Lifegazer's special relativity "proof"

[RussDill]

I think many of us have been wondering what lifegazer could possibly have that he considers proof, especially when it comes to special relativity. Wait no more. Due to the magic of google and cut and paste (I'm not the first, lifegazer has cut and pasted this across many forums and been banned from at least two) I bring you, lifegazer's iron clad proof!

First, his assumptions/knowledge about relativity:


Relativity
So; what have I got to go on? What am I going to discuss?
Well, specifically, I want to mould my argument around these relevant facts about observation:-
1) All observers will see oncoming light at a constant velocity - 'c' - regardless of their own velocity, and regardless of the direction from which they measure light's velocity. Because of this, we declare light-speed to be 'absolute' (universal).
2) The motion of the observer will affect the actual value of that observer's time and spatial experience. I.e., when an observer accelerates, he/she inadvertently alters the consistency of his/her time & space in relation to the experience of other observers. Hence, motion alters the value of time and space.
3) However, even though time & space are altered by motion, the observer will not notice anything different. His experiences will seem 'normal'.


and I'll add a little more of what lifegazer thinks of relativity:


However; at the heart of the mathematics of Relativity, there is an absolute-dependence on '1 second', and '1 meter', as being absolute-parameters of existence for all beings. How can there be a comparative age-difference between those "twins", for example, unless our mathematics rely on each observer to experience '1 second' and '1 meter', in an absolute-sense? **Hence the experience of '1 second' and '1 meter', is a constant, for all observers.** This may not seem like an axiom stated by Einstein - and it probably isn't - but it will be highly-relevant to what I want to say, soon. So if you disagree with it, I'd like to know why. Anyone.


and more:


If I accelerate through space, there must be a means (a reference) for knowing my own velocity at any given moment, and to know that I am actually accelerating. I'm not sure what this is (after reading your comments); but unless this is true, what price our mathematics of motion/relativity? What price 'motion'?


and more:


The point I wanted to make here is evident in the well-known twin-paradox. The twin who accelerates through space causes his experience of time & space to be relatively-different to the time & space he would be experiencing on Earth. The age-comparison with his twin, afterwards, is evidence to support the fact that the twin's acceleration has slowed down his own aging process - slowed down time for himself, relatively to his previous circumstance - since he is now relatively younger than his brother. Once back on Earth, he ages exactly like his brother. This shows that his own deceleration has again altered the 'substance' (for lack of a better word) of his own time and space. His brother now ages at the same rate as himself. Thus, his own velocity is responsible for how he ages, relatively, to everything else. Consequently, his own velocity/motion through space is the 'cause' of how he actually experiences his space & time.


and now, the proof:


We know that light's particular velocity through a specific medium, is a constant (as observed by everyone). We also know that the velocity/motion of the observer does not affect this. But we also know that the velocity/motion of the observer does affect the qualitative value of '1 second' and '1 meter', in comparison to other observers (as with the twin-paradox, for example) - even though the individual experience of these parameters seems constant (i.e., the experience of '1 second' and '1 meter' is a constant, for everyone).
Thus, I am now in a position to extend reason to this knowledge, to glean hitherto unrealised facts about the 'reality' in which this Relativity-scenario is occuring.

'Velocity' is a parameter of motion derived from distance and time.
Yet, as we have seen with those infamous paradox-twins, for example, there is a qualitative difference between everybody's experience of time and space, even though that difference is not noticed until the space-twin comes back to Earth and sees that his brother has aged faster than him.
Clearly, the space-twin's acceleration through space has tangibly affected his own body, and the other bodies which he observes whilst he is accelerating. His acceleration has kept him relatively-young, compared to his brother. Not just mathematically, but physically, we must assume. For if both bodies age at the same rate, then in what sense can we say that the minds have not?
The conclusion of this seems obvious to me: When an observer accelerates through space & time, he tangibly affects the space & time he can observe. So, significantly; it becomes apparent that the reality which all of us see (and feel) is unique to each individual. Just as significantly, the reality each individual observes is subject to a universal-distortion of space-time in accordance with the observer’s own velocity through the ‘things’ which he/she observes. Our willed-motion affects the space-time of our very own existences.
We are all seeing & feeling individual ‘realities’. The space-twin had a completely different reality to his own brother. So in what sense can we say that the brothers share the same reality? What’s certain, is that neither of them have shared the same 4-dimensional universe. Each mind embraces its own-unique vision of space-time. This means that each mind is the underlying-cause of the reality it is seeing. It alone sees what it sees. And its actions control how its space-time-universe shall be observed.
So let’s clear-up what this means. Each mind sees a unique-reality. When the mind thinks that it is moving within this reality, the value/consistency/substance of that individual’s space-time is universally-distorted (universally, in the context that everything which he perceives of must also be acting in accordance with his perceptions). His actions have affected the whole of his universe!! And your actions, yours! Given 6 billion extremely-fast rockets (and the ability to fly them, safely), we could create 6 billion very diverse-universes! Now that would confuse Historians. They’d all be different realities revolving around a common source. And that common source is Mind.

Clearly, the Mind embraces the reality it is also ‘seeing’, for it is clear that the perceived-motion (within that mind) is affecting everything which it can actually see. Thus, “Everything is within the Mind”. And everything is caused to act, by that Mind.
Here, in the most significant post I think I’ve ever made, I believe that I have showed the reader that everything we perceive of is happening within, and controlled by, and thus therefore created by, the Mind.
Yet; since all minds are observing a fundamentally singular-universe, with singular-laws, I am also in a position to conclude that all minds are centred within One Mind… and that each unique perspective is created by; observed by; and judge by, itself.
Hence true reality is Mind, and the things which it perceives of are really only as real as the dream seems to be for each individual. What I mean by “each individual”, is what the Mind thinks it is, in relation to the things that it sees. Rather than in relation to everything… the whole of itself.



anywho, its a physics forum, so, they hit him pretty hard:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/548-1.html

His arguments degenerate further and further until he actually states that since the twin on the earth see the constellations rotate once every year, the twin in the spaceship will see them rotate once every two months and then proceeds to claim:


... Well; not really. 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.


Lifegazer, the statement above proves quite rightly that you do not understand special relativity.

[whitefork]

like wow. Thank you for collating all that. I am reminded of JediKnight's discussion of gravity and Franko on relativity. We sure collect some interesting specimens.

[RussDill]

I'm just trying to figure out what makes lifegazer believe what he does. Its not like homepathy, or remote viewing where there is a supposed benefit in believing in such clearly irrational things. lifegazer's belief/philosophy has no basis and no benefit, yet for some reason, he believes in his random, unsupported musings so strongly. I really don't think lifegazer can straight out answer this question except with some answer involving the "Mind". Virtually *all* of his points have been acurately and correctly disputed on other boards, and on this one, yet he consistently reuses those points as if saying them more will make them true.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by RussDill

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/548-1.html I tried to skim my way through that, but I only got about a third of the way down before I started feeling sympathy pains from the other posters beating their heads against the wall of lifegazer's vice-like closed mind.

The first and biggest flaw I saw in lifegazer's basic assumptions is that it requires a mind (or consciousness, if you will) moving at relativistic speeds to experience relativistic effects. The fact of the matter is, some of the first experiments that directly demonstrated time dialation where orbiting atomic clocks, which have no minds that I am aware of.

I'm now expecting lifegazer to explain that the mind that observed the relativistic effects of the clock is sufficent to warp reality. To which, I will point out that his argument is entirely dependent that there be a mind on the relativistic trip for the "warping of reality" to occur. Then, I imagine, he'll get indignent that I'm not addressing his argument but attacking him personally.

It feels so much better to just cut to the chase, doesn't it? Now I don't have to sit through all that.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I tried to skim my way through that, but I only got about a third of the way down before I started feeling sympathy pains from the other posters beating their heads against the wall of lifegazer's vice-like closed mind.


I chose to skip to the end, where the good stuff is.

[scribble]

An interesting game...

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
Lifegazer, the statement above proves quite rightly that you do not understand special relativity.
That's that then. Thanks Russ... saved me lots of effort.

[Yahweh]

PhysicsForums.com, looks like fun, I'll think about joining it sometime...

[joyrex]

You can rarely cut and paste on the internet because the original data remains..

[fishbob]

I'm just trying to figure out what makes lifegazer believe what he does. Its not like homepathy, or remote viewing where there is a supposed benefit in believing in such clearly irrational things. lifegazer's belief/philosophy has no basis and no benefit, yet for some reason, he believes in his random, unsupported musings so strongly Another fine example of the perils of drug abuse.

[c4ts]

Drugs would explain Ian and UCE, but not this guy.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

That's that then. Thanks Russ... saved me lots of effort. Actually, this is when your earnest effort should begin.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Actually, this is when your earnest effort should begin.
There's no credibility in this thread. And definitely no sincerity. I will not be participating. I leave you free to hang me... again.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

There's no credibility in this thread. And definitely no sincerity. I will not be participating. I leave you free to hang me... again. You're one to talk about credibility.

My criticism of your argument was sincere. The only one hanging you ...again... is you by arguing from ignorance rather than taking the time to learn about these subjects.

But feel free to feel martyred, persecuted, and self-righteous.



...btw, you don't happen to be Christian, do you?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
My criticism of your argument was sincere.

I haven't presented an argument.

The only one hanging you ...again... is you by arguing from ignorance rather than taking the time to learn about these subjects.

Spare me the same boring responses.

...btw, you don't happen to be Christian, do you?
Nope.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I haven't presented an argument.
You didn't say this (http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/548-1.html)?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch

You didn't say this (http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/548-1.html)?
What is it you would like me to defend?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

What is it you would like me to defend? there really is nothing for you to defend. As I said in an earlier post,The first and biggest flaw I saw in lifegazer's basic assumptions is that it requires a mind (or consciousness, if you will) moving at relativistic speeds to experience relativistic effects. The fact of the matter is, some of the first experiments that directly demonstrated time dialation where orbiting atomic clocks, which have no minds that I am aware of.Unless you redo your argument in someway where it doesn't require a mind going on the trip in order for you conclusion to hold, you don't have anything to defend.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
there really is nothing for you to defend. As I said in an earlier post,Unless you redo your argument in someway where it doesn't require a mind going on the trip in order for you conclusion to hold, you don't have anything to defend.
The laws of physics hold true for awareness. If those clocks hadn't have been affected, then the laws would be rubbish, wouldn't they? They don't just apply to human-beings but to everything within awareness.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Lifegazer

Each mind embraces its own-unique vision of space-time. This means that each mind is the underlying-cause of the reality it is seeing. It alone sees what it sees. And its actions control how its space-time-universe shall be observed.So, if both twins stay home and they send a clock instead, how does the clock (which has no mind) embrace its own unique vision of space-time?

That the effect occurs despite the lack of a mind being involved in any way shows that the effect is not a result of the mind but a consequence of some other mechanism.

[lifegazer]

Also, take the twin-paradox scenario again: it isn't just the spacetwin whose age has slowed relative to people on Earth- as expected, his clocks have also moved slower.
Now I do not deny that the age/timing of objects is unaffected by motion. But the age/time of those objects is relative to human awareness and the laws of physics.

I find your objection to be completely irrelevant.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
That the effect occurs despite the lack of a mind being involved in any way shows that the effect is not a result of the mind but a consequence of some other mechanism.
A mind is always required to observe the effect.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Now I do not deny that the age/timing of objects is unaffected by motion.I deny this. As does about 50+ years of experimentation and evidence. The age/timing of objects can and is effected by its motion relative to other objects, be they concsious or otherwise.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

A mind is always required to observe the effect. **cough**
Originally posted by Upchurch

I'm now expecting lifegazer to explain that the mind that observed the relativistic effects of the clock is sufficent to warp reality. To which, I will point out that his argument is entirely dependent that there be a mind on the relativistic trip for the "warping of reality" to occur. Then, I imagine, he'll get indignent that I'm not addressing his argument but attacking him personally.
Why repeat myself when I can copy and paste?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I deny this. As does about 50+ years of experimentation and evidence. The age/timing of objects can and is effected by its motion relative to other objects, be they concsious or otherwise.
Maybe I worded it wrong: the age/time of objects is affected by their motion (relative to other objects, obviously), as seen in awareness.

Everything is affected by relativity. Not just human awareness.
I think you are avoiding the main thrust of my argument.

[Upchurch]

Silly me, I went by what you actually said rather than what you meant. My appologies.Originally posted by lifegazer

Everything is affected by relativity. Not just human awareness. True. However, you seem to be confusing the causal relationship between relativistic effects and human awareness. The "main thrust" of your argument seems to be, as I read it, that human awareness of time dialation is what causes time dialation to occur. This is, of course, more circular reasoning. Time dialation must pre-exist the human awarness of it, not the otherway around. The theoretical deduction of time dialation was in no way dependent on human awareness and evidence of its existence pre-existed the definition of it.

You're streatching the facts (to the breaking point) to fit your preferred theory rather than fitting your theory to the facts. As I've said before, you are not reasoning, but rationalizing.

[lifegazer]

The motion of a body affects its experience of universal time & space.
Thus, the very substance of time & space are dependent upon the body experiencing them.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Thus, the very substance of time & space are dependent upon the body experiencing them. Ah, this is a bit of a departure from the usual immaterialist claim, although just as circular. How, then, is the substance of spacetime dependent on the viewer? And how did the first viewer come about with no spacetime substance to come about in?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The motion of a body affects its experience of universal time & space.
Thus, the very substance of time & space are dependent upon the body experiencing them.

There is no such thing as universal time and space. Thats the thing about relativity. Also, you like to mash words around that have no meaning to the theory at hand, but lend credibility to your theory. Particles and fields do not "experience" space time, they are a PART of space time. Matter, energy, space, and time are an inseperable. You cannot have one without the other, and you cannot effect one without effecting another. What I'm trying to say is, bodies don't experince space time, they are a part of it.

You add more matter? You bend space time. OK, now to explain something about relativity that you have trouble swallowing:

THE MOTION OF ANY BODY DOES NOT EFFECT ITS EXPERIENCES OF TIME AND SPACE. no matter how fast you say you are going, the laws of physics behave as if you are standing still. There is no frame of reference to give yourself a speed. Even more difficult to grok, if you are on a moon, and your friend passes you in a space ship at near the speed of light. You'll pull out your binoculars, look at him, and see that he's length contracted, and his clocks are moving very slowly, almost stopped.

Now, here is where it gets interesting lifegazer. What does your friend on the space ship see when he peers back at you with binoculars? I'll let you think. Does he, a) see you moving really really fast, since you see him with his time all slowed down, or b) does he see you moving really really slow. Its B, because there is no absolute frame of reference, only each observers frame of reference, and each observer is moving at exactly 0 times the speed of light.

Its difficult to determine how well you are getting the relativity thing, so I'll pose a question (just for lifegazer). There is a 100ft long craft traveling through the fields of skipton at near the speed of light. A barn operator who owns a barn that is 80ft long devises an experiment to disprove einstiens theories. He figures, that at the speed the craft is traveling, it will be length contracted to 60ft long. So, since he has ridiculusly fast barn doors, he'll close them as the craft is in the center of the barn (with 10ft clearence on either end), and then open them again. Haha he says, the craft will also see my barn length contracted, but to much less than 100ft, from his frame of reference, it would be impossible for me to close both doors at the same time with the spaceship still inside.

What will be the result of the barn operators experiment? What will the experiment look like from the ship's frame of reference?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I haven't presented an argument.


The arguments that you have presented on previous threads are identical to the arguments that you have used on other boards. In fact, the flaws that the other board members point out in your reasoning are the same flaws we point out here.


Spare me the same boring responses.


oh yes, our silly logic and reasoning, why can't we just all understand that we are all part of the same mind, and just love eachother and bring about world peace.


Nope.

ya, I kinda wondered what made him think you a christian myself. I'm still curious what drove you to come up with your theories

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Maybe I worded it wrong: the age/time of objects is affected by their motion (relative to other objects, obviously), as seen in awareness.


If were all the mind, how would it make sense for some of us to experience reality faster or slower than another self. If we were all part of one mind, it would seem we would all experience reality at the same rate

Also lifegazer, it might be interesting for you to know that time is also effected by gravity. So two clocks may not be moving in relation to eachother, but still keep different time.


Everything is affected by relativity. Not just human awareness.
I think you are avoiding the main thrust of my argument.

no, your main thrust is that awareness causes relativistic effects. My main thrust is that human awareness is simply a prisoner of relativistic effects

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Ah, this is a bit of a departure from the usual immaterialist claim, although just as circular. How, then, is the substance of spacetime dependent on the viewer? And how did the first viewer come about with no spacetime substance to come about in?

duuuuddddeee.....its the mind man, its doing things

[Dancing David]

Finger:moon.

Lifegazer, we don't need the Apollo programs, we can all point out fingers at the moon and say 'moon'.

Lifegazer, it is silly to say that the effects of relativity are dependant on an obserer, the fact that they are observed is dependant on an observer.

But lets consider this, in the dpeths of space far acroos the something mistakenly called nothing, there is a dense object , so dense that light can not escape it.

Further, there is matter falling towards this object, as it rotates through tyhe objects magnetic fiel it generate radiation, some of this matter will fall around the object very quickly, and in fact will approach relativistic velocities.

So when we detect this radiation, be it through Chandra or a gamma ray observatory, it is radiation generated by matter traveling close to the speed of light and subject to relativity.
I grant you that our observations require our minds, but wait the radiation in some cases has travelled for thousands upon millions of years.

Did that radiation not undergo the effects of relativity prior to our observation?
Better yet, what if it is on a data base that isn't transmitted for a year.

The effects of relativity do not require our minds to happen, we observe the effects but the mind does not generate them.

A particle acceleartor will draw more energy as the electron/proton approaches the speed of light, even if no one looks at the power meter.

????

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Ah, this is a bit of a departure from the usual immaterialist claim, although just as circular. How, then, is the substance of spacetime dependent on the viewer? And how did the first viewer come about with no spacetime substance to come about in?
http://www.kididdles.com/mouseum/images/mouse-ttl3b.gif

There was a farmer had a dog,
And Bingo was his name-o.
B-I-N-G-O!
B-I-N-G-O!
B-I-N-G-O!
And Bingo was his name-o!

[scribble]

Having never studied SR, I'd kind of like to know the answer to the barn door question.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by scribble
Having never studied SR, I'd kind of like to know the answer to the barn door question.

If anyone's curious, I'll private message them, but let lifegazer try to grok this one.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Ah, this is a bit of a departure from the usual immaterialist claim, although just as circular. How, then, is the substance of spacetime dependent on the viewer?

The motion of a body is the determining-factor of the relative-spacetime it shall experience.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The motion of a body is the determining-factor of the relative-spacetime it shall experience.

I do not wish to speak for upchurch but as I am reading the thread your last response is irrelevant as the statement found below that upchurch commented on.


Originally posted by lifegazer
Thus, the very substance of time & space are dependent upon the body experiencing them.

[lifegazer]

If the very substance (of spacetime) of your universe is dependent upon you (your motion), then you (your subconcious-mind) shape your whole universe proportionally to your actions.

Also, the velocity of light, though numerically constant, has qualitative differences for all observers. This has never been taught by any educational establishment, but I claim that it is true and proves that the mind creates the universe that it sees.

This is obvious anyway, as I have said elsewhere, since 'light' is an inner-sensation created by the mind. Remember when I said that the stars in the nightsky are right within your awareness?

Relativity is a law pertaining to the order, given by The Mind to awareness of relations which exist between things in motion within that awareness.
Relativity is not a law pertaining to bodies existing externally to the mind.

I do not believe that anybody else has ever proposed this before. But I've been sticking by it for 18 months, and I still do. One day, it will be accepted.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The motion of a body is the determining-factor of the relative-spacetime it shall experience.

As I have said before, the spacetime that everybody "experinces" is EXACTLY THE SAME. Thats the whole point of relativity. No matter what speed you think you are going, spacetime behaves EXACTLY THE SAME.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill


As I have said before, the spacetime that everybody "experinces" is EXACTLY THE SAME. Thats the whole point of relativity. No matter what speed you think you are going, spacetime behaves EXACTLY THE SAME.
What are you talking about? Nobody in the whole universe is having the exact same experience of 1 second or the exact same experience of 1 meter. The individual's experience of spacetime is unique for himself. Fact.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

What are you talking about? Nobody in the whole universe is having the exact same experience of 1 second or the exact same experience of 1 meter. The individual's experience of spacetime is unique for himself. Fact.

I'm talking of the physical essence, not of the "well, it felt like the pot took 5 minutes to boil", which is always subjective, and it has nothing to do with relativity.

lifegazer, no matter where you measure, no matter how fast you are going when you measure. 1 second is one second, 1 meter is one meter. This is what relativity proves. Show me an example of an experiment where a second is measured, and its not truly a second, or a meter measured, and its not truly a meter.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
If the very substance (of spacetime) of your universe is dependent upon you (your motion), then you (your subconcious-mind) shape your whole universe proportionally to your actions.


again, spacetime is exactly the same, regardless of you motion. Also, relativistic effects still apply to things without a subconcious-mind. Your expaination isn't washing. Please explain this descrepincy.


Also, the velocity of light, though numerically constant, has qualitative differences for all observers. This has never been taught by any educational establishment, but I claim that it is true and proves that the mind creates the universe that it sees.


Allright lifegazer, if the numeric portion of the velocity of light isn't changing, what portion of the velocity of light IS changing. Lets see...its
299,792,458 m/s. Well, the numeric portion doesn't change. Do the units change? does it suddenly become g/s? I know that it isn't taught in any educational establishments. But if it is indeed proof of a mind, it is *very* important.

Please, teach me this concept and the effects that they have on the speed of light.


This is obvious anyway, as I have said elsewhere, since 'light' is an inner-sensation created by the mind. Remember when I said that the stars in the nightsky are right within your awareness?


What about the stars who have long since gone nova or died out, yet we still receive their light?. What about light we cannot sense with our eyes? What about photons that do not reach our eyes, yet still cause effect to the world around us. Since the stars are right within your awareness, you are certainly aware of stars that are about to change (ie, burn out, go nova, or start up). Please, predict these events for us.


Relativity is a law pertaining to the order, given by The Mind to awareness of relations which exist between things in motion within that awareness.


Certainly not. Special relativity is a theory that reconciles logic with maxwells equations. Before, these equations made no sense, because in the classical world view, you would be able to catch up with a photon and view it as if it was frozen in time. The universe follows special relativity whether we are aware of it, or not.

If you say that a Mind just made up laws for the universe, and set it in motion, then who made the laws for the Mind? How can you show the Mind exists?


Relativity is not a law pertaining to bodies existing externally to the mind.


which mind? "The Mind"? Your argument here is circular, you have proven no such mind.


I do not believe that anybody else has ever proposed this before. But I've been sticking by it for 18 months, and I still do. One day, it will be accepted.

Many have said that reality is the result of a "cosmic dream", excactly as you are sayng. And many have applied what they do not understand to the workings of this cosmic dream, just as you are doing. I'm sorry lifegazer, its been a pretty constant thread through the forums of mankind.

For any of these musings to be accepted, you'll have to come up with a combination of evidence, repeatable experiments, and predictions, just as the rest of scientific theories do.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill


I'm talking of the physical essence, not of the "well, it felt like the pot took 5 minutes to boil", which is always subjective, and it has nothing to do with relativity.

lifegazer, no matter where you measure, no matter how fast you are going when you measure. 1 second is one second, 1 meter is one meter. This is what relativity proves. Show me an example of an experiment where a second is measured, and its not truly a second, or a meter measured, and its not truly a meter.
What you are arguing for, ironically, is the constancy of subjective-experience. I.e., that the feeling of time is a constant. But what I said is that time and space are different for everyone, regardless of experiential-constancy. The twin-paradox, for example, highlights this. Spacetime is relative. Each individual experiences a unique perspective of it.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
Allright lifegazer, if the numeric portion of the velocity of light isn't changing, what portion of the velocity of light IS changing. Lets see...its
299,792,458 m/s. Well, the numeric portion doesn't change. Do the units change? does it suddenly become g/s? I know that it isn't taught in any educational establishments. But if it is indeed proof of a mind, it is *very* important.

Please, teach me this concept and the effects that they have on the speed of light.

The twin-paradox (I assume you know it), shows that the value of 1 second (the qualitative value of time) and the value of 1 meter (the qualitative value of space) do change in relation to the acceleration of a body (in this case, the spacetwin). That's why 25 years for the earthtwin pans-out as, say, 10 years for his brother in space.
Hence the age discrepency, brought-on by the qualitative distortion of space and time, as experienced by the spacetwin.

Thus, the meter and the second are in qualitative-flux. Fact.
Thus, any velocity, say x m/s, means something qualitatively-unique for each individual, since the defining parameters are unique for each individual.

What about the stars who have long since gone nova or died out, yet we still receive their light?. What about light we cannot sense with our eyes? What about photons that do not reach our eyes, yet still cause effect to the world around us. Since the stars are right within your awareness, you are certainly aware of stars that are about to change (ie, burn out, go nova, or start up). Please, predict these events for us.

'i' am the awareness of these events. I am not The Mind creating the show.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

What you are arguing for, ironically, is the constancy of subjective-experience. I.e., that the feeling of time is a constant. But what I said is that time and space are different for everyone, regardless of experiential-constancy. The twin-paradox, for example, highlights this. Spacetime is relative. Each individual experiences a unique perspective of it.

What I am feeling is the subjectiveness of my internal clock, it has nothing to do with relativity. Thats why we have atomic clocks to measure such things. Each individual experinces spacetime exactly the same, no matter how many experiments they perform, they will find no difference in their space time, or my space time. Show me an experiment that will be different

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
Many have said that reality is the result of a "cosmic dream", excactly as you are sayng.
And many have applied what they do not understand to the workings of this cosmic dream, just as you are doing. I'm sorry lifegazer, its been a pretty constant thread through the forums of mankind.

No human-being has ever linked Einstein's theory of relativity to idealism. You're talking nonsense as usual. Your insincerity makes you a worthless conversant.

For any of these musings to be accepted, you'll have to come up with a combination of evidence, repeatable experiments, and predictions, just as the rest of scientific theories do.
Einstein & co. already provided me with those details. You wish me to repeat their experiments?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The twin-paradox (I assume you know it), shows that the value of 1 second (the qualitative value of time) and the value of 1 meter (the qualitative value of space) do change in relation to the acceleration of a body (in this case, the spacetwin).


Does time pass quicker on the moon, or slowly on the earth? Who is right? who has the "correct" second. There is no universal clock, no universal second, no universal meter. If there was a "Mind", it would stand to reason that there would be a universal second, but there is none. Who's second has changed? The one twin's second? or the other twin's second?


That's why 25 years for the earthtwin pans-out as, say, 10 years for his brother in space. Hence the age discrepency, brought-on by the qualitative distortion of space and time, as experienced by the spacetwin.


There was no qualitive distortion for the spacetwin. There was no way for the spacetwin to find any difference between his spacetime, and the earth twin's spacetime. In fact, when he left (once he got done accelerating) He looked back at his earth twin and saw that his earth twin was aging very slowly.

Whenever either measures a second, they measure a second. Its about relative motion of bodies. Not some local distortion.


Thus, the meter and the second are in qualitative-flux. Fact.
Thus, any velocity, say x m/s, means something qualitatively-unique for each individual, since the defining parameters are unique.


Show me an experement that someone can conduct in a closed room, that shows their velocity. Surely if something quantitively has changed, they'll be able to show that.


'i' am the awareness of these events. I am not The Mind creating the show.

again, prove this

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

No human-being has ever linked Einstein's theory of relativity to idealism. You're talking nonsense as usual. Your insincerity makes you a worthless conversant.


you link it to something you don't understand. In the past, the popular thing was gravity, no one understood what kept the planets in their motion, so it was a mind. The exact concept may be different, but the reasoning is identical.


Einstein & co. already provided me with those details. You wish me to repeat their experiments?

They have proven einstien's relativity. You need to prove lifegazer's relativity, which is different in many subtle, but important ways from einstien's


BTW, tell me about the barn.

[Pahansiri]

Lifegazer may I ask you a simple question, please respond YES or NO.

If your response is no please include facts and supporting conclusion to support your answer.

With ever improving technology we are able to see deeper into space all the time. We are through powerful telescopes photographing the death of stars ( as to the light of the event etc) that occurred perhaps billions of years ago.

Is it your belief that when the first scientist cast his eyes on the photo was the first time this star never existed? Did this previously unknown and unseen due to distances tar not exist before he looked at the photo?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
Does time pass quicker on the moon, or slowly on the earth? Who is right? who has the "correct" second.

This has nothing to do with "correct time". What matters and what is fact, is that relatively-speaking (by comparison), time and space are experienced differently by all people in all different scenarios. Fact.

Who's second has changed? The one twin's second? or the other twin's second?

Accelerate to great velocities and you
shall change the qualitative value of your 1 second.

I was under the impression you knew what you were talking about. You don't.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Is it your belief that when the first scientist cast his eyes on the photo was the first time this star never existed? Did this previously unknown and unseen due to distances tar not exist before he looked at the photo?
The order of the universe is known within The Mind that creates it. But it takes concious-awareness, from within this universe, to see (visually sense) any part of that universe.

My answer to your question is that the photo was the first time that the star was visually sensed. But it already existed within The Mind's all-knowing eye, if you get my drift.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

This has nothing to do with "correct time". What matters and what is fact, is that relatively-speaking (by comparison), time and space are experienced differently by all people in all different scenarios. Fact.


everything expereinces spacetime exactly the same, thats the point of relativity.


Accelerate to great velocities and you
shall change the qualitative value of your 1 second.


really, give me an experiment I could conduct to show that. I keep asking you this, but you never give me one.

In fact, we already are accelerated to great velocities. Look around us, look at the speeds of other galaxies. Of course, who is accelerating away from whom? Is our reality any different? By your definition, isn't *our* value for a second already changed?


I was under the impression you knew what you were talking about. You don't.

answer me the barn paradox then.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The order of the universe is known within The Mind that creates it. But it takes concious-awareness, from within this universe, to see (visually sense) any part of that universe.

My answer to your question is that the photo was the first time that the star was visually sensed. But it already existed within The Mind's all-knowing eye, if you get my drift.

ya, we do, but what is your proof of this mind?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
everything expereinces spacetime exactly the same, thats the point of relativity.



really, give me an experiment I could conduct to show that. I keep asking you this, but you never give me one.

So, you are not even aware of the twin-paradox? Or what of upchurch's example of the atomic clocks that slowed-down in orbit of the earth?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill


ya, we do, but what is your proof of this mind?
There is one in this very thread. There was one in my previous thread. But I fear you lack the sincerity and open-mindedness to see it. That's your problem. Not mine.

[lifegazer]

Fear of God does not suffice to discredit a proof for God's existence. But there is nothing to fear but fear itself.

[Upchurch]

Okay, not just swimming with time to write this, but I'd like to straighten one thing out. When speaking of time dialation and length contraction, it works like this: If two observers are moving at relativistic speed in respect to one another, say for example they are passing one another, each observer views the other observer as becoming narrower along the axis of travel and the ticks of the clock on the other observer's clock slowing down.

From what I had time to scan, it sounds as if people are thinking that the observer sees his own time slowing down or his own length contracting. For each observer, their own 1 meter is always 1 meter and their 1 second is always 1 second.

Thus the paradox in the twin scenerio. If each twin sees the other's clock slowing down, why is the earth-bound twin the one who does the most aging?

The answer, of course, and the crux of the twin paradox, is that the traveling twin goes through a period of acceleration.

I did an analysis of this for a research project in college and it turns out that the longer the period of acceleration is, the more pronounced the age difference is. I think I still have the paper I presented in a box somewhere...

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The order of the universe is known within The Mind that creates it. But it takes concious-awareness, from within this universe, to see (visually sense) any part of that universe.

My answer to your question is that the photo was the first time that the star was visually sensed. But it already existed within The Mind's all-knowing eye, if you get my drift.

I see even a simple yes or no is too difficult.



The order of the universe is known within The Mind that creates it.

Prove a creator/God. When you stop dancing and simply prove God? You have said only you believe the truth, you are special so to prove God and “save” us all should be easy.

But it takes concious-awareness, from within this universe, to see (visually sense) any part of that universe.

“concious” is spelled conscious. It seems God’s messenger would know this.

My answer to your question is that the photo was the first time that the star was visually sensed. But it already existed within The Mind's all-knowing eye, if you get my drift.

1- the “star” did always exist in that it was comprised of non-star elements, i.e. matter and energy.
2- “it” did not always exist in that form I,e, that star. That star was born of the matter/ gasses etc and that took perhaps billions of years, it “lived” if you will for perhaps billions of years then as all compound things “suffered” death and decay. And what is seen is the death image if you will in the light traveling through space.
3- Prove the all-knowing eye, prove god,
4- Prove God
5- Prove God
6- Prove God
7- Prove God
8- Prove God

Please just stop saying what you believe, which I respect you believe it but just stop saying it is fact and offer up the facts, the proof.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

There is one in this very thread. There was one in my previous thread. But I fear you lack the sincerity and open-mindedness to see it. That's your problem. Not mine.

Where, you have offered not one fact proving "god".

It is an old childish ploy to say people who will not believe you are lost, blind,lack the sincerity and open-mindedness .

Just prove what you say. If you are right it should be easy to prove, prove it and I will believe you and be happy to stop believing what I do now, I do not fear truth as I do not belive most here do not.

I fear you do.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Fear of God does not suffice to discredit a proof for God's existence. But there is nothing to fear but fear itself.

Yet another example of your illogical statements.

If I fear God that would mean I/we believe in God. We do not believe in God so do not fear God nor Santa nor Count Dracula, The wolfman etc.


If I/we believed in God and feared"him" we would FEAR not believing or discredit "him"

Stop and think before you post.


PROVE GOD

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

So, you are not even aware of the twin-paradox? Or what of upchurch's example of the atomic clocks that slowed-down in orbit of the earth?

I am perfectly aware. However, what I'm trying to get you to understand is the full effects and reasons behind relativistic effects, they have nothing to do with the spacetime for the twin changing, and the twin experiencing everything differently. You seem to believe that the twin paradox arises from something other than basic relativistic effects. To try to wrap your mind around this, I am trying to get you to explain the barn door problem.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

There is one in this very thread. There was one in my previous thread. But I fear you lack the sincerity and open-mindedness to see it. That's your problem. Not mine.

Really, ok, I'm in the dark here, so I ask you to explain things to me, but I never receive one. Shall we go through this thread and count them? I really want to understand, I ask basic questions, and you ignore them. I'm totally in the dark here. I am exteremely open minded, in fact, I realize the relativity may well be incorrect in some domain. I would be perfectly willing to accept evidence that shows that. Now, I'm asking for your evidence lifegazer. You tell me about all these things, like light being different velocities, and I ask you to explain them, but you never do.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Upchurch

From what I had time to scan, it sounds as if people are thinking that the observer sees his own time slowing down or his own length contracting. For each observer, their own 1 meter is always 1 meter and their 1 second is always 1 second.


thank you for putting this so few, simple, easy to understand words, this is exactly what I'm trying to explain to lifegazer.


Thus the paradox in the twin scenerio. If each twin sees the other's clock slowing down, why is the earth-bound twin the one who does the most aging?

The answer, of course, and the crux of the twin paradox, is that the traveling twin goes through a period of acceleration.

I did an analysis of this for a research project in college and it turns out that the longer the period of acceleration is, the more pronounced the age difference is. I think I still have the paper I presented in a box somewhere...

acceleration is no different than gravity. An observer observing a clock in a strong gravitational field sees it going much more slowly. An observer viewing a clock in a gravitational field weaker than their own sees the clock going faster. And since a gravitational field and acceleration are the same under general relativity, the same is true for an accelerating body.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Fear of God does not suffice to discredit a proof for God's existence. But there is nothing to fear but fear itself.

Who are you responding to here? How can someone fear something that they don't beleive to exist anyway? Do you fear dragons?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by RussDill

acceleration is no different than gravity. An observer observing a clock in a strong gravitational field sees it going much more slowly. An observer viewing a clock in a gravitational field weaker than their own sees the clock going faster. And since a gravitational field and acceleration are the same under general relativity, the same is true for an accelerating body.
Again, to be precise, an observer in an inertial reference frame (i.e. one that isn't accelerating) would see a clock in an a gravitational field tick slower than it would if it were not in a gravitational field.

You have to be careful when you are speaking of an accelerating observer watching a clock that is accelerating differently then the observer. This is in the realm of General Relativity and the math gets a lot tougher.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer


Accelerate to great velocities and you
shall change the qualitative value of your 1 second.

I was under the impression you knew what you were talking about. You don't.

Ah, now we see that you do not understand the tricks of relativity, you are trying to force the classic model of an absolute reference onto the relativity effects.

I shall try to explain, but I am sure you will ignore the explanation:

1. When the space twin measures time through whatever menas chosen, thier measurement will remain the same. Light will still travel the same distance in the same time.

2.When the Earth twin measures time through whatever menas chosen, thier measurement will remain the same. Light will still travel the same distance in the same time.

3. When the space twin and the earth twin meet again, it will be apparent that they have an age difference, one is younger and the other older.

Paradox:
There is no way for the twins to determine which one has had a time shift,
from the perspective of the space twin, objects outside thier frame of reference have aged more quickly. From the perspective of the earth twin, the obects in the space twin's frame of reference have aged more slowly.

The paradox rests on the fact that there is no absolute frame of reference, you Lifegazer are just saying that the frame of reference of the earth twin is an absolute one.

It is not, in Einstiens equations there is no absolute frame of reference, because the speed of light is always constant for both twins.

Intuitively, we want to say that the earth frame of reference is the absolute one, but that is geo centricism.

And by the way the quality of light will change only if you have the intersection of frames of reference, then there will be an observed frequency shift, but the speed remains constant.

[lifegazer]

The acceleration of a body distorts the quality of that body's spacetime - whether he/it notices the changes or not. When the space-twin comes back to earth, for example, he has aged less than his brother, proving that his acceleration has slowed his time relatively to his brothers.

I.e., the motion of a body does impact upon the quality of the spacetime which that body will experience.

Now, velocity is a parameter of distance and time. And so it is obvious that if each individual has a unique perspective of distance and time, that any velocity x m/s will be unique to that individual also.
The bozos from physics-forums didn't have the brains to realise that 'x' alone does not make a velocity absolute for all observers. The velocity-value is a combination of x and m/s... and if m & s are individualistic, then so is the velocity in itself of any and all values 'x'... or, in the case of light, 'c'.
I.e., light-velocity is not truly absolute in the sense it has been depicted (in our classrooms).

These are the essential points of my argument, and they are not difficult to comprehend.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Where, you have offered not one fact proving "god".

Wtf do you think this thread is about? Do you ever listen?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Again, to be precise, an observer in an inertial reference frame (i.e. one that isn't accelerating) would see a clock in an a gravitational field tick slower than it would if it were not in a gravitational field.

You have to be careful when you are speaking of an accelerating observer watching a clock that is accelerating differently then the observer. This is in the realm of General Relativity and the math gets a lot tougher.
Are you going to comment upon my argument or not? I was hoping for a little more than a "relativity for bozos" course. Especially after all the "flaming" stick you've been giving me recently.
Is my argument credible or not? Remember, the truth is more important than egos.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Wtf do you think this thread is about? Do you ever listen? http://www.rr-bb.com/images/smilies/pound.gif

Did I miss where you gave the facts proving God:confused:

Point it/them out to me again please.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Remember, the truth is more important than egos.

http://www.rr-bb.com/images/smilies/jaw.gif

In the 2004 Webster dictionary under the entry word Hypocrisy will be found Your name and this statement by you.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
http://www.rr-bb.com/images/smilies/pound.gif

Did I miss where you gave the facts proving God:confused:

Point it/them out to me again please.
You lack brainpower my friend. Read the thread in its entirety and you will see that Einstein's law of relativity has its source at Mind. If you're not sure I shall walk you through it. Just ask.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You lack brainpower my friend. Read the thread in its entirety and you will see that Einstein's law of relativity has its source at Mind. If you're not sure I shall walk you through it. Just ask.

Einstein's theory of relativity is a theory and not the creator of anything. Your English if rather poor at times, cold you word this correctly?

Einstein's law of relativity has its source at Mind.


Do you mean that his theory is the source of mind?
Do you mean that his theory’s source is his mind? I agree The source of his theory is how his mind processed the available data. The theory is not the source or the data.

I guess my brainpower can only understand proper English and sentence structure.


But being you offer walk me through your proof of god as I have yet to see it. How is relativity proof of God? Walk me through it.

Being I am a bit slow so please use proper English and sentence structure.:rub:

[RussDill]

I can argue each one of those points. However, your leap, and where your proof is not a proof, is when you say that this is all because of the mind. Its not a proof, its your explaination, its as much as a proof as saying that volcanos errupt because of a god. I imagine many an ancient used volcano's to prove existence of a god. There are many other explanations for einstein's relativity, and even other explainations for lifegazer's relativity.




The acceleration of a body distorts the quality of that body's spacetime - whether he/it notices the changes or not. When the space-twin comes back to earth, for example, he has aged less than his brother, proving that his acceleration has slowed his time relatively to his brothers.


acceleration does, velocity does not. Even acceleration only warps space time in the same way that gravity does, so its nothing special. You almost have relativity, but you don't:

His experiences will seem 'normal'.

This is where it becomes lifegazer's theory of relativity. His experiences do not *seem* normal, they ARE normal.


I.e., the motion of a body does impact upon the quality of the spacetime which that body will experience.


like I have challenged you before, give me an experiment one could conduct to show their velocity. Your velocity changes nothing about the space time you "expereince".


Now, velocity is a parameter of distance and time. And so it is obvious that if each individual has a unique perspective of distance and time, that any velocity x m/s will be unique to that individual also.
The bozos from physics-forums didn't have the brains to realise that 'x' alone does not make a velocity absolute for all observers. The velocity-value is a combination of x and m/s... and if m & s are individualistic, then so is the velocity in itself of any and all values 'x'... or, in the case of light, 'c'.
I.e., light-velocity is not truly absolute in the sense it has been depicted (in our classrooms).


This, again, is where you lose sight of the theory of relativity. Lemme explain where this all started. Maxwell's equations describe the behaviour of magnetic, and electric fields. Changing magnetic fields give rise to electric fields and vice versa. You work out the Maxwells equations for these, and find that changing magnetic and electric fields can give rise to a propogating wave that travels at a velocity derived from the equations. It was soon discovered that these electro-magnetic waves are simply light, radio waves, etc.

However, there was a problem, the equations gave light a speed, but in relation to what? Many thought the ether, which was theorized to be the carrier of electomagnetic waves. Many then set out to find the differences in the speed of light from different directions to determine the earths speed and direction in this ether. No differences in the speed of light were found, which was puzzeling, because such a difference would be easy to detect.

Along came einstein and his thought experiments. He would imagine catching up to a beam of light and observing it, which would seem impossible, because then it would just be a standing wave, which cannot exist. He finally determined that the speed of light is a constant for *all* observers and derived the equations to explain the consequences of that.

You are calling einstein a bozo here. Maxwells equations show that the speed of light is always a constant. It never changes. This is the very basis for einsteins theory of relativity.

length and time and *not* individualistic. Since the speed of light is always a constant, its easy to determine length and time from it. Then, you can compare those measurements to other ways of measuring. Such as the rate of atomic decay, the stengths of fields, the number of atoms in a liter, etc. It all comes out the same.


These are the essential points of my argument, and they are not difficult to comprehend.

Yes, classical physics is not difficult to comprehend, which seems to be what you are stuck to. You apply classical physics to everyone, and then claim any differences that happen due to relativity must be due to some mind, as apposed due to the nature of the universe. Relativity is a part of our universe, not something outside of it. It is derived from Maxwell's equations, which describe the behaviour of electric and magnetic fields to a T.

This is your relativity:


If I accelerate through space, there must be a means (a reference) for knowing my own velocity at any given moment, and to know that I am actually accelerating. I'm not sure what this is (after reading your comments); but unless this is true, what price our mathematics of motion/relativity? What price 'motion'?


einstein states that there is no reference for knowing your own velocity at any given moment. *That* is einsteins relativity. General relativity also shows that there isn't even a way to know that you are accelerating, the effects of acceleration are identical to a gravitational field.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Wtf do you think this thread is about? Do you ever listen?

You don't have a proof, you make a giant leap of conjecture.

Your proof is to say that because reality is not experienced equally by everyone, and thus we are all seeing and feeling individual realities, which means we do not share the same reality (or for certain, the same 4d universe), so each mind embraces its own "version" of our universe.

