• 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

3 = 12/4

3 = 6/2

We all know that 12 .ne. 6 and 4 .ne. 2 THEREFORE 3 .ne. 3.

:D
 
As much as I support freedom of speech I think he ought to be suspended for spam.

lg - if you post it once there's no need to post it again. You lost last time - you'll lose this time - you'll lose every time.

WHERE'S MY BREAD?
 
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is the same guy who once declared that his philosophy predicted that the speed of sound is absolute. Just so there is no confusion about what he meant by that:
... Similarly, I was told (by Russ) that, therefore, my philosophy should predict that the speed of sound is absolute in the same sense that light is. I.e., that observer motion towards or away from a [supposed] source of sound should not alter the perceived measure of its velocity.

... I gave a simple proof to show that this is indeed the case:-
An observer stands a distance (x) from a source. The source is perceived to emit a sound and it takes exactly 1 second for the observer to detect/hear the sound. Hence the speed-of-sound is x m/s.
Now, let's give the observer some motion:-
... Let him turn away from the source and move away from it at half the speed of sound (x/2 m/s). We shall instigate this motion at the precise moment that the source emits the sound.
... In 2 seconds, the observer reaches a distance of 2x from the source. At that precise moment, he hears the sound. Thus, even though he is moving, he measures the speed of sound from the source to be 2x metres divided by 2 seconds = x m/s.

Conclusion:- Whether still or in motion, the observer measures the speed of sound from the source to be x m/s. Thus, observer motion does not affect the perceived speed of sound.

Thus, my philosophy predicts the absoluteness of sound-speed, which is the case.
Click to expand...
How can you argue with teal font? :D

Clearly, lifegazer has no understanding of relativity. His arguments based on it are comical, at best, or tragic, at worst.
 
lifegazer said:
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.
Click to expand...
That is right. Moving it here is wrong, it should have been moved to Humor, like 1inchChrist's HeII thread. Not that it is particularly funny, but............

Hans
 
Re: Linking Einstein's work to my PHILOSOPHY

lifegazer said:
The qualitative value of inner-space and inner-time is a variant (that's what relativity tells us).
Click to expand...
Lg, Before the discussion gets too deep, I'd like to know the sense of this.

Does Relativity discuss inner-space and inner-time? I thought that it assumed a physical reality and was describing those dimensions different frames of reference.

This seems to be a fundamental point that we need to agree on before we can go further, since you've made it a postulate in your logical "proof".

Please expand.

(Sorry guys - but do you know what he means. Does relativity tell us that? )
 
As Upchurch kindly pointed out again...

A little reminder:
Orignally posted by H'ethetheth

Lifegazer,

as I've said before, science cannot not enter into this discussion. Neither its limitations, nor its intended purpose. Science can only tell us about things in the apparent universe. This means that you need not bother taking arguments from any field of science to prove your theory, or to disprove the apparent reality of the universe. If the truth is as you say it is, these things are part of the illusion and therefore cannot have anything to do with absolute truth.

...

Now lifegazer, it is up to you to prove what you claim without using any argument that stems from observation. I think that leaves you with math and logic, neither of which may be used incorrectly or fallaciously.
Click to expand...
You were doing so well, except for that last bit.
 
I've created another thread related to this subject and my OP in the philosophy forum. I'll be responding to a couple of the above relevant thoughts in that thread. So, I won't be participating in this thread any more.
 
Okay, I've had to rename my thread to get it posted in here. Before I respond to any meaningful posts above, I want to address a couple of posts made in that other thread - which I won't be participating in now.
Firstly:

Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...
No. The second is defined by the number of oscillations of an excited Cesium atom as observed.
All measurement requires observation.

Furthermore, though not really relevant, the second was defined long before we knew Cesium atoms existed.
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.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what method you use to define a meter. Units of length were defined long before we knew the speed of light, but that's not really relevant. What is relevant is that the value of the meter and of the second is a variant. Wrt my opening post, that's all that is relevant.

If the parameters of velocity, as perceived, are variant, then all perceived SOL values mean something different.
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.
Click to expand...
X m(lg)/s(lg) = X m(psa)/s(psa)

... is not mathematical precision, when shown that the parameters on both sides of the equation are different.

Does X apples = X oranges ?
No it doesn't.

The equivalence of the equation requires numerical and parameter equivalence.
Unless you can talk the math, don't even bother trying to argue here.
Click to expand...
My thread was forced into the science forum. I have no desire to talk to blockheads with zero philosophical capabilities.
 
lifegazer said:

Does X apples = X oranges ?
No it doesn't.

The equivalence of the equation requires numerical and parameter equivalence.
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out before, this is incorrect.

12 hours/4 hours is equivalent to 6 seconds/2 seconds is equivalent to 3 minutes/1 minute despite the lack of numerical and parameter equivalence. Because 3 = 3 = 3.

Similarly, a speed of 60 meters/minute is equivalent to a speed of 1 meter/second, because of the way the units convert.

Similarly, the speed of light as measured by person A is equivalent to the speed of light as measured by person B, because of the relationship between the units used by persons B and A. Although of course historically it's the other way around. The invariance of the speed of light was observed, and the mathematics of unit conversion were inferred from that observation.
 
phildonnia said:
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.
Click to expand...
What?
The argument I presented discusses the differences for any value X m/s, as perceived, due to the variance of the qualifying parameters themselves, as perceived.
 
