Lifegazer's special relativity "proof"

[Upchurch]

You understand that 5 * 6 is 30, because you add 5 6 times and get 30. Hower, someone has just shown you that 42 / 3 = 14 (special relativity). You go wow, 3 * 14 is 42, how did they do multiplication in reverse? This is a truly magic power, how can one little slash do that?

Well done indeed, Russ.
lifegazer assigns an undue
significance here.

Edited to be in haiku for the sake of art. Now there's some meaning.

 

[RussDill]

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.

again, he was just pointing out your fallacy in using the word distortion to describe relativity. Distortion is a subjective word:

The state of being distorted, or twisted out of shape or out of true position; crookedness; perversion.

Please explain the "true position or shape" that space is twisted out of?

Anybody willing to challenge the whole establishment of science, religion and philosophy, has to be truly open-minded. Don't you agree?

no, close minded fundies, cultists, spiritualists, ufologists, etc do it every day. You'll hear them often on the Art Bell show. These are truly the most closed minded people you well ever meet (besides maybe yourself).

Science is more than happy to be challenged, and grows by challenge. Religion vilifies challenge by calling it blasfamy. Philosophy reasons with challenge and attempts to understand it.

As far as I can tell, the only thing you're willing to challenge is religion.

Actually, we are all more than happy to question the other two as well, however, its received differently. Well founded philosphical and scientific challengers become friend, and what the challenge is thrown away, or modified. However, challenges against religions will always be challenges.

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

Ok, but you'll have to get in line behind all the guests of the Art Bell show first (Besids Michio Kaku, that man has more patience for being on that show than I knew existed in all of mankind combined)

 

[RussDill]

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

Really? Maybe I'll make one?

We all know that gluons link together quarks into protons and neutrons, right? And that the higgs field gives mass to particles, right? Well, unicorns are there to maintain the speed of light as a constant. You see, when an object travels in relation to the ether, they jump in and do their job. They excite the higgs field with their magical horn, causing objects to gain mass. They then jump in with the gluons, with their massively strong hooves, they bounce them back and forth inside protons, giving rise to stronger nuclear forces, which in turn, causes atoms to decay slower, and making it seem like time occurs slower. They also try to push on whatever it is that is moving, causing it to contract in the direction of travel. What are these unicorns made of? Ether of course, however, they are too small for any of us to see.

Now we have an argument, feel free to point out any flaws, and I'll explain them away with unicorns.

 

[RussDill]

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.

as you perceive it? Changing your position will change how you perceive the universe. However, it will still be the same universe (Except with you in a different position). There is nothing different about relativity. It is still the same universe.

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.

Ok Mr. "I don't want to learn because I know everything, and the establishment might brainwash me"

 

[RussDill]

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?

Again, there is no distortion, If you disagree, please state that distortion. The only thing that distorts spacetime (you keep saying space and time, they aren't two seperate things) is the presence of matter and energy.

This is the last time I ask and if you do not answer, I for one will think that you do not have one.

He has answered, over and over and over. However, because you'd have to learn something (GASP), you ignore these answers.

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?

I can prove the basis of relativity. I can derive the equations. If you can show me a flaw anywhere in either general or special relativity, I'll be very impressed.

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?

Do you realize that once you base your arguments in physics, you can't just make crap up?

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.

Everyone has applied you talk to has applied their knowledge of relativity to this. Everyone says it proves neither, but everyone also says that it disproves your view. If you don't want to learn physics, but want the advice of those that know physics, why don't you take their advice.

Now, for the umpteenth time, stop waffling and get with the programme.

Again, where is anyone besides you waffling?

 

[RussDill]

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.
I'm surprised that anybody is arguing with this.

Again, I can point out the where is physics what you are saying is wrong, but you are completely ignorant, and refuse to learn for fear of being brainwashed. So I'll try to make it really simple like. If two inertial frames of reference both measure a meter perpendicular to their direction of travel, they both have the same meter. Where is the flux?

