Lifegazer's special relativity "proof"
- Thread starter RussDill
- Start date
RussDill
Philosopher
lifegazer said:
I'm talking of the physical essence, not of the "well, it felt like the pot took 5 minutes to boil", which is always subjective, and it has nothing to do with relativity.
lifegazer, no matter where you measure, no matter how fast you are going when you measure. 1 second is one second, 1 meter is one meter. This is what relativity proves. Show me an example of an experiment where a second is measured, and its not truly a second, or a meter measured, and its not truly a meter.
RussDill
Philosopher
lifegazer said:
again, spacetime is exactly the same, regardless of you motion. Also, relativistic effects still apply to things without a subconcious-mind. Your expaination isn't washing. Please explain this descrepincy.
Allright lifegazer, if the numeric portion of the velocity of light isn't changing, what portion of the velocity of light IS changing. Lets see...its
299,792,458 m/s. Well, the numeric portion doesn't change. Do the units change? does it suddenly become g/s? I know that it isn't taught in any educational establishments. But if it is indeed proof of a mind, it is *very* important.
Please, teach me this concept and the effects that they have on the speed of light.
What about the stars who have long since gone nova or died out, yet we still receive their light?. What about light we cannot sense with our eyes? What about photons that do not reach our eyes, yet still cause effect to the world around us. Since the stars are right within your awareness, you are certainly aware of stars that are about to change (ie, burn out, go nova, or start up). Please, predict these events for us.
Certainly not. Special relativity is a theory that reconciles logic with maxwells equations. Before, these equations made no sense, because in the classical world view, you would be able to catch up with a photon and view it as if it was frozen in time. The universe follows special relativity whether we are aware of it, or not.
If you say that a Mind just made up laws for the universe, and set it in motion, then who made the laws for the Mind? How can you show the Mind exists?
which mind? "The Mind"? Your argument here is circular, you have proven no such mind.
Many have said that reality is the result of a "cosmic dream", excactly as you are sayng. And many have applied what they do not understand to the workings of this cosmic dream, just as you are doing. I'm sorry lifegazer, its been a pretty constant thread through the forums of mankind.
For any of these musings to be accepted, you'll have to come up with a combination of evidence, repeatable experiments, and predictions, just as the rest of scientific theories do.
What you are arguing for, ironically, is the constancy of subjective-experience. I.e., that the feeling of time is a constant. But what I said is that time and space are different for everyone, regardless of experiential-constancy. The twin-paradox, for example, highlights this. Spacetime is relative. Each individual experiences a unique perspective of it.RussDill said:
The twin-paradox (I assume you know it), shows that the value of 1 second (the qualitative value of time) and the value of 1 meter (the qualitative value of space) do change in relation to the acceleration of a body (in this case, the spacetwin). That's why 25 years for the earthtwin pans-out as, say, 10 years for his brother in space.RussDill said:
Hence the age discrepency, brought-on by the qualitative distortion of space and time, as experienced by the spacetwin.
Thus, the meter and the second are in qualitative-flux. Fact.
Thus, any velocity, say x m/s, means something qualitatively-unique for each individual, since the defining parameters are unique for each individual.
'i' am the awareness of these events. I am not The Mind creating the show.
RussDill
Philosopher
lifegazer said:
What I am feeling is the subjectiveness of my internal clock, it has nothing to do with relativity. Thats why we have atomic clocks to measure such things. Each individual experinces spacetime exactly the same, no matter how many experiments they perform, they will find no difference in their space time, or my space time. Show me an experiment that will be different
No human-being has ever linked Einstein's theory of relativity to idealism. You're talking nonsense as usual. Your insincerity makes you a worthless conversant.RussDill said:
Einstein & co. already provided me with those details. You wish me to repeat their experiments?
RussDill
Philosopher
lifegazer said:
Does time pass quicker on the moon, or slowly on the earth? Who is right? who has the "correct" second. There is no universal clock, no universal second, no universal meter. If there was a "Mind", it would stand to reason that there would be a universal second, but there is none. Who's second has changed? The one twin's second? or the other twin's second?
There was no qualitive distortion for the spacetwin. There was no way for the spacetwin to find any difference between his spacetime, and the earth twin's spacetime. In fact, when he left (once he got done accelerating) He looked back at his earth twin and saw that his earth twin was aging very slowly.
Whenever either measures a second, they measure a second. Its about relative motion of bodies. Not some local distortion.
Show me an experement that someone can conduct in a closed room, that shows their velocity. Surely if something quantitively has changed, they'll be able to show that.
again, prove this
RussDill
Philosopher
lifegazer said:
you link it to something you don't understand. In the past, the popular thing was gravity, no one understood what kept the planets in their motion, so it was a mind. The exact concept may be different, but the reasoning is identical.
