Lifegazer's special relativity "proof"

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by lifegazer



I do not disagree with this. But what I have also said and what everybody keeps ignoring - and which is essential to my consequent philosophy - is that the appearance of 186,000 miles per second, or any velocity, x m/s, is personal - unique - comparatively different to x m/s in somebody elses experience.
Take the so-called twin-paradox again: the twins have differing opinions, relatively, of what a second and a meter are. Therefore, since those parameters form the basis of 'velocity', it clearly follows that each twin has a comparatively different experience of any specific observed velocity. In this case 'c'.



No. No. and No. and again wrong.

If THIS is the basis of your philosophy, then your philosophy cannot be a valid argument since its premise is incorrect.

No one's experience of anything is personal and Unique. Relative is not the same as personal and unique. If twin 'A' has a clock that measure's 30 seconds standing on a comet traveling at 96% the speed of light. Twin 'B's clock will also measure exctly 30 seconds in the same situation. So will every other clock in the world if it is accurate. They will only differ when they are in different frames of reference, that is to say Twin B's clock is sitting with him in a comfy arm chair In Harrod's. Then their time will differ even if Twin A walks into the furniture dpeartment 30 seconds later according to his clock, Twin B's clock may say 1.5 minutes later.

Why?

Not because their experience of time was unique or different....

Because they were MEASURING DIFFERENT THINGS!!!

One clock was not measuring 30 seconds and calling it thirty seconds while the other clock measured 30 seconds and called it 90.

One clock was actually measuring 30 seconds and another clock was measuring 90 seconds and they both did it accurately. Because on each twins' journey to that point in space-time, that's how much time had passed.

If two people walk to a fork in the woods, lets say person a takes the left path which runs straight for about 5 minutes where it comes to a point at which the right path rejoins it. Path B winds this way and that and curves all over the place to reach the point where they join. Path B is clearly longer than path A. But by running his tushy off, Person B still makes it to the re-join point in 5 minutes.

Well look at the situation?

Person a walked about .3 miles in 5 minutes. Person B ran about .7 miles in 5 minutes. They both reached the same point in space and time. Why?

Not because anything changed, or the world distorted around them. They reached it because one guy went faster than the other guy. A pedometer measuring distance On person A would measure .3 miles, the same pedometer on person B would measure .7 miles.

Why?

Did things distort? Was their experience unique?

NO!

Because one guy traveled .3 miles and the other guy traveled .7 miles. There's nothing unusual or magical about it. Even though they started and arrived at the same two points in space time. One guy took a different route to get there and that's all that is different; And he had to expend a crapload more energy to do it.


Once you realize that mathematically speaking time is to be treated as another spacial dimension, and points in space time have four coordinates, the astronaut paradox is no different from the above example whatsoever.

Twin A started at Picadilly circus and strolled leisurely over to Harrods for tea in the armchair. It took about 15 minutes.

Twin B took a comet at about 86 Percent the speed of light and went around the sun first, it took about 10 minutes.

They then meet at the same time in the same place.

Out of four dimensions twin B literally took a different route through 3 of them to get to the same place. His measuring device is simply reflecting the distance traveled on the x plane, the z plane, and the t plane - time. That's it, there's nothing unique or personally distorting at all.

If you cannot grasp that you only have two choices:

1. You are mistaken about your conception of the time paradox and its implication for relativity, and you need to rethink it and have some formal education in it.

-Or-

2. Somehow Einstein, Penrose, and countless others as well as the prevailing sentiment of the entire physics sommunity have got it wrong, and are terribly confused, and somehow by chance or serendipity, you have intuitively understood it.

If this is correct, you absolutely owe it to the world to go to a Univerisity right this minute discuss it with their physics chair and start setting up experiments, and find replicable data so we can publish this and get it out to the world.

The countless man hours you could save by stopping us all going down the wrong path are incalculabe, and your contribution cannot be delayed any more.

It is your unshakeable obligation to humanity to have this verified if you are correct because it will change our entire conception of the universe around us.

Edited to add:

Obvisouly above when I said, "No one's experience of anything is personal and Unique," I should have clarified that with, "As relates to the measured variables in this experiment." Obvisously we all have personal and unique experiences every day such as my friend's love for her cat which I guarantee you is personal and unique to her.

[Andonyx]

the twins have differing opinions, relatively, of what a second and a meter are. Therefore, since those parameters form the basis of 'velocity', it clearly follows that each twin has a comparatively different experience of any specific observed velocity. In this case 'c'.

I think this phrase really makes it clear that you are missing something.

As someone else pointed out earlier. There is no absolute at all to compare anything to. There is no objective point of view in the universe anywhere as regards the measurements.

So to make any kind of comparison between Twin A's conception of a meter, and Twin B's conception of a meter is meaningless. There is no comparison possible, since to make one at all you would have to remove One Twin from their reference frame and put them in the other to do it, which collapses the paradox.

Just as someone mentioned earlier giveing one of them a perfect meter long stick and he will measure it as a meter. Give the other the exact same stick and he will measure it as a meter.

There is no distortion going on.

So that's two things you have to truly and completely grasp before you can make any conclusions based on the twin paradox or relativity in general:

1. Time is to be treated for mathematical purposes like any other spatial dimension.

2. Relativity applies only to different reference frames, and no one reference frame can be regarded as special or unique, or objectively correct. They are all equally valid with regards to their frame.

[Andonyx]

This is evasive nonsense. Are you or are you not going to tell anybody what force is involved in distorting the whole universe of space and time as perceived by any body in motion?
This is the last time I ask and if you do not answer, I for one will think that you do not have one.

You know there is NO distortion made by the body in motion right? You know the distortion is apparent only, not actually objective right?

Gosh this is exhausting. And I've only been trying for three posts, How do you do it Upchurch?

Asking him to explain what force is there is like asking what force pushes you to the right when you make a left turn in your car.

NOTHING Pushes you to the right.

It's not happening, you're not being pushed to the right at all. It's only a sensation of being pushed to the right because the car is turning left and your inertia wants to keep you in a straight line. So because of your frame of reference, you FEEL as though you are being pushed to the right. And the only force involved is the friction of your wheels on the ground generating your accelerative force.

The same thing is true with your significant percentage of c situations. The universe is not distorted, only your perceptions of it relative to your moving frame of reference are. No force is necessary other than the force which originally accelerated you.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Andonyx
No one's experience of anything is personal and Unique. Relative is not the same as personal and unique.

If nobody shares the exact-same experience as you, then your experience is personal and unique. I argue that everyone's perception of a second and a meter is dependent upon his/her mass, motion, and gravitational-orientation with regards to other bodies. Clearly, the experience of a second and a meter are constantly fluctuating - relatively to everyone elses - and are unique to each individual.
I'm surprised that anybody is arguing with this.

If twin 'A' has a clock that measure's 30 seconds standing on a comet traveling at 96% the speed of light. Twin 'B's clock will also measure exctly 30 seconds in the same situation.

Sure. But twin B is on earth, and his vastly-slower velocity is giving him a completely different experience of 30 seconds in comparison to twin A.
The whole basis of my philosophy is:
(1) The value of the second and the meter is in comparative flux. Change your velocity and you will change the value of your second and meter.
(2) The value of these parameters is unique for each individual, as seen in comparison to other individuals. The twin-paradox shows that different people experience the essential parameters of space and time comparatively differently.

So will every other clock in the world if it is accurate. They will only differ when they are in different frames of reference

Sure. But given that all clocks have minute discrepencies of mass and gravitational-orientation, there must be minute discrepencies of time amongst all of them, even when placed in the same room.

One clock was actually measuring 30 seconds and another clock was measuring 90 seconds and they both did it accurately. Because on each twins' journey to that point in space-time, that's how much time had passed.

How does this prove anything, other than the value of a second is a lottery, so to speak? That's my whole point.

If two people walk to a fork in the woods, lets say person a takes the left path which runs straight for about 5 minutes where it comes to a point at which the right path rejoins it. Path B winds this way and that and curves all over the place to reach the point where they join. Path B is clearly longer than path A. But by running his tushy off, Person B still makes it to the re-join point in 5 minutes.

Sorry, but this is irrelevant. The value of 5 minutes is the same for both paths.

Well look at the situation?

Person a walked about .3 miles in 5 minutes. Person B ran about .7 miles in 5 minutes. They both reached the same point in space and time. Why?

Not because anything changed, or the world distorted around them. They reached it because one guy went faster than the other guy. A pedometer measuring distance On person A would measure .3 miles, the same pedometer on person B would measure .7 miles.

Why?

Did things distort? Was their experience unique?

NO!

Because one guy traveled .3 miles and the other guy traveled .7 miles. There's nothing unusual or magical about it. Even though they started and arrived at the same two points in space time. One guy took a different route to get there and that's all that is different; And he had to expend a crapload more energy to do it.

With all due respect, this does not relate to Relativity where two different paths will yield a meeting of the two twins (in the twin-paradox case) and will tell you that one person has been gone 10 years whilst the other 20. Even if they leave simultaneously and then meet simultaneously.

Twin A started at Picadilly circus and strolled leisurely over to Harrods for tea in the armchair. It took about 15 minutes.

Twin B took a comet at about 86 Percent the speed of light and went around the sun first, it took about 10 minutes.

They then meet at the same time in the same place.

Out of four dimensions twin B literally took a different route through 3 of them to get to the same place. His measuring device is simply reflecting the distance traveled on the x plane, the z plane, and the t plane - time. That's it, there's nothing unique or personally distorting at all.

Imagine we shake hands and say "bye" and then walk around the streets for a while and meet-up later. You say an hour has passed and I say "nay, 10 minutes.". We're both telling the truth too, since our watches verify it.
Therefore, the only conclusion is that your experience of a second has been different to mine. Agreed? If so, then you consent to the foundation of my philosophy.

2. Somehow Einstein, Penrose, and countless others as well as the prevailing sentiment of the entire physics sommunity have got it wrong, and are terribly confused, and somehow by chance or serendipity, you have intuitively understood it.

Why have they got it wrong? I'm confused. All this time, I've been trying to use the information that guys like that provided to link to the reality of Mind. The fact that these guys never made that link does not negate the work they have done. Neither is it a surprise that this link was not made by a scientist, who usually regard (assume, actually) the world of our perceptions to be an external occurance.

If this is correct, you absolutely owe it to the world to go to a Univerisity right this minute discuss it with their physics chair and start setting up experiments, and find replicable data so we can publish this and get it out to the world.

Show me somebody who will listen.

The countless man hours you could save by stopping us all going down the wrong path are incalculabe, and your contribution cannot be delayed any more.

It is your unshakeable obligation to humanity to have this verified if you are correct because it will change our entire conception of the universe around us.

Amen to that.

[Andonyx]

Imagine we shake hands and say "bye" and then walk around the streets for a while and meet-up later. You say an hour has passed and I say "nay, 10 minutes.". We're both telling the truth too, since our watches verify it.
Therefore, the only conclusion is that your experience of a second has been different to mine. Agreed? If so, then you consent to the foundation of my philosophy.

NO No No No No NO NONONONONONONONONNONONONO!

I don't know why this is so hard for you. I don't know why you cannot see past this barrier you have drawn for yourself.

Our experience of a second is the same rgeardless. You keep saying our seconds must be different, and I explained it to you.

You completely ignored the simple evidence presented in the wood story.

In the woods story did person A's experience of a mile differ from Person Bs experience of a mile?

NO.

You argued about their experience of Time that 5 minutes was still five minutes.

Fine. It was.

But for some reason you treat time like a special quanitity that has different properties than distance. It does not. It is handled exactly the same.

So when we get to the astronaut section Twin A had actually traversed a "distance" of 15 minutes through the unverse, while Twin B happened to Traverse a Distance of 10 minutes through the universe. Their experiences of a minute were no different. Even relative to each other. Because there is NO ABSOLUTE TIME to compare it to.

You keep acting as though one guy had ten minutes pass in the SAME TIME as the other guys had 15 minutes pass. That's simply not the case. They took different paths from one mutual point to get to another. One guy's path was LONGER than the other, but that does not change their units of measurement. It does not change the world around them one iota, all it means is that one guy took a more direct route than the other person.

In relatavistic math a second is treated no differently than a foot.

If you cannot understand that then the reason no one will listen to you is because you cannot grasp the very basic concepts of relativity. The concepts that we can demonstrate and have demonstrated. The difference between your understanding of this thought experiment and ours is that experiements have verified our concepts time and time again.

And what you're saying runs contrary to all of the recorded evidence we have.

Finally, I don't care if you're having a philosophical conversation or not. You're arguing things that can be demonstrated in reality. You can have a philosophical discussion about purple elephants all you like, the fact remains that no elephant in the history of recorded biology has ever been born purple.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Andonyx
As someone else pointed out earlier. There is no absolute at all to compare anything to. There is no objective point of view in the universe anywhere as regards the measurements.

When you have two people who claim to be able to see 'a meter' and do experience 'a second', then the values of those parameters are comparable against each other - when they meet.
I have no idea why you would mention "an absolute".

If you read my posts, I even state that the velocity of light is not the absolute we think it is (since "velocity" is the fluctuating-meter/fluctuating-second). Any velocity, x m/s, has a personal meaning dependent upon the experience of m and s.

So to make any kind of comparison between Twin A's conception of a meter, and Twin B's conception of a meter is meaningless.

So the twin-paradox is meaningless?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Andonyx
The universe is not distorted, only your perceptions of it relative to your moving frame of reference are.

What you say here is significant. The universe is not distorted, but our perceptions of it are? But this "debate" is whether what we perceive is also occuring externally to awareness, or whether it just happens within awareness.
You seem to distinguish between perceived-reality and external-reality?

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by lifegazer

If nobody shares the exact-same experience as you, then your experience is personal and unique. I argue that everyone's perception of a second and a meter is dependent upon his/her mass, motion, and gravitational-orientation with regards to other bodies. Clearly, the experience of a second and a meter are constantly fluctuating - relatively to everyone elses - and are unique to each individual.
I'm surprised that anybody is arguing with this.


People argue because you're tossing about concepts you don't understand and almost willfully failing to listen to what people are saying.

People are sharing the exact same experience of a second. They are not of the total number of seconds.

There is a difference in the two items here. Just because one guy records 90 seconds happening and another records 30 has nothing to do with their individual experiences of a second.

Their seconds are identical all it means is one person's path through the universe took more seconds than the other guys.

It's no different than take a five foot straight path across a room, or a 20 foot wandering path. Does one path make the definition of a foot change? No.




Sure. But twin B is on earth, and his vastly-slower velocity is giving him a completely different experience of 30 seconds in comparison to

No, wrong, buzzzz.

First Why is Twin B's velocity slower? It's only slower compared to Twin A. Twin B cannot be said to be going any velocity unless compared to B. So In fact Twin B might actually be traveling Faster than Twin A relative to an observer in reference frame C. So this statement is not even making correct assumptions.

And his experience of Thirty seconds is exactly the same as the other person's experience of thirty seconds. The only Difference is that Twin A went on a route through the Universe that took him past 3 sets of 30 seconds instead of one, but each second ticked by at exactly the same rate.




The whole basis of my philosophy is:
(1) The value of the second and the meter is in comparative flux. Change your velocity and you will change the value of your second and meter.

Well basis one is incorrect. Completely and utterly incorrect. For every single reference frame ever encountered by man or clock or machine one second is and always will be for everyone exactly 9,192,631,770 vibrations of a Cesium 133 atom. End of story. It well never be different for anyone as far as all expirimental and mathematical models can possibly be certain. Your premise is false.


(2) The value of these parameters is unique for each individual, as seen in comparison to other individuals. The twin-paradox shows that different people experience the essential parameters of space and time comparatively differently.

Your premise is flase. The Twin Paradox shows no such thing at all. What it shows is that people have a perception of the OTHER person going through something the OTHER person didn't experience the same way. It has nothing to do with two people having different experiences of the SAME thing, it has to do with people PERCEIVING different experiences of one person observing someone else do a DIFFERENT thing.

And perception and relaity are two different things entire. I might look at the color red differently than you do, that doesn't mean the wavelength of light red reflects is any different, and my observation of it doesn't distort anything.

Your premise is false.



Sure. But given that all clocks have minute discrepencies of mass and gravitational-orientation, there must be minute discrepencies of time amongst all of them, even when placed in the same room.


So? If they are in different places at all, they are already taking different paths through the universe. If they both counted seconds accurately, then they both count seconds accurately, end of story.

How does this prove anything, other than the value of a second is a lottery, so to speak? That's my whole point.

It doesn't prove that the value of a second is up for grabs in fact it proves quite the opposite. Therefore your point is simply wrong.


Sorry, but this is irrelevant. The value of 5 minutes is the same for both paths.

Yes but the feet traveled is different. You see the idea is in this example Im using feet as a metaphor because in the next example time becomes the disputed dimension. But time is really no different from feet. A foot is a foot is a foot is a foot, just like a second is a second is a second is a second.


With all due respect, this does not relate to Relativity where two different paths will yield a meeting of the two twins (in the twin-paradox case) and will tell you that one person has been gone 10 years whilst the other 20. Even if they leave simultaneously and then meet simultaneously.

Actually it's only irrlevant because you don't understand relativity. In fact the quantities are exactly mathemateically equivalent in sucha way that one situation is merely anlagous to the other. Upchurch has already shown you the math. You either refused to read it, or didn't understand it.


Imagine we shake hands and say "bye" and then walk around the streets for a while and meet-up later. You say an hour has passed and I say "nay, 10 minutes.". We're both telling the truth too, since our watches verify it.
Therefore, the only conclusion is that your experience of a second has been different to mine. Agreed? If so, then you consent to the foundation of my philosophy.

No the explanation is that I took a different path through the universe than you did. What you are so hard headed not to see, is that exactly the same thing could happen if I walked 20 blocks and you walked 40 blocks and we met up at the same place at the same time later. Arewe both correct? Yes. Is my experience of a block any different than yours? No.


Why have they got it wrong? I'm confused. All this time, I've been trying to use the information that guys like that provided to link to the reality of Mind. The fact that these guys never made that link does not negate the work they have done. Neither is it a surprise that this link was not made by a scientist, who usually regard (assume, actually) the world of our perceptions to be an external occurance.

The thing is all the evidence shows they haven't all the evidence we can possibly measure right now shows that you haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about.

The day you can find some expirimental evidence otherwise, people will start to listen.

I'm sorry but in science, your rabid insistence that your viewpoint is correct is not enough.

Likewise you need to take a step back and realize that our intuitive understanding of concepts like acceleration, time, and reference frames are not always the correct ones. The physical world does not behave in a convenient manner just because we want it to.

[lifegazer]

You say that time is space in order to avoid the comparative differences of time experienced by the twins. I.e., they both experience '1 second', it's just that the spacetwin took a shorter route to get back to earth than the guy already on the earth. LOL. What a crock that sounds.
Anyway, lorentz-transformation mathematics also show that 'a meter' is experienced comparatively-different by each observer. You must be aware of the thought-experiment whereby two observers measure the same train at different lengths?
So, how do you overcome this? How do you get all observers to experience the same meter? Do you turn space into time? lol

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by lifegazer

When you have two people who claim to be able to see 'a meter' and do experience 'a second', then the values of those parameters are comparable against each other - when they meet.
I have no idea why you would mention "an absolute".

Ah and really you just admitted the big flaw in your thinking.

"When they meet."

Yes well when they meet, there is no longer a different frame of reference now is there. The second they meet in the sam frame of reference all apparent differences disappear and they will now travel on the same path through space-time.

Before they met they could never simultaneously tick off seconds or meters to make a comparison.



If you read my posts, I even state that the velocity of light is not the absolute we think it is (since "velocity" is the fluctuating-meter/fluctuating-second). Any velocity, x m/s, has a personal meaning dependent upon the experience of m and s.

If you have math or experimental obersvation to back that up great, lay it on me. If not I'll just go along with the overwhelming mountain of evidence that says it is in fact the absolute we think it is.

You cannot in a scientific discussion make statements just because you think they're true. You have to have some reason to believe it.


So the twin-paradox is meaningless?

No. it's a great demonstration of the perceptions people might have during a relatavistic experience, and a great demonstration of the non-intuitive nature of space-time at near light speed velocities.

If you fully understand it though (And I'm not even claiming I do).....it is NOT in fact a paradox.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Andonyx
Well basis one is incorrect. Completely and utterly incorrect. For every single reference frame ever encountered by man or clock or machine one second is and always will be for everyone exactly 9,192,631,770 vibrations of a Cesium 133 atom. End of story. It well never be different for anyone as far as all expirimental and mathematical models can possibly be certain. Your premise is false.

9,I92,etc. vibrations of a Cesium atom occur in one second. But this does not prevent the second from being in flux. The vibrations can slow or speed-up, in tandem.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You say that time is space in order to avoid the comparative differences of time experienced by the twins. I.e., they both experience '1 second', it's just that the spacetwin took a shorter route to get back to earth than the guy already on the earth. LOL. What a crock that sounds.
Anyway, lorentz-transformation mathematics also show that 'a meter' is experienced comparatively-different by each observer. You must be aware of the thought-experiment whereby two observers measure the same train at different lengths?
So, how do you overcome this? How do you get all observers to experience the same meter? Do you turn space into time? lol

You're arguing like a whole different thing.

Yes the train visually appears longer because the guy on the grassy bank is looking into a different frame of reference.

That thought experiment is based on an impossibility in real life, it's just a demonstration.

If the guy somehow took a meter stick from his frame of reference and tried to use it on his perception of the train in another frame of reference it would look like the train was longer. But since it is Physically impossible to use his meter in the other frame ofreference without putting it IN the other frame of reference, that's not an issue here. Because let's say he used impossibly long arms to take his meter stick into the other frame of reference and use his meter stick to to measure the train. Well, now the meter stick has also stretched by his perception and guess what?!?!?

The train actually measures the same number of meters now as well!

Isn't that amazing.

And finally no, I'm not arguing time is the same to avoid anything. I'm arguing it because mathematically time IS THE same, that's how the damn equations work, and those are the same equations that accurately predict the real life outcome of these experiements.

If you want to make different equations where time and distance are not mathematically equivalenced, go right ahead. But then you have to use them to try to predict the outcome of experiments.

Don't be too surprised when they don't.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by lifegazer

9,I92,etc. vibrations of a Cesium atom occur in one second. But this does not prevent the second from being in flux. The vibrations can slow or speed-up, in tandem.

You know what even if they did, it is absolutely meaningless, because no one can ever perceieve that flux if they are within that time frame.

This is actually just as useless as trying to have an argument if I was on the phone in Califrnia and you wer in NY and I argued that you are too far East, and you argued that no, I was too far west.

There is nothing useful about this observation even if it was true because you cannot use it to accurately predict, measure or DO anything.

You might as well simply say well, actually our entire universe exists in a goldfish bowl in a giant trailer park. But we'll never see it because the speed of light won't allow us to observe anything ouside our own universe.

Great.

Useful prediction there.

[lifegazer]

Answer this please: you treat time as space. So, in the twin-paradox, the spacetwin flies all around the galaxy and comes back to earth, only to find his brother - who hasn't moved much at all - claiming to have experienced, say for convenience, twice as much time as his space-brother, comparatively.
My question is this - given that the earth-twin hasn't moved much, why is his time-path twice as long as the spacetwin who has been moving to Andromeda and back, so to speak? If time is space, how can the body moving the least travel the furthest?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Andonyx
You know what even if they did, it is absolutely meaningless, because no one can ever perceieve that flux if they are within that time frame.

That's the point. No flux is experienced, except relatively.

[Andonyx]

Look I'm out for the weekend, maybe Upchurch Or Russ wants to try this some more.

I can only offer this.

If you are so certain these effects are happening, then simply show how it would happen mathematically. You don't need a multi-billion dollar particle collider, you don't need the space shuttle, or a satellite. You just need a piece of paper, and some good sharp pencils, and a calculator. Which is actually more than Einstein had.

Then if you can show using that symbolic langugage what what you are saying is even possible. Then I guarantee you someone will listen to you.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Answer this please: you treat time as space. So, in the twin-paradox, the spacetwin flies all around the galaxy and comes back to earth, only to find his brother - who hasn't moved much at all - claiming to have experienced, say for convenience, twice as much time as his space-brother, comparatively.
My question is this - given that the earth-twin hasn't moved much, why is his time-path twice as long as the spacetwin who has been moving to Andromeda and back, so to speak? If time is space, how can the body moving the least travel the furthest?

It's not twice as long on all axis, only on one.

There are three dimensions in space, but for the sake of argument, let's simplify and imagine a 2-D grid.

You and I both start at 0,0.

You move 6 to the right. Putting you at 6,0.

I move 36 up, 4 to the right, 24 down, 2 to the right, and then 12 down. Now I am still at 6,0 just like you. Only It took me 78 steps to get there, and it only took you six.

In the meantime, assuming the grid is uniform, each of my movements was exactly the same as each of yours. We started and ended at the same place, I just took a different path to get there.

My experience of one grid space is exactly the same as your experience of one grid space. (Or one second, or one foot)

What Einstein demonstrated was that by changing how oyu move through one dimension you can make the relative quantities appear to different for a journey that starts and ends at the same place. Because essentially there are actually shorter distances between two points than a straight line as a straight line appears to be from one set of dimensions.

Because I traveled through one dimension (Y) on a different route than you did.

But the quantities available, 3 spatial dimensions and one time dimensions can be interchangeable.

We can demonstrate a body that changes speed, and then if distance stays the same time must change.

If Time changes and speed stays the same distance must change.

If distance changes time stays the same, speed must change.

These things are all equivalent mathematically. And when I use the word "chgange" up there I don't mean the individual unist up there. A second is still a second, a foot is still a foot. I mean the total amount within a given equation in order to make 'c' = 'c'.

And it's not like Einstein started out to make an equation in which Light speed always equalled C. He found out that in fact, in reality no matter what the frame of reference, light always does equal c all the time under all circumstance. Once he found that out, he tried to find an expression that matched that mathematcially.

It was a case of finding a hypothesis that matched the results, not finding results that matched his hypothesis like you're attempting to do.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
If time is space, how can the body moving the least travel the furthest? D@mn it. I wasn't going to answer, but this is a good question with an easy answer that is too good to pass up.

Both twins travel the same amount of "distance" between two points in spacetime (point A: the twin leaves Earth, point B: the twin returns to Earth). The Earth twin travels the entire distance by traveling exclusively along the time axis. The Space twin, by accelerating, travels a portion of that distance along the time axis and a portion along the space axis.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Andonyx
Look I'm out for the weekend, maybe Upchurch Or Russ wants to try this some more.

I can only offer this.

If you are so certain these effects are happening, then simply show how it would happen mathematically. You don't need a multi-billion dollar particle collider, you don't need the space shuttle, or a satellite. You just need a piece of paper, and some good sharp pencils, and a calculator. Which is actually more than Einstein had.

Then if you can show using that symbolic langugage what what you are saying is even possible. Then I guarantee you someone will listen to you.
Instead of treating time as space, we can acknowledge that the comparative differences of time are real. The mathematics do not alter. Just the conclusions. Different time-paths become different perceptions of what time is.

Anyway, I want to thankyou for your intelligent and relevant efforts. You are a credit to this forum. Perhaps the only one.
Have a good weekend.

[Andonyx]

Okay last thing. I just edited my previous post, right before Upchurch's with somethin I think is important. Check the bit, about what Einstein's equations actually demonstrated. It was all just a mthematical equivalence, just like E=MC^2 turned out to be.

In fact for the purposes of math distance and time ARE the same.

And this equation actually has been borne out in experiments time and again.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Answer this please: you treat time as space. So, in the twin-paradox, the spacetwin flies all around the galaxy and comes back to earth, only to find his brother - who hasn't moved much at all - claiming to have experienced, say for convenience, twice as much time as his space-brother, comparatively.
My question is this - given that the earth-twin hasn't moved much, why is his time-path twice as long as the spacetwin who has been moving to Andromeda and back, so to speak? If time is space, how can the body moving the least travel the furthest?

Well not to confuse things but a large gravitational field will do the same thing,

Time is a dimension comparable to the passage of light through the other three dimensions, as i said before imagine that the earth twins path is a sphere and that the space twin cuts through the inside of the sphere, imagine that this is caused by approaching the speed of light.

This may sound silly but pretend that time is a dog chasing the space twin, as he accelerates to the speed of light it takes him longer to catch the space twin.

So just to point out the wierdness factor, if you sit right on the evnt horison of a black hole , time sloes to a stop.

As too why that happens you will have to ask UpC or Stimpy, but just pretend that time is a dog chasing both twins and that because of the space twins motion the dog has to run farther to catch hi.

[lifegazer]

I'll be giving a detailed response to the recent discussion after the weekend.

[c4ts]

Better start cramming now.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Andonyx

And it's not like Einstein started out to make an equation in which Light speed always equalled C. He found out that in fact, in reality no matter what the frame of reference, light always does equal c all the time under all circumstance. Aside for a little history lesson: Einstein wasn't the one who discovered the constancy of the speed of light.

The consistancy of the speed of light, c, was discovered around 1887 by James Clark Maxwell. His study of electromagnetism let to the his formulation of a set of four mathematical rules that described the behavior of electric and magnetic fields and the relation between them, imaginativly dubbed "Maxwell's Equations".

A funny consequence of Maxwell's Equations is that it showed that an electrical wave generated a magnetic wave and a magnetic wave generated an electric wave. These electromagnetic (a new concept) waves were mathematically predicted to travel at a constant speed, but constant to what? The only previous experience physicsists had with wave motion required a propogating medium. For example, sound waves traveled through the air and oceanic waves traveled through water.

The physicists at the time knew that these electromagnetic waves traveled at a constant speed, but constant relative to what medium? They hypothesized a substance that filled the universe called "ether" which was at a state of absolute rest and it was this that electromagnetic waves moved at it's fixed velocity relative to.

Fortunately, there were attempts made to measure how fast the Earth was moving through the ether, which was at absolute rest. Every attempt failed, the most famous attempt was called the Michelson-Morley experiment. There were some attempts to after that to save the ether theory with concepts like "ether wind" and "ether drag", but Michelson-Morley pretty much killed the ether concept.

What Einstein really did was introduce the concept that the speed of light was constant for all viewers in inertial reference frames. Heck, he introduced the very idea of inertial reference frames. From that a whole mess of consequences fell out, including time dialation, length contraction and the famous E=Mc^2, and that was just Special Relativity. His more generalized version, which included non-inertial (that is, accelerated) reference frames, really revolutionized the way we thought about the universe.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Upchurch

What Einstein really did was introduce the concept that the speed of light was constant for all viewers in inertial reference frames. Heck, he introduced the very idea of inertial reference frames. From that a whole mess of consequences fell out, including time dialation, length contraction and the famous E=Mc^2, and that was just Special Relativity. His more generalized version, which included non-inertial (that is, accelerated) reference frames, really revolutionized the way we thought about the universe.

[Back from vegas]

Actually, it was galileo who came up with inertial reference frames from what I can tell:

http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/galilean.html

"The mechanical laws of physics are the same for every inertial observer."

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by RussDill


[Back from vegas]

Actually, it was galileo who came up with inertial reference frames from what I can tell:D'oh!!

Well, the rest is correct according to Richard A. Mould's Basic Relativity. Can't win 'em all, I guess.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Aside for a little history lesson: Einstein wasn't the one who discovered the constancy of the speed of light.

The consistancy of the speed of light, c, was discovered around 1887 by James Clark Maxwell. His study of electromagnetism let to the his formulation of a set of four mathematical rules that described the behavior of electric and magnetic fields and the relation between them, imaginativly dubbed "Maxwell's Equations".



Good catch!

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

For the third and last time, the twin-paradox was labelled thus by somebody else. I merely call it that because they did. And I use it because I can link it to my philosophy. Furthermore, I do not believe in any paradox whatsoever - just ignorance or stupidity.


Right, you think it is not a paradox because of the Mind. Anyone who does not know the mind is stupid and ignorant. I am telling you that there is no reason to explain it with a Mind. It is stupid and ignorant to attempt such a feat. Special relativity stands on its own as a fully consistent theory without need for an explaination of a Mind.


You're under the illusion that I am challenging Einstein or his equations. Your incessant ramblings to that effect have drove me to the point of madness. My one and only point for this discussion is to link what science knows to the reality of mind, thus showing that these occurences are not happening externally to the mind.


You can talk all you want about the Mind, however, I will not allow you to use your misunderstanding of relativity as a proof of your "Mind". Many people do not understand relativity, so challenging your illinformed philosophy is the right thing to do.


Now, why don't you show me that you have a modicum of intelligence and shut up waffling about irrelevant stuff?


Please, tell me one occasion where I have waffled. And by the way, the true nature of relativity is not irrelevent, if you believe it to be, you are far far more ignorant than I give you credit for.


I answered the same dumb questions about atomic clocks, long ago. Keep up.

(Question was, "since particles in an accelerator experience relativistic effects, do they to have their own universe?") Not really a question about atomic clocks, but I'll take it


So, EVERY particle has its own universe? Even the particles that make up you? So when a particle decays into smaller particles, more universes are created? What about virtual particles, are those in virtual universes? What about when a photon's energy is absorbed, is a universe destroyed? If every particle is its own universe, why would it interact with other particles or fields?

Your theory is completely non-sensical

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

A car accelerates because it is forced to do so by the actions of my foot. Stop waffling, evasively, and tell these people why the whole universe - as they perceive it - will be distorted by their acceleration. Are you implying that the body exerts a force upon the whole external universe, whereby that body's acceleration forces the universe to distort?


He is pointing out your fallacy in the use of the word "distort". He is pointing out that your day to day changes that you see in the universe are no more special than what you would experience traveling near the speed of light relative to another inertial reference frame. Please show that the effects of relativity are any more special than the effects of motion. (they are actually a part of motion btw)


Are you people so dumb that you believe anything upchurch says?
Are you taking stock of his responses to me?!


no one on this board believes everything upchurch says (just because he says it), we're all skeptics. Hell, we don't even believe everything *we* say (just because we say it). We constanly analyze and look for fault. I must say however, he is making you look quite the fool.


Sitting comfortably and smugly amongst your skeptical ivory-tower, feeling superior and right merely because the brainless masses are on your side. How feeble.


sweet, we get an ivory tower?!?!?!!?!!! Dude, that is SO cool. Do the bathrooms have mints and that guy that hands you the towel?? This skeptic thing sure has a lot more perks than your whole mind thing.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Actually, I just get frustrated with the inability of people to see what I consider to be simple reasoning. I have come to the conclusion that other factors are at work, and that it's not just a simple matter of showing that 1 + 1 = 2, so to speak.
Perhaps armageddon must occur after all.

This is actually pretty close to where your confusion lies. You understand that 5 * 6 is 30, because you add 5 6 times and get 30. Hower, someone has just shown you that 42 / 3 = 14 (special relativity). You go wow, 3 * 14 is 42, how did they do multiplication in reverse? This is a truly magic power, how can one little slash do that? You then go on to determine that a Mind is responsible for such things. You go tell everyone, everyone then attempts to explain division and long division, the processes that are responsible for the behavior of this magic slash. However, you refuse to listen, because "all knowledge comes from within awareness"

How truly sad would such an argument be?

You understand the equations for special relativity, yet refuse to go any deeper to understand where they come from. You are using this sad, sad argument.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by RussDill

You understand that 5 * 6 is 30, because you add 5 6 times and get 30. Hower, someone has just shown you that 42 / 3 = 14 (special relativity). You go wow, 3 * 14 is 42, how did they do multiplication in reverse? This is a truly magic power, how can one little slash do that? Well done indeed, Russ.
lifegazer assigns an undue
significance here.

Edited to be in haiku for the sake of art. Now there's some meaning.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I missed the explanation. Most of us have a rough idea of why the car moves when we press-down on the pedal, but we're all dieing to know how the whole of the perceived universe is distorted by the acceleration of the body that perceives it. Please uppy - you have the stage.


again, he was just pointing out your fallacy in using the word distortion to describe relativity. Distortion is a subjective word:

The state of being distorted, or twisted out of shape or out of true position; crookedness; perversion.

