New perspectives on Relativity

[lifegazer]

DO you know what 'universal' means? If there is no universal time/space, that just means that time and space are not uniform throughout the universe. Not that there is no time/space in the universe.

If we were to accept your utterly stupid understanding of what universal spacetime is (or is not), then there would be definite values of space and time throughout the universe, regardless of uniformity.

Either there is space and time between two bodies, or there is not (in which case there aren't 2 separate bodies). If there is, then these values are definite and there is an absolute value for the quantity of space and time between those bodies.

Clearly, the uniformity of spacetime has nothing to do with absoluteness of that spacetime. In other words, you're talking through your bottom again.

(1) No universal time = zero time in the universe.
(2) The absence of universal space = zero space in the universe.
(3) 1 + 2 = no real universe.

 

[P.S.A.]

Re: On simultaneity.

http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfadd/1160/Ch27SpRl/Simlt.html

Simultaneity is relative. According to Einstein, no two observers share the exact same now.
In other words, there is no absolute now... or, no universal now.]

Two observers on the space ship would, as I've just said. THE SPACE SHIP ITSELF EXPERIENCES THE SAME "NOW" EVEN IF NO ONE IS ON IT. A clock on the ship would experience not just the altered time, but our physical laws will tell us exactly WHAT time it thinks it is now when it came back to us. Time is a property of the Universe, it's the Fourth Dimension, applies universally to all matter but not uniformly, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD.

Please, for your own sake, stop this madness Lifegazer, it's just becoming too painful now. You are only making yourself look more and more deliberatly sick... Go ahead, email your conclusions into the author of that web site; The people who supposedly agree with you about Relativity. Write and tell them the universe doesn't exist, and they'll laugh at you, because you plainly don't understand the true meaning of Relativity. Or "simultaneous" for crying out loud.

Then write back to them, call them sheep, chimps, declare your specialness again... then get angrier... more alienated... christ on crutches, can't you see where this is leading you, or do you simply not care? Is your life really so awful for you that you are going to willingly embrace this self destruction?

 

[lifegazer]

Re: Re: On the variance of perceived space and time.

In other words, the speed of light IS ABSOLUTE as cited by the very reference that YOU chose, Lifegrazer.

Don't be a mug. That author fails to distinguish between
m(lg) and m(psa) and s(lg) and s(psa).

I've been through this once, I'm not doing it again. However, if the parameters are not qualitatively identical, then the values cannot be absolutely identical.

 

[RussDill]

Re: On simultaneity.

http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfadd/1160/Ch27SpRl/Simlt.html

Simultaneity is relative. According to Einstein, no two observers share the exact same now.
In other words, there is no absolute now... or, no universal now.

This means that there is no present moment for the universe as a whole. If there is no present moment for the universe as a whole, then there is no universe.

why? I don't see a problem with that. I do present a problem relating to your philosophy and the lack of simultaniality that involves two twins. Would you like to address it?

 

[lifegazer]

Two observers on the space ship would, as I've just said. THE SPACE SHIP ITSELF EXPERIENCES THE SAME "NOW" EVEN IF NO ONE IS ON IT.

Spaceships don't have experiences. Only living entities have experiences - perceptions.

Anyway, it's a FACT that simultaneity is relative, so it doesn't matter how much shouting you do.

 

[Z]

If we were to accept your utterly stupid understanding of what universal spacetime is (or is not), then there would be definite values of space and time throughout the universe, regardless of uniformity.

Either there is space and time between two bodies, or there is not (in which case there aren't 2 separate bodies). If there is, then these values are definite and there is an absolute value for the quantity of space and time between those bodies.

Clearly, the uniformity of spacetime has nothing to do with absoluteness of that spacetime. In other words, you're talking through your bottom again.

(1) No universal time = zero time in the universe.
(2) The absence of universal space = zero space in the universe.
(3) 1 + 2 = no real universe.

No. You misunderstand entirely.

Anywhere and everywhere throughout spacetime there exist definitive values for spacetime - but those values are not uniform, anywhere in the universe. Hence, no 'universal spacetime'.

Clearly, there are absolute values for space between bodies. Two bodies in the same frame of reference bear between them a value of space which can be represented many ways.

To extend this into time is to recognize that spacetime is a singular construction, thus the values between two bodies within the same frame of reference are absolute, regarding space and time.

Now, to claim that 'no universal time = zero time in the universe' is a linguistic error. 'Universal' does not, in this case, mean 'within the universe' - it means, no uniform/common/equivalent' time. If there is variable time in the universe - in other words, if time exists but has variations in its values throughout the universe - then, clearly, this is time.

This error is very similar to your ridiculous belief that an infinite universe requires two fixed objects to have infinite space between them. Clearly, your understanding of things is horribly flawed.

Likewise with 'universal space'.

So (1) and (2) above are simply wrong, and thus (3) is an erroneous conclusion based upon flawed premises.

Care to try again?

 

[Z]

Re: Re: Re: On the variance of perceived space and time.

Don't be a mug. That author fails to distinguish between
m(lg) and m(psa) and s(lg) and s(psa).

I've been through this once, I'm not doing it again. However, if the parameters are not qualitatively identical, then the values cannot be absolutely identical.

Ah... but they are, within the same frame of reference.

And if your ratios do actually work out as equal - then they're identical with respect to the values of spacetime itself.

In other words, though two people may have differing perceptions, if their perceptions are equivalent, then that thing perceived has values that are identical.

Back to grade one for you, son.

 

[RussDill]

Re: On the variance of perceived space and time.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s2.htm
Extracts:

"Einstein found that what you measure for length, time, and mass depends on your motion relative to a chosen frame of reference.

Two consequences of Special Relativity are a stationary observer will find (1) the length of a fast-moving object is less than if the object was at rest, and (2) the passage of time on the fast-moving object is slower than if the object was at rest. However, an observer inside the fast-moving object sees everything inside as their normal length and time passes normally, but all of the lengths in the world outside are shrunk and the outside world's clocks are running slow. "

These are all observations of events that happen in spacetime, interpreted as if space and time were seperate units. If you interpret the events in spacetime, there is no distortion occuring.

If the qualitative value of your experience of time or space was invariant, then none of what you read above, would be true.

If I take the scenic route, and travel 15 miles to get to a place that took you 5 miles to get to, does that mean my qualitative value for a mile was longer? No, I just traveled more seconds. Same thing with the twin paradox, the second is the same, they just took different paths through spacetime.

 

[lifegazer]

Re: Re: On simultaneity.

Simultaneity is relative.

Yes.

According to Einstein, no two observers share the exact same now.

No.

Squire, you cannot agree with the former and disagree with the latter.
If simultaneity is relative then there is no way for 2+ observers to establish an exact moment of time. If we cannot agree as to the simultaneity of an event, then we cannot agree when 'now' is.

If simultaneity is relative, then 'now' is also relative.#

If there is no absolute simultaneity, then there is no absolute now.
If there is no absolute now, then there is no universal now.

If there is no universal now, then there is no universe.

 

[Z]

Re: Re: Re: On simultaneity.

Squire, you cannot agree with the former and disagree with the latter.
If simultaneity is relative then there is no way for 2+ observers to establish an exact moment of time. If we cannot agree as to the simultaneity of an event, then we cannot agree when 'now' is.

If simultaneity is relative, then 'now' is also relative.#

If there is no absolute simultaneity, then there is no absolute now.
If there is no absolute now, then there is no universal now.

If there is no universal now, then there is no universe.

Boy, the education system in your hometown must be a mess.

Absolute does not equal universal. The opposite of universal is local - well, one of many possible opposites.

If there is no universal 'now', then there can well be local 'now' within the universe.

lifegazer, let me ask you a couple of serious questions?

a) Where did you go to school?
b) Did you graduate?
c) Where is my miracle bread?

 

[RussDill]

If we were to accept your utterly stupid understanding of what universal spacetime is (or is not), then there would be definite values of space and time throughout the universe, regardless of uniformity.

You keep pointing out that a seperate space and time do not describe the universe fully, and need "corrections". This is true, because our universe does not consist of a seperate space and time. I don't see what you are trying to accomplish.

Either there is space and time between two bodies, or there is not (in which case there aren't 2 separate bodies).

There is not

If there is, then these values are definite and there is an absolute value for the quantity of space and time between those bodies.

Right, but like I said, there is a spacetime between the two bodies.

Clearly, the uniformity of spacetime has nothing to do with absoluteness of that spacetime. In other words, you're talking through your bottom again.

You are mixing up space and time with spacetime again.

(1) No universal time = zero time in the universe.

Why? Are there universal routes from any point to another point in a flat, space+time universe? No, you can take several routes, each covering a different distance, that does not mean that there aren't any routes to that destination, it means the exact opposite in fact.

Similarly, in a universe with spacetime, the routes from one point at one time to another point in another time don't just vary by distance traveled, they vary by spacetime distance traveled (distance and time). We've merely added a dimension to the question of how many ways are there to get from a to b.

 

[P.S.A.]

Spaceships don't have experiences. Only living entities have experiences - perceptions.

Anyway, it's a FACT that simultaneity is relative, so it doesn't matter how much shouting you do.

Matter experiences time.

What a dishonest plonker you are.

Anyway, your dishonesty doesn't matter... Have you emailed the author of that page yet?

No?

Then shut the up, you lunatic.

 

[RussDill]

Spaceships don't have experiences. Only living entities have experiences - perceptions.

Why does it matter? The laws of physics apply equally to things that have experiences, and things that don't have experiences.

 

[P.S.A.]

And before you wibble on and on and on about "perceptions", and weasal further out of asking the author of that article to clarify whether he's saying what you think he's saying (he's not, so you won't), just answer me this question:

WILL THE SPACESHIP EXHIBIT ANY CHANGES AT ALL ON ANY LEVEL OF MEASUREMENT IF IT TRAVELS WITHOUT BEING OBSERVED BY ANY CONSCIOUS ENTITY?

Go on. Say that it won't. You know it's the only answer you can give which might align with your philosophy. I dare you to say that the illusion of the space ship in the dream remains precisely as it is when it left...

 

[jmercer]

Spaceships don't have experiences. Only living entities have experiences - perceptions.

Anyway, it's a FACT that simultaneity is relative, so it doesn't matter how much shouting you do.

Earlier, you were ranting that the time dilation experiment with the clocks on planes showed a variance because of the observer's perceptions. I did some research, and as it turns out, you're (surprise!) wrong.

Four clocks were put on commercial jets in sealed containers to prevent tampering. The containers were retrieved and opened together in the same room - and the clock times were compared at that point.

Their state would, by definition, have been unknown and unknowable until the instant those containers were opened and the contents were assessed. Therefore, the passage of time is utterly independent of the observation of it by a sentient being.

So much for your time=perception fallacy.

 

[lifegazer]

Let's see...

There is no universal/absolute time or space.
There is no universal/absolute now.

This presents a problem for all you realists or materialists (or bozos). You see, a real universe with real things separated by real space and real time, is a universe with absolute time and absolute space and a real 'now'.

I'm actually enjoying this, regardless of the plonkers.

 

[RussDill]

And before you wibble on and on and on about "perceptions", and weasal further out of asking the author of that article to clarify whether he's saying what you think he's saying (he's not, so you won't), just answer me this question:

WILL THE SPACESHIP EXHIBIT ANY CHANGES AT ALL ON ANY LEVEL OF MEASUREMENT IF IT TRAVELS WITHOUT BEING OBSERVED BY ANY CONSCIOUS ENTITY?

Go on. Say that it won't. You know it's the only answer you can give which might align with your philosophy. I dare you to say that the illusion of the space ship in the dream remains precisely as it is when it left...

he gets out of this by saying that it is perceived by god. Thus all of reality is perceived by god. Course, don't forget, in his reality, the reality we perceive is managed by god, and the perception of that reality is fed to our individual conciousness by god.

 

[RussDill]

This presents a problem for all you realists or materialists (or bozos). You see, a real universe with real things separated by real space and real time, is a universe with absolute time and absolute space and a real 'now'.

I'm actually enjoying this, regardless of the plonkers.

Sorry, a real universe with real space and real time is an outdated model. We now have a model of the universe where space and time are unified. Everything from things to events is seperated by spacetime.

 

[rppa]

Re: Re: Re: On simultaneity.

Squire, you cannot agree with the former and disagree with the latter.

Afraid I can.

Let me break it down for you: "Simultaneity is relative" means that simultaneity depends on relative motion of the observers.

It does not specify exactly what that relation is (though Einstein does, in explicit mathematical detail). But just semantically speaking, all the statement "Simultaneity is relative" says is that IT IS POSSIBLE for two observers to disagree on simultaneity.

It most certainly does not imply that ALL observers disagree.

How about this statement, about perspective: "The apparent size of two objects varies relative to where you stand."

Does that imply that no two people will agree on the apparent size of two objects? Maybe you think it does.

Now, what the mathematical description of relativity of simultaneity says, is that there is a mathematical relationship between simultaneity and relative velocity.

Mathematical curves, I hope you realize, can go through zero. This one does. It goes through zero when relative motion is zero. It also goes through zero when spatial separation is zero.

What that means is that:
(1) Two observers who are not in relative motion will agree on the simultaneity of events in their reference frame, and

(2) When two events which occur at the same location, ALL observers will agree on their temporal relationship. If one observer says they're simultaneous, all do.

If simultaneity is relative then there is no way for 2+ observers to establish an exact moment of time.

There are precise procedures defined by Einstein to establish an exact moment of time. Further, simultaneity is not "relative" between two observers who are non-moving with respect to each other.

If we cannot agree as to the simultaneity of an event

If we are not in relative motion, we certainly can.

then we cannot agree when 'now' is.

It becomes trickier to define "now" when things are in relative motion. But not impossible.

If there is no absolute simultaneity, then there is no absolute now.
If there is no absolute now, then there is no universal now.

If there is no universal now, then there is no universe.

Now you're doing the woo-woo thing of taking a statement you think Einstein said, ignoring the actual mathematics you didn't understand, and spinning off into semantic la-la land. It's exactly like the people who take the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, a precise mathematical statement about certain pairs of variables, and turn it into "Heisenberg says nothing can be known for certain."

 

[lifegazer]

Matter experiences time.

Does it? Have you been talking to walls again?
Do you know what an experience is?
Do you realise that you have to be real to have an experience?
Can you prove that matter is real?

Really, Gawd knows what you were talking about in your philosophy classes for 3 years. But it's obvious to me that you are to philosophy what Hitler was to world peace.