New perspectives on Relativity

[lifegazer]

If you want a discussion about "relativity" why not start a thread in the appropriate section e.g. "Science..."? That would seem the sensible course of action in this Forum.

Squire, the thread is titled "New perspectives on relativity" and has been posted in the philosophy forum because I wanted to link some of the things Einstein said to my own idealistic form of philosophy.
That's what I want to talk about here.

I would never complain about what people think here about me, though I do find it amusing that people here think they know me well enough to judge me to the levels that have been expressed. Personally, I think it's impossible to really know a person unless you have close contact with them for years... and even then, it's not clear cut.
Anyway, I don't think it's unreasonable to request that people take there hatred and/or psychiatric judgements to another thread where they can freely let rip... with my compliments.
That's all I have to say on the matter.

 

[RussDill]

It appears that people only want to talk about me. May I suggest that people who just want to mock & ridicule me start their own thread. This thread is about Relativity. If you don't want to talk about this issue, then you have no reason to be here. And like I said, you can start your own "we hate lifegazer" discussions elsewhere.

If nobody wants to talk about Relativity, then sobeit. Judging by the infantile quality of todays posts, it doesn't look that way.

If you don't respond to my posts (and other's with serious objections), except to repeat yourself, about all we have left to do is discuss you.

 

[Z]

Squire, the thread is titled "New perspectives on relativity" and has been posted in the philosophy forum because I wanted to link some of the things Einstein said to my own idealistic form of philosophy.
That's what I want to talk about here.

I would never complain about what people think here about me, though I do find it amusing that people here think they know me well enough to judge me to the levels that have been expressed. Personally, I think it's impossible to really know a person unless you have close contact with them for years... and even then, it's not clear cut.
Anyway, I don't think it's unreasonable to request that people take there hatred and/or psychiatric judgements to another thread where they can freely let rip... with my compliments.
That's all I have to say on the matter.

Ahhhh... a mature response. And I agree - even after living for a decade and a half with her, I don't think my wife and I know much about each other.

Here, we only know what you've stated... at one point, that your girlfriend is an atheist skepchick; at another, that you've lost her because of your beliefs. The time frames seem unclear to me, so I'm not certain if you lost her between these posts, or if there is some conflict of honesty going on.

But, to be strictly non-personal, if you wish to discuss relativity, it would be useful to UNDERSTAND the concept - to the same degree that you feel people should UNDERSTAND each other - which would take several years of study. I don't understand it myself, entirely - nor do I feel that the 'meat and potatos' of your philosophy is absolutely wrong; however, you have expressed that you reached this philosophy via reason - which implicitely includes logic - and after having demonstrated no understanding of logic, nor of any of the sciences which you claim support your philosophy, what choice do we have than to accept that you are a willfully ignorant pre-Cultist who cherry picks sciences to make weak support for your philosophy? You've destroyed your credibility here, both for your continued failures concerning knowledge in general, and for your continuing dishonesty about those failures.

For example, a paradox is any statement that contradicts itself. A contradiction is a situation in which two differing statements exclude each other. If an entity can do anything, then it is a contradiction to say that it cannot do anything, and vice-versa - this is a paradox. No amount of prior reasoning will change the paradox. But you continue to restate the paradox and then proclaim that no paradox exists. This is intellectual dishonesty to a fairly high degree, and discredits your reasoning abilities. And the same thing keeps happening when you bring up scientific concepts: you have a few snippets you've grasped (apparently from web sites), and you twist them and redefine terms so much that what you claim is a far cry from what is stated. More intellectual dishonesty.

And in the end, you still have the simple contradiction that God, being omnipotent, cannot be altered by anything you (lifegazer) choose to do, yet you want to prevent God from experiencing 'death of being'. Another paradox that badly undermines your purposes for posting here.

I'm sorry, lg - in many ways, I like you. If you would take the time to learn of that which you speak - if you took the time to grasp logic properly - you could be a genius. Maybe even a 'great philosopher'. But as of now, you're a laughing stock, and a potentially dangerous person - not for the philosophy you preach, but for the possibility that, one day, your self-deluded worldview will collapse and crush you, or worse, that it will lead you to a conclusion that will badly harm you or someone else.

The sensible thing would be to not reply to you; yet the average joe on the 'net doesn't know much more than you do - less, maybe - and might be led into a similar dangerous conclusion if your posts were left unchecked.

As it is, I like to think that those who pass by and read these threads understands how weak your arguments are, and - at the least - goes to learn for themselves the true nature of what you are discussing.

