Lifegazer's special relativity "proof"
- Thread starter RussDill
- Start date
lifegazer said:
English, please.
You'll note I haven't debated with you. Nor will I debate with you. I've read this thread and your others, and I can conclude that it would be an utter waste of time.
The fact that you believe I lost some debate to you at some point is just more evidence of how far detached you are from reality.
I made the comment I did because it was fun for me.
[helps lifegazer collect some of his brains from the floor]
Now look, man - many, many people have already suggested you go out and learn something about what you're debating. Your unwillingness to do so just reinforces my belief that debating with you would be pointless.
Enjoy making a rebuttal. I'm only going to reply for as long as I'm having fun doing it.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Lordy, boy! Where've ya been? I've only been explaining it on and off for the last 6 pages of this thread and provided three links and a Google search to boot!lifegazer said:
Other than teaching you differential geometry, topography, and about three hundred years worth of related historical and modern physics including electromagnetic theory, I don't know what else to do for you. One can only lead a horse to water, one cannot force it to drink.
Did you even look at any of those sources I provided for you?
I spent over four years of my life going over the theoretical derivations and experimental evidence for a fairly good portion of modern physics. (obviously I didn't have access to some of the more expensive experimental equipment.) Part of every scientist's training is to seek out the flaws and assumptions in every theorm. Far from holding any idea sacred, every physicist dreams of being the one that shakes the foundations of modern physics, to be the one who finds the one mistake that everyone else missed and changes everything.
I'm sure as h*** willing to challenge science and there were a few things I flat out disagree with (the Grandfather Paradox among them). The only reason you've only seen me challenge religion is because that is all you've presented.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Thanks, scibble. You may now join me and all the other mindless masses as we all sit alone together in my (extremely large) skeptical ivory tower.
(Sorry, I'm not going to stop laughing about that one anytime soon. The imagry is just too funny.)
(Sorry, I'm not going to stop laughing about that one anytime soon. The imagry is just too funny.)
That's the third time you've avoided giving an explanation. And since I only asked the question on the previous page, or perhaps page 4, your sums seem a little vague.Upchurch said:
This is evasive nonsense. Are you or are you not going to tell anybody what force is involved in distorting the whole universe of space and time as perceived by any body in motion?
This is the last time I ask and if you do not answer, I for one will think that you do not have one.
Can you prove that relativity applies to things external to awareness?
Can you show that relativity is not a theory involving the mind as the source of its own perceived universe?
Don't try and impress me with physics qualifications. This discussion is a philosophical enquiry into the nature of reality. Do you not even realise this?
I do not want a ****ing education in physics. I merely want you to apply your knowledge to either prove that the theory of relativity applies to an external reality, or an internal reality.
Now, for the umpteenth time, stop waffling and get with the programme.
Well, while I don't think Lifegazer's goal of leading everyone to the one great truth and uniting the world worked the way he wanted, it did make the skeptics on this board unite... against Lifegazer.
And I say scribble can sleep inside. Lies may be warm and comforting, but woolly sheep are the best!
And I say scribble can sleep inside. Lies may be warm and comforting, but woolly sheep are the best!
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Well, looks like everyone was right after all. You've got a pretty good head of steam built up for your messiah complex. So much so that you're pretty impervious to any reason.
I'll keep my answers short and to the point and then I'm done.
The cause of the "perceived distortion" (i.e. relativistic effects), however, is due the path the body takes through spacetime and the change in it's local spacetime metric due to its motion. For further explination, I refer you to my previous posts and especially the resource links in one of those posts.
From a materialist stace? Yes.
edited to add:
For theories that do involve the mind as the source of its own perceived universe, I refer you to this Google.
I'll keep my answers short and to the point and then I'm done.
