New perspectives on Relativity

[RandFan]

Serious interest? OK, show of hands - how many posters here have demonstrated 'serious interest' beyond the point of pointing out the MANY MANY errors of thought he makes?

Not even theists AFAIK take any of this serious. I dare say that out of all of the forums and thousands of posts, gazerism has not produced a single convert. Further there is not a single new concept. He has not significantly altered or advanced philosophical discussion. At best, and I say that liberally, he has offered a slightly different variation to a theme.

The most important and telling aspect to all of this is that while many if not most of us display our ego and perhaps contempt we are willing to change our views should a better argument or data become available. Gazer KNOWS he is right. And like all of the other messiahs and prophets who know they are right nothing will get through to this guys skull.

 

[Thomas]

Once upon a time there was a git... and then he decided he would be a git no more.

Ego Te Obsolvo

 

[RussDill]

Just a quote for lifegazer

"Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."

H. Minkowski

 

[lifegazer]

Hey Russ, there is no absolute spacetime (note, no gap between space & time... one word).

If all events in spacetime can be defined via 4 co-ordinates or all lengths defined via two sets of 4 co-ordinates and all observers have the potential to observe different events and different lengths, then there is no 4 co-ordinate point of existence where every observer agrees to a specific event taking place at that point.
In other words, there is no such thing as absolute spacetime.

 

[RussDill]

Hey Russ, there is no absolute spacetime (note, no gap between space & time... one word).

Says who?

If all events in spacetime can be defined via 4 co-ordinates or all lengths defined via two sets of 4 co-ordinates and all observers have the potential to observe different events and different lengths, then there is no 4 co-ordinate point of existence where every observer agrees to a specific event taking place at that point.
In other words, there is no such thing as absolute spacetime.

No, you have no clue what spacetime is. When different observers, frames of reference, etc, measure things in spacetime, they get the same answers.

 

[uruk]

Hey LG, If we are all god, why would all our perceptions of spacetime differ? it's the same god percieving, why the difference?

And did you know that Einstien said)? No?
Did you also know that he said the measurements would be the same for all observers in the same inertial refrence frame? No also? How about that the measurement of speed of light would the same for all observers in all refrence frames.
You did'nt know that, huh? Well, If you did know that, you would know why your interpretation of Einstien is wrong.

 

[RussDill]

Not to mention, he's still ignoring the issue of simultaneality in reference to his philosophy.

 

[uruk]

OOps! I accidentaly deleted a whole sentence in my previous post and did not notice till today. The whole post should have read:

And did you know that Einstien said the measurements for time and space would differ for observers in DIFFERENT inertial refrence frames (and were talking about traveling at relativistic speeds at that.)? No?
Did you also know that he said the measurements would be the same for all observers in the SAME inertial refrence frame? No also? How about that the measurement of speed of light would the same for all observers in all refrence frames.
You did'nt know that, huh? Well, If you did know that, you would know why your interpretation of Einstien is wrong.

 

[Upchurch]

If all events in spacetime can be defined via 4 co-ordinates or all lengths defined via two sets of 4 co-ordinates and all observers have the potential to observe different events and different lengths, then there is no 4 co-ordinate point of existence where every observer agrees to a specific event taking place at that point.

Wow. I know Russ just mentioned this, but it is so true that it bears repeating. Your conclusion above is patently false. Given all 4 spacetime coordinates from a common origin* (or the appropriate mappings from other origins*), every observer agrees on the event at that defined point.

In other words, there is no such thing as absolute spacetime.

Well, that is true since "absolute spacetime" is almost a contradiction in terms. The term "spacetime" was coined because there is no absolute reference frame. The only way you could conceivably have an "absolute spacetime" is if it were perfectly flat and had a preferential temporal axis. Of course, if you had that, you wouldn't really have a "spacetime", you'd have "space and time".

Regardless, the point is moot since no one is claiming that there is "absolute spacetime". The issue is whether or not spacetime actually exists, which is not depenedant upon it's absoluteness (or lack thereof). You're claiming that it does not exist because it is not absolute, which does not follow. Do you have anything else to back-up your claim?




