Lifegazer's special relativity "proof"

[RussDill]

Not at all. It is my intention to make sense of what Einstein tells us, no matter how bizarre it seems.

right, but you are using a metaphysical method. By saying that there is need for a metaphysical method, you are stating that the physical explanations are not consistent on their own.

A cycle of the earth around the sun is equivalent to a year of time.
Simply by observing the earth, the spacetwin could keep tabs of 'normal time', so to speak. 20 revolutions is equivalent to 20 normal years.

this is no different than watching a clock on the earth

As I said earlier, if they see one heavenly body moving the same, then they see all heavenly bodies moving the same.

Like I said, they don't see it the "same". Celestial alignments for instance, would not happen for such a traveler. Other alignments not seen to the earth twin would happen instead. Also, you say heavenly bodies, but you are only speaking of them in releation to the earth twin's frame of reference, when the spacetwins view is just as valid.

Resolved? In what sense?

/me bangs his head against the wall. Its called a paradox, because it seems paradoxical. It seems paradoxical because two bodies moving towards eachother near the speed of light will see eachothers clocks run slower, the same is true for two bodies moving away from eachother. The paradox is, wouldn't each twin see the other as younger? which truly is younger. However, it isn't paradoxical at all. The twin that left and came back is younger. This isn't just a random solution, you can use the simple laws of relativity to come up with it yourself. It fits perfectly into special relativity. There is nothing truly paradoxical about this paradox. Would you like the solution?

 

[Dancing David]

There are two choices: They both see the universe age 20 years or they don't.
Given the former answer, we're left contemplating a spacetwin who experiences 10 years of time whilst the universe ages 20.
And given the latter choice, we're left contemplating 2 different realities occuring simultaneously.

You are getting warmer, warmer, red hot!

The space twin will experience a different passage of time in refereence to the eath twin, there journey through the time dimesion will be different than the journey through the time dimension for the earth twin.

The real problem is that from the space twin's frame of reference the rest of the universe will be slowing down, but when they get back to earth they find out it actualy was a faster frame of reference.

Ain't that cool!

The reality is plural, the journey through space time is seperate for each frame of reference.

Watch the word simultaneous, it can't exist.

 

[RussDill]

You are getting warmer, warmer, red hot!

not really, because he seems to insist on the latter, that there are actually 2 different divergent realities.

 

[Upchurch]

Wowzers. lifegazer, I was lead to believe that you understood what Relativity Theory was all about. Nothing contradicts this more than the following post.

Wait a minute yourself. You're the one who told me that both twins will observe heavenly bodies moving in the exact-same manner. I.e., you said that both twins would observe the earth move around the sun 20 times. Are you absolutely sure about this?

I absolutely positively did not say that "both twins will observe heavenly bodies moving in the exact-same [sic] manner." I went to great lengths to not even imply that. I tried to very carefully say that by the point that the space twin returns to the earth twin's inertial reference frame, they will agree on the number of orbits the Earth went around the Sun. You'll notice that there are no refrences to any other "heavenly bodies" nor any reference to any other reference frames. Please re-read what I have said if you are still this grossly confused.

If you are, ... {snip}

I am not saying anything of the kind.

So you see, if they see earth behave the same, then they see all heavenly bodies behave the same. Hence at the end of the day, the spacetwin would age 10 years whilst observing the universe age 20.
Something fishy is in the air!

And that something fishy is your reasoning.

One of the fundamental assumptions of Relativity, proven true by the Michelson-Morley experiment is that there are no absolute reference frame from which to measure things. In this case, "absolute" is synonymous for "universal". If you do not understand this or, inexplicably, you disagree with it, any discussion about Relativity is pointless.

The very reason it is called "Relativity" is because whenever you measure something it can only be said to be true relative to something else. The universe is comprised of untold numbers of objects moving at relativistic speeds, accelerating, decelerating, orbiting, and collapsing into singularity. Aside from the fact that the universe couldn't by any stretch of the imagination be called "inertial", using the universe as a reference frame makes about as much sense as defining "1 meter" to be equal to the height of each individual man, woman, and child that has ever lived or ever will live. It makes no sense and would be impossible to use.

There are two choices: They both see the universe age 20 years or they don't.