Yes. The only force that is involved in creating what you call the "distortion" is whatever force is accelerating the body in motion, as defined by F = ma, where F is the force causing the acceleration, m is the mass of the body, and a is the acceleration of the body.lifegazer said:
The cause of the "perceived distortion" (i.e. relativistic effects), however, is due the path the body takes through spacetime and the change in it's local spacetime metric due to its motion. For further explination, I refer you to my previous posts and especially the resource links in one of those posts.
From an immaterialist stance? No, but then nothing can be proven from an immaterialist stance.
From a materialist stace? Yes.
Yes. I refer you to On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies and The Foundation Of The General Theory Of Relativity. You'll note that in neither of these documents, which are the prime sources for Special and General Relativity, respectively, is the mind listed as the source of its own perceived universe.
edited to add:
For theories that do involve the mind as the source of its own perceived universe, I refer you to this Google.
Yes. However, physics is study of the nature of reality and you introduced it to further your own argument. That you used it incorrectly and that I have showed you how you have misused it, do not blame me.
As I have said, I cannot prove anything under an immaterialist assumption nor does the Theory of Relativity apply to an immaterialist assumption. Again, refer to the primary sources listed above.
lifegazer said:
No. No. and No. and again wrong.
If THIS is the basis of your philosophy, then your philosophy cannot be a valid argument since its premise is incorrect.
No one's experience of anything is personal and Unique. Relative is not the same as personal and unique. If twin 'A' has a clock that measure's 30 seconds standing on a comet traveling at 96% the speed of light. Twin 'B's clock will also measure exctly 30 seconds in the same situation. So will every other clock in the world if it is accurate. They will only differ when they are in different frames of reference, that is to say Twin B's clock is sitting with him in a comfy arm chair In Harrod's. Then their time will differ even if Twin A walks into the furniture dpeartment 30 seconds later according to his clock, Twin B's clock may say 1.5 minutes later.
Why?
Not because their experience of time was unique or different....
Because they were MEASURING DIFFERENT THINGS!!!
One clock was not measuring 30 seconds and calling it thirty seconds while the other clock measured 30 seconds and called it 90.
One clock was actually measuring 30 seconds and another clock was measuring 90 seconds and they both did it accurately. Because on each twins' journey to that point in space-time, that's how much time had passed.
If two people walk to a fork in the woods, lets say person a takes the left path which runs straight for about 5 minutes where it comes to a point at which the right path rejoins it. Path B winds this way and that and curves all over the place to reach the point where they join. Path B is clearly longer than path A. But by running his tushy off, Person B still makes it to the re-join point in 5 minutes.
Well look at the situation?
Person a walked about .3 miles in 5 minutes. Person B ran about .7 miles in 5 minutes. They both reached the same point in space and time. Why?
Not because anything changed, or the world distorted around them. They reached it because one guy went faster than the other guy. A pedometer measuring distance On person A would measure .3 miles, the same pedometer on person B would measure .7 miles.
Why?
Did things distort? Was their experience unique?
NO!
Because one guy traveled .3 miles and the other guy traveled .7 miles. There's nothing unusual or magical about it. Even though they started and arrived at the same two points in space time. One guy took a different route to get there and that's all that is different; And he had to expend a crapload more energy to do it.
Once you realize that mathematically speaking time is to be treated as another spacial dimension, and points in space time have four coordinates, the astronaut paradox is no different from the above example whatsoever.
Twin A started at Picadilly circus and strolled leisurely over to Harrods for tea in the armchair. It took about 15 minutes.
Twin B took a comet at about 86 Percent the speed of light and went around the sun first, it took about 10 minutes.
They then meet at the same time in the same place.
Out of four dimensions twin B literally took a different route through 3 of them to get to the same place. His measuring device is simply reflecting the distance traveled on the x plane, the z plane, and the t plane - time. That's it, there's nothing unique or personally distorting at all.
If you cannot grasp that you only have two choices:
1. You are mistaken about your conception of the time paradox and its implication for relativity, and you need to rethink it and have some formal education in it.