At one time, I hoped you would begin to understand, and to adjust what you were claiming to amend the errors and purify your proof of Godself. But, after reading three years of your posts, I conclude that you aren't trying. You are proclaiming. Learning is lost upon you.

Anyway, that beer offer still stands... and I'm waiting for my bread.

Blessings,

Rev. Tohausen.

 

[lifegazer]

Okay, I'll try again. Like I said, it's easy to start a new thread about how crazy I am or about how much I need help. So if you want to talk about such things, go and start a new thread and enjoy the group therapy.

Let's keep it simple and just talk about one idea I had a few pages back:-

Einstein showed that time & space (spacetime for Russ) are relative. He showed that there is no such thing as absolute space or absolute time (or spacetime). Or, as upchurch called it, there's "No universal spacetime.". In other words, space and time are things that only have meaning from the perspective of the individual's inner-awareness of them.
Now, if you disagree with that, I propose that instead of calling me a lunatic and cracking a few jokes, that you might want to try and rationalise your point of view. I.e., using rationale, break down (refute) what I have said and then, using rationale again, explain what you think "absolute spacetime" means.

You see, this is a very important part of the discussion... because in my opinion, the absence of any definite/absolute/universal space or time = the absence of a real universe.

Let's see if we can generate some intelligent conversation please.

 

[Pahansiri]

Okay, I'll try again. Like I said, it's easy to start a new thread about how crazy I am or about how much I need help. So if you want to talk about such things, go and start a new thread and enjoy the group therapy.

Let's keep it simple and just talk about one idea I had a few pages back:-

Einstein showed that time & space (spacetime for Russ) are relative. He showed that there is no such thing as absolute space or absolute time (or spacetime). Or, as upchurch called it, there's "No universal spacetime.". In other words, space and time are things that only have meaning from the perspective of the individual's inner-awareness of them.
Now, if you disagree with that, I propose that instead of calling me a lunatic and cracking a few jokes, that you might want to try and rationalise your point of view. I.e., using rationale, break down (refute) what I have said and then, using rationale again, explain what you think "absolute spacetime" means.

You see, this is a very important part of the discussion... because in my opinion, the absence of any definite/absolute/universal space or time = the absence of a real universe.

Let's see if we can generate some intelligent conversation please.

But the "the absence of a real universe." which we must first define "real" . In reality it is illusion but as Albert Einstein said "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Within your phycical "reality" what you experence here and now it is "real'.

But all this matters not as it in no way, none at all proves a God. Because a tree is a tree does not prove there is a god it only proves a tree is a tree.

 

[RussDill]

Einstein showed that time & space (spacetime for Russ) are relative.

Space and time and spacetime are two completely seperate concepts, two completely different ways of viewing reality, so stop equating them. Einstein showed that space and time are relative because we really live in a universe with spacetime. Spacetime is not relative.

He showed that there is no such thing as absolute space or absolute time (or spacetime).

The or spacetime part is completely untrue, show me anywhere where einstein said anything along these lines.

Or, as upchurch called it, there's "No universal spacetime.". In other words, space and time are things that only have meaning from the perspective of the individual's inner-awareness of them.

Certainly it has nothing to do with one's perspective, the laws are immunable, no matter what one's perspective is.

 

[lifegazer]

But the "the absence of a real universe." which we must first define "real" .

A universe that exists beyond your awareness of it.
A Sun; Earth; other planets & stars, that don't just exist as perceived via one of the 5 sensations, but also independently of and outside that inner experience.
If there really is a universe, it's not the one you are actually aware of and experiencing. That universe is an abstract inner representation of a universe... like a photograph or a painting, if you like.

In reality it is illusion but as Albert Einstein said "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Within your phycical "reality" what you experence here and now it is "real'.

I'm not denying the reality of the inner experience. But that's not the same thing as denying the reality of things beyond/outside one's inner Self.

But all this matters not as it in no way, none at all proves a God. Because a tree is a tree does not prove there is a god it only proves a tree is a tree.

What? Your comment about trees makes no sense.

You don't appear to have listened to what I had to say: without the existence of absolute/universal time, there cannot be an "out there"... there cannot be a real universe.
What that boils down to, is that only the observer exists - and only one at that - for just as an external universe full of separate bodies is dependent upon the existence of absolute space-time, so then is the existence of separate observers.

This reduces existence down to One boundless and non-spatial entity, with the ability to create worlds within it's own awareness... and with the faculties of intelligence and emotion.