This is just goes to further my hypothesis that you've never really read or, at least, understood anything about relativity beyond maybe pop sci-fi.

However, I will restate, in the very limited condition that both twins are on Earth and in the same inertial reference frame, they will have seen the Earth go around the [/i]Sun[/i] 20 times. When they look out in space, they will see portions of the universe from as little as 4 years ago to as much as 15 billion years ago, due to the propogation of the light and radiation it gives off.

Given the former answer, we're left contemplating a spacetwin who experiences 10 years of time whilst the universe ages 20.
And given the latter choice, we're left contemplating 2 different realities occuring simultaneously.

Simultaneously compared to what exactly? What are you measuring simulatainity against? The Earth's reference frame? The space twin's reference frame?

Actually, I'm trying to show that everyone sees their own universe, which is a proof that each universe is Mind-generated.

And here's the kicker. In your drive to find something that supports your desired outcome, you abandon your earlier argument to grasp something you can try to rationalize to your needs. This is the very worst form of intellectual dishonesty. Not only are you being dishonest with us, but you are being dishonest with yourself.

I'm going to continue to counter your misconceptions, but until you realize that you are rationalizing and not reasoning, I'll really be talking to those who know too little to think you are correct.

 

[whitefork]

We got a theologian here. I suspect arguments from physics and philosophy may not apply. Its a question of transmitting and receiving the revelation.

My reception has a lot of static.

 

[c4ts]

We got a theologian here. I suspect arguments from physics and philosophy may not apply. Its a question of transmitting and receiving the revelation.

My reception has a lot of static.

If arguments from physics and philosophy do not apply, why has he tried to use them?

 

[whitefork]

If arguments from physics and philosophy do not apply, why has he tried to use them?

Beats me. I'm not sure they're actually arguments, more like a sequence of assertions in search of a conclusion. Something about the nature of god. "Theology" seems to fit.

 

[Upchurch]

"Theology" seems to fit.

Makes about as much sense. I'll buy that.

 

[whitefork]

Yeah, theology in the marketplace. Why not?

"What am I bid for this fine deity, almost new, barely worshipped, one owner? Who'll start the bidding at 10 euros? Do I hear 5?"

 

[Upchurch]

Yeah, theology in the marketplace. Why not?

Theology is all about commerce.

 

[whitefork]

Theology is all about commerce.

Praise be, my eyes are opened. This clarifies quite a bit for me. Especially apropriate at this happy time of year.

 

[lifegazer]

I only have to understand one small thing about relativity to link to a realisation that eventually links to The Mind as the creator of all perceived existence. And that thing is that the essential value of space and time, as perceived by men, is not absolute. I.e., there is no absolute meaning of time or space.

This is proven by the twin-paradox in that two men can compare experiences of time. One man can experience 10 years whilst the other may experience, say, 20 years, inbetween their present meeting and their previous meeting.
Clearly, when one experiences 10 years to the others 20, in the same period between meetings, then time is clearly not perceived in any absolute sense.
Any rational contemplation of relativity cannot fail to recognise that the second is in a state of perceived flux. I.e., the value of the second is unique to each individual. Same with the meter. And hence, the same with velocity, being meters/second.

Also, the motion of a body does distort the experience of time which that body shall have. Hence, I ask you to contemplate the reality of a situation whereby when you begin to move, the whole universe around you is distorted just for you!!! Think people, for heaven's sake. This alone is a proof that the universe dances to your tune, and not vice versa.

There isn't much point in saying much else. It's all been said. Those of you who want to (again) show that I'm not a physicist or even an expert in relativity will be wasting your time. I openly admit to being neither. But what I am is of a rational-intelligence able to deduce a simple conclusion from just a base understanding of Einstein's work.

If you want to ignore this, then sobeit. But be advised that what I say today will one day be taught to our kids as fact. Denial of truth can only last for so long.

 

[Dancing David]

Hence, I ask you to contemplate the reality of a situation whereby when you begin to move, the whole universe around you is distorted just for you!!!


I would say that where I don't agree with you is how this proves that the universe is mind, I understand that the perception is mind argument.

But if you say that the time disrortion which applies to electrons and protons means that they are consious, then you lost me.