They have proven einstien's relativity. You need to prove lifegazer's relativity, which is different in many subtle, but important ways from einstien's
BTW, tell me about the barn.
Lifegazer may I ask you a simple question, please respond YES or NO.
If your response is no please include facts and supporting conclusion to support your answer.
With ever improving technology we are able to see deeper into space all the time. We are through powerful telescopes photographing the death of stars ( as to the light of the event etc) that occurred perhaps billions of years ago.
Is it your belief that when the first scientist cast his eyes on the photo was the first time this star never existed? Did this previously unknown and unseen due to distances tar not exist before he looked at the photo?
If your response is no please include facts and supporting conclusion to support your answer.
With ever improving technology we are able to see deeper into space all the time. We are through powerful telescopes photographing the death of stars ( as to the light of the event etc) that occurred perhaps billions of years ago.
Is it your belief that when the first scientist cast his eyes on the photo was the first time this star never existed? Did this previously unknown and unseen due to distances tar not exist before he looked at the photo?
This has nothing to do with "correct time". What matters and what is fact, is that relatively-speaking (by comparison), time and space are experienced differently by all people in all different scenarios. Fact.RussDill said:
Accelerate to great velocities and you
shall change the qualitative value of your 1 second.
I was under the impression you knew what you were talking about. You don't.
The order of the universe is known within The Mind that creates it. But it takes concious-awareness, from within this universe, to see (visually sense) any part of that universe.Pahansiri said:
My answer to your question is that the photo was the first time that the star was visually sensed. But it already existed within The Mind's all-knowing eye, if you get my drift.
RussDill
Philosopher
lifegazer said:
everything expereinces spacetime exactly the same, thats the point of relativity.
really, give me an experiment I could conduct to show that. I keep asking you this, but you never give me one.
In fact, we already are accelerated to great velocities. Look around us, look at the speeds of other galaxies. Of course, who is accelerating away from whom? Is our reality any different? By your definition, isn't *our* value for a second already changed?
answer me the barn paradox then.
RussDill
Philosopher
lifegazer said:
ya, we do, but what is your proof of this mind?
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Okay, not just swimming with time to write this, but I'd like to straighten one thing out. When speaking of time dialation and length contraction, it works like this: If two observers are moving at relativistic speed in respect to one another, say for example they are passing one another, each observer views the other observer as becoming narrower along the axis of travel and the ticks of the clock on the other observer's clock slowing down.
From what I had time to scan, it sounds as if people are thinking that the observer sees his own time slowing down or his own length contracting. For each observer, their own 1 meter is always 1 meter and their 1 second is always 1 second.
Thus the paradox in the twin scenerio. If each twin sees the other's clock slowing down, why is the earth-bound twin the one who does the most aging?
The answer, of course, and the crux of the twin paradox, is that the traveling twin goes through a period of acceleration.
I did an analysis of this for a research project in college and it turns out that the longer the period of acceleration is, the more pronounced the age difference is. I think I still have the paper I presented in a box somewhere...
From what I had time to scan, it sounds as if people are thinking that the observer sees his own time slowing down or his own length contracting. For each observer, their own 1 meter is always 1 meter and their 1 second is always 1 second.
Thus the paradox in the twin scenerio. If each twin sees the other's clock slowing down, why is the earth-bound twin the one who does the most aging?
The answer, of course, and the crux of the twin paradox, is that the traveling twin goes through a period of acceleration.
I did an analysis of this for a research project in college and it turns out that the longer the period of acceleration is, the more pronounced the age difference is. I think I still have the paper I presented in a box somewhere...
lifegazer said:
I see even a simple yes or no is too difficult.
Prove a creator/God. When you stop dancing and simply prove God? You have said only you believe the truth, you are special so to prove God and “save” us all should be easy.
“concious” is spelled conscious. It seems God’s messenger would know this.
1- the “star” did always exist in that it was comprised of non-star elements, i.e. matter and energy.
2- “it” did not always exist in that form I,e, that star. That star was born of the matter/ gasses etc and that took perhaps billions of years, it “lived” if you will for perhaps billions of years then as all compound things “suffered” death and decay. And what is seen is the death image if you will in the light traveling through space.
3- Prove the all-knowing eye, prove god,
4- Prove God
5- Prove God
6- Prove God
7- Prove God
8- Prove God
Please just stop saying what you believe, which I respect you believe it but just stop saying it is fact and offer up the facts, the proof.
lifegazer said:
Where, you have offered not one fact proving "god".
It is an old childish ploy to say people who will not believe you are lost, blind,lack the sincerity and open-mindedness .
Just prove what you say. If you are right it should be easy to prove, prove it and I will believe you and be happy to stop believing what I do now, I do not fear truth as I do not belive most here do not.
I fear you do.