Lifegazer's special relativity "proof"

[Upchurch]

Please explain to this forum how the whole universe of space & time distorting in-tune to ones own motion is akin to the car moving or the light-bulb coming on.

They are all natural processes, byproducts of the interaction of matter/entergy and spacetime. None is inherently more special than the next.

Your credibility is crumbling squire.

I wonder how many would agree with you, cap'n.

 

[lifegazer]

You saw the word paradox in "twin paradox" and though, huh, science must be ignorant.

For the third and last time, the twin-paradox was labelled thus by somebody else. I merely call it that because they did. And I use it because I can link it to my philosophy. Furthermore, I do not believe in any paradox whatsoever - just ignorance or stupidity.

You thought there was another explanation needed, you mind fit it perfectly. What you did not know, is that science was not ignorant, the twin paradox is used to explain relativity, not show that it has holes.

You're under the illusion that I am challenging Einstein or his equations. Your incessant ramblings to that effect have drove me to the point of madness. My one and only point for this discussion is to link what science knows to the reality of mind, thus showing that these occurences are not happening externally to the mind.
Now, why don't you show me that you have a modicum of intelligence and shut up waffling about irrelevant stuff?

I'll ask this one again, since particles in an accelerator experience relativistic effects, do they to have their own universe?

I answered the same dumb questions about atomic clocks, long ago. Keep up.

 

[lifegazer]

They are all natural processes, byproducts of the interaction of matter/entergy and spacetime. None is inherently more special than the next.

A car accelerates because it is forced to do so by the actions of my foot. Stop waffling, evasively, and tell these people why the whole universe - as they perceive it - will be distorted by their acceleration. Are you implying that the body exerts a force upon the whole external universe, whereby that body's acceleration forces the universe to distort?
Are you people so dumb that you believe anything upchurch says?
Are you taking stock of his responses to me?!

I wonder how many would agree with you, cap'n.

Sitting comfortably and smugly amongst your skeptical ivory-tower, feeling superior and right merely because the brainless masses are on your side. How feeble.
Go to a Christian chatroom my friend, and see exactly how feeble that answer is when used by individuals there to discount your skepticism.

 

[The Don]

First of all, I'd like to apologise to everybody for getting involved in this one. I think that it's really confusing when lots of people post to the same thread and start ot pick off little bits of arguments.

Second of all, I'd like to make it clear that I'm no expert w.r.t. relativity. My only qualification is a Physics degree which was obatined with minimum effort 15 years ago. Since I have had relatively (no pun intended) involvement with Physics with the exception of reading a few light books on string theory and the obligatory (these days) Hawkings.

Thirdly, the laws of relativity (in fact any physical laws) are not in themselves fundamental underlying truths, merely sets of equations which have been developed to model what has been observed and to predict what has not. Where a set of equations successfully predict an observable, they are retained. Where they do not, they are modified. These are laws not "laws" (we have no way of geting things to obey the laws - they just happen to follow them).



Now to the meat of the thing. Lifegazer's claims that relativistic effects are caused by a "mind" are self supporting. Lifegazer will insist that relativistic effects have to be "observed". At this point a "mind" will have to become involved and apply the correct relativistic effect.

Now we could all claim that relativistic stuff happens all the time without a "mind" being involved. In order to verify this, an observation of some kind will have to be made and at this point in time the necessary relativistic adjustment will be made.

It is the equivalent of saying that relativistic effects are caused by invisible pink unicorns - impossible to disprove - just not very useful.


Anyhow back to the plot. I would be interested to find out how "minds" can cause relativistic effects to happen in the dim distant past (in stars and galaxies a long long way away whose light is just reaching us now). Does this mean that the "mind" that observes these effects has the ability to project these relativistic efefcts backwards in time, or is it that some other omniscient "mind" (or God) is responsible for putting the relativistic effects in place ?

A car accelerates because it is forced to do so by the actions of my foot. Stop waffling, evasively, and tell these people why the whole universe - as they perceive it - will be distorted by their acceleration. Are you implying that the body exerts a force upon the whole external universe, whereby that body's acceleration forces the universe to distort?

The universe will be distorted because a non-zero mass is being accelerated.

