Relativity. [Archive] - Physics Forums

ahrkron

Mar29-03, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
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.

As kyleb already said, you just need to add "in vacuum".

Because of this, we declare light-speed to be 'absolute' (universal).

Not "absolute" (or universal), but constant. And we don't "declare" it, we observe that such is the case. It is a result of
a. Our operational definitions of "interval of time" and "interval of space", and
b. Our definition of "speed".

Once we define such things, we do find that light has a constant speed. This has deep implications on our interpretation of (a) and (b).

2) The motion of the observer will affect the actual value of that observer's time and spatial experience.

You need to be careful here.

There is no such a thing as "THE motion of the observer" in relativity. The main content of the theory is precisely that.

Similarly, there in no "actual value" of temporal or spatial intervals. You can talk about the proper time of a particular reference frame though.

If that is what you mean (the proper time), then the last part of the previous sentence is wrong, since the proper time is not affected ever by the motions an observer has wrt any other observer. The "experience of time" of an observer does not depend on her state of motion.

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.

Not the "consistency", since relativity works perfectly, and all measurements are perfectly consistent with each other. What happens is that the measurements are not consistent with the newtonian expectations[I] (which means that nature works as SR, not Galilean Relativity, describes).

Hence, motion alters the value of time and space.

The conclusion is rather: hence, [I]time and space measurements are related to each other in a way we did not understand before relativity.

3) However, even though time & space are altered by motion, the observer will not notice anything different. His experiences will seem 'normal'.

Again, you refer to time and space as if they were absolute. Let me clarify:

"Time and space are altered by motion" conveys the mental image of time and space as existent entities that are the same for all observers. As if the question "in the north pole of Jupiter, how long are seconds right now?" would have the same meaning for all observers.

Instead, what is altered by relative motion is the result of measurements made by different observers; i.e., not "her time" or "his time", but the result of the process we call "time (or space) measurement". This in turn has implications on our interpretation of what such proceses are.

Janus

Mar29-03, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer

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'.

I know that ahrkron has already covered this, but I think it bears repeating as it appears to be a common stumbling block when coming to grips with Relativity.

You cannot speak of the the 'motion of the observer' . To do so makes the tacit assumption of a prefered frame of reference which the observer is moving with respect to. Relativity denies the existance of such a frame.

Therefore, you cannot say that the motion of the observer effects his "value of time and space".

This also makes a tacit assumption that time and space have some universal base value that is altered by motion. Again, this would imply the existance of a prefered frame of reference. (The one in which time and space operated at their "base" values).

This tacit assumption of a prefered frame (in all its forms) is contrary to the rules of Relativity, and must be avoided if you really want to have a discussion on the conclusions of Relativity.

Lifegazer

Mar29-03, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by kyleb
amend to include a prequalifier of "in an absolute vacuum"; but otherwise, yes.

The point is not the numerical value of 'c', which (if I interpret you correctly), is subject to slight variance in itself. The point is that when you observe light traversing through a specific medium, then your measurement of its velocity will be a universal-constant amongst observers, regardless of their own velocity. So, for the practical purposes of this thread, I can say that this point of yours isn't relevant anyway. The variance of 'c' through a specific-medium is not important. What is important, is that all observers will gleam the same value (for light's velocity) from the same observation. So, even light's infered variant-velocity is seen universally... it is 'constant'.
I note what you say as correct. But I would say that it's not relevant to the point I made.

but it 'seems' normal because it is, this is always happening. what would seem weird is if all the sudden you did not have any effect on anything.

The point I really wanted to make is that our opinion/judgement of time & space is entirely subjective. Things seem 'normal' because time & space are subjective-opinions of what 'time' & 'space' are. **Thus, such concepts are only relevant to the individual - in his unique experience. And the only "constancy" within this experience, is the velocity of light itself.**
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.

you seem to be looking to prove a point and building an argument to lead to it. i find that it is generally better to take what arguments one comes across and follow it to see if there is point.
I'm sorry. Unless I approach this thread in this specific manner, it will be locked almost immediately. I don't usually build my arguments like this. But I don't have much choice if I want to get any mileage out of what I say here. That's why I'm taking my time in-saying what I eventually want to say. So; I would appreciate some patience.