... That Sir, is a living sentient God.

If this entity be the essential reality of whatever it is that we are, then clearly You are that God.

 

[P.S.A.]

Tell you what Lifegazer, I'll stop with the personal comments, when you answer this simple question in the negative;

ARE YOU NOW, OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ENLIGHTEND TO YOUR OWN GODHOOD AS YOU HAVE CLAIMED?

The logic is really rather easy to understand LG, and your constant avoiding addressing of it just makes you look completely shifty as well as a lunatic; If the result of your "philosophy" is achieving Godhood, and you claim that you personally have done so, then your personality (as the result of your "philosophy") is open to commentary upon: I expect TM flyers to prove that they can actually fly... And I expect you to prove that you truly are a saint, if that's what you claim your "philosophy" allows you to become. Or put another way;

1.) If YOU stop claiming you are GOD
2.) I'LL stop pointing out YOU and therefore your God, CLEARLY SUCKS THE BIG ONE.

So then... Are you God, Lifegazer?

 

[RussDill]

That universe is an abstract inner representation of a universe... like a photograph or a painting, if you like.

A better way to put that, our perceptions of the universe are an abstract inner representation of a universe, like a photograph, or a painting if you like.

Can we agree on that?

 

[lifegazer]

Space and time and spacetime are two completely seperate concepts, two completely different ways of viewing reality, so stop equating them. Einstein showed that space and time are relative because we really live in a universe with spacetime. Spacetime is not relative.

The or spacetime part is completely untrue, show me anywhere where einstein said anything along these lines.

http://improbable.org/era/physics/relativity.html

"Einstein published a paper on the Special Theory of Relativity to expose the fundamental error of classical physics: absolute spacetime."

http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/minkowski.html

"Is there anything absolute (universal)? It seems as if we've gotten rid of everything that has to do with universal notions of time and universal notions of space. Our spacetime model can no longer have these once-universally accepted lines and planes. What The Principle of Relativity has done is to make the Light Cone absolute.

It is fair to say that what Einstein did is that he replaced the absoluteness of time and of space with the absoluteness of light. Light is more fundamental than time and space.[color]"

Interesting last sentence... since in my opinion, the sensation of light is the effect which gives rise to the illusion of space and things.

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/postulate.html

"Statement: "The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame, regardless of position or velocity".

Physically, this means that there is no absolute spacetime, no absolute frame of reference with respect to which position and velocity are defined. Only relative positions and velocities between objects are meaningful."

There ya go Russ. Three sources to counter your claims.

 

[Upchurch]

Einstein showed that time & space (spacetime for Russ) are relative. He showed that there is no such thing as absolute space or absolute time (or spacetime). Or, as upchurch called it, there's "No universal spacetime.". In other words, space and time are things that only have meaning from the perspective of the individual's inner-awareness of them.

Now you are putting words into my mouth. I, in no way, was saying that space and time only have meaning within the awareness of them. Please do not misrepresent what I said.

Now, if you disagree with that, I propose that instead of calling me a lunatic and cracking a few jokes, that you might want to try and rationalise your point of view. I.e., using rationale, break down (refute) what I have said and then, using rationale again, explain what you think "absolute spacetime" means.

I have no idea what "absolute spacetime" is supposed to mean. Spacetime is simply (well, not too simple) a manifold curved in 4 dimensions.

You see, this is a very important part of the discussion... because in my opinion, the absence of any definite/absolute/universal space or time = the absence of a real universe.

But you don't have any reason to believe that there is not a real or definite spacetime. Please note that "real" and "definite" are not synonymous with "absolute" or "universal". We have those different words for a reason, specifically because they have different meanings. Do not confuse them.

 

[lifegazer]

So then... Are you God, Lifegazer?

In my philosophy, only God exists.
So figure it out for yourself.

As I said, you're free to make as many derogatory remarks about me as you want. All I ask is that you do it in another thread. Please.

 

[Pahansiri]

A universe that exists beyond your awareness of it.
A Sun; Earth; other planets & stars, that don't just exist as perceived via one of the 5 sensations, but also independently of and outside that inner experience
If there really is a universe, it's not the one you are actually aware of and experiencing. That universe is an abstract inner representation of a universe... like a photograph or a painting, if you like.