I can argue (and have) each one of those points. However, your leap, and where your proof is not a proof, is when you say that this is all because of the mind. Its not a proof, its your explaination, its as much as a proof as saying that volcanos errupt because of a god. I imagine many an ancient used volcano's too prove existence of a god. There are many other explanations for einstein's relativity, and even other explainations for lifegazer's relativity.

Relativistic effects are a part of our universe. Without them, our universe would not be consistent and there would be a reason for the "mind". All matter/energy is subject to relativistic effects. Nothing about these effects puts us into our own universe, the effects are part of our universe.

To see a dramatic example of two seemingly divergent realities being one reality explained by special relativity, solve the barn door mystery.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Are you going to comment upon my argument or not? I was hoping for a little more than a "relativity for bozos" course. Especially after all the "flaming" stick you've been giving me recently.


Why don't you school us by explaining the barn door problem?


Is my argument credible or not? Remember, the truth is more important than egos.

No, I'm sorry, you don't have a credible argument. I point out all the problems with your agument, and you only respond by repeating your argument, that is not credible. The truth is more important than egos, however, I fear that your ego is too important to you.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You lack brainpower my friend. Read the thread in its entirety and you will see that Einstein's law of relativity has its source at Mind. If you're not sure I shall walk you through it. Just ask.

Really, why don't I ask Pahansiri to solve the barn door mystery too, he can private message me the solution. We'll see who gets the solution first.

I have read the thread in its entirety, in fact, I have responded to every element of your argument, however, I do not yet se what a mind has to do with it. Einstein's law of relativity has its source at Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Are you going to comment upon my argument or not?
Orginally posted by Upchurch

Then, I imagine, he'll get indignent that I'm not addressing his argument but attacking him personally.
**sigh**
Orignally posted by lifegazer

I was hoping for a little more than a "relativity for bozos" course. Especially after all the "flaming" stick you've been giving me recently.After the flaming shtick, you expected me to give you more of a benefit of the doubt about your understanding of Relativity? Your version of logic and even personal intuition continues to astound me.
Is my argument credible or not? Remember, the truth is more important than egos. No. It is not credible, because the traveler's perception of 1 meter and 1 second does not change nor is it necessary for there to be a mind on the trip for the effect to occur. You're arguments are without credit because neither are supported by any accepted theory nor by the evidence that supports it. However, since you are making the claim, if you have new evidence that you feels supports your position, please feel free to present it.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
No. It is not credible, because the traveler's perception of 1 meter and 1 second does not change

It doesn't matter whether the traveller's perception changes. Not noticing changes is not a proof that nothing is changing (for God's sake!) - which it is. The value of his meter and second are in qualitative flux, as proved by the twin paradox. Lorentz-transformation mathematics are there precisely to work out the relative-changes experienced by various bodies in various scenarios.
You know this. So why are you dancing around the issue? Rather, dUncing around the issue. The others have the excuse of being ignorant. But you sir, claiming to be a physicist, have no excuse.

You're arguments are without credit because neither are supported by any accepted theory nor by the evidence that supports it.

You have lost all credibility in my book. There is no established support for what I am saying because I am the first to say it. How dumb are you?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
This, again, is where you lose sight of the theory of relativity. Lemme explain where this all started.
No more evasiveness please.
I told you why x m/s is not the same for everyone. What I told you is a fact. The relative value of your meter and second is in comparative flux, whether you notice it or not. Your meter and your second have a unique meaning to you in comparison to a spaceman, for example. We can prove this through lorentz-transformation mathematics, or if we can find a volunteer (I vote for Pahansiri) to blast-off for a few years, we shall see him come back in about 25 years having hardly aged at all. Why bother with all that wrinkle cream?
Anyway, even though Pahansiri wouldn't have noticed a relative slowing of his/her own time, he/she is evidence that his/her meter and second have changed, qualitatively, allowing for this distorted state-of-affairs.

Stop waffling Russ and deal with the facts. Why talk yourself out of a perfectly good argument for God's existence? lol

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Einstein's theory of relativity is a theory and not the creator of anything. Your English if rather poor at times, cold you word this correctly?

I don't claim to be the next Shakespeare. And you have some nerve pulling me for my English! :p
Anyway, the theory of relativity is an explanation of universal behaviour. But inherent within that explanation is a proof that The Mind is the creator of said universal behaviour. The Mind is the creator of the universe.

I hope you don't mind but I just volunteered you for a 25 year mission into oblivion. Don't forget to pack yer toothbrush.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The bozos from physics-forums didn't have the brains to realise that 'x' alone does not make a velocity absolute for all observers. The velocity-value is a combination of x and m/s... and if m & s are individualistic, then so is the velocity in itself of any and all values 'x'... or, in the case of light, 'c'.
I.e., light-velocity is not truly absolute in the sense it has been depicted (in our classrooms).

These are the essential points of my argument, and they are not difficult to comprehend.

More semantics, the value of the speed of light doesn't change, are you saying what?

That is the freaky thing about the theory of relativity, say you car is travelling at .999999 the speed of light and you turn on the headlights, common sense would say that the photons leaving the headlights of the car travel at .999999 plus the speed of light, but guess what it doesn't. The photons still travel at c.

Your argument seems to be saying that all frames of reference are unique and there the spped of light is not constant.

How would you demonstrate that in an experiment?
1. Which parameters of light are not constant, the frequency of the wavelegths change but the speed stays the same?
2. Which parameters can be tested for?


Have you heard of Lorentz and the Michealson-Morely experiments?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

It doesn't matter whether the traveller's perception changes. Not noticing changes is not a proof that nothing is changing (for God's sake!) - which it is. The value of his meter and second are in qualitative flux, as proved by the twin paradox. Lorentz-transformation mathematics are there precisely to work out the relative-changes experienced by various bodies in various scenarios.


The issue is that you are comparing frames of referenece, and in doing so you are making your frame of reference the absolute one. When the car goes by at .999999 the speed of light, it appears compressed along it's line of motion. From the car's frame of reference you will appear elongated.
So what? There is no absolute frame of reference, the space time 'distortion' is only a distortion that appears by comparing the two frames of reference.

If either frame of reference measures the spped of light, it will have the same value, even if you measure the speed of light in another frame of reference it will have the same value.

You know this. So why are you dancing around the issue? Rather, dUncing around the issue. The others have the excuse of being ignorant. But you sir, claiming to be a physicist, have no excuse.


Attacking UpC shows you to be a spoiled little brat, shall you hold your breath next?


You have lost all credibility in my book. There is no established support for what I am saying because I am the first to say it. How dumb are you?

You are not the first, nor shall you be the last, your ego is swelling, you have yet to say anything new. Do you really think that you are the first to say this?

Lifegazer, do you understand that the speed of light doesn't change?

When the trolley goes by you at .999999 the speed of light, if you were able to measure the speed of light on the trolley as it went by you, it would be the same value.

What experiment can you devise to demostrate that the speed of light changes?

[Dancing David]

You haven't proved god yet, you have shown your belief, but an impartial and neutral force of nature provides the same results.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

There is no established support for what I am saying because I am the first to say it. How dumb are you? What, then, is your evidence for this claim that the metric for the traveling twin qualitatively changes? If you make the claim, you must be basing that claim on evidence previously undiscovered in the past 80+ years or so. What evidence do you have?

I know you aren't a trained scientist and, based on your implications for the Lorentz transformation (which is only valid between inertial reference frames, not accelerating ones), you aren't much of a mathemitician either. As such, let me explain to you once again that in order for argument or theory to be considered true, it must have empirical evidence to support it and no empirical evidence to contradict it. Argument alone proves nothing.

You claim that the "qualitative" change in metric occurs even if the observer doesn't notice it. First, how do you prove that? The age difference alone is not sufficient because it is explain theoretically, mathematically, and experimentally in other ways. Second, your original argument was based on the traverler's perceptions effecting local spacetime metric creating alternate universes and such. How can the traveler's mind do this if the "qualitative" change not only preceeds the traveler's perception but actually escapes the traveler's detection?

Earlier I said that argument alone proves nothing, but an inconsistent argument disproves itself.

If you are going to present scientific arguments that fly in the face of almost a century of evidence, you must be prepared to defend it with more than just bad rhetoric. Being an amateur "scientist" does not excuse you from the rigorous burden of proof that all scientists and their theories must comply.

Aside: do you not find it interesting that this conversation when in the exact order I predicted in my first post on this thread? I'm kicking myself for not adding the last part where you attack me personally.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
More semantics, the value of the speed of light doesn't change, are you saying what?

The numerical-value of the speed-of-light is the same for everyone, but if you've followed the conversation, I have showed that velocity is a numerical-value qualified with parameters of distance and time. And since each observer experiences a unique perspective of distance and time, all velocities 'x' m/s actually mean something unique for each individual. They are not identical. The spacetwin, for example, experiences 1 second relatively more slowly than his brother on earth. I.e., 1 second is not an absolute value even though we all experience it. Same with 1 meter. Hence, the same with 1 m/s or x m/s or 'c'.

That is the freaky thing about the theory of relativity, say you car is travelling at .999999 the speed of light and you turn on the headlights, common sense would say that the photons leaving the headlights of the car travel at .999999 plus the speed of light, but guess what it doesn't. The photons still travel at c.

I'm aware of this and it's irrelevant.

How would you demonstrate that in an experiment?

My reasoning is derivative of experimentally-verified relativistic laws that Einstein unveiled a hundred years ago.

1. Which parameters of light are not constant, the frequency of the wavelegths change but the speed stays the same?
2. Which parameters can be tested for?

Velocity = distance/time. Nobody shares the exact-same experience for distance or time, since there are relative differences between everyone. The twin-paradox just highlights the possible diversity of these differences.

Have you heard of Lorentz and the Michealson-Morely experiments?
Of course I have.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
What, then, is your evidence for this claim that the metric for the traveling twin qualitatively changes? If you make the claim, you must be basing that claim on evidence previously undiscovered in the past 80+ years or so. What evidence do you have?

Does the value of space and time distort? Yes or no? Of course it does. Therefore, the value of 1 second and 1 meter changes in relation to other observers. The twin-paradox is evidence of this.

As such, let me explain to you once again that in order for argument or theory to be considered true, it must have empirical evidence to support it and no empirical evidence to contradict it. Argument alone proves nothing.

Why do you think the atomic-clocks you mentioned actually slowed-down? This was because the value of 1 second (time) was changed/slowed in relation to a stationary position on earth.

Aside: do you not find it interesting that this conversation when in the exact order I predicted in my first post on this thread? I'm kicking myself for not adding the last part where you attack me personally.
Perhaps I should have started a whole thread to attack you, just as you have done for me. Spare me the poxy violins.
Your contribution to this thread has ammounted to nothing and you certainly have not refuted anything I have said. In fact, your evasiveness is amusing. You remind me of a scurrying rat.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Does the value of space and time distort? Yes or no? Of course it does. Therefore, the value of 1 second and 1 meter changes in relation to other observers. The twin-paradox is evidence of this.The quantitative values of length and duration for a traveler moving in non-accelerated motion change (time gets longer, distance gets shorter) from the perspective of the earth. Likewise, the quantitative values of length and duration for the earth moving in non-accelerated motion change (time gets longer, distance gets shorter) from the perspective of the traveler. The experience is not unique to either of them and two ships passing the earth at the same relative velocity would experience the exact same distortion.

The traveling twin does not experience any of his or her own time dialation or length contraction because from his or her persepective, they are not experiencing any time dialation or length contraction, as you seem to imply. This is the very meaning of relativity. There is no absolute reference frame. It is equally valid to say that the earth is moving away from the traveler at high speed as it is to say that the traveler is moving away from the earth at high speed.

There is no relevent qualitative change involved. The one irrelevent qualitative change anyone would experience is the red-shifting and blue-shifting of the light. This shifting plays no part in the effect.
Why do you think the atomic-clocks you mentioned actually slowed-down? This was because the value of 1 second (time) was changed/slowed in relation to a stationary position on earth. It's more complex than that and goes into General Relativity. In accelerating, the clock's local metric distorts. In essence, the four spacetime dimensions twist locally so that locally, part of the time axis becomes space axis and part of the space axis (along the line of travel) becomes time axis. It is helpful, but not entirely accurate, to think of it as a four dimensional axis where each unit vector is less than 90 degrees away from the other unit vector. The actual metric unit of space and time do not change, but the vector in which the accelerating body travels does.

I will repeat this agian in very direct and simple language:

The metric value of 1 second and 1 meter does not change for an accelerating body. That the traveling twin is younger is due to the fact that he has taken a different path through spacetime.

[Pahansiri]

Greetings Lifegazer.



I don't claim to be the next Shakespeare.

I find that ironic as my pointing out your grammar, spelling and sentence structure mistakes were done for a reason, not a reason to be disrespectful or harm you but to allow you to again demonstrate your hypocrisies both in many beliefs and more so actions.

You say you do not claim to be the next Shakespeare yet you do claim to be the holder of many truths that ONLY you know and we, all other humans are lost and foolish and many other childish names you have attached to others who
1-do not believe as you do,
2-will not just simply believe you,
3-dare to question you or ask for FACTS and proof
4- disprove what you say using logical conclusion and/or facts.

In this very thread you said among many childish statements You have lost all credibility in my book. There is no established support for what I am saying because I am the first to say it. How dumb are you?

Lol and because YOU said it, it just has to be true, right? You are the only holder of these truths, a truth you can not prove and a messenger from a god you can not prove..



And you have some nerve pulling me for my English!

Really? I proved with facts it was poor and wrong. You have attacked everyone here personally, name calling etc for the simple reason they are right and you are wrong.

I would say how dare you.

Anyway, the theory of relativity is an explanation of universal behaviour. behaviour is spelled behavior not behaviour

Yes and ? how does this prove God like you said it here

I posted Originally posted by Pahansiri


Did I miss where you gave the facts proving God

Point it/them out to me again please.

You responded You lack brainpower my friend. Read the thread in its entirety and you will see that Einstein's law of relativity has its source at Mind. If you're not sure I shall walk you through it. Just ask.

I ask again how does this prove God? You keep playing the Pee wee Hermann game now of saying others are being practicing evasiveness yet it is you that is, I, we have asked you over and over and over to prove God among other things and all we see is a dance.



But inherent within that explanation is a proof that The Mind is the creator of said universal behaviour. The Mind is the creator of the universe.


Nice dance and you do have some truth here but far too simplistic and confused to understand what you are trying to believe.

First the mind is I agree the “creator” of many illusions and as Einstein said "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." -- Albert Einstein

The “albeit a very persistent one” is that your or my mind or any mind on Earth that has not yet seen a far off planet created that planet.

This we know, your dancing around facts trying to make them say “ GOD did it “ are silly. That planet is there and the causes and conditions and TIME behind it’s formation are a reality and not created by the mind.


Let us take a virus say the black plague. At the time of black plague NO human eye/mind saw the microscopic organism at its root. As to all available knowledge no life outside of Earth saw or knew of it, no mind anywhere yet the 100 million it killed all did die because this microscopic organism existed and was created not by a Gods mind but by natural causes and conditions.

You have still not proven God not proven The Mind is the creator of the universe.

Your use of The Mind is to sat THE meaning GOD yet still NOT ONE FACT.

Prove The Mind /God created matter, energy, mind.

Oh yes you spelled behavior wrong again.


I hope you don't mind but I just volunteered you for a 25 year mission into oblivion. Don't forget to pack yer toothbrush. [/B]


That is mature.

I must admit I am wrong at least in part wrong or my profiling of you. I do not mind being wrong I often am or find it a failure or a reason to become angry at others. In fact every time I find I am wrong it is a joy as I have learned something new.


I said I believed you were from your actions a teenager, lonely on the computer all day ( most of the day) few friends, no real feeling of power or control in your life. You use the computer as a safe haven to demand you are all-powerful and filled with great knowledge safe from the real world.

After some research I find that you are 37 or older.

I will say again as I have in the past.

First if I have been at all disrespectful I am sorry I offer my opnions and facts and support all I say with logical conclusion and or facts.

I answer every point and or question put to me but while I have become frustrated that you refuse to it is my fault as to my frustration not yours as you can not “ make” me anything.

I do believe you are very intelligent but have locked yourself and ego into a corner picking what you choose to believe rather then open your mind to facts and other thoughts, beliefs etc.


I respect you and what you choose to believe. I also offer you a pillow as Upchurch, RussDill and Dancing David are REALLY kicking your ass in this thread.

LOL sorry had to get that in..

It would be a great thread to have you all share thoughts without any childish name calling and dancing.

Just what I believe, be well.

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
behaviour is spelled behavior not behaviourIn this case, I believe Lifegazer is posting from England and is using their spelling conventions. I suspect he uses COLOUR and HONOUR as well.

(Just to show that I'm not completely one-sided, here)

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Dancing David
From the car's frame of reference you will appear elongated.


sorry, quick correction, from the car's frame of reference, you will arear compressed

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

It doesn't matter whether the traveller's perception changes. Not noticing changes is not a proof that nothing is changing (for God's sake!) - which it is. The value of his meter and second are in qualitative flux, as proved by the twin paradox.


the twin paradox speaks *nothing* as to the quality of the speed of light or the quality of the meter or to the quality of the second. me thinks you are having trouble swallowing relativity. Velocity in no way distorts space time. Only the presence of matter and energy (gravity) distort spacetime.


Lorentz-transformation mathematics are there precisely to work out the relative-changes experienced by various bodies in various scenarios.


right, they are basic equations that describe the behavior of the universe, not some metaphysical effect brought on by a "Mind".


You know this. So why are you dancing around the issue? Rather, dUncing around the issue. The others have the excuse of being ignorant. But you sir, claiming to be a physicist, have no excuse.


Why do you insist on claiming that we do not understand relativistic effects? We all understand einsteins relativity, however, as I've stated before, you are arguining lifegazer's relativity. In lifegazer's relativity, classical physics is alive and well and any relativistic effects are not as much a part of the universe as gravity, no, they are caused by the "Mind". You need to throw classical physics out the window, they do not represent reality.


You have lost all credibility in my book. There is no established support for what I am saying because I am the first to say it. How dumb are you?

Hey, lifegazer, yo, whats with the personal attacks? How'd you like a discussion where we all cut loose with our venom?

I shall conjecture that tiny angels cause unpredictability at the quantum level, and you can't say that I need to establish support, because how could I, I'm the first to say it. How silly is that?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Especially after all the "flaming" stick you've been giving me recently. emphesis mine

Kullervo, is this word usage British as well, do you think? I pictured myself handing lifegazer a bunch of lit tourches one by one. :)

Actually, as a metaphor for knowledge, it kinda works. Perhaps I'm not giving lifegazer enough credit. ;)

[Terry]

Originally posted by Upchurch
emphesis mine

Kullervo, is this word usage British as well, do you think? I pictured myself handing lifegazer a bunch of lit tourches one by one. :)


Yeah, it is. To give someone stick means (approximately) to abuse them verbally.

Hope this helps...

--Terry.

[whitefork]

I wondered about some of the odd usage here, too. I don't know much about English slang, probably just enough to get me beaten up in a bar.

Ian or Geoff could probably explain. On the other hand, it might just be a cleaned up way of saying sh*t.

It doesn't appear to provide much additional intellectual ballast.

edited: Well, Koko learned a new word today. Banana chip!

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

No more evasiveness please.


my evasiveness? How about actually responding to my posts rather than just repeating what you have said before. I do put some effort into my posts, and I'd appreciate if you would actually respond to them.


I told you why x m/s is not the same for everyone. What I told you is a fact. The relative value of your meter and second is in comparative flux, whether you notice it or not. Your meter and your second have a unique meaning to you in comparison to a spaceman, for example.


space does not distort for anyone, unless you count gravitational distortion. This is the important part about special relativity. You say meters and seconds are different. Fine. If a spaceship from some other planet passes by earth at near the speed of light, who's second is shorter, who's meter is longer?


We can prove this through lorentz-transformation mathematics, or if we can find a volunteer (I vote for Pahansiri) to blast-off for a few years, we shall see him come back in about 25 years having hardly aged at all. Why bother with all that wrinkle cream?


again, we are not disputing relativistic effects, we are just disputing that they are within the domain of our universe and explainable within our universe, they in no way depend on a metaphysical explaination, as you insist. You still have not proven that special relativity requires a metaphysical explaination.


Anyway, even though Pahansiri wouldn't have noticed a relative slowing of his/her own time, he/she is evidence that his/her meter and second have changed, qualitatively, allowing for this distorted state-of-affairs.


again, you seem to refuse to accept special relativities explanations for these effects, and instead bring in the idea that we each have our own universe. I would ask you kindly to read these *very* detailed analysises of the twin paradox

http://members.tripod.com/conduit9SR/SR8.html
http://members.tripod.com/conduit9SR/SR9.html

I think the trouble you have is that you are not lettling go of simultaniaty. Please, if you are so much smarter than both upchurch and I, solve the barn door paradox. You will understand the consequences and resolutions of special relativity much better when you do. The lack of simultaniaty is part of the core of special relativity and the reason for length contraction.


Stop waffling Russ and deal with the facts. Why talk yourself out of a perfectly good argument for God's existence? lol

I am here dealing with the facts, I have been dishing them out to your continously. You don't seem to respond to anyof them, but rather, take a conclusive part of my post, and simply restate your assumptions. I've pointed out the many flaws in your proof, you simply ignore those flaws and pretend that the don't exist. (because again, you are right, I am wrong, there isn't even a need to debate anything you don't understand)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
The quantitative values of length and duration for a traveler moving in non-accelerated motion change (time gets longer, distance gets shorter) from the perspective of the earth. Likewise, the quantitative values of length and duration for the earth moving in non-accelerated motion change (time gets longer, distance gets shorter) from the perspective of the traveler. The experience is not unique to either of them and two ships passing the earth at the same relative velocity would experience the exact same distortion.

You say that the quantitative values of space and time change in relation to other bodies. Yet you cannot see that this involves the qualitative change in the value of 1 meter or 1 second?
Let's do a simple analysis of the twin-paradox: The spacetwin shoots-off into space and when he gets back we find that he has experienced 10 years of time whilst his brother, on earth, has experienced, say, 20 years of time. This is the quantitative difference you're talking about.
Yet surely you see that for this to happen, the qualitative value of the spacetwin's 1-second must be ~stretched~ to facilitate the proceeding quantitative differences we observe?

If the spacetwin experiences half as much time as his brother, then you must surely realise that there is a **difference in the way both twins have experienced 1-second**? I.e., the value of 1 second actually has a different meaning for either twin until they meet-up again.

The traveling twin does not experience any of his or her own time dialation or length contraction because from his or her persepective, they are not experiencing any time dialation or length contraction, as you seem to imply.

You have misread me, for I do not imply this at all. I openly admit that the "strange effects" of relativity are only noticeable in comparison to other observers.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Terry

Yeah, it is. Ah. My appologies, then, lifegazer. I had incorrectly thought you had mis-spelled the word shtick (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=shtick). My mistake.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Anyway, the theory of relativity is an explanation of universal behaviour. But inherent within that explanation is a proof that The Mind is the creator of said universal behaviour. The Mind is the creator of the universe.


Special relativity was not made to explain relativistic effects. Someone didn't notice relativistic effects, and then work out equations for them. Special relativity predicted that relativistic effects *must* exist. And *then* (over a period of decades), those effects were observed.

Your argument states that relativity is a metaphysical effect, and thus an intelligence must be responsible for it. You have yet to show that relativity is a metaphysical effect. In fact, if it were, it would have not been predicted by einstein, but would have been found as a strange consequence of motion.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The numerical-value of the speed-of-light is the same for everyone, but if you've followed the conversation, I have showed that velocity is a numerical-value qualified with parameters of distance and time. And since each observer experiences a unique perspective of distance and time, all velocities 'x' m/s actually mean something unique for each individual. They are not identical. The spacetwin, for example, experiences 1 second relatively more slowly than his brother on earth. I.e., 1 second is not an absolute value even though we all experience it. Same with 1 meter. Hence, the same with 1 m/s or x m/s or 'c'.


So the meter changes eh? it contacts right? bzzt, wrong, because clearly, perpendicular to the direction of travel, there is no such change. Length contraction is a consequence of time dialation, not a "qualitative change" in the meter. Since you say the speed of light changes because the meter changes, what about the speed of light perpendicular to the direction of travel, does that change too?


I'm aware of this and it's irrelevant.


How is that irrelevant, its a very important part of special relativity, and thus part of the discussion. (re: relativistic addition of speeds, and the constant speed of light)


My reasoning is derivative of experimentally-verified relativistic laws that Einstein unveiled a hundred years ago.


I'm not sure where your reasoning comes from, it certainly doesn't come from einstein. Do you honestly think that einstein himself would not of spoken of the problems you claim exist that require some metaphysical explaination. You claim to be smarter than einstein, yet don't yet have a solution for the space ship flying through the doors?


Velocity = distance/time. Nobody shares the exact-same experience for distance or time, since there are relative differences between everyone. The twin-paradox just highlights the possible diversity of these differences.


Again, everyone shares the exact same experience for distance and time, that is the point of special relativity. Let me try to state it this way. If you observe a spacecraft traveling near the speed of light, and it has two clocks, one at the front, one at the rear, what is interesting about these two clocks?

Here are the points that einstein *based* his special relativity on:

* Whatever steady speed a closed laboratory moves, any experiment you do inside the laboratory will give the same result. So you will never be able to determine at what steady speed that laboratory moves just by doing experiments inside the laboratory.

* Whatever place you put a closed laboratory, any experiment you do inside the laboratory will give the same result. So you will never be able to determine where the laboratory is just by doing experiments inside the laboratory.

* Whatever direction you turn a closed laboratory, any experiment you do inside the laboratory will give the same result. So you will never be able to determine what direction the laboratory door is directed just by doing experiments inside the laboratory.

These points are from galileo, amazing eh? einstein simple applied the maxwell equations to galilean relativity. There is *nothing* metaphysical about that.

You might read up on this page:

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node47.html

where galileo used scientific experimentation to lay out the ground work for what would become special relativity.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Yet surely you see that for this to happen, the qualitative value of the spacetwin's 1-second must be ~stretched~ to facilitate the proceeding quantitative differences we observe?This is exactly what I was talking about a few posts ago. The spacetime metric unit (i.e. second & meter) remains unchanged through out the entire scenerio. The age difference is due to, in the simplist terms I can muster, a difference in world line paths taken by each object.

Let's reorganize the scenerio so that it is a little easier to understand. Imagine that there are two point of reference in spacetime. The first (point A) is where Earth and the traveler are together and the traveler has yet to leave. The second (point B) is where Earth and the traveler are together and the traveler has just returned. In the 4 dimensional spacetime manifold, there are two lines (called "world lines") that represents the path of each object (earth and the traveler) through the manifold.

If it is easier for you to picture, condense it down to a 2 dimensional plane where time is on one axis and the other is the space axis along the path of travel. The world line of the earth would be a straight line along the time axis. The world line of traveler would be, because he is accelerating, a curved line reaching out along the space axis and then curving back to meet the earth line back on the time axis.

In a flat manifold (or 2-D plane), the shortest distance would be straight line, that is, earth's world line. However, for reasons beyond my current understanding, it has been found that the manifold is not flat but curved. And on a curved manifold the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line but a curved one.

There is a classic 2-D demonstration of this involving a string and a basketball. You can demonstrativly show that a straight line connecting two points on the surface of a basketball is longer than a curved line connecting those same points.

Thus, the traveling twin is younger than the earth twin because the traveling twin took a shorter path through spacetime from point A to point B than the earth twin. None of this requires any change of the metric unit size to be consistent.
If the spacetwin experiences half as much time as his brother, then you must surely realise that there is a **difference in the way both twins have experienced 1-second**? I.e., the value of 1 second actually has a different meaning for either twin until they meet-up again. This change in metric unit size that you describe could only be true if the time axis was different from the space axes (plurl form of axis?). Then the would you need to rely on a mutable metric unit size in order to explain the phenomenon. Einstein, and many who followed him, showed that space and time are really the same thing, just as electricity and magnetism are really the same field. Your interpretation of the paradox is simply inconsistent with General Relativity.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Kullervo
In this case, I believe Lifegazer is posting from England and is using their spelling conventions. I suspect he uses COLOUR and HONOUR as well.

(Just to show that I'm not completely one-sided, here)

You may be right and if so I am sorry to him for being rude. As I have said doing what I did is rude but can illustrate as I desired it to hypocrisy. I have been called “stuiped” before having the person calling me it not know how to spell stupid.

I do fear I have been going to far of late and perhaps need take some time from the board.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Does the value of space and time distort? Yes or no? Of course it does. Therefore, the value of 1 second and 1 meter changes in relation to other observers. The twin-paradox is evidence of this.


First of all, only the presence of matter and energy creating a gravitational field distorts spacetime. Second of all, *you* don't actually think spacetime is truly distorted in a universal way under special relativity. You seem to think such a distortion of reality impossible, so this distortion must in fact be due to seperate realities.

If you examine realitivity, you'll find that spacetime does not distort, it is simply a consequence of traveling very fast.


Why do you think the atomic-clocks you mentioned actually slowed-down? This was because the value of 1 second (time) was changed/slowed in relation to a stationary position on earth.



Perhaps I should have started a whole thread to attack you, just as you have done for me.


Its definately an onslaught, but not directed at you, directed at your therioes, which you take *very* personally. However, I'm sure if you presented some verifiable problem with special relativity (maybe, say, that it breaks apart near the plank length, or someother domain) I'm sure upchurch would not see it as a personal attack, and would respond quite positively to such exciting evidence.


Spare me the poxy violins.


ya, ya, a pox on your chello too. Must be some british insult I'm not familiar with.


Your contribution to this thread has ammounted to nothing and you certainly have not refuted anything I have said. In fact, your evasiveness is amusing. You remind me of a scurrying rat.

ok, lemme define this for you:

The act of eluding or avoiding, particularly the pressure of an argument, accusation, charge, or interrogation; artful means of eluding.

Lets simmer that down, what is avoiding?

To quit or evacuate; to withdraw from. Obs. To keep away from; to keep clear of; to endeavor no to meet; to shun; to abstain from; as, to avoid the company of gamesters.

Hmm...You keep using that work, I am thinking that you do not know what it means. He has gone point for point in a very intelligent manner. Maybe you mispoke and meant this word:

To fail to accord; not to agree; to lack harmony; to differ; to be unlike; to be at variance. To differ in opinion; to hold discordant views; to be at controversy; to quarrel.

ya, I'd say that fits upchurch's inane behaviour much better, wouldn't you? oh, wait, thats the definition for "disagree".

A scurrying rat? lifegazer, neither upchurch or I are allowing our personal feelings to enter this forum. Its very professional and helps the debate to move forward quickly. Personal insults only serve to discredit you, and in the end, get you banned from forums. I truly wish to understand your point of view, and it looks like UpChurch is too, by calling someone a "scurrying rat", they'll start understanding your personal point of view really quick.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Kullervo
In this case, I believe Lifegazer is posting from England and is using their spelling conventions. I suspect he uses COLOUR and HONOUR as well.

(Just to show that I'm not completely one-sided, here)

BTW, shoutouts to both you and upchurch. Upchurch is very good at boiling down complicated concepts to simple wording, and everytime I read Kullervo's posts, I always hear the voice of the dad from the brak show in my head.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Kullervo
I wondered about some of the odd usage here, too. I don't know much about English slang, probably just enough to get me beaten up in a bar.

Ian or Geoff could probably explain. On the other hand, it might just be a cleaned up way of saying sh*t.

It doesn't appear to provide much additional intellectual ballast.

edited: Well, Koko learned a new word today. Banana chip!

I think shtick is yiddish

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Upchurch

This change in metric unit size that you describe could only be true if the time axis was different from the space axes (plurl form of axis?). Then the would you need to rely on a mutable metric unit size in order to explain the phenomenon. Einstein, and many who followed him, showed that space and time are really the same thing, just as electricity and magnetism are really the same field. Your interpretation of the paradox is simply inconsistent with General Relativity.

This is why you are a great poster. Its a very simplistic explanation, and its near impossible to argue with. (and thus, will be summarily ignored by lifegazer, but oh well)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by RussDill

I read Kullervo's posts, I always hear the voice of the dad from the brak show in my head. Funny, I still hear the voice of Cthullu when I read Kullervo's posts.

Oh, and thanks, Russ. We aims ta please.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You say that the quantitative values of space and time change in relation to other bodies. Yet you cannot see that this involves the qualitative change in the value of 1 meter or 1 second?
Let's do a simple analysis of the twin-paradox: The spacetwin shoots-off into space and when he gets back we find that he has experienced 10 years of time whilst his brother, on earth, has experienced, say, 20 years of time. This is the quantitative difference you're talking about.
Yet surely you see that for this to happen, the qualitative value of the spacetwin's 1-second must be ~stretched~ to facilitate the proceeding quantitative differences we observe?

If the spacetwin experiences half as much time as his brother, then you must surely realise that there is a **difference in the way both twins have experienced 1-second**? I.e., the value of 1 second actually has a different meaning for either twin until they meet-up again.


Again, you cling on to the concept of simultaneality.


You have misread me, for I do not imply this at all. I openly admit that the "strange effects" of relativity are only noticeable in comparison to other observers.

you can't have it both ways though. You claim that their space is different, but then their experience the same. You are only half applying relativity, for your proof, you want the effects, but no the mechanics.

[Dancing David]

Hmm, I think I understand what you are getting at Lifegazer, But it isn't implied in the theory of relativity.

You are saying that the measurement of time and space is altered for those who approach the speed of light, and in the classic intuitive sense that is true.

From the perspective of the people on the earth the space twin has had thier time slowed .

But from the perspective of the people on the spaceship, it appears that the rest of the space time frame has speeded up.

That is what is wiggy( but not Whiggy) about relativity, the conratctions don't actualy occur, they only happen by reference bewteen two frames of reference. But neither rame of reference is absolute, they are all relativly equal.

When you measure the meter on the space ship it is still a meter, space time is not distorted, the passage of time is still the same.

The reason that these things appear to happen is because of the absolute value of the speed of light. The light will still travel a meter in a set time even on the space ship, and the wierd thing is that if an observer in another frame could mesure the speed of light on the space ship, they will get the same value.

So while there is the apparent space time distortion, it is apparent it doesn't really happen, it is just an effect of comparing frames of reference and having an absolute spped of light.

Cool but totaly counter intuitive.

So what about that barn, will it hold the space ship for a brief fleeting momnet, or will it be torn asunder by a space ship over twice it's size?

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
I do fear I have been going to far of late and perhaps need take some time from the board. Please not on account of this little episode. I like reading your posts. I have this image of a buddhist bodybuilder/bouncer up in the tundra and it always makes me smile.

RussDill - Shtick is indeed Yiddish, but what is "the brak show"? I have worked very hard to escape my own father's influence (he loves argument for its own sake), so I hope yours is a bit, how do you say, more moderate in his approach. I can change. I still have plenty of bad habits to eliminate.

Upchurch: Cthulhu Forever!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Kullervo
RussDill - Shtick is indeed Yiddish, but what is "the brak"? The Brak Show (http://www.adultswim.com/shows/brak/). Note the little guy sitting on the chair.

[whitefork]

The things I learn here. I'll have to check this out some time.

Those who hear me speak say that my voice is very close to that of Lorenzo Music who played Carlton the Doorman on Rhoda, as well as the voice of Garfield. It has a sort of adenoidal quality.

First day of Cthuladvent, too.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by RussDill

Again, you cling on to the concept of simultaneality. I've been thinking about this and I'm not sure that is the correct term. I think what you are talking about is the concept of an absolute reference frame and even then, I don't think that's what lifegazer is expressing, although maybe it is.

In the part you quoted, lifegazer's biggest hangup is that he thinks that to get from one point along the time axis to another point in the time axis takes a fixed amount of seconds. If someone gets there in a fewer number of seconds, he argues, then the duration of that person's seconds must have changed. In otherwords, he's arguing (I think) that the total amount of duration needed to get from one point along the time axis to another point along the time axis is absolute.

So, he's really not arguing so much for an absolute reference frame as much as he's arguing that time is an absolute axis. Absolute, that is, from the space axes and not interchangable with them.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Upchurch
So, he's really not arguing so much for an absolute reference frame as much as he's arguing that time is an absolute axis. Absolute, that is, from the space axes and not interchangable with them.

Its not the only issue, but I don't think lifegazer will accept a universe as consistent if two things cannot be said to happen simultaneously. This is really where length contraction starts from anyway. In the ships frame of reference, the front part and rear part pass two points in space 10 feet apart simultaneously, where as in another observers frame of reference, the rear passes point 1 in that 10 foot interval first, then the front later passes the other end of that 10 foot interval.

And in the twin paradox, I think lifegazer imagines watching the two twins age *simultaneously*, which may be simultaneous for one reference frame, but not for another. The two pages I linked to earlier show the relationship between simultaneality and the twin paradox.

You miss his technique though. He's trying to get you to agree with his morphed view of relativity simply *because* its non-sensical. If his non-sensical view of relativity *was* correct, then relativity would be a metaphysical phenomenon, and thus his mind.

This is the same technique he attempted to use in his nothing arguments.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Upchurch

In the part you quoted, lifegazer's biggest hangup is that he thinks that to get from one point along the time axis to another point in the time axis takes a fixed amount of seconds. If someone gets there in a fewer number of seconds, he argues, then the duration of that person's seconds must have changed. In otherwords, he's arguing (I think) that the total amount of duration needed to get from one point along the time axis to another point along the time axis is absolute.


Well worded, he argues against the mechanics of special relativity, but in favor of the effects of special realitivity. He talks about the effects of special relativity while discounting the mechanics, and when you point of his misunderstanding of the mechanics, he calls you a stupidhead for thinking that relativity is false.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Dancing David
From the perspective of the people on the earth the space twin has had thier time slowed .

But from the perspective of the people on the spaceship, it appears that the rest of the space time frame has speeded up.


Before I start here, lemme say, nothing personal Dancing David.

Now, lifegazer, this message is for you. I've read alot of david's posts and from what I can tell, he is very intelligent. However, his intrepretation of special relativity is wrong. Yes, its true, just like everyone of us has done or is currently doing, he has misintrepreted a complex physics/mathmatical concept.

But, its ok, I'm sure david is an intelligent, open minded guy, so I'll explain it to him, he'll examine my explaination, and probably a few other sources, think rationally, and either agree, or disagree. If he disagrees, he'll reply as to why, he won't just restate his views. So lets begin the session...


Dancing David, you've state before that someone traveling near the speed of light will see someone length elongated and now you've stated that someone traveling near the speed of light will see someone's elses time as speed up. This is incorrect.

From the frame of reference of the one traveling at "near the speed of light" it is the *other* observer that is actually traveling at near the speed of light. They will likewise see the "stationary" observer length contracted and their time slowed.


Now, lifegazer, dancing david will stare, and scratch his head. He'll think about it, he might go to google to learn more about special relativity. Lets see what he does, eh?

--- Again David, I don't mean to undercut you in any way, I just want to show lifegazer what your reaction might be ---


So what about that barn, will it hold the space ship for a brief fleeting momnet, or will it be torn asunder by a space ship over twice it's size?

good question, especially because to the ship, the barn will be length contracted. Anywho, private message me the answer, and I'll let lifegazer know that you got it.

[lifegazer]

I have a question for upchurch:
It's the twin-paradox again. The spacetwin blasts-off and when he gets back he has aged 10 years whilst his brother on earth has aged 20 years.
Now, presuming that the spacetwin has spent this time flying around the vicinity of our solar system, I want to know how many times does he see the earth orbit the sun? 20 or 10 times?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I have a question for upchurch:
It's the twin-paradox again. The spacetwin blasts-off and when he gets back he has aged 10 years whilst his brother on earth has aged 20 years.
Now, presuming that the spacetwin has spent this time flying around the vicinity of our solar system, I want to know how many times does he see the earth orbit the sun? 20 or 10 times? As the sun is (more or less) in the same inertial frame as the earth, the space twin will see the earth orbit the sun 20 times.

edited to add:

it's no different than how the space twin would observer the earth twin's clock ticking.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I have a question for upchurch:
It's the twin-paradox again. The spacetwin blasts-off and when he gets back he has aged 10 years whilst his brother on earth has aged 20 years.
Now, presuming that the spacetwin has spent this time flying around the vicinity of our solar system, I want to know how many times does he see the earth orbit the sun? 20 or 10 times?

now the twin is under constant acceleration (a very large acceleration too). Now you are talking general relativity. Its clear that for the other twin to be 20, the earth must orbit the sun 20 times. This is no longer the twin paradox. However, in the twin paradox, I might ask you this, right before the twin turns around, how many times will he see the earth orbit the sun? If he corrects for the time it took the light to reach him, how many times? Is it 5? is it 10? Is it another number alltogether?

I've noticed that you seem to ignore my posts lifegazer, are you even reading them?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by RussDill


now the twin is under constant acceleration (a very large acceleration too). Now you are talking general relativity. Its clear that for the other twin to be 20, the earth must orbit the sun 20 times. This is no longer the twin paradox.No it doesn't matter whether the space twin's acceleration is instantanious or spread out over the entire length of the trip, the problem can still be described using special relativity. I've done this one ad nauseum.
However, in the twin paradox, I might ask you this, right before the twin turns around, how many times will he see the earth orbit the sun? If he corrects for the time it took the light to reach him, how many times? Is it 5? is it 10? Is it another number alltogether?You are correct though, as the space twin slows down to turn around, the light from the earth catches up and the earth appears to spin much faster around the sun to the space twin.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
As the sun is (more or less) in the same inertial frame as the earth, the space twin will see the earth orbit the sun 20 times.

So, the earth-twin sees 20 resolutions of the earth around the sun. He sees mercury orbit the sun x times, mars y times, and jupiter z times. Likewise, the spacetwin.
What I am gathering from your answer is that the spacetwin will see "the heavenly bodies" move exactly the same way as the earth-twin observes them? This must be so, given your last answer.

So my next question is this: If the spacetwin sees "the heavens" exactly as the earthtwin sees them, then how the hell does the spacetwin experience a ~normal 10 years~ whilst his brother experiences a ~normal 20 years~?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Upchurch
No it doesn't matter whether the space twin's acceleration is instantanious or spread out over the entire length of the trip, the problem can still be described using special relativity. I've done this one ad nauseum.


really? I would think with the amount of acceleration, there would be an additional slowing of the twins clock. (similar if the other twin stopped over for a break on jupiter for a few years). I've never done the math on an orbiting twin though (orbiting near the speed of light within the solar system, so angular acceleration would be considerable)


You are correct though, as the space twin slows down to turn around, the light from the earth catches up and the earth appears to spin much faster around the sun to the space twin. [/B]

I'm interesting in lifegazer determining how many years the twin would observe passing on earth on the twins trip out, and the twins trip back, ie, is it 50/50? (answers with and without the doppler effect)

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

So, the earth-twin sees 20 resolutions of the earth around the sun. He sees mercury orbit the sun x times, mars y times, and jupiter z times. Likewise, the spacetwin.
What I am gathering from your answer is that the spacetwin will see "the heavenly bodies" move exactly the same way as the earth-twin observes them? This must be so, given your last answer.

So my next question is this: If the spacetwin sees "the heavens" exactly as the earthtwin sees them, then how the hell does the spacetwin experience a ~normal 10 years~ whilst his brother experiences a ~normal 20 years~?

First, the heavens are not an absolute frame of reference. Especially if you look at the "heavens" that are far away, since they are traveling away from us at high velocities.

You forgot that the spacetwin is accelerating, constantly in this case. If the spacetwin was traveling straight through, he'd see the year happening much slower.

Add to this that the spacetwin sure wouldn't see the solar system "normally". He'd wouldn't see anything behind him, or to the sides, only a disc of light in front of him. This disc of light would be a warped "image" of the solar system. If he had handy computers that would do some unwarping, he would see a very funny looking eliptical solar system.

Do you refute the resolution of the twin paradox? Do you even know the resolution of the twin paradox?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

What I am gathering from your answer is that the spacetwin will see "the heavenly bodies" move exactly the same way as the earth-twin observes them? This must be so, given your last answer.Only in terms that space twin will witness that the events happen. As to the the relative timing and order in which the events occur, that becomes a much more complicated problem.

Mercury orbits the Sun at relativistic speeds (calculating it's orbit was one of the first tests Einstein's theory successfully predicted). Pluto is incredibly far away and moves at verying speeds. I was idealizing the problem to the extreme when I said the Sun was in Earth's inertial reference frame. For other solar systems outside Earth's, I really can't say with any certainty who will see what when. A three body relativity problem can be hellish to calculate, speaking of all heavenly bodies is damn near impossible, at least for my TI-85.
So my next question is this: If the spacetwin sees "the heavens" exactly as the earthtwin sees them, then how the hell does the spacetwin experience a ~normal 10 years~ whilst his brother experiences a ~normal 20 years~? Well, first, they don't see them exactly the same. As mentioned above, the space twin will see the earth spinning past the sun at different speeds during different poritons of his trip. Only when they are in the same inertial reference frame will they agree on what has occured, even though they may not agree on when it occured, at least, from their own persepectives.

