New perspectives on Relativity

[Donks]

Clocks exist within awareness, as does everything else affected by the laws/forces we perceive. You're missing the point: that time and space are not absolute values - that they are experiences internal to your own awareness.

You need not be aware that the experiment is taking place for the effect to be obvious. Try this:
You have two atomic clocks, synchornized.
An observer checks both clocks.
One clock is moved, without the observer's knowledge, then put back in its original place.
The observer checks them again, and he will be able to tell that the clocks are no longer synchronized.

What explanations are there?
1) The clocks, and their readings, are objective and not dependent on your awareness of them.
2) You somehow knew that the clock was moved and then your awareness of it changed.
3) (Any others you can think of).

 

[Upchurch]

When I start a thread about relativity, I intend to talk about relativity. Gettit? Very simple.

You aren't even talking about Relativity. I've already shown you that Relativistic effects are invariant to awareness. You're now just babling new age nonsense about space and time because you either didn't understand or were afraid to address Relativity itself.

 

[Atlas]

When I start a thread about relativity, I intend to talk about relativity. Gettit? Very simple.
Now, address my argument. Therein you will find a proof that You alone do exist.

It is the most profound proof ever presented, so attend to it.

Relativitywise, if the speed of Einstein is nonexistence - how does that make me real?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hey, when I want to talk about miracles, I'll start a thread about them.
When I start a thread about relativity, I intend to talk about relativity. Gettit? Very simple.
Now, address my argument. Therein you will find a proof that You alone do exist.

It is the most profound proof ever presented, so attend to it.

Jeesh, this guy is a worse pompous ass than Jedi Knight, ...... and as clueless.

Bye .

Hans

 

[rppa]

Clocks exist within awareness, as does everything else affected by the laws/forces we perceive. You're missing the point: that time and space are not absolute values - that they are experiences internal to your own awareness.

Stellar evolution (as just one example) is happening in places that nobody on earth is aware of, that in fact may be so far that the laws of physics prevent us from ever seeing them. Yet in those places, the "clocks" that drive the processes are ticking inexorably, nuclear reactions are occurring, particles are interacting, things are changing and evolving.

All without being inside your brain.

 

[lifegazer]

Then tell me how information about the hypothetical experiences of somebody that doesn't necessarily exist concerning something else that doesn't necessarily exist can tell you something useful about something that does exist but cannot be experienced.

The world I perceive within my awareness is a real experience, like the dream I had last night was a real experience. Within that experience, is the perception of space & time. Within that experience, comes the knowledge that space & time can only exist within awareness, as an illusion, since there is no absolute space & time.
Hence, within that experience comes the knowledge that only I exist.

And of course you must also first prove that experiences must be caused at all, because Einsteins theory might be the freak result of a million million badgers and a typewriter. Did you check it?
And if you did, could the results of your experiment not be coincidental? And the millionth time?

First things first, lifegazer.

There's nothing to check. I already know that space & time are illusions anyway, since they are occuring within my awareness. My philosophy would actually predict - even without Einstein's work - that space and time are not absolute values... that they are subjective values, subject to relative discrepencies amongst different perspectives of the same world.

Interestingly, my philosophy would also predict that the SOL be observed to always have the same value. Why? Because the source of the light we sense is ourselves, NOT the object that we perceive within ourselves. In fact, it is the imposition of inner-light which gives the illusion of "things".
So, for example, the Sun is not the source of the light we perceive on the Earth. Rather, the Mind is the source of our perception of the light which is the source of our perception of the Sun.
Since motion is an illusion and we cannot accelerate away-from or towards the true source of that light - ourselves - then the SOL is unaffected by motion. That's why it's value is a constant.

I don't really need Einstein. It's just handy that he completed his works before I came into being.

 

[Darat]

(None mod comments from now on.)

This is so funny!

 

[lifegazer]

I've already shown you that Relativistic effects are invariant to awareness.

Rubbish. No events can be proved to occur beyond the awareness of them. I.e., you cannot prove the existence of a world "out there". So, the only way you can show me what you claim to have shown me, is to prove the existence of the "out there".

 

[Donks]

Interestingly, my philosophy would also predict that the SOL be observed to always have the same value. Why? Because the source of the light we sense is ourselves, NOT the object that we perceive within ourselves. In fact, it is the imposition of inner-light which gives the illusion of "things".
So, for example, the Sun is not the source of the light we perceive on the Earth. Rather, the Mind is the source of our perception of the light which is the source of our perception of the Sun.
Since motion is an illusion and we cannot accelerate away-from or towards the true source of that light - ourselves - then the SOL is unaffected by motion. That's why it's value is a constant.

I don't really need Einstein. It's just handy that he completed his works before I came into being.

As has been pointed out before, wouldn't that argument also apply to the speed of sound being a constant?

ETA: Oh, and another thing. How would your philosophy explain the Doppler effect?