Please explain the "true position or shape" that space is twisted out of?


Anybody willing to challenge the whole establishment of science, religion and philosophy, has to be truly open-minded. Don't you agree?


no, close minded fundies, cultists, spiritualists, ufologists, etc do it every day. You'll hear them often on the Art Bell show. These are truly the most closed minded people you well ever meet (besides maybe yourself).

Science is more than happy to be challenged, and grows by challenge. Religion vilifies challenge by calling it blasfamy. Philosophy reasons with challenge and attempts to understand it.


As far as I can tell, the only thing you're willing to challenge is religion.


Actually, we are all more than happy to question the other two as well, however, its received differently. Well founded philosphical and scientific challengers become friend, and what the challenge is thrown away, or modified. However, challenges against religions will always be challenges.


Edit: I guess that makes me the most open-minded person on the planet. Pass me the open-minded award please.

Ok, but you'll have to get in line behind all the guests of the Art Bell show first (Besids Michio Kaku, that man has more patience for being on that show than I knew existed in all of mankind combined)

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

This is nonsense. There is no argument of reason linking unicorns to relativity. Let's improve the quality of debate uppy squire.

Really? Maybe I'll make one?

We all know that gluons link together quarks into protons and neutrons, right? And that the higgs field gives mass to particles, right? Well, unicorns are there to maintain the speed of light as a constant. You see, when an object travels in relation to the ether, they jump in and do their job. They excite the higgs field with their magical horn, causing objects to gain mass. They then jump in with the gluons, with their massively strong hooves, they bounce them back and forth inside protons, giving rise to stronger nuclear forces, which in turn, causes atoms to decay slower, and making it seem like time occurs slower. They also try to push on whatever it is that is moving, causing it to contract in the direction of travel. What are these unicorns made of? Ether of course, however, they are too small for any of us to see.

Now we have an argument, feel free to point out any flaws, and I'll explain them away with unicorns.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I wasn't asking about relativistic effects upon a car. I was asking how you compared my foot being responsible for forcing the car to move, to my high-velocity (in space) distorting the whole of the universe as I perceive it. There is no comparison between the two.


as you perceive it? Changing your position will change how you perceive the universe. However, it will still be the same universe (Except with you in a different position). There is nothing different about relativity. It is still the same universe.


I'm not wasting my time listening to people brag about how open-minded they are. I leave you all to blow your own trumpets.

Ok Mr. "I don't want to learn because I know everything, and the establishment might brainwash me"

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

This is evasive nonsense. Are you or are you not going to tell anybody what force is involved in distorting the whole universe of space and time as perceived by any body in motion?


Again, there is no distortion, If you disagree, please state that distortion. The only thing that distorts spacetime (you keep saying space and time, they aren't two seperate things) is the presence of matter and energy.


This is the last time I ask and if you do not answer, I for one will think that you do not have one.


He has answered, over and over and over. However, because you'd have to learn something (GASP), you ignore these answers.


Can you prove that relativity applies to things external to awareness?
Can you show that relativity is not a theory involving the mind as the source of its own perceived universe?


I can prove the basis of relativity. I can derive the equations. If you can show me a flaw anywhere in either general or special relativity, I'll be very impressed.


Don't try and impress me with physics qualifications. This discussion is a philosophical enquiry into the nature of reality. Do you not even realise this?


Do you realize that once you base your arguments in physics, you can't just make crap up?


I do not want a *********** education in physics. I merely want you to apply your knowledge to either prove that the theory of relativity applies to an external reality, or an internal reality.

Everyone has applied you talk to has applied their knowledge of relativity to this. Everyone says it proves neither, but everyone also says that it disproves your view. If you don't want to learn physics, but want the advice of those that know physics, why don't you take their advice.


Now, for the umpteenth time, stop waffling and get with the programme.


Again, where is anyone besides you waffling?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

If nobody shares the exact-same experience as you, then your experience is personal and unique. I argue that everyone's perception of a second and a meter is dependent upon his/her mass, motion, and gravitational-orientation with regards to other bodies. Clearly, the experience of a second and a meter are constantly fluctuating - relatively to everyone elses - and are unique to each individual.
I'm surprised that anybody is arguing with this.


Again, I can point out the where is physics what you are saying is wrong, but you are completely ignorant, and refuse to learn for fear of being brainwashed. So I'll try to make it really simple like. If two inertial frames of reference both measure a meter perpendicular to their direction of travel, they both have the same meter. Where is the flux?


Sure. But twin B is on earth, and his vastly-slower velocity is giving him a completely different experience of 30 seconds in comparison to twin A.


Both twins are experiencing the exact same universe. Prove otherwise. If both see an event, both will agree on what event happened, at least in relation to what makes sense in this reality. For instance, they will not agree on how far away the event happened, because they are in different positions. In the same way, they won't agree in what order the events happened, because that also doesn't make sense in our reality. However, they can both analyze the event, and come up with the same answers, they can even translate those answers to another observers inertial frame to determine what the sequence of events in that reference frame would be. Its all the same universe.


The whole basis of my philosophy is:
(1) The value of the second and the meter is in comparative flux. Change your velocity and you will change the value of your second and meter.


Sorry, wrong. You only change your relative travel through spacetime. Prove otherwise.


(2) The value of these parameters is unique for each individual, as seen in comparison to other individuals. The twin-paradox shows that different people experience the essential parameters of space and time comparatively differently.


bzzt, wrong again, both twins experience the exact same universe. Both just take a different path through spacetime.


Sure. But given that all clocks have minute discrepencies of mass and gravitational-orientation, there must be minute discrepencies of time amongst all of them, even when placed in the same room.


again, stop being a smartass. This isn't what we mean when we say clocks.


How does this prove anything, other than the value of a second is a lottery, so to speak? That's my whole point.


A lottery is random. Nothing about special relativity is random.


Sorry, but this is irrelevant. The value of 5 minutes is the same for both paths.


True, however they have taken different paths through spacetime. spacetime is 4d, you need an x, a y, a z, and a t. You are traveling relative to other inertial reference frames in all 4 dimensions, not just three of them. Thats like saying a mile is a mile, and then being confused as to why a car travels more miles between two cities than a plane.


With all due respect, this does not relate to Relativity where two different paths will yield a meeting of the two twins (in the twin-paradox case) and will tell you that one person has been gone 10 years whilst the other 20. Even if they leave simultaneously and then meet simultaneously.


This is where you are getting hung up. This doesn't just relate to relativity, its the essence of relativity. You keep saying simultaneously, you need to throw that concept away. They leave from the same point in spacetime. They arrive at the same point in spacetime.

Just as if two people arrive at the same point in xyz, but a different point in t, different inertial reference frames will not agree that they met at the same point (ie, the earth rotates around the sun, so leed's castle is at a different xyz at various t's from the sun's inertial reference frame), It can also not be agreed apon that two events happen on the same value of t for different xyz's.


Imagine we shake hands and say "bye" and then walk around the streets for a while and meet-up later. You say an hour has passed and I say "nay, 10 minutes.". We're both telling the truth too, since our watches verify it.


again, time is part of space. Replace your watch with a pedometer. Both of you will say you have traveled a different distance, yet you are both meeting at the same xyzt. In the same way, both of you can travel a different "time", and arrive at the same xyzt.


Therefore, the only conclusion is that your experience of a second has been different to mine. Agreed? If so, then you consent to the foundation of my philosophy.


No, not agreed, you have no foundation.


Why have they got it wrong? I'm confused. All this time, I've been trying to use the information that guys like that provided to link to the reality of Mind. The fact that these guys never made that link does not negate the work they have done. Neither is it a surprise that this link was not made by a scientist, who usually regard (assume, actually) the world of our perceptions to be an external occurance.


The only part that you are taking in is the RESULT, not the process. Just as in the division example, you haven't bothered to understand why it happens, and assume it to be magical. I think most people believe that einstein pulled E=mc2 out of his ass. He was not in the lab, testing, experimenting with different equations, seeing which one fit, etc. He found this equation theoritically. These great thinkers were the first to understand the why.


Show me somebody who will listen.


You need to provide EVIDENCE or PREDICTIONS. You provide neither.

You'd think god would listen to himself. Then again, since you really haven't defined awareness in any coherent way, we'll just assign god's awareness, to the same thing as our awareness. Maybe god hears voices....you... He must be crazy. He needs medication, where do we go to administer said medication to god?

[Disbeliever]

^ That's a lot of posts. I'm not complaining since I was thinking the same things. Good job Russ. :D

[Andonyx]

Hey!

I tried the pedometer thing three pages back...

Copycat.

Sadly, it didn't work then...maybe this time?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

When you have two people who claim to be able to see 'a meter' and do experience 'a second', then the values of those parameters are comparable against each other - when they meet.


Again, I showed you how these do not change. The second does not change, it is simply a different path though xyzt, with both meeting at the same point. The meter also does not change, it is simply a consequence of taking a different path through xyzt. You head and tail clocks do not match up according to another observer. If you don't believe the meter doesn't change, check a meter of an object moving relative to you perpendicular to its direction of travel.


I have no idea why you would mention "an absolute".


because you seem to be convinced, that for the universe to make sense, there has to be an absolute definition of "when" and "where".


If you read my posts, I even state that the velocity of light is not the absolute we think it is (since "velocity" is the fluctuating-meter/fluctuating-second). Any velocity, x m/s, has a personal meaning dependent upon the experience of m and s.


You don't listen. He was not saying that the speed of light isn't an absolute. He was saying "when" and "where" are not absolute, and the speed of light is absolute. You seem to have it all backwards. You think the speed of light isn't absolute, and there must be an absolute "when" and "where", or else it means there is a mind

again, this is flawed anyway. If you ever bother to study physics, you'll understand why. I've shown you why the second and meter has no personal meaning, now its your turn to study electromagnitism and see why c has no personal meaning.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Disbeliever
^ That's a lot of posts. I'm not complaining since I was thinking the same things. Good job Russ. :D

I was in vegas, tons of fun. Maybe if LG ever "sees the light" we can all head out there and have a few drinks (LG included of course)

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Answer this please: you treat time as space. So, in the twin-paradox, the spacetwin flies all around the galaxy and comes back to earth, only to find his brother - who hasn't moved much at all - claiming to have experienced, say for convenience, twice as much time as his space-brother, comparatively.



"Hasn't moved much at all" Relative to what? that is a useless assertion. Relative to his own inertial reference frame? Heh, duh, who does move relative to their own inertial reference frame?

I could explain the mathmatics, the x, the x', the t, the t', etc, but I fear I would be wasting my time, you would just skim past it. If you do want the matchmatics, let me know.

Similar to this is the effect in general relativity that everything under the force of gravity moves in a straight line in spacetime. Example, throw something in the wastebasket, whatever arc you choose is straight in spacetime.


My question is this - given that the earth-twin hasn't moved much, why is his time-path twice as long as the spacetwin who has been moving to Andromeda and back, so to speak? If time is space, how can the body moving the least travel the furthest?

again, "hasn't move much" is meaningless. A clock is really only a way to understand the distance you've moved in the time dimension, in the same way an odometer tells you how far you've moved in the xyz dimensions. The stay at home twin actually took the longer path from xyzt to xyzt'.

Perhaps this blackboard explaination might be helpful (if you massive ego allows you to read it)

http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/george/twins.htm

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

9,I92,etc. vibrations of a Cesium atom occur in one second. But this does not prevent the second from being in flux. The vibrations can slow or speed-up, in tandem.

If the vibrations slow down, it would mean that the laws of physics would be changing. I don't think its possible to change the values in the standard model to allow for this to happen, and still have it be consistent.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You say that time is space in order to avoid the comparative differences of time experienced by the twins. I.e., they both experience '1 second', it's just that the spacetwin took a shorter route to get back to earth than the guy already on the earth. LOL. What a crock that sounds.


ya, ROR, I mean, LOL. Thats almost as crazy as saying that the earth goes around the sun and not vice versa.

You think its a crock, but this is the FOUNDATION of relativity (especially general relativity). It may be counterintutive at first, but its completely consistent, and proven again and again by experiment after experiment. How can you claim to agree with these theories and use them as your foundation, and yet, at the same time, call these theories a crock?!?!


Anyway, lorentz-transformation mathematics also show that 'a meter' is experienced comparatively-different by each observer. You must be aware of the thought-experiment whereby two observers measure the same train at different lengths?


Again, the source of these two observations are caused because the train is traveling in time as well as space. The meter is experienced the same by both. You can prove this by measuring perpendicular to the direction of travel.


So, how do you overcome this? How do you get all observers to experience the same meter? Do you turn space into time? lol

ya, HAHAHAH, what dumbass would think that up. Spacetime, pphhhht, next they'll be telling us that the earth is round, or that man evolved from monkies.

Where do you think Einstein's equations come from? They come from treating time and space as one. He did not pull these equations out of thin air, he derived them from the idea of spacetime.

Again with the meter, the distance between two points parallel to the direction of travel apear different because events do not happen simultaneously.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

What you say here is significant. The universe is not distorted, but our perceptions of it are? But this "debate" is whether what we perceive is also occuring externally to awareness, or whether it just happens within awareness.
You seem to distinguish between perceived-reality and external-reality?

When a physicist refers to an observer perceiving something, he's not using the same definitions as you. Also, by distorted, he is not meaning the same thing as you are. With special relativity, there is NO distortion. He is not talking about some difference between perceieved reality and external reality, sorry.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Instead of treating time as space, we can acknowledge that the comparative differences of time are real. The mathematics do not alter. Just the conclusions. Different time-paths become different perceptions of what time is.


So now you are throwing away Einstein's theories? I thought they were the base of your philosophy? Maybe you need to sit down and re-evaluate your philosophy.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by RussDill

Maybe you need to sit down and re-evaluate your philosophy. But he won't, will he? That would mean doing two things he seems fundamentally opposed to doing. First, he'd have to question his faith. Second, he would have to put in some effort and work.

[epepke]

The frustrating thing about this is that it isn't simply a case of ignorance or stupidity, so it's not like what we see commonly from philosphers. He seems actually to grasp some of the essential features of SR, but like Lorentz and Michaelson, is unwilling or unable to let go of that last bit of classical prejudice. So he has to invent a mystical philosophical explanation.

Although he got famous more for GR and SR, we rightly honor Einstein for SR, not because he came up with the math or the data or any of that, which he didn't, but because he was able to look beyond classical prejudices and come up with a beautiful theory.

[lifegazer]

Velocity: a concept relating to the perceived motion of bodies or particles. Devised by [human] awareness. The value of any given velocity is derived wrt the observer, whose own velocity is derived wrt the earth he stands upon. The velocity of earth is gleaned wrt the sun it circles.
Hence, the velocity of bodies is very much a human value. Human awareness gives value to the velocity of bodies.

Hence, since velocity-values are integral to the equations of relativity, and since these values give meaning to those equations, we can link the actual equations of relativity to the values (of velocity) given to bodies by human awareness.

I'll be making a few points. This is the first.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Velocity: a concept relating to the perceived motion of bodies or particles. Devised by [human] awareness. The value of any given velocity is derived wrt the observer, whose own velocity is derived wrt the earth he stands upon. The velocity of earth is gleaned wrt the sun it circles.


Velocity is a concept we use to *describe* physical systems that exist, regardless of us. Just because we came up with the concept to describe something, doesn't mean that that thing was any less before we described it, especially in relation to physical systems.

You then go on to this weird wrt thread. Let me set you straight here. Velocity is derived as the difference between two reference frame from a third reference frame (this third reference frame can also be the same as one of the two reference frame, making that frame "stationary").

Your whole wrt thread is really unneccesary and meaningless.


Hence, the velocity of bodies is very much a human value. Human awareness gives value to the velocity of bodies.


Again, we *describe* the velocities of bodies. The fact that they have velocity was true before we described that. Human awareness gives rise to nothing in regard to the velocity of bodies, we only seek to quantify it in our own reference frame. (or from another reference frame)


Hence, since velocity-values are integral to the equations of relativity,


ok, now you've gone way off the track. Velocity values are not integral to the equations of relativity. Sure we can plug in values, and get values out, but the base of those values do not have to be made by humans. The human definition of a meter or a second has no bearing on the equation of special relativity


and since these values give meaning to those equations,


bzzzt! wrong again lifegazer. The values of a meter and a second are not necessary for the equations regarding relativity. In fact, there is no need to give meaning to them at all, since they are actually derived from other equations.


we can link the actual equations of relativity to the values (of velocity) given to bodies by human awareness.


sure, maybe if anything of what you said above is correct.


I'll be making a few points. This is the first.

why don't you substantiate this point first

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
Velocity is a concept we use to *describe* physical systems that exist, regardless of us.

We give bodies the actual value of their velocity. The velocity of all universal bodies is given to them by us, wrt our stationary position upon the Earth.

Just because we came up with the concept to describe something, doesn't mean that that thing was any less before we described it, especially in relation to physical systems.

My point is that velocity is a concept defined by human judgement, with values given to bodies wrt our scale of judgement. If I say, for example, that a body in space has a velocity of 10,000 m/s, then that value is, significantly, given to that body wrt a scale devised from my relationship with the earth.

Again, we *describe* the velocities of bodies. The fact that they have velocity was true before we described that.

The value of a body's velocity should be independent of our awareness wrt the Earth. In fact, it truly is if it exists externally to us.

Einstein's equations work for values which we pump into them, and which are judged from our subjective perspective. Clearly, the equations mirror our own awareness of existence and have little to say of things external to our awareness.

I think this is significant. And it's only one of the points I want to raise. You guys were premature in cracking-open the bubbly.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer
We give bodies the actual value of their velocity. The velocity of all universal bodies is given to them by us, wrt our stationary position upon the Earth.

My point is that velocity is a concept defined by human judgement, with values given to bodies wrt our scale of judgement. If I say, for example, that a body in space has a velocity of 10,000 m/s, then that value is, significantly, given to that body wrt a scale devised from my relationship with the earth.

