New perspectives on Relativity

[RussDill]

Russ, any event/point of spacetime is defined via 4 co-ordinates. Correct?
Okay, let's consider the train-experiment again: This time, however, we paint a sharp-point on the front and rear of the train, so that these two points represent two points of spacetime:-

ok

So, if I see a train shorter than you see a train - and I see time moving slower on that train than you do -

You are making direct measurements of space and time, not spacetime.

then the front & back of that train (the points we painted) are going to be occupying different co-ordinates of spacetime. I.e., we dispute where, in spacetime, the front-point and back-point of that train exists.
Correct?

Nope, like I said, you are just measuring space and time.

Russ, you need to justify this claim.
The only way you can do this is to prove that there exists a point in 'spacetime' where EVERYBODY sees the same event.

Everyone in spacetime sees the same spacetime, for any and every point in spacetime. Perhaps you should read up on the concept of "spacetime" and understand what it actually is.

Oh, wait, you might be corrupted by the establishment, on second though, run away lifegazer, run away! The establishment is trying to get you with books!

 

[lifegazer]

You never followed up on this promise you made 5 or 6 posts from the bottom of the previous page. Is this because there is no absolute tomorrow?

No. It's because I forgot. It's because I start threads and can induce 200 posts in a day - sometimes. I'm sorry - really. I hate making promises to people and forgeting that promise. I swear by Zeus that if you repost the relevant post and remind me that this was the post that I promised to respond to, that I will answer you.
I wouldn't have promised to respond if it wasn't a good post - yet I do remember making such a promise. However, my night is drawing to an end and I don't want to spend half of what's left of it looking for that specific post. Please repost it. Forgive me for my wandering focus.

 

[lifegazer]

You are making direct measurements of space and time, not spacetime.

No Russ. The front & rear-points of that train exist at 4 co-ordinates of spacetime.
However, those co-ordinates are going to vary, as explained.

If your co-ordinates are different to mine, then there's no abolute co-ordinates for those points.

End of game.

 

[RussDill]

No Russ. The front & rear-points of that train exist at 4 co-ordinates of spacetime.
However, those co-ordinates are going to vary, as explained.

If your co-ordinates are different to mine, then there's no abolute co-ordinates for those points.

End of game.

you are viewing the points in aristotle's view of reality.

Aristotle views space as having 3 dimensions, and time, being a 4th dimension that describes which moment it is.

This is *not* spacetime. In spacetime, you are not just measuring distance, or time, you are measuring spacetime. Making measurements is a different process.

Example, Lets say there is a light flash, and somewhere that light flash hits, points A and B. From the space and time view, depending on relative velocity, the time between the two events is going to vary along with the distance between the two points. In spacetime, the points remain the same, the distance of spacetime between them remains the same. The different viewpoints from the perspective of space and time just come from different angles.

Like a triangle. The hypotenuse will always remain the same length, but if you are trying to make it into a right triangle, and all you have is the hypotenuse length, you will get different lengths for the sides based on the angle you assume the hypotenuse is from the base.

 

[Z]

Yep, I just refreshed myself on some of the graphic aides for spacetime. Sorry, lg, but in spacetime, those points are absolute. Hence, spacetime becomes a form of absolute - and by your own warped logic, spacetime is therefore real.

Welcome back to reality - enjoy yourself before the worms get you.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Einstein showed that events are not simultaneous when viewed from reference frames moving with respect to one another. This actually can be proven using nothing but Trigonometry and velocity vectors with the "train experiment". He showed that time and space are relative measures for different frames of reference.

What he then did was show that they can be reconciled by considering time a dimension along with space, the so-called 'spacetime' four-dimensions. It does not remove the non-simultaneity of events as measured, but shows that there is an absolute 'fabric' onto which events can be mapped. It does exist, you just don't understand it...

Instead of using websites for learning about Relativity Theory, why not read the genius himself. It takes a couple of reads to get the gist of what he's saying (if you're not a Physics major of any sort), but "Relativity: The Special and the General Theory - A Clear Explanation That Anyone Can Understand" by Albert himself is a great introduction. It's ony 150 pages, so reading and rereading should only be a matter of a week or two at most.

 

[kuroyume0161]

I should like to mention that this 'thesis' (very loosely titled) is brought to you by the same person who tried to show that the speed of sound is invariant, up is down, and black is white.

LG, have you ever heard of Orwell?

 

[Filip Sandor]

... The problem is that the parameters are different/variant. Therefore, the values we assign to the SOL are not the same. Therefore, the SOL (as perceived) is not an absolute.

You're right, I would see the light from a different angle than you, but that wouldn't change the light, only the 'light' you perceive, which isn't the real light.

Our perception of the light appears to have a more 'direct' correlation to the activity in our brain than the actual light. This correlation can be deduced from the fact that we know the light is filtered through the brain before perception occurs. Not only is there a long chain of reactions of many causes and effects in the brain before the end result, which is the perception, there is no logical basis for us to conclude the nature of the perception except by faith that the perception exists. We simply trust that whoever participates in these experiments is describing a perception that actually exists, like the ones we experience and know exist - even then there is logical correlation between the activity in the brain and the perception in the mind.

The perception and the physical 'mirror image' which is basically a physical 'code' in our brain (activated by stimulus external to the brain itself) are both qualitatively different from the external stimulus and is therefore not the external stimulus so beyond proving that your theory is wrong, that experiment from your other post doesn't shed any real light on anything!!

 

[lifegazer]

It does not remove the non-simultaneity of events as measured, but shows that there is an absolute 'fabric' onto which events can be mapped. It does exist, you just don't understand it...

I do understand it. That fabric is awareness itself, for that is where space and time are perceived.
Einstein never proved that there is something real that is not yourself. Anybody who claims otherwise is just a muppet.
Including Einstein.

btw, I have his book.

 

[lifegazer]

Re: Re: New perspectives on Relativity

You're right, I would see the light from a different angle than you, but that wouldn't change the light, only the 'light' you perceive, which isn't the real light.

Our perception of the light appears to have a more 'direct' correlation to the activity in our brain than the actual light. This correlation can be deduced from the fact that we know the light is filtered through the brain before perception occurs.

This is all made-up nonsense that assumes the existence of real light and a real brain. Sorry, but I don't do philosophy with people who cannot move beyond such base assumptions.
Prove to me that there is something external to yourself and I will gladly listen to your theories about real light and real brains.

 

[P.S.A.]

Re: Re: Re: New perspectives on Relativity

This is all made-up nonsense that assumes the existence of real light and a real brain. Sorry, but I don't do philosophy with people who cannot move beyond such base assumptions.
Prove to me that there is something external to yourself and I will gladly listen to your theories about real light and real brains.

I agree with you again Lifegazer; I cannot prove to you that you have a real brain. Or that Einstein, who you state agrees with your conclusions, wasn't a plonker, when he clearly was.

And anyway, I'm too busy being evil. Today, I met a woman whose child had died young, and I pointed to a man at random and said "God took your child and gave you the misery of loss... and that man over there is God". Ahh, you should have seen the mess she made of him, Lifegazer! Now, it probably doesn't rank highly on the Hitler scale, but then Hitler was such a petty little racist really, I aim to get every man to kill every other man... And with this wonderful idea that every man is the same God, who is responsible for everything, I'm going to find it very easy to do! Now if you'll excuse me...

"Sir, sir... did you know that the woman over there is responsible for Credit Card companies? No? Then let me explain..."

See you in Hell, Lifegazer!

 

[Atlas]

I swear by Zeus that if you repost the relevant post and remind me that this was the post that I promised to respond to, that I will answer you.

Here it is then,by Zeus.

 

[kuroyume0161]

I do understand it. That fabric is awareness itself, for that is where space and time are perceived.
Einstein never proved that there is something real that is not yourself. Anybody who claims otherwise is just a muppet.
Including Einstein.

btw, I have his book.

Obviously, you do not understand it. Einstein in no way was using any theory to show reality or what it was. He was trying to reconcile the apparent problems of the theory of Ether with the measured speed of light always being the same. He did so by removing the notion of 'the Ether' altogether and in the process showed that time and space were not absolute frames of reference in themselves. He did this by assuming, correctly, that the speed of light is invariant to all observers in any reference frame. Other facets of light vary, but not the speed. Since no medium could be discerned as the carrier of light, he made the bold, and again correct, posit that light's medium is the universe itself - the so-called 'spacetime'.