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.

Both twins are experiencing the exact same universe. Prove otherwise. If both see an event, both will agree on what event happened, at least in relation to what makes sense in this reality. For instance, they will not agree on how far away the event happened, because they are in different positions. In the same way, they won't agree in what order the events happened, because that also doesn't make sense in our reality. However, they can both analyze the event, and come up with the same answers, they can even translate those answers to another observers inertial frame to determine what the sequence of events in that reference frame would be. Its all the same universe.

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.

Sorry, wrong. You only change your relative travel through spacetime. Prove otherwise.

(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.

bzzt, wrong again, both twins experience the exact same universe. Both just take a different path through spacetime.

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.

again, stop being a smartass. This isn't what we mean when we say clocks.

How does this prove anything, other than the value of a second is a lottery, so to speak? That's my whole point.

A lottery is random. Nothing about special relativity is random.

Sorry, but this is irrelevant. The value of 5 minutes is the same for both paths.

True, however they have taken different paths through spacetime. spacetime is 4d, you need an x, a y, a z, and a t. You are traveling relative to other inertial reference frames in all 4 dimensions, not just three of them. Thats like saying a mile is a mile, and then being confused as to why a car travels more miles between two cities than a plane.

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.

This is where you are getting hung up. This doesn't just relate to relativity, its the essence of relativity. You keep saying simultaneously, you need to throw that concept away. They leave from the same point in spacetime. They arrive at the same point in spacetime.

Just as if two people arrive at the same point in xyz, but a different point in t, different inertial reference frames will not agree that they met at the same point (ie, the earth rotates around the sun, so leed's castle is at a different xyz at various t's from the sun's inertial reference frame), It can also not be agreed apon that two events happen on the same value of t for different xyz's.

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.

again, time is part of space. Replace your watch with a pedometer. Both of you will say you have traveled a different distance, yet you are both meeting at the same xyzt. In the same way, both of you can travel a different "time", and arrive at the same xyzt.

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.

No, not agreed, you have no foundation.

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.

The only part that you are taking in is the RESULT, not the process. Just as in the division example, you haven't bothered to understand why it happens, and assume it to be magical. I think most people believe that einstein pulled E=mc2 out of his ass. He was not in the lab, testing, experimenting with different equations, seeing which one fit, etc. He found this equation theoritically. These great thinkers were the first to understand the why.

Show me somebody who will listen.

You need to provide EVIDENCE or PREDICTIONS. You provide neither.

You'd think god would listen to himself. Then again, since you really haven't defined awareness in any coherent way, we'll just assign god's awareness, to the same thing as our awareness. Maybe god hears voices....you... He must be crazy. He needs medication, where do we go to administer said medication to god?

 

[Disbeliever]

^ That's a lot of posts. I'm not complaining since I was thinking the same things. Good job Russ.

 

[Andonyx]

Hey!

I tried the pedometer thing three pages back...

Copycat.

Sadly, it didn't work then...maybe this time?

 

[RussDill]

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.

Again, I showed you how these do not change. The second does not change, it is simply a different path though xyzt, with both meeting at the same point. The meter also does not change, it is simply a consequence of taking a different path through xyzt. You head and tail clocks do not match up according to another observer. If you don't believe the meter doesn't change, check a meter of an object moving relative to you perpendicular to its direction of travel.

I have no idea why you would mention "an absolute".

because you seem to be convinced, that for the universe to make sense, there has to be an absolute definition of "when" and "where".

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.

You don't listen. He was not saying that the speed of light isn't an absolute. He was saying "when" and "where" are not absolute, and the speed of light is absolute. You seem to have it all backwards. You think the speed of light isn't absolute, and there must be an absolute "when" and "where", or else it means there is a mind

again, this is flawed anyway. If you ever bother to study physics, you'll understand why. I've shown you why the second and meter has no personal meaning, now its your turn to study electromagnitism and see why c has no personal meaning.

 

[RussDill]

^ That's a lot of posts. I'm not complaining since I was thinking the same things. Good job Russ.

I was in vegas, tons of fun. Maybe if LG ever "sees the light" we can all head out there and have a few drinks (LG included of course)

 

[RussDill]

Answer this please: you treat time as space. So, in the twin-paradox, the spacetwin flies all around the galaxy and comes back to earth, only to find his brother - who hasn't moved much at all - claiming to have experienced, say for convenience, twice as much time as his space-brother, comparatively.

"Hasn't moved much at all" Relative to what? that is a useless assertion. Relative to his own inertial reference frame? Heh, duh, who does move relative to their own inertial reference frame?

I could explain the mathmatics, the x, the x', the t, the t', etc, but I fear I would be wasting my time, you would just skim past it. If you do want the matchmatics, let me know.

Similar to this is the effect in general relativity that everything under the force of gravity moves in a straight line in spacetime. Example, throw something in the wastebasket, whatever arc you choose is straight in spacetime.

My question is this - given that the earth-twin hasn't moved much, why is his time-path twice as long as the spacetwin who has been moving to Andromeda and back, so to speak? If time is space, how can the body moving the least travel the furthest?

again, "hasn't move much" is meaningless. A clock is really only a way to understand the distance you've moved in the time dimension, in the same way an odometer tells you how far you've moved in the xyz dimensions. The stay at home twin actually took the longer path from xyzt to xyzt'.

Perhaps this blackboard explaination might be helpful (if you massive ego allows you to read it)

http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/george/twins.htm

 

[RussDill]

9,I92,etc. vibrations of a Cesium atom occur in one second. But this does not prevent the second from being in flux. The vibrations can slow or speed-up, in tandem.

If the vibrations slow down, it would mean that the laws of physics would be changing. I don't think its possible to change the values in the standard model to allow for this to happen, and still have it be consistent.

 

[RussDill]

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.

ya, ROR, I mean, LOL. Thats almost as crazy as saying that the earth goes around the sun and not vice versa.

You think its a crock, but this is the FOUNDATION of relativity (especially general relativity). It may be counterintutive at first, but its completely consistent, and proven again and again by experiment after experiment. How can you claim to agree with these theories and use them as your foundation, and yet, at the same time, call these theories a crock?!?!

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?

Again, the source of these two observations are caused because the train is traveling in time as well as space. The meter is experienced the same by both. You can prove this by measuring perpendicular to the direction of travel.

So, how do you overcome this? How do you get all observers to experience the same meter? Do you turn space into time? lol

ya, HAHAHAH, what dumbass would think that up. Spacetime, pphhhht, next they'll be telling us that the earth is round, or that man evolved from monkies.

Where do you think Einstein's equations come from? They come from treating time and space as one. He did not pull these equations out of thin air, he derived them from the idea of spacetime.

Again with the meter, the distance between two points parallel to the direction of travel apear different because events do not happen simultaneously.

 

[RussDill]

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.
You seem to distinguish between perceived-reality and external-reality?

When a physicist refers to an observer perceiving something, he's not using the same definitions as you. Also, by distorted, he is not meaning the same thing as you are. With special relativity, there is NO distortion. He is not talking about some difference between perceieved reality and external reality, sorry.

 

[RussDill]

Instead of treating time as space, we can acknowledge that the comparative differences of time are real. The mathematics do not alter. Just the conclusions. Different time-paths become different perceptions of what time is.

So now you are throwing away Einstein's theories? I thought they were the base of your philosophy? Maybe you need to sit down and re-evaluate your philosophy.

 

[Upchurch]

Maybe you need to sit down and re-evaluate your philosophy.

But he won't, will he? That would mean doing two things he seems fundamentally opposed to doing. First, he'd have to question his faith. Second, he would have to put in some effort and work.

