New perspectives on Relativity

[lifegazer]

Funny you have said over and over we were killing God by not believing in him??

Death to expression.
God cannot die. Death is an illusion. Only sensations can cease to be.

 

[Upchurch]

I've been reading stuff from that link for about 10 minutes or so and am already aware of how vastly different his stuff is from mine.
The only bit he got right was when he described LG as the "top graviton".

Yeah, so why should we believe yours over his? You both claim to have proved God (or Goddess) through logic and reason. Which is right and why?

 

[P.S.A.]

But thought & emotion persists. Eternal loneliness and madness and rage and sorrow ensues. Hell, I think.

Funny, I could have sworn that's EXACTLY your current state here on Earth Lifegazer. Insane and angry at the world and morose that it won't embrace you as a prophet...

And do you know what's even more amazing; One could argue that as no one but YOU believes in this God, he's already dead to experience within the world. The experiment has already ended, God is within hell... God being you, Lifegazer. Trapped here forever because in the dream that once was, people ignored you... suffering and impotent and quite, quite insane.

Prove the dream hasn't already ended, and that God is not currently within hell, Lifegazer...

Meanwhile, I killed God in 2 more hearts today... I told my housemate and friend about your ideas, and they all had a damn good laugh about it, and swore they'd never listen to someone so hatstand... So tell me, how many converts did you make today? What's today's score Lifegazer ... 2 - 0 again is it? Ahah ha haaaa... Yes, even if this isn't God's personal Hell now, that's where he's going in the end... All praise the anti-Lifegazer!

 

[Pahansiri]

Death to expression.
God cannot die. Death is an illusion. Only sensations can cease to be.

Yes death is an illusion.
As I believe "god" is but I respect you believe in one.

BUT you said over and over " You are killing god by not believing in him and it is my ( your) job to save him"

Make up your mind.

As always you avoided one ( or more) of the several points I made picking just one you could take a shot at answering.

Allow me to again post my other point and I look forward to your HONEST responce.


you said

In state '3', God lives but is unaware that it is God.

I said
But yet you believe you are God, I am God etc and you are aware you are God?? So if you are god and fully aware as you say you are you are god how can it be you/god are not aware you are god?


This all knowing all powerful being is not too all knowing if it knows less then you ( no disrespect to you).

 

[Pahansiri]

Yeah, so why should we believe yours over his? You both claim to have proved God (or Goddess) through logic and reason. Which is right and why?

As one who has both trained other fighters and competed as an ultimate or mix martial arts fighter I would be more then happy to be the guest referee for a cage match to the death between Franko and lifegazer.

 

[Z]

Ahhh... I can see now that my personal goal, to leave no lifegazer assertion unchallenged, is being handled quite nicely by other fascinating and wonderful individuals.

As I'm deep in the grips of a ripping competition elsewhere on-line, I'll resort to lurking - mostly - for now.

I'm just wondering if he's going to come up with any new material or not.

 

[lifegazer]

Yeah, so why should we believe yours over his? You both claim to have proved God (or Goddess) through logic and reason. Which is right and why?

Well if you - or Franko/wraith himself - want me to discuss his philosophy, I will. But I need somebody to explain the nitty gritty of his philosophy - preferably himself.
Btw, does Franko believe in the reality of the universe, beyond the awareness of it? Does he believe in the reality of space & time, separating real objects?

... If he does, then he has made assumptions about said reality and I would judge his philosophy as no better than the muppets who keep parroting mantras like "The brain did it!".

 

[RussDill]

Btw, does Franko believe in the reality of the universe, beyond the awareness of it?

Well, given that you've stated in this thread, that the universe exists outside your own awareness of it, in god's blueprint...

Does he believe in the reality of space & time, separating real objects?

I don't know anyone who believes this. I think it's been disproven sufficently.

 

[lifegazer]

Well, given that you've stated in this thread, that the universe exists outside your own awareness of it, in god's blueprint...