Re: Linking Einstein's work to my PHILOSOPHY

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)
...
Therefore, the SOL (as perceived) is not an absolute.
Click to expand...

It's true that if you subtract the speeds incorrectly you will arrive at a meaningless quantitiy that is not an absolute. This method of subtracting speeds is not supported by experiment, and Einstein's work predicted as much.

In this universe, we subtract speeds w and u by the following formula:

v = (w-u)/(1-wu/c^2)

Here's how to apply this to your example. For simplicity, I'll use "A" to represent what you call "D(lg)/T(lg)" and "-A" to represent "D(psa)/T(psa)"

Also, I once read a few sentences from a physics book, and they have a habit of using 'c' for the constant 299,792,458 m/s. I'll adopt that too.

And I'll call 'x' what you call the "perceived speed of light" or "SOL" (This is our computation of what PSA's speed of light is)

So we have:

x = (c-A)/(1-Ac/c^2)

Some algebraic manipulation gives:

x = (c-A)/(1-A/c)
x = (c-A)/((c-A)/c)
x = 1/(1/c)
x = c.

Lg's "perceived speed of light for PSA" (that is, the value we calculate for PSA's speed of light) is c.

Note that A has dropped out of the equation. This is what is meant by "invariant"; the motions of lg and PSA do not affect the "perceived" speed of light.
 
Sorry lg, but the basic SI units are not variants, they are constants. A meter is a meter, a second is a second, an amp is an amp.

If you understood anything about physics you'd know this.

Relativity deals with how they are perceived from different reference frames, but it perforce requires that for two observers in the same reference frame they are invariant.
 
lifegazer said:
It doesn't matter what method you use to define a meter. Units of length were defined long before we knew the speed of light, but that's not really relevant. What is relevant is that the value of the meter and of the second is a variant. Wrt my opening post, that's all that is relevant.
Click to expand...

You state this, but give no definition of what you mean by the meter or the second being a variant. Most likely because you don't really know.


X m(lg)/s(lg) = X m(psa)/s(psa)

... is not mathematical precision, when shown that the parameters on both sides of the equation are different.
Click to expand...


Ah, but it DOES. Even assuming that your m(psa) is different from m(lg), this still tells you something VERY precise about the relationship of m and s for BOTH lg and psa. And in relativity, that meaning is QUITE clear and QUITE precice, your ignorance of it aside. And as upchurch pointed out, it is VERY different for light than it is for sound, despite your feeble attempts to argue otherwise. That you do not understand this shows that you are completely ignorant of relativity.

My thread was forced into the science forum. I have no desire to talk to blockheads with zero philosophical capabilities.
Click to expand...

If you want to talk about the speed of light, that's science. Don't try to pass off YOUR proven ignorance of science as my ignorance of whatever claptrap you call philosophy.
 
If the parameters of velocity, as perceived, are variant, then all perceived SOL values mean something different.

X m(lg)/s(lg) = X m(psa)/s(psa)

... is not mathematical precision, when shown that the parameters on both sides of the equation are different.
Click to expand...

No, actually the parameters on both sides of the equation are the same. Why? Because, by the very statement you made, m(lg)/s{lg} = m(psa)/s(psa). The ratios remain the same, and the meaning remain the same. 5lags/10lags = 300pisas/600pisas (from which we can learn that 1 lag = 60 pisas).

Hence, we're talking the same length and the same time, only using different languages.

Does X apples = X oranges ?
No it doesn't.
Click to expand...

But what you have stated above is that X oranges = X naranjas.

Wrong analogy, as usual.

My thread was forced into the science forum. I have no desire to talk to blockheads with zero philosophical capabilities.
Click to expand...

So you don't like talking to yourself?
 
A Trekker In-Joke...

lifegazer's philosophy reminds me of the label on a Jeffries Tube.
 
Re: Linking Einstein's work to my PHILOSOPHY

lifegazer said:
... 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.
Click to expand...
First, the word is "units" or "metric", not "parameters". Second, do you have any evidence that the value of measurement units change from person to person? Third, how is any of this relevent to Relativity considering that (1) the absolute nature of the speed of light is a result of electromagnetic theory, not relativity and (2) the situation you are discussing is not a relativistic one. Fourth, how is any of this relevent to your philosophy given my comments in my first post in this thread (i.e. that the argument is moot)?
 
wollery said:
Sorry lg, but the basic SI units are not variants, they are constants. A meter is a meter, a second is a second, an amp is an amp.

If you understood anything about physics you'd know this.
Click to expand...
The meter is a unit of length as perceived.

I'm sure you are aware of Einstein's thought-experiment about the train.
... Anyway, from On the relativity of the conception of distance, Einstein concludes:

"Thus the length of the train as measured from the embankment may be different from that obtained [on the train]... If the man in the carriage covers the distance [as perceived!] w in a unit of time [as perceived!] - then this distance - as measured from the embankment - is not necessarily also equal to w."

In other words, a "unit of length" (w, a meter, or even "a train"), is a variant very-much dependent upon the [perceived] circumstances of the observer himself.
Yes, a meter is a meter and a train is a train. But how you perceive that meter (that train) is variant. You will see it differently from different perspectives. Einstein himself says this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom