New perspectives on Relativity

[Z]

Huh, can you rephrase that? it makes no sense.

Not without losing precision... I'm no wordsmith; what I said above is exactly what I mean, within the limits of my understanding of language.

There are definite values of spacetime that separate objects. How those values are communicated may vary based upon the one doing the measuring - units, etc - but that spacetime remains the same, regardless of who is measuring it.

The measurement of said spacetime may vary due to the movement of the person making the measurements in relation to the movement of the objects involved - this is where relative observer bias starts to come in. However, that movement also has a definite value that relates observer to observed.

For example, if I set up a scenario whereby I am measuring the distance between two stars as I pass by them at 25,000 Kph relative to my own planet of origin - and that planet, in relation to the two stars, is moving through space away from them at 12,000 Kph - this establishes a frame of reference for the entire problem, in which my motion, the motion of the two stars being measured, etc. all go into a single calculation that will give me a definite value of the spacetime between the two stars. It also gives enough knowledge to be able to cancel out observer relativity and come up with a single, definite value for those measurements.

(Over-simplified, but the core concepts are there)

In other words, relativity admits to measurements being different with relation to frames of reference, but also includes the means to calculate to take those frames into account - thereby resulting in definitive values.

Sorry, Bodhi - some things can't be rephrased easily by one who thinks in symbols.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

There are definite values of spacetime that separate objects. How those values are communicated may vary based upon the one doing the measuring - units, etc - but that spacetime remains the same, regardless of who is measuring it.

I think this is false. You are resurrecting Newtonian concept of space, this is, absolute space (and I can presume absolute time). But relativity accounts for distortions of the space/time continuum that are related to the point of view of an observer.

The best example I can think to account the relativity regarding observers is this:

Suppose there is just one object in the universe. Is it moving? or is it still? (If the space was absolute there would be a way to measure this).

Another variant.

Suppose there were just two objects in the entire universe, their positions are changing, are the two in motion? just one? are they in motion in respect to what? according to which relative point of view?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

duplicated post, can the administrators FIX the option to delete posts????

 

[Z]

I think this is false. You are resurrecting Newtonian concept of space, this is, absolute space (and I can presume absolute time). But relativity accounts for distortions of the space/time continuum that are related to the point of view of an observer.

The best example I can think to account the relativity regarding observers is this:

Suppose there is just one object in the universe. Is it moving? or is it still? (If the space was absolute there would be a way to measure this).

Another variant.

Suppose there were just two objects in the entire universe, their positions are changing, are the two in motion? just one? are they in motion in respect to what? according to which relative point of view?

If there is only one object in the universe, there is no way to measure it... since there is no external thing to measure it.

If there are only two objects in the universe and their positions are changing, there is still a definite measure of spacetime between them. Which is in motion is the relative notion. With respects to an arbitrary central point, both are in motion; with respect to either one, the other is in motion; yet definite values of spacetime exist between them.

Simple... so simple.

 

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
There are definite values of spacetime that separate objects. How those values are communicated may vary based upon the one doing the measuring - units, etc - but that spacetime remains the same, regardless of who is measuring it.

I think this is false. You are resurrecting Newtonian concept of space, this is, absolute space (and I can presume absolute time). But relativity accounts for distortions of the space/time continuum that are related to the point of view of an observer.

Pardon me for butting in, but you cannot reason with this guy.

... He asserts that there are definite (universal/absolute) values of spacetime that separate real objects in the real world, yet nobody in the whole world can give you even one set of values separating such objects, including him.
... Why? Because the only values he can provide for you ]are the ones THAT HE HIMSELF PERCEIVES... and, of course, these vales are RELATIVE.

This is the whole crux of the matter upon which I have presented my argument, yet everyone just sweeps it under the rug and pretends that it doesn't matter.

Furthermore, Einstein himself said that no such values exist.

No absolute values of separation = no separation.

No separation = no real world.

No real world = Only You exist.

Only You exist = You are God.

 

[Atlas]

Lg, you said,

Not everybody in this forum is daft. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that the values of distance and time between two real objects must be a definite.

I was wondering if a toilet is a definite thing to you. Isn't using one kind of a refutation of your belief. A toilet doesn't really exist - only your experience of toilets exists.

Likewise, no matter how much you may think otherwise, there is a definite real distance between you and your toilet at all times. If there weren't you might decide to relieve yourself in your own easy chair knowing that by simply ordaining your reality all chairs are toilets.

I know you're reluctant to perform miracles for us because we don't believe in your philosophy, but since you do believe maybe you could report on this - or start a new thread - "My chair is my toilet, Now will you believe!"

Ok, this may seem absurd but it's a tactic to show that ther is no way for you to be congruent with your stated beliefs. Either you are God and independent of the material world or you are afraid of your own crap.

I do want a response to this if you can. Somehow you are in the world but not of it. You claim you have reached God consciousness and that we should follow your teachings. Other spiritual leaders have recognized their own material existence, you don't. I don't ask them to explain their crap because it is real to them. Your crap is supposedly made from the imagination of God. When you really truly believe that does it smell more like roses? Does you belief in God offer any advantage in the bathroom?

 

[lifegazer]

The bulk of my beliefs were influenced by Franko.

I thought you were he under a different name. My apologies.

He didn't believe in the existence of a world beyond the mind (at least not in the form of matter). I too, hold this belief.
I don't perceive this universe as solid matter taking up space, but rather as information/energy being perceived by "me". I would say that your beliefs are kind of similar to mine at this point.

I don't believe in the existence of anything beyond the Self... and I'm not sure how or why you have come to the conclusion that energy/info could exist beyond the Self.

"Separation" is the key-word here... and real separation requires the existence of absolute values of space and time. So, the argument I apply to the real-world of objects also applies to your real world of external energy/info.

However, your comments on absolute space/time has got me thinking, because it questions the very nature of the information/energy being perceived by "me". I saw other perceivers, like me, as different entities, perceiving this information flowing around the place, as if life was like one big online game and God provided the server. The question of absolute space/time has direct influence on this.

It appears my posts have made an impact on you. At least you are open to reinterpretation, unlike many here.

Your ideas seem to imply that any form of idealism inexorably leads to solipsism, albeit a slightly modified version compared to the conventional meaning.

Yes. In my philosophy, the owner of The Mind is not the being that is perceived in that Mind. For example, wraith does not own a Mind but is owned by that Mind.

This doesn't negate your existence... it just asks you to re-evaluate your identity.

 

[lifegazer]

I was wondering if a toilet is a definite thing to you. Isn't using one kind of a refutation of your belief. A toilet doesn't really exist - only your experience of toilets exists.

A toilet exists within MY awareness. So does the body of 'lifegazer'. So does the sensation of wanting to go to the toilet.

Likewise, no matter how much you may think otherwise, there is a definite real distance between you and your toilet at all times.

No there isn't. There is a PERCEIVED distance between any specific point (as perceived) and the perceived toilet. This distance is subject to relative variance within my perception.

If there weren't you might decide to relieve yourself in your own easy chair knowing that by simply ordaining your reality all chairs are toilets.

The toilet is where it is within my awareness. I cannot miss it unless I've had too many beers! Yet the distance I measure between a specific point and the toilet is not an absolute value.

"My chair is my toilet, Now will you believe!"

Although amusing, your post exhibits a naive understanding of the basic principles behind the relative perception of distance & time.

 

[lifegazer]

I may still be a student, but I hope to be a rocket scientist by summer next year so I'll take a poke at this.

Watch where you point your rockets.

The observers measure different things, but the measurements differ in a very precisely defined way,

The point is that the perception of space & time is relatively variant. The fact that there is order exhibited in how we perceive distance & time reflects only upon the origins of those PERCEPTIONS. I.e., Even though there is relative variance in the values you perceive of space & time, The Cause of those sensations imposes them upon awareness in an orderly fashion. In other words, we perceive 'ordered variance'.

and exclusively as a result of the fact that light requires time to travel from event to observer.

You've just given me ammo for another argument. I'll post it straight after this. It will be the final nail in the coffin for external reality.
Get yer' knee pads ready again.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

yet definite values of spacetime exist between them.

This is, exactly, what I object. In the above situation, if the space/time is warped then the value for one observer will not be the same for the other. Would you argue that one is correct and not the other? Who is right?

As usual, it is not that simple

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

No absolute values of separation = no separation.

No separation = no real world.

No real world = Only You exist.

Only You exist = You are God.

I would say (at best) that:

No absolute values of separation = separation is relative.

A relative separation = objectivity is relational

If the world is relational then we are related to it and it is inseparable from us

The I and the Universe are the same thing.

 

[lifegazer]

On the motion of light in a real world.

This post will ponder upon the real motion of real light (photons) through real space & real time.
Note: shortly you must take your thoughts beyond the fishbowl of what you perceive and contemplate whether the events in that fishbowl are real.
However, before emerging from the fishbowl into the "real world", let's examine our perceptions of light-motion within that bowl (awareness) and consider this important fact:

Within "the bowl", light is perceived to have an absolute speed.
We will denote this speed as X m/s.
This means that it doesn't matter what velocity you have - you will always measure X m/s for light's speed.

... Now, everyone must step out of their awareness into "the real world" and analyse this fact with regards to that reality:

... We are now in the realm of absolute space and absolute time separating real objects that emit real light (photons).
Nice place too! However, there's a problem with this place:

... Lightspeed is absolute! That's the problem. Why? Because we must now forget what we perceived within the fishbowl - space & time are not relative here!!!!!!
... Nay; in this real world, real light moves through real space & time AND THE DISTANCE & TIME BETWEEN OBJECTS IS NOT OPEN TO NEGOTIATION!!!