The value of a body's velocity should be independent of our awareness wrt the Earth. In fact, it truly is if it exists externally to us.
Good, you've isolated the defintion of "velocity" and figured its a human defined concept.

Now, you need to understand the relationship between measuring the velocity of an object and the frame-of-reference of an object. Without a frame of reference, the movement of the object cannot be described.

Einstein's equations work for values which we pump into them, and which are judged from our subjective perspective. Clearly, the equations mirror our own awareness of existence and have little to say of things external to our awareness.
Einstein's equations and science describe the external world. The bridge between the first person nature of observation and the 3rd person nature of reality is science. It is necessary to use concepts (such as velocity, measurements, etc.) to describe reality in terms that humans can understand.

I think this is significant. And it's only one of the points I want to raise. You guys were premature in cracking-open the bubbly.
Its never too early to have a Capri Sun...

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

We give bodies the actual value of their velocity. The velocity of all universal bodies is given to them by us, wrt our stationary position upon the Earth.


No body has an "actual" velocity, galilean and special relativity allow each observer to calculate a different velocity for every body. To get a velocity, you must first define what inertial frame of reference you want to describe that velocity against, and then, because of special relativity, you must define which reference frame to define that velocity from.

We give no quality to any moving body. The body has kinetic (and relativistic) energy in relation to other bodies regardless of what we do.

The velocity of any body in relation to the earth is only meaningful in the earth's inertial reference frame, it says nothing of other reference frames.


My point is that velocity is a concept defined by human judgement, with values given to bodies wrt our scale of judgement. If I say, for example, that a body in space has a velocity of 10,000 m/s, then that value is, significantly, given to that body wrt a scale devised from my relationship with the earth.


Velocity is a human description of a physical process. Also, our scale of judgement really has no bearing, we can use any scale or inertial frame of reference you like, it doesn't matter.


The value of a body's velocity should be independent of our awareness wrt the Earth. In fact, it truly is if it exists externally to us.


Score one for lifegazer, the velocity of a body is independent of our awareness with respect to the earth. This is one of the important points of galilean and special relativity, I think you failed to understand either before you started agreeing with them, because clearly, you only agree with little parts of them.


Einstein's equations work for values which we pump into them, and which are judged from our subjective perspective.


The equations don't do any actual work, they simply model what we expect to see in the external world.


Clearly, the equations mirror our own awareness of existence and have little to say of things external to our awareness.


The equations which model relativistic effects are within our awareness and model processes that are external to our awareness. You seem to have backwards the purpose of physics.

Maybe if you'd actually study physics, you'd understand the significance of these theories, equations, and constructs. Do you have any clue the power that the lone wave equation for the electron has in describing complex chemical properties?


I think this is significant. And it's only one of the points I want to raise. You guys were premature in cracking-open the bubbly.

You always think your misinterpretations of physics are significant. BTW, you agreement or disagreement with fact have nothing to do with my celebratory activities, as evidenced by my vegas trip. I'm sure Upchurch would agree, but he's probably still hung over from last night (j/k)

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Yahweh


Its never too early to have a Capri Sun...

The ivory tower has a Capri Sun stash too? Man, the perks just keep adding up! Pass one over here

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Good, you've isolated the defintion of "velocity" and figured its a human defined concept.

A human concept not just in terms of language, but in terms of the numerical-values [of velocity] assigned to those bodies that are in motion as perceived within human awareness.

Now, you need to understand the relationship between measuring the velocity of an object and the frame-of-reference of an object. Without a frame of reference, the movement of the object cannot be described.

Sure. But I discussed this myself. The scale of velocity begins with zero, and represents our stationary relationship with the earth. Then, low-value velocities are judged with regards the motion of bodies wrt the Earth. From this, every other velocity known to mankind has been assigned to the heavens.

Einstein's equations and science describe the external world.

Are you saying that Einstein's equations prove the existence of an external (to awareness) reality? I challenge anybody to support this assertion with reason. In fact, this was going to be one of my next few points: nothing Andonyx or anybody else here has said has proven the existence of an external reality.

I shall label this point 2 of a summary I shall present at a later date. It's highly significant to this discussion..
Do not forget that the whole purpose of this debate is really to discuss the reality behind everything. This is a philosophical debate, and not one merely of physics.

The bridge between the first person nature of observation and the 3rd person nature of reality is science. It is necessary to use concepts (such as velocity, measurements, etc.) to describe reality in terms that humans can understand.

Of course. The only way we can define things within our awareness is to assign labels and values to those things. But I contend that those labels and values exist purely as a figment of human awareness. Clearly, the actual velocity of a body external to the mind has no relation to the value we assign to it wrt our stationary position upon the Earth. If that body has a velocity, the value of that velocity is not what we say it is. Not if that body exists beyond our awareness of it, anyway.

I contend that the equations of relativity 'work' for the values we pump into them, because the equations of relativity mirror the order of events occuring within inner-awareness. I.e., the equations of relativity tell us nothing about an external reality. Nothing at all.
In fact, the equations of relativity relate to the motions of bodies within the awareness of an observer.

Does anybody have any reasonable comments to make about this before I move on to other substantial points?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
No body has an "actual" velocity

Really? So you admit that the motion of bodies is a figment of human awareness?

galilean and special relativity allow each observer to calculate a different velocity for every body.

We know this. But if bodies exist that are in motion beyond our awareness of them, then those bodies must have a velocity with a numerical-value that is independent of the values we assign to them. Hence, the equations of relativity are proven to be equations which relate to subjective awareness of events (the values we pump into those equations), and have no bearing on any (supposed) external reality.
Gettit?

The velocity of any body in relation to the earth is only meaningful in the earth's inertial reference frame, it says nothing of other reference frames.

Give me an example. I'm not sure what you mean.

The equations don't do any actual work, they simply model what we expect to see in the external world.

The equations are a mirror of existential behaviour, as perceived within inner-awareness. The equations themselves are a proof that physics is observing internal reality, and not an external reality.

Do you have any clue the power that the lone wave equation for the electron has in describing complex chemical properties?

QM is another issue. I will be discussing it at some point in the future.

You always think your misinterpretations of physics are significant. BTW, you agreement or disagreement with fact have nothing to do with my celebratory activities, as evidenced by my vegas trip. I'm sure Upchurch would agree, but he's probably still hung over from last night (j/k)
Did you win any money?

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Sure. But I discussed this myself. The scale of velocity begins with zero, and represents our stationary relationship with the earth. Then, low-value velocities are judged with regards the motion of bodies wrt the Earth. From this, every other velocity known to mankind has been assigned to the heavens.


But,as has been repeatedly, said: this is exactly the sort of mistake that shows you completely fail to understand velocity, never mind frames of reference. You remind me to some extent of Latour's attempts to treat relativity as a "text". You said elsewhere you were reading "Einsteins book". I hope you are reading some kind of introduction to science with it.
"I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question -such as, What do you mean by mass, or accceleration,which is the scientific equivalent of saying, Can.you read? - not more than one in ten of the highly educated would have felt that I was speaking the same language. So the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their neolithic ancestors would have had." C.P.Snow

[Zero]

I swear, I didn't intentionally follow Lifegazer here...but this just cracks me up!!

The only think I can figure is that he simply doesn't want to understand modern physics. I know from bitter experience that he has been given the relevant information, and he still insists on...well, whatever it is that he insists on, which doesn't make a lot of sense, and doesn't match the experimental results.

Good times though, right?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Zero
I swear, I didn't intentionally follow Lifegazer here...but this just cracks me up!! Where ever you knew him from, did he have persecution and messiah complexes there too?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Zero
I swear, I didn't intentionally follow Lifegazer here...but this just cracks me up!!

The only think I can figure is that he simply doesn't want to understand modern physics. I know from bitter experience that he has been given the relevant information, and he still insists on...well, whatever it is that he insists on, which doesn't make a lot of sense, and doesn't match the experimental results.

Good times though, right?
Hello Zero.
Why don't you first introduce yourself as a staunch materialist. Why don't you then introduce yourself as somebody who has limited knowledge of physics but who also abhors philosophy and reasoning beyond what science says about reality. A favourite phrase of yours comes to mind: "Navel gazing is a complete waste of time.".
Nice to see you again Zero, for old time's sake. But if you want to discredit my philosophy then address that philosophy.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Where ever you knew him from, did he have persecution and messiah complexes there too?
Upchurch, do you have an opinion on my recent posts, or not? I'm waiting before proceeding.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

But if you want to discredit my philosophy... Wouldn't that be a tad pointless since your philosophy has already been punched so full of holes already? I'd be more interested in finding out if other forums found the same holes or completely different ones.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
But,as has been repeatedly, said: this is exactly the sort of mistake that shows you completely fail to understand velocity, never mind frames of reference. You remind me to some extent of Latour's attempts to treat relativity as a "text". You said elsewhere you were reading "Einsteins book". I hope you are reading some kind of introduction to science with it.

I have no idea what you are talking about. But I do know that my recent contemplation of 'velocity' is correct and that it is significant in regards my own philosophy. So either address what I said or don't bother saying anything.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Upchurch, do you have an opinion on my recent posts, or not? I'm waiting before proceeding. Oh, sure I have an opinion. I think they were complete dren. You've utterly ignored everything I've said as demonstrated by this post:But I discussed this myself. The scale of velocity begins with zero, and represents our stationary relationship with the earth. Then, low-value velocities are judged with regards the motion of bodies wrt the Earth. From this, every other velocity known to mankind has been assigned to the heavens.This shows that you have utterly disregarded everything I posted about some of the background history of relativity and its principles as well as the experiments that conclusively proved that it is nonsensical to speak in terms of absolute rest frames. In real terms, even the Earth is a non-inertial reference frame.

But, hey, why let little things like facts interfer with your theism, eh?

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I have no idea what you are talking about. But I do know that my recent contemplation of 'velocity' is correct and that it is significant in regards my own philosophy. So either address what I said or don't bother saying anything.

I know you have no idea what I'm on about. You might want to think about that for a second. And your assertion that you "know your contemplation of velocity is correct" is invalid if you do not know what velocity means.
You can't base anything on your understanding of relativity if you don't understand frames of reference. You can't understand frames of reference if you don't know what velocity means,. It's not a subtle point I'm making.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Einstein's equations work for values which we pump into them, and which are judged from our subjective perspective. Clearly, the equations mirror our own awareness of existence and have little to say of things external to our awareness.

I think this is significant. And it's only one of the points I want to raise. You guys were premature in cracking-open the bubbly.

I haven't been thinking for at least a year!

I would like to point out that this is the basic disagreement, they are not human valkues which create the thery of relativity. It is an attempt to describe the thing called 'the physical world'.

Are you telling me that a scale (used to measure weight) measures from a subjective experience or that i see the numbers on the scale as a subjective experience. I think that there is a crucial difference.

I assume that the world behaves as i percieve it, which is a big assumption. But it does protect me from car crashes!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I have no idea what you are talking about. But I do know that my recent contemplation of 'velocity' is correct and that it is significant in regards my own philosophy. So, let's take a minute to talk about velocity.

As we all know, at relativistic speeds, there are phenomena called length contraction and time dialation. Mathematically, they look like this:

l' = l / gamma

and

t' = t / gamma

where l' is the relativistic length, t' is the relativistic time, l is the rest length (that is the length measured with no velocity relative to the object), t is the rest time, and gamma is the relativistic gamma and a function of velocity.

specifically, gamma = 1 / sqrt( 1 - (v^2 / c^2))

velocity = distance/time so dividing the above equations we se

l' / t' = (l / gamma) / (t / gamma)

l' / t' = (l / t) (gamma / gamma)

l' / t' = (l / t) (1)

v' = v

Velocity between the two reference frames are conserved throughout the length contraction and time dialation. In other words, between two inertial reference frames, both frames see the same velocity.

It is not based in any way on the observers interpretation or perception as you have assumed, lifegazer. Contrary to what you "know is correct," you are not. It's time to go find another aspect of relativity theory that you can claim supports your theology. This one mathematically does not.

edited to add a third party reference concerning the equations used here:
Special Relativity (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html)
Relativistic Gamma (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RelativisticGamma.html)

[Andonyx]

Let me simply ask one question...

Before human beings looked at them, did bodies move?

Before we were conscious thinking animals, did the Earth revolve around the Sun?

Before man had written symbolic language in order to express the relationships of entities, could he still throw a spear at running buffalo, and hit it?

If the aswer is yes, then I would argue that that is fairly strong evidence that the vector quantity of speed and direction were properites extant with bodies prior to human involvement. And that regardless of our awareness, objects posess these properties at all times.

For instance even stationary objects have inertia, and velocity.

For although it is a reletively recent discovery in human history there is not such thing as a "stationary object." All objects are hurtling through space at unimaginable speeds realtive to some other object on perhaps a distant solar system.

An object's velocity is only '0' here in its same frame of reference.

If Lifegazer's final argument is that there is no reality outside our own awareness, I'm going to be awfully disappointed. We have interesting Ian here for that kind of rehashed nonsense. And it's the same argument any remotely curious person has been debating in our own heads since we were 11 or 12 years old.

No, I will concede, God help me, that nothing in relativity theory proves there is an external reality to our awareness.

But who cares?

That's not what they set out to prove, and it does nothing to degrade the legitimicay and predictive value of those equations.

To ask someone to conclusively prove that reality is independant of our awareness is the same as asking them to prove there is no giant blue turtle floating outside our universe. By definition it cannot be done. How on Earth do you expect someone to make a statement of real value about something which is, by definition, beyond their ability to measure, view, understand, or be affected by?


But what YOU don't seem to understand is that nothing in any of these equations, theories, or properties lends any creedence to the idea that it is all a product of our minds either. Nothing in relativity theory, or even basic Newtonian mechanics of motion requires our awareness of it. It is there weather we pay attention to it or not, and these things we have been debating are merely scientific tools to help us describe, quantifiy, and record the world around us.

To try and use these tools, incorrectly I might add, to prove some age old philisophical debate whose ultimate point has been demonstrated moot by countless philosophers, is not only misguided and irresponsible, it is a complete and utter distortion.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Where ever you knew him from, did he have persecution and messiah complexes there too? Oh, absolutely...I mentor over at Physics Forums, he's a good guy, but he covers his lack of actual physics knowledge in a security blanket of percieved victimhood.

For Lifegazer's sake, let me introduce myself...LOL. Yes, I have a 'limited' understanding of physics, on account of being a metalurgist and not a physicist by trade, but I've got a basic grasp of principles. I also think that a philosophy that addresses the natural world cannot be based on 'navel gazing' alone; a little input of data from the natural world is a pretty useful part of any natural philosophy IMO. The linchpin of Lifegazer's philosophy as I understand it is that he meditated on teh subject without all teh facts, and then came to conclusions that his heart tells him are true.
It has been awhile, but I also recall Lifegazer being tutored on relativity once on Physics Forums, and he was fine up until the facts stopped fitting his 'philosophy', at which point his thinking hit a wall he wasn't inclinded to climb over. My memory may be fuzzy, but it looks as though he hasn't changed from my recollection.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Zero
I have a 'limited' understanding of physics, on account of being a metalurgist and not a physicist by trade, but I've got a basic grasp of principles.A metalurgist?!? Yeah, that has absolutely nothing to do with physics and natural science at all. :rolleyes: ;)
a little input of data from the natural world is a pretty useful part of any natural philosophy IMO.Or, a natural philosophy should at least not contradict the natural world. Call me crazy...
The linchpin of Lifegazer's philosophy as I understand it is that he meditated on teh subject without all teh facts, and then came to conclusions that his heart tells him are true.We can't trust you on this, Zero. You're a metalurgist.

What about it, lifegazer? Was this your methodology in deriving your natural philosophy? If not, what was your methodology?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Andonyx
Before human beings looked at them, did bodies move?

Before we were conscious thinking animals, did the Earth revolve around the Sun?

Presumably, you're assuming that they did. I.e., you're assuming that these bodies do exist beyond the realm of the Mind. Assumption is not much use to "debate".

If the aswer is yes, then I would argue that that is fairly strong evidence that the vector quantity of speed and direction were properites extant with bodies prior to human involvement. And that regardless of our awareness, objects posess these properties at all times.

Your conclusion is founded upon the aforementioned assumption and, therefore, has no relevance to this rational debate.

For instance even stationary objects have inertia, and velocity.

Exactly. Yet we assign values of zero-velocity to some objects upon the Earth's surface. This was what I recently discussed myself.

For although it is a reletively recent discovery in human history there is not such thing as a "stationary object."

Exactly. So what price those velocity-values which we pump into those equations?

An object's velocity is only '0' here in its same frame of reference.

You're just making the same points I made.

If Lifegazer's final argument

It's not my final argument. It was point-1 of a few points I wanted to make. I still want to address something you said before the weekend also.

No, I will concede, God help me, that nothing in relativity theory proves there is an external reality to our awareness.

But who cares?

Who cares?! Squire, we are flirting with the Divine Mind here and you say "Who cares?".

That's not what they set out to prove, and it does nothing to degrade the legitimicay and predictive value of those equations.

I haven't challenged the legitimacy of the equations. My argument is to link those equations to a reality of Mind.

But what YOU don't seem to understand is that nothing in any of these equations, theories, or properties lends any creedence to the idea that it is all a product of our minds either.

I disagree and hopefully we can discuss this more when I make my final points.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
A metalurgist?!? Yeah, that has absolutely nothing to do with physics and natural science at all. :rolleyes: ;)
Or, a natural philosophy should at least not contradict the natural world. Call me crazy...
We can't trust you on this, Zero. You're a metalurgist.

What about it, lifegazer? Was this your methodology in deriving your natural philosophy? If not, what was your methodology?
Look, Zero is to rational discussion what Geoff is to polite conversation. He's the general discussion moderator and spends most of his time talking about music and politics.
Why can't you stick to the issues and forget playing politics with me?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Why can't you stick to the issues and forget playing politics with me? You're evading again, lifegazer. Answer the question: Was this your methodology in deriving your natural philosophy? If not, what was your methodology?

Not to mention your avoiding my trashing of your subjective velocity argument.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Upchurch
A metalurgist?!? Yeah, that has absolutely nothing to do with physics and natural science at all. :rolleyes: ;)
Or, a natural philosophy should at least not contradict the natural world. Call me crazy...
We can't trust you on this, Zero. You're a metalurgist.

Don't forget, I am also disquailified for discussing music and politics!! If I put my guitar in the closet and promise not to read the newspaper today, can I participate in this discussion, please?!?

As far as Lifegazer's methodology, let's look at a recent statement of his, shall we?But I do know that my recent contemplation of 'velocity' is correct and that it is significant in regards my own philosophy. Things that stand out for me:

1) He says that he he bases his ideas of velocity on 'contemplation', not 'research' or 'experimentation'.

2) He claims that his ideas, that don't seem to be based on any actual examination of facts or experiments, fit his 'philosophy' in a significant way. Surprised? I've never seen him contemplate something, and come to a conjclusion which doesn't fit his preconcieved philosophy, which is telling.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Squire, we are flirting with the Divine Mind here and you say "Who cares?".Actually, we're flirting with your assumption of the Divine Mind. And who was it that said, "Assumption is not much use to 'debate'"?Originally posted by lifegazer
Assumption is not much use to "debate".
Oh, yeah.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Really? So you admit that the motion of bodies is a figment of human awareness?


No lifegazer, I'm pointing out that you can't just say the velocity of x is y and be done with it. You have to define your parameters as I have laid out.


We know this. But if bodies exist that are in motion beyond our awareness of them, then those bodies must have a velocity with a numerical-value that is independent of the values we assign to them.


Why? Your statement is meaningless. Please explain yourself in more detail. Clearly, bodies exist in motion (all bodies are in motion) that we are unaware of. Whatever situation you can imagine though, we can use our language to assign numerical vaules totheir velocities.


Hence, the equations of relativity are proven to be equations which relate to subjective awareness of events (the values we pump into those equations), and have no bearing on any (supposed) external reality.
Gettit?


When where they proven to relate to "subjective awareness" of events. Every proof of relativity I've seen have nothing to do with our subjective awareness. Some proofs don't even use numbers at all.


Give me an example. I'm not sure what you mean.


ok, from the earth, we say apollo 11 was traveling at x mph, from mars, they would say something completely different. The velocity that we calculated from earth's inertial reference frame is only usefull from earth's inertial reference frame. Calculations from other reference frames would have galilean and relativistic differences.


The equations are a mirror of existential behaviour, as perceived within inner-awareness.


We do perceive the external world...But we have also come up with these equations without any perception of the effects they cause. If it were a mirror, we would see the effect, and then fasion an equation.


The equations themselves are a proof that physics is observing internal reality, and not an external reality.


Again, you have to substantiate this leap in reason.


Did you win any money?


Course not, I gambled less than a dollar, btw, you don't win anything either, you do not pass go, you do not collect 200 dollars, you do not become the messiah, your philosophy is meaningless.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Upchurch, do you have an opinion on my recent posts, or not? I'm waiting before proceeding.

Interested, he did reply, and yet, you ignore his reply. Like I said, you can't reason yourself out of a wet paper bag.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I have no idea what you are talking about. But I do know that my recent contemplation of 'velocity' is correct and that it is significant in regards my own philosophy. So either address what I said or don't bother saying anything.

really, what experiments have you carried out to show that your idea of velocity matches the real world?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Presumably, you're assuming that they did. I.e., you're assuming that these bodies do exist beyond the realm of the Mind. Assumption is not much use to "debate".


so our entire fossil history was placed by the mind. All the cosmic background radiation was placed by the mind. All the light streaming to us by stars billions of light years away, was placed there by the mind. The universe simply started when the first concious man arose? What happened when he fell asleep? What if concious man evolved once, died out, and than re-evolved, what happened to the universe in the meantime?? If it was a change in a gene, its likely that the gene may have skipped generations a few times and conciousness was a stop and go thing.

He is not assuming that they existed, he is carefully examining EVIDENCE, every hear of the process? probably not.


Your conclusion is founded upon the aforementioned assumption and, therefore, has no relevance to this rational debate.


Yo, lifegazer, he bases that in EVIDENCE, not assumption, your mind is based in assumption, not evidence, I think you are getting the two things confused.


Exactly. Yet we assign values of zero-velocity to some objects upon the Earth's surface. This was what I recently discussed myself.


You still fail to see what velocity is. define velocity for us, will ya?


Exactly. So what price those velocity-values which we pump into those equations?


you've used this phrase "So what price" before, I'm not british, wtf does it mean?


You're just making the same points I made.


You fail to note the frame of reference portion, he is not making the same points, but, you are too think skulled to notice.


It's not my final argument. It was point-1 of a few points I wanted to make. I still want to address something you said before the weekend also.


I've seen your arguments lifegazer, they only get worse from here.


Who cares?! Squire, we are flirting with the Divine Mind here and you say "Who cares?".


Oh crap, I was sitting in the EAC ivory tower sipping on a Capri Sun, and I didn't notice the extreme importance of the situation. I didn't realize that if I blaspheme the DIVINE MIND, he will send me to hell with fire and brimestone. Where have I heard that before. The Divine Mind is a moron, he's so stupid, that his lone messenger cannot even convince members of himself. C'mon divine mind, rain down fire and brimestone on the unbelievers!


I haven't challenged the legitimacy of the equations. My argument is to link those equations to a reality of Mind.


The equations are not what the theories are all about. The equations are RESULT of the theories, not the base. You challenge the theories, while accepting their results.


I disagree and hopefully we can discuss this more when I make my final points.

After ignoring just about any argument that someone throws at you (especially if its phrased in such a way that makes it very difficult for you to answer), I don't know how many people will take you seriously by argument number 2.

Just so you know lifegazer, you are considered a joke, an intellectual curiosity, we all want to know what is wrong with your mental process.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
He is not assuming that they existed, he is carefully examining EVIDENCE, every hear of the process? probably not.

There is no evidence of an external reality. Stop wasting my time with kindergarten philosophy.

I've seen your arguments lifegazer, they only get worse from here.

Ah, you're psychic. What's my next argument then?

[Andonyx]

I'm still trying to figure out the ultimate point here.

I contend that by definition asking to prove or disprove that any obsrvable physical phenomena exists independant of the observation of the human mind is impossible.

I also contend that to try to do so is irrelevant because of the defintion of such phenomena.

Somehow LG has hinted that he believes there is something in relativity that supports the notion that these things are in fact products of the mind.

I cannot imagine where he's going with this....but in the meantime....

I think LG is having an issue with the fact that mathematics is an invented human construct, and for some reason this bothers him.

But that's sort of a philosophical discussion about the nature of the signifier versus the signified, and if he cannot deal with symbolic descriptions of physical phenomena then even asking questions about relativity is way ahead of the situations.

I mean can all of us here agree that while there is no such thing as "1" in physical reality, that using that symbol denotes something that each of us is able to observe indepedantly in the world around us, and agree on it's outsome in such a way that we can call it "1"?

And we all understand that this postulate of the definition of "1" is what allows us to go on and define "2", and that in a platonic sense if one fully understands the concept of "1" and the concept of "2" which we agreed upon in a prior manner, that by very definition, "1" + "1" must = "2" and nothing else?

And that this then becomes valid in the real world when we all ask each other to independantly verify:

1. Is that indeed 1 rock over there?
yes.
2. Do we all measure it as being wat we call 1?
yes.
3. What about this in my hand, how many rocks is that?
one.
4. Do we all agree, this in my hand is also 1 rock?
yes.
5. So when I put it down there next to the other rock, how many do we have?
two.
6. We all agree, this is two rocks?
yes.
7. Good then our definition of adition and "2" check out with the real world. Now you each try it in turn and see if our results match.

And from that one smart guy among us says, "Hey, I bet if I have 2 rocks, and take away 1 rock, I will have 1 rock left. I call this principle, subtraction." Then that guy takes away 1 rock, and discovers he has 1 rock left, and his theory of subtraction works in the real world. And then he has other people check it out for him, and that's how we build up evidence that our descriptions of th world are accurate?

I mean is everbody here clear on that?

And that even all the way up to a mathematical expression of velocity, we know that one foot has been one foot for hundreds of years, and we can use that measure and the measure of a second, for time to accurately describe how something moves?

And when we go back and have other people check our measurements using these concepts of "foot," and "second" our measurements turn out to be consistent?

We all understand that?

And then we make predictions based on how our mathematical descriptions can be manipulated...and check those to see if they are correct?

And when they are consistently correct and accurate we find we have a principle that accurately describes the world around us...

We all get this right?

Seriously, is that clear to everyone?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Andonyx
*snip*

Seriously, is that clear to everyone? Nope. Someone will likely say that if three people are looking at the rock, there are 3 rocks, if no one is looking at it there is no rock, and if 4 people, a squirrel and a one-eyed duck are looking at it, there are 4.536287 rocks.

[Dancing David]

Are you telling me that a scale (used to measure weight) measures from a subjective experience or that i see the numbers on the scale as a subjective experience. I think that there is a crucial difference.



Hmm, even Ian admits that the external world exists, the question is one of ontology.

On the behalf of the Neutral Sceptics Confederation, I would like to ask that all parties reduce thier flames to the flaming forum.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Andonyx
I'm still trying to figure out the ultimate point here.

The point is whether Einstein's equations relate to the inner-world of perceived things within awareness, or whether they relate to things external to our awareness.
Point-1 takes us to the reality of mind, I think, since the values of velocity are scaled via human experience and bear no relation to the actual velocities of bodies.
The numbers we pump into the equations reflect subjective experience of velocity values. Yet the equations work for those values. Which, imo, points to the fact that the equations of relativity mirror the realm of the mind... deal with things within the mind... and speak nothing of an external (to the mind) reality.

This is only point-1. I mentioned point-2 also, which you agreed with. Therefore, serious contemplation should be given to what I am saying and what I will say soon with regards to your posts before the weekend.
So please don't discard my philosophy until you have heard it.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The point is whether Einstein's equations relate to the inner-world of perceived things within awareness, or whether they relate to things external to our awareness.


If that's ONE of the questions your facing...

Then it seems to me that logic would dictate the answer is no. The reason being that ONE person, or ONE measuring device in ONE frame of reference can never experience relatavistic effects. Relativistics effects only ever manifest themselves when TWO frames of reference are compared with regards to measurement.

For instance one of the twin astronauts, if he never spoke to the other would never deduce from any form of measurement whatsoever that anything unusual happened. He merely had 10 minutes pass, while traveling for ten minutes and that's the end of the story. The only appearance of anything relativistic happens when he compares his measurements with those of an EXTERNAL source.

As such relativistic effects cannot be the product of an internal process, since they cannot even manifest without an external frame of reference.

Does that make sense?

[RussDill]

Thanks again for ignoring the important and difficult (for you at least) to answer portions of my post.

Originally posted by lifegazer

There is no evidence of an external reality. Stop wasting my time with kindergarten philosophy.


Again, we must assume, is reality part of some elaborate illision, or is it just reality. If its part of an elaborate illision, than what about the reality of how that illision is created? The illision approach just creates another layer, it doesn't explain anything and it solves no problems.

Every experiment done thus far has produced no evididence of an illision.

He is refering to evidence that points to the earth revolving around the sun before we were here. I'd say there is evidence to that, where is your evidence to counter it?


Ah, you're psychic. What's my next argument then?

that because we are all in seperate percieved realities, but our motion ruled by these "equations" we are all immersed in the same "thing" and that thing is the mind. Do I get the JREF million dollar prize?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The point is whether Einstein's equations relate to the inner-world of perceived things within awareness, or whether they relate to things external to our awareness.


The way einstein postulated them, they definately refer to things external to our awareness. To come up with equations, he first understood how space and time external to our perception behave (we definately have a different perception of how space and time should behave). He then set out some postulates, and out of those postulates, came equations.


Point-1 takes us to the reality of mind, I think, since the values of velocity are scaled via human experience and bear no relation to the actual velocities of bodies.


really? I'd say the velocity value we give to a body relative to our frame of reference has a definate relation. An easy way to see that is in the bodies kinetic and relativistic energy.


The numbers we pump into the equations reflect subjective experience of velocity values.


Velocity is not a subjective concept and you have made no attempt to show otherwise.


Yet the equations work for those values.


Thats because the values we choose have a direct correlation to reality.



This is only point-1. I mentioned point-2 also, which you agreed with. Therefore, serious contemplation should be given to what I am saying and what I will say soon with regards to your posts before the weekend.
So please don't discard my philosophy until you have heard it.

You point was an either or...

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Zero
Nope. Someone will likely say that if three people are looking at the rock, there are 3 rocks, if no one is looking at it there is no rock, and if 4 people, a squirrel and a one-eyed duck are looking at it, there are 4.536287 rocks.
Crazy crazy existentialism...

If there were 4 rocks, why can each person or animal observing the 4 rocks only see one at a time?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Crazy crazy existentialism...

If there were 4 rocks, why can each person or animal observing the 4 rocks only see one at a time? Because each person observing creates their own universe...and ducks and squirrels aren't as 'real' as people are, so they only get a fraction of a universe each?

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

There is no evidence of an external reality. Stop wasting my time with kindergarten philosophy.


As has been pointed out before (rather clearly by Mercutio for one) there is rather less evidence for internal reality. You may know have noticed a whooshing sound high overhead at the time.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

So please don't discard my philosophy until you have heard it. But it's okay to discard science once you've heard it and just don't understand it? Interesting...

[Disbeliever]

^ Sad but true. The continuing motif I find in this thread is lifegazer's unwillingness to become educated through established physics, and his want to just receive the information he requests without explanation. In my physics class, there are many students who do this all the time, not realizing they have to go through the basics before grasping the more complex aspects.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Disbeliever
^ Sad but true. The continuing motif I find in this thread is lifegazer's unwillingness to become educated through established physics, and his want to just receive the information he requests without explanation. In my physics class, there are many students who do this all the time, not realizing they have to go through the basics before grasping the more complex aspects.

Welcome, DB!

What kind of physics class do you teach?

[Darat]

This thread rates a popcorn concession....

[Hexxenhammer]

It is getting to epic proportions. Especially when considered with the only slightly more vindictive sequel "Lifegazer is a..." thread in Flame Wars, and the "Open-minded, close minded" spinoff.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
It is getting to epic proportions. Especially when considered with the only slightly more vindictive sequel "Lifegazer is a..." thread in Flame Wars, and the "Open-minded, close minded" spinoff. I had no idea lifegazer was a franchise. Question is, is it just a fad or will it rival the Wanko franchise?

Can't wait for sweeps week.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I had no idea lifegazer was a franchise. Question is, is it just a fad or will it rival the Wanko franchise?

Can't wait for sweeps week. His beliefs certainly have tremendous staying power, and his imperviousness to new data and bad reviews is astounding. Also, hints of more to come pressage a tremendous store of sub-philosophies to follow. lifegazer is here to stay.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hgc
His beliefs certainly have tremendous staying power, and his imperviousness to new data and bad reviews is astounding. Also, hints of more to come pressage a tremendous store of sub-philosophies to follow. lifegazer is here to stay. You forgot that he's an attention wh*re, which only furthers the point.

[sackett]

"Knowledge without thought is useless. Thought without knowledge is dangerous."

I would have kept the placemat but I spilled duck sauce on it.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Disbeliever
^ Sad but true. The continuing motif I find in this thread is lifegazer's unwillingness to become educated through established physics, and his want to just receive the information he requests without explanation. In my physics class, there are many students who do this all the time, not realizing they have to go through the basics before grasping the more complex aspects.
Sad but true, that so many people learn physics assuming that what they learn relates to an external [to awareness] reality.
You squire are ignorant to the issue at hand. Even if you were a physicist of the stature of Einstein himself, your knowledge would tell us nothing of reality: inner or outer.

[lifegazer]

And I would appreciate it if we could keep to the issues in this thread. Those that want to heap praise upon me can do so in the flame war forum.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You squire are ignorant to the issue at hand.Okay, see, "ignorant" means to not have knowledge of. The issue at hand is Special Relativity. Disbeliever, who is apparently a teacher of physics, has knowledge of Special Relativity. Therefore, Disbeliever is, by definition, not ignorant of the issue at hand.

You, on the other hand, have demonstrated ignorance of the issue at hand. Further, you've shown ignorance of the term "ignorance" and even of your own ignorance, which is the actual underlying topic of the thread.

So, in discussing your ignorance of Special Relativity, Disbeliever has kept to the issue. I'm glad you have an appriciation for that.

:rub:

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Okay, see, "ignorant" means to not have knowledge of. The issue at hand is Special Relativity.

The issue at hand is reality - external or internal - and whether relativity has clues to tell us which.
You could be Einstein yourself and recite every detail of the theory, and in so doing, you would not have touched upon the issue at hand as described.
It's time to up your brain a gear upchurch, or you will be left behind in the conversation. Your choice.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The issue at hand is reality - external or internal - and whether relativity has clues to tell us which.
You could be Einstein yourself and recite every detail of the theory, and in so doing, you would not have touched upon the issue at hand as described.
It's time to up your brain a gear upchurch, or you will be left behind in the conversation. Your choice.

You've attempted to show that relativity shows that external reality is inconsistent, we have pointed out again and again why you are wrong, you have not countered these arguments, and instead have admitted that you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

[lifegazer]

I'm hoping to have finished my points before the weekend. In the meantime, perhaps you can explain to this forum how the knowledge gleaned by Einstein links to an external reality?
Otherwise, take a back seat.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I'm hoping to have finished my points before the weekend. In the meantime, perhaps you can explain to this forum how the knowledge gleaned by Einstein links to an external reality?
Otherwise, take a back seat.

It links to NEITHER. You are claiming proof of a direct link to an simply internal reality, your proof is based on a complete misunderstanding of relativity. If you want to prove that reality is an elaborate illision, you'll have to do better.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
It links to NEITHER.

