Lifegazer's special relativity "proof"

[The Don]

A few notes about the "laws of physics"

The laws of physics were written down by a bunch of blokes (predominantly) and are used to used to describe the behaviour of the observable world and the interaction between elements of the observable world.

This doesn't mean that the Universe moves according to these laws, just that they're a useful shorthand to describe how the universe behaves and make predictions about future behaviour.

The fact that the universe APPEARS to behave in a (relatively) well ordered way seems to indicate that there are a set of "rules" or "laws" the universe is following. The fact that a number of different observers report the same observations in an indication, but no more than that, that a consistent set or rules seem to be in operation.

Of course there may not be a material universe or the universe may behave in a completely chaotic fashion and that we choose to ignore the chaotic aspects by filtering them out using our senses. It is feasible that people who experience extraordinary things may just have a different set of filters to the great majority of people.

Indeed a lot of time and effort has gone in to debating whether there is a material universe or not. Certainly the non-existence of a material universe cannot be disproved.

If there is a material universe and it does folow a set of rules whcih have been approximetely modelled by the rules of physics then the universe would continue to follow these rules.

If your big revelation is that the "laws of physics" have been constructed then I'd agree with you, they are an artificial set of equations which very closely model the observable universe. Where I believe we disagree is that I don't consider the fact that the universe follows a set of rules to be significant, it just shows that we're a species that likes to model its surroundings, it's not an indication of a higher power at work.

I also believe that the Universe would continue to exhibit the same behaviour it currently does whether or not there was anyone there to be "aware" of it.

 

[lifegazer]

If your big revelation is that the "laws of physics" have been constructed then I'd agree with you, they are an artificial set of equations which very closely model the observable universe.

So you agree that the laws mirror perceived behaviour and reflect scales of values devised wrt human experience, such as velocity-values?

Where I believe we disagree is that I don't consider the fact that the universe follows a set of rules to be significant, it just shows that we're a species that likes to model its surroundings, it's not an indication of a higher power at work.

Well it's certainly an indication that the laws of physics mirror an internal realm, and certainly not an external realm. This is the whole point of the argument. And given that the laws of physics are given to and perceived by the mind that sees them, I argue that this existence is created by that Mind.

I also believe that the Universe would continue to exhibit the same behaviour it currently does whether or not there was anyone there to be "aware" of it.

Given your initial agreement, above, I have no idea why you would say this.

 

[The Don]

So you agree that the laws mirror perceived behaviour and reflect scales of values devised wrt human experience, such as velocity-values?

No, I stated that the laws of physics do model observed (if you prefer to use perceived that's fine but it does carry a whiff of the subjective about it, the fact that people observe the same things tends towards the objective) phenomena. The concept of velocity is not abstract though I agree that chosing the metre and the second as the unit of measure is arbitrary.

Well it's certainly an indication that the laws of physics mirror an internal realm, and certainly not an external realm. This is the whole point of the argument. And given that the laws of physics are given to and perceived by the mind that sees them, I argue that this existence is created by that Mind.

I fail to see how they mirror an internal realm unless your assertion is that experience via the senses is manipulated until it meets the internally defined rules.

So using the example of a clock accellerated to speeds which area significant fraction of the speed of light, decellerated and then reunited with a similar clock which has not undergone the same accelleration. The reason why the clock which has undergone accelleration is showing an earlier time than the one which was not accellerated is not because of the different path through spacetime they took but because the observer who re-unites the clocks has forced them to. Even if this observer is unaware which clock has been accellerated.

Given your initial agreement, above, I have no idea why you would say this.

This is because I have tried (though it would have appeared, failed) to be very particular to differentiate between the "laws of physics", the set of equations that we humans have constructed to model the observable universe and the phenomena they set out to model.

The reason why the equations of relativity were invented was to exaplain some observed phenomena

 

[Upchurch]

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.

You're lack of reading comprehension is amazing.

Originally posted by Upchurch

Originally posted by lifegazer
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.

Do you read anything I write at all?

Orignally posted by lifegazer
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.

I find it interesting that you completely missed the part of my post where I actually answered your question: "please explain why the value "1000 m/s" is not a subjective value, relating entirely to a scale devised from human experience. Okay?" Not only did you not address it, but you completely ignored it with the above statement. Let me post it again in quotes and bold so maybe you'll see it this time.

Originally posted by Upchurch
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.

If you're going to ask the question, at least be intellecutally honest enough to acknowledge and address the answer rather than ignoring it as if I didn't answer.

 

[Dancing David]

Lifegazer, we agree with you all the time, it is the conclusions that vary, ain't life grand.

All of us posting to this thread are aware of the subjective nature of experience.

We have all agreed to use the languaga about the appearance of the physical world.

But there is a consensus amongst those who care to study science that they will try to remove the subjective and work towards the objectives.

So I ask you again:


When I read the numbers on a scale (a tool to measure the 'weight') I am asking which is the subjective experience:
-the scale itself is a subjective experience
-the numbers that I read off the scale are a subjective experience



The point is that unlike the dream world thge 'physical world' has internal consistancies that can be ;observed', they are free of the 'subjective' qualities assigned to them.
But ontologicaly there is no way to test for the origin of the 'physical' world.

That is why if you really believe the world to be an illsuion you would not protect your body(hey Franko!)

 

[Disbeliever]

Originally posted waaaay back when
Welcome, DB!

What kind of physics class do you teach?

I think you mean "What physics class do you attend?" Physics I. I'm only 18 after all.

 

[RussDill]

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.

What you claim is there there exists an absolute velocity that we are unaware of. This is untrue and you have not proven it to be true. What you can't seem to comprehend is the actual definition of velocity, which involves galilean and special relativity.

*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.