Again the power meter on the accelerator will show that energy is drawn at a much greater rate, even if no one watches it.

And I think the part that we are trying to present to you is this:
The universe is not distorted at all, it is the way it is, the distortion comes from comparing frames of reference.

The space time continum is not distorted, the object takes a different path through the four dimensions but there is no distortion.

This already is taught to kids everyday, the common term is humanistic relitavism

What do you think of cultural anthrolplogy Lifegazer?

 

[RussDill]

I only have to understand one small thing about relativity to link to a realisation that eventually links to The Mind as the creator of all perceived existence. And that thing is that the essential value of space and time, as perceived by men, is not absolute. I.e., there is no absolute meaning of time or space.

guess what lifegazer, one small thing isn't enough, you have to understand *all* of relativity to understand its implications. Space and time may not seem as absolute as you'd want reality to be (note the desire on your end here), but it is VERY, VERY consistent. No matter what the situation, all observers can calculate exactly what is happening.

I know that in your day to day interactions, space and time seem like absolute constants, but that isn't reality. Its like the surface of glass, it seems perfectly smooth, but it isn't. Just because reality doesn't agree with your perceptions, doesn't make it any less real.

This is proven by the twin-paradox in that two men can compare experiences of time. One man can experience 10 years whilst the other may experience, say, 20 years, inbetween their present meeting and their previous meeting.
Clearly, when one experiences 10 years to the others 20, in the same period between meetings, then time is clearly not perceived in any absolute sense.
Any rational contemplation of relativity cannot fail to recognise that the second is in a state of perceived flux. I.e., the value of the second is unique to each individual. Same with the meter. And hence, the same with velocity, being meters/second.

Again, these values are not in flux, and are not unique to "different" individuals. Here's another spot where you want to use your own wants and desires. Its not about individuals, its about particles and energy. There is no need for an individual for these effects to take place. You keep putting individual in there becase of the way you WANT things to be. How can you have a rational contemplation of relativity if you do not understand it. I'm pretty sure now that you honestly did not know that the twin paradox is not a paradox.

Also, the motion of a body does distort the experience of time which that body shall have. Hence, I ask you to contemplate the reality of a situation whereby when you begin to move, the whole universe around you is distorted just for you!!! Think people, for heaven's sake. This alone is a proof that the universe dances to your tune, and not vice versa.

Again, if you knew relativity, you'd know that there is no distortion. What about when I move from point a to point b, or rotate, the whole universe rotates and moves aronud me. I must be special. Because the whole universe rotates when I do, there must be a god.

The effects of relativity are no different, you are simply exchanging travel in spacial dimensions for travel in a temporal dimensions. Your world view shows these dimensions as vastly divergent, this is not the case, this is what special (and more directly, general) relativity show.

There isn't much point in saying much else. It's all been said. Those of you who want to (again) show that I'm not a physicist or even an expert in relativity will be wasting your time. I openly admit to being neither. But what I am is of a rational-intelligence able to deduce a simple conclusion from just a base understanding of Einstein's work.

You have reached your conclusion with a flawed understanding of einsein's work. You conclusions are invalid.

If you want to ignore this, then sobeit. But be advised that what I say today will one day be taught to our kids as fact. Denial of truth can only last for so long.

Right, look, lifegazer, there have been billions of people over tens of thousands of years looking for answers like these. Do you honestly believe that in only a small portion of your life, you have been able to accomplish what they have not. Do you really believe yourself that superior to the human race? Get a grip.

BTW, you might telling us how you can convince the world if you can't even get a forum filled with philosophers to take your ideas seriously?

 

[lifegazer]

Hence, I ask you to contemplate the reality of a situation whereby when you begin to move, the whole universe around you is distorted just for you!!!


I would say that where I don't agree with you is how this proves that the universe is mind, I understand that the perception is mind argument.

If, in your awareness, you accelerate and the whole of your perceived universe distorts itself just for you, do you not see that this universe is in your mind alone?
Under what circumstances do you imagine that the whole of space and time, as you perceive it, would be distorted by your actions, except within and by your mind?
Take into account the relative differences which exist between you and all men of the universe you have experienced.
Consider the twins again. Both experience different universes in the period inbetween their two meetings. Clearly, there can only be one reality yet here we see evidence of two realities (of spacetime).
It is not difficult to comprehend that your mind is responsible for what you see.

But if you say that the time disrortion which applies to electrons and protons means that they are consious, then you lost me.

Everything in awareness is subject to Einstein's laws of relativity. But the key phrase is in awareness. Try discovering the experience of things external to your awareness before you complain that my theory is nonsense. Can't be done of course.

The universe is not distorted at all, it is the way it is, the distortion comes from comparing frames of reference.

Two different experiences of reality is a clear indication that the observers are having a subjective (mind-generated) experience of reality.

What do you think of cultural anthrolplogy Lifegazer?

I strive for unity, which equates to the integration of cultures into one cosmopolitan culture, where diversity of expression reigns.

 

[lifegazer]

No matter what the situation, all observers can calculate exactly what is happening.

And? I have no dispute with Einstein's laws or equations. In fact, my philosophy rests upon the complete validity of Einstein's works. Do you have any idea of what it is that I'm trying to say or upon what I found these conclusions?

I know that in your day to day interactions, space and time seem like absolute constants, but that isn't reality. Its like the surface of glass, it seems perfectly smooth, but it isn't. Just because reality doesn't agree with your perceptions, doesn't make it any less real.

Are you reading what I say: "... the essential value of space and time, as perceived by men, is not absolute.". [first paragraph, yesterday's post]

Again, these values are not in flux

Make your mind up. You just agreed that the value of time and space is not absolute.
Anyway, how do you propose that two men can have different experiences of time or space unless the perceived values of their space and time could flux?
It's time to engage a little reason Russ. I'm not going to make many more posts in this thread, repeating obvious conclusions from obvious facts. If you don't believe me, then sobeit.

I'm pretty sure now that you honestly did not know that the twin paradox is not a paradox.

There is no such thing as a paradox Russ. There is only ignorance.

Right, look, lifegazer, there have been billions of people over tens of thousands of years looking for answers like these. Do you honestly believe that in only a small portion of your life, you have been able to accomplish what they have not. Do you really believe yourself that superior to the human race? Get a grip.

Argument from amazement does not suffice to discredit the argument presented.

BTW, you might telling us how you can convince the world if you can't even get a forum filled with philosophers to take your ideas seriously?

By sheer stubbornness. In the end, everyone will agree with me just to shut me up.

 

[Upchurch]

there is no absolute meaning of time or space.

What do you mean by "meaning"?

This alone is a proof that the universe dances to your tune, and not vice versa.

False dilemma. Are there no other possibilities you can immagine? For instance, the universe is a much more complex place than our common everyday experiences would lead us to believe?

But what I am is of a rational-intelligence able to deduce a simple conclusion from just a base understanding of Einstein's work.

That is to say, a conclusion that is based on incomplete understanding and more or less disagrees with argument the conclusion is based on.

How can you be so sure that more complete understanding won't lead you to a different conclusion and, if so, which conclusion is more likely to be the case: the one based on incomplete understanding or the one based on complete understanding?

Denial of truth can only last for so long.

For your sake, I hope that is true. However, I think you underestimate the laziness of some people who won't take the effort to learn something before they make up their minds about it.

 

[sackett]

Come on, youze guys!

Can't you tell a crank when you see one? Lite Grazer presents all the symptoms: obsession, incoherency, insolence, conceit, stubbornness, obtuseness -- I'm getting tired of listing his fine qualities. He gives the impression of having something to say, but he'll never say it, and you know he won't. I don't think his apparent age (I'm guessing about 15) excuses him: some cranks start early.

Worst of all, he's boring. I don't use the Iggy button, but I find when reading threads that I almost always just scroll past his long, windy, irrational, and deeply uninteresting posts.

But I will say that L.G. has exasperated you fellers into writing some really good explanations of things that I never hoped to understand. So maybe he's good for something after all?

 

[Upchurch]

Re: Come on, youze guys!

But I will say that L.G. has exasperated you fellers into writing some really good explanations of things that I never hoped to understand. So maybe he's good for something after all?

That's why we do it. Misinformation and ignorance, when left unchallenged, tends to propogate and that hurts everyone.

 

[sackett]

Bravely said, Upchurch!

But I really think you should change your handle to Quixote.