... So what? (I here you all mutter).
... Well, in a realm where the value of any given distance and time is not open to relative negotiation, additive velocities must apply!
In this realm, if you move in this direction -----> at B m/s and hit an object coming this way <----- at C m/s, then you will measure the velocity of that object as B + C m/s.
In other words, in this real world it's impossible for anything, including a photon, to have a fixed speed as measured.
Newton's Laws must apply to everything within a real world!!!!

Of course, lightspeed is a constant within the fishbowl meaning that we are not seeing a real world.
But we should have realised that anyway from the simple fact that space-time perception is subject to individual variance.

So, what's going on? Why do we see constant lightspeed?
...That's simply because light is produced by the Mind and the measurement of it's motion (speed) is dependent upon the quality of the space & time imposed by the Mind between that light and the focus of awareness (your human self).

Read my earlier posts upon the qualitative variances of X m/s.

Lightspeed is not absolute within awareness and certainly cannot be "out there".

Do you know the only way that "out there" can mirror what you perceive in the fishbowl? I'll tell ya:
The only way this can happen is if your motion tangibly effects the quality of spacetime that [supposedly] exists externally to you, so that the whole universe of spacetime shapes itself to your motion. Even Z-dragon couldn't believe that.
Then again...

Anyone of a serious and open nature who sincerely contemplates the issues and arguments I have raised in this thread, can no longer believe in the existence of an "absolute world". I mean, you don't even have to be a rocket scientist to understand my arguments. They are very simple really.

 

[H'ethetheth]

The point is that the perception of space & time is relatively variant. The fact that there is order exhibited in how we perceive distance & time reflects only upon the origins of those PERCEPTIONS. I.e., Even though there is relative variance in the values you perceive of space & time, The Cause of those sensations imposes them upon awareness in an orderly fashion. In other words, we perceive 'ordered variance'.

Yes, we perceive variance that is ordered by a theory that requires the existence of space and time.
The cause of the order imposed on the mind is then quite possibly, even preferably, the actual existence of light, space and a light speed of 300,000 km/s. The theory of relativity assumes the existence of these things and all its conclusions pertain to a reality in which spacetime exists. If you claim it doesn't then say goodbye to Einstein, science and observation in general.

You've just given me ammo for another argument. I'll post it straight after this. It will be the final nail in the coffin for external reality.
Get yer' knee pads ready again.

That's great. However, if you're not going to post a deduction that leads to contradiction when assuming the existence of space, you might not want to bother with this argument.

Edit
Ah, you did bother, and as I expected you needn't have.

Also:

Originally posted by lifegazer
No absolute values of separation = no separation.

non sequitur. In fact, contradicted by the theory of relativity.

No separation = no real world.

Yes

No real world = Only You exist.

non sequitur. H'ethetheth exists, lifegazer exists, the toilet exists, the easy chair. Not in a material sense possibly, but surely in the only way knowable, as different sets of experiences.
Also do not dismiss the possiblity of multiple God+experience universes in one singularity and that sort of thing.

Only You exist = You are God.

If you wish to define yourself so, then yes. Generally a pretty lame God though.

 

[lifegazer]

I would say (at best) that:

No absolute values of separation = separation is relative.

Correction:
No absolute values of separation ( d & t) = separation is an illusion, the parameters of which are relative to individual awareness.
The reality of something is the absoluteness of that thing.
If only relatively-PERCEIVED values exist, then there is an absence of the absoluteness of that thing = that "thing" ONLY exists within your mind and no place else.

 

[Ratman_tf]

Re: On the motion of light in a real world.

So you're saying that Newton was right and Einstein was wrong because we live in a made up world instead of a "real" one?

 

[H'ethetheth]

This is, exactly, what I object. In the above situation, if the space/time is warped then the value for one observer will not be the same for the other. Would you argue that one is correct and not the other? Who is right?

As usual, it is not that simple

I think Zaayrdragon means to say what RussDill has said repeatedly, namely that time and space separating events may vary according to observers, but the amount of spacetime separating those events does not.
This is also where lifegazer seems to go wrong in his "last nail" post.
I'm open to correction of course.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Re: On the motion of light in a real world.

... We are now in the realm of absolute space and absolute time separating real objects that emit real light (photons).
Nice place too! However, there's a problem with this place:

... Lightspeed is absolute! That's the problem. Why? Because we must now forget what we perceived within the fishbowl - space & time are not relative here!!!!!!
... Nay; in this real world, real light moves through real space & time AND THE DISTANCE & TIME BETWEEN OBJECTS IS NOT OPEN TO NEGOTIATION!!!

And that's where you're wrong! In fact it is this very (apparent) contradiction that spawned the theory of relativity! The whole realisation that lightspeed was constant requires time and space to be relative. However, any two different observations of an event can be reconciled by expressing the coordinates of the event in a system that is both dependent on relative time and relative space. And most importantly, this coordinate is not different to different observers, or in your words: NOT OPEN TO NEGOTIATION. Remember, this goes for this world, the spatial one.

 

[Atlas]

Re: On the motion of light in a real world.

Newton's Laws must apply to everything within a real world!!!!

Both Einstein and Newton agreed on the existence of a real material world. You misunderstand Einstein and no doubt misunderstand Newton. I can't wait to hear you tell us how wrong Euclid was.

Do you know he assumed parallel lines don't cross. Assumed it! Why didn't he just go ahead and prove it!?

Just one clarification too on lightspeed. Light does not always travel that fast. There are fibers you can send a ray of light into and it slows down to the speed of molasses in January.

The physical medium it passes through can affect light. The spacetime continuum with its many gravity wells makes light appear to curve. It goes straight but the spacetime continuum has a curvature. A real physical curvature that affects not only light but comets and planets in some identical ways. Real space is real. It's not imaginary. If you ordain something about it it better be something that it already is because it ain't changin.

edit to add: In awareness parallel lines cross even when they don't actually. Stand on the railroad tracks sometime and you'll agree. So does this make awareness more correct? Does it make Euclid wrong. Was Einstein right on parallel lines?

 

[kuroyume0161]

That is a good clarification, Atlas. Let us be clear - vacuus even. When we discuss the invariability of the speed of light, we are discussing the speed of light in vacuum as Einstein was. The speed of light (just like the speed of sound, eh hem) is variable by the medium through which it passes.

What Einstein showed by assuming no ether (which is where observations had lead anyhow) was that the speed of light is not partial to a frame of reference (either moving with velocity or accelerated). That, in order for this to be true, then:

1. Observations of an event between frames of reference moving with respect to one another cannot be simultaneous (space and time are themselves not absolute references). There is not summation between the velocities of the reference frame and the light as was assumed prior that would provide a Newtonian absolute reference frame. This has been evidenced quite thoroughly.

2. If the speed of light in vacuo is invariant, then something else must be. The variants are the direction of light travel (as it is warped by spatial curvature) - I think Eddington quite plainly provided the evidence for this - and the frequency (red/blue shift). This makes sense that if you are moving against the light's propagation (at speeds near c), you will encounter the waves more quickly thus experiencing a frequency increase (towards the blue) while the opposite direction respectively causes a frequency shift towards the red.

3. The spacetime continuum curvature is caused by gravity. Gravity is a force which has the expected attributes of mass and acceleration.

ETA: My point for (3) is that any massive object in spacetime distorts spacetime and affects light. Not the speed of light (unless it's being diffracted/diffused/absorbed/etc. by passing into the massive object thus incurring a change of medium), but the vector of light.

Quick lesson for LG:

Speed is defined as the distance travelled over time. S = D/T. This is otherwise known as the average speed between T0 and T1 where T = T1 - T0 and D0 and D1 where D = D1 - D0.

Velocity is a vector quantity which has a direction and magnitude. Velocity is defined as the speed (magnitude) in a given direction.

When light is near enough to a massive object which distorts spacetime, its velocity is affected. The affected component is the direction and not the speed.

 

[P.S.A.]

So, what's going on? Why do we see constant lightspeed?

Well, until today, you didn't see a constant lightspeed. You refused to accept that there was even a single constant in the universe. Just for once Liegazer, I'm going to go back and actually seriously quote you, just to show what a dishonest, inconsistent, plonker you are. So let's see;

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.

You cannot do this Russ. .

I named one. The Speed of Light. And as SPEED = DISTANCE OVER TIME, that implies that D and T are set for light too. Which you completely ignored, even though you now refer to D and T in your post above. You've changed your "philosophy" again, you dishonest weasel. And just to prove it further... What was the basis of the original post which started this thread? Why it was this;

... 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.

Honestly, why do you believe that anyone would respect a God who chose to manifest himself as such a confused and blatantly lying fool like you?

So, in honor of today's dishonesty above and beyond the call of insanity, I decided to teach my children to chant "We hate Lifegazer!" over and over again, and then I refused to let them eat until they'd rejected their own Godhood. So that's even more converts for me and what... perhaps a sniff of interest in you from someone whom you know full well won't convert to worshipping you, because you are such a perjuring plonker, no matter what interest he shows now, is it? YOUR DEATH COMES EVER CLOSER, GOD YOU LUNATIC.

But as I said... keep on preaching, plonker-man. You make the world a little bit more dead to God each time.