Russ, there's more knowledge in Yourself (your Mind) than what you are actually aware of.
For example, at this moment in time you are aware of your monitor and these words written by some wacky English guy. You might also be aware of background sounds - although you are not really listening to them since you are focused on this post.
So, does that mean that everything else you have ever experienced or known is now separate from your Mind (Yourself)because it's no longer directly within your awareness? Of course not.

I don't know anyone who believes this. I think it's been disproven sufficently.

Russ, unless there are absolute - definite, singular, universally agreed - (as opposed to relative) values of space-time (spacetime) separating real objects from one another, then there cannot be real objects that are really separated from one another.

Now, if you claim that there are absolute values of spacetime existing between real objects "out there", then I challenge you to name just two objects and the absolute values of spacetime which separate those objects.
Or, explain to this forum why real objects don't have to be separated by definite values of any parameter.

 

[Upchurch]

unless there are absolute - definite, singular, universally agreed - (as opposed to relative) values of space-time (spacetime) separating real objects from one another, then there cannot be real objects that are really separated from one another.

Proof of this claim?

 

[lifegazer]

Proof of this claim?

My bedtime. But the proof is obvious from the challenge I posed to him at the end:
Explain to this forum why real objects don't have to be separated by definite values of any parameter.

Maybe you should try answering. Then you'll see my proof for yourself without me having to post anything.

 

[RussDill]

Russ, there's more knowledge in Yourself (your Mind) than what you are actually aware of.
For example, at this moment in time you are aware of your monitor and these words written by some wacky English guy. You might also be aware of background sounds - although you are not really listening to them since you are focused on this post.
So, does that mean that everything else you have ever experienced or known is now separate from your Mind (Yourself)because it's no longer directly within your awareness? Of course not.

So lemme follow your argument by contridiction

a) I am not aware of everything that happens
b) Anything I've forgotten now only exists outside my awareness
c) Of course not.

I don't see how that makes any logical sense, other than to repeat your assumptions. The of course not only comes because of your assumptions. I also don't see how it addresses my post.

Russ, unless there are absolute - definite, singular, universally agreed - (as opposed to relative) values of space-time (spacetime) separating real objects from one another, then there cannot be real objects that are really separated from one another.

OK, good, because there are definate, singular, universally agreed values of spacetime that seperate real objects from one another. BTW, you switched from space and time to spacetime again.

Now, if you claim that there are absolute values of spacetime existing between real objects "out there", then I challenge you to name just two objects and the absolute values of spacetime which separate those objects.

OK, the excitation of an electron by a photon, and the reemisison of that photon by the electron as it falls down to a lower energy state.

 

[Upchurch]

My bedtime. But the proof is obvious from the challenge I posed to him at the end:
Explain to this forum why real objects don't have to be separated by definite values of any parameter.

uh-uh. This is called "shifting the burden of proof". You've made the claim, you back it up.

Maybe you should try answering. Then you'll see my proof for yourself without me having to post anything.

Maybe you should try backing up what you say rather than relying on others to do it for you. Then you'll see why many of your claims aren't verifiable.

 

[P.S.A.]

Now, if you claim that there are absolute values of spacetime existing between real objects "out there", then I challenge you to name just two objects and the absolute values of spacetime which separate those objects.

Easy one, that. The two objects? You, and a Convert. And the distance seperating them? Infinity.

 

[lifegazer]

uh-uh. This is called "shifting the burden of proof". You've made the claim, you back it up.

Maybe you should try backing up what you say rather than relying on others to do it for you. Then you'll see why many of your claims aren't verifiable.

How amusing to watch you squirm away.

Not everybody in this forum is daft. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that the values of distance and time between two real objects must be a definite.
That's not unlike me saying that a real conversation between two people contained precise words and sentences.

 

[H'ethetheth]

How amusing to watch you squirm away.

Not everybody in this forum is daft. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that the values of distance and time between two real objects must be a definite.

