Lifegazer's special relativity "proof"

[lifegazer]

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

Words cannot infer anything?
Do you know what single means? Do you know what singular means? Then wouldn't you say that the word "singularity" (of existence) should infer singularness of existence?
Language is supposed to make sense and be consistent, particularly in philosophy and - one would think - the sciences.

And trying to argue that singularity does not derive from the Latin singularitas is plain silly.

And what does that mean?

 

[RussDill]

Words cannot infer anything?
Do you know what single means? Do you know what singular means? Then wouldn't you say that the word "singularity" (of existence) should infer singularness of existence?

So wait, we *can't* redifine single, or singular, but we are supposed to redifine singularity?

Language is supposed to make sense and be consistent, particularly in philosophy and - one would think - the sciences.

nope, sorry, singularity has long had a definition other than the one you claim. You'll have to actually define what you are trynig to say, instead of just insiting on "its a singularity, but the definition for singularity is wrong"

And what does that mean?

so lazy...here is a root start if you want...

singularis -e [alone , single, individual, singular; unique, extraordinary]. Adv. singulariter, [singly; in the singular number; particularly, extraordinarily].

you might also look up singular:


1. Being only one; individual.
2. Being the only one of a kind; unique.
3. Being beyond what is ordinary or usual; remarkable.
4. Deviating from the usual or expected; odd. See Synonyms at strange.
5. Grammar.
1. Of, relating to, or being a noun, pronoun, or adjective denoting a single person or thing or several entities considered as a single unit.
2. Of, relating to, or being a verb expressing the action or state of a single subject.
6. Logic. Of or relating to the specific as distinguished from the general; individual.


so then if you look up singularity, you can see where the definition derives:

1. The quality or condition of being singular.
2. A trait marking one as distinct from others; a peculiarity.
3. Something uncommon or unusual.
4. Astrophysics. A point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume, and space and time to become infinitely distorted.
5. Mathematics. A point at which the derivative does not exist for a given function but every neighborhood of which contains points for which the derivative exists. Also called singular point.

Note that single, and singular, are not the same word. I know you'd rather derive singularity from single, but adding an ity to single makes it singlity, which isn't a word, maybe that is what you can use instead, singlity.

 

[Wudang]

Words cannot infer anything?
Do you know what single means? Do you know what singular means? Then wouldn't you say that the word "singularity" (of existence) should infer singularness of existence?
Language is supposed to make sense and be consistent, particularly in philosophy and - one would think - the sciences.

And what does that mean?

Yes. I know what single means. I know what singular means. I know what infer means - you don't. Infer does not mean imply. Look, it's your native language, try to understand it.

 

[epepke]

There are so many pages, I'm not sure if I've already weighed in on this. But anyway, I'll do so now.

Let's assume that lifegazers views are accurately represented by "What's really happened, and what can only have happened, is that the space-twin's mind's perception of space & time has become warped. His mind is responsible for the distortion."

Now, this seems dumb on the surface because it focuses on his mind, but of course, everything is going to work the same way. A guy with just his mind distorted could always just look at his watch. If his mind were distorted, and his watch weren't, he would see something funny going on with his watch. But he doesn't.

However, it's dumb at a deeper level, too, because "distortion" implies that there is something for his mind to be distorted in comparison to. The whole point of relativity is that there is no such thing. There is no preferred frame of reference.

There is no such thing as travelling at .99 c. There is only travelling .99 c relative to something else. Travelling at .99 c is exactly the same as being at rest, or travelling .99 c or 0.05 c in the other direction. Velocity is relative; that's what "relativity" means.

Now, there are problems with travelling at .99 c around here, because there are hydrogen atoms and the like hanging around. But that's not because of any absolute frame of reference; it's simply because if they were themselves travelling at .99 c, they'd be long gone. Of course, there are a few, like cosmic rays sent out from the Sun, but the universe is awfully old, and anything moving that fast for billions of years has had a chance to hit something by now.