-Or-
2. Somehow Einstein, Penrose, and countless others as well as the prevailing sentiment of the entire physics sommunity have got it wrong, and are terribly confused, and somehow by chance or serendipity, you have intuitively understood it.
If this is correct, you absolutely owe it to the world to go to a Univerisity right this minute discuss it with their physics chair and start setting up experiments, and find replicable data so we can publish this and get it out to the world.
The countless man hours you could save by stopping us all going down the wrong path are incalculabe, and your contribution cannot be delayed any more.
It is your unshakeable obligation to humanity to have this verified if you are correct because it will change our entire conception of the universe around us.
Edited to add:
Obvisouly above when I said, "No one's experience of anything is personal and Unique," I should have clarified that with, "As relates to the measured variables in this experiment." Obvisously we all have personal and unique experiences every day such as my friend's love for her cat which I guarantee you is personal and unique to her.
I think this phrase really makes it clear that you are missing something.
As someone else pointed out earlier. There is no absolute at all to compare anything to. There is no objective point of view in the universe anywhere as regards the measurements.
So to make any kind of comparison between Twin A's conception of a meter, and Twin B's conception of a meter is meaningless. There is no comparison possible, since to make one at all you would have to remove One Twin from their reference frame and put them in the other to do it, which collapses the paradox.
Just as someone mentioned earlier giveing one of them a perfect meter long stick and he will measure it as a meter. Give the other the exact same stick and he will measure it as a meter.
There is no distortion going on.
So that's two things you have to truly and completely grasp before you can make any conclusions based on the twin paradox or relativity in general:
1. Time is to be treated for mathematical purposes like any other spatial dimension.
2. Relativity applies only to different reference frames, and no one reference frame can be regarded as special or unique, or objectively correct. They are all equally valid with regards to their frame.
You know there is NO distortion made by the body in motion right? You know the distortion is apparent only, not actually objective right?
Gosh this is exhausting. And I've only been trying for three posts, How do you do it Upchurch?
Asking him to explain what force is there is like asking what force pushes you to the right when you make a left turn in your car.
NOTHING Pushes you to the right.
It's not happening, you're not being pushed to the right at all. It's only a sensation of being pushed to the right because the car is turning left and your inertia wants to keep you in a straight line. So because of your frame of reference, you FEEL as though you are being pushed to the right. And the only force involved is the friction of your wheels on the ground generating your accelerative force.
The same thing is true with your significant percentage of c situations. The universe is not distorted, only your perceptions of it relative to your moving frame of reference are. No force is necessary other than the force which originally accelerated you.
If nobody shares the exact-same experience as you, then your experience is personal and unique. I argue that everyone's perception of a second and a meter is dependent upon his/her mass, motion, and gravitational-orientation with regards to other bodies. Clearly, the experience of a second and a meter are constantly fluctuating - relatively to everyone elses - and are unique to each individual.Andonyx said:
I'm surprised that anybody is arguing with this.
Sure. But twin B is on earth, and his vastly-slower velocity is giving him a completely different experience of 30 seconds in comparison to twin A.
The whole basis of my philosophy is:
(1) The value of the second and the meter is in comparative flux. Change your velocity and you will change the value of your second and meter.
(2) The value of these parameters is unique for each individual, as seen in comparison to other individuals. The twin-paradox shows that different people experience the essential parameters of space and time comparatively differently.
Sure. But given that all clocks have minute discrepencies of mass and gravitational-orientation, there must be minute discrepencies of time amongst all of them, even when placed in the same room.
How does this prove anything, other than the value of a second is a lottery, so to speak? That's my whole point.
Sorry, but this is irrelevant. The value of 5 minutes is the same for both paths.
With all due respect, this does not relate to Relativity where two different paths will yield a meeting of the two twins (in the twin-paradox case) and will tell you that one person has been gone 10 years whilst the other 20. Even if they leave simultaneously and then meet simultaneously.
Imagine we shake hands and say "bye" and then walk around the streets for a while and meet-up later. You say an hour has passed and I say "nay, 10 minutes.". We're both telling the truth too, since our watches verify it.
Therefore, the only conclusion is that your experience of a second has been different to mine. Agreed? If so, then you consent to the foundation of my philosophy.
Why have they got it wrong? I'm confused. All this time, I've been trying to use the information that guys like that provided to link to the reality of Mind. The fact that these guys never made that link does not negate the work they have done. Neither is it a surprise that this link was not made by a scientist, who usually regard (assume, actually) the world of our perceptions to be an external occurance.
Show me somebody who will listen.
Amen to that.
NO No No No No NO NONONONONONONONONNONONONO!
I don't know why this is so hard for you. I don't know why you cannot see past this barrier you have drawn for yourself.
Our experience of a second is the same rgeardless. You keep saying our seconds must be different, and I explained it to you.
You completely ignored the simple evidence presented in the wood story.
In the woods story did person A's experience of a mile differ from Person Bs experience of a mile?
NO.
You argued about their experience of Time that 5 minutes was still five minutes.
Fine. It was.
But for some reason you treat time like a special quanitity that has different properties than distance. It does not. It is handled exactly the same.
So when we get to the astronaut section Twin A had actually traversed a "distance" of 15 minutes through the unverse, while Twin B happened to Traverse a Distance of 10 minutes through the universe. Their experiences of a minute were no different. Even relative to each other. Because there is NO ABSOLUTE TIME to compare it to.
You keep acting as though one guy had ten minutes pass in the SAME TIME as the other guys had 15 minutes pass. That's simply not the case. They took different paths from one mutual point to get to another. One guy's path was LONGER than the other, but that does not change their units of measurement. It does not change the world around them one iota, all it means is that one guy took a more direct route than the other person.
In relatavistic math a second is treated no differently than a foot.
If you cannot understand that then the reason no one will listen to you is because you cannot grasp the very basic concepts of relativity. The concepts that we can demonstrate and have demonstrated. The difference between your understanding of this thought experiment and ours is that experiements have verified our concepts time and time again.
And what you're saying runs contrary to all of the recorded evidence we have.
Finally, I don't care if you're having a philosophical conversation or not. You're arguing things that can be demonstrated in reality. You can have a philosophical discussion about purple elephants all you like, the fact remains that no elephant in the history of recorded biology has ever been born purple.
When you have two people who claim to be able to see 'a meter' and do experience 'a second', then the values of those parameters are comparable against each other - when they meet.Andonyx said:
I have no idea why you would mention "an absolute".
If you read my posts, I even state that the velocity of light is not the absolute we think it is (since "velocity" is the fluctuating-meter/fluctuating-second). Any velocity, x m/s, has a personal meaning dependent upon the experience of m and s.
So the twin-paradox is meaningless?
What you say here is significant. The universe is not distorted, but our perceptions of it are? But this "debate" is whether what we perceive is also occuring externally to awareness, or whether it just happens within awareness.Andonyx said:
You seem to distinguish between perceived-reality and external-reality?
lifegazer said:
People argue because you're tossing about concepts you don't understand and almost willfully failing to listen to what people are saying.
People are sharing the exact same experience of a second. They are not of the total number of seconds.
There is a difference in the two items here. Just because one guy records 90 seconds happening and another records 30 has nothing to do with their individual experiences of a second.
Their seconds are identical all it means is one person's path through the universe took more seconds than the other guys.
It's no different than take a five foot straight path across a room, or a 20 foot wandering path. Does one path make the definition of a foot change? No.
No, wrong, buzzzz.
First Why is Twin B's velocity slower? It's only slower compared to Twin A. Twin B cannot be said to be going any velocity unless compared to B. So In fact Twin B might actually be traveling Faster than Twin A relative to an observer in reference frame C. So this statement is not even making correct assumptions.
