• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

New perspectives on Relativity

lifegazer

Philosopher
L
Joined
Oct 9, 2003
Messages
5,047
In this thread, I''ll be discussing a few issues pertaining to relativity.
First, let's discuss this post, from another thread:-


The light we sense is moving through our inner-awareness of space and our inner-awareness of time.
The qualitative value of inner-space and inner-time is a variant (that's what relativity tells us). Therefore, my perceived value of time T is not the exact-same as your perceived value of time T. Similarly for distance D.
Hence, to acknowledge these variations, the measurement of speed should be regarded as:
Speed = D(lg)/T(lg) ... where "lg" is an acknowledgent of the fact that these values are as perceived by myself.
Similarly, your measurement of speed should read:
Speed=D(psa)/T(psa) ... where "psa" is another person (awareness of being that person).

Now, the interesting thing here is that when we compare our values for the speed of light, we have:
Lg:- SOL (in a vacuum) = 299,792,458 meters(lg)/second(lg)
PSA:- SOL (vacuum) = 299,792,458 meters(psa)/second(psa)

... The problem is that the parameters are different/variant. Therefore, the values we assign to the SOL are not the same. Therefore, the SOL (as perceived) is not an absolute.
 
lifegazer said:
In this thread, I''ll be discussing a few issues pertaining to relativity.
First, let's discuss this post, from another thread:- [snip]

Now, the interesting thing here is that when we compare our values for the speed of light, we have:
Lg:- SOL (in a vacuum) = 299,792,458 meters(lg)/second(lg)
PSA:- SOL (vacuum) = 299,792,458 meters(psa)/second(psa)

... The problem is that the parameters are different/variant. Therefore, the values we assign to the SOL are not the same. Therefore, the SOL (as perceived) is not an absolute.
Click to expand...

The "therefore" simply doesn't follow.

Frogs are green. Therefore, I like pizza.

The speed of light, as perceived is an absolute. I will never perceive the speed of light (in vacuum) to be anything other than c. I can never actually perceive what units anyone other than myself is using, and so I cannot directly determine what the parameters used by another reference are.
 
He's trying relativity and the speed of light again!

:dl:
 
Doesn't SOL mean $#!+ outta luck?
I think that's where LG is right now. :)

Oh, c'mon LG, ya know ya luv me.:D
 
I see the mods have moved this from the philosophy forum, just to cheese me off.
Fair enough, but be warned that amongst all this, there will be philosophical musings about the existence of God and suchlike.

Grow up and put it back.
 
new drkitten said:
The speed of light, as perceived is an absolute. I will never perceive the speed of light (in vacuum) to be anything other than c. I can never actually perceive what units anyone other than myself is using, and so I cannot directly determine what the parameters used by another reference are.
Click to expand...
Einstein showed that the parameters of velocity - distance and time - are variants.
The value you assign to the SOL only has meaning because of the parameters you assign to that value. Numbers are meaningless without parameters. Therefore, since the parameters of the value of the SOL are variant, you cannot class that value as an absolute. It changes for yourself and with comparison to all others.
 
I agree with Lifegazer, this thread shouldn't be in SMM&T, it has nothing whatsoever to do with science!
 
wollery said:
I agree with Lifegazer, this thread shouldn't be in SMM&T, it has nothing whatsoever to do with science!
Click to expand...
It doesn't have much more to do with philosophy. Perhaps we need a "fiction" forum? Or maybe just send it straight to Flame Wars, since that is probably what it will become.
 
Upchurch said:
It doesn't have much more to do with philosophy. Perhaps we need a "fiction" forum? Or maybe just send it straight to Flame Wars, since that is probably what it will become.
Click to expand...
Do you have a rational response to my OP, or not?

And please move this back to philosophy.
 
You ever get them blues so bad?

I wake up dis mornin', I take a look outside.
Yass, I wake up dis mornin', I take a look outside.
Life Grazer got a 'pinion.
I laffin' til I hurts my side.

I scrolls down de window, he keep on sayin' stuff.
Yass, I scrolls down de window, he keep on sayin' stuff.
He ain't got too many marbles,
So he call old Einstein's bluff.

(Long guitar solo with hammering-on and a bottleneck riff in the middle.)

I sets hyah drinkin' cawfee, he keep on talkin' shuck.
Yass, I sets hyah drinkin' cawfee, he keep on talkin' shuck.
Way dat man be jivin',
I reckon he need a

(Long guitar solo with hammering-on, a bottleneck riff in the middle, and a zesty old-time boogle-oogle finish.)

So I'm a derisive SOL. So take me to court.
 
Linking Einstein's work to my PHILOSOPHY

In this thread, I''ll be discussing a few issues pertaining to relativity and trying to link them to my philosophy - which, as most of you know, contends that only God exists.
First, let's discuss this post, from another thread:-


The light we sense is moving through our inner-awareness of space and our inner-awareness of time.
The qualitative value of inner-space and inner-time is a variant (that's what relativity tells us). Therefore, my perceived value of time T is not the exact-same as your perceived value of time T. Similarly for distance D.
Hence, to acknowledge these variations, the measurement of speed should be regarded as:
Speed = D(lg)/T(lg) ... where "lg" is an acknowledgent of the fact that these values are as perceived by myself.
Similarly, your measurement of speed should read:
Speed=D(psa)/T(psa) ... where "psa" is another person (awareness of being that person).

