameters can be tested for?

Velocity = distance/time. Nobody shares the exact-same experience for distance or time, since there are relative differences between everyone. The twin-paradox just highlights the possible diversity of these differences.

Have you heard of Lorentz and the Michealson-Morely experiments?

Of course I have.

 

[lifegazer]

What, then, is your evidence for this claim that the metric for the traveling twin qualitatively changes? If you make the claim, you must be basing that claim on evidence previously undiscovered in the past 80+ years or so. What evidence do you have?

Does the value of space and time distort? Yes or no? Of course it does. Therefore, the value of 1 second and 1 meter changes in relation to other observers. The twin-paradox is evidence of this.

As such, let me explain to you once again that in order for argument or theory to be considered true, it must have empirical evidence to support it and no empirical evidence to contradict it. Argument alone proves nothing.

Why do you think the atomic-clocks you mentioned actually slowed-down? This was because the value of 1 second (time) was changed/slowed in relation to a stationary position on earth.

Aside: do you not find it interesting that this conversation when in the exact order I predicted in my first post on this thread? I'm kicking myself for not adding the last part where you attack me personally.

Perhaps I should have started a whole thread to attack you, just as you have done for me. Spare me the poxy violins.
Your contribution to this thread has ammounted to nothing and you certainly have not refuted anything I have said. In fact, your evasiveness is amusing. You remind me of a scurrying rat.

 

[Upchurch]

Does the value of space and time distort? Yes or no? Of course it does. Therefore, the value of 1 second and 1 meter changes in relation to other observers. The twin-paradox is evidence of this.

The quantitative values of length and duration for a traveler moving in non-accelerated motion change (time gets longer, distance gets shorter) from the perspective of the earth. Likewise, the quantitative values of length and duration for the earth moving in non-accelerated motion change (time gets longer, distance gets shorter) from the perspective of the traveler. The experience is not unique to either of them and two ships passing the earth at the same relative velocity would experience the exact same distortion.

The traveling twin does not experience any of his or her own time dialation or length contraction because from his or her persepective, they are not experiencing any time dialation or length contraction, as you seem to imply. This is the very meaning of relativity. There is no absolute reference frame. It is equally valid to say that the earth is moving away from the traveler at high speed as it is to say that the traveler is moving away from the earth at high speed.

There is no relevent qualitative change involved. The one irrelevent qualitative change anyone would experience is the red-shifting and blue-shifting of the light. This shifting plays no part in the effect.

Why do you think the atomic-clocks you mentioned actually slowed-down? This was because the value of 1 second (time) was changed/slowed in relation to a stationary position on earth.

It's more complex than that and goes into General Relativity. In accelerating, the clock's local metric distorts. In essence, the four spacetime dimensions twist locally so that locally, part of the time axis becomes space axis and part of the space axis (along the line of travel) becomes time axis. It is helpful, but not entirely accurate, to think of it as a four dimensional axis where each unit vector is less than 90 degrees away from the other unit vector. The actual metric unit of space and time do not change, but the vector in which the accelerating body travels does.

I will repeat this agian in very direct and simple language:

The metric value of 1 second and 1 meter does not change for an accelerating body. That the traveling twin is younger is due to the fact that he has taken a different path through spacetime.

 

[Pahansiri]

Greetings Lifegazer.

I don't claim to be the next Shakespeare.

I find that ironic as my pointing out your grammar, spelling and sentence structure mistakes were done for a reason, not a reason to be disrespectful or harm you but to allow you to again demonstrate your hypocrisies both in many beliefs and more so actions.

You say you do not

claim to be the next Shakespeare

yet you do claim to be the holder of many truths that ONLY you know and we, all other humans are lost and foolish and many other childish names you have attached to others who
1-do not believe as you do,
2-will not just simply believe you,
3-dare to question you or ask for FACTS and proof
4- disprove what you say using logical conclusion and/or facts.

In this very thread you said among many childish statements

You have lost all credibility in my book. There is no established support for what I am saying because I am the first to say it. How dumb are you?

Lol and because YOU said it, it just has to be true, right? You are the only holder of these truths, a truth you can not prove and a messenger from a god you can not prove..

And you have some nerve pulling me for my English!

Really? I proved with facts it was poor and wrong. You have attacked everyone here personally, name calling etc for the simple reason they are right and you are wrong.

I would say how dare you.

Anyway, the theory of relativity is an explanation of universal behaviour.

behaviour is spelled behavior not behaviour

Yes and ? how does this prove God like you said it here

I posted Originally posted by Pahansiri


Did I miss where you gave the facts proving God

Point it/them out to me again please.

You responded

You lack brainpower my friend. Read the thread in its entirety and you will see that Einstein's law of relativity has its source at Mind. If you're not sure I shall walk you through it. Just ask.

I ask again how does this prove God? You keep playing the Pee wee Hermann game now of saying others are being practicing evasiveness yet it is you that is, I, we have asked you over and over and over to prove God among other things and all we see is a dance.

But inherent within that explanation is a proof that The Mind is the creator of said universal behaviour. The Mind is the creator of the universe.

Nice dance and you do have some truth here but far too simplistic and confused to understand what you are trying to believe.

First the mind is I agree the “creator” of many illusions and as Einstein said "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." -- Albert Einstein

The “albeit a very persistent one” is that your or my mind or any mind on Earth that has not yet seen a far off planet created that planet.

This we know, your dancing around facts trying to make them say “ GOD did it “ are silly. That planet is there and the causes and conditions and TIME behind it’s formation are a reality and not created by the mind.


Let us take a virus say the black plague. At the time of black plague NO human eye/mind saw the microscopic organism at its root. As to all available knowledge no life outside of Earth saw or knew of it, no mind anywhere yet the 100 million it killed all did die because this microscopic organism existed and was created not by a Gods mind but by natural causes and conditions.

You have still not proven God not proven

The Mind is the creator of the universe.

Your use of The Mind is to sat THE meaning GOD yet still NOT ONE FACT.

Prove The Mind /God created matter, energy, mind.

Oh yes you spelled behavior wrong again.

I hope you don't mind but I just volunteered you for a 25 year mission into oblivion. Don't forget to pack yer toothbrush. [/B]

That is mature.

I must admit I am wrong at least in part wrong or my profiling of you. I do not mind being wrong I often am or find it a failure or a reason to become angry at others. In fact every time I find I am wrong it is a joy as I have learned something new.


I said I believed you were from your actions a teenager, lonely on the computer all day ( most of the day) few friends, no real feeling of power or control in your life. You use the computer as a safe haven to demand you are all-powerful and filled with great knowledge safe from the real world.

After some research I find that you are 37 or older.

I will say again as I have in the past.

First if I have been at all disrespectful I am sorry I offer my opnions and facts and support all I say with logical conclusion and or facts.

I answer every point and or question put to me but while I have become frustrated that you refuse to it is my fault as to my frustration not yours as you can not “ make” me anything.

I do believe you are very intelligent but have locked yourself and ego into a corner picking what you choose to believe rather then open your mind to facts and other thoughts, beliefs etc.


I respect you and what you choose to believe. I also offer you a pillow as Upchurch, RussDill and Dancing David are REALLY kicking your ass in this thread.

LOL sorry had to get that in..

It would be a great thread to have you all share thoughts without any childish name calling and dancing.

Just what I believe, be well.

 

[whitefork]

behaviour is spelled behavior not behaviour

In this case, I believe Lifegazer is posting from England and is using their spelling conventions. I suspect he uses COLOUR and HONOUR as well.

(Just to show that I'm not completely one-sided, here)

 

[RussDill]

From the car's frame of reference you will appear elongated.

sorry, quick correction, from the car's frame of reference, you will arear compressed

 

[RussDill]

It doesn't matter whether the traveller's perception changes. Not noticing changes is not a proof that nothing is changing (for God's sake!) - which it is. The value of his meter and second are in qualitative flux, as proved by the twin paradox.

the twin paradox speaks *nothing* as to the quality of the speed of light or the quality of the meter or to the quality of the second. me thinks you are having trouble swallowing relativity. Velocity in no way distorts space time. Only the presence of matter and energy (gravity) distort spacetime.

Lorentz-transformation mathematics are there precisely to work out the relative-changes experienced by various bodies in various scenarios.

right, they are basic equations that describe the behavior of the universe, not some metaphysical effect brought on by a "Mind".

You know this. So why are you dancing around the issue? Rather, dUncing around the issue. The others have the excuse of being ignorant. But you sir, claiming to be a physicist, have no excuse.

Why do you insist on claiming that we do not understand relativistic effects? We all understand einsteins relativity, however, as I've stated before, you are arguining lifegazer's relativity. In lifegazer's relativity, classical physics is alive and well and any relativistic effects are not as much a part of the universe as gravity, no, they are caused by the "Mind". You need to throw classical physics out the window, they do not represent reality.

You have lost all credibility in my book. There is no established support for what I am saying because I am the first to say it. How dumb are you?

Hey, lifegazer, yo, whats with the personal attacks? How'd you like a discussion where we all cut loose with our venom?

I shall conjecture that tiny angels cause unpredictability at the quantum level, and you can't say that I need to establish support, because how could I, I'm the first to say it. How silly is that?

 

[Upchurch]

Especially after all the "flaming" stick you've been giving me recently.

emphesis mine

Kullervo, is this word usage British as well, do you think? I pictured myself handing lifegazer a bunch of lit tourches one by one.

Actually, as a metaphor for knowledge, it kinda works. Perhaps I'm not giving lifegazer enough credit.

 

[Terry]

emphesis mine

Kullervo, is this word usage British as well, do you think? I pictured myself handing lifegazer a bunch of lit tourches one by one.

Yeah, it is. To give someone stick means (approximately) to abuse them verbally.

Hope this helps...

--Terry.

 

[whitefork]

I wondered about some of the odd usage here, too. I don't know much about English slang, probably just enough to get me beaten up in a bar.

Ian or Geoff could probably explain. On the other hand, it might just be a cleaned up way of saying ◊◊◊◊.

It doesn't appear to provide much additional intellectual ballast.

edited: Well, Koko learned a new word today. Banana chip!

 

[RussDill]

No more evasiveness please.

my evasiveness? How about actually responding to my posts rather than just repeating what you have said before. I do put some effort into my posts, and I'd appreciate if you would actually respond to them.

I told you why x m/s is not the same for everyone. What I told you is a fact. The relative value of your meter and second is in comparative flux, whether you notice it or not. Your meter and your second have a unique meaning to you in comparison to a spaceman, for example.

space does not distort for anyone, unless you count gravitational distortion. This is the important part about special relativity. You say meters and seconds are different. Fine. If a spaceship from some other planet passes by earth at near the speed of light, who's second is shorter, who's meter is longer?

We can prove this through lorentz-transformation mathematics, or if we can find a volunteer (I vote for Pahansiri) to blast-off for a few years, we shall see him come back in about 25 years having hardly aged at all. Why bother with all that wrinkle cream?

again, we are not disputing relativistic effects, we are just disputing that they are within the domain of our universe and explainable within our universe, they in no way depend on a metaphysical explaination, as you insist. You still have not proven that special relativity requires a metaphysical explaination.

Anyway, even though Pahansiri wouldn't have noticed a relative slowing of his/her own time, he/she is evidence that his/her meter and second have changed, qualitatively, allowing for this distorted state-of-affairs.

again, you seem to refuse to accept special relativities explanations for these effects, and instead bring in the idea that we each have our own universe. I would ask you kindly to read these *very* detailed analysises of the twin paradox

http://members.tripod.com/conduit9SR/SR8.html
http://members.tripod.com/conduit9SR/SR9.html

I think the trouble you have is that you are not lettling go of simultaniaty. Please, if you are so much smarter than both upchurch and I, solve the barn door paradox. You will understand the consequences and resolutions of special relativity much better when you do. The lack of simultaniaty is part of the core of special relativity and the reason for length contraction.

Stop waffling Russ and deal with the facts. Why talk yourself out of a perfectly good argument for God's existence? lol

I am here dealing with the facts, I have been dishing them out to your continously. You don't seem to respond to anyof them, but rather, take a conclusive part of my post, and simply restate your assumptions. I've pointed out the many flaws in your proof, you simply ignore those flaws and pretend that the don't exist. (because again, you are right, I am wrong, there isn't even a need to debate anything you don't understand)

 

[lifegazer]

The quantitative values of length and duration for a traveler moving in non-accelerated motion change (time gets longer, distance gets shorter) from the perspective of the earth. Likewise, the quantitative values of length and duration for the earth moving in non-accelerated motion change (time gets longer, distance gets shorter) from the perspective of the traveler. The experience is not unique to either of them and two ships passing the earth at the same relative velocity would experience the exact same distortion.

You say that the quantitative values of space and time change in relation to other bodies. Yet you cannot see that this involves the qualitative change in the value of 1 meter or 1 second?
Let's do a simple analysis of the twin-paradox: The spacetwin shoots-off into space and when he gets back we find that he has experienced 10 years of time whilst his brother, on earth, has experienced, say, 20 years of time. This is the quantitative difference you're talking about.
Yet surely you see that for this to happen, the qualitative value of the spacetwin's 1-second must be ~stretched~ to facilitate the proceeding quantitative differences we observe?

If the spacetwin experiences half as much time as his brother, then you must surely realise that there is a **difference in the way both twins have experienced 1-second**? I.e., the value of 1 second actually has a different meaning for either twin until they meet-up again.

The traveling twin does not experience any of his or her own time dialation or length contraction because from his or her persepective, they are not experiencing any time dialation or length contraction, as you seem to imply.

You have misread me, for I do not imply this at all. I openly admit that the "strange effects" of relativity are only noticeable in comparison to other observers.

 

[Upchurch]

Yeah, it is.

Ah. My appologies, then, lifegazer. I had incorrectly thought you had mis-spelled the word shtick. My mistake.

 

[RussDill]

Anyway, the theory of relativity is an explanation of universal behaviour. But inherent within that explanation is a proof that The Mind is the creator of said universal behaviour. The Mind is the creator of the universe.

Special relativity was not made to explain relativistic effects. Someone didn't notice relativistic effects, and then work out equations for them. Special relativity predicted that relativistic effects *must* exist. And *then* (over a period of decades), those effects were observed.

Your argument states that relativity is a metaphysical effect, and thus an intelligence must be responsible for it. You have yet to show that relativity is a metaphysical effect. In fact, if it were, it would have not been predicted by einstein, but would have been found as a strange consequence of motion.