Is it your assertion that the effects are localised ? If so where do they stop ?

 

[Upchurch]

waffling

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

A car accelerates because it is forced to do so by the actions of my foot. Stop waffling, evasively, and tell these people why the whole universe - as they perceive it - will be distorted by their acceleration.

Is there a way one can waffle unevasivly?

The whole universe will appear to distort, kinda, when you accelerate in a car because the acceleration causes you to switch reference frames from inertial to non-inertial. A very simplified way of looking at it is that a little bit of the time axis of your local spacetime metric becomes a little bit of a space axis and a little bit of the space axis pointing along your direction of travel becomse a little bit of time axis.

Unfortunately, at the speeds and accelerations that a car can achieve relative to the Earth it is sitting on, the effects are negligable, so they haven't been incorporated into our collective "real world" experiences.

Are you implying that the body exerts a force upon the whole external universe, whereby that body's acceleration forces the universe to distort?

The body does exert a force on the whole external universe. Newton came up with that one with his first formulation of gravitational theory way back in the 1700's. However, again, because we are so small compared to the objects around us, our personal effect on each object in the universe is negligable.

Further, the only net effect we have on the entire universe is a very, very tiny amount of gravitational pull, which is usually greatly overshadowed by other forces. I don't know if I'd call that a distortion, per se, but it does have an effect. Acceleration only contributes to that gravitational effect through Relativistic mass increase.

Are you people so dumb that you believe anything upchurch says?
Are you taking stock of his responses to me?!

Hey, don't take my word for it. You can read (shock and horror!) about it for yourself. Here are a few links:

A favorite reference of mine
The best GR book ever (but very technical, which is why it is good)
Background on Newton's work
Googled GR

Or heck, we can ask one of the more active physicists on this board to come over and comment about the factual nature of my posts.

Sitting comfortably and smugly amongst your skeptical ivory-tower, feeling superior and right merely because the brainless masses are on your side. How feeble.

I thought this was a cute mixed-metaphore. Sitting in my ivory tower with the masses by my side. That's one big ivory tower!

Go to a Christian chatroom my friend, and see exactly how feeble that answer is when used by individuals there to discount your skepticism.

I'd like to refer you to this thread concerning true believers and those willing to look at all possibilities despite their personal belief. (You do realize that this is more or less a skeptic's board, right?)

 

[Upchurch]

Hey, I've got a question for you, lifegazer.

If I'm mindlessly repeating the majority opinion, why are you surprised at anything I'm saying? If you are rebelling against the common belief, don't you know what you are rebelling against already? Anything I say should be old hat to you, but you continue to sound shocked and surprised at what I write.

Could it be that you really don't understand what it is that you are rebelling against at all?

 

[lifegazer]

Hey, I've got a question for you, lifegazer.

If I'm mindlessly repeating the majority opinion, why are you surprised at anything I'm saying? If you are rebelling against the common belief, don't you know what you are rebelling against already? Anything I say should be old hat to you, but you continue to sound shocked and surprised at what I write.

Could it be that you really don't understand what it is that you are rebelling against at all?

Actually, I just get frustrated with the inability of people to see what I consider to be simple reasoning. I have come to the conclusion that other factors are at work, and that it's not just a simple matter of showing that 1 + 1 = 2, so to speak.
Perhaps armageddon must occur after all.

 

[Upchurch]

Actually, I just get frustrated with the inability of people to see what I consider to be simple reasoning.

And, of course, the universe must comply with your "simple reasoning"? As Don pointed out, invisible unicorns or magic fairies are also a simple explination for relativistic effects. Doesn't mean it's true.

 

[lifegazer]

The whole universe will appear to distort, kinda, when you...

I wasn't asking about relativistic effects upon a car. I was asking how you compared my foot being responsible for forcing the car to move, to my high-velocity (in space) distorting the whole of the universe as I perceive it. There is no comparison between the two.

I'd like to refer you to this thread concerning true believers and those willing to look at all possibilities despite their personal belief. (You do realize that this is more or less a skeptic's board, right?)

I'm not wasting my time listening to people brag about how open-minded they are. I leave you all to blow your own trumpets.

