New perspectives on Relativity

[RussDill]

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

Exactly! so even according to your philosophy, the existence of the star is OUTSIDE our own awareness. It does not exist in any form, even as an illusion, within our own awareness, it exists only in god's awareness, and he feeds the perception of it to our own individual awareness.

 

[RussDill]

(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.

*sigh*, illusion of seperation lifegazer...geez

 

[RussDill]

Well if you take gravity into account, then technically I think that I would be correct since no two bodies have the exact same mass.

Ever hear of the electron?

Also, if those bodies are in the same inertial frame, it is obvious that those bodies will have the same (barring negligable differences) experience of time & space.
But none of that alters the fact that the perception of space & time is a variant quality. That we do not see the reality (absoluteness) of space or time. That's what is important.

Experience of spacetime however, is absolute. Every object in the universe experiences spacetime in the same way. It's when we attempt to translate these experiences into our antiquated concept of a seperated space and time that we get these results.

 

[RussDill]

Big deal. Just because I haven't mentioned something doesn't mean that it isn't so. Gravity affects space and time. Deal with it.

No, it effects spacetime

Actually, as I said before, this isn't important to my philosophy. What's important is that the qualitative value of space and time, as perceived, is a variant.

Again, that's just because we have the illusion that time and space are seperate entities

You are clinging to this in the hope that by proving I was wrong about something that you don't have to address the meat of my argument. That's not true. And technically, since gravity does affect ones perception of space and time and since all bodies have different mass, I am correct: there are no two absolutely identical perceptions of space & time.

We will all have the same perception of spacetime though. All observers in all reference frames will agree on the outcome of the twin paradox.

The qualitative experience of space and time is a variant. How else could the twin paradox be explained if this were not the truth?

That's where einstein comes in. He shows that time does not slow down for one twin, but that they take different paths through spacetime.

If my experience of 10 years = your experience of 5 years, then clearly we have had different internal experiences of time.

I similar statement would be, if I traveled 10 miles to get to my destination, and you traveled 5 miles, then clearly we have had a different internal experience of distance, when in reality, I just took the scenic route.

It's not difficult to understand the situation when we are discussing distance alone, because we understand distance. It's when you discuss distance and time as one physical quantity that it takes the understanding of spacetime. The two situations are equivelent.

That's a complete lie. It's impossible to prove the existence of anything beyond the awareness of it = no proof of the reality of "out there".

If you have claimed to prove your philosophy, then you have proven it yourself, since your own awareness exists outside of my own awareness in your philosophy. The universe exists within god's awareness, which is also outside of my individual awareness.

Wakey wakey: if there's no universal time, then there's no time in the universe.

Just because time does not exist as many originally naively thought it did, does not mean that it does not exist. It just exists differently. Again, false dichotomy.

 

[jmercer]

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

Define "absolute" in this context.

Otherwise...

No.
(TM, PixyMisa 2005)

 

[jmercer]

Error. Mods can delete this.

God made an error?

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

I'll consider it. For now you are even less fun than Kumar. I might slaughter your logic and philosophy, but there is such a crowd already .

Hans

 

[Atlas]

The qualitative experience of space and time is a variant. How else could the twin paradox be explained if this were not the truth?

The twin "paradox" you refer to is not explained by a qualitative experience but a quantitative one. The older twin has experienced more seconds than the younger one. But the quality of those seconds were appreciated very much the same way. They accumulated into minutes, hours, days, and years. Meals were had by each 3 times a day. Each slept 8 hours a "night". The clock on the wall ticked off each second for them both. Their qualitative experiences are not the way to explain the difference in ages.

If my experience of 10 years = your experience of 5 years, then clearly we have had different internal experiences of time.

False. The internal experiences of time were the same. One person aged 10 years in the 10 years he experienced. The other person aged 5 years in the 5 years that passed.

Wakey wakey: if there's no universal time, then there's no time in the universe.

An assertion or an assumption? It sounds a little like: If there is no liquid water there is no water in the universe.

No universal time/space = no time/space in the universe = no separation of things = no universe full of things.

I can't tell what you're arguing. Sometimes for you the universe of Einstein exists with gravity and light and the world and the experiences of people, the next you argue that it doesn't exist.

You have said that Gravity affects space and time but it couldn't if none of those things exist external to my awareness because I am quite often not aware of the stars. I lose awareness of the world each night I fall asleep. So you say I alone exist. But I know you exist independently of me because I don't hate myself so much to keep dreaming you into the dialog.

 

[sackett]

He's an odd couple all by himself

"Now clear off and don't come back."
"If you don't want to think about what I have written, then take a hike."
"Now, for the final time, address that argument or go for a walk."
"I think you should leave the building. . . . Please leave and don't come back."

Odd, the way LiteSaber repeatedly tells people to go away. At the same time, he says he wants to embrace all of existence, gathering it and everybody into the arms of his "philosophy."