And his experience of Thirty seconds is exactly the same as the other person's experience of thirty seconds. The only Difference is that Twin A went on a route through the Universe that took him past 3 sets of 30 seconds instead of one, but each second ticked by at exactly the same rate.
Well basis one is incorrect. Completely and utterly incorrect. For every single reference frame ever encountered by man or clock or machine one second is and always will be for everyone exactly 9,192,631,770 vibrations of a Cesium 133 atom. End of story. It well never be different for anyone as far as all expirimental and mathematical models can possibly be certain. Your premise is false.
Your premise is flase. The Twin Paradox shows no such thing at all. What it shows is that people have a perception of the OTHER person going through something the OTHER person didn't experience the same way. It has nothing to do with two people having different experiences of the SAME thing, it has to do with people PERCEIVING different experiences of one person observing someone else do a DIFFERENT thing.
And perception and relaity are two different things entire. I might look at the color red differently than you do, that doesn't mean the wavelength of light red reflects is any different, and my observation of it doesn't distort anything.
Your premise is false.
So? If they are in different places at all, they are already taking different paths through the universe. If they both counted seconds accurately, then they both count seconds accurately, end of story.
It doesn't prove that the value of a second is up for grabs in fact it proves quite the opposite. Therefore your point is simply wrong.
Yes but the feet traveled is different. You see the idea is in this example Im using feet as a metaphor because in the next example time becomes the disputed dimension. But time is really no different from feet. A foot is a foot is a foot is a foot, just like a second is a second is a second is a second.
Actually it's only irrlevant because you don't understand relativity. In fact the quantities are exactly mathemateically equivalent in sucha way that one situation is merely anlagous to the other. Upchurch has already shown you the math. You either refused to read it, or didn't understand it.
No the explanation is that I took a different path through the universe than you did. What you are so hard headed not to see, is that exactly the same thing could happen if I walked 20 blocks and you walked 40 blocks and we met up at the same place at the same time later. Arewe both correct? Yes. Is my experience of a block any different than yours? No.
The thing is all the evidence shows they haven't all the evidence we can possibly measure right now shows that you haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about.
The day you can find some expirimental evidence otherwise, people will start to listen.
I'm sorry but in science, your rabid insistence that your viewpoint is correct is not enough.
Likewise you need to take a step back and realize that our intuitive understanding of concepts like acceleration, time, and reference frames are not always the correct ones. The physical world does not behave in a convenient manner just because we want it to.
You say that time is space in order to avoid the comparative differences of time experienced by the twins. I.e., they both experience '1 second', it's just that the spacetwin took a shorter route to get back to earth than the guy already on the earth. LOL. What a crock that sounds.
Anyway, lorentz-transformation mathematics also show that 'a meter' is experienced comparatively-different by each observer. You must be aware of the thought-experiment whereby two observers measure the same train at different lengths?
So, how do you overcome this? How do you get all observers to experience the same meter? Do you turn space into time? lol
Anyway, lorentz-transformation mathematics also show that 'a meter' is experienced comparatively-different by each observer. You must be aware of the thought-experiment whereby two observers measure the same train at different lengths?
So, how do you overcome this? How do you get all observers to experience the same meter? Do you turn space into time? lol
lifegazer said:
Ah and really you just admitted the big flaw in your thinking.
"When they meet."
Yes well when they meet, there is no longer a different frame of reference now is there. The second they meet in the sam frame of reference all apparent differences disappear and they will now travel on the same path through space-time.
Before they met they could never simultaneously tick off seconds or meters to make a comparison.
If you have math or experimental obersvation to back that up great, lay it on me. If not I'll just go along with the overwhelming mountain of evidence that says it is in fact the absolute we think it is.
You cannot in a scientific discussion make statements just because you think they're true. You have to have some reason to believe it.
No. it's a great demonstration of the perceptions people might have during a relatavistic experience, and a great demonstration of the non-intuitive nature of space-time at near light speed velocities.
If you fully understand it though (And I'm not even claiming I do).....it is NOT in fact a paradox.