New perspectives on Relativity

[Wudang]

Sorry, but I don't quite get either.

So you slap me on the head...
Are you saying that you and I both know that I hurt (or said ouch) at the same time?

Exactly. What allows these two private experiences (my qualia of moving my hand at your head and feeling the impact and you qualia of a sharp pain on the back of your head coming from nowhere) and to be able to agree that these two things happened at the same time. What is the medium that allows this to happen? Trust me, in computers it's bloody complicated getting that to work.

 

[wraith]

Exactly. What allows these two private experiences (my qualia of moving my hand at your head and feeling the impact and you qualia of a sharp pain on the back of your head coming from nowhere) and to be able to agree that these two things happened at the same time. What is the medium that allows this to happen? Trust me, in computers it's bloody complicated getting that to work.

So it might be complicated, but your brain is like a computer isnt it?
I still struggle to see what you're getting at.

The "medium" would be this reality.
I feel pain. You see my reaction so you conclude that I'm feeling pain. I wouldn't say that my feeling of pain and your recognition of me feeling pain happens at the exact same time. So what of this?

 

[Z]

Up late doing stuff; two quick points..

Phantsy, please clear your PM box.

Zaary, I'm sure he can answer you for himself, but when you say



He is actually correct, at least with regards to the way the US system currently works; because they keep people on death row for twenty, thirty or more years, paying both the costs of supporting him for that time, and the various legal fees etc for the endless challenges over those years. Which is only fair, because you have to allow time for miscarriages of justice to be revealed and so on...

But as I said, I'm not really that interested in serious debate, so I shall stop there

In which case, what does it matter if he gets the death penalty or life in prison? But, again, I'd have to overhaul the entire system to be satisfied. Death penalty - one appeal, two years in (to provide time for 'new evidence' to be brought forth), and then a public hanging. Or drawn-and-quartered. I always liked that form of execution.

 

[uruk]

I personaly do not advocate the death penalty except for circumstances where the evidence is irrefutable and overwhelming.

I feel this way because our judicial system is not perfect. innocent people have been accidentaly or wrongfull executed in the past due to incompetant representation or missidentification or incompetant investigation. Granted new developments in science and technology are reducing these problems. But you can't bring someome back from the dead if you find out later that they were actually innocent of the crime they were convicted of.

Hey, but if society says "kill em all and let god sort em out", then so be it.

 

[RussDill]

What conflict? I'm not doing things faster than light.

Right, but according to the master server, certain events are occuring simultaneously, which isn't necessarily true. The master server will say for instance, a occured before b, and make a decision based on that, but from another frame of reference, b occured before a.

 

[Wudang]

So it might be complicated, but your brain is like a computer isnt it?
I still struggle to see what you're getting at.

The "medium" would be this reality.
I feel pain. You see my reaction so you conclude that I'm feeling pain. I wouldn't say that my feeling of pain and your recognition of me feeling pain happens at the exact same time. So what of this?

If you're a materialist the fact we share an experience is explained by neural and mechanical linkages from my brain to my arm muscles through conservation of momentum to your head to your brain. I find idealist explanations lacking.

 

[lifegazer]

Linking experience to Scientific understanding

None here seem to realise that the order science observes (perceives) is in fact the order existing within awareness.
Einstein's work is a reflection of the order that exists amongst the perceived world.

You cannot observe the real world. Anything appearing to exist within/upon awareness is not a real entity existing apart or externally to that awareness.

This is basic stuff ladies & gents. One must be able to discern of the distinction which sets-apart external-reality from internal-experience.
Then, one must acknowledge that "observation of the world" is in fact observation of the perceived world that exists within/upon awareness.
Then, one must acknowledge that ALL [discerned] order relates to that particular world.

To assume that a real world exists is naive in the extreme. But to assume that scientific knowledge applies to said real world is philosophically criminal - nobody can observe a world outside of awareness... which means that the knowedge we have is of the world that exists within awareness.

Again, these are just basic truths and it's upto the reader to make an effort to understand them.

Once you do, you'll understand that "the absolute fabric upon which perceived space & perceived time are mapped" is not 'absolute spacetime', but awareness itself.

Once you do, you'll understand that it is perceived space &
perceived time which are variant.

Once you do, you'll understand why perceived velocities are qualitatively variant. Again, the value X m/s cannot be truly absolute if the parameters of meters and seconds are an experiential variant.

Then, when you start to get your head around such facts as these, you should re-read the post I made on Sunday.
That was a very important post because it explained why Newtons Laws of motion would apply to a real world. So, I'm going to repost it right after this.

 

[lifegazer]

Re: On the motion of light in a real world.

Again, because of it's importance, I repost this upon the back of my last post...