 

[lifegazer]

Yes. I know what single means. I know what singular means. I know what infer means - you don't. Infer does not mean imply. Look, it's your native language, try to understand it.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infer

infer - reason by deduction; establish by deduction
deduce, derive, deduct
logical system, system of logic, logic - a system of reasoning
extrapolate - gain knowledge of (an area not known or experienced) by extrapolating
conclude, reason, reason out - decide by reasoning; draw or come to a conclusion; "We reasoned that it was cheaper to rent than to buy a house"
carry back - deduct a loss or an unused credit from taxable income for a prior period
surmise - infer from incomplete evidence
elicit - derive by reason; "elicit a solution"

... Singularity is derivative of singular. Hence, the word itself infers a singular form of existence. I.e., any reasoned contemplation (inference) of that word (singularity) should conclude that it means a singular form of existence. To conclude otherwise contradicts the meaning of singularness.

 

[Wudang]

Please explain how a word can "reason by deduction; establish by deduction". That is what a person does. Which is why you are using the wrong word. You mean "imply". You can't grasp this simple difference between inference and implication and wonder why people accuse you of being lightweight?

Did you look up singular while you were at it? I think not. My POcket Oxford has "extraordinary, exceptional, uncommon..." and so on.

 

[scribble]

Please explain how a word can "reason by deduction; establish by deduction". That is what a person does. Which is why you are using the wrong word. You mean "imply". You can't grasp this simple difference between inference and implication and wonder why people accuse you of being lightweight?

Hey, Wudang - you forget: In lifegazer's philosophy where everything is in the mind of God, perhaps words are capable of deduction just like you are.

Because God dreamed it that way, that's why.

 

[Upchurch]

While I am not responsible for moving lifegazer's newest relativity thread to Science, I have to agree with the action. Besides, there is no reason to re-hash what has already been done.

This is a fairly in-depth dismantaling of lifegazer's earlier relativity fantasies. Why not continue here?

 

[lifegazer]

While I am not responsible for moving lifegazer's newest relativity thread to Science, I have to agree with the action. Besides, there is no reason to re-hash what has already been done.

This is a fairly in-depth dismantaling of lifegazer's earlier relativity fantasies. Why not continue here?

Firstly, that thread is titled NEW perspectives of relativity and will be discussing, hopefully, things that haven't already been discussed here.
Secondly, this thread is old and long and anything NEW that is said will be quickly lost in the chaos.

Thirdly, I vehemently object to that thread being moved away from the philosophy forum. As I said there, I will be linking what I say to MY PHILOSOPHY ABOUT GOD.

Fourthly, people who read my threads are familiar with me posting them in here.

Given these reasons, I formally request that you move it back into this forum.

 

[Upchurch]

Firstly, that thread is titled NEW perspectives of relativity and will be discussing, hopefully, things that haven't already been discussed here.

I've seen your other thread. It is yet another attempt to rationalize something that was thuroughly debunked in this thread, namely that relativisitic effects are dependant on the awareness of the viewer. At best, it is merely a continuation of this thread.

Secondly, this thread is old and long and anything NEW that is said will be quickly lost in the chaos.

It also contains pertenant information.

Thirdly, I vehemently object to that thread being moved away from the philosophy forum. As I said there, I will be linking what I say to MY PHILOSOPHY ABOUT GOD.

Cart before the horse. Besides, I didn't move it. I'm not going to move it back.

Fourthly, people who read my threads are familiar with me posting them in here.

And?

Given these reasons, I formally request that you move it back into this forum.

Request denied. I try not to take a mod role in threads I'm personally involved in as a poster.

 

[Z]

Personally, I think the mods ought to close, outright, every thread lg posts that is a rehash of older posts - like the relativity threads.

Force him to stay in the conversation he started while discussing that topic.

Otherwise - he's wasting bandwidth and storage space.

 

[Wudang]

Ah yes, lifegazers classic argument that words are capable of thinking, almost as good as the "speed of sound is constant".

 

[jmercer]

For some strange reason

This reminds me of lifegazer's logic for reasons I cannot fathom.