Not at all it is part of the whole both the reality that there is nothing that is in and of itself, self. A sun is not “sun” it is composed of non-sun elements the same elements all things compound are. But as I have proven to you just because there are planets and suns we have yet to see does not mean they do not exist, they do. They do not simply come into existence when you look at them. For one reason if they are not there is nothing to see. But more so as we can trace the causes and conditions behind the forming of these stars and planets knowing about the billions of years taken to form them.

I'm not denying the reality of the inner experience. But that's not the same thing as denying the reality of things beyond/outside one's inner Self.

there are planets you have never seen but they do exist there are billions of people you have never seen “inner experience” but they do exist. How hard is this to understand?

What? Your comment about trees makes no sense.

Allow me to say it slowly all you do is grasp on to something that may be true and demand it proves a God, it does not in any way it only proves what ever truth or fact is. Your whole position is no more valid then someone saying “ look at a baby, it proves god.”

You don't appear to have listened to what I had to say: without the existence of absolute/universal time, there cannot be an "out there"... there cannot be a real universe.

You say so many things changing as the wind changes direction.. Fact if YOPU were never born the universe would still exist.

What that boils down to, is that only the observer exists - and only one at that - for just as an external universe full of separate bodies is dependent upon the existence of absolute space-time, so then is the existence of separate observers.

Do you ever read what you write??

1- What that boils down to, is that only the observer exists and only one at that.
VS
2- for just as an external universe full of separate bodies.

Lets see there is only one observer but there are many observers.

A observer can not observer unless there is something to observer.

“this reduces existence down to One boundless and non-spatial entity, with the ability to create worlds within it's own awareness... and with the faculties of intelligence and emotion.

... That Sir, is a living sentient God.”

That is a baseless belief but I respect you believe it. It is no more valid then someone who will demand this is all the dream of a child.

If this entity be the essential reality of whatever it is that we are, then clearly You are that God.

So anyway, how about that miracle, you being a God and fully awake and haven said you can perform miracles.

If you will not prove one single thing you say how will anyone wish to believe anything you say? All you need do is snap your fingers and just make me ( 1) person believe you surly you can do this if not you have been proven to be impotent.


Keep repeating just beacuse all is one that one is not god it is just one. your need for a god while I respect it is as a childs need for a blanket.

 

[Pahansiri]

In my philosophy, only God exists.
So figure it out for yourself.

step 1- prove god
step 2 - prove only this god exist.
step3 - explain why if only god exist and we are god why god is so confused and does not believe in 'himself" and why it matters. As if it is a god let him fix himself.

 

[Upchurch]

Our spacetime model can no longer have these once-universally accepted lines and planes.

*sigh* He's talking about Cartesian (i.e. 3-D flat) lines and planes.

It is fair to say that what Einstein did is that he replaced the absoluteness of time and of space with the absoluteness of light.

Here he is using "absolute" to mean "same throughout", not to mean "real" as you seem to think.

Light is more fundamental than time and space."

Interesting last sentence... since in my opinion, the sensation of light is the effect which gives rise to the illusion of space and things.

No. I don't even know where to begin to give you the appropriate grounding to be able to appropriately interpret that sentince. You are arguing from a position of ignorance.

"Statement: "The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame, regardless of position or velocity".

Physically, this means that there is no absolute spacetime, no absolute frame of reference with respect to which position and velocity are defined. Only relative positions and velocities between objects are meaningful."

No. Again you are total misrepresenting what is being said.

 

[lifegazer]

Not at all it is part of the whole both the reality that there is nothing that is in and of itself, self. A sun is not “sun” it is composed of non-sun elements the same elements all things compound are.

"None Sun elements" in the Sun that is not a Sun? A reality that there is "nothing" which is self?
Listen squire, we aren't going to get far if this is your idea of a rational retort. I appreciate you're a Buddhist, but mantras such as these mean nothing to me. They make no sense.

But as I have proven to you just because there are planets and suns we have yet to see does not mean they do not exist, they do.

That's not a proof of an external universe. As I explained to you, the universe could just as easily exist as a blueprint in God's Mind.

I remember trying to use the analogy of the computer-game to explain my meaning. Not a perfect analogy, but it explains my point of view:-
Whenever you start a new game like medal-of-honor or tomb-raider or whatever, there's a surprise waiting for you around every building or bush. The fact is though that the surprise won't exist (within you awareness, on the screen) until you turn that corner or pass that bush. Until that moment, the surprise is just stored information.

You need to open your mind to both possibilities squire. It is not enough to assert that only one possibility exists.

They do not simply come into existence when you look at them. For one reason if they are not there is nothing to see. But more so as we can trace the causes and conditions behind the forming of these stars and planets knowing about the billions of years taken to form them.

I'm sorely tempted to mention quantum mechanics - everything is a wave of possibility until it becomes a definitive object within ones awareness.
However, whilst I'm talking about relativity, I'd be unwise to say it. Whoops, too late.

there are planets you have never seen but they do exist

You see, I can do nothing with people who simply assert things like "they do exist". This is not a philosophical point of view. It's a belief that has no place in discussions such as this.

there are billions of people you have never seen “inner experience”

I want to meet these people who don't have inner experiences. Which graveyard do they reside in?

but they do exist.

*bongggggg* another assertion.

Sir, you cannot even confirm whether Pahansiri actually exists, since that character too exists within the awareness of whatever it is that you are.

How hard is this to understand?

I'm quite adept at understanding what an assertion is squire.

Now, with all due respect, I won't be responding to the rest of your post because it's just full of silly ideas and more assumptions. You cannot accuse me of not trying, since I have.

 

[lifegazer]

No. Again you are total misrepresenting what is being said.

Three expert sources that all say there is no absolute spacetime (one word).

That's all I'm interested in. So, are you calling these experts liars?

 

[Upchurch]

Three expert sources that all say there is no absolute spacetime (one word).

That's all I'm interested in. So, are you calling these experts liars?

No, I'm saying that you don't understand what they are saying. When they refer to "absolute spacetime" they are refering to flat, uniform spacetime. They aren't saying that spacetime doesn't exist. They are saying that spacetime isn't flat and uniform. It's the "absolute" part that they are saying doesn't exist, not the "spacetime" part.

 

[Pahansiri]

"None Sun elements" in the Sun that is not a Sun?

The sun is not in and of itself sun it is comprised of completely non sun elements the very same elements that comprise your body.

A reality that there is "nothing" which is self? Listen squire, we aren't going to get far if this is your idea of a rational retort. I appreciate you're a Buddhist, but mantras such as these mean nothing to me. They make no sense. ?

Silliness and rudeness noted, please show me ONE thing that is in and of itself completely self, something not comprised of billions of not self elements and other life forms ( as your body is). Show me a person who is not as to thoughts etc effected by mother, father, teachers and events.

Show me one thing that is just self.

That's not a proof of an external universe. As I explained to you, the universe could just as easily exist as a blueprint in God's Mind.

fact physical universe.
Fantasy and unproven- a god and it’s mind.

You see, I can do nothing with people who simply assert things like "they do exist". This is not a philosophical point of view. It's a belief that has no place in discussions such as this.

So it is your belief that because you have not observed the latest star discovered today it does not exist? Because you have never seen billions people they do not exist? Silly boy.

*bongggggg* another assertion.

Sir, you cannot even confirm whether Pahansiri actually exists, since that character too exists within the awareness of whatever it is that you are.

So people as my young son does not exist because you have never seen him? You are falling off the deep end.

Once again. So anyway, how about that miracle, you being a God and fully awake and haven said you can perform miracles.

If you will not prove one single thing you say how will anyone wish to believe anything you say? All you need do is snap your fingers and just make me ( 1) person believe you surly you can do this if not you have been proven to be impotent.

You have lost my friend, you have been proven to be powerless for what you say is meaingless.

Be well

 

[lifegazer]

I have no idea what "absolute spacetime" is supposed to mean.

Really? No wonder you can't prove it exists.

Spacetime is simply (well, not too simple) a manifold curved in 4 dimensions.

Not quite clueless then.
Well then, is there a real manifold curved in 4 dimensions between real objects, or not?
Since Einstein says "no", I'm expecting the same answer from yourself.

But you don't have any reason to believe that there is not a real or definite spacetime. Please note that "real" and "definite" are not synonymous with "absolute" or "universal".

You don't seem to have latched on.
The issue is whether there's absolute spacetime between definite/real things. Einstein says no, there isn't - that in effect 6 billion people could, theoretically, see the same event differently - especially if they're all moving whilst they observe that effect.
So, what he means is that there's no definite/real value for the spacetime that exists between any two objects or for any specific event.
So, it is true to say that absolute spacetime is equivalent to real/definite spacetime.

... In which case, you would be faced by a profound truth: zero definite/real spacetime = no real separation of things = no real universe = only You exist.

Now, this is a very sensible argument and one which deserves significantly more respect than that given to it in recent days. So, I would ask you to give it some serious thought. Cheers.