 

[H'ethetheth]

Quoth Upchurch:
He fully showed that spacetime was a real thing,

Quoth lifegazer
That's a complete lie. It's impossible to prove the existence of anything beyond the awareness of it = no proof of the reality of "out there".

I agree with lifegazer up to here, because I want to uphold lifegazer's standards of evidence, but the next step you keep taking, lifegazer, namely from absense of proof to proof of absense is wrong. There is no sound 'Cartesian' proof for or against the existence of space. This means that rejecting its existence is exactly as much an assumption as accepting it.

The evidence is inconclusive.

Quoth Upchurch:
In this case, "absolute time" is synonymous to "universal time". When Einstien said there was no absolute time, he was saying there was no universal time. Only through mis-use of the term "absolute" could you conclude that there was no real time.

Quoth lifegazer
Wakey wakey: if there's no universal time, then there's no time in the universe.

This is of course ludicrous nonsense.
If there is no universal clothing size, then there is no clothing size in the universe.
If there are no universal morals, then there are no morals in the universe.
If there is no universal studio, then there is no studio in the universe.

 

[Upchurch]

Quoth lifegazer
That's a complete lie. It's impossible to prove the existence of anything beyond the awareness of it = no proof of the reality of "out there".

I agree with lifegazer up to here, because I want to uphold lifegazer's standards of evidence, but the next step you keep taking, lifegazer, namely from absense of proof to proof of absense is wrong. There is no sound 'Cartesian' proof for or against the existence of space. This means that rejecting its existence is exactly as much an assumption as accepting it.

The evidence is inconclusive.

Fair enough. I will accept lifegazer's elevated standards of evidence, if he does.

This is of course ludicrous nonsense.
If there is no universal clothing size, then there is no clothing size in the universe.
If there are no universal morals, then there are no morals in the universe.
If there is no universal studio, then there is no studio in the universe.

Also know, I believe, as an error in inductive reasoning.

 

[P.S.A.]

Odd, the way LiteSaber repeatedly tells people to go away. At the same time, he says he wants to embrace all of existence, gathering it and everybody into the arms of his "philosophy."

Don't forget "Whilst being as unembracable, arrogant and obnoxious as possible, so even if you accept his philosophy, you'd rather kill his God than be Him", eh?

Me likey watching Lifegazer melt down...

MULTIBALL MADNESS!



And no, I won't go away either. God put me here to annoy the out of His Prophet, so he could experience the impotent rage that God supposedly doesn't actually have. He needs to experience being Lifegazer being laughed at by me for that, you see... Woo hoo for me and my part in the Divine Plan!

 

[lifegazer]

On the variance of perceived space and time.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s2.htm
Extracts:

"Einstein found that what you measure for length, time, and mass depends on your motion relative to a chosen frame of reference.

Two consequences of Special Relativity are a stationary observer will find (1) the length of a fast-moving object is less than if the object was at rest, and (2) the passage of time on the fast-moving object is slower than if the object was at rest. However, an observer inside the fast-moving object sees everything inside as their normal length and time passes normally, but all of the lengths in the world outside are shrunk and the outside world's clocks are running slow. "

... Now, why is it that so-called physicists here - as well as the bozos - are arguing against the fact that the experience of space and time is a qualitative variant when in fact this is just rudimentary knowledge regarding Einstein's work?

If the qualitative value of your experience of time or space was invariant, then none of what you read above, would be true.

 

[Z]

Wakey wakey: if there's no universal time, then there's no time in the universe.

No universal time/space = no time/space in the universe = no separation of things = no universe full of things.

THis is the most ridiculous of misunderstandings.

DO you know what 'universal' means? If there is no universal time/space, that just means that time and space are not uniform throughout the universe. Not that there is no time/space in the universe.

I can accept that you refuse to return to school - but at least by a dictionary.

You're living in denial upchurch. You're very aware of the fact that my philosophy destroys 'the life of upchurch', so you're just saying anything to keep yourself alive. What a pity when so much more is available to you.

Yes - let's see - lifegazer still works a long job, has no girlfriend, can't get respect from anyone, and his loved ones are still dead or far, far away.

'So much more."

Sad.

 

[RandFan]

Let's see... this started when you mocked my argument...

No, if anything I was mocking you. In reality I was pointing out a familiar pattern.

...also claiming that it had been debunked.

No, no I didn't. I said your thesis is "shredded". To be honest your argument is silly.

I then called you a fool and told you that the only way to debunk my argument was to prove the existence of absolute space and absolute time. I also explained why my philosophy predicts that lightspeed should have a constant numerical value.

Your thesis is self contradictory. This has been demonstrated over and over you just choose to ignore it.

You then ignored all of that significant stuff and said something like "I disagree".

NO! Now pay attention here, I said because "the me that is you disagrees with the you that is me."

I am simply illustrating the absurdity of calling oneself a fool. That is what you are doing. You are also calling god a fool.

But rather than give good reason to disagree with one of the most profound arguments ever presented...

Narcissism, delusions of grandeur. One cannot cure a deluded patient simply by pointing out his delusion for the very reason that the delusion is more real than reality. Which is funny because you don't believe in reality but instead believe this is all an illusion.

...you continued to make a pratt of yourself by defending the right to disagree through being unreasonable.

I'm pointing out that your statement, however correct you think it is, is in fact illogical.

I think you should leave the building before your integrity vanishes altogether within the thick fog of your stupidity. I have no desire to discuss such important matters with fools and idiots. Please leave and don't come back.

I have been called worse from better. Your philosophy is so convincing when you act so saintly.

"Do it in the name of heaven you can justify it in the end" --Lambert-Potter

 

[lifegazer]

On simultaneity.

http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfadd/1160/Ch27SpRl/Simlt.html

Simultaneity is relative. According to Einstein, no two observers share the exact same now.
In other words, there is no absolute now... or, no universal now.

This means that there is no present moment for the universe as a whole. If there is no present moment for the universe as a whole, then there is no universe.

 

[P.S.A.]

Re: On the variance of perceived space and time.

... Now, why is it that so-called physicists here - as well as the bozos - are arguing against the fact that the experience of space and time is a qualitative variant when in fact this is just rudimentary knowledge regarding Einstein's work?

If the qualitative value of your experience of time or space was invariant, then none of what you read above, would be true.

They aren't, you insane fool. They are telling you that 2 people in THE SAME SITUATION, will measure the same distortion of time. 2 measurements in the same room will see the same slowness of clocks outside it. It's a function of the universe... NOT dependent upon the individual observer. Everyone here understands this... it's only you who are so mentally broken that you can't understand that a physical law is STILL the same physical law, even if it acts in a different way in different situations. Like how water is still obeying the same laws governing molecular actions as a solid, liquid and a gas... or how a mathematical function is still the same function even when the values it gives don't form a flat line but a curve.

The ONLY way your insane philosophy would make sense is if the 2 people in the room saw DIFFERENT spacetime effects which could ONLY be caused by their shaping space to suit themselves. Then it could truly be said that Experience is Internal to the individual. It's not. Every honest observer would see the same changes in spacetime outside from that room. The external world has consistent rules. Except for you, because you are totally tonto.

 

[Z]

Re: On simultaneity.

http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfadd/1160/Ch27SpRl/Simlt.html

Simultaneity is relative. According to Einstein, no two observers share the exact same now.
In other words, there is no absolute now... or, no universal now.

This means that there is no present moment for the universe as a whole. If there is no present moment for the universe as a whole, then there is no universe.

Again, confusion over language.

There is no 'absolute shoe size' - which means there is no 'universal shoe size'. Does this mean there are no shoes for the universe as a whole??

Really. I'm serious. Learn of what you speak - every word, and their proper usage - before posting nonsense.

 

[rppa]

Re: On simultaneity.

Simultaneity is relative.

Yes.

According to Einstein, no two observers share the exact same now.

No.

According to Einstein, two observers who are in RELATIVE MOTION will disagree about which events are simultaneous.

Also according to Einstein, clocks which are synchronized and remain fixed relative to each other, remain synchronized. In other words, they agree on "now". That is the whole point of all the time Einstein spends discussing synchronization procedures.

 

[jmercer]

Re: On the variance of perceived space and time.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s2.htm
Extracts:

"Einstein found that what you measure for length, time, and mass depends on your motion relative to a chosen frame of reference.

Two consequences of Special Relativity are a stationary observer will find (1) the length of a fast-moving object is less than if the object was at rest, and (2) the passage of time on the fast-moving object is slower than if the object was at rest. However, an observer inside the fast-moving object sees everything inside as their normal length and time passes normally, but all of the lengths in the world outside are shrunk and the outside world's clocks are running slow. "

... Now, why is it that so-called physicists here - as well as the bozos - are arguing against the fact that the experience of space and time is a qualitative variant when in fact this is just rudimentary knowledge regarding Einstein's work?

More cherry-picking by Lifegrazer, who ignores THIS from the SAME extract:

Since the laws of physics do not depend on your location or motion, Einstein reasoned that the speed of light will be measured to be the same by any two observers regardless of their velocity relative to each other. For example, if one observer is in a rocket moving toward another person at half the speed of light and both observers measure the speed of a beam of light emitted by the rocket, the person at rest will get the same value the person in the rocket ship measures (about 300,000 kilometers/second) instead of 1.5 times the speed of light (=rocket speed + speed of beam of light). This assumption has now been shown to be correct in many experiments.

In other words, the speed of light IS ABSOLUTE as cited by the very reference that YOU chose, Lifegrazer.

If the qualitative value of your experience of time or space was invariant, then none of what you read above, would be true.

No.
(TM, PixyMisa 2005)