New perspectives on Relativity

[RandFan]

I see. Nice to acknowledge how unreasonable you are.

Are you trying to set a record? That does not follow.

You made an illogical statement. I demonstrated that you were wrong. Now you are just trying to be cute and failing miserably.

 

[Z]

Let's get back to business.
Last night, I presented absolute proof that only You exist. It seems to have got lost 2 pages back amongst all the nonsense. So, here it is again:-

There is no such thing as absolute time or absolute space.

Unproven assertion. Your proof, please?

The reason why things such as the "twin paradox" can happen is because the value of the meter and of the second is entirely dependent upon how an individual perceives these values.

Incorrect.

They are variants. If they were not, then there would be no twin paradox. No relative variations in how we experience the same universe.

In other words, the existence of time and distance occurs within your awareness. There is no such thing as time or space beyond the awareness of it.

Another unproven assertion. Please show your work.

And if there is no time or space beyond your awareness, then there can be nothing else that exists beyond you (your awareness). Time and space must necessarily exist to separate two separate entities.

Faulty conclusion from flawed premises.

Henceforth, only You exist.

Misuse of the word 'henceforth' - and flawed conclusion from flawed premises.

Take special notice of the bold-type. For real entities to exist beyond/apart from you, it is an absolute necessity that there be absolute space and absolute time separating you from those entities. Yet it doesn't exist. Space & time are solely
illusions within your awareness. This is what Einstein has showed us.
Without definite space & time, there can be no separation of real things. This is obvious.
Therefore, only You exist.

I hereby conclude that Einstein's work supports the conclusion of my own philosophy. You need to start taking me seriously, very soon. [/QUOTE]

Not if this utterly incorrect 'proof' is an example of your work.

Frankly, this is the typical lifegazer format of 'logic' - unproven and unfounded, flawed and often incorrect premises which illogically lead to false conclusions.

Until he can prove the truth of his premises, he has absolutely nothing.

 

[Z]

Paha, kindly stick to the topic. Namely, that Einstein's work is a proof of my philosophy.

life, if you can't address the issues he presented - if you can't perform any miracles - then the subject at hand is moot. And, no, Einstein's work actually INVALIDATES your philosophy.

But, then, logic does that too.

 

[Z]

Hey, when I want to talk about miracles, I'll start a thread about them.
When I start a thread about relativity, I intend to talk about relativity. Gettit? Very simple.
Now, address my argument. Therein you will find a proof that You alone do exist.

It is the most profound proof ever presented, so attend to it.

Here, let me fix those nasty typos for you:

Edited by ZaayrDragon
Hey, when I want to talk about miracles, I'll start a thread about them. In the meantime, I'll avoid them like the plague.
When I start a thread about relativity, I intend to discuss whatever issues come to mind, labelling it as 'relativity', and make a series of mistakes and errors.. Gettit? Very simple.
Now, address my argument. Therein you will find a preposterously flawed 'proof' that You alone do exist.

It is the most profoundly ignorant proof ever presented, so ignore it.

 

[Z]

Interestingly, my philosophy would also predict that the SOL be observed to always have the same value. Why? Because the source of the light we sense is ourselves, NOT the object that we perceive within ourselves. In fact, it is the imposition of inner-light which gives the illusion of "things".
So, for example, the Sun is not the source of the light we perceive on the Earth. Rather, the Mind is the source of our perception of the light which is the source of our perception of the Sun.
Since motion is an illusion and we cannot accelerate away-from or towards the true source of that light - ourselves - then the SOL is unaffected by motion. That's why it's value is a constant.

Oh, so since a speaker is not the source of sound, but our Mind is the source of the perception of sound... and since motion is an illucion and we can never accelerate away from or towards the true source of sound - ourselves - then the speed of sound is unaffected by motion, which is why its value is a constant?

Oh, but wait, you finally conceded that the speed of sound is not absolute after all.

And aren't you saying, earlier, that the speed of light is not absolute? Yet you say its value is a constant - which would make it absolute.

What, in fact, are you saying here?

