New perspectives on Relativity

[lifegazer]

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

Does the desecration of a name add weight to what you're about to say? I expect and demand better of you. Leave the crap to the idiots.
Furthermore, I'm disappointed that you completely ignored - more than once - what I had to say about "the absolute fabric upon which space & time are mapped". I think it speaks volumes of your insincerity. Without a sincerity to discuss a philosophy which challenges contemporary thought, I suspect that discussions with you are pointless.

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).

That's a mantra. You provide no reason for saying this. Neither do you address - with reason - my contra-conclusion. Indeed, it is noted that your entire post fails to quote a single thing I have said tonight.

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).

Since '1' is unfounded, your '2' is BS.

Pointless discussing anything else that you have said. Poor quality K. The sort of response I expect - and get - from Z-dragon.

 

[P.S.A.]

To the detriment of this particular establishment, I find that the bulk of the week's discussion has been centred around my insanity - again.

Well what do you expect, when you think reposting an argument you've already been told is wrong passes for debate? There's a certain kind of mind which does that Lifegazer. Shall we ask that giant of a man, Albert Einstein, what he states that kind of mind is?

Take it away, Albert;

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

Bua ha ha haaaa.... Still, credit where credit is due, for once you can honestly be said to be in agreement with Albert Einstein, if only with regards to "[your] insanity". Congratulations!

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?

There's no need to be an atheist... No Liegazer, you've discovered your own Godhood, which automatically leads to love for your fellow man... So express that love by demanding I be silenced...!
Alternatively, why not use some of those miraculous powers such Godhood grants to stop me yourself, without having to appeal to the evil atheist JREF? Go on... nothing too harsh, or evil, just stop my keyboard working or something... and in doing so, save many, many parts of God from seeing the One True Prophet mocked and ridiculed! But you've only yourself to blame for the mess your threads get into, if you have the Power to stop me and don't chose to use it....

 

[lifegazer]

What's this obsession you have with absolute?

A calamitous question to ask in a philosophy forum and a thread concerned with absolute truths!

who said anything HAS to be absolute? Ever heard of "good enough"?

You need a cold shower. It's probably not occured to you that we are pondering "absolute reality" here. What we say must suffice to reflect this and should attempt to prove our beliefs either way.
Saying things like the above just makes you look like a philosophical donkey. Sorry to be abrupt, but you are in dire need of the philosophical "cold shower".

They'er absolutley correct to get a prob to land on a moon circling Saturn. It' enough to show that you don't know what your talking about.

"Good enough for our purposes" does not = 'absolutely correct'.
End of story.

 

[lifegazer]

Well what do you expect, when you think reposting an argument you've already been told is wrong passes for debate?

So, "telling" me that I'm wrong constitutes a philosophical negation of whatever I post?
What big teeth you have grandma.

 

[Ratman_tf]

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.

You didn't answer my question though. Why does a real world have to be definite and a non-real world subjective? You just made the same assertation with more words in that reply.

 

[P.S.A.]

What big teeth you have grandma.

Fairy tales now, hmmm? Good to see that you are settling into your usual standard of intelligence! And once more, you dishonestly weasal away from addressing the core point behind the joke... But not to worry, I'm simply going to repeat it to you over and over again... because I'm kind of insane like that, aren't I?

So here it is again, in a slightly re-worded way!

Is Lifegazer willing to prevent PSA from posting, but not able?
Then Lifegazer is not omnipotent.

Is Lifegazer able to prevent PSA, but not willing?
Then Lifegazer enjoys my malevolence

Is Lifegazer both able and willing?
Then whence cometh PSA's abuse?

Is Lifegazer neither able nor willing?
Then why call Lifegazer God?


You know, maybe I ought to keep this up for at least the next 3 years... there's something holy in that level of commitment, wouldn't you say Lifegazer? And Einstein agrees with me, so it must be true!

 

[kuroyume0161]

That's a mantra. You provide no reason for saying this. Neither do you address - with reason - my contra-conclusion. Indeed, it is noted that your entire post fails to quote a single thing I have said tonight.

Since '1' is unfounded, your '2' is BS.

Pointless discussing anything else that you have said. Poor quality K. The sort of response I expect - and get - from Z-dragon.

Oh, ok. So it's out with observation, logic, reason, sanity then...

You cannot, for simplistic instance, have ten objects that are the same color (same color here denotes a rigorous and thorough spectral analysis match - before you go off on tangents) and not have something common between them that is independent of each individual object (molecular structure, atomic structure, energy levels - all facets independent of the objects themselves even if qualitatively dependent). Can you show the opposite of such a thing to be true, evidenced, or provable? I will wait for your research.

Same for 'awareness'. We are all aware of the same universe and reality - whether it's 'in here' or 'out there'. These qualities of universe and reality must exist independently of each awareness.

As for your 'Newton absolutely wrong' post. Boy, where have I heard this crappola before? When you establish Pi to its last decimal place, you can talk about absolute precision in this universe.

Bye...

 

[Z]

To the Reader:

It occurs to me now that lifegazer is obsessed with concepts of 'absolute'. He breaks every event and power down to 'absolute' and 'inabsolute'. In his mode of thought, absolute means correct, and inabsolute means wrong.

The question, perhaps, ought to be WHY he goes on about absolutes, when so much of what is discussed is entirely relative. He even suggests that all perception is a relative state, and therefore cannot tell us about an absolute world.

Nevertheless, since he is simply reposting nonsense, there is no need to discuss his nonsensical posts.

There is one point which becomes blazingly obvious, the more lifegazer repeats his central tenant: that the perceptions we share of an external world are consistant enough for us to believe that there is an external world to us (the individual observers). Since we are ultimately separated from each other, we must maintain our functional belief that we are separate individuals, and therefore that the consistancy of our perceptions must be due to some event or force external to ourselves.

lifegazer asserts that our individuality and all of our perceptions are an illusion, yet attempts to use research based upon those illusions to prove his points. But what matters it if we are as he says? Within the paradigm of our illusory existence, this is an external reality separate from us and in which we are separate from each other. The key question as regards his philosophy is then not 'is it consistant with the illusionary world we live in' - because clearly, it is not - but 'is there a means by which the illusionary awareness can transcend this awareness of individuality and external world and become aware of the singularity/God concept which he claims exists?'

Yet so far, lifegazer is consistantly lacking in any such means. He refuses any demonstration that it is possible, neither miracle nor other means. Further, he describes no way to do so, except abandonment of logic, reason, knowledge, etc. "If you want to meet God, go insane first" is hardly a good mantra for gaining followers.

So no matter what nonsense he continues to post, I believe - at this point - the only appropriate response is simply, "Prove it."

Prove it, lifegazer. Otherwise, your ideas lack merit. Within this paradigm in which we are trapped, you are completely wrong. Only by demonstrating the truth of your philosophy can you justify the truth of your posts.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Re: 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.

...blahblahblahblah...

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

I think it was Wudang who said it before and I'm sure he's not the only one: Everytime you get yourself into a tight spot, or reach the limit of your understanding you assume it must be us, and resort to this very dumb lie. WE UNDERSTAND, OKAY?!!

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.

No, you seem to be simply unwilling to accept Einsteins findings because they dont conform with your intuitive idea of time and space. You can only accept a real world if it is a Newtonian world that works exactly like everyday experience would have you suspect. It is precisely this idea that Einstein disproved. He showed once again that intuition is no reliable guide in science.
Einstein demonstrated that under the assumption that there exists an external reality in which light proves to have a constant speed perceived distance and time are different for observers moving with respect to oneanother. space and time are not absolute measures but spacetime is.
Remember, all this applies to the hypothetical external world that science attempts to describe. ALL OF IT.

Once you get your head around this you will understand that your philosophy still cannot possibly change anything about how science finds the world to be. This is a fact, untill you prove otherwise by performing a miracle. Why don't you write a book and see what people say about this? Formulate your theory in its entirety and let the world know. If I find it in the philosophy section of my library one day, I'll consider it a miracle.

 

[P.S.A.]

IT'S A MIRACLE! I'VE STOPPED POSTING!

At least until the 28th, as I'm off on a long weekend holiday. Have a good celebration of ancient pagan fertility festivals folks... I plan begin with a performance of the yearly ritual of shuffling along a road a few metres every hour; Woo hoo!

 

[lifegazer]

I think it was Wudang who said it before and I'm sure he's not the only one: Everytime you get yourself into a tight spot, or reach the limit of your understanding you assume it must be us, and resort to this very dumb lie. WE UNDERSTAND, OKAY?!!

What very dumb lie?
If you don't understand that science is solely the study of perceived order - the perceived world - then 'dumbness' is something which reflects upon yourself.
Furthermore, I don't like judgement without reasoning. Next time you wish to pass judgement upon one of my posts, address the reasoning within that post. UNDERSTAND? OKAY?!!

No, you seem to be simply unwilling to accept Einsteins findings because they dont conform with your intuitive idea of time and space. You can only accept a real world if it is a Newtonian world that works exactly like everyday experience would have you suspect. It is precisely this idea that Einstein disproved. He showed once again that intuition is no reliable guide in science.

I thought you were bright but statements such as this just contradict that belief.
I've provided detailed reasoning as to why Einstein's work relates to the perceived world. You've ignored this. Also, I've provided reasoning why Newton's Laws of motion would apply to a real world. You've ignored this.

Einstein did not disprove that Newton's Laws apply to the real world. Einstein merely proved that Newton's Laws do not apply to the perceived world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now, if you don't understand this, then that's your problem and you need to improve the quality of your thinking.

Einstein demonstrated that under the assumption that there exists an external reality in which light proves to have a constant speed perceived distance and time are different for observers moving with respect to oneanother.

Einstein has no need of such an assumption. Indeed, I want you to cite a reference or link showing where he even said this. If you cannot provide such a link, I want you to apologise to the forum for telling lies.
Regardless, as I said, that assumption is not needed. The fact is that Einstein was trying to figure out the perceived world. Indeed, lightspeed is a constant as perceived.

space and time are not absolute measures but spacetime is.

Again, for the fourth time, the absolute-fabric upon which perceived space and perceived time are mapped is awareness itself.
Anybody who thinks that perceived space and perceived time are mapped upon external spacetime has to be very stupid. Especially when it has been explained to them four times!!

Remember, all this applies to the hypothetical external world that science attempts to describe. ALL OF IT.

Science describes the order apparent within the internal world of sensation.
I'm tired of you parroting BS. Science can neither observe an external world nor study the order thereof. The internal world is all it has. The knowledge science provides is of that world.
Up the grade H. You're too far behind.

 

[Upchurch]

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

Immature response, huh?

Okay, if you can be lazy and repost stuff that has already been torn apart, I can repost one of the responses you just can't answer.

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!!!!

Originally posted by Upchurch
Your assumptions and contradictions are laid bare. It's been explained to you how and why speeds are not simply additive. And yet you cling to an obsolete mode of thinking for no other reason than it is easier for you to understand.

However, even Newton's Laws relate to a spatial/temporal universe. If, as you claim, Newton's Laws must apply to everything in a real world, they a real world must be spatial/temporal. Thus your philosophy, which depicts a non-spatial, non-temporal reality, must not be real, since Newton's laws do not apply to it.

Were you wrong when you talked about your philosophy being non-spatial or were you wrong when you made the statement about Newton's Laws above?

What is the point of reposting stuff if you simply can't defend it?

 

[Z]

Again, he rants about 'perceived' this and 'absolute' that.

What he fails to understand is that we have every reason to believe that the perception of things is accurate - that there is an external reality which is modeled within our awareness.

According to lg, the model within our mind is all there is of a so-called 'real world'. Yet there are two indicators which, combined, lead us to believe that this model represents a true world beyond our mind.

First is the perception that there are other similar minds which are not the same as us. We cannot share directly in their thoughts or experiences, so - given our experiences in this world - we are forced to assume that those other minds are separate from us. No one has yet successfully demonstrated the ability to unveil one mind unto another, to 'link' the perceptions and thoughts of two or more minds; hence, we believe that these minds are separate and individual. The fact that they appear to work at cross-purposes further supports this assumption.

Second, based upon that assumption, we discover that our perception of an apparently external world is verified many times over via communication with these separate, individual minds. This leads us to believe that we are all participating in some sort of reality which is external to us, regardless of the true nature of that reality.

Thus, though it may be that we are all dream essences in the dream of God, this thought is irrelevant to us. We cannot lift the veil which separates one mind from another, nor can we reveal the supposedly true nature of our reality; hence, for us, reality is as we perceive it to be - external to ourselves and consistant from one mind to another. lifegazer cannot lift that veil nor invalidate the reality of the world, and as such, can do nothing to alter the nature of the reality in which we live. And his continued miscomprehension of science leaves him looking foolish and discredits his philosophy.

Point of fact, lg: Einstein's work only redefined the nature of the reality external to us. ALL science works entirely on the assumption that reality is external to us. It even knows that our perception of reality is often wrong, and cannot be used to accurately determine facts about reality.

Perhaps this is what lg dislikes: that his perceptions are occassionally wrong, or that his thoughts so often are wrong.

Sorry, lg - that's life. Up the grade. Deal with reality.

Or prove us wrong, once and for all.

 

[Z]

Not that lifegazer can deal with my responses, of course... Since he cannot defend anything he says against me - since I easily and methodically tear up many of his 'key proofs' - and since he never once has managed to successfully counter my arguments against him, he has simply declared me beneath him and unworthy of his time.

Gentle Reader, I put it to you: are my responses to him so weak as to merit no comment? Or is there something to think about when faced with the fact that infinite space does NOT require infinite distances between fixed points, for example?

Who is more trustworthy, more intellectually honest? Someone who insists on a definition of omnipotence being both able and unable to do a thing, and insists it is not a paradox? Or someone willing to look carefully, not only at the roots of a philosophy, but also willing to set aside whether or not those roots are wrong and look at the potential consequences of that philosophy if it were true?

Not that I want this to be a popularity contest. But I do want the reader to recognize the difference between sound logical arguments and the sort of stuff lifegazer posts.

 

[lifegazer]

Okay, if you can be lazy and repost stuff that has already been torn apart, I can repost one of the responses you just can't answer.

I reposted it upon the back of another post - which you completely ignored - which qualified why the repost was justified. I reposted it because it's one of the most important posts I've ever presented. And I reposted it because far from being "torn apart", I go away for a few days and see the thread clogged with discussions of my insanity and other irrelevant gibberish. I see my complaints about this have fell upon death ears. I take it by your silence that you're not going to do anything about it. As I predicted.
Anyway, let's have a look at your incisive tearing-apart of that post:-

Originally posted by Upchurch:
Your assumptions and contradictions are laid bare. It's been explained to you how and why speeds are not simply additive. And yet you cling to an obsolete mode of thinking for no other reason than it is easier for you to understand.

I know that speeds are not additive. My point is that it is perceived speeds that are not additive.
Now this is very important and if you'd taken the time to really absorb the material of both of my posts, I wouldn't be sat here trying to explain it all again.

... Einstein's work relates to the perceived world. Do you understand that? It relates to perceived speeds. It doesn't relate to a real world external to our awareness since we cannot observe such a world!!!!!!!!!

Our perception of space & time is a variant. Hence the relative differences in the experiences of space & time. Hence the reason why lightspeed is not simply additive.
Now, I made it quite clear that in a "real world" full of real objects all separated by definite values of space and definite values of time, that those values would not be subject to subjective negotiation.
... In other words, "relativity" is something that can only apply to the awareness of the observer. It cannot apply to the real world itself. So, for example, if you accelerated to speeds approaching lightspeed, the space & time in the real world is not really warped or distorted - this is something that happens within your mind.
So, the perceived speed of light is very much dependent upon the qualitative value of the perceived value of both space & time, within your awareness.
Perceived lightspeed is constant due to the variance of perceived space & perceived time within your awareness.
However, without such observer-dependent variance - in the "real world" of definite space & time - there is no such relative variance and light would move in compliance of Newton's Laws of motion.

However, even Newton's Laws relate to a spatial/temporal universe. If, as you claim, Newton's Laws must apply to everything in a real world, they a real world must be spatial/temporal. Thus your philosophy, which depicts a non-spatial, non-temporal reality, must not be real, since Newton's laws do not apply to it.

Newton's Laws were formulated under the [informal] assumption that the world we observe is real. The reason why he was wrong is because the world we observe (perceive) is not real. However, if there was an external reality, his Laws would apply to everything within it.

Were you wrong when you talked about your philosophy being non-spatial or were you wrong when you made the statement about Newton's Laws above?

I'm wrong about neither. IF you believe in a real world, then Newton's Laws apply to it - not Einstein's. Einstein's Laws apply to the unreal perceived-world within your awareness.

However, realising that Newton's Laws would equate to a "real world" is a proof of God's existence. Why? Because we see a different world to the one "out there". We see Einstein's world. Therefore, "out there" is not responsible for what is "in here".
That means that whatever it is that you are is the primal cause of the world that It experiences.

 

[H'ethetheth]

What very dumb lie?

...

Science describes the order apparent within the internal world of sensation.
I'm tired of you parroting BS. Science can neither observe an external world nor study the order thereof. The internal world is all it has. The knowledge science provides is of that world.
Up the grade H. You're too far behind.

Let me tell you this. Science indeed attempts to describe the order among observations of the universe, nobody denies this. However, one of the most basic observations is that the perceived universe is spatial. This observation underlies every scientific theory ever made.
The scientific model of the universe has then been under revision all the time, but what you should keep in mind is that it ultimately is an answer to the questions:
Say I have a huge space filled with matter and energy? How would it behave? What would I see?" And then check if what you see is what you thought you'd see.
All of science implicitly assumes that the universe is spatial and behaves in certain ways, therefore so did Einstein. This means that the theory of relativity could never tell us that the universe really isn't spatial, in fact it could never tell us what the universe really is at all, and it doesn't intend to.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

This is getting confusing, sorry.

Which are the "components" of the "real" world?

 

[H'ethetheth]

I'm wrong about neither. IF you believe in a real world, then Newton's Laws apply to it - not Einstein's. Einstein's Laws apply to the unreal perceived-world within your awareness.

See, this is where you are absolutely wrong.
If you believe in a real world then Einsteins rules apply (more or less, what with incompatibility with QM).
The reason for this is that if you believe in a real world, then you believe it's more or less the world that science says it is. The theory of relativity is science, believe it or not, and therefore applies to the perceived universe whether our perceptions deceive us or not.

Edited for clarity

 

[Pahansiri]

However, realising that Newton's Laws would equate to a "real world" is a proof of God's existence. Why? Because we see a different world to the one "out there". We see Einstein's world. Therefore, "out there" is not responsible for what is "in here".
That means that whatever it is that you are is the primal cause of the world that It experiences.

Such is no more proof of a god then it is proof of a unicorn. By your thinking if the whatever it is that you are is a primal cause of the "out there" then the whatever it is that you are also needs a primal cause and that primal cause needs a primal cause and on this goes without beginning or end. But that is not even the case as on one hand you believe these was a beginning but also you believe there was not.

What created your God, what was there before your god?

What I believe is there is no beginning or end just rolling phenomena.

 

[Upchurch]

I know that speeds are not additive. My point is that it is perceived speeds that are not additive.
Now this is very important and if you'd taken the time to really absorb the material of both of my posts, I wouldn't be sat here trying to explain it all again.

... Einstein's work relates to the perceived world. Do you understand that? It relates to perceived speeds. It doesn't relate to a real world external to our awareness since we cannot observe such a world!!!!!!!!!

Whoa. Stop. How do you know that we cannot observe an world external to our awareness. I'll concede that we might not be perceiving such a world, but you've never shown that we cannot observe such a world.

Further, I find it <strike>amusing</strike> interesting that you admit that speeds are not simply additive, yet you claim that an external world much have simply additive speeds.

Our perception of space & time is a variant. Hence the relative differences in the experiences of space & time. Hence the reason why lightspeed is not simply additive.
Now, I made it quite clear that in a "real world" full of real objects all separated by definite values of space and definite values of time, that those values would not be subject to subjective negotiation.

What you've failed to understand is that those distances and times are invariant in 4-dimensional spacetime. They only appear to be varient because we're used to thinking in flawed Newtonian terms. In truth, the real world full of real objects are seperated by definite values of spacetime. You're mistake is that you are using the antiquated (pre-Einstein) ideas of "space" and "time".

So frankly, the real world does, in fact, conform to your requirements. There are definite amounts of spacetime between two objects.

... In other words, "relativity" is something that can only apply to the awareness of the observer. It cannot apply to the real world itself.

Not so, as I've shown above. Relativity does a better job of describing the real world than the old "space" and "time" model.

So, for example, if you accelerated to speeds approaching lightspeed, the space & time in the real world is not really warped or distorted - this is something that happens within your mind.

Sorry. This is simply not true and you've got nothing to support it. And most of the rest of your example just gets worse since it is predicated on false assumption.

Newton's Laws were formulated under the [informal] assumption that the world we observe is real. The reason why he was wrong is because the world we observe (perceive) is not real. However, if there was an external reality, his Laws would apply to everything within it.

Only if the universe behaved in a Newtonian fashion. It is only your lack of understanding about physics that leads you to the conclusion that it is otherwise.

I'm wrong about neither. IF you believe in a real world, then Newton's Laws apply to it - not Einstein's. Einstein's Laws apply to the unreal perceived-world within your awareness.

No, I was just playing with you. You actually are wrong about Einstein/Newton because you are stuck in the Newtonian understanding.

However, realising that Newton's Laws would equate to a "real world" is a proof of God's existence. Why? Because we see a different world to the one "out there". We see Einstein's world. Therefore, "out there" is not responsible for what is "in here".
That means that whatever it is that you are is the primal cause of the world that It experiences.

LOL. But, when you actually understand what the implications of Einstein and realize that it is, indeed, possible, this particular "proof" of God goes "poof".

You need to stop arguing from a position of ignorance lifegazer. You are horribly misrepresenting modern physics with this almost childish clinging to an outdated understanding.