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.

[Kullervo]

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.

[Kullervo]

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.

[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!

[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 completel