 

[lifegazer]

And, of course, the universe must comply with your "simple reasoning"? As Don pointed out, invisible unicorns or magic fairies are also a simple explination for relativistic effects. Doesn't mean it's true.

This is nonsense. There is no argument of reason linking unicorns to relativity. Let's improve the quality of debate uppy squire.

 

[Darat]

This is nonsense. There is no argument of reason linking unicorns to relativity. Let's improve the quality of debate uppy squire.

Please feel free to do so. Could you please answer any of the points Upchurch made with a reasoned counter argument?

 

[Upchurch]

I wasn't asking about relativistic effects upon a car. I was asking how you compared my foot being responsible for forcing the car to move, to my high-velocity (in space) distorting the whole of the universe as I perceive it. There is no comparison between the two.

First, the "distortion", as you insist on calling it, happens both at high speeds and low speeds, it is just noticible at high speeds. Second, as I explained, they are both everyday physical phenomena. I've explained this. That you put such high significance on Relativity is due to your unfamiliarity with it both as a concept and and as an experience.

I'm not wasting my time listening to people brag about how open-minded they are.

Yeah. Wouldn't want to challenge your own preconceived notions, might mean you'd have to think.

 

[lifegazer]

Please feel free to do so. Could you please answer any of the points Upchurch made with a reasoned counter argument?

Which ones from which posts?

 

[Upchurch]

This is nonsense. There is no argument of reason linking unicorns to relativity.

So, there isn't an argument linking some etherial critters (unicorns and pixies) to Relativity but there is an argument linking other etherial critters (God and The Mind) to Relativity.

Fact of the matter is, there is exactly as much evidence showing that The Mind is the cause of Relativity as there is showing that magic pixies are the cause of Relativity. Both can be reasoned out and a consistent, logical rationel can be made for both, but at the end of the day, there is no evidence to support or disprove either.

 

[lifegazer]

First, the "distortion", as you insist on calling it, happens both at high speeds and low speeds, it is just noticible at high speeds.

Yup.

Second, as I explained, they are both everyday physical phenomena. I've explained this.

I missed the explanation. Most of us have a rough idea of why the car moves when we press-down on the pedal, but we're all dieing to know how the whole of the perceived universe is distorted by the acceleration of the body that perceives it. Please uppy - you have the stage.

Wouldn't want to challenge your own preconceived notions, might mean you'd have to think.

Anybody willing to challenge the whole establishment of science, religion and philosophy, has to be truly open-minded. Don't you agree?
As far as I can tell, the only thing you're willing to challenge is religion.
Edit: I guess that makes me the most open-minded person on the planet. Pass me the open-minded award please.

 

[Wudang]

Actually, I just get frustrated with the inability of people to see what I consider to be simple reasoning. I have come to the conclusion that other factors are at work, and that it's not just a simple matter of showing that 1 + 1 = 2, so to speak.
Perhaps armageddon must occur after all.

Well, the problem is that common sense kind of reasoning only applies to the scale of the everyday world. At the scale of the very small (quantum mechanics) and the very large (relativity) then common sense doesn't work that well. When I've been reading books like "In Search of Schrodinger's kittens" I've had to re-read sections several times because they so challenged my preconceptions of "the way things are".

 

[lifegazer]

Well, the problem is that common sense kind of reasoning only applies to the scale of the everyday world. At the scale of the very small (quantum mechanics) and the very large (relativity) then common sense doesn't work that well. When I've been reading books like "In Search of Schrodinger's kittens" I've had to re-read sections several times because they so challenged my preconceptions of "the way things are".

Fair point. But you do reason a disservice by assuming she cannot wrestle with either QM or relativity.

 

[Hexxenhammer]

I'll post this again in case someone missed it in Flame Wars.

 

[scribble]

Edit: I guess that makes me the most open-minded person on the planet. Pass me the open-minded award please. [/B]

Your mind is so far open, I'm afraid your brains have fallen out....

 

[Wudang]

Fair point. But you do reason a disservice by assuming she cannot wrestle with either QM or relativity.

I make no such assumption. She can wrestle with them, but to continue the analogy, she needs to change her stance first. The premises that she starts from need to be the correct ones.