 

[Z]

I told you - and you ignored it - that I don't need Einstein. My philosophy actually predicts that our perceptions of space and time be subjective-variants... and that there is no such thing as absolute space or absolute time... and that the SOL should be a constant.

If space and time are subjective, the SOL cannot be a constant.

 

[Z]

Disagreement requires reason. None has been forthcoming.
I told you - prove that there is absolute space or absolute time and you will have reason to disagree with me. Without this proof, your disagreement is shown to be an emotional reaction. You're like a chimp wailing at something that frightens you.

LOL!

Heck, a philosophy requires REASON . None has been forthcoming.

Prove that there is no space or time, and you will have reason to continue posting philosophy. Without this proof, your philosophy is shown to be a catastrophic series of misunderstandings. You're like a foolish, ignorant, undereducated fool who so fears and hates reality that he has to create a hidey-hole and deny its existence.

BTW - where's my bread?

 

[Z]

Why would two observers in the same... experience different measurements?
My philosophy does not predict that. I have no idea why you have said it.

Well, You do exist since Something real must be having the inner experiences that you have. Only your identity and nature is in question.
Given this knowledge, there remains two possibilities:

(1) You are separated from other real entities by space and time.
(2) There is no space & time beyond the inner-experience of them.

Einstein disproved '1'.
If '2', You alone exist... with only your nature and identity in question.

Boy, your grasp of language is stunningly wrong. Einstein did NOT disprove 1, only made us understand more about the nature of space and time. Period.

So you're wrong... yet again, as on sooooo many levels.

 

[lifegazer]

Want to tell me again that your philosophy does not predict something you said it predicted in the opening post of this thread or do you want to simply address my argument that it does no such thing?

Well if you take gravity into account, then technically I think that I would be correct since no two bodies have the exact same mass.

It's not important upchurch. Clearly, the mass of two small bodies is of negligable effect (but not of no effect). Also, if those bodies are in the same inertial frame, it is obvious that those bodies will have the same (barring negligable differences) experience of time & space.
But none of that alters the fact that the perception of space & time is a variant quality. That we do not see the reality (absoluteness) of space or time. That's what is important.

Can you prove that you or I exist anymore than the gun-toting bunny does in my example above?

Those having internal experiences can prove their own existence.
I can prove my existence to myself (this applies to any entity having internal to the Self experiences).
As I said elsewhere, whether the perception of being you exists or not, is not important to my philosophy. If there does, then my philosophy applies to you. If there does not, then it does not matter.
To negate my philosophy along this path, you would have to argue that there are no internal experiences. Then, nothing is required to explain their presence (rather, their absence). Clearly, you're not crazy enough to argue that there are no internal experiences. Or are you?

"(1) You are separated from other real entities by space and time.
(2) There is no space & time beyond the inner-experience of them.

Einstein disproved '1'. "

That's just delusional. He did no such thing. Have you actually even read what Einstein said? His work was based on the assumption that there were real entities seperated by space and time. I challenge you to show where he said otherwise.

I didn't mean that he literally and intentionally - formally - disproved it.
He disproved it without being aware of the fact that he did so.

When he showed that the observtion of time and space were variants, he was actually proving what I've been saying for three years: that what we observe exists within awareness. We don't observe real space - we observe the illusion of space within awareness. Same thing for time.

When Einstein showed that there is no such thing as absolute space or absolute time, he inadvertently showed that there is no such thing as real/definite space or real/definite time. He showed that these were things existing within the awareness of the observer itself.

If there's no such thing as absolutely real space or absolutely real time, then there can be no such thing as "absolutely real things" either, since the separation of real things absolutely requires the existence of real space and real time.

Conclusion: Only You exist.

 

[Upchurch]

Boy, your grasp of language is stunningly wrong.

It isn't his grasp of language that is the problem (well, not in this specific instance), Z. In this particular case, lifegazer is arguing from a position of ignorance. He simply doesn't know what Einstein did, said, or accomplished, so he's inexplicably making it up from one moment to the next. Note how he has been inconsistant with himself on what his philosophy says about measurements. First, he said they were dependant upon the viewer. Later, he said they were invariant from awareness to awareness. *shrug*

 

[lifegazer]

Are you trying to set a record? That does not follow.

You made an illogical statement. I demonstrated that you were wrong. Now you are just trying to be cute and failing miserably.

Let's see... this started when you mocked my argument, also claiming that it had been debunked. I then called you a fool and told you that the only way to debunk my argument was to prove the existence of absolute space and absolute time. I also explained why my philosophy predicts that lightspeed should have a constant numerical value. You then ignored all of that significant stuff and said something like "I disagree". But rather than give good reason to disagree with one of the most profound arguments ever presented, you continued to make a pratt of yourself by defending the right to disagree through being unreasonable.

I think you should leave the building before your integrity vanishes altogether within the thick fog of your stupidity. I have no desire to discuss such important matters with fools and idiots. Please leave and don't come back.

 

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer I have no desire to discuss such important matters with fools and idiots.

Why not? You'd have more luck discussing with your peers, instead of us.

 

[Upchurch]

Well if you take gravity into account, then technically I think that I would be correct since no two bodies have the exact same mass.

...

...what? Gravity? What in the world are you talking about? Have you had a complete disconnect from reality? Nothing you said previously had anything to do with gravity.

You have said that your philosophy predicts that two observers in the same inertial reference frame would have two different measurements of the same quantity. I have shown that this is not the case. You have not/can not refute it. Not much more to say about it, really.

But none of that alters the fact that the perception of space & time is a variant quality.

Yeah, it really does. You've made an unsubstanitated claim that you cannot back up and you want us to accept it as fact? More of the same double standard, lifegazer?

Those having internal experiences can prove their own existence.

Oh? Then do so. I'm assuming that you believe you have internal experiences, but can you actually prove that you exist? Can you prove that those experiences are, indeed, internal or even your own? Can you even prove that those experiences exist?

I'd love to know how you could prove all of these things.

I can prove my existence to myself (this applies to any entity having internal to the Self experiences).

Again, do it. Show your work.

To negate my philosophy along this path, you would have to argue that there are no internal experiences. Then, nothing is required to explain their presence (rather, their absence). Clearly, you're not crazy enough to argue that there are no internal experiences. Or are you?

Poisoning the well, but how can you prove that they are, in fact, internal. We've been over this before, as well.

I didn't mean that he literally and intentionally - formally - disproved it.
He disproved it without being aware of the fact that he did so.

When he showed that the observtion of time and space were variants, he was actually proving what I've been saying for three years: that what we observe exists within awareness. We don't observe real space - we observe the illusion of space within awareness. Same thing for time.

Then you haven't been paying attention. I have shown you that oberservations are invariant between awarenesses. You have been unable to deny this. (Well, you deny it all you like, but you cannot show it is wrong.) Such consistancy can only imply that the source of observation is unrelated to the awareness itself.

When Einstein showed that there is no such thing as absolute space or absolute time, he inadvertently showed that there is no such thing as real/definite space or real/definite time.

No. If you had actually studied Einstein rather than putting words in his mouth and making up the rest, you'd find out that what he actually said was that our previous understanding of 3-dimensional space and 1-dimensional time being consistant throughout the universe was incorrect. He fully showed that spacetime was a real thing, but much more complex than we had earlier conceived since space and time are, in actuality, a single 4-dimensional thing. In this case, "absolute time" is synonymous to "universal time". When Einstien said there was no absolute time, he was saying there was no universal time. Only through mis-use of the term "absolute" could you conclude that there was no real time.

Are you intenionally mis-using the term "absolute" or do you just not know any better?

If there's no such thing as absolutely real space or absolutely real time, then there can be no such thing as "absolutely real things" either, since the separation of real things absolutely requires the existence of real space and real time.

But there is no reason to believe there is no real space or time, so this argument falls apart like so much wet tissue paper.

As if it weren't alreay moot in the first place.

Conclusion: Only You exist.

Wow. You are totally disconnected.

 

[Pahansiri]

lifegazer if all this is your internal experience and being you are "fully awake" to this and have the powers that come with such awarness simply control how we post as it is an illusion living only in your mind. Make our post agree with you and give you the glory and praise you seek. If you are bothered by the post here and all of us simple lost fools it is YOUR fault for doing this to yourself.

We have no control over your internal experiences, right?

 

[lifegazer]

...what? Gravity? What in the world are you talking about? Have you had a complete disconnect from reality? Nothing you said previously had anything to do with gravity.

Big deal. Just because I haven't mentioned something doesn't mean that it isn't so. Gravity affects space and time. Deal with it.

You have said that your philosophy predicts that two observers in the same inertial reference frame would have two different measurements of the same quantity. I have shown that this is not the case. You have not/can not refute it. Not much more to say about it, really.

Actually, as I said before, this isn't important to my philosophy. What's important is that the qualitative value of space and time, as perceived, is a variant.
You are clinging to this in the hope that by proving I was wrong about something that you don't have to address the meat of my argument. That's not true. And technically, since gravity does affect ones perception of space and time and since all bodies have different mass, I am correct: there are no two absolutely identical perceptions of space & time.

Yeah, it really does. You've made an unsubstanitated claim that you cannot back up and you want us to accept it as fact? More of the same double standard, lifegazer?

The qualitative experience of space and time is a variant. How else could the twin paradox be explained if this were not the truth?
If my experience of 10 years = your experience of 5 years, then clearly we have had different internal experiences of time.

Oh? Then do so. I'm assuming that you believe you have internal experiences, but can you actually prove that you exist?

Something real is having the experience of being me (lifegazer). This must be the case since an unreal thing or 'nothing' cannot have experiences. In reality, I exist and am that Something.

Can you prove that those experiences are, indeed, internal or even your own? Can you even prove that those experiences exist?

Can I prove to myself that I am having experiences such as thoughts and sensations? That has to be the most stupid question of the day.

Poisoning the well, but how can you prove that they are, in fact, internal. We've been over this before, as well.

You cannot experience thoughts and sensations externally to yourself.

Then you haven't been paying attention. I have shown you that oberservations are invariant between awarenesses.

You haven't shown me any such thing. Furthermore, even if it it were possible for two awarenesses to experience identical space and identical time, this does not prove that time is invariant. It merely proves that there is a specific instance at which 2+ observers can experience the same qualitative values for space & time.

Such consistancy can only imply that the source of observation is unrelated to the awareness itself.

What you are dismally trying to say would only be true if there were always zero variance of time and space perception. This is not the case.

He fully showed that spacetime was a real thing,

That's a complete lie. It's impossible to prove the existence of anything beyond the awareness of it = no proof of the reality of "out there".

In this case, "absolute time" is synonymous to "universal time". When Einstien said there was no absolute time, he was saying there was no universal time. Only through mis-use of the term "absolute" could you conclude that there was no real time.

Wakey wakey: if there's no universal time, then there's no time in the universe.

But there is no reason to believe there is no real space or time, so this argument falls apart like so much wet tissue paper.

No universal time/space = no time/space in the universe = no separation of things = no universe full of things.

Wow. You are totally disconnected.

You're living in denial upchurch. You're very aware of the fact that my philosophy destroys 'the life of upchurch', so you're just saying anything to keep yourself alive. What a pity when so much more is available to you.

 

[RussDill]

Let's get back to business.
Last night, I presented absolute proof that only You exist. It seems to have got lost 2 pages back amongst all the nonsense. So, here it is again:-

Since you are posting the same thing again, I'll post the same reply you haven't been able to respond to

There is no such thing as absolute time or absolute space.

Hooray einstein, he showed that time and space are not seperate entities, but one cohesive unit called spacetime.

The reason why things such as the "twin paradox" can happen is because the value of the meter and of the second is entirely dependent upon how an individual perceives these values.

No, it is because they are taking different tracks through space time. If the two twin pass eachother in spaceships, there is no way to spot a difference in the second that each twin experiences. It is not valid to say that one twin is experiencing a slower second than the other one.