Now, the interesting thing here is that when we compare our values for the speed of light, we have:
Lg:- SOL (in a vacuum) = 299,792,458 meters(lg)/second(lg)
PSA:- SOL (vacuum) = 299,792,458 meters(psa)/second(psa)

... The problem is that the parameters are different/variant. Therefore, the values we assign to the SOL are not the same.
The value you assign to the SOL only has meaning because of the parameters you assign to that value. Numbers are meaningless without parameters. Therefore, since the parameters of the value of the SOL are variant, you cannot class that value as an absolute. It changes for yourself and with comparison to all others.
Therefore, the SOL (as perceived) is not an absolute.
 
lifegazer said:
Einstein showed that the parameters of velocity - distance and time - are variants.
Click to expand...

No.


The value you assign to the SOL only has meaning because of the parameters you assign to that value.
Click to expand...

No.


Numbers are meaningless without parameters.
Click to expand...

No.


Therefore, since the parameters of the value of the SOL are variant, you cannot class that value as an absolute.
Click to expand...

No.


It changes for yourself and with comparison to all others.
Click to expand...

... and, no.
 
lifegazer said:
Do you have a rational response to my OP, or not?
Click to expand...
Yep, and I've said it all before in this thread.

Time dialation and length contraction works the same for all observers within the same inertial reference frame. In other words, there are no differences for two observers (or awarnesses, if you prefer) within the same reference frame. Thus, there is no dependancy on awarness for relativistic effects. You'll find nothing in relativity that says otherwise.

But we've been over this already.
 
If at the two hundredth attempt you don't succeed.....




May I humbly suggest that the mods shouldn't move this thread, it really isn't worth the effort.
 
The argument is moot.

Given the assumptions of your philosophy, the laws of physics are arbitrary. Arguments based upon the laws of physics are, therefore, also arbitrary. Thus, under your philosophy, nothing definitive can be said about reality based on the laws of physics.

Might as well argue about how Star Wars or last night's dream proves God's existance.
 
Greetings
lifegazer.

It has been some time I hope you are well and happy.

I am happy to find you now speak of your beliefs as your philosophy not " fact" with all other beliefs and or thoughts "wrong".


May I ask you this? As I am sure you know as a Buddhist I believe that all that is compund or the physical etc is illusion as there is nothing that is in and of itself "self", that all is all, or one etc if you will. So in part we agree but I see no need to add a unknown "god" to a known but respect you do my quiestion is this if only "God" exists and this being is all knowing all powerful that so many parts of "himself" do not believe in him/theirself?

Seems illogical.

Be well
 
lifegazer said:

Now, the interesting thing here is that when we compare our values for the speed of light, we have:
Lg:- SOL (in a vacuum) = 299,792,458 meters(lg)/second(lg)
PSA:- SOL (vacuum) = 299,792,458 meters(psa)/second(psa)
Click to expand...

I thought I was pretty good at math, but I'm unfamiliar with the notation you are using.

Anyway, here's how I understand the argument; correct me if I'm wrong:

Suppose A is travelling at speed s relative to B. A and B both shine a light, and B measures both light beams to be moving the same speed. B concludes that A's light beam is moving at speed c-s.

The problem is that you can't just add and subtract speeds like this.
 
lifegazer said:
The value you assign to the SOL only has meaning because of the parameters you assign to that value. Numbers are meaningless without parameters. Therefore, since the parameters of the value of the SOL are variant, you cannot class that value as an absolute. It changes for yourself and with comparison to all others.
Click to expand...

No. Evidently you don't understand basic measurement science any better than you understand relativity. The second is defined by the number of oscillations of an excited Cesium atom. This is a measurement, not a perception. The spead of light is then used to DEFINE what a meter is (based on how far light travels in one second), not the other way around. And that works precisely because the speed of light IS a constant. You can express it in different units if you want, but it's still the same constant. It's quite clear that you do not understand relativity, that you do not know the math involved, that you do not understand the significance of statements like "the speed of light is constant". They are not qualitative statements, they are statements of mathematical precision. Unless you can talk the math, don't even bother trying to argue here.
 
What Einstein was trying to get across was that units of measure for time and space are arbitrarily defined as such. Somewhere in the world is a piece of metal of near-unchangeable attribute with two marks. The distance between those two marks is arbitrarily defined as one meter.

Once so defined, however, it doesn't matter who does the measuring - the distance is the same, and the unit of measurement, once defined, is also the same; so regardless of who measures one meter, that measurement will be the same.

The same thing goes for weight, time, temperature, etc... an arbitrary unit is defined, but once defined, becomes objective.

Thus, the speed of light is absolute and objective, not at all subject to observational bias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom