New perspectives on Relativity

[H'ethetheth]

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

Do they?

Lifegazer,

Since I am responsible for bringing up this particular example I should inform you that you may read "perceived" before any of the shoes and sizes.

perceived shoes exist, they have a perceived size to fit one's perceived feet. There is no universal perceived size for perceived shoes, yet perceived shoe sizes do exist.
The argument remains the same.

Edit:

Oh, and concerning this...

...On the other hand, the variable quality of spacetime suggests that what we see cannot be what is real since reality must be singular.

...I refer you to one of my earlier posts.

 

[lifegazer]

perceived shoes exist, they have a perceived size to fit one's perceived feet. There is no universal perceived size for perceived shoes, yet perceived shoe sizes do exist.
The argument remains the same.

You don't understand. Since there is more than one shoe, shoes can be different sizes. However, since there is only one real universe (or no real universe), that universe must have objects with definite size (singular values of volume) that are all separated by definite length (singular values of distance).

The argument about shoes is a duff argument because there are many of them. If there was only one shoe, then that shoe would have to have a definite size.
If there was only one shoe and nobody could agree what size it was, you'd soon acknowledge that your perception of length is subjective and internal. Well, the same principle applies to One Universe.


I regard your other post as silly.

 

[RussDill]

I do understand it. That fabric is awareness itself, for that is where space and time are perceived.

That definately is not what einstein said, so stop trying to associate your theory with einstein or relativity, caus it has nothing to do with it.

Einstein never proved that there is something real that is not yourself. Anybody who claims otherwise is just a muppet.
Including Einstein.

You claimed that relativity someone proves that spacetime doesn't exist. Now your claim is down to einstein never disproved the notion that only the "I" exists? Again, we are down to the base assumption for your philosophy.

"no one can prove that anything exists beyond themselves, therefore, I have proven that nothing exists beyond myself..."

btw, I have his book.

read it?

 

[RussDill]

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.

No, it's based on direct study of the interaction of the concept that we call the brain, and the concept that we call light. Assume what you want about the true existence of the brain, and the true existence of light, it doesn't change the science behind it.

Prove to me that there is something external to yourself and I will gladly listen to your theories about real light and real brains.

It doesn't matter whether or not it fits your definition of "real", the interaciton still occurs. I think you need to take a step back and realize that the only "evidince" that you have for your philosophy is that no one is able to prove to you that anything exists beyond yourself.

 

[Upchurch]

The argument about shoes is a duff argument because there are many of them. If there was only one shoe, then that shoe would have to have a definite size.
If there was only one shoe and nobody could agree what size it was, you'd soon acknowledge that your perception of length is subjective and internal. Well, the same principle applies to One Universe.

So, wait. Are you now saying that "absolute" means "singular"?

I regard your other post as silly.

It isn't silly. It is a very pertenent question. However, even if it is silly then shouldn't it be easy to address?

 

[lifegazer]

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.

Correction: absolute is not necessary for experience. Hence the relative variances of experience.

When we ponder existence and acknowledge that Something is definitely real, then whatever facts relate to that ~thing~ are absolute. They are definitely true.

 

[Upchurch]

Correction: absolute is not necessary for experience. Hence the relative variances of experience.

Why? Aren't experiences real?

When we ponder existence and acknowledge that Something is definitely real, then whatever facts relate to that ~thing~ are absolute. They are definitely true.

Okay, then under that very bizarre definition of "absolute", which is different from the definition used by physicists, there is no way to determine that spacetime is "absolute", nor is there any way to determine that spacetime is not "absolute".

 

[RussDill]

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.

Distance and time do not define the speed of light in general relativity. The properties of electricity and magnetism do. And I'm sorry, the speed of light is never relative in any way, if you could show it to be, I'm sure everyone would be interested in listening.

On a similar note, any difference in measurement of time and/or space arise from the fact that the types of measurements we are used to taking assume that time and space are seperate dimensions.

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?

Is your mind too small to imagine a reality with a maximum velocity? The photon is always the same speed because it travels along the edge of it's lightcone.

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?

Well, good thing, it doesn't effect spacetime. It only effects the tired old notions of space and time.

If I accelerate and see spacetime differently to you, then my motion has tangibly affected the spacetime around me.

Again, wrong, wrong, wrong, the correct statement is:

If I accelerate and see space and time differently to you, then my motion has tangibly affected the space and time around me

If you want to show differently, go right ahead

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.

Again, we all see different realities regardless of the fact that we live in a spacetime. I can see the sun right now, a whole bunch of people can't right now. For me, camelback mountain looks pretty big right now, for other people, it looks really small. For me at night, stars looks twinkly, for the hubble, they look clear and sharp. Spacetime is just another part of reality that we are not intuitively used to.

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.

You wanna address the fact yet that this applies to sound? I didn't think so, you'll continue to ignore this argument, pretend it doesn't exist, and hope that it goes away.

Like I said earlier, light gives rise to the perception of the Sun. Not vice versa.

Nobody here is arguing that the sun gives rise to the perception of light. Everyone here agrees that we perceive the sun because of the light it emits.

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

Lifegazer, get this straight, EVERYONE can understand your philosophy, anyone who has been here for any length of time understands it.

 

[lifegazer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: New perspectives on Relativity

No, it's based on direct study of the interaction of the concept that we call the brain, and the concept that we call light. Assume what you want about the true existence of the brain, and the true existence of light, it doesn't change the science behind it.

Silly remark. If no brain exists - except as an illusion - then science suggesting that the brain causes us to sense light is obviously silly science.
In other words, the science we propose is dependent upon the reality we prefer to see.

Unfortunately, as I've stated many times, what we see is internal to awareness/Self... and since there's no proof of a reality beyond Yourself all scientific theories dependent upon such a reality are without merit.
This is especially true as no such theories (like the brain causes sensations) have ever been (and will never be) proven.

Ask yourselves why science should pledge allegiance to an unfounded belief which is responsible for the direction of it's research.

Look at theories about the big bang, for example. How much time has been spent on trying to explain the origin of the perception of the universe?
All that time wasted. It's bleedin' obvious that the perception of the universe originated from whatever it is that you are. We don't even know about a real universe and yet so much time has been devoted to explain the origin of this ghost.

I told you, science is in dire need of reform. It's obvious really, but allegiances such as the belief in a real world are not easy to ditch, en masse.

 

[Upchurch]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New perspectives on Relativity

there's no proof of a reality beyond Yourself

What proof do you have of yourself?

 

[lifegazer]

Is your mind too small to imagine a reality with a maximum velocity? The photon is always the same speed because it travels along the edge of it's lightcone.

So, the real universe is full of invisible cones?

You might think that's a silly question. It aint.

Need a break. Might address the rest later.

 

[Wudang]

Oh dear. Lifegazer again demonstrates his inability to pay attention.

Science does not make that assumption. To repeat it yet again when it been explained to you many times only serves as one more thing that makes you appear foolish.

The sensations do not arise from with that which we perceive ourselves to be. To decide anything at all exists other than what we perceive ourselves to be is an assumption. As demonstrated to you over again.

And don't dodge the fact that your silly argument also applies to sound.

And probably tennis balls come to that.

 

[RussDill]

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

Kinda what einstein said. Time and space as independant quantities do not exist.

In my philosophy, there's only You.

Well, there is your identity, sense of self, which is "You", and then outside of that, there is god, and his blueprint of the universe which he feeds to your individual awareness...Address this conflict in your philosophy.

On the other hand, the variable quality of spacetime suggests that what we see cannot be what is real since reality must be singular.

Bzzzt, sorry, no, spacetime is not a variable quantity as you describe it.

Not the numerical value, but the qualitative value of the parameters - being a variant - means that x m/s is a qualitative variant.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

qualitative
relating to or involving comparisons based on qualities

Plase, by all means, tell us how any of the paramaters vary based on quality. Is the distance salty? The time sour?

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.

Right, but if three electrons are headed for my hometown, I won't be worried. Why? Because all electrons are the same. Just like the speed of light is always the same.

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

Ok, you've shown that the quantity that differers between the three rocks is the mass. You are clamining now that there is some *quality* that varies within the speed of light. Please tell us what that quality is.

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.

Probably because you have no clue what you are talking about...

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

Which you also don't understand. Can you tell us if the property of non-locality can be used to transmit information faster than light? Can you tell us how? Simple questions, no one else answer, please.

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

Guess what, if you philosophy demands absolutes, demands that there must be a concept of simultaneous events, it falls apart, because there are no simultaneous events. Also, I've pointed out how your philosophy falls aparent because of sequences of events being out of order.

 

[Upchurch]

So, the real universe is full of invisible cones?

No, you're taking it too literally. The light cone is a mathematical construct that represents the maximum propogation of information in any 3-dimensional direction over time. The light cone is not a litteral 3-dimensional cone floating in space.

Each point in space has two hyperdimensional light cones attached to it. Every spacetime event (a.k.a. point) within the light cone has the possibility of effecting or being effected by that point in space at time. Everything outside the light cone cannot effect or be effected by that point. (note: we're ignoring Quantum effects for simplicity and the fact that I'm not sure how it plays into this model)

You might think that's a silly question. It aint.

I don't think it's silly and even if I did, I still answered it. You might consider answering your "silly questions".

 

[RussDill]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New perspectives on Relativity

Silly remark. If no brain exists - except as an illusion - then science suggesting that the brain causes us to sense light is obviously silly science.
In other words, the science we propose is dependent upon the reality we prefer to see.

The piece of matter we call the brain responds to light. There is no argument against that. There is a correlation to the brain indicating the sensation of light, and us actually sensing it.

You argue that the correlation is all a big ruse, to fool us or what not. Whatever, A vast illusion is purposely fooling us to think that is true. You can claim a lot of things if you say a vast intelligence is completely in control of your reality. Hell, you can't even trust your thoughts, they might be inserted.

Unfortunately, as I've stated many times, what we see is internal to awareness/Self... and since there's no proof of a reality beyond Yourself all scientific theories dependent upon such a reality are without merit.

You can ignore this as long as you want. But even in your philosophy, the source of what we see is external to our own awareness and sense of self. Go ahead, plug your ears, sing lalalala.

This is especially true as no such theories (like the brain causes sensations) have ever been (and will never be) proven.

If your philosophy is true, then the motor functions that output from the brain come from somewhere else besides the brain. It would mean that electrical impulses in the brain do not follow the laws of physics. This would be a very easy thing to discover. Given the amount of analysis done on the brain, I think we would have noticed by now if it doesn't follow physical laws, don't you?

Ask yourselves why science should pledge allegiance to an unfounded belief which is responsible for the direction of it's research.

Again, it doesn't matter if the world is real, or the dream of a unicorn, if it follows a set of laws, it can be studied by science.

Look at theories about the big bang, for example. How much time has been spent on trying to explain the origin of the perception of the universe?

The big bang theories don't care about how we perceive the universe.

All that time wasted. It's bleedin' obvious that the perception of the universe originated from whatever it is that you are. We don't even know about a real universe and yet so much time has been devoted to explain the origin of this ghost.

So, then all science is a waste, why try to explain the origin of any of our perceptions based on the reality we view, right? Like volcanic erruptions, the emit from our awareness, so why study them?

Do you not think that science has advanced by studying such things, and given us predictive power on future events?

I told you, science is in dire need of reform. It's obvious really, but allegiances such as the belief in a real world are not easy to ditch, en masse.

The only reform you are asking for is that science stop studying things because they aren't real.

 

[RussDill]

So, the real universe is full of invisible cones?

It's a costruct within spacetime that represents an event's future and past.

 

[P.S.A.]

Need a break. Might address the rest later.

Please do... I need more converts to my evil ways!

So what are you having for dinner LG? I'm having the next door neighbour's cat on a bed of lettuce... it's still struggling a bit though, could you come and whack it with the meat tenderizer a bit? Oh, don't worry about the blood going everywhere, I forgive you for that!

 

[Atlas]

In my philosophy, there's only You.

This can't be right. What about *I*?. As a matter of fact, you seem to be saying that all that exists is the appreciation of the illusion conjured by awareness.

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.

I am if the opinion that an exploration of your position would clear up many of the inconsistancies that offend sensibilities on both sides of the question.

My position is that you don't understand what "prove" means or are using the term so loosely as to have little meaning. Einstein assumed a real material universe exists. You have to start with that assumption and logically show that his theories are groundless or absurd. So far you have introduced the term "absolute" and have used a few different implied definitions, mostly inaccurately, and then based on a shifting meaning asserted that, concerning spacetime, nonabsoluteness implies nonexistence. You tried to tighten the definition to relate singular and absolute and this could really use additional clarification.

After all, if your words have no meaning, (proof, absolute, You) then your philosophy has no meaning. Don't you agree?

First off, are you even willing to assume, for the sake of argument, that the material universe of Einstein exists so that your logic in making the notion absurd is exposed?

The lack of absolutes in "the world" proves that there is no world.

You seem to know what you mean but I don't think anyone else does. Perhaps this will be clarified when you assume a material world exists and then reduce the notions we have of it to absurdity. Perhaps you think that is what you've been doing but in fact you have never come close.

Your arguments are all weird like "a boat is a horse". Why? Because neither exists except within awareness. They are of identical immaterial substance and are equivalent - if I say so... nothing is absolute, nonexistence is nothing, so a boat is absolutely a horse.

That is an example of how difficult it can be to follow your logic. None of your debates make explicit what your assumptions are. This argument is about Einstein and should start with his assumptions to show how they support your "truer" reality.

 

[Pahansiri]

. However, since there is only one real universe (or no real universe), that universe must have objects with definite size (singular values of volume) that are all separated by definite length (singular values of distance).

Well, the same principle applies to One Universe.

And where is your proof there is only one universe? You kake a statment of fact that there is only 1 universe, please show me this proof.

 

[H'ethetheth]

...I regard your other post as silly.

Great, but could you at least answer the last question for me?

"Do you consider it possible that your theory does not describe the ultimate truth?"