 

[epepke]

The frustrating thing about this is that it isn't simply a case of ignorance or stupidity, so it's not like what we see commonly from philosphers. He seems actually to grasp some of the essential features of SR, but like Lorentz and Michaelson, is unwilling or unable to let go of that last bit of classical prejudice. So he has to invent a mystical philosophical explanation.

Although he got famous more for GR and SR, we rightly honor Einstein for SR, not because he came up with the math or the data or any of that, which he didn't, but because he was able to look beyond classical prejudices and come up with a beautiful theory.

 

[lifegazer]

Velocity: a concept relating to the perceived motion of bodies or particles. Devised by [human] awareness. The value of any given velocity is derived wrt the observer, whose own velocity is derived wrt the earth he stands upon. The velocity of earth is gleaned wrt the sun it circles.
Hence, the velocity of bodies is very much a human value. Human awareness gives value to the velocity of bodies.

Hence, since velocity-values are integral to the equations of relativity, and since these values give meaning to those equations, we can link the actual equations of relativity to the values (of velocity) given to bodies by human awareness.

I'll be making a few points. This is the first.

 

[RussDill]

Velocity: a concept relating to the perceived motion of bodies or particles. Devised by [human] awareness. The value of any given velocity is derived wrt the observer, whose own velocity is derived wrt the earth he stands upon. The velocity of earth is gleaned wrt the sun it circles.

Velocity is a concept we use to *describe* physical systems that exist, regardless of us. Just because we came up with the concept to describe something, doesn't mean that that thing was any less before we described it, especially in relation to physical systems.

You then go on to this weird wrt thread. Let me set you straight here. Velocity is derived as the difference between two reference frame from a third reference frame (this third reference frame can also be the same as one of the two reference frame, making that frame "stationary").

Your whole wrt thread is really unneccesary and meaningless.

Hence, the velocity of bodies is very much a human value. Human awareness gives value to the velocity of bodies.

Again, we *describe* the velocities of bodies. The fact that they have velocity was true before we described that. Human awareness gives rise to nothing in regard to the velocity of bodies, we only seek to quantify it in our own reference frame. (or from another reference frame)

Hence, since velocity-values are integral to the equations of relativity,

ok, now you've gone way off the track. Velocity values are not integral to the equations of relativity. Sure we can plug in values, and get values out, but the base of those values do not have to be made by humans. The human definition of a meter or a second has no bearing on the equation of special relativity

and since these values give meaning to those equations,

bzzzt! wrong again lifegazer. The values of a meter and a second are not necessary for the equations regarding relativity. In fact, there is no need to give meaning to them at all, since they are actually derived from other equations.

we can link the actual equations of relativity to the values (of velocity) given to bodies by human awareness.

sure, maybe if anything of what you said above is correct.

I'll be making a few points. This is the first.

why don't you substantiate this point first

 

[lifegazer]

Velocity is a concept we use to *describe* physical systems that exist, regardless of us.

We give bodies the actual value of their velocity. The velocity of all universal bodies is given to them by us, wrt our stationary position upon the Earth.

Just because we came up with the concept to describe something, doesn't mean that that thing was any less before we described it, especially in relation to physical systems.

My point is that velocity is a concept defined by human judgement, with values given to bodies wrt our scale of judgement. If I say, for example, that a body in space has a velocity of 10,000 m/s, then that value is, significantly, given to that body wrt a scale devised from my relationship with the earth.

Again, we *describe* the velocities of bodies. The fact that they have velocity was true before we described that.

The value of a body's velocity should be independent of our awareness wrt the Earth. In fact, it truly is if it exists externally to us.

Einstein's equations work for values which we pump into them, and which are judged from our subjective perspective. Clearly, the equations mirror our own awareness of existence and have little to say of things external to our awareness.

I think this is significant. And it's only one of the points I want to raise. You guys were premature in cracking-open the bubbly.