If nothing else, this will give a more-revealing method to my conclusions. So, it can't be a bad thing in the context of revealing my sincerity when I post such threads. There is reason in my supposed madness. And maybe a few posters will recognise this. Hopefully.

Another God

Mar29-03, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by Janus
This tacit assumption of a prefered frame (in all its forms) is contrary to the rules of Relativity, and must be avoided if you really want to have a discussion on the conclusions of Relativity. [/B]
This interests me. I wonder whether Relativity actually precludes a prefered frame, or just isn't based on the concept of one?

What I mean by that (and here I just hope I am understanding 'Prefered Frame' in the same way that you mean it), is that you can have relativity exactly as you understand it, without any preferential reference frame at all for all practical purposes etc. BUT, ontop of all that, there may be God. And God contains the preferential reference frame. None but God have acces to this frame, and its status as the prefered frame has no actual bearing on any of the other infinite frames of reference, but it is indeed there, and so is indeed a valid concept.

Does Relativity actually preclude this?

BTW: I think this thread is proceeding very nicely. I hope to see this style more often.

Another God

Mar29-03, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I'm sorry. Unless I approach this thread in this specific manner, it will be locked almost immediately. I don't usually build my arguments like this. But I don't have much choice if I want to get any mileage out of what I say here. That's why I'm taking my time in-saying what I eventually want to say. So; I would appreciate some patience.

If nothing else, this will give a more-revealing method to my conclusions. So, it can't be a bad thing in the context of revealing my sincerity when I post such threads. There is reason in my supposed madness. And maybe a few posters will recognise this. Hopefully. [/B]
While I did just say that I really do actually like this new approach, I don't think it is 100% necessary to approach it this way. Very few of your topics are locked. In fact, the String one just passed in the first one that I have seen it happen on. And in that case, I do think it was warranted to some degree. It really was becoming very silly (already was), and I am sure that Greg has interests in not letting PF3 run into the same problem that PF2 ran into.

kyleb

Mar29-03, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
**Hence the experience of '1 second' and '1 meter', is a constant, for all observers.**

nope, you were right when you said this this:

Originally posted by Lifegazer
The point I really wanted to make is that our opinion/judgement of time & space is entirely subjective.

Lifegazer

Mar29-03, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by ahrkron
As kyleb already said, you just need to add "in vacuum".

Well, I recognise what you mean, but hopefully my previous post will have addressed this. It's not really important.

Not "absolute" (or universal), but constant.

What's the difference?

It is a result of
a. Our operational definitions of "interval of time" and "interval of space",

But these are formulated via experience. It is only because of the fact that the lesser-aged twin, for example, has experienced such comparative-youth to his brother, and in accordance with his own understanding of 'normality' ('normality' is a label which actually implies an underlying-unity of experience), that he can actually verify that the Lorentz-transformations are correct. I.e., if one twin experiences time & space differently to the other, but the analysis of this difference is dependent upon a universal-understanding of the experience of time & space (i.e., '1 second' is applied to all observers in a manner which is understood as ~universal-experience~); then it can be seen that though our understanding of time & space is subjective, it is still universally-consistent amongst all observers.
In this respect, the value of '1 second' and '1 meter' (as an experience) is universal - absolute. Agreed? I hope so, because it's going to be important to my argument.

and
b. Our definition of "speed".

meters... per... second. And since it is demonstrateably-possible to show that experience of time and space is universal; then our definition of speed is as reliant as our universal-experience of '1 second' and '1 meter'. It's an absolute-concept (universal) - as is the experience of time and space.
We can argue that the 'value' of space & time is subject to relative-fluctuation amongst observers. **What must be recognised, is that there is an absolute-understanding of what time and space are, amongst all observers, in relation to their experiences.**
- Even the mathematics of Relativity are dependent upon this! To share the same math, and make relative-comparisons between observers, each observer must have an absolute experience of '1 second', and '1 meter'.

Once we define such things, we do find that light has a constant speed.

The definition proceeds the experience. And as I hope I have showed: the experience is assumed to be absolute (by the mathematics of the theory), in relation to all observers. The mathematics mirror the experience. '1 second' and '1 meter' are understood as measures of experience by all observers.