Now you come along and try to 'prove' that the speed of light is a variable for your 'it's all mind' hypothesis. Whom should I believe?

 

[lifegazer]

Obviously, you do not understand it. Einstein in no way was using any theory to show reality or what it was. He was trying to reconcile the apparent problems of the theory of Ether with the measured speed of light always being the same. He did so by removing the notion of 'the Ether' altogether and in the process showed that time and space were not absolute frames of reference in themselves. He did this by assuming, correctly, that the speed of light is invariant to all observers in any reference frame. Other facets of light vary, but not the speed. Since no medium could be discerned as the carrier of light, he made the bold, and again correct, posit that light's medium is the universe itself - the so-called 'spacetime'.

Now you come along and try to 'prove' that the speed of light is a variable for your 'it's all mind' hypothesis. Whom should I believe?

The speed of light is qualitatively variable in that the defining parameters of light's speed (distance and time) are qualitatively variable (relative).
I'm sure you understand what I mean.

Why don't you ask yourself a few questions:
If there's a world "out there" and there are real objects emiting real photons that travel through real spacetime at x m/s, then why is it that my velocity relative to that photon does not affect my measurement of it's velocity?

If there's a real world out there with real spacetime, why is it that my motion/velocity actually affects the very substance/fabric of that spacetime? If I accelerate and see spacetime differently to you, then my motion has tangibly affected the spacetime around me.

These sort of questions highlight the folly of believing in the reality of an "out there". When 6 billion people have the potential to see 6 billion different realities, it should be obvious to even a man of low intelligence (not yourself of course) that what we are seeing is a subjective image residing within our own minds.

Furthermore, the numerical constancy of lightspeed can be explained in that the Mind itself is the source of all perceived light - and not the object that one perceives because of that light.
Like I said earlier, light gives rise to the perception of the Sun. Not vice versa.

If you seek to understand this, you shall, for it is not difficult to understand.

 

[Atlas]

The speed of light is qualitatively variable in that the defining parameters of light's speed (distance and time) are qualitatively variable (relative).
I'm sure you understand what I mean.

If by qualitatively variable you mean that different inertial frames affect perceptions of "simultaneaous" spacetime events then there is little I'd disagree with. I don't think that is what you mean though. From a photon's perspective there is no time. We may percieve the passing of 8 minutes while a photon originating on the sun traverses space and stikes the earth but to the photon not one second passes. The speed of light is as close to an absolute as you find in our universe.

Furthermore, the numerical constancy of lightspeed can be explained in that the Mind itself is the source of all perceived light - and not the object that one perceives because of that light.
Like I said earlier, light gives rise to the perception of the Sun. Not vice versa.

Perhaps but in saying so you suggest that the mind is the source of all perceived darkness. There, Lg, is where you seem to dwell.

If you seek to understand this, you shall, for it is not difficult to understand.

Likewise, in a subjective universe if one assumes that squirrels proceed from the unions of cats and dogs one can seek to understand it and it will not be difficult to understand.

It just don't make it true.

 

[rppa]

Why don't you ask yourself a few questions:
If there's a world "out there" and there are real objects emiting real photons that travel through real spacetime at x m/s, then why is it that my velocity relative to that photon does not affect my measurement of it's velocity?

But we already have a theory for that. It's a mathematical theory called "special relativity". In particular, there's the equation called "composition of velocities". That equation tells us that if you measure something to have a velocity of x, and I am moving relative to you at v, then the velocity I measure for that thing is

x' = (x - v)/(1-(xv/c^2))

And we understand that this in turn is due to the way measurements of distance and time are affected by relative motion.

If you let x = c, the velocity x' is (c-v)/(1-(v/c)) = (c-v)*c/(c-v) = c

See? When you actually study the equations there's quite a detailed story to tell. This formula tells you that for low velocities, x' is only a little different from the value x-v you'd expect under Galilean physics, but the difference gets progressively larger as x increases, to the limiting case of x'=x when x=c.

If there's a real world out there with real spacetime, why is it that my motion/velocity actually affects the very substance/fabric of that spacetime? If I accelerate and see spacetime differently to you, then my motion has tangibly affected the spacetime around me.

That's your misunderstanding. Motion affects measurements of time and distance (and therefore velocity). It doesn't affect spacetime.

These sort of questions highlight the folly of believing in the reality of an "out there". When 6 billion people have the potential to see 6 billion different realities

This is your biggest fallacy: That if any two people disagree on anything, then all people must disagree on everything. Non sequitur: It does not follow.

 

[Upchurch]

Why don't you ask yourself a few questions:
If there's a world "out there" and there are real objects emiting real photons that travel through real spacetime at x m/s, then why is it that my velocity relative to that photon does not affect my measurement of it's velocity?

That's an easy one, as seen here. Velocities are not simply additive. That is:

v_total = v₁ + v₂

is false. That is not how velocities add. Instead, velocites add according to the following manner:

v_total = (v₁ + v₂)/(1 + v₁v₂/c²)

or, alternatively:

v₁ = (v_total - v₂)/(1 - v_totalv₂/c²)

eta: d'oh. rppa beat me to it.

If there's a real world out there with real spacetime, why is it that my motion/velocity actually affects the very substance/fabric of that spacetime? If I accelerate and see spacetime differently to you, then my motion has tangibly affected the spacetime around me.

No, actually you see space and time differently. Spacetime is not any different, beyond the curvature enduced by your mass/energy.

These sort of questions highlight the folly of believing in the reality of an "out there".

Well, no. What it does is highlight the folly of assuming that the universe behaves exactly as our light, slow-moving, medium-scaled, every day world behaves. Fact is, simple velocity addition is an okay approximation for relatively slow moving objects, but is not accurate enough when talking about near-c speeds.

When 6 billion people have the potential to see 6 billion different realities, it should be obvious to even a man of low intelligence (not yourself of course) that what we are seeing is a subjective image residing within our own minds.

Ah, but you cannot prove that they are seeing 6 billion different realities, only 6 billion different points of view. And most of those only have slight differences dependant upon proximity.

That would be physical proximity, you'll note. What would a man of intelligence conclude about two people in the same inertial reference frame in approximately the same geographic location having approximately the same point of view of an event? Is the point of view dependant upon the observer or the observer's location?

Furthermore, the numerical constancy of lightspeed can be explained in that the Mind itself is the source of all perceived light - and not the object that one perceives because of that light.
Like I said earlier, light gives rise to the perception of the Sun. Not vice versa.

It could be explained that way, but it leaves all sorts of problems such as the dependancy upon proximity. Materialism can explain not only the constancy of c but also why observers in proximity witness the same event with only slight variations in perception.

If you seek to understand this, you shall, for it is not difficult to understand.

I understand what you are saying, but it is not sufficent to explain the entire situation.

 

[lifegazer]

There is nothing about the universe that Einstein thought required human awareness to exist.

One thing is certain: relative time and relative space can only exist within awareness.

It's been pointed out that there exists no absolute shoe size but shoes still exist.

Do they?

Am I mistaken, in your philosophy are there also no shoes?

In my philosophy, there's only You.

Is it because there is no absolute shoe size that we know shoes do not exist? Although you offered this to Pahansiri I was wondering if you would consider taking it yourself.

It's a daft question. The variable size of shoes (plural) cannot be used as the basis for arguing that there are no shoes or that shoes only exist within awareness.
On the other hand, the variable quality of spacetime suggests that what we see cannot be what is real since reality must be singular.

The links you provide do mention absolutes in terms of light. But you have disagreed with the speed of light as an absolute.

Not the numerical value, but the qualitative value of the parameters - being a variant - means that x m/s is a qualitative variant.
Does '3 rocks' mean something absolute? No, since there is a variation of rock size (we'll disregard the fact that there are various types of rock).
If I tell you that 3 rocks from outer-space are headed for your hometown, then your reaction will depend upon the size of those rocks.

My argument regarding x m/s is very-much the same.

You misrepresent Einsteinian concepts of spacetime but accept him as your expert.

My position is that Einstein inadvertantly proved that the world exists within awareness. He was a genius in his own right, but he didn't link his work to reality, probably because philosophy wasn't his main concern.

If it's all false why refer to the authority of it.

Which bit is false?

You do the same with QM. You simultaneously accept it and reject it saying it proves what it doesn't even address.

No I don't. I use knowledge that links to my philosophy. Nonlocality, for instance.

How does the lack of absolutes in the illusion of the Absolute prove the existence of the Absolute.

Something is absolutely real. But it aint the world.
The lack of absolutes in "the world" proves that there is no world.

 

[Upchurch]

Do they?

You may doubt the existance of shoes, but what of experience? This thread has been all about how different people have different experiences. There is no absolute experience, yet you allow that experience exists. "absolute" is not necessary for existance.

 

[P.S.A.]

A TESTIMONIAL: LIFEGAZER WINS A GENUINE CONVERT

I have a testimonial to make; I have seen the light, my brain has enlarged, and I have embraced the Truth, with all the delightful consequences attendent upon doing so. I have Lifegazer to thank for this, and I wish now to testify towards the wonderful difference accepting his arguments can make for your existance too.

The realisation of the sheer power of realising we are all God hit me earlier today, when I was idly partaking of one of my minor hobbies at the supermarket: One can spends a few pleasurable moments in adding extra items into people's shopping baskets when their attention is elsewhere, you know... But as I was doing so, a memory of Lifegazer's comparison of what I was doing to Hitler returned into my consciousness. I started to ponder on how small what I was doing was... Indeed, how small even Hitler himself was. After all, whilst undoubtably Evil, once he'd killed all the Jews, the Communists, the Blacks, the disabled, the Romany, Americans, and anyone who sang that song about the Albert Hall, even Hitler might feel one day that'd he'd killed enough people... And is that Evil enough?

What we needed, I mused, was an ideology which encouraged you to not only hate certain other people, but one which taught you to hate everything, including yourself. And then it struck me, like a baby dropped from a skyscraper onto an old lady... We HAD such a "philosophy"... It was Lifegazer's philosophy! Why bother with petty racism, or sexism, or any other limited -ism you can concieve of, when you can just declare the cause of your anger is... everything! Just think; when there can only be one ultimate cause, which is everything, there will be no end to the things you can hate and destroy. In your face, Hitler! 12 million victims? Lifegazer has given us the universe to hate!

Now, I realise not all of you are arch-fiends like myself, and destroying everything may be a little beyond you: so here are the ways that embracing Lifegazer's "philosophy" can help YOU, the lowly mortal...

* Have you ever left work, with your boss's petty criticisms still ringing in your ears, and wished you'd said something smart back to him to put him in his place? Well, good news! It doesn't matter who you say it too, as everyone is God, and therefore your boss... Curse and swear at the next person you see!

* Someone cuts you up on the road, nearly killing you? After getting out of the car, punch the nearest person in the face... Take that, God! After all, it's all the same come singularity!

* Someone criticizes your thoughts on a web board? Firebomb the local nursing home... God won't be cricizing you again!

It's ALL Good... or rather, it's all GOD, so go wild!

Now, some of you serfs may be too afraid to embrace Universal Godhood, despite all the nasty things the Universe does to you... You are too trapped in the illusion of being Human, and being bound by Human conventions, to realise how much free choice you have. Some of you might even feel a little guilty about what this allows you to do; But look at it like this, however... Some of you feel dirty about masturbating too. Yet who is anyone else to tell you how you can treat yourself, right? They are your bits, to do with as you wish, aren't they?
Well, guess what?! Not only are other people actually you/God, but there isn't anyone else to say what you can do with these bits of yourself! Treat them as you wish! Tell yourself what a naughty God you are for doing it, if that makes it more exciting for you, but the only limitations are the ones you apply to yourself...! Knock yourself out... or rather, knock the other yourself out!

And if you STILL feel trapped in servitude, well all you need to do is place your hand upon your forehead and say "I forgive you". And being God yourself, away goes the guilt!

Ahhh... can't you just see it now?! An almost Hobbsian state of nature, every day the most unimaginable evils committed... and we owe it all to Lifegazer! Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, THANK YOU! For what the world is about to recieve, I thank you from the bottom of my twisted, black heart!