This post will ponder upon the real motion of real light (photons) through real space & real time.
Note: shortly you must take your thoughts beyond the fishbowl of what you perceive and contemplate whether the events in that fishbowl are real.
However, before emerging from the fishbowl into the "real world", let's examine our perceptions of light-motion within that bowl (awareness) and consider this important fact:

Within "the bowl", light is perceived to have an absolute speed.
We will denote this speed as X m/s. [note: I have actually shown why this isn't actually so because of the qualitative variances discussed previously].
This means that it doesn't matter what velocity you have - you will always measure X m/s for light's speed.

... Now, everyone must step out of their awareness into "the real world" and analyse this fact with regards to that reality:

... We are now in the realm of absolute space and absolute time separating real objects that emit real light (photons).
Nice place too! However, there's a problem with this place:

... Lightspeed is absolute! That's the problem. Why? Because we must now forget what we perceived within the fishbowl - space & time are not relative here!!!!!!
... Nay; in this real world, real light moves through real space & time AND THE DISTANCE & TIME BETWEEN OBJECTS IS NOT OPEN TO NEGOTIATION!!!

... So what? (I here you all mutter).
... Well, in a realm where the value of any given distance and time is not open to relative negotiation, additive velocities must apply!
In this realm, if you move in this direction -----> at B m/s and hit an object coming this way <----- at C m/s, then you will measure the velocity of that object as B + C m/s.
In other words, in this real world it's impossible for anything, including a photon, to have a fixed speed as measured.
Newton's Laws must apply to everything within a real world!!!!

Of course, lightspeed is a constant within the fishbowl meaning that we are not seeing a real world.
But we should have realised that anyway from the simple fact that space-time perception is subject to individual variance.

So, what's going on? Why do we see constant lightspeed?
...That's simply because light is produced by the Mind and the measurement of it's motion (speed) is dependent upon the quality of the space & time imposed by the Mind between that light and the focus of awareness (your human self).

Read my earlier posts upon the qualitative variances of X m/s.

Lightspeed is not absolute within awareness and certainly cannot be "out there".

Do you know the only way that "out there" can mirror what you perceive in the fishbowl? I'll tell ya:
The only way this can happen is if your motion tangibly effects the quality of spacetime that [supposedly] exists externally to you, so that the whole universe of spacetime shapes itself to your motion. Even Z-dragon couldn't believe that.
Then again...

Anyone of a serious and open nature who sincerely contemplates the issues and arguments I have raised in this thread, can no longer believe in the existence of an "absolute world". I mean, you don't even have to be a rocket scientist to understand my arguments. They are very simple really.

 

[RussDill]

I see lifegazer has given up again and is back to just preaching.

 

[RussDill]

Wow, instead of responding to replies to a post, you just post it again...preach on brother.

 

[Upchurch]

Wow, instead of responding to replies to a post, you just post it again...preach on brother.

Barely even a re-post. It's just copy and paste. He even left in the same errors as before. *yawn*

 

[lifegazer]

"I'm saying that if the world was real, then Newton would be correct."

Why? Who are you to dictate what a real world should be like?

It's obvious. Really obvious, in fact:
Real objects that move through real space (with definite values - not relative/subjective values) in real time (with definite values - not relative/subjective values) must comply with Newton's Laws of motion.
In fact, Newton himself assumed that the objects he was analysing were real - that the world is real - which is why he fathomed those Laws/math in the first instance.

Newton is only wrong because the world is not real. Einstein is only right because the world is not real.
Who was the greatest of these giants? A man who assumed that the world was real and gave us Laws/math for such a realm, or a man who came (250 years later) to understand that experience of time and distance is relative - but failed to notice that his Laws/math cannot apply to a real world?

If you want to have your "real world", then you have to explain it in terms of Newton's mathematics... for it is impossible to reconcile Einstein's work to said world.
Einstein's work can only apply to a world where objects are not real and where localities of time and space are not of absolute/definite values.

This is very significant stuff that you're hearing. Don't ignore it.

 

[lifegazer]

Barely even a re-post. It's just copy and paste. He even left in the same errors as before. *yawn*

Very immature.

 

[uruk]

LG if there is no real world "out there" and our existance is all in our heads, then please explain the consistancies. Why is the world of our perception consistant. Why isn't the world changing to our every whim or everytime i wake up? Why do our descriptions of events and objects coincide? If everything in the universe is stored in our minds, why can't I remember where I left my keys or access that information at will? Why do things happen to me without my knowledge or consent? Why do brain damage and disease affect my perceptions and conciouseness?

 

[uruk]

Newton is only wrong because the world is not real. Einstein is only right because the world is not real.