There is no such a thing as "THE motion of the observer" in relativity. The main content of the theory is precisely that.

Does the observer actually move, or do the perceptions upon his awareness change? That's a question I soon want to address. But either the observer has motion in relation to everything else, or everything else has motion in relation to him. And if you are infering the latter (with your statement), then you have saved me a lengthy argument: that 'things' are moving amongst his mind.

The conclusion is rather: hence, time and space measurements are related to each other in a way we did not understand before relativity.

That seems like a conclusion which avoids making a conclusion. Obviously, 'Relativity' changes our opinion about the universe/existence. The question is: How?

Lifegazer

Mar29-03, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by kyleb
Lg:-"**Hence the experience of '1 second' and '1 meter', is a constant, for all observers.**"

- nope, you were right when you said this this: "The point I really wanted to make is that our opinion/judgement of time & space is entirely subjective."

Why do you infer that the two statements are not related, and therefore, that one of them is incorrect? The experience of '1 meter' and of '1 second' must be absolute amongst all observers, or else in what sense do the mathematics of the Lorentz-transformations make sense?

Another God

Mar29-03, 09:09 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lifegazer
It makes sense to me that there must be some sort of objective standard for time. Else we would have no grounds for our subjective interpretation of it.

kyleb

Mar30-03, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Why do you infer that the two statements are not related, and therefore, that one of them is incorrect? The experience of '1 meter' and of '1 second' must be absolute amongst all observers, or else in what sense do the mathematics of the Lorentz-transformations make sense?

i am saying that they are related, in that they describe human experience. however, they are contradictory as well; hence, only one is correct. the meter and the second are absolute as ideals, but in practice they are relative to the experience.

(Q)

Mar30-03, 11:02 AM

Another God

It makes sense to me that there must be some sort of objective standard for time. Else we would have no grounds for our subjective interpretation of it.

I like to use an analogy of the two planets that orbit near one another – each with an alien species. Planet A is rather small and not very dense therefore its gravity is very weak. Planet B is much larger and denser and has a strong gravity.

Gravitational fields have an effect on clocks – they tick slower in strong gravitational fields. Its thought that time would stop in a black hole.

The inhabitants of Planet A view their clocks ticking at what they perceive a normal rate – the same goes for Planet B. According to each alien species, their own clocks tick at normal rates.

But because they orbit their sun very close to one another, they are quite able to view each other’s clocks through powerful telescopes. Planet A, with the weak gravity, will view Planet B’s clock as ticking very slowly while Planet B, with the strong gravity, will view Planet A’s clock as ticking fast.

So, the question is, “Whose clock shows the standard time?”

Lifegazer

Mar30-03, 11:07 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kyleb
i am saying that they are related, in that they describe human experience. however, they are contradictory as well; hence, only one is correct. the meter and the second are absolute as ideals, but in practice they are relative to the experience.[QUOTE]
When I talk about the experience of seconds and meters to be absolute/universal, I do so in the sense that the feeling of time & space never seems to change for each and every individual.
As such, the feeling for '1 second' and '1 meter', is a constant amongst all observers.

Lifegazer

Mar30-03, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Janus
Therefore, you cannot say that the motion of the observer effects his "value of time and space".

But if the motion of the observer is not the cause of such fluxing-values of space & time, then what is?

This also makes a tacit assumption that time and space have some universal base value that is altered by motion. Again, this would imply the existance of a prefered frame of reference. (The one in which time and space operated at their "base" values).

This tacit assumption of a prefered frame (in all its forms) is contrary to the rules of Relativity, and must be avoided if you really want to have a discussion on the conclusions of Relativity. [/B]
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'?

Iacchus32

Mar30-03, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
When I talk about the experience of seconds and meters to be absolute/universal, I do so in the sense that the feeling of time & space never seems to change for each and every individual.
Just by virtue of the fact that we exist, says there must be a standard, whether we all interpret it in the same way or not.

Just like the sun is the one standard in our solar system which makes life possible. Everything evolves towards the acknowledgment of (worship?) the sun.