 

[lifegazer]

Jeesh, this guy is a worse pompous ass than Jedi Knight, ...... and as clueless.

Bye .

Hans

Your contributions were useless anyway. Now clear off and don't come back.

 

[Pahansiri]

Hey, when I want to talk about miracles, I'll start a thread about them.
When I start a thread about relativity, I intend to talk about relativity. Gettit? Very simple.
Now, address my argument. Therein you will find a proof that You alone do exist.

It is the most profound proof ever presented, so attend to it.

Simple, answer the quiestion I have asked over and over , define "I".. The fact is there is no "I" no Mark Bertrand , when I die there will be no more Mark Bertrand..

You seek to use the same old silly "proof" of God other god based believers have, their "proof when asked to prove god is " look at the tree or a baby being born that proves God" no a tree proves a tree a birth of a baby proves the birth of a baby. The causes and conditions behind both tree and baby can be traced and when one does so never is found "god".


I can not read your post without thinking of the words of David Brooks

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy"

Be well

 

[Pahansiri]

Your contributions were useless anyway. Now clear off and don't come back.

Sad, you become more and more angry by us beings who do not exist, such is the ways of a sick or childish mind not one fully awaken. You do not get your way you strike out in anger.

 

[RandFan]

• lifegazer thinks (yes I know, bear with me for a moment)
• lifegazer considers some concept.
• lifegazer applies his philosophy to said concept.
• lifegazer realizes that his philosophy explains the concept and the concept supports his philosophy.
• lifegazer is overcome with pride. Surely this will shut those morons up (by morons he means the part of himself who don't realize that they are him or he is them).
• lifegazer starts a new thread.
• His thesis is *peer reviewed and shredded.
• lifegazer gets angry and threatens and abuses everyone.

I doubt that I am the first to notice or document a pattern.

*liberally used term (grade school students don't hang out here).

 

[Upchurch]

Rubbish. No events can be proved to occur beyond the awareness of them. I.e., you cannot prove the existence of a world "out there". So, the only way you can show me what you claim to have shown me, is to prove the existence of the "out there".

Well, I've shown you and you never refuted it other than really weak "nu-uh"s like the one above. I can assume that you can't refute it then?

 

[lifegazer]

[*]His thesis is *peer reviewed and shredded.

You're being a fool. Why? Because the only way to shred my thesis is to prove the existence of absolute space & absolute time - something Einstein himself has negated.
Also, you ignore the other stuff I write about which explains why the SOL should be a constant numerical value given that the source of that light is ourselves rather than objects "out there".

 

[H'ethetheth]

The world I perceive within my awareness is a real experience, like the dream I had last night was a real experience. Within that experience, is the perception of space & time. Within that experience, comes the knowledge that space & time can only exist within awareness, as an illusion, since there is no absolute space & time.
Hence, within that experience comes the knowledge that only I exist.

Einstein's work only has value if the perceived order in the universe actually is order. If all your sensations are randomly produced by badgers then everything you can come up with about order among observations is meaningless. Lets say your sensations are a freak coincidence (lots of chimps+typewriter +lots of time =shakespeare). You perceive space, but it's just blots of light and sensations of touch etc. Therefore sensed space is merely inferred to exist (inadmissible by your standards). If not even perceived space is a given, then there is nothing for relativity to work in.
With your standards of proof, no experience can tell you a single thing about reality. Nothing!

Edited to add more chimps and time

 

[lifegazer]

Sad, you become more and more angry by us beings who do not exist, such is the ways of a sick or childish mind not one fully awaken. You do not get your way you strike out in anger.

I'm not interested in your crap. I'm here now talking about relativity. If you don't want to think about what I have written, then take a hike. It's as simple as that.

 

[lifegazer]

Well, I've shown you and you never refuted it other than really weak "nu-uh"s like the one above. I can assume that you can't refute it then?

Repost it. I don't know where it is or what it is.

 

[Pahansiri]

Rubbish. No events can be proved to occur beyond the awareness of them. I.e., you cannot prove the existence of a world "out there". So, the only way you can show me what you claim to have shown me, is to prove the existence of the "out there".

Of course you are wrong.

Almost on a daily basis science through the use of more and more powerful telescopes find “new” as in newly discovered/observed by us sun/stars.

These stars as we know take billions upon billions of years to form we know the causes and conditions behind the formation of them they do not simply appear the second we observe them.

Before anything can be observed it must already “exist” so as to be observed.

Trust me no human as far as we know observed a T-rex but we can look into the clues and facts and see it did. Again trust me there are microscopic organisms you have not observed and will not when they invade your body and make you very ill and cause death.

You are confusing the greatest total of reality that being as Buddha said nothing in and of itself exist with physical realities. You see tree and believe it to be only tree when it is in fact fully comprised of 100% non tree elements just as this “I” you speak of is.

 

[RandFan]

You're being a fool. Why?

Because the me that is you does not agree with the you that is me.