Newton was not completely wrong. NASA and the ESA use Newton regularly to launch rockets into orbit and to other planets. Einstien is not needed at these velocities. Oh and Einstien believed the world is real too. Einstien's theories are correct because the world is real. The thoeries apply to and are refrenced to a real world. If the world is not real and completely a fiction of the mind, rules would not be necessary and Einstien's theories would be meaningless. Your dreams do not follow rules. The real world follows rules.

If the world was not real and the mind had total control over it, you would be performing those miracles that you said you could do. So where is the proof that your mind has control over the world?

 

[lifegazer]

The significance of the posts I have made tonight will eventually rock the world.
I have been away for a few days and have not noticed any detailed negation of Sunday's post. Probably because there isn't any. Plus, there was the post I made tonight prior to reposting that post - which also deserves detailed consideration.

To the detriment of this particular establishment, I find that the bulk of the week's discussion has been centred around my insanity - again. Really upchurch, I'm disappointed that - by your silence - you would encourage such derailing tripe. Tell me, is there any point in me complaining about such behaviour, or does one have to be an atheist to gain any favour around here?

 

[uruk]

Well there's proof of a mind creating it's own world by ignoring every post which soundly disproves his "philosophy

 

[kuroyume0161]

"And, now, for something completely different...the Larch."

How many times do we have to repeat this to you Licegrazer?

1) No matter where you place the consistencies, it supports the notion of an objective structure, separate from the individual mind, upon which we all agree (the very definition of objective).

2) So, if it's all in your awareness, then the awareness or reality associated with it must be a divisible construct from your self, by 1).

3) You place awareness in your concept of the singular, absolute god. Then you try to depict the reality as something only existing within his little experiences (our awareness).

This doesn't wash. You are applying double standards here. First we are all God, just unawares of it, experiencing being separate individual awarenesses. Then God also keeps it clean by maintaining a consistency (reality, the universe, and everything). This consistency, by definition, must be a separate 'blueprint' (where have we heard this before) or 'construct' from which to apply experiences of reality that are consistent. It cannot both reside in each individual independently and remain consistent! (Well, unless we are allowed to throw out science, logic, reason, sanity, and the baby with the bath water.) There would be some form of intercommunication necessary to maintain consistency, assuming independent residence. That would BE the construct!

No matter how far you try to push this back, at some level, at some point, at some realization, there is a consistent construct independent of the observer!!! That could be God or it could be reality as the universe. So far, all of our experience and observations and tests point to a reality as the universe. There is no evidence of God.

 

[lifegazer]

Newton was not completely wrong.

Yeah he was. Newton's laws of motion are never absolutely correct. Which means that they are absolutely incorrect.
Of course, they are accurate enough (for our purposes) to describe perceptible objects moving at relatively-slow speeds.
But there is not a single instance where one can say that the results obtained from Newton's math are absolutely correct.

NASA and the ESA use Newton regularly to launch rockets into orbit and to other planets. Einstien is not needed at these velocities.

Saying that Newton's math will suffice for a particular purpose will not suffice to negate what I have said tonight.

Oh and Einstien believed the world is real too.

True, which is why I asked who was the greater genius. Einstein was privy to facts that Newton never got to review. Einstein completely failed to see what his work did to the "real world".

Einstien's theories are correct because the world is real. The thoeries apply to and are refrenced to a real world. If the world is not real and completely a fiction of the mind, rules would not be necessary and Einstien's theories would be meaningless. Your dreams do not follow rules. The real world follows rules.

That's just a reassurance speech. I'm not interested in seeing mantras disguised as philosophy/reason.

If the world was not real and the mind had total control over it, you would be performing those miracles that you said you could do. So where is the proof that your mind has control over the world?

Once more, the presentation of ultrasound philosophy is debased by the request for a miracle.
You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[uruk]

Yeah he was. Newton's laws of motion are never absolutely correct. Which means that they are absolutely incorrect.

What's this obsession you have with absolute?
who said anything HAS to be absolute? Ever heard of "good enough"?

Of course, they are accurate enough (for our purposes) to describe perceptible objects moving at relatively-slow speeds.

Then they are "good enough" and correct for placing an object in orbit. They'er accurate enough to deal with the world on this level.

But there is not a single instance where one can say that the results obtained from Newton's math are absolutely correct.

They'er absolutley correct to get a prob to land on a moon circling Saturn.

Saying that Newton's math will suffice for a particular purpose will not suffice to negate what I have said tonight.

It' enough to show that you don't know what your talking about.

That's just a reassurance speech. I'm not interested in seeing mantras disguised as philosophy/reason.

like wise.

Once more, the presentation of ultrasound philosophy is debased by the request for a miracle.

you said you can perform miracles. you were the one making the claim. all we ask is proof of this claim. All requests for proof have been avoided.

Shame on you for with holding proof of your claims.