Iacchus32

Mar30-03, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
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'?
Wouldn't that be something comparable to thrust applied against mass applied against time? Or would mass get canceled out because of zero gravity? Hey don't look at me I'm not a physicist?

kyleb

Mar30-03, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
When I talk about the experience of seconds and meters to be absolute/universal, I do so in the sense that the feeling of time & space never seems to change for each and every individual.
As such, the feeling for '1 second' and '1 meter', is a constant amongst all observers.

not at all, ask two people how long a given car looks to them and you will most likly get two different answers, or ask them to tell you when 30 minutes has passed, or whatever.

Originally posted by Lifegazer
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.

well sure, relitive to whatever you ar refernceing.

Originally posted by Lifegazer
But if the motion of the observer is not the cause of such fluxing-values of space & time, then what is?

beter yet, what isn't? [;)]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
but unless this is true, what price our mathematics of motion/relativity? What price 'motion'?

what do you mean by price?

drag

Mar30-03, 02:52 PM

Greetings !

LG, this is turning into a physics debate...[:D]
I thougt you had an argument for us, I understand
that you're apprehensive because you don't
want the thread to be locked, but couldn't
you pick up the pace just a bit...[;)]

Anyway, the two basic assumptions of SR are:
1. The laws of nature (including the speed of
light) are the same in any reference frame.
2. The speed of light in any reference frame
is c.

The result of connecting these two laws is SR.
The genius of Einstein was that he "went with
the flow" and connected the two, unlike others.

Now, what's your point, if I may ask ? [t)]

Live long and prosper.

Lifegazer

Mar30-03, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by drag
LG, this is turning into a physics debate...[:D]

I'm glad you pointed that out drag. But it seems that some people had a few problems with those 3 premises I mentioned. Although you yourself seemed to accept them.
What I shall do now, is present those premises again and qualify each one in regards to the discussion so far. Shortly, baring official condemnation, I'll then proceed to the crunch and get to the point of my argument. So...

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).
Everyone seemed happy with this as it is, except to also mention "in a vacuum". I explained that this wasn't relevant to the point I was making. Light's own velocity might be slightly variable, but we all see the same variance. Light's particular velocity through a specific medium, is a constant (as observed by everyone).
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.
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.
Thus, not only are the concepts of space & time 'subjective', they are dependent upon the observer experiencing nothing 'strange' as he accelerates through spacetime: everything is 'normal', so to speak. The 'second' feels like a second, and a 'meter' looks like a meter should look: Experience, is a constant - nothing ever seems to change, but it does, as we accelerate or decelerate through space, in relation to the not-yet-defined references for these supposed velocities of motion.
3) However, even though time & space are altered by motion, the observer will not notice anything different. His experiences will seem 'normal'.
Hopefully, the previous paragraph qualifies this statement. And indeed, the mathematics are dependent upon the experience of '1 second' and '1 meter' being experientially-constant. If the actual subjective-experience of '1 second' and '1 meter' was not consistent amongst all observers, then none of the mathematics of relativity would apply - for you cannot have equations which apply to all observers' understanding of time and space, unless that time & space has a logical consistency amongst all observers, at all times. Therefore, the experience of (or, the feel for) '1 meter' and '1 second', is universally constant amongst all observers (needs to be, so that one set of equations can apply to all observers' relatively-differing experiences of those parameters). If 'experience' of a set-parameter [space or time] was not universal, then any mathematics refering to space and time would be meaningless.
That's a point I should emphasise: The mathematics of relativity are dependent upon the universal scale of measurement (the meter and the second) being an experiential-constant, throughout all the relative mathematics. My point is valid: The experience of space and time is a constant, and needs to be for the mathematics to have a universal meaning.

I thougt you had an argument for us, I understand
that you're apprehensive because you don't
want the thread to be locked, but couldn't
you pick up the pace just a bit...[;)]

Okay. I'll wait a short-while for the official nod to stop or go.

drag

Mar31-03, 03:02 PM

Greetings Lifegazer !

Well, I suppose I could try and correct some
of that but it's too vague for me to put a
finger on it. I suggest that you continue, I
don't think anyone's gon'na lock your thread
until you refuse to stand corrected when
a correction is made, so I'm sure you have
nothing to worry about so far. Please, do
continue...

Live long and prosper.

Lifegazer

Mar31-03, 03:55 PM

Okay; given a recent discussion of the basic premises I'd like to use, and a lengthy explanation of why this argument affects only 'materialism', I'll proceed...

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.

Edited for color-highlight, for easy reference.

(Q)

Mar31-03, 04:10 PM

Lifegazer

Thus, “Everything is within the Mind”. And everything is caused to act, by that Mind… 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… 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.

So, you eventually came right back to your pet theory, as you stated you wouldn’t, but as everyone expected you to do.

Congratulations!

Another God

Mar31-03, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by (Q)

So, you eventually came right back to your pet theory, as you stated you wouldn’t, but as everyone expected you to do.

Congratulations! [/B]
LOL Q...no, that was his aim from the begining. He is presenting an argument for his theory. This is philosophy, he is allowed to do that. Try to think it through a little, and then criticise it. Don't argue against it from some sort of psuedo authority position.

Lifegazer

Mar31-03, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by Another God
LOL Q...no, that was his aim from the begining.
Yeah; wake-up Q. And think about what I've said.

(Q)

Mar31-03, 06:57 PM

He is presenting an argument for his theory… This is philosophy, he is allowed to do that.

Please, don’t insult my intelligence - what he’s bleating is pseudo-babble, not philosophy.

yeah; wake-up Q. And think about what I've said.

*yawn*

It is important to be aware of the pitholes and to avoid using words in the form of a priori names and constructs. Every word we use should be a name for something that has actually been discovered in reality. In philosophy and mathematics it is necessary in many cases to consider constructs, but one should be aware that these constructs may (or may not) have little to do with reality. It is important when dealing with constructs that you do not define away a thing, which has actually been observed.
Defining things away is not to explain them. Fredrik Bendz

Another God

Mar31-03, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by (Q)

Please, don’t insult my intelligence - what he’s bleating is pseudo-babble, not philosophy.
I wasn't insulting your intelligence. You are insulting your intelligence by locking it up in a box telling it that everything will be OK if we just ignore all the bad men outside.

Instead of hiding behind a facade of big words and holier than thou expressions, come down to our lowly level, and explicitly explain why LG is wrong.

Perhaps it is all crap (I'm completely ignorant either way, so I'm not going to try to say), but how will LG ever know it unles someone explains to him why its crap?

You are either participating (and using your intelligence as it was intended) or you are wasting your own, and everyone elses time.

Lifegazer

Mar31-03, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by (Q)
He is presenting an argument for his theory… This is philosophy, he is allowed to do that.

Please, don’t insult my intelligence - what he’s bleating is pseudo-babble, not philosophy.

I have formulated a reasoned argument. If you wish to denounce it, then you should do so with reason, also. Not standard, yet unqualified, derogatory remarks.

yeah; wake-up Q. And think about what I've said.

*yawn*
Your attitude stinks Q. But like I said, I am at war with materialism. You have nothing to offer but anger: that I should even attempt to formulate such an outrageous conclusion which attacks your beliefs about 'reality', is reason-enough for you to let loose with the old derogatory cannon. But it looks dumb in a philosophy forum. Wake-up Q.

Lifegazer

Mar31-03, 07:18 PM

Presented by Q:-

quote:
"It is important to be aware of the pitholes and to avoid using words in the form of a priori names and constructs. Every word we use should be a name for something that has actually been discovered in reality. In philosophy and mathematics it is necessary in many cases to consider constructs, but one should be aware that these constructs may (or may not) have little to do with reality. It is important when dealing with constructs that you do not define away a thing, which has actually been observed.
Defining things away is not to explain them." Fredrik Bendz

I'd be more impressed if you supplied your own answers. And I'm not easily impressed by quotes - especially when those quotes are by some obscure personality.
The point I believe you wanted to make for yourself, from these words, is that the human definition of things is questionable. Does this mean that you are stating that Einstein's Laws of Relativity are questionable?
You're going to have to do better than this if you really want to make a fool out of me.

(Q)

Mar31-03, 07:36 PM

Perhaps it is all crap (I'm completely ignorant either way, so I'm not going to try to say), but how will LG ever know it unles someone explains to him why its crap?

It has been explained to him – ad nauseum. He simply refuses to listen.

I have formulated a reasoned argument.

I’ve had yet to see you form a reasonable argument. They are riddled with fallacies, which I’ve pointed out already on other threads, as have so many other members here.

But like I said, I am at war with materialism.

I see, and that justifies your nonsense.

You have nothing to offer but anger

I call it rationale.

that I should even attempt to formulate such an outrageous conclusion which attacks your beliefs about 'reality'

You can come and join reality whenever you want – it will always be here waiting for you.

Your attitude stinks Q.

That’s too bad. I get offended when kooks like you try to redefine science with pseudo-babble – hence my quote above.

The point I believe you wanted to make for yourself, from these words, is that the human definition of things is questionable.

No, your definition of things is highly questionable and above reproach.

You're going to have to do better than this if you really want to make a fool out of me.

No need, you’re quite adept at that.

Another God

Mar31-03, 07:45 PM

What has happened before isn't relevent to what is happening now. If you feel exasperated, and couldn't be bothered dealing with LG any more, then don't. Nothing warrants the condescension you have exibitted.
Just stay out of it.

kyleb

Mar31-03, 10:17 PM

Fredrik Bendz makes a good point Lifegazer, despite wether he meets your criteria for quotable or not. your ‘realities’ have already been defined as perceptions, renaming the latter to the former does nothing but confuse your argument.

drag

Mar31-03, 11:59 PM

Greetings !

LG, you're using a physical theory as an
argument, however, you present no direct
link or evidence whatsoever. I can do
the same to any other physical theory.

Indeed, the only argument of any potential
merit(from you standpoint) I possibly saw there,
and I don't know if you meant it, was that
reality is apparently very complex - that is,
the complexity is higher for such an
interpretation WITH relativity than if it
hasn't existed at all, which could be a sign
for some underlying reason for that complexity.

However, even that argument is completely false.
Because, if we did not have relativity we
would have to have such unreasonable things
as infinite light speed or physical laws only
working in a certain absolute reference frame.
Thus, the reality would be a lot more complex
than the 2 basic assumptions of relativity that
I presented above. And, no forced complexity is
observed really.
Originally posted by (Q)
So, you eventually came right back to your pet theory, as you stated you wouldn’t, but as everyone expected you to do.

Congratulations!
[;)]

Live long and prosper.

CJames

Apr1-03, 02:03 AM

What the? Where did all the debating go? Where's Tom, I wanna see Tom...

Uh...

Nobody seems to get your post LG. That's too bad. This is perhaps the best topic you've ever started. Not because I agree with you, as you are probably aware, but because so far you have been accepting of criticism and other people's arguments. I hope you can keep it up, I enjoy it very much.

That said...

First, what is c? We need to clear that up now. C does not fluctuate, that is a semantic error being made quite often. The speed of light, actually, does change, when it passes through material. This, however, as you said, is irrelevant to your argument. C, the maximum speed of light in any given reference frame, NEVER changes within reference frame.

What does effect your argument, however, is this:

The conclusion of this seems obvious to me: When an observer accelerates through space & time, he tangibly affects the space & time he can observe.

For what reason is this obvious? The reason space and time are altered need not have anything to do with the mind of the observer. For simplicity, a clock can be sent with no observer, and it will come back having recorded less time than the earthbound clock. But that's not really the point. The reason the speed of light is constant from all reference frames is simple. The speed of light is a speed derived from mathematical equations as an actual law of physics. The basic principle of science is that the laws of physics always remain the same. It follows quite simply that the speed of light, or more appropriately "c", never changes.

Thanks for this clear presentation of one of the basis of your hypothesis, something I havent seen before. I hope you can continue to present your arguments in this manner. Thank you. --Carter

Lifegazer

Apr1-03, 04:35 AM

Originally posted by kyleb
Fredrik Bendz makes a good point Lifegazer, despite wether he meets your criteria for quotable or not. your ‘realities’ have already been defined as perceptions, renaming the latter to the former does nothing but confuse your argument.
What's this? It's the last resort of some pretty desperate materialists, if you ask me.
My argument uses some pretty basic facts about Relativity. Scientific facts about our perceived universe. It then proceeds to show that the observer:perceived relationship is one which emanates from, happens within, and is created by, the observer/mind.
Now; can we stop this evasive nonsense and deal with my argument directly please?

Lifegazer

Apr1-03, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by drag
LG, you're using a physical theory as an
argument, however, you present no direct
link or evidence whatsoever. I can do
the same to any other physical theory.

Have a word with yourself drag. Einstein's Laws of Relativity are my evidence. My argument derives from them. My conclusion is built upon them.
What evidence was you looking for? Evidence that a Mind exists? Well, I was presuming that everybody here had one. Direct personal evidence.

And I'm not interested, here, in universal-complexity. Don't change the subject to your own agenda. I'm disappointed with you drag. You pestered me for my argument, and then you ignored it.

Lifegazer

Apr1-03, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by CJames
What the? Where did all the debating go? Where's Tom, I wanna see Tom...

Yes. I'd like to hear an establishment response, too.

Nobody seems to get your post LG. That's too bad. This is perhaps the best topic you've ever started. Not because I agree with you, as you are probably aware, but because so far you have been accepting of criticism and other people's arguments. I hope you can keep it up, I enjoy it very much.

Thanks. A mature response. However, if you don't agree with my argument, then I'd like you to go through that argument with a fine-toothed-comb and tell me why it's wrong. That applies to everybody.

The reason space and time are altered need not have anything to do with the mind of the observer.

Each observer sees space-time in accordance with his own supposed motion, through that space-time. The observer's own motion must affect the space-time he perceives, or else there would be no relative-differences between the twins, for example. Clearly, each twin has experienced space-time differently. And the cause for this difference is easily linked to the observer's own motion.
Each observer lives in a variant reality, where people tangibly-age differently, and where the universe he perceives is affected to move in accordance with the distortion of space-time which his motion has effected.

For simplicity, a clock can be sent with no observer, and it will come back having recorded less time than the earthbound clock.

And? The point proves nothing - except that everything is subject to Einstein's Laws.

The reason the speed of light is constant from all reference frames is simple. The speed of light is a speed derived from mathematical equations as an actual law of physics.

That isn't an explanation as to why 'c' is a constant. That's an explanation as to how we know it is. Physics and math are not a cause. They are a narrative.

The basic principle of science is that the laws of physics always remain the same. It follows quite simply that the speed of light, or more appropriately "c", never changes.

You have not given any reason as to why all observers see a constant lightspeed. You have merely stated that they do.
My explanation is simple: The observer's motion distorts the space-time around him. Light travelling towards the observer from any direction is affected to move in relation to the space-time which the observer has effected. Thus, even though his spacetime has been affected by his own motion, the light moving towards him is also affected to move in accordance with that space-time, so that the observer still measures 'c' for that light.

(Q)

Apr1-03, 11:03 AM

This statement…

Each observer sees space-time in accordance with his own supposed motion, through that space-time. The observer's own motion must affect the space-time he perceives, or else there would be no relative-differences between the twins, for example. Clearly, each twin has experienced space-time differently. And the cause for this difference is easily linked to the observer's own motion.
Each observer lives in a variant reality, where people tangibly-age differently, and where the universe he perceives is affected to move in accordance with the distortion of space-time which his motion has effected.

…contradicts this statement:

The observer's motion distorts the space-time around him. Light travelling towards the observer from any direction is affected to move in relation to the space-time which the observer has effected.

How can your mind theory support distorting spacetime, thus changing each observer’s reality and everything else, yet have no effect on light? Can you see a major flaw here?

Lifegazer

Apr1-03, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by (Q)
How can your mind theory support distorting spacetime, thus changing each observer’s reality and everything else, yet have no effect on light? Can you see a major flaw here?
Thanks for thinking about it.
No I don't see a flaw. If you read what I said to CJames, you'll see that I say that light is affected: "The observer's motion distorts the space-time around him. Light travelling towards the observer from any direction is affected to move in relation to the space-time which the observer has effected. Thus, even though his spacetime has been affected by his own motion, the light moving towards him is also affected to move in accordance with that space-time, so that the observer still measures 'c' for that light."

(Q)

Apr1-03, 12:31 PM

If the observer is at rest relative to his lab for example, he will measure the speed of light at c. That same observer moving at substantial fractions of c relative to his lab will also measure light at c. In fact, the observer will measure light at c regardless of his motion. Light is therefore unaffected by the observers motion.