I may still be a student, but I hope to be a rocket scientist by summer next year so I'll take a poke at this.
Also I'd like to note that I've only had a very short, introductory course in the theory relativity because most rockets don't travel nearly fast enough to prefer Einstein over Newton.
Anyway, in my recollection Einstein demonstrates that time and space separating two events are in fact very definite. They can be calculated precisely, depending only on the relative velocities of the people who measure the and the event they measure. The observers measure different things, but the measurements differ in a very precisely defined way, and exclusively as a result of the fact that light requires time to travel from event to observer. If no space existed then light wouldn't need time to travel, since it wouldn't be travelling. Your theory might very well predict an infinite light speed. Explain why it doesn't please.
You're just trying to fit your preconceived iron clad untouchable notion into all kinds of science. That's not how it works. All science is utterly based on the assumption that the spatial universe exists. The only way to disprove this assumption is to show that assuming it leads to contradiction. You're welcome to try of course. That is, after you have proven the things I asked you to prove in my previous post, no doubt a "silly" post in your opinion.

 

[Z]

Exactly - there are definite values of spacetime between objects. It is only the measurements of those values which are relative, based upon the frame of reference of the one doing the measuring. But a definite value also exists to relate the frame of the observer to the frame of the observed events.

This, perhaps, is the defined spacetime that lg is (willfully) missing - that the relational values also are definite. And that, taken as a whole, the measurement of spacetime and the measurement of the relation between observer and observed, when plugged into the right equations, lead to constant, "absolute" values.

Think of it in simple geometry terms: the area of a circle, for example. A = πr^2. Now, we might argue all day about if there's a definite value for A, observing that different circles appear to have different areas; of course, we know that smaller radii mean smaller areas, but does that mean there's no definite with regards to circles? Of course not - because we understand there is also the relationship constant of pi, and that squaring the radius and multiplying by an absolute - pi - results in the area.

Well, measuring spacetime between objects works much the same way - except, obviously, there are more variables, and the equations are more complex.

He he he he - It's funny - Earlier, lg tried claiming that an infinite universe couldn't exist, because it required two points to exist such as have infinite distance between them; now he's trying to say a spacetime universe can't exist, because spacetime values between points can't be absolute.

Note to reader: before trying to use scientific concepts in an argument, it's a great idea to actually understand those concepts first.

 

[P.S.A.]

That's not unlike me saying that a real conversation between two people contained precise words and sentences.

Except when it's a conversation with you, in which case the definition of words changes endlessly, often into directly contradicting meanings from the definition just used... Oh, and the word "conversation" comes to mean "tedious self important lecturing" as well. But other than that, it's not unlike what you suggest at all

Oh, and kindly stop squirming away from adressing the victory of Evil over Lifegazer.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Exactly - there are definite values of spacetime between objects. It is only the measurements of those values which are relative, based upon the frame of reference of the one doing the measuring. But a definite value also exists to relate the frame of the observer to the frame of the observed events.

Huh, can you rephrase that? it makes no sense.

 

[wraith]

A boundless non-spatial entity. Not to be confused with an infinitessimal dot. Space only has meaning in a dream, as do terms such as "outside" or "beyond"........

Thanks for the reply. I will ponder this.

Well if you - or Franko/wraith himself - want me to discuss his philosophy, I will. But I need somebody to explain the nitty gritty of his philosophy - preferably himself.
Btw, does Franko believe in the reality of the universe, beyond the awareness of it? Does he believe in the reality of space & time, separating real objects?

... If he does, then he has made assumptions about said reality and I would judge his philosophy as no better than the muppets who keep parroting mantras like "The brain did it!".

The bulk of my beliefs were influenced by Franko. He didn't believe in the existence of a world beyond the mind (at least not in the form of matter). I too, hold this belief.

I don't perceive this universe as solid matter taking up space, but rather as information/energy being perceived by "me". I would say that your beliefs are kind of similar to mine at this point.

However, your comments on absolute space/time has got me thinking, because it questions the very nature of the information/energy being perceived by "me". I saw other perceivers, like me, as different entities, perceiving this information flowing around the place, as if life was like one big online game and God provided the server. The question of absolute space/time has direct influence on this.

Your ideas seem to imply that any form of idealism inexorably leads to solipsism, albeit a slightly modified version compared to the conventional meaning.