New perspectives on Relativity

[Pahansiri]

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.

Your anger grows, such is the way of a childish mind.

 

[Pahansiri]

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

lol we have a BINGO

 

[Pahansiri]

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.". ... Albert Einstein

 

[lifegazer]

Einstein's work only has value if the perceived order in the universe actually is order.

I told you - and you ignored it - that I don't need Einstein. My philosophy actually predicts that our perceptions of space and time be subjective-variants... and that there is no such thing as absolute space or absolute time... and that the SOL should be a constant.
Handily for me, Einstein proved all this long before I came onto the scene. His work supports what I say rather than proves it.

When the work of a genius supports a philosophy, you'd be wise to sit up and take note, rather than witter on about badgers.

If all your sensations are randomly produced by badgers then everything you can come up with about order among observations is meaningless.

If there is no such thing as absolute space or absolute time, then there is no "outside" of Myself... there is only Me. As such, only I can be the source of my own sensations.

Lets say your sensations are a freak coincidence (lots of chimps+typewriter +lots of time =shakespeare).

Let's say that you have a strong coffee and start to take this seriously. I'm not talking about chimps and badgers. Woodpeckers perhaps...

 

[lifegazer]

Your anger grows, such is the way of a childish mind.

Your useless contributions to this discussion persist. My anger, or lack thereof, is not relevant to the argument presented.
Now, for the final time, address that argument or go for a walk. I'm simply not interested in ANYTHING else but discussions related to that argument.

 

[Upchurch]

Yep, and I've said it all before in this thread.

Time dialation and length contraction works the same for all observers within the same inertial reference frame. In other words, there are no differences for two observers (or awarnesses, if you prefer) within the same reference frame. Thus, there is no dependancy on awarness for relativistic effects. You'll find nothing in relativity that says otherwise.

But we've been over this already.

If relativity were dependant upon awareness, two observers in the same inertial reference frame would experience different measurements of time dialation and length contraction. Has that happened? Ever?

If not, then you have no evidence, no reason to claim, that Reletivistic effects are depenant upon awareness. You are merely once again speaking about that which you have no understanding and dangerously little knowledge.

Not that any of this matters since you cannot use the laws of physics, or anything we experience, as proof of your philosophy since your philosophy negates the usefullness of such experiences by making it all arbitrary and inherently untrustworthy.

 

[lifegazer]

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

Disagreement requires reason. None has been forthcoming.
I told you - prove that there is absolute space or absolute time and you will have reason to disagree with me. Without this proof, your disagreement is shown to be an emotional reaction. You're like a chimp wailing at something that frightens you.

 

[Pahansiri]

Your useless contributions to this discussion persist. My anger, or lack thereof, is not relevant to the argument presented.
Now, for the final time, address that argument or go for a walk. I'm simply not interested in ANYTHING else but discussions related to that argument.

I have as you know and as you also know you have ignored it as you have ignored all others posting to you. More proof your belief is wrong and that even you do not believe it as you have no control over your reality, your anger due to not being able to make us believe you is proof of this.

 

[lifegazer]

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.

Those stars exist within awareness, not "out there". We sense their existence = they appear within us.

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.

There is no such thing as space & time beyond the relatavistic perception of them.

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

True. God knows what It is going to put into awareness before putting it there. Therefore, God's knowledge exists before God's experiences.

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.

God was that T-rex. Otherwise, that T-rex was just part of the plan/knowledge that existed prior to your awareness of it's bones.

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.

The awareness of things comes in many forms.

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.

Buddha was fairly wise. Not wise enough to spot a supra intelligent being though, with the ability to think & feel. I'll give him 7 out of 10.

 

[lifegazer]

If relativity were dependant upon awareness, two observers in the same inertial reference frame would experience different measurements of time dialation and length contraction. Has that happened? Ever?

Why would two observers in the same... experience different measurements?
My philosophy does not predict that. I have no idea why you have said it.

Not that any of this matters since you cannot use the laws of physics, or anything we experience, as proof of your philosophy since your philosophy negates the usefullness of such experiences by making it all arbitrary and inherently untrustworthy.

Well, You do exist since Something real must be having the inner experiences that you have. Only your identity and nature is in question.
Given this knowledge, there remains two possibilities:

(1) You are separated from other real entities by space and time.
(2) There is no space & time beyond the inner-experience of them.

Einstein disproved '1'.
If '2', You alone exist... with only your nature and identity in question.

 

[jmercer]

Why would two observers in the same... experience different measurements?
My philosophy does not predict that. I have no idea why you have said it.

Well, You do exist since Something real must be having the inner experiences that you have. Only your identity and nature is in question.
Given this knowledge, there remains two possibilities:

(1) You are separated from other real entities by space and time.
(2) There is no space & time beyond the inner-experience of them.