I see. So the laws of physics relate to neither an internal or external realm? Perhaps they relate to the land of Oz then Russ?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I see. So the laws of physics relate to neither an internal or external realm? Perhaps they relate to the land of Oz then Russ?

The laws of physics say nothing about the possibility of reality being a massive, elaborate illiusion.

[edited to add: physics also says nothing about anything that isn't scientific (ie, not provable/disproveable)]

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill


The laws of physics say nothing about the possibility of reality being a massive, elaborate illiusion.

[edited to add: physics also says nothing about anything that isn't scientific (ie, not provable/disproveable)]
Let's cut the bs and admit that science assumes that the laws of physics relate to an external realm. Hell, last week, you stated that physics was materialism. lol

Now that the assumption has been exposed as such, the issue on the table is as stated. Now you're either in a position to argue for internal-reality or external-reality... or neither. If neither, then please join the sheep in the back rows.

[Dancing David]

I noticed that you just ant to fight Lifegazer!

So if all that exists is internal awareness, why do you need an eye to see.

I think that you are farid to answer the question, Ian has answered it and I think that Hamme has an answer do you Lifegazer?

Why do you need an eye to see?

Well what the answer?


Do external events apear to lead to the internal awareness, or do you think that your anima shoots beams from your eyes.


I will ask you again, and you won't answer again, because that is the precipice you hang over!

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Let's cut the bs and admit that science assumes that the laws of physics relate to an external realm. Hell, last week, you stated that physics was materialism. lol

Now that the assumption has been exposed as such, the issue on the table is as stated. Now you're either in a position to argue for internal-reality or external-reality... or neither. If neither, then please join the sheep in the back rows.

How many times must I explain this, here is the definition for physics:

The science of nature, or of natural objects; that branch of science which treats of the laws and properties of matter, and the forces acting upon it; especially, that department of natural science which treats of the causes (as gravitation, heat, light, magnetism, electricity, etc.) that modify the general properties of bodies; natural philosophy.

If thats not from a materialist's perspective, I don't know what is.

Physics does assume that what you see is what you get. Physics assumes that we aren't being fooled, or tricked. While this is an assumption, it is an assumption necessary for physics to go forward. Physics justs assumes that we aren't all suckers in a vast complex illiusion.

Firstly, I don't see how thats a huge assumption, you can continue your assumption that we are victims of a vast illusion. However, if you assume that we are a victim of a vast illusion, you must then ask, what about the reality that is creating ours, is that just an illusion too? and you have the problem of layers.

Since it is impossible to prove that we aren't all being suckered by an evil, misceaveous god, there will always be those that argue it.

However, this isn't what you argue, you profess to have proof that we are all suckers in a vast illusion. You have attempted to use your poor understanding of physics to prove otherwise, but unfortunately, all your points have been without merit.



BTW lifegazer, stop going in circles, all you stated in your post was that you are right, and everything that everyone else says is BS. Lets hear some substance.

[Zero]

Actually, from a purely philosophical standpoint, Lifegazer's idea that "everything is subjective and from the mind, and therefore physics can be made up as I go along" philosophy is something of a paradox, isn't it? Following that sort of notion to its logical conclusion, I discovered through contemplation that Lifegazer cannot support his general philosophy while also making any specific claims, since a specific claim would imply an objective reality that he claims doesn't exist.
Even if that doesn't make sense, it is still perfectly valid, because it came from my mind, right? Since your views are subjective, you can no more call me wrong than I can say Lifegazer is wrong.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I noticed that you just ant to fight Lifegazer!

Not true. I just fight when I have to. Russ is a young upstart who needs his butt kicking now and then. lol

So if all that exists is internal awareness, why do you need an eye to see.

I think that you are farid to answer the question, Ian has answered it and I think that Hamme has an answer do you Lifegazer?

Why do you need an eye to see?

Well what the answer?

If only The Mind exists, then the passage of energy between what it creates and becomes aware of must be linked... from creation to awareness. The eye is part of the order inherent within the machinery which brings the wheel full-circle from creation to awareness.
Even in our dreams, we have eyes to see.

[lifegazer]

Zero, why did you conspire to have me banned if you want to talk about my philosophy?

[UndercoverElephant]

Russ is a young upstart who needs his butt kicking now and then. lol


You are in no position to kick ANYBODYS butt. First you have to have your own feet on some stable ground. Otherwise when you kick out at others all you will do is fall over and look stupid. :(

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Zero, why did you conspire to have me banned if you want to talk about my philosophy? I went back several pages on this thread and I didn't see anything by Zero saying anything about having you banned from this board.

[hgc]

Originally posted by lifegazer

...

If only The Mind exists, then the passage of energy between what it creates and becomes aware of must be linked... from creation to awareness. The eye is part of the order inherent within the machinery which brings the wheel full-circle from creation to awareness.
Even in our dreams, we have eyes to see. But of course! Sensory organs are illusory. Reducto absurdum.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I went back several pages on this thread and I didn't see anything by Zero saying anything about having you banned from this board.

Paranoia has set in. Expect it to get worse.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Not true. I just fight when I have to. Russ is a young upstart who needs his butt kicking now and then. lol

If only The Mind exists, then the passage of energy between what it creates and becomes aware of must be linked... from creation to awareness. The eye is part of the order inherent within the machinery which brings the wheel full-circle from creation to awareness.
Even in our dreams, we have eyes to see.

No, by your behavior we can count the number of times you have responded to reasonable critisism and the number of times you have responded to taunts and the like. You want to fight.


You really didn't answer the question:

Why do we need eyes to see?

Must be linked from creation to awareness, what , answer the question, you just earned a golden waffle Lifegazer!

You have stated repeatedly that external reality can not be proven to exist, if that is so, why eye?

You still dangle over the precipice, enjoy your waffle, there is a solution but this time no hints from me.

And in my dreams I often don't have a body, one of the differences between dream reality and external reality, I have also been shot and fallen off cliffs in my dreams.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I went back several pages on this thread and I didn't see anything by Zero saying anything about having you banned from this board.
He was part of the senate at physics forums.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

He was part of the senate at physics forums. Oh, whining and persecution again, I see.

I thought you wanted to discuss the here and now and forget about the past? More double standard, lifegazer?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Oh, whining and persecution again, I see.

I thought you wanted to discuss the here and now and forget about the past? More double standard, lifegazer?
Only by those that used the knives to shut me up.
It appears they just wounded me. And like a wounded animal...

[The Don]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Only by those that used the knives to shut me up.
It appears they just wounded me. And like a wounded animal...

....you behave irrationally, exhibit a short attention span and keep on squealing

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

And like a wounded animal... You sulk off to another forum board only to getting mocked and laughed at anew?

Funny how your The Truth(tm) doesn't really help you or make your life better in any way, shape, or form, isn't it?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
You sulk off to another forum board only to getting mocked and laughed at anew?

Funny how your The Truth(tm) doesn't really help you or make your life better in any way, shape, or form, isn't it?
My truth? It's the world's truth uppy. Your truth. My happiness rests upon the shoulders of billions, not just myself. When national borders are erased and all weapons are recycled into something else, you will see me smiling.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by The Don


....you behave irrationally, exhibit a short attention span and keep on squealing

:D

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

When national borders are erased and all weapons are recycled into something else, you will see me smiling.

Will the lions lay down next to the lambs? :rolleyes:

http://www.unc.edu/~elliott/Beautiful_Surroundings.jpg

[hgc]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


Will the lions lay down next to the lambs? :rolleyes: ... in their bellies.

[lifegazer]

How can we ask the animals to do what we cannot even do amongst ourselves? One thing at a time ladies.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer
How can we ask the animals to do what we cannot even do amongst ourselves? One thing at a time ladies.

I asked you whether in your imagined paradise the lions will lay down next to the lambs. Yes or no?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


I asked you whether in your imagined paradise the lions will lay down next to the lambs. Yes or no?
In my "imagined" paradise there would be no suffering for any being.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

In my "imagined" paradise there would be no suffering for any being.

WOULD THE LIONS LAY DOWN NEXT TO THE LAMBS?

Is being eaten not suffering?

Is starving not suffering?

YOU HAVE NO LOGIC.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


WOULD THE LIONS LAY DOWN NEXT TO THE LAMBS?

Is being eaten not suffering?

Is starving not suffering?

YOU HAVE NO LOGIC.
You asked me about "imagination" Geoff, not logic. In my childish imagination, the lions would even clean the lambs and no entity would hunger for anything.
If you want a rational discussion, don't ask me to give you an imaginary vision.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

In my "imagined" paradise there would be no suffering for any being.

ooops, now you sound like the buddha.

[RussDill]

Nice job running away from my points and instead just calling me a "kid" again. The only butt kicking you are doing is exclaiming "I'm right, you're wrong, I'm right you're wrong". How about arguing against the points I've made instead?





Originally posted by lifegazer

Not true. I just fight when I have to. Russ is a young upstart who needs his butt kicking now and then. lol


Just because you are pushing 40 doesn't mean you are endowed with some magical intelligence, but you certainly seemed to be endowed with a huge superiority complex. Might I remind you how old einstein was when he published his theory of special relativity (including other work that won him the nobel prize)?


If only The Mind exists, then the passage of energy between what it creates and becomes aware of must be linked... from creation to awareness. The eye is part of the order inherent within the machinery which brings the wheel full-circle from creation to awareness.


Why must that be? If the mind is going to imagine something, why bother imagining something so complex, when we could simply "perceive".


Even in our dreams, we have eyes to see.

Mabye you dreams. But certainly not in mine. I do not require eyes to see in my dreams. In fact, I would argue (and this could probably be studied, probably already has been) that our process of visual perception is completely different in our dreams.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

My truth? It's the world's truth uppy. Your truth. My happiness rests upon the shoulders of billions, not just myself. When national borders are erased and all weapons are recycled into something else, you will see me smiling.

I'd argue that there are thousands of other ways to create that result that do not include your philosophy. Also, I rather like national borders, diversity is good. Last person I remember that decided that diversity was a bad thing committed suicide in a bunker somewhere in berlin.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

In my "imagined" paradise there would be no suffering for any being.

You'd think if the mind imaging this world, the mind wouldn't have created so much uneccesary suffering. For the mind so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten HIV virus, and his only begotten mentally handicap childern, and his only begotten polio virus, and his only begotten starvation, and his only begotten man eating sharks, and his only begotten asteroids and comets that strike the earth, and his only begotten earthquakes, and his only begotten tidal waves, etc, etc, etc

[Zero]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Zero, why did you conspire to have me banned if you want to talk about my philosophy? That's cute, bub...I didn't conspire to have you banned, boss. You apparently conspired to have yourself banned, and did a bang-up job about it. Don't be modest, you get all the credit!!!

I mean, being arrogant and abusive to those who are leaps and bounds ahead of you in knowledge of the topics you talk about , is no way to win friends and influence people....and neither is offering 'butt kickings' to people who, again, know alot more than you on a subject, and are simply correcting your numerous logical errors.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You asked me about "imagination" Geoff, not logic. In my childish imagination, the lions would even clean the lambs and no entity would hunger for anything.
If you want a rational discussion, don't ask me to give you an imaginary vision.

I am asking you how your imagined paradise could ever logically work. And it couldn't, which is why you have failed to answer the question.

According to the answer above you believe there would be no hunger even though the lions no longer ate anything.

You have totally lost it, mate. :(

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Dancing David


ooops, now you sound like the buddha.

No, he doesn't. The Buddha did not say there could be a world where there was no suffering. He said that if people followed his path that they could be free of suffering. Lifegazer is telling everybody about a paradisical world where there is no suffering, but does not believe in killing his own ego - he just believes in lecturing others about it. The Buddha, in sharp contrast, lectured nobody, promised no paradise for the world, and told people to work on their OWN relationship with the Divine. He realised that peoples perception of pain and suffering was related to the size of their own ego. Lifegazer believes the pain and suffering is caused by everyone else but him, and revels in his ego because "it means nobody will worship him".

This is why the Buddha found peace and Lifegazer finds nothing but pain.

There is no such thing as a world where there is no suffering, apart from in the deluded dreams of Jehovas Witnesses, 7th day Adventists and Lifegazer.

[lifegazer]

Let's get back on track. There's a thread in flame-wars forum if you want to praise me, and there's another thread about buddhism in here. Let's talk relativity.

First, let me remind you of points 1 & 2.
Credible points worth remembering before I proceed.

Basically, point-1 is that Einstein's equations use values [of velocity] that are subjective. These values bear no relation to the true velocity-values of bodies. They relate to our perspective wrt our relationship with Earth.
Basically, point-2 reminds you that even a physics genius cannot show you that Einstein's equations relate to an external reality. This has just been assumed.
Enter me, to prove otherwise, and to engage you in some serious discussion.

I fail to see how you can disagree with any of the above and keep a straight face. Regardless, I shall proceed shortly.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Mere variation does not imply subjectivity. For example genes and heights vary i.e. are relative, but hardly subjective.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Mere variation does not imply subjectivity. For example genes and heights vary i.e. are relative, but hardly subjective.
You need to read back a page or two. I argue that the velocity-value of a body is borne of a scale devised wrt our relationship with the Earth.

[DialecticMaterialist]

And what os your basis for this? Some premise about variation equaling subjectivity correct?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Basically, point-1 is that Einstein's equations use values [of velocity] that are subjective. These values bear no relation to the true velocity-values of bodies.This last sentence is true, as there is no such thing as "true velocity-values of bodies." The first sentence is completely untrue.
Basically, point-2 reminds you that even a physics genius cannot show you that Einstein's equations relate to an external reality. This has just been assumed.
Enter me, to prove otherwise, and to engage you in some serious discussion.[/b]You're right. Materialism is an assumption, but then so is immaterialism. You've just assumed that the mind exists. Prove otherwise.

(I'm going to leave the "Enter me" comment alone. That's just creepy.)
I fail to see how you can disagree with any of the above and keep a straight face. Regardless, I shall proceed shortly. It's true. I do have a hard time keeping a straight face, but only because what you've said is so darn ignorant.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You need to read back a page or two. I argue that the velocity-value of a body is borne of a scale devised wrt our relationship with the Earth. So do you, I proved mathematically that the variation in duration and length cancel each other out when used to calculate velocity.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Let's get back on track. There's a thread in flame-wars forum if you want to praise me, and there's another thread about buddhism in here. Let's talk relativity.

First, let me remind you of points 1 & 2.
Credible points worth remembering before I proceed.


I realize that what you are attempting to proceed to requires these two points, but you need to prove them before you move on, not simply ignore critizism and then claim credibility. Before going forward with any credibilty, you are going to have to face these arguments, and stop running away.


Basically, point-1 is that Einstein's equations use values [of velocity] that are subjective.


1) you have not shown velocity to be subjective.

2) Einsteins equations do not "use values of velocity". Einsteins equations stem from the mathmatics of special relativity and have nothing to do with human values chosen for velocities.


These values bear no relation to the true velocity-values of bodies.


Again, saying the "true velocity value" is meaningless. Its like asking for the true value of how far something is away. Nothing has some magic, absolute velocity. Velocity only makes sense when taken in relation to three things. a) the body's inertial frame of referenc. b) the vs inertial frame (ie, it is traveling x m/s in relation to the sun) c) the observers inertial reference frame (necessary for relativistic effects).

Its been a long time since anyone has seriously thought that bodies have an absolute velocity. Galileo shattered that notion with his galilean relativity (added b). Einstein shattered the notion even further (added c).

Please tell me in relation to what three reference frames the absolute value of velocity is measured?


They relate to our perspective wrt our relationship with Earth.


No, we can choose ANY reference frame.


Basically, point-2 reminds you that even a physics genius cannot show you that Einstein's equations relate to an external reality. This has just been assumed.
Enter me, to prove otherwise, and to engage you in some serious discussion.


Again, its not possible to prove that we are all suckers in some elaborate illusion. However, you are attempting to prove that we are all suckers of some elaborate illusion, hence the argument.

Before you go on your merry little way, you should respond to these points, and the points on the bottom of page 9, otherwise, you have no credability.


I fail to see how you can disagree with any of the above and keep a straight face.


Everyone you talk to disagrees with the above. Do you think they have a problem with their disagreement? Do you think that deep down, inside, they all know your right (like the rr's claim, deep down inside every atheist believes in god, but simply does not want to follow his word, so renounces god).


Regardless, I shall proceed shortly.

Your argument is simply that because we are all in seperate percieved realities, but our motion ruled by these "equations" we are all immersed in the same "thing" and that thing is the mind.

Firstly, you haven't proven that we are all in seperate perceived relalities, and secondly, you haven't proved a mind. Your argument is meaningless. Claim on one hand that our perceived reality is inconsistent, and then on the other hand that the mind somehow makes them consistent. If the equations are inconsistent in reality, then they are inconsistent with the mind.

[lifegazer]

Looks like I won't be making any progress here soon. Hoped to be finished with this before the weekend.
Originally posted by Upchurch
"Basically, point-1 is that Einstein's equations use values [of velocity] that are subjective. These values bear no relation to the true velocity-values of bodies."

This last sentence is true, as there is no such thing as "true velocity-values of bodies." The first sentence is completely untrue.

If the last sentence is true, then so is the first. How can the velocity-values we assign to bodies be 'objective' if there is no such thing as true velocity-values?
All bodies are in motion. True? Thus either those bodies move with the velocity we assign to them, or they do not. And if they do not, then we have assigned a subjective value upon those bodies.

You're right. Materialism is an assumption, but then so is immaterialism. You've just assumed that the mind exists. Prove otherwise.

I'm trying, remember? Though in my "order" thread, and others, that proof does already exist.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I'm trying, remember? Though in my "order" thread, and others, that proof does already exist. Trying, yes. But you're assuming that the mind exists in order to prove the mind exists. We tend to call that "circular logic" and it isn't considered "proof"

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
So do you, I proved mathematically that the variation in duration and length cancel each other out when used to calculate velocity.
My argument discusses values we pump into the equations. I.e., the equations work for the subjective values we pump into them.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

My argument discusses values we pump into the equations. I.e., the equations work for the subjective values we pump into them. Yes, you've said that. The values are not subjective and even if they were, unless you're saying that Einstein's theory is completely self-inconsistent, the changes in time and space balance out to the same velocity as seen by both reference frames in question. Take another look at my post.

