New perspectives on Relativity

[lifegazer]

A rather rude and childish way to talk to a god.

God would never be offended. Only an entity that continually clings to the idea that It is a limited being could ever be offended by such remarks.

Btw, I'm glad to see you again. Despite our differences, I missed your participation. I hope you are well.

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: Linking Einstein to God.

There is no such thing as absolute time or absolute space. The reason why things such as the "twin paradox" can happen is because the value of the meter and of the second is entirely dependent upon how an individual perceives these values.
They are variants. If they were not, then there would be no twin paradox. No relative variations in how we experience the same universe.

You really don't get the twin "paradox" (which, BTW, isn't a paradox). It's not about the variation of meters and seconds, rather it's about the fact that we live in a hyperbolic space-time geometry. I seriously doubt you are capable of doing the calculations for this simple problem, so I'm at a loss as to why you try to bring up things you clearly don't understand in order to try to prove your point.

In other words, the existence of time and distance occurs within your awareness. There is no such thing as time or space beyond the awareness of it.

Nope. It's got nothing to do with "awareness", and it would apply even if there weren't a single living thing in the universe, only clocks zipping around. You're just spouting cheap solipsism, with some incomprehensible claim that relativity somehow backs it up when it does nothing of the sort.

 

[Pahansiri]

I see no evidence for micro-evolution alone.

Perhaps I read this wrong, you find no evidence for micro-evolution??

 

[Pahansiri]

God would never be offended. Only an entity that continually clings to the idea that It is a limited being could ever be offended by such remarks.

Btw, I'm glad to see you again. Despite our differences, I missed your participation. I hope you are well.

Greetings my friend. Happy you did not avoid everyone of my post, just the hardest ones for you to answer. I am well and hope you are also.

 

[Atlas]

Therefore, the speed of light observed by any individual is not an absolute equivalent value.

Existence is One. God is absolute. Awareness is God's experience of the His illusion. You are god.

But, within awareness, one might expect the proof of unity to be found in consistent observation - Lg turns to science, which he considers bogus, to show that Einstein said Awareness is not to be trusted - is not equivalent, is not absolute.

How does the absence of absolutes in the illusion of the absolute prove the existence of the absolute?

Could you spell it out in teal? - I think that helps.

 

[P.S.A.]

God would never be offended. Only an entity that continually clings to the idea that It is a limited being could ever be offended by such remarks.

Btw, I'm glad to see you again. Despite our differences, I missed your participation. I hope you are well.

So does that mean that if I post all the replies YOU make when you are offended, especially the one where you attack "Americans", you'll finally admit that you have an insanely broken, double think mind, and that you are saying things which you plainly know are incorrect?

 

[lifegazer]

Perhaps I read this wrong, you find no evidence for micro-evolution??

Micro-evolution ALONE. I.e., I think macro evolution - on a regular basis - must have occured.

 

[P.S.A.]

Perhaps I read this wrong, you find no evidence for micro-evolution??

Lifegazer isn't very good at writing consistently. If he does, he finds his ideas get torn to shreds. So he automatically writes and thinks in a way which is both obscure (so no one can pin him down on anything) and open to reinterpretation at a later date. What he meant to say was he finds no evidence of Macro evolution alone, which is his claim in the Woodpeckers thread, only micro evolution, which is somehow guided towards macro evolution by God. He's basically an Intelligent Designer, just another person who claims that God can design towards Macro using Micro, but evolution can't. Just another person wailing away at Straw Man understandings of evolution... But if he'd said that clearly, you'd laugh at him. So he didn't.

Or, as it says in Medieval Madness, of which he exhibits plenty; SIR MISALOT CHARGES THE CENTRE LANE!

 

[Donks]

Wudang, it takes an IQ of about 101 to understand why the speeds I observe are not the same as the speeds you observe...

Meters perceived by Lg are qualitatively different to meters perceived by Wudang. Seconds perceived by Lg are qualitatively different to secondss perceived by Wudang.

Einstein (twin paradox, for example), shows us that:

Meters (lg) do NOT = meters (wudang)
Seconds (lg) do NOT = seconds (wudang)

Therefore m(lg)/s(lg) does NOT = m(w)/s(w).

Therefore X m(lg)/(lg)s does NOT = X m(w)/s(w).

Therefore, the speed of light observed by any individual is not an absolute equivalent value to that of over observers.


Simple really Wudang. But then again, I'm assuming you have an IQ over 100.
Major assumption.

You can't use therefore like that when there are infinite solutions to a/b=x/y, even with the a!=x & b!=y restrictions that you want (although you are pulling them out of thin air. If "lg" and "w" are in the same inertial reference frame, a=x and b=y).

 

[Pahansiri]

Lifegazer isn't very good at writing consistently. If he does, he finds his ideas get torn to shreds. So he automatically writes and thinks in a way which is both obscure (so no one can pin him down on anything) and open to reinterpretation at a later date. What he meant to say was he finds no evidence of Macro evolution alone, which is his claim in the Woodpeckers thread, only micro evolution, which is somehow guided towards macro evolution by God. He's basically an Intelligent Designer, just another person who claims that God can design towards Macro using Micro, but evolution can't. Just another person wailing away at Straw Man understandings of evolution... But if he'd said that clearly, you'd laugh at him. So he didn't.

Or, as it says in Medieval Madness, of which he exhibits plenty; SIR MISALOT CHARGES THE CENTRE LANE!

Thank you my friend P.S.A.


I am sure he as one who believes in "Intelligent Designer" ( I respect his belief) that being life is so complex it needed a Designer will ignore that would mean this Designer is VERY complex and by such would need a more complex Designer. On and on this would go endlessly always needing a more complex Designer..

Well people will believe as they will for many the most simple answer "god did it" gives them most comfert and is less work.

 

[P.S.A.]

Or as if to prove my point, he's now changed his definition from the woodpecker thread again

Go on folks, go look at the relevant thread in Religion and Philosophy, and you'll see what I mean. He started out arguing that no intermediate reproduction steps occured, you only got asexual or sexual reproduction. Intermediate = Micro evolution. It's been hammered home to him there that it does, so now he's pretending he always claimed this, that he never, ever argued that Micro evolution didn't occur... But he did. He was arguing for Macro only. Asexual or sexual reproduction, nothing in between.

Ooooh, you dishonest plonker Lifegazer!

 

[lifegazer]

He was arguing for Macro only. Asexual or sexual reproduction, nothing in between.

I've already explained - being sincere - that with hindsight it was better to discuss my point within the context of individual-reproduction V's 2+ reproduction.
I'm not averse to regret. Nor is my philosophy averse to evolution. Deal with it. Only when I present it formally and officially (book or tv, for instance) will you be in a position to mock me for changing words. As it is, this is a discussion forum where ideas are exchanged and inspired and where they inevitably evolve throughout the discussion.
How old are you? You come across as very immature.

 

[RussDill]

Micro-evolution ALONE. I.e., I think macro evolution - on a regular basis - must have occured.

evidence?

 

[RussDill]

Wudang, it takes an IQ of about 101 to understand why the speeds I observe are not the same as the speeds you observe...

You mean if I'm traveling in a car at 60kph, and another car is traveling at 60kph besides me, I perceive it's velocity is zero?

Even in classical physics, it's all about reference frames, and you don't need an observer present for the relative speeds to mean something.

Meters perceived by Lg are qualitatively different to meters perceived by Wudang. Seconds perceived by Lg are qualitatively different to secondss perceived by Wudang.

No, you are just traveling in a different direction through spacetime.

Einstein (twin paradox, for example), shows us that:

Meters (lg) do NOT = meters (wudang)
Seconds (lg) do NOT = seconds (wudang)

Therefore m(lg)/s(lg) does NOT = m(w)/s(w).

Therefore X m(lg)/(lg)s does NOT = X m(w)/s(w).

Therefore, the speed of light observed by any individual is not an absolute equivalent value to that of over observers.

No, you just took a different path through spacetime.

 

[RussDill]

I've already explained - being sincere - that with hindsight it was better to discuss my point within the context of individual-reproduction V's 2+ reproduction.
I'm not averse to regret. Nor is my philosophy averse to evolution. Deal with it. Only when I present it formally and officially (book or tv, for instance) will you be in a position to mock me for changing words. As it is, this is a discussion forum where ideas are exchanged and inspired and where they inevitably evolve throughout the discussion.
How old are you? You come across as very immature.

Lifegazer, guided evolution is the SAME THING as intelligent design. Your philosophy is averse to evolution, it favors intelligent design.

Hah, you write a book, you don't even read them for fear of being corrupted be the establishment.

 

[lifegazer]

You mean if I'm traveling in a car at 60kph, and another car is traveling at 60kph besides me, I perceive it's velocity is zero?

You know what I mean. I'm talking about different observers of the same event/universe.
In the twin paradox, for instance, your twin (if you had one) could shake hands with you now then jet-off in his high-speed rocket for a few years, then come back and shake hands with you again. At that instant, he might tell you that you've aged badly in the last 5 years... whilst you might say that he's hardly aged considering you haven't seen him for 30 years.
Such is the variance of the second, as perceived!
... Same principle for distance.

Even in classical physics, it's all about reference frames, and you don't need an observer present for the relative speeds to mean something.

That's an unfounded assertion. Basically, you are stating that "things" really exist beyond the awareness of them. That means that there are "real things" that exist beyond You.
That means that time & space have an absolute meaning beyond your relative/subjective perception of them.
... Unfortunately for you, Einstein has already proved that there is no such thing as absolute space & time. Unfortunately for you, this means that Einstein has proved (with a little help from me) that "real things" don't exist. Unfortunately for you, this means that you are wrong.

The pivotal point of the last few posts is that time and space must have absolute existence for "other things" to exist beyond your awareness of them.
But they don't.
So... only You - the perceiver - exist.

 

[RussDill]

In the twin paradox, for instance, your twin (if you had one) could shake hands with you now then jet-off in his high-speed rocket for a few years, then come back and shake hands with you again. At that instant, he might tell you that you've aged badly in the last 5 years... whilst you might say that he's hardly aged considering you haven't seen him for 30 years.
Such is the variance of the second, as perceived!
... Same principle for distance.

Whenever you travel through space, you are also traveling through time. We are used to the consistency of always traveling through time in the same manner.

Once the two twins started traveling opposite directions, which one was experiencing time differently, which one was time passing more slowly for? Neither, because they are just traveling in different directions through spacetime.

That's an unfounded assertion. Basically, you are stating that "things" really exist beyond the awareness of them. That means that there are "real things" that exist beyond You.

A set of laws that define the universe exist beyond me. These laws are unchanging whether or not someone is aware of them. I can die in my sleep just as well as I can die awake.

That means that time & space have an absolute meaning beyond your relative/subjective perception of them.

Who says?

... Unfortunately for you, Einstein has already proved that there is no such thing as absolute space & time.

He proved that spacetime exists, and that space and time existing as seperate entities is just an approximation we've grown accustomed to. If we want to use your terminology, then we'll say, an "absolute" spacetime.

Unfortunately for you, this means that Einstein has proved (with a little help from me) that "real things" don't exist. Unfortunately for you, this means that you are wrong.

No where did he prove anything of the sort, he proved that reality is different from what we assumed.

The pivotal point of the last few posts is that time and space must have absolute existence for "other things" to exist beyond your awareness of them.
But they don't.

Ahem, what about spacetime having an absolute existence, and thus other things existing beyond my awareness of them.

Also, don't forget, that whole blueprint of reality that god has, that is external to my own awareness.

 

[H'ethetheth]

How does the absence of absolutes in the illusion of the absolute prove the existence of the absolute?

Now that's a question! I want to know as well.

I also want to know why "the actual existence of other entities separate from Yourself requires the absolute existence of time and space."

 

[Wudang]

God would never be offended. Only an entity that continually clings to the idea that It is a limited being could ever be offended by such remarks.

So you clung to the idea that you are a limited being when you objected to me using your full name?

So you don't believe in your own philosophy. Again.

 

[PixyMisa]

No.



No.



No.



No.



... and, no.

Nice to see a technique I pioneered finding wider use.