If one twin turns his spaceship around and catches up with the other twin, his clock will be behind the second twin, and if the other twin decides to turn around, then vice versa.

They just took a different path. Spacetime is a pretty cool concept, any object thrown in the presence of a gravitational field actually follows a straight path through spacetime.

They are variants. If they were not, then there would be no twin paradox. No relative variations in how we experience the same universe.

Sigh, there is no twin paradox, there is a twin riddle. The variations are no different than if we were standing in two different places in the same room, and therefore saw a slightly different image in the room. There are variations because we exist within spacetime.

Because we exist in spacetime, and not a combination of space and time, there are variations that we do not expect, like time dialation, however, the effect is just as natural as being in two different positions.

In other words, the existence of time and distance occurs within your awareness.

We are aware of time and distance. The actual quantities, even according to your own philosophy, do not exist within our own awareness, they exist within god's blueprint of the universe.

There is no such thing as time or space beyond the awareness of it.

There is in god's blueprint

Take special notice of the bold-type.

Take special note of your conclusions? How about you work a stronger argument, then worry about boldfacing your conclusions.

For real entities to exist beyond/apart from you, it is an absolute necessity that there be absolute space and absolute time separating you from those entities. Yet it doesn't exist.

You are going to have to argue that spacetime does not exist, because einstein has already shown that the concept of space and time as seperate entities is incorrect.

Space & time are solely illusions within your awareness. This is what Einstein has showed us.

Not quite, he showed that the *seperation* of space and time is an illusion, that's quite different that showing they don't exist.

I hereby conclude that Einstein's work supports the conclusion of my own philosophy. You need to start taking me seriously, very soon.

Right, as soon as you address the above statement. (or start performing miracles)

 

[Upchurch]

Ignoring the part where your philosophy predicts something that is not true, for the moment:

Something real is having the experience of being me (lifegazer). This must be the case since an unreal thing or 'nothing' cannot have experiences. In reality, I exist and am that Something.

You have not proven that you are that Something. You have not proven that experiences are real. Really, you haven't proved anything yet. Please continue.

 

[RussDill]

Clocks exist within awareness, as does everything else affected by the laws/forces we perceive. You're missing the point: that time and space are not absolute values - that they are experiences internal to your own awareness.

However, if you have a proof that REAL clocks exist beyond your awareness of them and if you have a proof that these REAL clocks are affected outside your awareness the same way that they are affected within it, then I'm sure the members would be pleased to hear that proof.

Your philosophy shows that our individual awareness does not effect anything that we perceive, its all in the master blueprint that god has.

 

[RussDill]

Interestingly, my philosophy would also predict that the SOL be observed to always have the same value. Why? Because the source of the light we sense is ourselves, NOT the object that we perceive within ourselves. In fact, it is the imposition of inner-light which gives the illusion of "things".
So, for example, the Sun is not the source of the light we perceive on the Earth. Rather, the Mind is the source of our perception of the light which is the source of our perception of the Sun.
Since motion is an illusion and we cannot accelerate away-from or towards the true source of that light - ourselves - then the SOL is unaffected by motion. That's why it's value is a constant.

Interestingly, my philosophy would also predict that the speed of sound be observed to always have the same value. Why? Because the source of the sound we sense is ourselves, NOT the object that we perceive within ourselves. In fact, it is the imposition of inner-sound which gives the illusion of "things".
So, for example, the siren is not the source of the sound we perceive on the Earth. Rather, the Mind is the source of our perception of the sound which is the source of our perception of the siren.
Since motion is an illusion and we cannot accelerate away-from or towards the true source of that sound - ourselves - then the speed of sound is unaffected by motion. That's why it's value is a constant.

 

[RussDill]

You're being a fool. Why? Because the only way to shred my thesis is to prove the existence of absolute space & absolute time - something Einstein himself has negated.

Again, no, he showed that the seperation of space and time is an illusion, nothing more

Also, you ignore the other stuff I write about which explains why the SOL should be a constant numerical value given that the source of that light is ourselves rather than objects "out there".

Again, the same applies to the speed of sound.