[Upchurch]

As for the "subjectivity" you insist on interjecting. If the measurements were subjective, they would be dependent on the observer only and two observers in the same inertial reference frame wouldn't necessarily get the same measurement. But they do get the same measurements (assuming they were made correctly). Further, it can be accurately calculated ahead of time what that measurement will be. So, the measurements are not based on the observer but on the inertial reference frame.

The measurements are objective rather than subjective.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
If the last sentence is true, then so is the first. How can the velocity-values we assign to bodies be 'objective' if there is no such thing as true velocity-values?Assuming you're using "true" to be synonymous with "absolute", there is no absolute velocity because an absolute velocity would have to be measured in relation to an absolute reference frame, which it's been shown doesn't exist.

Velocity values are objective because they are not based upon the people who measure them but upon the inertial reference frames involved. If velocity was subjective as you suggest, two people in the same rocket would measure two completely different velocity for the same inertial reference frames.
All bodies are in motion. True?Compared to what? The Earth?
Thus either those bodies move with the velocity we assign to them, or they do not. And if they do not, then we have assigned a subjective value upon those bodies.Nothing moves with the velocity we assign them unless we have direct control of the acceleration of the object, e.g. the gas pedal or break pedal in a car. All other velocities we measure in relation to our current reference frame or, if we are interested in two other reference frames, from what we calculate the velocity to be based on our measurements of the velocities of each reference frame compared to our reference frame.

[lifegazer]

Let's clear this confusion up, for I must confess that you do not seem to grasp what I mean and I do not grasp what you mean.

Let's imagine that we see a comet fly across the nightsky, and one of our science buddies tells us it has a velocity/speed of
1000 m/s, for example.
Now, it's my argument that the comet isn't really moving at
1000 m/s. What is happening though, is that wrt our stationary relationship with the earth, a scale (of velocity) is borne, and that in relation to this scale, the comet moves at 1000 m/s.
Hence, the velocity-value we assign to the comet relates to human experience. Agreed? Thus, that value is subjective.

So using this same example so I can understand you, please explain why the value "1000 m/s" is not a subjective value, relating entirely to a scale devised from human experience. Okay?

[UndercoverElephant]

Lifeguzzler :


Looks like I won't be making any progress here soon. Hoped to be finished with this before the weekend.


Hold on.....

Didn't you say the finish line was coming soon, and we should get the bubbly ready? :confused:

Round and round and round and .......

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Lifeguzzler :



Hold on.....

Didn't you say the finish line was coming soon, and we should get the bubbly ready? :confused:

Round and round and round and .......
Hey Geoff, what did you make of my order argument? I thought it was a good 'un.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Hey Geoff, what did you make of my order argument? I thought it was a good 'un.

I didn't read it. You see, I don't have to read what other people write, because I can work it out for myself. ;)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


I didn't read it. You see, I don't have to read what other people write, because I can work it out for myself. ;)
Being quick to declare that "you have no philosophy" just might actually be a consequence of never reading my stuff Geoffrey.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Being quick to declare that "you have no philosophy" just might actually be a consequence of never reading my stuff Geoffrey.

Being quick to declare that "you are right, and everyone else is wrong" just might actually be a consequence of never reading mankind's stuff lifegazer.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill


Being quick to declare that "you are right, and everyone else is wrong" just might actually be a consequence of never reading mankind's stuff lifegazer.
It's a myth Russ. I read. Just not prolifically.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

It's a myth Russ. I read. Just not prolifically.

You certainly don't read up much on the subjects that you base your philosophy on. But then again, you might get brainwashed, so be very, very careful, books are a dangerous thing.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Now, it's my argument that the comet isn't really moving at
1000 m/s.This line right here underlyies your primal misconception. That is, that something "really is" or "really isn't" moving. Such a comment makes a base assumption that there is absolute motion. The lack of absolute motion (which isn't to say that there is a lack of any motion, just that one can say something has or doesn't have absolute motion) is a fundamental principle of Relativity and what others and myself have been trying to explin to you for 11 some odd pages.

Once cannot say that something really is or really isn't moving, unless one says what it really is or really isn't moving with respect to. To say that "the comet isn't really moving at 1000 m/s" is meaningless and ultimately false.
What is happening though, is that wrt our stationary relationship with the earth, a scale (of velocity) is borne, and that in relation to this scale, the comet moves at 1000 m/s.This is basically correct, except that such a "scale" (the proper term is "metric") exists for each reference frame throughout the universe.
Hence, the velocity-value we assign to the comet relates to human experience. Agreed? Thus, that value is subjective. I do not agree. The value of the comets velocity is dependent upon two reference frames: the reference frame of the comet and the reference frame from which we wish to know the velocity of. It is not dependent on the observer.

As I stated in my argument above, if the measurement of the velocity were subjective, two observers in the same reference frame would measure two different velocities for the comet. Baring measurement error, do you know of any instance where such a thing has occured?

The measurement of velocity is objective because given the same measuring conditions, the same value will be determined by all viewers. That is what makes something objective. Something will only be subjective if, given the same measuring conditions for all viewers, different values will be determined. This is not the case for velocity (or length or duration), given our practical experience with measuring velocity.

Considering further that the measuring conditions for a length and duration may be different for two viewers who are in different inertial reference frames. Even though they objectively measure two different values for the same length and duration, their measurments agree if they use a correction calculation to determine the length and duration from the other viewer's perspective.

I know this is difficult to understand, but this is the purpose of the Laplace tranformation matrix, to correctly translate the measurement of length and/or duration from one reference frame to another. It is an objective measurement because after compensating for the differences in measuring conditions, both viewers determine the exact same measurement for all quantities.

In the mathematical post I made a few pages ago, this can be easily translated with a Laplace matrix = 1. Velocity as calculated in one reference frame wrt another reference frame is exactly equal (that is a 1 to 1 correspondance) to the velocity as calculated in the other reference frame wrt the first reference frame.

I know it is a lot to take in, but if you're going to use scientific principles you must accept those principles as they are rather than as you think they should be.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Being quick to declare that "you have no philosophy" just might actually be a consequence of never reading my stuff Geoffrey.

No Lifegazer, it is because you spend your entire time ranting about ontology badly, when in fact the worlds problems and the biggest philosophical problems are about ethics and personal morality. You live in a fictional world where if everybody suddenly agreed with you ("Hey, did you know that Lifegazer has proved we're all God, ain't that cool?") that all the worlds problems would vanish overnight - you believe in the fictional paradise of the Jehovas Witnesses. You have mistaken a myth for a literal truth. You think lions and lambs can live in peace with no suffering, regardless of the fact that animals must eat. It is INFANTILE and totally illogical. The enormous flaw is that you are in fact a really dysfunctional and useless human, not least because of your overblown sense of your own importance and intelligence. If the whole world was filled with Lifegazers the result would not be heaven on Earth. The result would be utter HELL, just like what is going on in your own mind.

IN other words, you have completely missed the whole point of religious philosophy and you are too dumb to realise it, even though you have been told many many time.

That is why you have no philosophy. What you say is both completely wrong (claiming an ego for God is metaphysically seriously backwards) and completely useless (it turns people into tossers).

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

It's a myth Russ. I read. Just not prolifically.

In terms of philosophy, you know NOTHING AT ALL, and it is painfully obvious.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
That is, that something "really is" or "really isn't" moving. Such a comment makes a base assumption that there is absolute motion. The lack of absolute motion (which isn't to say that there is a lack of any motion, just that one can say something has or doesn't have absolute motion) is a fundamental principle of Relativity and what others and myself have been trying to explin to you for 11 some odd pages.

Well thankyou. Stop beating about the bush and acknowledge that 1000 m/s is not a true/pure/absolute velocity of the body itself, but is in fact a value assigned to that body wrt human experience, borne of a scale devised wrt man's relationship with the Earth.
That's what I've been trying to tell you for some 11 odd pages, also. But you keep doing a David and dance around everything I say.

Once cannot say that something really is or really isn't moving, unless one says what it really is or really isn't moving with respect to.

*Takes a snapshot*
Members of the jury - words to the effect that the velocity-value of a body (1000 m/s in this case) is assigned to that body by human awareness. I.e., the value is subjective in that it is not true/pure/absolute or any other word you can come up with of the same meaning.

To say that "the comet isn't really moving at 1000 m/s" is meaningless and ultimately false.

Whoa camel, whoa. Is the comet really moving at 1000 m/s or not? You know it isn't, so stop doing a David on the readers.

[lifegazer]

Geoffrey mate, if you are incapable of partaking of this particular conversation pertaining to relativity, or perhaps are incapable of participating in any rational discussion relating to specific threads of mine in this philosophy forum, then I would advise and hope that you stay in the flame-war forum, where irrational, irrelevant and moronic babble is welcomed, apparently, by the establishment of this board. Let's face it, that's your forte anyway.
See you over there then. Cheers.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer
[B]Geoffrey mate, if you are incapable of partaking of this particular conversation pertaining to relativity, or perhaps are incapable of participating in any rational discussion relating to specific threads of mine in this philosophy forum, then I would advise and hope that you stay in the flame-war forum


Why?

Nobody gives a s**t about whether I trash your threads except for you! :D

Nobody cares, Lifegazer. I didn't come here to talk to you about metaphysics or relativity. I came here to wind you up, expose your hypocrisy and complete lack of personal morality, and have a laugh with some old friends of mine. Nobody in their right mind could care less about your theories about relativity. They are SPAM. I am spamming your spam! Ain't life wonderful? :)

[The Don]

I suspect there is a concept of "true" velocity but only if you accept/believe that the universe is expanding from a single point of origin. Velocities could be expressed in terms of the frame of reference of that single immobile point.

The trouble is that this approach doesn't really provide anything useful. On a day to day basis we chose the frame of reference most convenient for our purpose. For getting around the Earth's surface we negate the motion of the Earth as both we and the Earth have that motion.

But before you start jumping up and down Lightsaber, this doesn't mean that there's some "mind" at work making sure that the laws of physics apply. The beauty is that they apply in any frame of reference relative to that frame of reference.

All of this has absolutely nothing to do woth human awareness. If we actually have a material universe, then these laws would still apply even if there was no-one around to watch them being applied.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by The Don
I suspect there is a concept of "true" velocity but only if you accept/believe that the universe is expanding from a single point of origin. Velocities could be expressed in terms of the frame of reference of that single immobile point.

It's not quite that simple. The universe was not a full-stop embedded in 'nothing'.

The trouble is that this approach doesn't really provide anything useful. On a day to day basis we chose the frame of reference most convenient for our purpose. For getting around the Earth's surface we negate the motion of the Earth as both we and the Earth have that motion.

The argument is merely to show that relativity is of the mind. Usefulness is not an issue.

But before you start jumping up and down Lightsaber, this doesn't mean that there's some "mind" at work making sure that the laws of physics apply. The beauty is that they apply in any frame of reference relative to that frame of reference.

The laws of physics apply to all things seen within awareness. This is true. If it wasn't true then there would be no laws of physics applying to the things within our awareness.

All of this has absolutely nothing to do woth human awareness. If we actually have a material universe, then these laws would still apply even if there was no-one around to watch them being applied.
The laws of physics relate to how things are seen within awareness. They do not relate to how things are external to awareness. This is a fact. Hence your assertion is baseless.

[The Don]

It's not quite that simple. The universe was not a full-stop embedded in 'nothing'.

How do you know this ?

I'm sure, based on some analysis of the relative motions of various astronomical bodies somebody could try to calculate some "point of origin"

The argument is merely to show that relativity is of the mind. Usefulness is not an issue.

And we (I use this term losely as I clearly just dip in and out) are attempting to demonstrate that the way in which things behave and interact (described using the laws of physics (though these are just a set of equations that have been developed which describe known phenomena and have been used successfully to describe subsequently discovered phenomena rather than a fundamental set of truths)) does not require that there is a "mind" to either observe the phenomena or so set the rules for the interaction

The laws of physics apply to all things seen within awareness. This is true. If it wasn't true then there would be no laws of physics applying to the things within our awareness.

The statement can be written "The laws of physics apply to all things" which may or may not be true depending on which laws you use and you could follow it with "If it wasn't true then there would be no laws of physics "

But once again, all you have is a circular argument, you state "The laws of physics are the laws which apply to all things" and them treat as some kind of revelation that as a result "the laws of physics apply to all things"

And you also throw in a pair of "within our awareness" phrases to back up your spurious claims


The laws of physics relate to how things are seen within awareness. They do not relate to how things are external to awareness. This is a fact. Hence your assertion is baseless.

In order that I can get this straight in my own mind about the argument are you asserting that:

- Without awareness there would be no universe
OR
- Without awareness things would somehow misbehave and fail to follow the laws of physics

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by The Don
[B]It's not quite that simple. The universe was not a full-stop embedded in 'nothing'.

How do you know this ?

I would refer you to my thread "existence" for a complete answer.
A snippet:-
"We can say that existence cannot be finite or bounded in any way whatsoever. A real finite-existence within 'nothing'? Not a rational possibility. 'Nothing' cannot embrace a real finite-entity. Therefore, existence is boundless and infinite, in itself. A singularity of existence."

If you're in any way interested in discussing this, then I suggest you do so in the relevant thread.

But once again, all you have is a circular argument, you state "The laws of physics are the laws which apply to all things" and them treat as some kind of revelation that as a result "the laws of physics apply to all things"

No. The relevancy was in the part you omitted: The laws of physics relate to things seen within awareness. It's the truth.
Indeed, in QM, it seems apparent that 'particles' are only seen within awareness!!

In order that I can get this straight in my own mind about the argument are you asserting that:

- Without awareness there would be no universe
OR
- Without awareness things would somehow misbehave and fail to follow the laws of physics
I argue that the Mind is the essence of awareness and the things of which it is aware. I also state that the laws of physics relate to the order seen within awareness and do not relate to an [assumed] external reality.

[The Don]

A few notes about the "laws of physics"

The laws of physics were written down by a bunch of blokes (predominantly) and are used to used to describe the behaviour of the observable world and the interaction between elements of the observable world.

This doesn't mean that the Universe moves according to these laws, just that they're a useful shorthand to describe how the universe behaves and make predictions about future behaviour.

The fact that the universe APPEARS to behave in a (relatively) well ordered way seems to indicate that there are a set of "rules" or "laws" the universe is following. The fact that a number of different observers report the same observations in an indication, but no more than that, that a consistent set or rules seem to be in operation.

Of course there may not be a material universe or the universe may behave in a completely chaotic fashion and that we choose to ignore the chaotic aspects by filtering them out using our senses. It is feasible that people who experience extraordinary things may just have a different set of filters to the great majority of people.

Indeed a lot of time and effort has gone in to debating whether there is a material universe or not. Certainly the non-existence of a material universe cannot be disproved.

If there is a material universe and it does folow a set of rules whcih have been approximetely modelled by the rules of physics then the universe would continue to follow these rules.

If your big revelation is that the "laws of physics" have been constructed then I'd agree with you, they are an artificial set of equations which very closely model the observable universe. Where I believe we disagree is that I don't consider the fact that the universe follows a set of rules to be significant, it just shows that we're a species that likes to model its surroundings, it's not an indication of a higher power at work.

I also believe that the Universe would continue to exhibit the same behaviour it currently does whether or not there was anyone there to be "aware" of it.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by The Don
If your big revelation is that the "laws of physics" have been constructed then I'd agree with you, they are an artificial set of equations which very closely model the observable universe.

So you agree that the laws mirror perceived behaviour and reflect scales of values devised wrt human experience, such as velocity-values?

Where I believe we disagree is that I don't consider the fact that the universe follows a set of rules to be significant, it just shows that we're a species that likes to model its surroundings, it's not an indication of a higher power at work.

Well it's certainly an indication that the laws of physics mirror an internal realm, and certainly not an external realm. This is the whole point of the argument. And given that the laws of physics are given to and perceived by the mind that sees them, I argue that this existence is created by that Mind.

I also believe that the Universe would continue to exhibit the same behaviour it currently does whether or not there was anyone there to be "aware" of it.
Given your initial agreement, above, I have no idea why you would say this.

[The Don]

So you agree that the laws mirror perceived behaviour and reflect scales of values devised wrt human experience, such as velocity-values?

No, I stated that the laws of physics do model observed (if you prefer to use perceived that's fine but it does carry a whiff of the subjective about it, the fact that people observe the same things tends towards the objective) phenomena. The concept of velocity is not abstract though I agree that chosing the metre and the second as the unit of measure is arbitrary.

Well it's certainly an indication that the laws of physics mirror an internal realm, and certainly not an external realm. This is the whole point of the argument. And given that the laws of physics are given to and perceived by the mind that sees them, I argue that this existence is created by that Mind.

I fail to see how they mirror an internal realm unless your assertion is that experience via the senses is manipulated until it meets the internally defined rules.

So using the example of a clock accellerated to speeds which area significant fraction of the speed of light, decellerated and then reunited with a similar clock which has not undergone the same accelleration. The reason why the clock which has undergone accelleration is showing an earlier time than the one which was not accellerated is not because of the different path through spacetime they took but because the observer who re-unites the clocks has forced them to. Even if this observer is unaware which clock has been accellerated.

Given your initial agreement, above, I have no idea why you would say this.

This is because I have tried (though it would have appeared, failed) to be very particular to differentiate between the "laws of physics", the set of equations that we humans have constructed to model the observable universe and the phenomena they set out to model.