Seems to me you're digging for the simulanity that Russ was talking about earlier. That, or an absolute reference frame. You won't find either in the universe at large. They are a phenomenon you will only find locally at slow speeds.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by RussDill


really? I would think with the amount of acceleration, there would be an additional slowing of the twins clock. (similar if the other twin stopped over for a break on jupiter for a few years). Well, that's exactly right. The amount of age difference is in direct proportion to the amount of the trip spent accelerating. The only thing is, and I may have this backwards, you can only calculate the information from the Earth point of view. To calculate it from the space twin's point of view would require GR.

[lifegazer]

If the spacetwin experiences a ~normal 10 years~ whilst the universe behaves as though it has aged 20 years, then the universe should appear to have accelerated to Mr. spacetwin, as though it was moving twice as fast as previous.
10 years for him and 20 for the universe.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
If the spacetwin experiences a ~normal 10 years~ whilst the universe behaves as though it has aged 20 years, then the universe should appear to have accelerated to Mr. spacetwin, as though it was moving twice as fast as previous.
10 years for him and 20 for the universe. Whoa. The universe and the Earth are two very different places, lifegazer. You're trying to use the Earth as an absolute reference frame and it isn't.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Whoa. The universe and the Earth are two very different places, lifegazer. You're trying to use the Earth as an absolute reference frame and it isn't.
Wait a minute yourself. You're the one who told me that both twins will observe heavenly bodies moving in the exact-same manner. I.e., you said that both twins would observe the earth move around the sun 20 times. Are you absolutely sure about this?
If you are, then be advised that both twins would see all heavenly bodies moving in the exact-same manner. How for example, could both twins observe earth go around the sun 20 times, yet see mars go around the sun a different number of times?
So you see, if they see earth behave the same, then they see all heavenly bodies behave the same. Hence at the end of the day, the spacetwin would age 10 years whilst observing the universe age 20.
Something fishy is in the air!

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Whoa. The universe and the Earth are two very different places, lifegazer. You're trying to use the Earth as an absolute reference frame and it isn't.

like I said, he just wants to believe that relativity is inconsistent with reality, so we all must be in our own seperate universe. Thats why I'd like him to work out the math on all these problems, so he can see with his own eyes, that the universe is consitent. Throw in maxwell's equation's and galilean relativity, and the universe is consistent *because* of relativity.

There is no way I can make lifegazer work out these problems (he seems to ignore every though experiment I pose), I can't flunk him. I'm at a loss as to how to proceed with a rational discussion.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by RussDill

Now, lifegazer, dancing david will stare, and scratch his head. He'll think about it, he might go to google to learn more about special relativity. Lets see what he does, eh?


good question, especially because to the ship, the barn will be length contracted. Anywho, private message me the answer, and I'll let lifegazer know that you got it.

It has been a while since I have thought about the relativity paradox and I have thought about it since you pointed out the first error, but the second error is puzzling me.

I guess that i stated it wrong, I understand that the apparent conrattion takes place from either frame of reference, that was my mistake, I was thinking in terms of an observational frame of reference, which is a big mistake.

And I understand that he crux of the issue will depend on the fact that to the space ships frame of reference, everyone else is going the other way at .999999 the speed of light.

I shall have to ponder why I think that the space ship will percieve the other frame of reference as speeding up.

1. They can't observe it.

2. I think that I am compensating in an absolute frame of reference.

I shall ponder and ask more questions later>

It sure puts a spin on the twin paradox, intuitively I was assuming that the sapce twin will see time speeding up outside the frame of refereence, but counter intuitively they should see the frame outside going through slower time.

HMMMM! More pondering.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Wait a minute yourself. You're the one who told me that both twins will observe heavenly bodies moving in the exact-same manner. I.e., you said that both twins would observe the earth move around the sun 20 times. Are you absolutely sure about this?


I thought he made it pretty clear that it wasn't the exact same manner. The spacetwin only sees the earth go around the sun 20 times because the spacetwin re-enters the earthtwin's reference frame.


If you are, then be advised that both twins would see all heavenly bodies moving in the exact-same manner. How for example, could both twins observe earth go around the sun 20 times, yet see mars go around the sun a different number of times?


ha, this is funny, because in many circumstances, the spacetwin could measure a year occuring on mars and a year on earth as proportionatly differently than the earthtwin. In fact, non of the celestial alignments that the eathtwin will see will happen at the same time for the spacetwin. The consistency arrives from the spacetwins constant changing of reference frames.



So you see, if they see earth behave the same, then they see all heavenly bodies behave the same. Hence at the end of the day, the spacetwin would age 10 years whilst observing the universe age 20.
Something fishy is in the air!

They certainly do not behave the same, like I said before, celestial alignments will certainly not happen as the do for the earth twin, and the speeds of planets in different positions in their orbit will not agree with the earthtwin (since the orbits are horrendusly elliptical to the spacetwin.

You can work the math out, its all very consistent.

Again, I ask, are you not aware of the solution for the twin paradox?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Dancing David

It sure puts a spin on the twin paradox, intuitively I was assuming that the sapce twin will see time speeding up outside the frame of refereence, but counter intuitively they should see the frame outside going through slower time.

HMMMM! More pondering.

now you see why its such a paradox. einstein stuggled for many years on these types of paradoxes, I have even read that he contemplated suicide before finding the solutions. It seems far fetched, but boltzmann did commit suicide after failing to show that time is not reversable (it didn't help that he was crazy). Course, I can't find any good sources on the einstein thing.

[lifegazer]

There are two choices: They both see the universe age 20 years or they don't.
Given the former answer, we're left contemplating a spacetwin who experiences 10 years of time whilst the universe ages 20.
And given the latter choice, we're left contemplating 2 different realities occuring simultaneously.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Something fishy is in the air!

so, your claim is that special relativity is an inconsistent theory (at least the way that einstein proposed it)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill


so, your claim is that special relativity is an inconsistent theory (at least the way that einstein proposed it)
Actually, I'm trying to show that everyone sees their own universe, which is a proof that each universe is Mind-generated.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Actually, I'm trying to show that everyone sees their own universe, which is a proof that each universe is Mind-generated.

I know thats what you are trying to show. Your intermediate step seems to be to show that einsteins version of special relativity is inconsistent with itself/and or reality, is this correct?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
There are two choices: They both see the universe age 20 years or they don't.
Given the former answer, we're left contemplating a spacetwin who experiences 10 years of time whilst the universe ages 20.
And given the latter choice, we're left contemplating 2 different realities occuring simultaneously.

You cannot see the "universe" age. There is no way to observe space to determine the passing of time. There is no absolute frame of reference to determine that the universe has aged 20 years. Time does not even pass at the same rate on the earth as it does on the sun.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
There are two choices: They both see the universe age 20 years or they don't.
Given the former answer, we're left contemplating a spacetwin who experiences 10 years of time whilst the universe ages 20.
And given the latter choice, we're left contemplating 2 different realities occuring simultaneously.

he sees the solar system age 20 years, not the universe. BTW, you still haven't answered, did you know that the twin paradox has been resolved?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill

I know thats what you are trying to show. Your intermediate step seems to be to show that einsteins version of special relativity is inconsistent with itself/and or reality, is this correct?
Not at all. It is my intention to make sense of what Einstein tells us, no matter how bizarre it seems.

You cannot see the "universe" age. There is no way to observe space to determine the passing of time.

A cycle of the earth around the sun is equivalent to a year of time.
Simply by observing the earth, the spacetwin could keep tabs of 'normal time', so to speak. 20 revolutions is equivalent to 20 normal years.

he sees the solar system age 20 years, not the universe.

As I said earlier, if they see one heavenly body moving the same, then they see all heavenly bodies moving the same.

BTW, you still haven't answered, did you know that the twin paradox has been resolved?

Resolved? In what sense?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Not at all. It is my intention to make sense of what Einstein tells us, no matter how bizarre it seems.


right, but you are using a metaphysical method. By saying that there is need for a metaphysical method, you are stating that the physical explanations are not consistent on their own.


A cycle of the earth around the sun is equivalent to a year of time.
Simply by observing the earth, the spacetwin could keep tabs of 'normal time', so to speak. 20 revolutions is equivalent to 20 normal years.


this is no different than watching a clock on the earth


As I said earlier, if they see one heavenly body moving the same, then they see all heavenly bodies moving the same.


Like I said, they don't see it the "same". Celestial alignments for instance, would not happen for such a traveler. Other alignments not seen to the earth twin would happen instead. Also, you say heavenly bodies, but you are only speaking of them in releation to the earth twin's frame of reference, when the spacetwins view is just as valid.


Resolved? In what sense?

* RussDill bangs his head against the wall. Its called a paradox, because it seems paradoxical. It seems paradoxical because two bodies moving towards eachother near the speed of light will see eachothers clocks run slower, the same is true for two bodies moving away from eachother. The paradox is, wouldn't each twin see the other as younger? which truly is younger. However, it isn't paradoxical at all. The twin that left and came back is younger. This isn't just a random solution, you can use the simple laws of relativity to come up with it yourself. It fits perfectly into special relativity. There is nothing truly paradoxical about this paradox. Would you like the solution?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer
There are two choices: They both see the universe age 20 years or they don't.
Given the former answer, we're left contemplating a spacetwin who experiences 10 years of time whilst the universe ages 20.
And given the latter choice, we're left contemplating 2 different realities occuring simultaneously.

You are getting warmer, warmer, red hot!

The space twin will experience a different passage of time in refereence to the eath twin, there journey through the time dimesion will be different than the journey through the time dimension for the earth twin.

The real problem is that from the space twin's frame of reference the rest of the universe will be slowing down, but when they get back to earth they find out it actualy was a faster frame of reference.

Ain't that cool!

The reality is plural, the journey through space time is seperate for each frame of reference.

Watch the word simultaneous, it can't exist.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Dancing David


You are getting warmer, warmer, red hot!


not really, because he seems to insist on the latter, that there are actually 2 different divergent realities.

[Upchurch]

Wowzers. lifegazer, I was lead to believe that you understood what Relativity Theory was all about. Nothing contradicts this more than the following post.
Originally posted by lifegazer

Wait a minute yourself. You're the one who told me that both twins will observe heavenly bodies moving in the exact-same manner. I.e., you said that both twins would observe the earth move around the sun 20 times. Are you absolutely sure about this?I absolutely positively did not say that "both twins will observe heavenly bodies moving in the exact-same [sic] manner." I went to great lengths to not even imply that. I tried to very carefully say that by the point that the space twin returns to the earth twin's inertial reference frame, they will agree on the number of orbits the Earth went around the Sun. You'll notice that there are no refrences to any other "heavenly bodies" nor any reference to any other reference frames. Please re-read what I have said if you are still this grossly confused.
If you are, ... {snip}I am not saying anything of the kind.
So you see, if they see earth behave the same, then they see all heavenly bodies behave the same. Hence at the end of the day, the spacetwin would age 10 years whilst observing the universe age 20.
Something fishy is in the air! And that something fishy is your reasoning.

One of the fundamental assumptions of Relativity, proven true by the Michelson-Morley experiment is that there are no absolute reference frame from which to measure things. In this case, "absolute" is synonymous for "universal". If you do not understand this or, inexplicably, you disagree with it, any discussion about Relativity is pointless.

The very reason it is called "Relativity" is because whenever you measure something it can only be said to be true relative to something else. The universe is comprised of untold numbers of objects moving at relativistic speeds, accelerating, decelerating, orbiting, and collapsing into singularity. Aside from the fact that the universe couldn't by any stretch of the imagination be called "inertial", using the universe as a reference frame makes about as much sense as defining "1 meter" to be equal to the height of each individual man, woman, and child that has ever lived or ever will live. It makes no sense and would be impossible to use.
There are two choices: They both see the universe age 20 years or they don't.This is just goes to further my hypothesis that you've never really read or, at least, understood anything about relativity beyond maybe pop sci-fi.

However, I will restate, in the very limited condition that both twins are on Earth and in the same inertial reference frame, they will have seen the Earth go around the [/i]Sun[/i] 20 times. When they look out in space, they will see portions of the universe from as little as 4 years ago to as much as 15 billion years ago, due to the propogation of the light and radiation it gives off.
Given the former answer, we're left contemplating a spacetwin who experiences 10 years of time whilst the universe ages 20.
And given the latter choice, we're left contemplating 2 different realities occuring simultaneously.Simultaneously compared to what exactly? What are you measuring simulatainity against? The Earth's reference frame? The space twin's reference frame?
Actually, I'm trying to show that everyone sees their own universe, which is a proof that each universe is Mind-generated.And here's the kicker. In your drive to find something that supports your desired outcome, you abandon your earlier argument to grasp something you can try to rationalize to your needs. This is the very worst form of intellectual dishonesty. Not only are you being dishonest with us, but you are being dishonest with yourself.

I'm going to continue to counter your misconceptions, but until you realize that you are rationalizing and not reasoning, I'll really be talking to those who know too little to think you are correct.

[whitefork]

We got a theologian here. I suspect arguments from physics and philosophy may not apply. Its a question of transmitting and receiving the revelation.

My reception has a lot of static.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Kullervo
We got a theologian here. I suspect arguments from physics and philosophy may not apply. Its a question of transmitting and receiving the revelation.

My reception has a lot of static.

If arguments from physics and philosophy do not apply, why has he tried to use them?

[whitefork]

Originally posted by c4ts


If arguments from physics and philosophy do not apply, why has he tried to use them? Beats me. I'm not sure they're actually arguments, more like a sequence of assertions in search of a conclusion. Something about the nature of god. "Theology" seems to fit.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Kullervo
"Theology" seems to fit. Makes about as much sense. I'll buy that.

[whitefork]

Yeah, theology in the marketplace. Why not?

"What am I bid for this fine deity, almost new, barely worshipped, one owner? Who'll start the bidding at 10 euros? Do I hear 5?"

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Kullervo
Yeah, theology in the marketplace. Why not?Theology is all about commerce (http://www.parable.com/cbn/).

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Theology is all about commerce (http://www.parable.com/cbn/). Praise be, my eyes are opened. This clarifies quite a bit for me. Especially apropriate at this happy time of year.

[lifegazer]

I only have to understand one small thing about relativity to link to a realisation that eventually links to The Mind as the creator of all perceived existence. And that thing is that the essential value of space and time, as perceived by men, is not absolute. I.e., there is no absolute meaning of time or space.

This is proven by the twin-paradox in that two men can compare experiences of time. One man can experience 10 years whilst the other may experience, say, 20 years, inbetween their present meeting and their previous meeting.
Clearly, when one experiences 10 years to the others 20, in the same period between meetings, then time is clearly not perceived in any absolute sense.
Any rational contemplation of relativity cannot fail to recognise that the second is in a state of perceived flux. I.e., the value of the second is unique to each individual. Same with the meter. And hence, the same with velocity, being meters/second.

Also, the motion of a body does distort the experience of time which that body shall have. Hence, I ask you to contemplate the reality of a situation whereby when you begin to move, the whole universe around you is distorted just for you!!! Think people, for heaven's sake. This alone is a proof that the universe dances to your tune, and not vice versa.

There isn't much point in saying much else. It's all been said. Those of you who want to (again) show that I'm not a physicist or even an expert in relativity will be wasting your time. I openly admit to being neither. But what I am is of a rational-intelligence able to deduce a simple conclusion from just a base understanding of Einstein's work.

If you want to ignore this, then sobeit. But be advised that what I say today will one day be taught to our kids as fact. Denial of truth can only last for so long.

[Dancing David]

Hence, I ask you to contemplate the reality of a situation whereby when you begin to move, the whole universe around you is distorted just for you!!!


I would say that where I don't agree with you is how this proves that the universe is mind, I understand that the perception is mind argument.

But if you say that the time disrortion which applies to electrons and protons means that they are consious, then you lost me.

Again the power meter on the accelerator will show that energy is drawn at a much greater rate, even if no one watches it.

And I think the part that we are trying to present to you is this:
The universe is not distorted at all, it is the way it is, the distortion comes from comparing frames of reference.

The space time continum is not distorted, the object takes a different path through the four dimensions but there is no distortion.

This already is taught to kids everyday, the common term is humanistic relitavism

What do you think of cultural anthrolplogy Lifegazer?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I only have to understand one small thing about relativity to link to a realisation that eventually links to The Mind as the creator of all perceived existence. And that thing is that the essential value of space and time, as perceived by men, is not absolute. I.e., there is no absolute meaning of time or space.


guess what lifegazer, one small thing isn't enough, you have to understand *all* of relativity to understand its implications. Space and time may not seem as absolute as you'd want reality to be (note the desire on your end here), but it is VERY, VERY consistent. No matter what the situation, all observers can calculate exactly what is happening.

I know that in your day to day interactions, space and time seem like absolute constants, but that isn't reality. Its like the surface of glass, it seems perfectly smooth, but it isn't. Just because reality doesn't agree with your perceptions, doesn't make it any less real.


This is proven by the twin-paradox in that two men can compare experiences of time. One man can experience 10 years whilst the other may experience, say, 20 years, inbetween their present meeting and their previous meeting.
Clearly, when one experiences 10 years to the others 20, in the same period between meetings, then time is clearly not perceived in any absolute sense.
Any rational contemplation of relativity cannot fail to recognise that the second is in a state of perceived flux. I.e., the value of the second is unique to each individual. Same with the meter. And hence, the same with velocity, being meters/second.


Again, these values are not in flux, and are not unique to "different" individuals. Here's another spot where you want to use your own wants and desires. Its not about individuals, its about particles and energy. There is no need for an individual for these effects to take place. You keep putting individual in there becase of the way you WANT things to be. How can you have a rational contemplation of relativity if you do not understand it. I'm pretty sure now that you honestly did not know that the twin paradox is not a paradox.


Also, the motion of a body does distort the experience of time which that body shall have. Hence, I ask you to contemplate the reality of a situation whereby when you begin to move, the whole universe around you is distorted just for you!!! Think people, for heaven's sake. This alone is a proof that the universe dances to your tune, and not vice versa.


Again, if you knew relativity, you'd know that there is no distortion. What about when I move from point a to point b, or rotate, the whole universe rotates and moves aronud me. I must be special. Because the whole universe rotates when I do, there must be a god.

The effects of relativity are no different, you are simply exchanging travel in spacial dimensions for travel in a temporal dimensions. Your world view shows these dimensions as vastly divergent, this is not the case, this is what special (and more directly, general) relativity show.


There isn't much point in saying much else. It's all been said. Those of you who want to (again) show that I'm not a physicist or even an expert in relativity will be wasting your time. I openly admit to being neither. But what I am is of a rational-intelligence able to deduce a simple conclusion from just a base understanding of Einstein's work.


You have reached your conclusion with a flawed understanding of einsein's work. You conclusions are invalid.


If you want to ignore this, then sobeit. But be advised that what I say today will one day be taught to our kids as fact. Denial of truth can only last for so long.

Right, look, lifegazer, there have been billions of people over tens of thousands of years looking for answers like these. Do you honestly believe that in only a small portion of your life, you have been able to accomplish what they have not. Do you really believe yourself that superior to the human race? Get a grip.

BTW, you might telling us how you can convince the world if you can't even get a forum filled with philosophers to take your ideas seriously?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
[B]
Hence, I ask you to contemplate the reality of a situation whereby when you begin to move, the whole universe around you is distorted just for you!!!


I would say that where I don't agree with you is how this proves that the universe is mind, I understand that the perception is mind argument.

If, in your awareness, you accelerate and the whole of your perceived universe distorts itself just for you, do you not see that this universe is in your mind alone?
Under what circumstances do you imagine that the whole of space and time, as you perceive it, would be distorted by your actions, except within and by your mind?
Take into account the relative differences which exist between you and all men of the universe you have experienced.
Consider the twins again. Both experience different universes in the period inbetween their two meetings. Clearly, there can only be one reality yet here we see evidence of two realities (of spacetime).
It is not difficult to comprehend that your mind is responsible for what you see.

But if you say that the time disrortion which applies to electrons and protons means that they are consious, then you lost me.

Everything in awareness is subject to Einstein's laws of relativity. But the key phrase is in awareness. Try discovering the experience of things external to your awareness before you complain that my theory is nonsense. Can't be done of course.

The universe is not distorted at all, it is the way it is, the distortion comes from comparing frames of reference.

Two different experiences of reality is a clear indication that the observers are having a subjective (mind-generated) experience of reality.

What do you think of cultural anthrolplogy Lifegazer?
I strive for unity, which equates to the integration of cultures into one cosmopolitan culture, where diversity of expression reigns.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
No matter what the situation, all observers can calculate exactly what is happening.

And? I have no dispute with Einstein's laws or equations. In fact, my philosophy rests upon the complete validity of Einstein's works. Do you have any idea of what it is that I'm trying to say or upon what I found these conclusions?

I know that in your day to day interactions, space and time seem like absolute constants, but that isn't reality. Its like the surface of glass, it seems perfectly smooth, but it isn't. Just because reality doesn't agree with your perceptions, doesn't make it any less real.

Are you reading what I say: "... the essential value of space and time, as perceived by men, is not absolute.". [first paragraph, yesterday's post]

Again, these values are not in flux

Make your mind up. You just agreed that the value of time and space is not absolute.
Anyway, how do you propose that two men can have different experiences of time or space unless the perceived values of their space and time could flux?
It's time to engage a little reason Russ. I'm not going to make many more posts in this thread, repeating obvious conclusions from obvious facts. If you don't believe me, then sobeit.

I'm pretty sure now that you honestly did not know that the twin paradox is not a paradox.

There is no such thing as a paradox Russ. There is only ignorance.

Right, look, lifegazer, there have been billions of people over tens of thousands of years looking for answers like these. Do you honestly believe that in only a small portion of your life, you have been able to accomplish what they have not. Do you really believe yourself that superior to the human race? Get a grip.

Argument from amazement does not suffice to discredit the argument presented.

BTW, you might telling us how you can convince the world if you can't even get a forum filled with philosophers to take your ideas seriously?
By sheer stubbornness. In the end, everyone will agree with me just to shut me up. :p

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
there is no absolute meaning of time or space.What do you mean by "meaning"?
This alone is a proof that the universe dances to your tune, and not vice versa.False dilemma. Are there no other possibilities you can immagine? For instance, the universe is a much more complex place than our common everyday experiences would lead us to believe?
But what I am is of a rational-intelligence able to deduce a simple conclusion from just a base understanding of Einstein's work.That is to say, a conclusion that is based on incomplete understanding and more or less disagrees with argument the conclusion is based on.

How can you be so sure that more complete understanding won't lead you to a different conclusion and, if so, which conclusion is more likely to be the case: the one based on incomplete understanding or the one based on complete understanding?
Denial of truth can only last for so long. For your sake, I hope that is true. However, I think you underestimate the laziness of some people who won't take the effort to learn something before they make up their minds about it.

[sackett]

Can't you tell a crank when you see one? Lite Grazer presents all the symptoms: obsession, incoherency, insolence, conceit, stubbornness, obtuseness -- I'm getting tired of listing his fine qualities. He gives the impression of having something to say, but he'll never say it, and you know he won't. I don't think his apparent age (I'm guessing about 15) excuses him: some cranks start early.

Worst of all, he's boring. I don't use the Iggy button, but I find when reading threads that I almost always just scroll past his long, windy, irrational, and deeply uninteresting posts.

But I will say that L.G. has exasperated you fellers into writing some really good explanations of things that I never hoped to understand. So maybe he's good for something after all?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by sackett
But I will say that L.G. has exasperated you fellers into writing some really good explanations of things that I never hoped to understand. So maybe he's good for something after all? That's why we do it. Misinformation and ignorance, when left unchallenged, tends to propogate and that hurts everyone.

[sackett]

But I really think you should change your handle to Quixote.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by sackett
But I will say that L.G. has exasperated you fellers into writing some really good explanations of things that I never hoped to understand. So maybe he's good for something after all?

Well you're obviously a bit thick, as you infer yourself. So where does the audacity come from to judge a philosophy that is obviously over your head?

Can't you tell a crank when you see one? Lite Grazer presents all the symptoms: obsession, incoherency, insolence, conceit, stubbornness, obtuseness -- I'm getting tired of listing his fine qualities. He gives the impression of having something to say, but he'll never say it, and you know he won't. I don't think his apparent age (I'm guessing about 15) excuses him: some cranks start early.

Worst of all, he's boring. I don't use the Iggy button, but I find when reading threads that I almost always just scroll past his long, windy, irrational, and deeply uninteresting posts.

You are without doubt a descendent of a neanderthal. I pity you not because you are stupid - an accident of birth that could happen to any man - but because you have the audacity to be a judge of rationale you clearly cannot comprehend. Your soul is lost already. You are a victim of society's crime and that is an awful shame.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I pity you not because you are stupid - an accident of birth that could happen to any man - but because you have the audacity to be a judge of rationale you clearly cannot comprehend. :id:

Dang it. Just had that fixed too...

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
What do you mean by "meaning"?

What do you mean by what do I mean?
Aint word games a bitch?
Are you so desparate that this is what you revert to?

False dilemma. Are there no other possibilities you can immagine? For instance, the universe is a much more complex place than our common everyday experiences would lead us to believe?

"Imagine"?
Look, your whole perception of existence dances to your actions and is unique for you in comparison to all others. If you cannot see what this means then you have a lower IQ than I gave you credit for.
Either that or you have decided that the truth of God must not be unveiled for your own sake or for the sake of humanity as a whole. Have you made this decision?

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by liegazer
You are without doubt a descendent of a neanderthal. I pity you not because you are stupid - an accident of birth that could happen to any man - but because you have the audacity to be a judge of rationale you clearly cannot comprehend. Your soul is lost already. You are a victim of society's crime and that is an awful shame. It's spelled NeanderTAL. And how can his soul be lost? It's all a part of the universal mind right? Or as I'm going to call it from now on: The Big Giant Head.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

What do you mean by what do I mean?Watch your language. It's one of the few things, besides belligerent behavior, that will get you kicked off this board.

I'm not playing a word game, I'm asking an honest question, especially considering your propensity for redefining words.

By "meaning" do you refer to some inate spirtual value, that it actually exists, or something else alltogether? What does you mean when you say, "there is no absolute meaning of time or space."
Look, your whole perception of existence dances to your actions and is unique for you in comparison to all others.That my perception of existence is unique does not necessitate that existence is unique to me.

edited to add
And as Hex puts it, if all the universe is really just a single Big Giant Head :D like you claim, there really couldn't be any "unique perceptions", could there?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
It's spelled NeanderTAL. And how can his soul be lost? It's all a part of the universal mind right? Or as I'm going to call it from now on: The Big Giant Head.
Actually, it is thal. But let's not reduce this to a spelling test, okay.
Call me what you want dear. You've already called me a loon, remember?
But does calling me names reduce a philosophy to its knees? I think not.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
It's spelled NeanderTAL. ... Yeah? Maybe in your universe, Dumbass, but not in mine. :p

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Watch your language.

Pardon me... maybe that word holds more offense in your nation. I don't look upon it as a swear-word.

It's one of the few things, besides belligerent behavior, that will get you kicked off this board.

Then get me banned. It will surely save the truth from coming out.

I'm not playing a word game, I'm asking an honest question, especially considering your propensity for redefining words.

By "meaning" do you refer to some inate spirtual value, that it actually exists, or something else alltogether? What does you mean when you say, "there is no absolute meaning of time or space."

I simply mean that the parameters of time and space are in flux and do distort to give a variable and unique meaning for each individual. That is why two people can have differing views of the same period of time - one twin can say 10 years have passed whilst the other says, "nay, 20!".

That my perception of existence is unique does not necessitate that existence is unique to me.
I never said that existence was yours alone, as this seems to imply. I said that your individual perception of existence was a unique experience and is different to all others.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I said that your individual perception of existence was a unique experience and is different to all others. uh-huh, alright. So, what? No one is standing in the exact same point in spacetime as I am. For that matter, I'm actually getting two different visual perceptions and two different audio perceptions at the same time too since my eyes and ears are all at different points in spacetime. (we won't even get into the amount of spacetime points one's skin represents.) How does that prove your "theory"?

[sackett]

Originally posted by hgc
Yeah? Maybe in your universe, Dumbass, but not in mine. :p

Not just a goddurn minute here! -I'm- the one who's a Neander thrall or whatever he said! I'll spell 'er any dang way I want!

Hexxenhammer: I was laffing so hard you nearly made me spew coffee all over somebody else's monitor. Was that nice?

-(X^D my own private smiley

[Upchurch]

Oh, for the love of Ed, both spellings are accepted (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Neanderthal).

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
uh-huh, alright. So, what? No one is standing in the exact same point in spacetime as I am. For that matter, I'm actually getting two different visual perceptions and two different audio perceptions at the same time too since my eyes and ears are all at different points in spacetime. (we won't even get into the amount of spacetime points one's skin represents.) How does that prove your "theory"?
You know I'm talking, specifically, about the parameters of space and time.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You know I'm talking, specifically, about the parameters of space and time. M'kay. So?

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by hgc
Yeah? Maybe in your universe, Dumbass, but not in mine. :p That's it Racer X. 'ahm a gonna knock yer lights out.:hit:

Hexxenhammer: I was laffing so hard you nearly made me spew coffee all over somebody else's monitor. Was that nice? The Big Giant Head doesn't care if it's nice or not. It dreams all of this in it's blind, idiotic mind.

Oh, for the love of Ed, both spellings are accepted -tal is more accepted in Anthropological circles. Like Apatosaurus is more accepted than Brontosaurus. End sidetrack.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
-tal is more accepted in Anthropological circles. Like Apatosaurus is more accepted than Brontosaurus. End sidetrack. It's outside my field so, fair enough. I retract.

[sackett]

for a minute that what Master Slight Dazer says is true: everything is a Big Giant Head. So what? Quite aside from being undemonstrable, it's nothing but the old mind-of-god assertion, and oh man but it's BORING.

The whole notion was expressed much more poetically a long time ago in the Hindu conception of the Dream of Brahm.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by sackett
The whole notion was expressed much more poetically a long time ago in the Hindu conception of the Dream of Brahm. Actually, on this board, Interesting Ian gave a better and much more coherent argument of what lifegazer is trying to argue in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25587&perpage=40&highlight=panentheism&pagenumber=1). I seem to remember a better one in which more was discussed about panentheism (which is the God argument lifegazer is trying to make in his own inept little way), but I couldn't find it. Had some great links too that I meant to read in detail but I've lost those too.

[lifegazer]

Of course I'm not the first to think that a God exists, or indeed that God is everything.
But I'm pretty sure that my philosophy - leading to this conclusion - is largely original.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by sackett
for a minute that what Master Slight Dazer says is true: everything is a Big Giant Head. So what? Quite aside from being undemonstrable, it's nothing but the old mind-of-god assertion, and oh man but it's BORING.

Please consume more omega-oils. They are an aid to intelligence.
You ask what if I am right. Well if I am right then everybody is an expression of God's own being, which leads to some pretty profound conclusions for humanity as a whole.
Please try to think about what you post because you're making a mug of yourself.

The whole notion was expressed much more poetically a long time ago in the Hindu conception of the Dream of Brahm.
Was any proof presented? Nay. And did I claim to be a poet? Nay.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

But I'm pretty sure that my philosophy - leading to this conclusion - is largely original. But you don't know, because you don't read other people's philosophy works, right?

lifegazer, your theory really isn't all that different from many of the posters out there and several on this board. Your panentheistic stance is very similar to Ian's. Your insistance on misapplying physics through ignorance of the subject as the basis of an immaterialist philosophy is very Franko/wraith & hammegk. Heck, your argumenative style (or lack thereof) is reminisent of muscleman.

Same 'ol, same 'ol.

[hgc]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Please consume more omega-oils. They are an aid to intelligence.
...Is that supposed to be funny in your universe? You sure have a lot of ways to insult people's intelligence, but here's the thing I like about jokes: humor. It's like the keg at the company picnic -- without it what have you got?

[lifegazer]

You guys have a debt to pay life. It's called self-integrity. Would you lie to yourselves to preserve the status-quo of your cosy little worlds? Then sobeit. You are responsible.

[Upchurch]

I'd say we have a bigger responsibility towards intellectual honesty and exploring the world as it is, rather than as we wish it to be. I make it a point to lie to myself and others as little as possible and, if I found I've made an error, I own up to it. I've had to back down from a number of arguments on this board either because I was wrong or I could back it up. That is all I ask of others in return.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by hgc
Is that supposed to be funny in your universe? You sure have a lot of ways to insult people's intelligence, but here's the thing I like about jokes: humor. It's like the keg at the company picnic -- without it what have you got?
Listen egghead; that bozo's first post to me was an idiotic assault upon myself and my philosophy, which he doesn't even understand. His other posts have also exhibited complete disrespect and indifference. So spare me the violins. I'm just not interested in the pleas of insincere hypocrites.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'd say we have a bigger responsibility towards intellectual honesty and exploring the world as it is, rather than as we wish it to be. I make it a point to lie to myself and others as little as possible and, if I found I've made an error, I own up to it. I've had to back down from a number of arguments on this board either because I was wrong or I could back it up. That is all I ask of others in return.
Speaking of insincerity.

"I only have to understand one small thing about relativity to link to a realisation that eventually links to The Mind as the creator of all perceived existence. And that thing is that the essential value of space and time, as perceived by men, is not absolute. I.e., there is no absolute meaning of time or space.

This is proven by the twin-paradox in that two men can compare experiences of time. One man can experience 10 years whilst the other may experience, say, 20 years, inbetween their present meeting and their previous meeting.
Clearly, when one experiences 10 years to the others 20, in the same period between meetings, then time is clearly not perceived in any absolute sense.
Any rational contemplation of relativity cannot fail to recognise that the second is in a state of perceived flux. I.e., the value of the second is unique to each individual. Same with the meter. And hence, the same with velocity, being meters/second.

Also, the motion of a body does distort the experience of time which that body shall have. Hence, I ask you to contemplate the reality of a situation whereby when you begin to move, the whole universe around you is distorted just for you!!! Think people, for heaven's sake. This alone is a proof that the universe dances to your tune, and not vice versa."

Which part of this is wrong. Tell me and tell them. Stop waffling.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

If, in your awareness, you accelerate and the whole of your perceived universe distorts itself just for you, do you not see that this universe is in your mind alone?

I think the point that I tried to make earlier is still valid, it is an apparent distortion, it is caused by the speed of light being contant. the space ship only compresses in reference to the universe and vis versa, the laws of nature still hold true for either frame of reference.

That is the really difficult part to understand about relativity, the compression or dialation is only between the two frames of reference, not in the frame of reference.

As I said before, it is as though each particle carries and generates it's own three dimensions, those dimensions may distort in reference to each other but they are absolute for each frame of refererence. Seems to be more of a unity in plkuarlity thing.

But now I do undertsand your argument. thanks.

Under what circumstances do you imagine that the whole of space and time, as you perceive it, would be distorted by your actions, except within and by your mind?



It is an apparant distortion caused by the effects of comparing two frames of reference. My space is not distorted by an electron at fermi lab approaching the speed of light. It's frame stays the same and my frame stays the same , what changes is the comparison between the two. Now I will grant you that the electron's mass does seem to increase from our frame of reference, but my space time does not compress. the electron takes a tangential path through space time, producing an apparent distortion.


Take into account the relative differences which exist between you and all men of the universe you have experienced.
Consider the twins again. Both experience different universes in the period inbetween their two meetings. Clearly, there can only be one reality yet here we see evidence of two realities (of spacetime).


Unlike Russ i would say that each particles carries it's own reality, what Russ and Upchurch have tried to tell you is that the space twin has cut through a different angle of the time dimesion than the eath twin.


It is not difficult to comprehend that your mind is responsible for what you see.


Yes I understand that but except for internal stimuli, they are correlated tro the external world.


Everything in awareness is subject to Einstein's laws of relativity. But the key phrase is in awareness. Try discovering the experience of things external to your awareness before you complain that my theory is nonsense. Can't be done of course.


I understand that argument but again maintain that reality behaves as though it exists independant of observation. I can give you directions to a tree that i made a mark upon.


Two different experiences of reality is a clear indication that the observers are having a subjective (mind-generated) experience of reality.

This is why i asked you about cultural anthropology, I would say that the resolution to the time paradox is that the space twin took and angle tangential to the earth twin through the time dimensions. Not a paralel line , but a curved one.


I strive for unity, which equates to the integration of cultures into one cosmopolitan culture, where diversity of expression reigns.

Ook, that sounds a lot like cultural imperialism, but hey you and the buddha have the same goal, differnet paths but same out come.

[hgc]

Oh, someone doesn't understand your philosophy? I can help. I've underlined the relevant parts below...
Originally posted by lifegazer

Listen egghead; that bozo's first post to me was an idiotic assault upon myself and my philosophy, which he doesn't even understand. His other posts have also exhibited complete disrespect and indifference. So spare me the violins. I'm just not interested in the pleas of insincere hypocrites. No one is offended. Perhaps bemused that you think argument by insult is effective.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Upchurch
It's outside my field so, fair enough. I retract.

continue sidetrack, I think -thal refers more to a valley somewhere along the rhine

[RussDill]

Originally posted by sackett
for a minute that what Master Slight Dazer says is true: everything is a Big Giant Head. So what? Quite aside from being undemonstrable, it's nothing but the old mind-of-god assertion, and oh man but it's BORING.

The whole notion was expressed much more poetically a long time ago in the Hindu conception of the Dream of Brahm.

Actually, he has prestented many things that could be proven:

a) Although the effects of realitivity are fact, the causes for those effects are not what we think they are. They are instead the result of us all being in little seperate universes. Thus, maxwells equations are wrong and should be thrown out. Also, the speed of light is not a constant.

b) Conciousness and concious action are caused by the mind. Therefore, we should be able to find through neuroscience and physics a previously unknown effect on neuron behavior. A generation of electrical stimuli coming from "nowhere", the mind. Whats interesting here is that this would also disproves newton's "for every action, there is a reaction" because although the mind would be exerting a field or force on neurons in the mind, what would be exerted back to the mind.

c) The universe has 4 space dimensions. Although we are familiar with the three spacial dimensions, and the likely shape of the universe as the surface of a hypersphere. Lifegazer takes this a step further, and actualy makes the universe a 4 dimensional hypersphere bounded by the "mind", therefore, if lifegazer's "theory" is correct, we are in a thin layer of a 4 dimensional space surrounded on both sides by a mind.

heh, I just realized something point C means that the mind is divided in half. one half on the inside of the hypersphere, and one half on the outside.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Speaking of insincerity.

"I only have to understand one small thing about relativity to link to a realisation that eventually links to The Mind as the creator of all perceived existence. And that thing is that the essential value of space and time, as perceived by men, is not absolute. I.e., there is no absolute meaning of time or space.

This is proven by the twin-paradox in that two men can compare experiences of time. One man can experience 10 years whilst the other may experience, say, 20 years, inbetween their present meeting and their previous meeting.
Clearly, when one experiences 10 years to the others 20, in the same period between meetings, then time is clearly not perceived in any absolute sense.
Any rational contemplation of relativity cannot fail to recognise that the second is in a state of perceived flux. I.e., the value of the second is unique to each individual. Same with the meter. And hence, the same with velocity, being meters/second.

Also, the motion of a body does distort the experience of time which that body shall have. Hence, I ask you to contemplate the reality of a situation whereby when you begin to move, the whole universe around you is distorted just for you!!! Think people, for heaven's sake. This alone is a proof that the universe dances to your tune, and not vice versa."

Which part of this is wrong. Tell me and tell them. Stop waffling.

I think that you have been given the explanation and will be given many more, you can believe what you like!
Part One
Imagine that the twins are walking across a floor. One twin can accelerate to the speed of light (well .9999999), but this floor does not represent the actual paths taken by the wtins but instead is a representation of the twins journey through time.
If we say that they both start in the same direction that will be sufficient (again this is a meta room) prior to the acceleration, for each step the earth twin takes, the space twin takes a similar step. they experience an equal time. But as the space twin accelerates something happens, the space twin still takes a step for each step that the earth twin takes but they are shorter steps.
Part Two:
Imagine now that we have the same situation except that the room will now have a way of representing space and time both. the space twin will say goodbye to the earth twin and hello when they start and finish thier journey.
This represents that paradox , the twins both start at the same point and end at the same point, but the space twin will arrive at the second point in time not having traversed an eqaul amount in the time dimension.

AAARRGGHH! Confusion reigns.

To make it work the floor of the room has to be come a cylinder or a sphere. The earth twin will walk on the surface of the floor, which still looks flat to him. The space twin will still walk on the surface of the floor which still looks flat to him.

AAAARRRGH! Confusion two, david zero.

The cool thing is that actualy the space twin takes a shorter path through time in relation ship to the eartyh twin. they both walk on the floor it looks flat to each of them, but when we compare the two flors, from a third frame of reference we will see that the floors are actualy curved and that when the space twin accelerates the curvature of his floor is less than the curvature of the floor of the earth twin.

So in essence the space twin cuts inside the curved floor of his twin and takes a shorter path , but still ends up on the same spot on the floor of the meta room after they are done accelerating. But from the non existant absolute frame of reference the space twin has cut a path through the space time sphere of the earth twin. They both start and end at the same point on the earth twins floor, but because of the lesser curvature of the space twins relative floor, he actualy traverses less distance through time, but arrives at the same point in spacetime as the aerth twin.

AAARRGGHH. Confusion set and match!

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

If, in your awareness, you accelerate and the whole of your perceived universe distorts itself just for you, do you not see that this universe is in your mind alone?


again, how is this any different from rotating. The entire universe distorts in a rotatation around you. Explain the difference. Is it because the former also involves the time dimension?


Under what circumstances do you imagine that the whole of space and time, as you perceive it, would be distorted by your actions, except within and by your mind?


Again, it is not truly a distortion, nothing about space and time has changed, just your direction of travel through space and time has changed.


Take into account the relative differences which exist between you and all men of the universe you have experienced.
Consider the twins again. Both experience different universes in the period inbetween their two meetings. Clearly, there can only be one reality yet here we see evidence of two realities (of spacetime).
It is not difficult to comprehend that your mind is responsible for what you see.


You are right, it is easy to not try to understand the physical world and just say that a god made the volcano blow up. That is the easy way out. I'm so proud of you, taking the easy way out, and then proclaiming yourself a genius above all other men (and speaking down to those who disagree).

Special relativity however is difficult to comprehend. The concept are very simple, but reconciling them with out day to day experiences is difficult. You have not bothered to take the time to understand special relativity.


Everything in awareness is subject to Einstein's laws of relativity. But the key phrase is in awareness. Try discovering the experience of things external to your awareness before you complain that my theory is nonsense. Can't be done of course.


how about someone elses awareness. Clearly, all the awarenesses of all the people in the world cannot be contained in my own little universe.


Two different experiences of reality is a clear indication that the observers are having a subjective (mind-generated) experience of reality.


hahahah, really? Just like If I stand over here, and you stand over there? We are in two different positions in the same universe.


I strive for unity, which equates to the integration of cultures into one cosmopolitan culture, where diversity of expression reigns.

ya, and we don't strive for unity? The Mind doesn't apear to be about unity anyway. Why, with all the viruses, genetic diseases, etc, I'm not sure what the mind is all about.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

And? I have no dispute with Einstein's laws or equations. In fact, my philosophy rests upon the complete validity of Einstein's works. Do you have any idea of what it is that I'm trying to say or upon what I found these conclusions?


The equations that einstein wrote out are not the basis for his law of relativity, they are the result. You take the result, but ignore the reason. You disagree 100% with einstein's reasoning. You make up completely different reasoning for these results (ie, we are all in different universes). Why? because you say there are no reasons for einstein's results. Why? because you don't bother to take the time to comprehend special relativity, or is just because you want to believe you are special.


Are you reading what I say: "... the essential value of space and time, as perceived by men, is not absolute.". [first paragraph, yesterday's post]


but not for particles, right?


Make your mind up. You just agreed that the value of time and space is not absolute.
Anyway, how do you propose that two men can have different experiences of time or space unless the perceived values of their space and time could flux?


Sorry, bit of a miswording there, what I meant to express was that space and time are interchangeable. Again, right now, I'm having a different "experience" than you, but it has nothing to do with space and time being in "flux". If you want to view space as three space dimensions, and one completely seperate time dimension, surely then, there is a problem. However, this is not the way reality is. There are three space dimensions and one time dimension that are all part of one coheshive reality. Once you view relativistic effects in this way, there are *no* distortions.

Everything is the universe has a different point of view, not a different reality. Prove otherwise.


It's time to engage a little reason Russ. I'm not going to make many more posts in this thread, repeating obvious conclusions from obvious facts. If you don't believe me, then sobeit.


You have made no such conclusions. If they were obvious conclusions on odvious facts, why can you not answer my simple questions? Why do you just repeat yourself rather than argue rationally?


There is no such thing as a paradox Russ. There is only ignorance.


Like I said, Wow, you've been basing your whole belief structure (at least partially) on the twin paradox being unresolveable. Who is the true ignorant one? I understand each of the points you are making, and could argue them for you, and yet you don't even understand special relativity (or much less, general relativity).


Argument from amazement does not suffice to discredit the argument presented.


I'm just asking you to gain a little retrospect


By sheer stubbornness. In the end, everyone will agree with me just to shut me up. :p

Uh-huh, no, really, what do you have hiding up your sleve in order to convince people.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Well you're obviously a bit thick, as you infer yourself. So where does the audacity come from to judge a philosophy that is obviously over your head?


hooray, lets insult people some more! You are all lost souls and will be damned when the truth of the great and powerfull mind comes out! Wheee!!!! This is fun and makes me feel great!

Anywho, seems a bit silly to base a philosophy on a scientific theory (special realitivity) that is way over your head.


You are without doubt a descendent of a neanderthal. I pity you not because you are stupid - an accident of birth that could happen to any man - but because you have the audacity to be a judge of rationale you clearly cannot comprehend. Your soul is lost already. You are a victim of society's crime and that is an awful shame.

more insults!!! Whee!!!!!! I feel so superior now!!!! hooray!!!!

BTW, Where does the concept of salvation come in?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by sackett
But I really think you should change your handle to Quixote.

I think Upchurch might be his last name...


arghhh...60 second rule

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

What do you mean by what do I mean?
Aint word games a bitch?
Are you so desparate that this is what you revert to?


"Meaning" is not a property of space that anyone is familiar with. You'll have to be more specific. Its like If I asked you how heavy a thought was. "Mass" is not a property of thought that anyone is familiar with.


"Imagine"?
Look, your whole perception of existence dances to your actions and is unique for you in comparison to all others. If you cannot see what this means then you have a lower IQ than I gave you credit for.


Really? I coulda sworn that the actions of others have a very definate effect on my existence. Also, the effect of giant metorites could have a huge effect on my existence. And for some, who have had serious brain damage, they can have *no* effect on their existence, they only get to watch. (This also happens to some people temporarily, its called sleep paralasys)

Oh, btw, I'm bored, lets insult people some more. Yehaaaa!! Woo woo!!!!! hahaha!!!!!


Either that or you have decided that the truth of God must not be unveiled for your own sake or for the sake of humanity as a whole. Have you made this decision?

Has he in anyway tried to silence you? Has upchurch done anything but rationally discuss? Has he ever even insulted you?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Actually, it is thal. But let's not reduce this to a spelling test, okay.
Call me what you want dear. You've already called me a loon, remember?
But does calling me names reduce a philosophy to its knees? I think not.

You sure like to use the technique. Does it advance your philosophy, or just make you feel more superior?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Pardon me... maybe that word holds more offense in your nation. I don't look upon it as a swear-word.


He's either talking about a female dog, or asking you to define your terms better.


Then get me banned. It will surely save the truth from coming out.


so why so abrasive lifegazer? Oh, right, because being banned makes you feel like people knew you were right, but could not accept the truth. If a forum bans you, they've all agreed in their hearts that you are right.


I simply mean that the parameters of time and space are in flux and do distort to give a variable and unique meaning for each individual. That is why two people can have differing views of the same period of time - one twin can say 10 years have passed whilst the other says, "nay, 20!".


Really? If I drive to the store one way, and another person drives to the store another way, we have both crossed different regions of space and different distances, yet have arrived at the same point. Does this mean that space distored? That we both had our own unique universe? No, we simply took different paths through space. The same true for differing paths through spacetime.


I never said that existence was yours alone, as this seems to imply. I said that your individual perception of existence was a unique experience and is different to all others.

really? So we all have our own little universes, and so we all experience things differently, thus explaining realitivity.

Now, I must ask you this, and its a very important, but simple question, please respond. Does each particle also experience its own universe? (ie, when we speed a particle to near the speed of light in an accelerator)

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You know I'm talking, specifically, about the parameters of space and time.

You have failed to explain whats so special about a different point of view in the time dimension as apposed to a different POV in the space dimension

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Of course I'm not the first to think that a God exists, or indeed that God is everything.
But I'm pretty sure that my philosophy - leading to this conclusion - is largely original.

so what makes your definition of god correct, and all other definitions of god incorrect and logically inconsistent?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Please consume more omega-oils. They are an aid to intelligence.


If everyone consumes omega-oils, does the mind become more intelligent? Or does it just effect our reception of the mind's signal? Are you an excellent antena lifegazer?


You ask what if I am right. Well if I am right then everybody is an expression of God's own being, which leads to some pretty profound conclusions for humanity as a whole.
Please try to think about what you post because you're making a mug of yourself.

Was any proof presented? Nay. And did I claim to be a poet? Nay.

I listed above the consequences, non of which you have proven (and in fact, evidence shows the opposite)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
"If, in your awareness, you accelerate and the whole of your perceived universe distorts itself just for you, do you not see that this universe is in your mind alone?"

I think the point that I tried to make earlier is still valid, it is an apparent distortion, it is caused by the speed of light being contant.

The speed-of-light is a number, qualified with the parameters of
meters/second. And it is easily demonstratable that everyone's meter and everyone's second are comparatively different - unique to themselves.
Therefore, all speeds/velocities, x m/s, are subjectively unique to each individual. I've already explained this but it somehow seems to go over everyone's head.

As you accelerate, the whole of your perceived space and time is distorted/fluxed (demonstratable with the twin-paradox). The light which passes through the awareness of your space and time is thusly affected to move at a rate governed by your actions and your perception of the universe.
Light is not the governing factor of relativity. Rather, the observer - his mind - is.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Which part of this is wrong. Tell me and tell them. Stop waffling.

The part where you claim a distortion of time. The part where you claim that the twin paradox proves your philosophy when there is no paradox. And the part where you don't even bother to understand special relativity, and yet base a philosophy on it.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The speed-of-light is a number, qualified with the parameters of
meters/second. And it is easily demonstratable that everyone's meter and everyone's second are comparatively different - unique to themselves.
Therefore, all speeds/velocities, x m/s, are subjectively unique to each individual. I've already explained this but it somehow seems to go over everyone's head.



Actually no, what seems to be going over your head is that some people here actually understand relativity and your above statement is in fact false.

Yes the meters appear to be different from different frames of reference, and they do so in such a way that the speed of light traveling over them always always always appears to be constant, that is 186,000 Miles per second.

That's is the only universal constant we know of that behaves this way. No matter which frame of reference you are in in order to "conserve" this apparent velocity of light, sometimes distances appear to change and in the case of the twin astronaut paradox, time itself actually seems to change.

Because Velcity is a quantity measure by distance over time, and velocity appears to be constant throughout the universe, even when distances change between reference points, then in fact the only thing that can change according to Einstein is the last Variable in the equation, namely, Time.

This is how time dilation became a known phenomenon.

And since this was understood it has been objectively measured through expirement time and time again from airplanes to the space shuttle.

Time changes, and distance changes, NOT the speed of light, it never changes, to any observer, anywhere.

And we have BOATLOADS of evidence to support this.

Now do you have even one shred of evidence to support your incorrect and incomplete grasp of relatvistic phenomena?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The speed-of-light is a number, qualified with the parameters of
meters/second. And it is easily demonstratable that everyone's meter and everyone's second are comparatively different - unique to themselves.
Therefore, all speeds/velocities, x m/s, are subjectively unique to each individual. I've already explained this but it somehow seems to go over everyone's head.


First of all, its only a difference between reference frames, second of all, there is no distrotion of space, thirdly, it might be interesting for you to divide these two equations:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/relativity/specialrel.html

Note what happens when you divide a L' by a t', guess what the ratio is. Guess what effect that ratio has on the speed of light?


As you accelerate, the whole of your perceived space and time is distorted/fluxed (demonstratable with the twin-paradox). The light which passes through the awareness of your space and time is thusly affected to move at a rate governed by your actions and your perception of the universe.


Again, I you completely misunderstand special relativity. When talking about special relativity, you cannot use accelerating reference frames. Distortion does happen in accelerating reference frames, just as it does in a gravitational field (see general relativity). There is no distortion of spacetime in special relativity. Or as a certian actor once said, Show me the money! Show me how spacetime distorts, show me the equations, put up, or shut up.


Light is not the governing factor of relativity. Rather, the observer - his mind - is.

Prove it.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Andonyx
Yes the meters appear to be different from different frames of reference

That's what I said. Applies to the second too.

and they do so in such a way that the speed of light traveling over them always always always ***appears*** to be constant, that is 186,000 Miles per second.

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'.

That's is the only universal constant we know of that behaves this way. No matter which frame of reference you are in in order to "conserve" this apparent velocity of light, sometimes distances appear to change and in the case of the twin astronaut paradox, time itself actually seems to change.

Yes, time and space distort. Which therefore means that the way in which light moves is also subject to personal distortion.

Time changes, and distance changes, NOT the speed of light, it never changes, to any observer, anywhere.

I'm not arguing that the speed of light changes. I'm arguing that any specific 'speed' - rather, 'velocity' - is a unique experience for each individual. The uniquely-experienced fluxing-parameters (of velocity: the meter and the second) perceived by each individual, necessitate a unique experience of any specified velocity.

Now do you have even one shred of evidence to support your incorrect and incomplete grasp of relatvistic phenomena?
Until you understand what I am arguing for, your objections will be meaningless.

[lifegazer]

Russ, if you want me to respond to you, stop waffling.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You guys have a debt to pay life. It's called self-integrity. Would you lie to yourselves to preserve the status-quo of your cosy little worlds? Then sobeit. You are responsible.

Mr. Pott I would like you to meet Mr. Kettle, Mr. Kettle i would like you to meet Mr. Pott.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Russ, if you want me to respond to you, stop waffling.

Really? Waffling? Is your philosophy to weak to argue against fact? Before, you dismiss my arguments because I am a kid, and now you dismiss them because you mistake the reality of special relativity for waffling. The fact is, to those who first learn relativity, it is at first contridictory, even einsein had a lot of trouble with it. However, once it is fully understood, it is not contridictory.

You are still at the stage where special relativity seems contridictory. You take this perceived inconsistency, and use it as a proof for a mind, rather than bother studying relativity further.

I know the question I pose are difficult to answer in relation to your philosophy, and its much easier to dismiss me, but thats the point. And you always seem to take the easy way out.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

That's what I said. Applies to the second too.


Note he uses the word "apears" because it really isn't different. If you throw a rod that is a meter long to the traveler, the traveler will take it, measure it as a meter long, and throw it back.

There is only a RELATIVE difference between the frames. Do you even understand *why* the meter is relatively different? I'll give you a hint, it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the distortion of space. Its really too bad you didn't study special relativity more to understand this, but I'll try to explain it more:

If something travels close to the speed of light, relative to our frame of reference, it is also taking a different track through time. Basic, simple, and a consequence of the world we live in. Now, you claim there is distortion of space because his meter is different, but it is not. He is traveling differently through time. Allow me to demonstrate.

As he travels through time differently, the front end clock does not match the rear end clock. The front end clock is "behind" the rear colck. This happens for all objects, but we travel so slowly, the difference is very slight.

The reason for the length contraction becomes evident rather quickly, and it has nothing to do with a distortion of space, or length.

You could view the object as "tilted" into the time dimension. (of course, from its prespective, everything else is tilted). As it passes, an effect similar to the effect of a focal plane shutter occurs.

This page, google cached, shows the effect quite well (a lot better than I can explain it here):

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:_4oFm6MpDd0J:members.tripod.com/conduit9SR/SR12.html+slit+camera+relativity&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

as you can see, there is no distortion.


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.


compared to what meter? compared to what second? is there some universal meter or second that you are comparing to? The only universals we have when it comes to time and length at the speed of light, and the plank length. Nobody is ignoring your philosophy, we are all just trying to point out that it is based on your failure to comprehend special realitivity (which is pretty common, most people don't understand special relativity, so there is nothing wrong with being one of them)


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'.


they do not differ in opinion. The space twin can caclulate exactly what will happen when he returns. Both twins are in total agreement about the reality in which they exist. Just like If we take different paths to go to the store, and take different times to get there, and see different things along the way, we might conclude that the universe was different for both of us, when in fact, we just took different paths. You still fail to grasp special relativity (btw, I think we should hold off trying to explain general relativity, evolution, and quantum mechanics, lest he use his misunderstanding of those to delve himself further into self-delusion)


Yes, time and space distort. Which therefore means that the way in which light moves is also subject to personal distortion.


no, they do not distort, do you disagree with einsteins theory of special relativity, or agree with it, because it solves the problem with no distortion.


I'm not arguing that the speed of light changes. I'm arguing that any specific 'speed' - rather, 'velocity' - is a unique experience for each individual. The uniquely-experienced fluxing-parameters (of velocity: the meter and the second) perceived by each individual, necessitate a unique experience of any specified velocity.


Tell me what measured quantity is different, otherwise, there is no difference.


Until you understand what I am arguing for, your objections will be meaningless.

Everyone here understands what you are arguing for, so stop fooling yourself into believing that we are all ignorant.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Russ, if you want me to respond to you, stop waffling.

oh, btw, in the true spirit of lifegazer, I declare lifegazer's continued ignoring of my posts as undeniable proof that I am right.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Which part of this is wrong. Tell me and tell them. Stop waffling. I didn't realize I was. Shame on me. I prefer pancaking much more. Takes less time to cook. :D

I guess this calls for one of my critically acclaimed analyses, also known as "Proof that Upchurch has no life if he has the time to write a post that long and involved."
I only have to understand one small thing about relativity to link to a realisation that eventually links to The Mind as the creator of all perceived existence.Initial claim. Although ackwardly phrased ("...to link to a realization that eventually links too..."?), we are led to believe that with a simple factiod concerning relativity (presumably Special Relativity since he has never mentioned the more complete General Relativity), lifegazer managed to bring together a string of arguments that that "links" "The Mind" as the creator of all perceived existence.

Ignoring, for the moment, the assumptions inherent in the latter part of the claim, I will assume that by "links", lifegazer means that Relativity shows that "The Mind" is the same as "the creator of all perceived existence". Based on past conversations, I will further assume that "The Mind" refers to the collective consciousness lifegazer assumes is universally present and indivisibly whole.
And that thing is that the essential value of space and time, as perceived by men, is not absolute. I.e., there is no absolute meaning of time or space.By "essential value", I will assume that lifegazer is referring to measurements of distance and duration.

The first mistake involves the using phrase "as perceived by men" in relation to objective measurements. If one simply wanted to make the case that different people qualitatively have different perceptions of different distances and durations, it isn't necessary to involve relativity. A simple everyday world example will suffice, say, a family road trip: For the parents, the trip may be a simple 3 hour journey. For the children however, the trip takes forever, at least 3 years!!

However, Relativity does not take qualitative measurements into account nor is it dependent on human perception (men or women). In fact, the effect has never been noticeably measured in a human being. Further, the effect has been measured on objects that experienced the effect without any humans present. The very usage of Special Relativity is inappropriate due to the fact that lifegazer is attempting to apply to an area that is outside it's scope: human perception. As I've stated before, this is much more appropriate for the field of psychology.

In other posts, lifegazer has tried to make the counter argument that (were a clock sent on a relativistic trip) the perception of the humans who measure the clock versus the Earth clocks is somehow sufficent for the "perception" criteria. However, if a human were to discover a clock that did not go on a relativistic trip but he is somehow convinced that it did, is that perception enough to change the reality of the situation to match the human's perception? If so, and later he is convinced otherwise, does it change reality a second time to match the new perception?

This counter argument is inconsistent within itself. If human perception had the property of warping reality, then all first impressions would be necessarily correct. Hallucinations would be reality. Illusions would be fact. That any of these things are shown to not be true shows that reality is not effected by our perceptions but merely effect our perceptions, as do other things like emotions and pre-conceived ideas. (Once again, we're back to psychology rather than physics.)
This is proven by the twin-paradox in that two men can compare experiences of time. One man can experience 10 years whilst the other may experience, say, 20 years, inbetween their present meeting and their previous meeting.I'll conceed the scenerio, if not that it proves anything towards lifegazer's argument as that has yet to be seen.
Clearly, when one experiences 10 years to the others 20, in the same period between meetings, then time is clearly not perceived in any absolute sense.Here, then, is lifegazer's second mistake.

In one sense, it is an error of consistency. By using the term, "in the same period", lifegazer is referring to time in an absolute sense. That is, that there is one period or duration that both twins took the trip in. Then, in the same sentince, lifegazer correctly says (paraphrasing for accuracy) that time isn't measured in an absolute sense. In essence, lifegazer is claiming that the period during which the speace twin took the trip is both absolute and not absolute at the same time, which is logically inconsistant.

In another sense, it is an error of misconception. By using the term, "in the same period", lifegazer demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding concerning the nature of spacetime, specifically that there is a defined period of time in which the two events (the twin leaving and the twin returning) took place. It is perfectly valid and consistent for the duration between those two events to differ and yet no modifications be made to the unit lengths of 1 meter and 1 second. As I've mentioned in an earlier post, such a situation is quite adequetly explained in General Relativity which, of course, is a correction to Special Relativity.
Any rational contemplation of relativity cannot fail to recognise that the second is in a state of perceived flux. I.e., the value of the second is unique to each individual.Again, the perception of the duration of a second is matter for psychology, not physics. Likewise for the length of a meter, as time and space are entirely the same thing. In physics, the integrety of the unit "length" is maintained throughout.

Perhaps, this is really the fundamental point where merely a "simple" understanding of Relativity is in sufficent to understand the nature of time and the twin paradox.
Also, the motion of a body does distort the experience of time which that body shall have.This is only in relation to other frames of reference. For example, right now, on the Earth, we are hurling away from other celestial objects at near light speed. However, this does not distort our local experiences, or even perception I imagine, of time.

Only if another object were to pass the Earth at near light speeds would we considerably notice the effect and even then, it would be the other object that would appear to be effected, not us.
Hence, I ask you to contemplate the reality of a situation whereby when you begin to move, the whole universe around you is distorted just for you!!!
This is rather like asking us to contemplate the act of stepping on the accelerator of our car and the whole car begins to move! :wow2: Or asking us to turn on a light switch and conteplate that light is given off just for us!! :wow2:

Relativistic effects are nothing special or unique. It's something that anything can experience, but rarely does in a significant way. As Arthur C. Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indestinguishable from magic."
Think people, for heaven's sake. This alone is a proof that the universe dances to your tune, and not vice versa."
This, then, is your conclusion? Where is the eventual link to The Mind as creator of all perceived existance? What is the chain of logic that leads from what we see is your misperception of spacetime that leads to the abstract concepts of Minds and creators and whatnot?

I've shown the factual errors that you've made but I cannot refute your overall argument because you have not made it! You have a claim at the beginning, but you fail to show how your premise leads to the "eventual conclusion".

I hope I'm done waffling, I'm ready for some pizzaing. :D

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Upchurch

I hope I'm done waffling, I'm ready for some pizzaing. :D

That was such an increbibly well thought out reply. You should really write a book on reason. However, its all in vain, lifegazer holds his belief above the reason of other mere mortals. He will likely respond with a "One day, all will understand the truth, and it will be taught in classrooms everywhere, its too bad old codgers like you will all become ignorant hermits, I feel sorry for you".


Edited to add: pizza sounds good right now...

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by RussDill

However, its all in vain, Yeah, well. Probably. But as I said, this stuff should never go unchallenged. Heck, no idea should ever go unchallenged.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The speed-of-light is a number, qualified with the parameters of
meters/second. And it is easily demonstratable that everyone's meter and everyone's second are comparatively different - unique to themselves.
Therefore, all speeds/velocities, x m/s, are subjectively unique to each individual. I've already explained this but it somehow seems to go over everyone's head.

As you accelerate, the whole of your perceived space and time is distorted/fluxed (demonstratable with the twin-paradox). The light which passes through the awareness of your space and time is thusly affected to move at a rate governed by your actions and your perception of the universe.
Light is not the governing factor of relativity. Rather, the observer - his mind - is.

I understand where your thoughts come from, and I just happen to disagree with them:
-the speed of light is not just a number , it is an observed (through tools of perception) and qualitative fact according to the eory of relativity. If the speed of light was variable the twin paradox would not exist.
-seriously the mind bending part of relativity is that there really are no space time distortions, please reread my post about how the space twin takes a shorter path through the time dimesion. the confusing thing is that the time dialation does not occur in the space twin's frame of reference. You are just giving priority to the eath twins frame of reference.
-again accelerating to the speed of light only changes the space time parameters in relationship to another frame of reference, a space ship does not actualy get shorter, time does not actualy dialate, mass does really increase though.

The light which passes through the awareness of your space and time is thusly affected to move at a rate governed by your actions and your perception of the universe.

thats the wiggy thing that creates the apparent distortions, the speed of light is constant, otherwise there would be no twin paradox, there is no paradox, the space twin traveled down a different time gradint to arrive at the end point where they shake the hand of thier earth twin.

Imagine an airplane, the higher it flys the slower it's relative passage through time is. The space twin takes a higher flight path than the earth twin. But counter intuitavly space time is not distorted.

Wierd ain't it.

You objections are the same ones Eistiens faced when he presented the theory.

I understand your POV, it is just the counterintuitive nature of relativity, there is no distortion of space time, there is only distortion between frames of reference.

Space and the speed of light are the same for all observers, some just take different paths.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I didn't realize I was. Shame on me. I prefer pancaking much more. Takes less time to cook. :D

Well you certainly waffle less that Russ, but you left the oven on way too long this time...

Initial claim. Although ackwardly phrased ("...to link to a realization that eventually links too..."?), we are led to believe that with a simple factiod concerning relativity (presumably Special Relativity since he has never mentioned the more complete General Relativity), lifegazer managed to bring together a string of arguments that that "links" "The Mind" as the creator of all perceived existence.

Waffling again. Everyone knows what I link to.

Ignoring, for the moment, the assumptions inherent in the latter part of the claim, I will assume that by "links", lifegazer means that Relativity shows that "The Mind" is the same as "the creator of all perceived existence". Based on past conversations, I will further assume that "The Mind" refers to the collective consciousness lifegazer assumes is universally present and indivisibly whole.
By "essential value", I will assume that lifegazer is referring to measurements of distance and duration.

Waffle... and yes. Paying special attention to the parameters of these measurements.

The first mistake involves the using phrase "as perceived by men" in relation to objective measurements. If one simply wanted to make the case that different people qualitatively have different perceptions of different distances and durations, it isn't necessary to involve relativity. A simple everyday world example will suffice, say, a family road trip: For the parents, the trip may be a simple 3 hour journey. For the children however, the trip takes forever, at least 3 years!!

Incorrect waffle. Children want to be active and get bored stuck in a car, being disinterested in scenery or inner-contemplation. Time drags because it is not filled, particularly with active desire.
This kind of relative time comparison has absolutely nothing to do with real time differences, such as the twin-paradox.
In other words, you're talking nonsense as well as waffling.
Please improve the quality of any future responses. As I said to Russ, I aim to cut back on my time responding to garbage.

However, Relativity does not take qualitative measurements into account nor is it dependent on human perception (men or women). In fact, the effect has never been noticeably measured in a human being.

Twin paradox is garbage then? Palease.

Further, the effect has been measured on objects that experienced the effect without any humans present.

Really? Explain to this forum how measurements are gleaned without awareness gleaning them.

The very usage of Special Relativity is inappropriate due to the fact that lifegazer is attempting to apply to an area that is outside it's scope: human perception. As I've stated before, this is much more appropriate for the field of psychology.

This is rubbish. Do people actually think you talk sense?

I simply cannot be bothered responding to any more of your post. It's been... enlightening. Thankyou.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
"Hence, I ask you to contemplate the reality of a situation whereby when you begin to move, the whole universe around you is distorted just for you!!!"

This is rather like asking us to contemplate the act of stepping on the accelerator of our car and the whole car begins to move! :wow2: Or asking us to turn on a light switch and conteplate that light is given off just for us!! :wow2:

I couldn't let this gem go by.
Please explain to this forum how the whole universe of space & time distorting in-tune to ones own motion is akin to the car moving or the light-bulb coming on. Your credibility is crumbling squire.

I appeal to JREF for a truly intelligent adversary. This is just a waste of my time. Surely there must be somebody in this forum I can converse with?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I couldn't let this gem go by.
Please explain to this forum how the whole universe of space & time distorting in-tune to ones own motion is akin to the car moving or the light-bulb coming on. Your credibility is crumbling squire.


You claim there is a distortion when moving at the speed of light because of the relative changes it causes. Upchurch is pointing out that there are a lot of other things you can do that cause "distortion", but none are proof of a mind. Again, the effecs of relativity are not some unaccounted for distortion, they are a neccesity for our universe to be consistent.


I appeal to JREF for a truly intelligent adversary. This is just a waste of my time. Surely there must be somebody in this forum I can converse with?

Stop talking BS. This is coming from someone who didn't even bother to discover that the twin paradox is not a paradox before basing the core of their philosophy on it. Your only definition of trule intelligent adversary is someone who would agree with you.

Everyone in this forum has conversed with you, and Upchurch has drivin every single one of your arguments straight into the ground. You have been beaten like a red headed step child, and don't even realize it, you remind me of the bagdad information minister.

Do you refuse to study special relativity further because you fear you will be brainwashed by the "establishment"? Ditto with other philosphers. All of your claims are based on a poor understanding of reality, bothering to read a book would crumble your perceptions, I do not think you are prepared for this.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
Stop talking BS. This is coming from someone who didn't even bother to discover that the twin paradox is not a paradox before basing the core of their philosophy on it.

Russ, did I not tell you that there is no such thing as a paradox, only ignorance?
I didn't label it a paradox Russ. I base my philosophy upon it because it adequately shows that the parameters of time and space are perceived differently by everyone. My philosophy explains the multitude of perceived realities, in case you didn't notice.

Your only definition of trule intelligent adversary is someone who would agree with you.

Incorrect. Though people often dishonour their intelligence with insincerity, bias, or motive. I strongly suspect that upchurch - who is obviously semi-smart - is a victim of motive and bias.

Everyone in this forum has conversed with you, and Upchurch has drivin every single one of your arguments straight into the ground.

Nonsense. His last post was a complete disgrace.

You have been beaten like a red headed step child, and don't even realize it, you remind me of the bagdad information minister.

Then you remind me of a suicide bomber.

Do you refuse to study special relativity further because you fear you will be brainwashed by the "establishment"?

My claims are founded upon very simple understandings pertaining to relativity. Very simple.

Be gone Russ. Our conversation is fruitless.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Russ, did I not tell you that there is no such thing as a paradox, only ignorance?
I didn't label it a paradox Russ. I base my philosophy upon it because it adequately shows that the parameters of time and space are perceived differently by everyone. My philosophy explains the multitude of perceived realities, in case you didn't notice.


You mean you cannot imagine in your mind a paradoxical situation, with no apparent solution? Such as going back in time and killing your grandfather (if such a thing were possible).

You saw the word paradox in "twin paradox" and though, huh, science must be ignorant. You thought there was another explanation needed, you mind fit it perfectly. What you did not know, is that science was not ignorant, the twin paradox is used to explain relativity, not show that it has holes.


Incorrect. Though people often dishonour their intelligence with insincerity, bias, or motive. I strongly suspect that upchurch - who is obviously semi-smart - is a victim of motive and bias.


What is his motive, what is his bias? I have pointed out before your motive and bias. You refuse to live in a world without mysticsm, or a greater power. Thats bias, thats motive.


Nonsense. His last post was a complete disgrace.


You have no comprehension of the points he is trying to make, nor the desire to comprehend. I think we need to go a step down and use smaller words for you.


Then you remind me of a suicide bomber.


Because I wish to destroy my salvation? What is this salvation of which you speak anyway


My claims are founded upon very simple understandings pertaining to relativity. Very simple.


simple is right. You have a simple understanding of realitivity, enough to make a bad sci-fi movie, but not enough to claim mastery over all thought of all mankind.

Before you go on to your mind argument, you always set forth some universal points about relativity that everyone should agree with. It should be a clue lifegazer, that not a single phyicist agrees with these points. Your view of relativity is incorrect.


Be gone Russ. Our conversation is fruitless.

Be gone, yes, but why? because you can't answer my simple questions? Because I make no sense to you?

I'll ask this one again, since particles in an accelerator experience relativistic effects, do they to have their own universe?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Surely there must be somebody in this forum I can converse with?

We are conversing with you , I have no wish to be adversarial, I have tried to explain how the effects of special relativity can occur without there being a paradox, the space twin cuts a geodesic which happens to traverse less elapsed time but still arrives at the same point in space time. have you tried to read those two posts, or do you just ignore them, you base your argument upon the statement that
'the whole universe is distorted when you accelearte tworads the speedof light'

I think that this is a misunderstanding of relativity. The universe does not distort, that is the difference between Lorentz and Einstien, the point being that the path one takes in space time creates a different perception of the other frames of reference.

Example a largish object described as rectangular: from one side it may appear to be a paralelogram, from another a rectangle, and from another a square, so to when a frame of reference approachs a relative difference approaching the speed of light to another frame of reference, the rectangle looks distorted because of the perspective.
This is a similar effect to what happens when the apparent time dialation and apparent compression occur. The space time continu-um remains the same but the angle of perspective changes. The space twin cuts through a part of the space time continum is such a fashion that they are slowed down only in a relative sense. Thier time does not actualy slow down, they just happen to cut a line through space/time which involves less time elapsed.

Are you reading these posts, I am trying to reach a point of conversation with you, as have many.

Now the one thing that does happen which crosses the frames of reference is the mass effect, as an object approaches the speed of light it's mass increases, which because of gravity , will have a discernable effect on another frame of reference.

Which begs a really cool question, does an object gain mass in a tremendously stong gravitational field?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Please explain to this forum how the whole universe of space & time distorting in-tune to ones own motion is akin to the car moving or the light-bulb coming on.They are all natural processes, byproducts of the interaction of matter/entergy and spacetime. None is inherently more special than the next.
Your credibility is crumbling squire. I wonder how many would agree with you, cap'n.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
You saw the word paradox in "twin paradox" and though, huh, science must be ignorant.

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.

You thought there was another explanation needed, you mind fit it perfectly. What you did not know, is that science was not ignorant, the twin paradox is used to explain relativity, not show that it has holes.

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

I'll ask this one again, since particles in an accelerator experience relativistic effects, do they to have their own universe?
I answered the same dumb questions about atomic clocks, long ago. Keep up.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
They are all natural processes, byproducts of the interaction of matter/entergy and spacetime. None is inherently more special than the next.

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

I wonder how many would agree with you, cap'n.
Sitting comfortably and smugly amongst your skeptical ivory-tower, feeling superior and right merely because the brainless masses are on your side. How feeble.
Go to a Christian chatroom my friend, and see exactly how feeble that answer is when used by individuals there to discount your skepticism.

[The Don]

First of all, I'd like to apologise to everybody for getting involved in this one. I think that it's really confusing when lots of people post to the same thread and start ot pick off little bits of arguments.

Second of all, I'd like to make it clear that I'm no expert w.r.t. relativity. My only qualification is a Physics degree which was obatined with minimum effort 15 years ago. Since I have had relatively (no pun intended) involvement with Physics with the exception of reading a few light books on string theory and the obligatory (these days) Hawkings.

Thirdly, the laws of relativity (in fact any physical laws) are not in themselves fundamental underlying truths, merely sets of equations which have been developed to model what has been observed and to predict what has not. Where a set of equations successfully predict an observable, they are retained. Where they do not, they are modified. These are laws not "laws" (we have no way of geting things to obey the laws - they just happen to follow them).



Now to the meat of the thing. Lifegazer's claims that relativistic effects are caused by a "mind" are self supporting. Lifegazer will insist that relativistic effects have to be "observed". At this point a "mind" will have to become involved and apply the correct relativistic effect.

Now we could all claim that relativistic stuff happens all the time without a "mind" being involved. In order to verify this, an observation of some kind will have to be made and at this point in time the necessary relativistic adjustment will be made.

It is the equivalent of saying that relativistic effects are caused by invisible pink unicorns - impossible to disprove - just not very useful.


Anyhow back to the plot. I would be interested to find out how "minds" can cause relativistic effects to happen in the dim distant past (in stars and galaxies a long long way away whose light is just reaching us now). Does this mean that the "mind" that observes these effects has the ability to project these relativistic efefcts backwards in time, or is it that some other omniscient "mind" (or God) is responsible for putting the relativistic effects in place ?


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?

The universe will be distorted because a non-zero mass is being accelerated.

Is it your assertion that the effects are localised ? If so where do they stop ?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

wafflingYou keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
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.Is there a way one can waffle unevasivly? :rolleyes:

The whole universe will appear to distort, kinda, when you accelerate in a car because the acceleration causes you to switch reference frames from inertial to non-inertial. A very simplified way of looking at it is that a little bit of the time axis of your local spacetime metric becomes a little bit of a space axis and a little bit of the space axis pointing along your direction of travel becomse a little bit of time axis.

Unfortunately, at the speeds and accelerations that a car can achieve relative to the Earth it is sitting on, the effects are negligable, so they haven't been incorporated into our collective "real world" experiences.
Are you implying that the body exerts a force upon the whole external universe, whereby that body's acceleration forces the universe to distort?
The body does exert a force on the whole external universe. Newton came up with that one with his first formulation of gravitational theory way back in the 1700's. However, again, because we are so small compared to the objects around us, our personal effect on each object in the universe is negligable.

Further, the only net effect we have on the entire universe is a very, very tiny amount of gravitational pull, which is usually greatly overshadowed by other forces. I don't know if I'd call that a distortion, per se, but it does have an effect. Acceleration only contributes to that gravitational effect through Relativistic mass increase.
Are you people so dumb that you believe anything upchurch says?
Are you taking stock of his responses to me?!Hey, don't take my word for it. You can read (shock and horror!) about it for yourself. Here are a few links:

A favorite reference of mine (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/)
The best GR book ever (but very technical, which is why it is good) (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0716703440/002-7433628-3920814?v=glance)
Background on Newton's work (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html)
Googled GR (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=General+Relativity)

Or heck, we can ask one of the more active physicists on this board to come over and comment about the factual nature of my posts.
Sitting comfortably and smugly amongst your skeptical ivory-tower, feeling superior and right merely because the brainless masses are on your side. How feeble.I thought this was a cute mixed-metaphore. Sitting in my ivory tower with the masses by my side. That's one big ivory tower! :D
Go to a Christian chatroom my friend, and see exactly how feeble that answer is when used by individuals there to discount your skepticism. I'd like to refer you to this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31743) concerning true believers and those willing to look at all possibilities despite their personal belief. (You do realize that this is more or less a skeptic's board, right?)

[Upchurch]

Hey, I've got a question for you, lifegazer.

If I'm mindlessly repeating the majority opinion, why are you surprised at anything I'm saying? If you are rebelling against the common belief, don't you know what you are rebelling against already? Anything I say should be old hat to you, but you continue to sound shocked and surprised at what I write.

Could it be that you really don't understand what it is that you are rebelling against at all?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Hey, I've got a question for you, lifegazer.

If I'm mindlessly repeating the majority opinion, why are you surprised at anything I'm saying? If you are rebelling against the common belief, don't you know what you are rebelling against already? Anything I say should be old hat to you, but you continue to sound shocked and surprised at what I write.

Could it be that you really don't understand what it is that you are rebelling against at all?
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.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Actually, I just get frustrated with the inability of people to see what I consider to be simple reasoning. And, of course, the universe must comply with your "simple reasoning"? As Don pointed out, invisible unicorns or magic fairies are also a simple explination for relativistic effects. Doesn't mean it's true.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
The whole universe will appear to distort, kinda, when you...

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.

I'd like to refer you to this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31743) concerning true believers and those willing to look at all possibilities despite their personal belief. (You do realize that this is more or less a skeptic's board, right?)
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.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
And, of course, the universe must comply with your "simple reasoning"? As Don pointed out, invisible unicorns or magic fairies are also a simple explination for relativistic effects. Doesn't mean it's true.
This is nonsense. There is no argument of reason linking unicorns to relativity. Let's improve the quality of debate uppy squire.

[Darat]

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.

Please feel free to do so. Could you please answer any of the points Upchurch made with a reasoned counter argument?

[Upchurch]

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. First, the "distortion", as you insist on calling it, happens both at high speeds and low speeds, it is just noticible at high speeds. Second, as I explained, they are both everyday physical phenomena. I've explained this. That you put such high significance on Relativity is due to your unfamiliarity with it both as a concept and and as an experience.
I'm not wasting my time listening to people brag about how open-minded they are. Yeah. Wouldn't want to challenge your own preconceived notions, might mean you'd have to think.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Darat


Please feel free to do so. Could you please answer any of the points Upchurch made with a reasoned counter argument?
Which ones from which posts?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

This is nonsense. There is no argument of reason linking unicorns to relativity. So, there isn't an argument linking some etherial critters (unicorns and pixies) to Relativity but there is an argument linking other etherial critters (God and The Mind) to Relativity.

Fact of the matter is, there is exactly as much evidence showing that The Mind is the cause of Relativity as there is showing that magic pixies are the cause of Relativity. Both can be reasoned out and a consistent, logical rationel can be made for both, but at the end of the day, there is no evidence to support or disprove either.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
First, the "distortion", as you insist on calling it, happens both at high speeds and low speeds, it is just noticible at high speeds.

Yup.

Second, as I explained, they are both everyday physical phenomena. I've explained this.

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.

Wouldn't want to challenge your own preconceived notions, might mean you'd have to think.
Anybody willing to challenge the whole establishment of science, religion and philosophy, has to be truly open-minded. Don't you agree?
As far as I can tell, the only thing you're willing to challenge is religion.
Edit: I guess that makes me the most open-minded person on the planet. Pass me the open-minded award please.

[Wudang]

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.

Well, the problem is that common sense kind of reasoning only applies to the scale of the everyday world. At the scale of the very small (quantum mechanics) and the very large (relativity) then common sense doesn't work that well. When I've been reading books like "In Search of Schrodinger's kittens" I've had to re-read sections several times because they so challenged my preconceptions of "the way things are".

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang


Well, the problem is that common sense kind of reasoning only applies to the scale of the everyday world. At the scale of the very small (quantum mechanics) and the very large (relativity) then common sense doesn't work that well. When I've been reading books like "In Search of Schrodinger's kittens" I've had to re-read sections several times because they so challenged my preconceptions of "the way things are".
Fair point. But you do reason a disservice by assuming she cannot wrestle with either QM or relativity.

[Hexxenhammer]

I'll post this again in case someone missed it in Flame Wars.

[scribble]

Originally posted by lifegazer

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

Your mind is so far open, I'm afraid your brains have fallen out....

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Fair point. But you do reason a disservice by assuming she cannot wrestle with either QM or relativity.

I make no such assumption. She can wrestle with them, but to continue the analogy, she needs to change her stance first. The premises that she starts from need to be the correct ones.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by scribble


Your mind is so far open, I'm afraid your brains have fallen out....
lol
Then more fool you for losing a debate to an empty-headed geyser.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
I'll post this again in case someone missed it in Flame Wars.
Hex, you're such a witch.

[scribble]

Originally posted by lifegazer

lol
Then more fool you for losing a debate to an empty-headed geyser.

English, please.

You'll note I haven't debated with you. Nor will I debate with you. I've read this thread and your others, and I can conclude that it would be an utter waste of time.

The fact that you believe I lost some debate to you at some point is just more evidence of how far detached you are from reality.

I made the comment I did because it was fun for me.

[helps lifegazer collect some of his brains from the floor]

Now look, man - many, many people have already suggested you go out and learn something about what you're debating. Your unwillingness to do so just reinforces my belief that debating with you would be pointless.

Enjoy making a rebuttal. I'm only going to reply for as long as I'm having fun doing it.

[Upchurch]

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.Lordy, boy! Where've ya been? I've only been explaining it on and off for the last 6 pages of this thread and provided three links and a Google search to boot!

Other than teaching you differential geometry, topography, and about three hundred years worth of related historical and modern physics including electromagnetic theory, I don't know what else to do for you. One can only lead a horse to water, one cannot force it to drink.

Did you even look at any of those sources I provided for you?
Anybody willing to challenge the whole establishment of science, religion and philosophy, has to be truly open-minded. Don't you agree?
As far as I can tell, the only thing you're willing to challenge is religion. I spent over four years of my life going over the theoretical derivations and experimental evidence for a fairly good portion of modern physics. (obviously I didn't have access to some of the more expensive experimental equipment.) Part of every scientist's training is to seek out the flaws and assumptions in every theorm. Far from holding any idea sacred, every physicist dreams of being the one that shakes the foundations of modern physics, to be the one who finds the one mistake that everyone else missed and changes everything.

I'm sure as h*** willing to challenge science and there were a few things I flat out disagree with (the Grandfather Paradox among them). The only reason you've only seen me challenge religion is because that is all you've presented.

[scribble]

Upchurch, your last post was brilliantly written. And you have the patience of a saint. Plus your closing sentence was just beautiful.

I give it a 10.5 out of 10. Bravo!

[Upchurch]

Thanks, scibble. You may now join me and all the other mindless masses as we all sit alone together in my (extremely large) skeptical ivory tower.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

(Sorry, I'm not going to stop laughing about that one anytime soon. The imagry is just too funny.)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Lordy, boy! Where've ya been? I've only been explaining it on and off for the last 6 pages of this thread and provided three links and a Google search to boot!

That's the third time you've avoided giving an explanation. And since I only asked the question on the previous page, or perhaps page 4, your sums seem a little vague.

Other than teaching you differential geometry, topography, and about three hundred years worth of related historical and modern physics including electromagnetic theory, I don't know what else to do for you. One can only lead a horse to water, one cannot force it to drink.

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.

Did you even look at any of those sources I provided for you?
I spent over four years of my life going over the theoretical derivations and experimental evidence for a fairly good portion of modern physics. (obviously I didn't have access to some of the more expensive experimental equipment.) Part of every scientist's training is to seek out the flaws and assumptions in every theorm. Far from holding any idea sacred, every physicist dreams of being the one that shakes the foundations of modern physics, to be the one who finds the one mistake that everyone else missed and changes everything.

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?

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?

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.

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

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Thanks, scibble. You may now join me and all the other mindless masses as we all sit alone together in my (extremely large) skeptical ivory tower.

Actually, the sheep should sleep outside. And scribble is a complete baa baa.

[Suezoled]

Well, while I don't think Lifegazer's goal of leading everyone to the one great truth and uniting the world worked the way he wanted, it did make the skeptics on this board unite... against Lifegazer.

And I say scribble can sleep inside. Lies may be warm and comforting, but woolly sheep are the best!

[Upchurch]

Well, looks like everyone was right after all. You've got a pretty good head of steam built up for your messiah complex. So much so that you're pretty impervious to any reason.

I'll keep my answers short and to the point and then I'm done.
Originally posted by lifegazer

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?Yes. The only force that is involved in creating what you call the "distortion" is whatever force is accelerating the body in motion, as defined by F = ma, where F is the force causing the acceleration, m is the mass of the body, and a is the acceleration of the body.

The cause of the "perceived distortion" (i.e. relativistic effects), however, is due the path the body takes through spacetime and the change in it's local spacetime metric due to its motion. For further explination, I refer you to my previous posts and especially the resource links in one of those posts.
Can you prove that relativity applies to things external to awareness?From an immaterialist stance? No, but then nothing can be proven from an immaterialist stance.

From a materialist stace? Yes (http://www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/EvidenceSummary.htm).
Can you show that relativity is not a theory involving the mind as the source of its own perceived universe?Yes. I refer you to On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/) and The Foundation Of The General Theory Of Relativity (http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/gtext3.html). You'll note that in neither of these documents, which are the prime sources for Special and General Relativity, respectively, is the mind listed as the source of its own perceived universe.

edited to add:
For theories that do involve the mind as the source of its own perceived universe, I refer you to this Google (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=mind+perception+psychology).
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?Yes. However, physics is study of the nature of reality and you introduced it to further your own argument. That you used it incorrectly and that I have showed you how you have misused it, do not blame me.
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.As I have said, I cannot prove anything under an immaterialist assumption nor does the Theory of Relativity apply to an immaterialist assumption. Again, refer to the primary sources listed above.