Lifegazer's special relativity "proof"

[Upchurch]

As for the "subjectivity" you insist on interjecting. If the measurements were subjective, they would be dependent on the observer only and two observers in the same inertial reference frame wouldn't necessarily get the same measurement. But they do get the same measurements (assuming they were made correctly). Further, it can be accurately calculated ahead of time what that measurement will be. So, the measurements are not based on the observer but on the inertial reference frame.

The measurements are objective rather than subjective.

 

[Upchurch]

If the last sentence is true, then so is the first. How can the velocity-values we assign to bodies be 'objective' if there is no such thing as true velocity-values?

Assuming you're using "true" to be synonymous with "absolute", there is no absolute velocity because an absolute velocity would have to be measured in relation to an absolute reference frame, which it's been shown doesn't exist.

Velocity values are objective because they are not based upon the people who measure them but upon the inertial reference frames involved. If velocity was subjective as you suggest, two people in the same rocket would measure two completely different velocity for the same inertial reference frames.

All bodies are in motion. True?

Compared to what? The Earth?

Thus either those bodies move with the velocity we assign to them, or they do not. And if they do not, then we have assigned a subjective value upon those bodies.

Nothing moves with the velocity we assign them unless we have direct control of the acceleration of the object, e.g. the gas pedal or break pedal in a car. All other velocities we measure in relation to our current reference frame or, if we are interested in two other reference frames, from what we calculate the velocity to be based on our measurements of the velocities of each reference frame compared to our reference frame.

 

[lifegazer]

Let's clear this confusion up, for I must confess that you do not seem to grasp what I mean and I do not grasp what you mean.

Let's imagine that we see a comet fly across the nightsky, and one of our science buddies tells us it has a velocity/speed of
1000 m/s, for example.
Now, it's my argument that the comet isn't really moving at
1000 m/s. What is happening though, is that wrt our stationary relationship with the earth, a scale (of velocity) is borne, and that in relation to this scale, the comet moves at 1000 m/s.
Hence, the velocity-value we assign to the comet relates to human experience. Agreed? Thus, that value is subjective.

So using this same example so I can understand you, please explain why the value "1000 m/s" is not a subjective value, relating entirely to a scale devised from human experience. Okay?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Lifeguzzler :

Looks like I won't be making any progress here soon. Hoped to be finished with this before the weekend.

Hold on.....

Didn't you say the finish line was coming soon, and we should get the bubbly ready?

Round and round and round and .......

 

[lifegazer]

Lifeguzzler :



Hold on.....

Didn't you say the finish line was coming soon, and we should get the bubbly ready?

Round and round and round and .......

Hey Geoff, what did you make of my order argument? I thought it was a good 'un.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Hey Geoff, what did you make of my order argument? I thought it was a good 'un.

I didn't read it. You see, I don't have to read what other people write, because I can work it out for myself.

 

[lifegazer]

I didn't read it. You see, I don't have to read what other people write, because I can work it out for myself.

Being quick to declare that "you have no philosophy" just might actually be a consequence of never reading my stuff Geoffrey.

 

[RussDill]

Being quick to declare that "you have no philosophy" just might actually be a consequence of never reading my stuff Geoffrey.

Being quick to declare that "you are right, and everyone else is wrong" just might actually be a consequence of never reading mankind's stuff lifegazer.

 

[lifegazer]

Being quick to declare that "you are right, and everyone else is wrong" just might actually be a consequence of never reading mankind's stuff lifegazer.

It's a myth Russ. I read. Just not prolifically.

 

[RussDill]

It's a myth Russ. I read. Just not prolifically.

You certainly don't read up much on the subjects that you base your philosophy on. But then again, you might get brainwashed, so be very, very careful, books are a dangerous thing.

 

[Upchurch]

Now, it's my argument that the comet isn't really moving at
1000 m/s.

This line right here underlyies your primal misconception. That is, that something "really is" or "really isn't" moving. Such a comment makes a base assumption that there is absolute motion. The lack of absolute motion (which isn't to say that there is a lack of any motion, just that one can say something has or doesn't have absolute motion) is a fundamental principle of Relativity and what others and myself have been trying to explin to you for 11 some odd pages.

Once cannot say that something really is or really isn't moving, unless one says what it really is or really isn't moving with respect to. To say that "the comet isn't really moving at 1000 m/s" is meaningless and ultimately false.

What is happening though, is that wrt our stationary relationship with the earth, a scale (of velocity) is borne, and that in relation to this scale, the comet moves at 1000 m/s.

This is basically correct, except that such a "scale" (the proper term is "metric") exists for each reference frame throughout the universe.

Hence, the velocity-value we assign to the comet relates to human experience. Agreed? Thus, that value is subjective.

I do not agree. The value of the comets velocity is dependent upon two reference frames: the reference frame of the comet and the reference frame from which we wish to know the velocity of. It is not dependent on the observer.