The reason why the equations of relativity were invented was to exaplain some observed phenomena

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Well thankyou. Stop beating about the bush and acknowledge that 1000 m/s is not a true/pure/absolute velocity of the body itself, but is in fact a value assigned to that body wrt human experience, borne of a scale devised wrt man's relationship with the Earth.You're lack of reading comprehension is amazing.
Originally posted by Upchurch
Originally posted by lifegazer
What is happening though, is that wrt our stationary relationship with the earth, a scale (of velocity) is borne, and that in relation to this scale, the comet moves at 1000 m/s.
This is basically correct, except that such a "scale" (the proper term is "metric") exists for each reference frame throughout the universe.Do you read anything I write at all?
Orignally posted by lifegazer
Members of the jury - words to the effect that the velocity-value of a body (1000 m/s in this case) is assigned to that body by human awareness. I.e., the value is subjective in that it is not true/pure/absolute or any other word you can come up with of the same meaning.
I find it interesting that you completely missed the part of my post where I actually answered your question: "please explain why the value "1000 m/s" is not a subjective value, relating entirely to a scale devised from human experience. Okay?" Not only did you not address it, but you completely ignored it with the above statement. Let me post it again in quotes and bold so maybe you'll see it this time.
Originally posted by Upchurch
As I stated in my argument above, if the measurement of the velocity were subjective, two observers in the same reference frame would measure two different velocities for the comet. Baring measurement error, do you know of any instance where such a thing has occured?

The measurement of velocity is objective because given the same measuring conditions, the same value will be determined by all viewers. That is what makes something objective. Something will only be subjective if, given the same measuring conditions for all viewers, different values will be determined. This is not the case for velocity (or length or duration), given our practical experience with measuring velocity.

Considering further that the measuring conditions for a length and duration may be different for two viewers who are in different inertial reference frames. Even though they objectively measure two different values for the same length and duration, their measurments agree if they use a correction calculation to determine the length and duration from the other viewer's perspective.

I know this is difficult to understand, but this is the purpose of the Laplace tranformation matrix, to correctly translate the measurement of length and/or duration from one reference frame to another. It is an objective measurement because after compensating for the differences in measuring conditions, both viewers determine the exact same measurement for all quantities.

In the mathematical post I made a few pages ago, this can be easily translated with a Laplace matrix = 1. Velocity as calculated in one reference frame wrt another reference frame is exactly equal (that is a 1 to 1 correspondance) to the velocity as calculated in the other reference frame wrt the first reference frame.If you're going to ask the question, at least be intellecutally honest enough to acknowledge and address the answer rather than ignoring it as if I didn't answer.

[Dancing David]

Lifegazer, we agree with you all the time, it is the conclusions that vary, ain't life grand.

All of us posting to this thread are aware of the subjective nature of experience.

We have all agreed to use the languaga about the appearance of the physical world.

But there is a consensus amongst those who care to study science that they will try to remove the subjective and work towards the objectives.

So I ask you again:


When I read the numbers on a scale (a tool to measure the 'weight') I am asking which is the subjective experience:
-the scale itself is a subjective experience
-the numbers that I read off the scale are a subjective experience



The point is that unlike the dream world thge 'physical world' has internal consistancies that can be ;observed', they are free of the 'subjective' qualities assigned to them.
But ontologicaly there is no way to test for the origin of the 'physical' world.

That is why if you really believe the world to be an illsuion you would not protect your body(hey Franko!)

[Disbeliever]

Originally posted waaaay back when
Welcome, DB!

What kind of physics class do you teach?

I think you mean "What physics class do you attend?" Physics I. I'm only 18 after all. :D

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Well thankyou. Stop beating about the bush and acknowledge that 1000 m/s is not a true/pure/absolute velocity of the body itself, but is in fact a value assigned to that body wrt human experience, borne of a scale devised wrt man's relationship with the Earth.
That's what I've been trying to tell you for some 11 odd pages, also. But you keep doing a David and dance around everything I say.


What you claim is there there exists an absolute velocity that we are unaware of. This is untrue and you have not proven it to be true. What you can't seem to comprehend is the actual definition of velocity, which involves galilean and special relativity.


*Takes a snapshot*
Members of the jury - words to the effect that the velocity-value of a body (1000 m/s in this case) is assigned to that body by human awareness. I.e., the value is subjective in that it is not true/pure/absolute or any other word you can come up with of the same meaning.


Again, you claim that there is some true, pure, or absolute velocity, which goes AGAINST the definition of velocity. A body can have a pure, true, and absolute velocity in relation to another reference frame, from the view of an observer.


Whoa camel, whoa. Is the comet really moving at 1000 m/s or not? You know it isn't, so stop doing a David on the readers.

That is a meaningless question. Its like asking "is the pot really hot, or is it not" (hot compared to what) or "is that pole 500 meters away, or is it not" (500m away from what). Velocity, like "hot" or "distance" is a relative term, it depends on which reference frames you are talking about.

You cannot ask "Is the comet really moving at 1000 m/s or not?", You must ask "Is the comet really moving at 1000 m/s in relation to the sun, or not?"

[RussDill]

Originally posted by The Don
I suspect there is a concept of "true" velocity but only if you accept/believe that the universe is expanding from a single point of origin. Velocities could be expressed in terms of the frame of reference of that single immobile point.


Gotta correct you here, if the universe expanded from one point, then that point would now be everywhere, so you can't use it as a frame of reference.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The laws of physics relate to how things are seen within awareness. They do not relate to how things are external to awareness. This is a fact. Hence your assertion is baseless.

Really, how is that a fact? You certainly haven't proven it to be a fact, and physics in fact assumes the apposite.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I would refer you to my thread "existence" for a complete answer.
A snippet:-
"We can say that existence cannot be finite or bounded in any way whatsoever. A real finite-existence within 'nothing'? Not a rational possibility. 'Nothing' cannot embrace a real finite-entity. Therefore, existence is boundless and infinite, in itself. A singularity of existence."


Your existence thread got torn to shreads. I'll say this again, you are adding an extra dimension to existence and claiming a boundry. By adding an extra dimension, it is no longer existence, but something else.

Take a 2d plane, it streaches out for infinity, and is boundless. Agreed? Now, I'll be lifegazer, and add a third dimension, haha, its bounded at every point. But then, it isn't the same existence.

The same can be set for our existence. Our existence is not a literal surface of a hypersphere floating in 4d nothingness. However, you expand reality to make it that, and thus, your description no longer matches reality. You then wrap the hypersphere by the mind. But then, what about the interior of the mind, that would be nothingness too, so there is a mind there as well, but then, the mind is seperated into two portions, a finite portion, and an infinite portion. Add to this that I can invision the mind as a 4d surface in a 5d space, now the mind is bounded by nothingness at every point.

You haven't answered any of these questions because you are unable to.


If you're in any way interested in discussing this, then I suggest you do so in the relevant thread.


It has been discussed, and you point has been trashed beyond repair.


No. The relevancy was in the part you omitted: The laws of physics relate to things seen within awareness. It's the truth.
Indeed, in QM, it seems apparent that 'particles' are only seen within awareness!!


QM says no such thing. And given that you haven't actually studies QM, I understand the misconception. So I'll forgive it, but from those of us that have studies QM in depth, I'll tell you, QM says no such thing.


I argue that the Mind is the essence of awareness and the things of which it is aware. I also state that the laws of physics relate to the order seen within awareness and do not relate to an [assumed] external reality.

Then what is the esscence of the Mind, what laws govern the Mind?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

So you agree that the laws mirror perceived behaviour and reflect scales of values devised wrt human experience, such as velocity-values?


There is another branch of physics known as theoretical physics. Theoretical physics attempts to determine the true nature of external reality, and then form predictions about future observed behavior (ie, once bigger coliders are made). Theoretical physics is a very successful field that has nothing to do with mirror anything perceived.


Well it's certainly an indication that the laws of physics mirror an internal realm, and certainly not an external realm. This is the whole point of the argument. And given that the laws of physics are given to and perceived by the mind that sees them, I argue that this existence is created by that Mind.


The laws of physics predict accurately what will be perceived by assuming that what we perceive happens externally to us. This approach has been hugely successful. Philosophers who assume that our perception is internal to us haven't been very successful at predicting anything.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by The Don

So using the example of a clock accellerated to speeds which area significant fraction of the speed of light, decellerated and then reunited with a similar clock which has not undergone the same accelleration. The reason why the clock which has undergone accelleration is showing an earlier time than the one which was not accellerated is not because of the different path through spacetime they took but because the observer who re-unites the clocks has forced them to. Even if this observer is unaware which clock has been accellerated.
.
[/B]

Stop feeding the troll don. Relativistic effects have everything to do with taking different paths though spacetime. Also, they do not depend on some observer.


The reason why the equations of relativity were invented was to exaplain some observed phenomena

The equations of relativity were not invented to explain the phenomena they describe. The equations of relativity were borne out of galilean relativity and the maxwell equations.

[Dancing David]

I would like to thank LG for elavting me to adverbial status,

btw is the scale the subjective experience or the vision of the scale?

[Wudang]

lifegazer wishes to explain how his philosophy is consistent with relativity so I'm bumping this thread so
1 - he is saved the trouble of creating a new thread
2 - the valuable contributions explaining what frames of reference etc actually are can be re-read.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
lifegazer wishes to explain how his philosophy is consistent with relativity so I'm bumping this thread so
1 - he is saved the trouble of creating a new thread
2 - the valuable contributions explaining what frames of reference etc actually are can be re-read.
No, I want to present my own case. And I want to do it when I have more time, probably next week, as I expect there will be plenty of posts to reply to.

[Zero]

Originally posted by lifegazer

No, I want to present my own case. And I want to do it when I have more time, probably next week, as I expect there will be plenty of posts to reply to. How is your being wrong next week going to be any different from you being wrong today, or last week, or last year?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Zero
How is your being wrong next week going to be any different from you being wrong today, or last week, or last year?
I know, with absolute certainty, that relativity is a law or theory dealing with internal perception. I.e., relativity deals with perceived existence and says absolutely nothing about an external reality. Next week, I shall try to convince you of this. Now, if you are truly interested (open) to finding the truth about existence before you die, you will grant me a fair hearing. I've learnt a thing or two from this thread and will incorporate that knowledge into a revised presentation of my argument.
You are cordially invited to meet your God.

[Wudang]

Are you making up your own definitions again like you did with "singularity"? Look what happened to Humpty Dumpty.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
[B]Are you making up your own definitions again like you did with "singularity"?

I can use any word I like to present my arguments as long as I define those words.
Furthermore, if I choose to take a word like "singularity" and apply reason to that word, then it's obvious that the word infers a singular existence.

Look what happened to Humpty Dumpty.
Have you been hanging around the kindergarten philosophy class again? :p

[Wudang]

Before you start making up words, find out about the ones the rest of us use, for instance infer. Words cannot infer anything.

Try reading Alice in Wonderland where Humpty Dumpty says that he can use words to mean what he wants them to mean. And trying to argue that singularity does not derive from the Latin singularitas is plain silly.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
Before you start making up words, find out about the ones the rest of us use, for instance infer. Words cannot infer anything.

Words cannot infer anything?
Do you know what single means? Do you know what singular means? Then wouldn't you say that the word "singularity" (of existence) should infer singularness of existence?
Language is supposed to make sense and be consistent, particularly in philosophy and - one would think - the sciences.

And trying to argue that singularity does not derive from the Latin singularitas is plain silly.
And what does that mean?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Words cannot infer anything?
Do you know what single means? Do you know what singular means? Then wouldn't you say that the word "singularity" (of existence) should infer singularness of existence?


So wait, we *can't* redifine single, or singular, but we are supposed to redifine singularity?


Language is supposed to make sense and be consistent, particularly in philosophy and - one would think - the sciences.


nope, sorry, singularity has long had a definition other than the one you claim. You'll have to actually define what you are trynig to say, instead of just insiting on "its a singularity, but the definition for singularity is wrong"


And what does that mean?

so lazy...here is a root start if you want...

singularis -e [alone , single, individual, singular; unique, extraordinary]. Adv. singulariter, [singly; in the singular number; particularly, extraordinarily].

you might also look up singular:


1. Being only one; individual.
2. Being the only one of a kind; unique.
3. Being beyond what is ordinary or usual; remarkable.
4. Deviating from the usual or expected; odd. See Synonyms at strange.
5. Grammar.
1. Of, relating to, or being a noun, pronoun, or adjective denoting a single person or thing or several entities considered as a single unit.
2. Of, relating to, or being a verb expressing the action or state of a single subject.
6. Logic. Of or relating to the specific as distinguished from the general; individual.


so then if you look up singularity, you can see where the definition derives:

1. The quality or condition of being singular.
2. A trait marking one as distinct from others; a peculiarity.
3. Something uncommon or unusual.
4. Astrophysics. A point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume, and space and time to become infinitely distorted.
5. Mathematics. A point at which the derivative does not exist for a given function but every neighborhood of which contains points for which the derivative exists. Also called singular point.

Note that single, and singular, are not the same word. I know you'd rather derive singularity from single, but adding an ity to single makes it singlity, which isn't a word, maybe that is what you can use instead, singlity.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Words cannot infer anything?
Do you know what single means? Do you know what singular means? Then wouldn't you say that the word "singularity" (of existence) should infer singularness of existence?
Language is supposed to make sense and be consistent, particularly in philosophy and - one would think - the sciences.

And what does that mean?
Yes. I know what single means. I know what singular means. I know what infer means - you don't. Infer does not mean imply. Look, it's your native language, try to understand it.

[epepke]

There are so many pages, I'm not sure if I've already weighed in on this. But anyway, I'll do so now.

Let's assume that lifegazers views are accurately represented by "What's really happened, and what can only have happened, is that the space-twin's mind's perception of space & time has become warped. His mind is responsible for the distortion."

Now, this seems dumb on the surface because it focuses on his mind, but of course, everything is going to work the same way. A guy with just his mind distorted could always just look at his watch. If his mind were distorted, and his watch weren't, he would see something funny going on with his watch. But he doesn't.

However, it's dumb at a deeper level, too, because "distortion" implies that there is something for his mind to be distorted in comparison to. The whole point of relativity is that there is no such thing. There is no preferred frame of reference.

There is no such thing as travelling at .99 c. There is only travelling .99 c relative to something else. Travelling at .99 c is exactly the same as being at rest, or travelling .99 c or 0.05 c in the other direction. Velocity is relative; that's what "relativity" means.

Now, there are problems with travelling at .99 c around here, because there are hydrogen atoms and the like hanging around. But that's not because of any absolute frame of reference; it's simply because if they were themselves travelling at .99 c, they'd be long gone. Of course, there are a few, like cosmic rays sent out from the Sun, but the universe is awfully old, and anything moving that fast for billions of years has had a chance to hit something by now.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang

Yes. I know what single means. I know what singular means. I know what infer means - you don't. Infer does not mean imply. Look, it's your native language, try to understand it.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infer

infer - reason by deduction; establish by deduction
deduce, derive, deduct
logical system, system of logic, logic - a system of reasoning
extrapolate - gain knowledge of (an area not known or experienced) by extrapolating
conclude, reason, reason out - decide by reasoning; draw or come to a conclusion; "We reasoned that it was cheaper to rent than to buy a house"
carry back - deduct a loss or an unused credit from taxable income for a prior period
surmise - infer from incomplete evidence
elicit - derive by reason; "elicit a solution"

... Singularity is derivative of singular. Hence, the word itself infers a singular form of existence. I.e., any reasoned contemplation (inference) of that word (singularity) should conclude that it means a singular form of existence. To conclude otherwise contradicts the meaning of singularness.

[Wudang]

Please explain how a word can "reason by deduction; establish by deduction". That is what a person does. Which is why you are using the wrong word. You mean "imply". You can't grasp this simple difference between inference and implication and wonder why people accuse you of being lightweight?

Did you look up singular while you were at it? I think not. My POcket Oxford has "extraordinary, exceptional, uncommon..." and so on.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Wudang
[B]Please explain how a word can "reason by deduction; establish by deduction". That is what a person does. Which is why you are using the wrong word. You mean "imply". You can't grasp this simple difference between inference and implication and wonder why people accuse you of being lightweight?



Hey, Wudang - you forget: In lifegazer's philosophy where everything is in the mind of God, perhaps words are capable of deduction just like you are.

Because God dreamed it that way, that's why.

[Upchurch]

While I am not responsible for moving lifegazer's newest relativity thread to Science, I have to agree with the action. Besides, there is no reason to re-hash what has already been done.

This is a fairly in-depth dismantaling of lifegazer's earlier relativity fantasies. Why not continue here?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
While I am not responsible for moving lifegazer's newest relativity thread to Science, I have to agree with the action. Besides, there is no reason to re-hash what has already been done.

This is a fairly in-depth dismantaling of lifegazer's earlier relativity fantasies. Why not continue here?
Firstly, that thread is titled NEW perspectives of relativity and will be discussing, hopefully, things that haven't already been discussed here.
Secondly, this thread is old and long and anything NEW that is said will be quickly lost in the chaos.

Thirdly, I vehemently object to that thread being moved away from the philosophy forum. As I said there, I will be linking what I say to MY PHILOSOPHY ABOUT GOD.

Fourthly, people who read my threads are familiar with me posting them in here.

Given these reasons, I formally request that you move it back into this forum.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Firstly, that thread is titled NEW perspectives of relativity and will be discussing, hopefully, things that haven't already been discussed here.I've seen your other thread. It is yet another attempt to rationalize something that was thuroughly debunked in this thread, namely that relativisitic effects are dependant on the awareness of the viewer. At best, it is merely a continuation of this thread.
Secondly, this thread is old and long and anything NEW that is said will be quickly lost in the chaos.It also contains pertenant information.
Thirdly, I vehemently object to that thread being moved away from the philosophy forum. As I said there, I will be linking what I say to MY PHILOSOPHY ABOUT GOD.Cart before the horse. Besides, I didn't move it. I'm not going to move it back.
Fourthly, people who read my threads are familiar with me posting them in here.And?
Given these reasons, I formally request that you move it back into this forum. Request denied. I try not to take a mod role in threads I'm personally involved in as a poster.

[Z]

Personally, I think the mods ought to close, outright, every thread lg posts that is a rehash of older posts - like the relativity threads.

Force him to stay in the conversation he started while discussing that topic.

Otherwise - he's wasting bandwidth and storage space.

[Wudang]

Ah yes, lifegazers classic argument that words are capable of thinking, almost as good as the "speed of sound is constant".

[jmercer]

This reminds me of lifegazer's logic (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/video/bananaman) for reasons I cannot fathom. :D