* Knowing your confusion with jargon, I'm using "origin" in the geometric sense, e.g. (x, y, z, t) = (0, 0, 0, 0). I am not using it in the sense of the beginning of spacetime, as it is just as problematic to speak of the beginning of spacetime as it is to speak of what happened "before" time began. Try to learn the difference before confuing the two.

 

[Pahansiri]

Regardless, the point is moot since no one is claiming that there is "absolute spacetime". The issue is whether or not spacetime actually exists, which is not depenedant upon it's absoluteness (or lack thereof). You're claiming that it does not exist because it is not absolute, which does not follow. Do you have anything else to back-up your claim?

Greetings Upchurch actualy ( as I see it) issue really is not even whether or not spacetime actually exists, which is not depenedant upon it's absoluteness (or lack thereof).

The issue is how does it either way prove "God".

If if spacetime actually exists or if spacetime actually does not exist proves only that it does or does not exist prove a god or really disprove a god. the god idea is not relavent.

 

[Upchurch]

The issue is how does it either way prove "God".

Well, given that those who believe in God say they refuse to consider the possibility that God doesn't exist, it's fairly easy for them. It comes down to a uniary position: God exists. Now, decide which of the options are true. (..."which of the option is true", grammer police?)

If if spacetime actually exists or if spacetime actually does not exist proves only that it does or does not exist prove a god or really disprove a god. the god idea is not relavent.

Quite right, if that were the sole point of the thread. Unfortunately, in lifegazer's mind, it is a choice of "spacetime exists" or "God exists". He knows God exists, so spacetime cannot exist. He is so black and white in his thinking, he can see no other options.

 

[Pahansiri]

Well, given that those who believe in God say they refuse to consider the possibility that God doesn't exist, it's fairly easy for them. It comes down to a uniary position: God exists. Now, decide which of the options are true. (..."which of the option is true", grammer police?)
Quite right, if that were the sole point of the thread. Unfortunately, in lifegazer's mind, it is a choice of "spacetime exists" or "God exists". He knows God exists, so spacetime cannot exist. He is so black and white in his thinking, he can see no other options.

Always well said.

 

[RussDill]

What's also funny, is that the concept of spacetime did not exist before special relativity, and yet, lifegazer insists that the point of relativity was to prove that spacetime does not exist...

 

[lifegazer]

Russ... or whomever...

You're probably aware of Einstein's thought-experiment concerning two observers - one on a train and another on the railway embankment. Basically, he shows that the observers will observer spacetime differently.
I ask you to recall this post that I made a few days ago:

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. "

... So, what we see here is that the length of an object and the time one observes between events is a measured variant, depending on whether you are stationary or moving (as perceived).

If I see a train and measure it to be a shorter distance than yourself, then I see that train occupying different spacetime co-ordinates than yourself. Likewise, if I see events occuring slower than you see them, then we must see events occuring at different points in spacetime.

What this means is that you are seeing objects and events at different spacetime co-ordinates than I am seeing the same objects and events. Hence, there is no "absolute point of spacetime" since there is no point of spacetime where all observers see the same objects and the same events.

Now, if there's a reality "out there", then it would have to be absolute. For example, the length of a real train and the time it takes to traverse two points, would not be dependent upon the observer... and, in fact, those values would be absolute (definite).
Hence, a reality "out there" is dependent upon the absoluteness of spacetime.

... Voila - we have a problem: there's NO absolute spacetime = there's no "out there".

 

[RussDill]

Russ... or whomever...

You're probably aware of Einstein's thought-experiment concerning two observers - one on a train and another on the railway embankment. Basically, he shows that the observers will observer spacetime differently.

No, he shows that the two observers see space and time differently.

I ask you to recall this post that I made a few days ago:
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. "[/color]

Key phrase here "space and time", not "on the variance of perceived spacetime"

... So, what we see here is that the length of an object and the time one observes between events is a measured variant, depending on whether you are stationary or moving (as perceived).

Right, when we attempt to view the world as if space and time were seperate.

If I see a train and measure it to be a shorter distance than yourself, then I see that train occupying different spacetime co-ordinates than yourself. Likewise, if I see events occuring slower than you see them, then we must see events occuring at different points in spacetime.

No, you'd measure the same spacetime coordinates as me. You'd measure different space and time coordinates.

What this means is that you are seeing objects and events at different spacetime co-ordinates than I am seeing the same objects and events. Hence, there is no "absolute point of spacetime" since there is no point of spacetime where all observers see the same objects and the same events.

Where are you getting this? Spacetime is not relative.

 

[RussDill]

here you go lifegazer, it has the colors and big fonts I know you enjoy:

http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/

 

[Z]

Boy, are you mixed up.

The observer on the train and the observer on the ground are in two different frames of reference. Adjustment for those frames reveals - the same spacetime coordinates, perceived two different ways.

Nevertheless, we're not talking about "absolute spacetime" - absolute spacetime is not necessary for spacetime to exist.

I believe this was covered already, when you decided that all objects had to absolutely exist at some spacetime point - I'm too tired to bother right now, but you really ought to get off of this 'absolute=real' thing you're on.

Now, if there's a reality "out there", then it would have to be absolute. For example, the length of a real train and the time it takes to traverse two points, would not be dependent upon the observer... and, in fact, those values would be absolute (definite).

Why do you believe that a reality out there has to be absolute? However, yes - a real train has a real length, and takes time to traverse two points, which is not dependent upon the observer. However, an observer aboard the train - since it is moving in the same spacetime frame as the train - would measure these differently from an observer on the ground - who is in a different frame of reference.

In other words, the perception of spacetime is different for observers in different frames of reference, while the actual spacetime dimensions of the observed phenomenon are unaffected by observers... hence proving that perception is not the same as reality. - and further defeating your manic theory.

Thank you - good night.

 

[lifegazer]

No, he shows that the two observers see space and time differently.
Key phrase here "space and time", not "on the variance of perceived spacetime"

Russ, any event/point of spacetime is defined via 4 co-ordinates. Correct?
Okay, let's consider the train-experiment again: This time, however, we paint a sharp-point on the front and rear of the train, so that these two points represent two points of spacetime:-

So, if I see a train shorter than you see a train - and I see time moving slower on that train than you do - then the front & back of that train (the points we painted) are going to be occupying different co-ordinates of spacetime. I.e., we dispute where, in spacetime, the front-point and back-point of that train exists.
Correct?

Where are you getting this? Spacetime is not relative.

Russ, you need to justify this claim.
The only way you can do this is to prove that there exists a point in 'spacetime' where EVERYBODY sees the same event.

You cannot do this Russ.

 

[P.S.A.]

Russ, you need to justify this claim.
The only way you can do this is to prove that there exists a point in 'spacetime' where EVERYBODY sees the same event.

You cannot do this Russ. [/B]

Except he can. Because the Speed Of Light, for both people on any train, or in any frame of reference, will be exactly the same. Someone's not really familiar with Einstein, are they?

And now to respond to your post over in the other thread; You've all seen "Brazil", right? You know the scene at the end of the UK version (the US had a "Happy" ending), where the hero's mind breaks when faced with unimaginable pain, and he escapes into the ilysian fields of insanity? Guess what LG does in the other thread..?

 

[Atlas]

Atlas, I'll answer you tomorrow. I'm off to visit another realm of consciousness.

You never followed up on this promise you made 5 or 6 posts from the bottom of the previous page. Is this because there is no absolute tomorrow?

I was wondering if all the talk about relativity is to throw sand in our eyes. Can't you make a similar argument about a blue car in daylight and moonlight proving there is no absolute blue and by extension no absolute car.

If observers consistently perceive a changing reality then reality is not absolute hence there is no reality. Seriously, because your belief system excludes the posibility of a real external material universe, shouldn't you build your logical argument on pure subjectivity.