Einstein disproved '1'.
If '2', You alone exist... with only your nature and identity in question.

No.
(TM, PixyMisa 2005)

 

[lifegazer]

No.
(TM, PixyMisa 2005)

Yet another wailing chimp.
Prove the absolute existence of space and time or get down on your knees. There isn't an option 3.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

In this very thread:
If relativity were dependant upon awareness, two observers in the same inertial reference frame would experience different measurements of time dialation and length contraction. Has that happened? Ever?


...snip...

Well I know I've sat in a lot of meetings and when I've left them I'm shocked to learn to people outside them only a few hours have passed yet I know for me several lifetimes went by.... does this count?

 

[Pahansiri]

Those stars exist within awareness, not "out there". We sense their existence = they appear within us.

1- you say now “us” as opposed to your saying only “I” exist please make up your mind
2- You are of course wrong these stars have existed out of our site for hundreds of trillions of years the causes and conditions behind their rise/ formation and fall can be known and measured. They/ matter do/does not require observation. Funny you believe in a god which has never been observed can exist.

Do you really know what you believe?



I wrote:
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.


You responded the following completely ignoring what I said and the facts and truth contained in what I said.

There is no such thing as space & time beyond the relatavistic perception of them.

quote:

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

You wrote

True. God knows what It is going to put into awareness before putting it there. Therefore, God's knowledge exists before God's experiences.

Again David Brooks best address your silly statement "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" David Brooks

God was that T-rex. Otherwise, that T-rex was just part of the plan/knowledge that existed prior to your awareness of it's bones.

again David Brooks best addresses your silly statement "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" David Brooks

I wrote
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 ignored it by saying

The awareness of things comes in many forms.

I wrote
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.

You again ignored what was said and only responded with on of your most meaningless and silly statements.

Buddha was fairly wise. Not wise enough to spot a supra intelligent being though, with the ability to think & feel. I'll give him 7 out of 10.

 

[Upchurch]

Why would two observers in the same... experience different measurements?
My philosophy does not predict that. I have no idea why you have said it.

Ahem.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Therefore, my perceived value of time T is not the exact-same as your perceived value of time T. Similarly for distance D.
Hence, to acknowledge these variations, the measurement of speed should be regarded as:
Speed = D(lg)/T(lg) ... where "lg" is an acknowledgent of the fact that these values are as perceived by myself.
Similarly, your measurement of speed should read:
Speed=D(psa)/T(psa) ... where "psa" is another person (awareness of being that person).

(my emphesis) Want to tell me again that your philosophy does not predict something you said it predicted in the opening post of this thread or do you want to simply address my argument that it does no such thing?

Well, You do exist since Something real must be having the inner experiences that you have.

Can you prove that you or I exist anymore than the gun-toting bunny does in my example above?

(1) You are separated from other real entities by space and time.
(2) There is no space & time beyond the inner-experience of them.

Einstein disproved '1'.

That's just delusional. He did no such thing. Have you actually even read what Einstein said? His work was based on the assumption that there were real entities seperated by space and time. I challenge you to show where he said otherwise.

 

[Upchurch]

Well I know I've sat in a lot of meetings and when I've left them I'm shocked to learn to people outside them only a few hours have passed yet I know for me several lifetimes went by.... does this count?

No.
(TM, PixyMisa 2005)

 

[H'ethetheth]

Let's say that you have a strong coffee and start to take this seriously. I'm not talking about chimps and badgers. Woodpeckers perhaps...

Let's say that you are completely missing the point. Look past the badgers please.

I present to you the following scenario:

Lifegazer's experiences are produced by a God similar to the one you propose, except He generates the experiences completely at random. Every order you can discern is illusory, so everything you have learned from your experiences is just based on a freak occurrence of sensations. This includes the existence of illusory space, the existence the theory of relativity etc.
Your mind has somehow moulded these experiences into a consistent (cough) image of the perceived universe, but unjustly so. There is no perceived space, there is only coincidental experiences. In other words, there is nothing to apply the theory of relativity to.

Prove that this scenario cannot possibly be true and we'll be on our way.

 

[RandFan]

Disagreement requires reason.

Non sequitur. It amazes me that you know so little about logic.

Disagreement can be unreasonable. That is a logically valid statement.

An unreasonable person can disagree with a reasonable person. That is a logically valid statement.

An unreasonable person can disagree with another unreasonable person. That is a logically valid statement.

Disagreement only requires two entities that don't agree.

 

[lifegazer]

Error. Mods can delete this.

 

[lifegazer]

An unreasonable person can disagree with a reasonable person. That is a logically valid statement.

I see. Nice to acknowledge how unreasonable you are.