New perspectives on Relativity

[wraith]

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.

At present, I believe that own minds exist (eg you, I, my pet dog) and their associative interactions. Sort of like a game of ping pong.

"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.

Yes it is. I may need the existence of absolute space to make my belief valid. As I said before, in the "real world" there are only minds and their associative interactions.

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

Absolute space has me thinking. Just as the material world doesnt exist outside the awareness of it, then what about space? I've always seen space as the arena where existence is played. But like matter, can space exist beyond awareness of it? I am, just recently, asking myself this question.

When you dream, where does the space that constitutes your dream world come from? This raises the question, does absolute space exist?

Yes, you have me thinking.

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.

A bit like the characters in your dreams extensions of your awareness/*mind?* You see us as characters in the dream of god, being extensions of god's mind?

Does god ever perceive himself/herself/it just as you perceive yourself being "lifegazer"? Or is this impossible?

Or does god perceive himself as "lifegazer" perceiving to be god?

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

Yes, that's how I look at it. You provide a segmented form of solipsism. Different entities all believing they are god. Parts perceiving the whole.

I don't know how I feel about this idea. You are alone yet you are not.

Tell me, what happens to "lifegazer" in a couple of thousand years?

 

[Wudang]

Well wraith since you actually seem to be listening and thinking - here's something I threw lifegazer a while back but he didn't get. There does exist a model for separate processes being unaware of each other though all partaking of the same "essence", as it were. Big computer systems. There are lots of separate processes all running under the control of the operating system and all independent and usually unaware of each other. In fact there's a "virtual machine" concept where on computer acts like one or more apparently independent computers of a different type.
So that's one possible model. The trick then is to work out the transactional mechanism that lets us all agree that when I slap you on the back of the head we both agree that the "ouch" happens at the same time. I always find the "god just does it that way" answer unsatisfying.

 

[Z]

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

Of course it is. Even in 'warped spacetime', definite values exist for spacetime... and, again, what one observer perceives may vary from what another perceives, yet their relation to each other and to the 'warped' spacetime event all include variables that, when figured together properly, provide us the true value of the warped spacetime.

It's so incredibly clear to me now.

Simple!

 

[Z]

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

When you can recognize reason, you'll have reason to make such a claim.

... 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.

WRONG. I may not, but I'm not in the biz... but plenty of people can give you real values separating real objects - they're everywhere. And not those perceived by themselves, but those properly calculated to take into account perceptual bias and spacetime curvature. In other words, values that they, themselves, do not perceive.

As such, the remainder of your post is trash... as usual.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Of course it is. Even in 'warped spacetime', definite values exist for spacetime... and, again, what one observer perceives may vary from what another perceives, yet their relation to each other and to the 'warped' spacetime event all include variables that, when figured together properly, provide us the true value of the warped spacetime.

It's so incredibly clear to me now.

Simple!

I believe that the point here has to do with frames of reference and their relation to "what is real". If one of the persons take a measure, say exactly 2 light years, and the other measures 1.99945 light years, who is right? You need to introduce a third frame of reference to have "the real" distance between them?

If I understand you, what you are saying is that between the calculations of both individuals lies "the true answer", but I cant see how, by the time they reunite, the distance will be, again, newtonian (because of speed and physical distance) so any relativistic effects will be lost.

So simple for you, so complex for me.

 

[Z]

In other words, "what is the true frame of reference"?

Well, regarding the two objects, the true frame of reference is that in which both objects exist - if we are finding a distance from object A to object B, then the frame in which object A is considered 'still'.

If, however, you seek lg's 'absolute' frames, they don't exist. Definite frames exist, but no underlying frame exists to support the universe as a whole, except the universe itself.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Right, zaaydragon. The 'absolute reference frame' is the spacetime continuum or, as it is called in laymen's terms, the 'fabric of the universe'. But this is not the Newtonian absolute reference frame. It is the Einsteinian absolute reference frame. Remember that all information is conveyed by light (EM energy - not considering Quantum Mechanics here) and that light is not absolute either (in direction and energy). I think that Upchurch was alluding to this when discussing light cones. In the end, there is no place from which to perform 'absolute' measurements, only a method to reconcile relative measurements against one another in an absolute frame which is real but can never be, how to say it, be truly experienced (?).

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

In the end, there is no place from which to perform 'absolute' measurements, only a method to reconcile relative measurements against one another in an absolute frame which is real but can never be, how to say it, be truly experienced (?).

But this "absolute" frame would be an invention, wouldnt it? like clocks and meters. Apparently, time "itself" and space "itself" are always relative and never absolute (not in the everyday use of course, but ontologically).

Not to say that they "do not exist" a la lifegazer, but only that they are not fixed. That, in a way, are indeterminate like the quantum world.

 

[kuroyume0161]

But this "absolute" frame would be an invention, wouldnt it? like clocks and meters. Apparently, time "itself" and space "itself" are always relative and never absolute (not in the everyday use of course, but ontologically).

Not to say that they "do not exist" a la lifegazer, but only that they are not fixed. That, in a way, are indeterminate like the quantum world.

Not an invention, but more like a metric. What Einstein did was undefine the universe as space and time in Euclidean absolutes (Newtonian) and redefine it as a Minkowski spacetime where events can be 'pinpointed' within it. Not by direct measurements of space and time themselves but, because of the relativity of measurements and integral nature of space and time with their dependence on the speed of light, by correlation using new metric equations (Lorentzian).

Let's put it this way:

When you measure something (distance or time passage), the measure is determinate for you and your reference frame. The measurement is not absolute, but not indeterminate, therefore it is relative to other reference frames. Another reference frame can perform the same determinate measurement, but it will not agree with your measurement (we're assuming measuring instruments with enough precision to work even under small velocities between reference frames). Einstein showed this inequivocably in Special Relativity.

This discrepancy in measurements between reference frames is caused by the fact that light travels at less than infinity through spacetime. Events are not measured instantaneously from when and where they occur, but are measured as the light from the event reaches each reference frame. This provides the metric to convert relative measurements of an event to determinate values within spacetime.

With the introduction of General Relativity and accelerated reference frames, this gets trickier, but it is definitely not indeterminate in a Quantum sense. Quantum indeterminacy is caused by the fact that measurements of one attribute of a subatomic particle directly reduces the precision of measurement of another attribute (such as position and velocity) by interaction. This is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle which works with probabilities rather than absolutes.

When I say 'pinpoint' an event in spacetime, this is not an absolute spacetime reference frame. There is no absolute spacetime frame reference. One can assign whatever distance and time values for an event with respect to some predetermined arbitrary coordinate system origin. So, yes, spacetime really exists, but not as an absolute reference frame (which would put us back to Newtonian space and time). It is relative in the sense that there is no coordinate (0,0,0,0) that can be absolutely pinpointed as its origin, but not relative in the sense that measurements are indeterminate.

 

[lifegazer]

The 'absolute reference frame' is the spacetime continuum or, as it is called in laymen's terms, the 'fabric of the universe'. But this is not the Newtonian absolute reference frame. It is the Einsteinian absolute reference frame. Remember that all information is conveyed by light (EM energy - not considering Quantum Mechanics here) and that light is not absolute either (in direction and energy). I think that Upchurch was alluding to this when discussing light cones. In the end, there is no place from which to perform 'absolute' measurements, only a method to reconcile relative measurements against one another in an absolute frame which is real but can never be, how to say it, be truly experienced (?).

I've responded to this already, since you mentioned the "fabric of spacetime" earlier.
... You said that, yes, there is no absolute space or time but that there is an "absolute fabric" upon which space & time can be mapped.
... However, I pointed-out to you that ~the fabric~ upon which time and space is "mapped" (PERCEIVED), is the 'fabric' of awareness itself.

You ignored this and have now repeated the same point. But it only takes a modicum of intelligence to realise that PERCEIVED space and PERCEIVED time are mapped upon the Mind.

This is obvious. Reallllyyyyy obvious. Deal with it.

 

[lifegazer]

WRONG. I may not, but I'm not in the biz... but plenty of people can give you real values separating real objects - they're everywhere. And not those perceived by themselves, but those properly calculated to take into account perceptual bias and spacetime curvature. In other words, values that they, themselves, do not perceive.

As such, the remainder of your post is trash... as usual.

Your stupidity annoys me because it lowers the quality of the discussion and because you don't even listen to what has been said.
Being able to rationalise (mathematically) what another observer's RELATIVE!!!!!!!! values for space and time will be, given his circumstances, does not mean that the values of space & time are absolute. It just means that the individual's RELATIVE!!!!!!!! values for space and time are imposed upon awareness in an orderly fashion. I discussed this earlier when I coined the term: Ordered Variance.
Absolute values for space & time are values which everybody recognises, regardless of their circumstances. Absolute values for space & time are NOT variant values which can be fathomed by logic/mathematics.

You should not be participating in this thread unless you can understand basic principles/notions such as this.

 

[lifegazer]

I've always seen space as the arena where existence is played. But like matter, can space exist beyond awareness of it? I am, just recently, asking myself this question.

Space is a meaningless concept unless there are "things" to separate. Unless there is 'something' external and separated (by space-time) from you, then there is no space.

Furthermore, even physics recognises that space and matter exist together in some kind of interactive tug-of-war. This is why gravity/motion affects space-time.
Of course, without change (of material states), time would not even exist.
Indeed, according to physics, it wasn't only matter that was created at the big-bang... but space-time also.

I can assure you that there is neither scientific or philosophical approval for the existence of space (or time) where nothing else exists.

Does god ever perceive himself/herself/it just as you perceive yourself being "lifegazer"? Or is this impossible?

'God' cannot be absolutely perceived, since perception focuses upon finite entities as yielded by the sensations.

Or does god perceive himself as "lifegazer" perceiving to be god?

God perceives itself to be all finite entities that think themselves to be those entities.

Tell me, what happens to "lifegazer" in a couple of thousand years?

He doesn't exist, even now. So what can happen to 'him'?
Did you read my post about heaven & hell and the 3 states of God's awareness?

 

[P.S.A.]

Absolute values for space & time are values which everybody recognises, regardless of their circumstances. Absolute values for space & time are NOT variant values which can be fathomed by logic/mathematics.

You should not be participating in this thread unless you can understand basic principles/notions such as this.

You shouldn't be participating in any thread Liegazer, until you can undestand basic principles of human decency, such as honesty or consistency.

Especially not when in this very thread you started out arguing that no one could possibly have these same, absolute values; And I quote again;

Now, the interesting thing here is that when we compare our values for the speed of light, we have:
Lg:- SOL (in a vacuum) = 299,792,458 meters(lg)/second(lg)
PSA:- SOL (vacuum) = 299,792,458 meters(psa)/second(psa)

... 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.

Shall I do it again, you incoherant lunatic? Shall I repeat how you've turned your argument around literally 180 degrees, and used the exact opposite of what you started out stating to "prove" the same conlusion again? No? Well, who cares what you think, so here it is regardless;

1.) "Absolute values for space & time are values which everybody recognises, regardless of their circumstances."

2.) "Therefore, the values we assign to the SOL are not the same. Therefore, the SOL (as perceived) is not an absolute."

You might as well be arguing "Black = God", and when someone points out this makes no sense, argue "White = God then!"... it's about as honest as anything else you've done so far. And as irrelevant too... you've had your chance to prove your "Godhood". Three years of chances in fact. And you've failed every single one of them. No wonder... who'd believe in God being such a pathetic, obsessional and dishonest entity as Liegazer? It would be like believing Mickey Mouse was really Charles Manson. Maybe he was, but who'd want to encourage said Mouse if so?!

 

[lifegazer]

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?

I'm saying that if the world was real, then Newton would be correct. But the world is not real - it's perceived/illusory (internal to the Self "in here") - which is why Einstein toppled Newton.

The most astounding fact of the last hundred years is that nobody has interpreted Einstein in the manner that I am. Or, if they have, they have been ignored - which is a crime unto mankind.

That's always been the problem for scientists: they assume that the world is real so their conclusions are moulded upon this assertion.
... Unfortunately for Newton, Einstein came along and destroyed the concept of a real "absolute" world.
... Yet it has taken a hundred years to show this.

The real world has vanished my friends. Don't wait for establishment recognition of truth. I can assure you that the establishment has no investment nor reward in the truth that you are hearing here. "The World" is destroyed by God. Remember that, if nothing else. "The World" will say whatever it can to save itself.
But the seeds are sown and the grass will grow and the soil will vanish from view.

 

[kuroyume0161]

I've responded to this already, since you mentioned the "fabric of spacetime" earlier.
... You said that, yes, there is no absolute space or time but that there is an "absolute fabric" upon which space & time can be mapped.
... However, I pointed-out to you that ~the fabric~ upon which time and space is "mapped" (PERCEIVED), is the 'fabric' of awareness itself.

You ignored this and have now repeated the same point. But it only takes a modicum of intelligence to realise that PERCEIVED space and PERCEIVED time are mapped upon the Mind.

This is obvious. Reallllyyyyy obvious. Deal with it.

So obvious that only you seem to understand it. The rest of us dolts (every other sentient being) who understand science, reality, mathematics, and any other form of knowledge, PhD's and all, don't see it as obvious.

Okay, this is argumentum ad populum. Well, it's the ultimate argumentum ad populum - that since all living thnigs seem to experience the same universal phenomena and all things seem to play by the same rules (are restricted to obeying the laws of the universe), there is something concrete and objective to that experience.

All you are doing is the same fallacy of complexity - moving the simplest explanation back to some other place which requires a complex construct to which to adhere. If all of our 'perceptions' of the universe can be qualified and quantified in a rigorous way, then that leaves a single embodiement for those perceptions. In our case, this embodiement is identical to the universe as a real thing (where 'real' means 'it exists'). In your case, it is an illusion within a singular mind which must be 'God'. Which one is more obvious again?

You are still stuck in the 'what we perceive' argument mode and haven't figured out that the two possibilities (experience all internal representation and experience all stimulated from external representation) all lead to the same thing: a universe in which we exist. We can no more rip ourselves away from this existence into another one than do things that are paradoxically impossible. You continue to claim a link to the TRUE, ROOT experience (all oneness with the singular mind God dreaming of experiencing all sentient life simultaneously and somehow maintaining a unique yet consistent universe for each and every one containing superexistential links for individual experiencer interaction and agreement). But, unless one abandons all reason, logic, science, math, knowledge, reality, and sanity, one cannot arrive at this conclusion. It is a blind leap of faith. So stop using science and mathematics in attempts to provide 'proof' or 'evidence' of it!

 

[P.S.A.]

"The World" is destroyed by God. Remember that, if nothing else. "The World" will say whatever it can to save itself.

You mean "God" is destroyed by God. And that "God" will say what ever it can to save itself from the very God who created it in the first place.

"God" being "The Establishment" that holds up Einstein as an exmplar of history's greatest Scientist, natch.

Whom you desperately want to be adulated more than. You narcissistic lunatic.

 

[lifegazer]

P.S.A. ...
If you really want to talk to me, request an audience and then proceed to present a sincere & mature & rational negation of my arguments.
... Otherwise, I'm done with you. I'm bored of you. I'm disappointed with you.
It's over squire.

 

[kuroyume0161]

I'm saying that if the world was real, then Newton would be correct. But the world is not real - it's perceived/illusory (internal to the Self "in here") - which is why Einstein toppled Newton.

The most astounding fact of the last hundred years is that nobody has interpreted Einstein in the manner that I am. Or, if they have, they have been ignored - which is a crime unto mankind.

That's always been the problem for scientists: they assume that the world is real so their conclusions are moulded upon this assertion.
... Unfortunately for Newton, Einstein came along and destroyed the concept of a real "absolute" world.
... Yet it has taken a hundred years to show this.

You still haven't read that book or studied anything, have you?

Einstein showed that the universe is not block of space changing over time (Newtonian absolute space) with instantaneous transmission of information. It is a block of spacetime with information transmission limited to the speed of light. In this model of the universe, all information moves away from the source in the direction of positive time. Only dense warps of spacetime (e.g.: blackholes) can cause information propagation to move differently.

Einstein did no such thing as 'destroy the concept of a real 'absolute" world'. He destroyed the idea of absolute measurements therein - except for one. The speed of light (EM energy) in vacuum will always, for everyone, and as far as we know, for all time be the same and constant. And, interestingly, this is the major flaw in underpinning your feeble argument, isn't it? If you can't show that the speed of light is observer variant, then onto the next scientific principle to exploit, huh?

Well, guess what? The speed of light in vacuo is observer invariant.

 

[P.S.A.]

No Liegazer, I am done with YOU. The whole world is done with you. GOD is done with you. Given a choice between embracing existance as exhibited by you, or death to experience, God chooses death. Especially when His prophet is so arrogant that he thinks he can demand God request his attention, and is so insane as to be unable to even be worthy of it. I cannot request what you cannot give.

No Liegazer, I have no need at all of your attention; you've already proven time and time again you have nothing worth saying. So I'm going to happily keep on euthanising God in every single one of your threads... It's what God wants, after all

Besides, if I don't have fun laughing at you now, my sufferings in Hell will be greater. And if I'm already Hell bound as you claim, a claim which you invented just for me I might add, why shouldn't I do what is necessary for my own future as opposed to yours?

Wake up God, time to die...

 

[lifegazer]

So obvious that only you seem to understand it. The rest of us dolts (every other sentient being) who understand science, reality, mathematics, and any other form of knowledge, PhD's and all, don't see it as obvious.

Revolution shocks the status quo. You are privy to the most significant revolution in history - your reaction is expected.

Okay, this is argumentum ad populum.

Nail on the head.
Means zilch.

Well, it's the ultimate argumentum ad populum - that since all living thnigs seem to experience the same universal phenomena and all things seem to play by the same rules (are restricted to obeying the laws of the universe), there is something concrete and objective to that experience.

A statement which recognises nothing other than order amongst what is perceived.

If all of our 'perceptions' of the universe can be qualified and quantified in a rigorous way, then that leaves a single embodiement for those perceptions. In our case, this embodiement is identical to the universe as a real thing (where 'real' means 'it exists'). In your case, it is an illusion within a singular mind which must be 'God'. Which one is more obvious again?

Mine. Reasons supplied. Answers given - and ignored.
Why haven't you addressed my last post to you about the "absolute fabric" upon which the relative PERCEPTIONS of space & time are mapped?
... Because you can't and because, secretly, you know I'm right.

Instead of addressing what I say, you choose to lecture me about time-honoured beliefs. What a friggin crock. Especially from a man of obvious intelligence.

Are you afraid of my conclusions?
Tell the truth. I would be if I was in love with "the world".
Your fears are not the issue. The truth, is.

You are still stuck in the 'what we perceive' argument mode and haven't figured out that the two possibilities (experience all internal representation and experience all stimulated from external representation) all lead to the same thing: a universe in which we exist.

BS. My philosophy negates the existence of 'we' and reduces existence to God. Again, I say deal with it... and stop using fear as the fuel of negation.
Do you want to go to your death secretly understanding everything I have said?
Will you have no regrets living the life of kuroyume0161 when you have the intelligence to understand that you are not that being?
It's upto you. But denial of the truth in defense of a lie is tenfold worse that ignorance of the truth or tenfold worse than the excuse of being too stupid to understand that truth.

Do you realise that your discussions with me are the most important discussions you will ever have? If not, then you haven't recognised the significance of what I am saying - nor the significance of the repercussions to your emotional responses to my postings.
Sobeit. As it was meant to be.