Again, you claim that there is some true, pure, or absolute velocity, which goes AGAINST the definition of velocity. A body can have a pure, true, and absolute velocity in relation to another reference frame, from the view of an observer.

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.

That is a meaningless question. Its like asking "is the pot really hot, or is it not" (hot compared to what) or "is that pole 500 meters away, or is it not" (500m away from what). Velocity, like "hot" or "distance" is a relative term, it depends on which reference frames you are talking about.

You cannot ask "Is the comet really moving at 1000 m/s or not?", You must ask "Is the comet really moving at 1000 m/s in relation to the sun, or not?"

 

[RussDill]

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.

Gotta correct you here, if the universe expanded from one point, then that point would now be everywhere, so you can't use it as a frame of reference.

 

[RussDill]

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.

Really, how is that a fact? You certainly haven't proven it to be a fact, and physics in fact assumes the apposite.

 

[RussDill]

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."

Your existence thread got torn to shreads. I'll say this again, you are adding an extra dimension to existence and claiming a boundry. By adding an extra dimension, it is no longer existence, but something else.

Take a 2d plane, it streaches out for infinity, and is boundless. Agreed? Now, I'll be lifegazer, and add a third dimension, haha, its bounded at every point. But then, it isn't the same existence.

The same can be set for our existence. Our existence is not a literal surface of a hypersphere floating in 4d nothingness. However, you expand reality to make it that, and thus, your description no longer matches reality. You then wrap the hypersphere by the mind. But then, what about the interior of the mind, that would be nothingness too, so there is a mind there as well, but then, the mind is seperated into two portions, a finite portion, and an infinite portion. Add to this that I can invision the mind as a 4d surface in a 5d space, now the mind is bounded by nothingness at every point.

You haven't answered any of these questions because you are unable to.

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

It has been discussed, and you point has been trashed beyond repair.

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!!

QM says no such thing. And given that you haven't actually studies QM, I understand the misconception. So I'll forgive it, but from those of us that have studies QM in depth, I'll tell you, QM says no such thing.

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.

Then what is the esscence of the Mind, what laws govern the Mind?

 

[RussDill]

So you agree that the laws mirror perceived behaviour and reflect scales of values devised wrt human experience, such as velocity-values?

There is another branch of physics known as theoretical physics. Theoretical physics attempts to determine the true nature of external reality, and then form predictions about future observed behavior (ie, once bigger coliders are made). Theoretical physics is a very successful field that has nothing to do with mirror anything perceived.

Well it's certainly an indication that the laws of physics mirror an internal realm, and certainly not an external realm. This is the whole point of the argument. And given that the laws of physics are given to and perceived by the mind that sees them, I argue that this existence is created by that Mind.

The laws of physics predict accurately what will be perceived by assuming that what we perceive happens externally to us. This approach has been hugely successful. Philosophers who assume that our perception is internal to us haven't been very successful at predicting anything.

 

[RussDill]

So using the example of a clock accellerated to speeds which area significant fraction of the speed of light, decellerated and then reunited with a similar clock which has not undergone the same accelleration. The reason why the clock which has undergone accelleration is showing an earlier time than the one which was not accellerated is not because of the different path through spacetime they took but because the observer who re-unites the clocks has forced them to. Even if this observer is unaware which clock has been accellerated.
.
[/B]

Stop feeding the troll don. Relativistic effects have everything to do with taking different paths though spacetime. Also, they do not depend on some observer.

The reason why the equations of relativity were invented was to exaplain some observed phenomena

The equations of relativity were not invented to explain the phenomena they describe. The equations of relativity were borne out of galilean relativity and the maxwell equations.

 

[Dancing David]

I would like to thank LG for elavting me to adverbial status,

btw is the scale the subjective experience or the vision of the scale?

 

[Wudang]

lifegazer wishes to explain how his philosophy is consistent with relativity so I'm bumping this thread so
1 - he is saved the trouble of creating a new thread
2 - the valuable contributions explaining what frames of reference etc actually are can be re-read.

 

[lifegazer]

lifegazer wishes to explain how his philosophy is consistent with relativity so I'm bumping this thread so
1 - he is saved the trouble of creating a new thread
2 - the valuable contributions explaining what frames of reference etc actually are can be re-read.

No, I want to present my own case. And I want to do it when I have more time, probably next week, as I expect there will be plenty of posts to reply to.

 

[Zero]

No, I want to present my own case. And I want to do it when I have more time, probably next week, as I expect there will be plenty of posts to reply to.

How is your being wrong next week going to be any different from you being wrong today, or last week, or last year?

 

[lifegazer]

How is your being wrong next week going to be any different from you being wrong today, or last week, or last year?

I know, with absolute certainty, that relativity is a law or theory dealing with internal perception. I.e., relativity deals with perceived existence and says absolutely nothing about an external reality. Next week, I shall try to convince you of this. Now, if you are truly interested (open) to finding the truth about existence before you die, you will grant me a fair hearing. I've learnt a thing or two from this thread and will incorporate that knowledge into a revised presentation of my argument.
You are cordially invited to meet your God.

 

[Wudang]

Are you making up your own definitions again like you did with "singularity"? Look what happened to Humpty Dumpty.

 

[lifegazer]

Are you making up your own definitions again like you did with "singularity"?

I can use any word I like to present my arguments as long as I define those words.
Furthermore, if I choose to take a word like "singularity" and apply reason to that word, then it's obvious that the word infers a singular existence.

Look what happened to Humpty Dumpty.

Have you been hanging around the kindergarten philosophy class again?

 

[Wudang]

Before you start making up words, find out about the ones the rest of us use, for instance infer. Words cannot infer anything.

Try reading Alice in Wonderland where Humpty Dumpty says that he can use words to mean what he wants them to mean. And trying to argue that singularity does not derive from the Latin singularitas is plain silly.