As I stated in my argument above, if the measurement of the velocity were subjective, two observers in the same reference frame would measure two different velocities for the comet. Baring measurement error, do you know of any instance where such a thing has occured?

The measurement of velocity is objective because given the same measuring conditions, the same value will be determined by all viewers. That is what makes something objective. Something will only be subjective if, given the same measuring conditions for all viewers, different values will be determined. This is not the case for velocity (or length or duration), given our practical experience with measuring velocity.

Considering further that the measuring conditions for a length and duration may be different for two viewers who are in different inertial reference frames. Even though they objectively measure two different values for the same length and duration, their measurments agree if they use a correction calculation to determine the length and duration from the other viewer's perspective.

I know this is difficult to understand, but this is the purpose of the Laplace tranformation matrix, to correctly translate the measurement of length and/or duration from one reference frame to another. It is an objective measurement because after compensating for the differences in measuring conditions, both viewers determine the exact same measurement for all quantities.

In the mathematical post I made a few pages ago, this can be easily translated with a Laplace matrix = 1. Velocity as calculated in one reference frame wrt another reference frame is exactly equal (that is a 1 to 1 correspondance) to the velocity as calculated in the other reference frame wrt the first reference frame.

I know it is a lot to take in, but if you're going to use scientific principles you must accept those principles as they are rather than as you think they should be.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Being quick to declare that "you have no philosophy" just might actually be a consequence of never reading my stuff Geoffrey.

No Lifegazer, it is because you spend your entire time ranting about ontology badly, when in fact the worlds problems and the biggest philosophical problems are about ethics and personal morality. You live in a fictional world where if everybody suddenly agreed with you ("Hey, did you know that Lifegazer has proved we're all God, ain't that cool?") that all the worlds problems would vanish overnight - you believe in the fictional paradise of the Jehovas Witnesses. You have mistaken a myth for a literal truth. You think lions and lambs can live in peace with no suffering, regardless of the fact that animals must eat. It is INFANTILE and totally illogical. The enormous flaw is that you are in fact a really dysfunctional and useless human, not least because of your overblown sense of your own importance and intelligence. If the whole world was filled with Lifegazers the result would not be heaven on Earth. The result would be utter HELL, just like what is going on in your own mind.

IN other words, you have completely missed the whole point of religious philosophy and you are too dumb to realise it, even though you have been told many many time.

That is why you have no philosophy. What you say is both completely wrong (claiming an ego for God is metaphysically seriously backwards) and completely useless (it turns people into tossers).

 

[UndercoverElephant]

It's a myth Russ. I read. Just not prolifically.

In terms of philosophy, you know NOTHING AT ALL, and it is painfully obvious.

 

[lifegazer]

That is, that something "really is" or "really isn't" moving. Such a comment makes a base assumption that there is absolute motion. The lack of absolute motion (which isn't to say that there is a lack of any motion, just that one can say something has or doesn't have absolute motion) is a fundamental principle of Relativity and what others and myself have been trying to explin to you for 11 some odd pages.

Well thankyou. Stop beating about the bush and acknowledge that 1000 m/s is not a true/pure/absolute velocity of the body itself, but is in fact a value assigned to that body wrt human experience, borne of a scale devised wrt man's relationship with the Earth.
That's what I've been trying to tell you for some 11 odd pages, also. But you keep doing a David and dance around everything I say.

Once cannot say that something really is or really isn't moving, unless one says what it really is or really isn't moving with respect to.

*Takes a snapshot*
Members of the jury - words to the effect that the velocity-value of a body (1000 m/s in this case) is assigned to that body by human awareness. I.e., the value is subjective in that it is not true/pure/absolute or any other word you can come up with of the same meaning.

To say that "the comet isn't really moving at 1000 m/s" is meaningless and ultimately false.

Whoa camel, whoa. Is the comet really moving at 1000 m/s or not? You know it isn't, so stop doing a David on the readers.

 

[lifegazer]

Geoffrey mate, if you are incapable of partaking of this particular conversation pertaining to relativity, or perhaps are incapable of participating in any rational discussion relating to specific threads of mine in this philosophy forum, then I would advise and hope that you stay in the flame-war forum, where irrational, irrelevant and moronic babble is welcomed, apparently, by the establishment of this board. Let's face it, that's your forte anyway.
See you over there then. Cheers.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Geoffrey mate, if you are incapable of partaking of this particular conversation pertaining to relativity, or perhaps are incapable of participating in any rational discussion relating to specific threads of mine in this philosophy forum, then I would advise and hope that you stay in the flame-war forum

Why?

Nobody gives a ◊◊◊◊ about whether I trash your threads except for you!

Nobody cares, Lifegazer. I didn't come here to talk to you about metaphysics or relativity. I came here to wind you up, expose your hypocrisy and complete lack of personal morality, and have a laugh with some old friends of mine. Nobody in their right mind could care less about your theories about relativity. They are SPAM. I am spamming your spam! Ain't life wonderful?

 

[The Don]

I suspect there is a concept of "true" velocity but only if you accept/believe that the universe is expanding from a single point of origin. Velocities could be expressed in terms of the frame of reference of that single immobile point.

The trouble is that this approach doesn't really provide anything useful. On a day to day basis we chose the frame of reference most convenient for our purpose. For getting around the Earth's surface we negate the motion of the Earth as both we and the Earth have that motion.

But before you start jumping up and down Lightsaber, this doesn't mean that there's some "mind" at work making sure that the laws of physics apply. The beauty is that they apply in any frame of reference relative to that frame of reference.

All of this has absolutely nothing to do woth human awareness. If we actually have a material universe, then these laws would still apply even if there was no-one around to watch them being applied.

 

[lifegazer]

I suspect there is a concept of "true" velocity but only if you accept/believe that the universe is expanding from a single point of origin. Velocities could be expressed in terms of the frame of reference of that single immobile point.

It's not quite that simple. The universe was not a full-stop embedded in 'nothing'.

The trouble is that this approach doesn't really provide anything useful. On a day to day basis we chose the frame of reference most convenient for our purpose. For getting around the Earth's surface we negate the motion of the Earth as both we and the Earth have that motion.

The argument is merely to show that relativity is of the mind. Usefulness is not an issue.

But before you start jumping up and down Lightsaber, this doesn't mean that there's some "mind" at work making sure that the laws of physics apply. The beauty is that they apply in any frame of reference relative to that frame of reference.

The laws of physics apply to all things seen within awareness. This is true. If it wasn't true then there would be no laws of physics applying to the things within our awareness.

All of this has absolutely nothing to do woth human awareness. If we actually have a material universe, then these laws would still apply even if there was no-one around to watch them being applied.

The laws of physics relate to how things are seen within awareness. They do not relate to how things are external to awareness. This is a fact. Hence your assertion is baseless.

 

[The Don]

It's not quite that simple. The universe was not a full-stop embedded in 'nothing'.

How do you know this ?

I'm sure, based on some analysis of the relative motions of various astronomical bodies somebody could try to calculate some "point of origin"

The argument is merely to show that relativity is of the mind. Usefulness is not an issue.

And we (I use this term losely as I clearly just dip in and out) are attempting to demonstrate that the way in which things behave and interact (described using the laws of physics (though these are just a set of equations that have been developed which describe known phenomena and have been used successfully to describe subsequently discovered phenomena rather than a fundamental set of truths)) does not require that there is a "mind" to either observe the phenomena or so set the rules for the interaction

The laws of physics apply to all things seen within awareness. This is true. If it wasn't true then there would be no laws of physics applying to the things within our awareness.

The statement can be written "The laws of physics apply to all things" which may or may not be true depending on which laws you use and you could follow it with "If it wasn't true then there would be no laws of physics "

But once again, all you have is a circular argument, you state "The laws of physics are the laws which apply to all things" and them treat as some kind of revelation that as a result "the laws of physics apply to all things"

And you also throw in a pair of "within our awareness" phrases to back up your spurious claims


The laws of physics relate to how things are seen within awareness. They do not relate to how things are external to awareness. This is a fact. Hence your assertion is baseless.

In order that I can get this straight in my own mind about the argument are you asserting that:

- Without awareness there would be no universe
OR
- Without awareness things would somehow misbehave and fail to follow the laws of physics

 

[lifegazer]

It's not quite that simple. The universe was not a full-stop embedded in 'nothing'.

How do you know this ?

I would refer you to my thread "existence" for a complete answer.
A snippet:-
"We can say that existence cannot be finite or bounded in any way whatsoever. A real finite-existence within 'nothing'? Not a rational possibility. 'Nothing' cannot embrace a real finite-entity. Therefore, existence is boundless and infinite, in itself. A singularity of existence."

If you're in any way interested in discussing this, then I suggest you do so in the relevant thread.

But once again, all you have is a circular argument, you state "The laws of physics are the laws which apply to all things" and them treat as some kind of revelation that as a result "the laws of physics apply to all things"

No. The relevancy was in the part you omitted: The laws of physics relate to things seen within awareness. It's the truth.
Indeed, in QM, it seems apparent that 'particles' are only seen within awareness!!

In order that I can get this straight in my own mind about the argument are you asserting that:

- Without awareness there would be no universe
OR
- Without awareness things would somehow misbehave and fail to follow the laws of physics

I argue that the Mind is the essence of awareness and the things of which it is aware. I also state that the laws of physics relate to the order seen within awareness and do not relate to an [assumed] external reality.