You cannot claim that light will be affected when it is clearly not affected by the observers’ motion. If the observers’ motion affects the spacetime around him, it WILL affect everything, including light.

Njorl

Apr1-03, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
[color=royal blue]Okay; given a recent discussion of the basic premises I'd like to use, and a lengthy explanation of why this argument affects [B]only 'materialism', I'll proceed...

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.
So far, you could have said all this without relativity. If one twin went to New York and came back, he could have memories of a Broadway play. You've said nothing significant.
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’.

We all have different perceptions of the same reality. We know it is the same reality because we can make accurate predictions of another observer's perceptions based upon our own. If they were seperate realities, this would not be possible.

The rest seems to be predicated on this illogical conclusion, and so is unsupported.

Njorl

CJames

Apr1-03, 01:31 PM

LG,

If the observer is at rest relative to his lab for example, he will measure the speed of light at c. That same observer moving at substantial fractions of c relative to his lab will also measure light at c. In fact, the observer will measure light at c regardless of his motion. Light is therefore unaffected by the observers motion.(Q) is right about this, but from what I've read it seems like you understand this part.

Each observer lives in a variant reality, where people tangibly-age differently, and where the universe he perceives is affected to move in accordance with the distortion of space-time which his motion has effected.This is mostly true, except in wording, since the observer is always at rest within his/her reference frame. (Therefore, each observer's perceptions aren't affected by "motion" but by the relative motion of other observers, clocks, and rulers.) However, I don't see how this proves the observer is the source of this perception.

And? The point proves nothing - except that everything is subject to Einstein's Laws. Yes, everything is subject to relativity, not just observers. Your argument seems to claim that each observer defines how his space time is in his own mind and somehow makes that a reality. But a clock doesn't need a mind to do the same thing.

That isn't an explanation as to why 'c' is a constant. That's an explanation as to how we know it is. Physics and math are not a cause. They are a narrative.Electromagnetic waves are the result of Maxwell's equations, a description of how fluctuations in the electromagnetic field could create a wave, which turned out to be light. The speed of light must be a certain speed based entirely on math, which is logic. No, it does not give an absolute answer to why c is c. However, you have not given a clear explanation as to why exactly this speed must originate within the mind.

So I ask again, for what reason is this conclusion obvious:

The conclusion of this seems obvious to me: When an observer accelerates through space & time, he tangibly affects the space & time he can observe.

Why does he need to affect space and time, rather than space and time affect him?
[?]

kyleb

Apr1-03, 02:09 PM

ok, you brought this to the level of insults, not me. but i suppose ok, you brought this to the level of insults, not me. but i suppose i should partake in the mentality sense this is your thread and you obviously want to take things in that direction.

Originally posted by Lifegazer
What's this? It's the last resort of some pretty desperate materialists, if you ask me.

it is not a last resort by any means, rather the most fitting response to the last resort of pretty desperate egocentrism.

Originally posted by Lifegazer
My argument uses some pretty basic facts about Relativity. Scientific facts about our perceived universe.

well sure, but i think you might be better of basing it on more tangible things like the great Pyramid at Giza and the Bible. i am sure you could come up with quite an exaggerate argument based on those facts as well. here is a good example another argument based on such facts if you want some direction:

http://www.gizapyramid.com/

Originally posted by Lifegazer
It then proceeds to show that the observer:perceived relationship is one which emanates from, happens within, and is created by, the observer/mind.

sure, i got that. you think just because people perceive reality differently, that means that each persons creates their own reality. but your argument does not show that at all, it simply declares it. however, assuming you are right; why are you bothering to argue your point with creations of your own mind anyway?

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Now; can we stop this evasive nonsense and deal with my argument directly please?

that would be rather tricky seeing as how your argument is based on evasive nonsense.

Lifegazer

Apr1-03, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by (Q)
You cannot claim that light will be affected when it is clearly not affected by the observers’ motion. If the observers’ motion affects the spacetime around him, it WILL affect everything, including light.
Twin-1 measures the velocity of light. He sees it moving through
'x' meters/second. Twin-2 gets the same result: 'x' m/s.
You seem to be telling me that these two values are identical. Yet the meter and the second have a different value for all individuals. So, if twin-1 sees light at x m/s, then twin-2 has really seen light moving at x varied-meter/varied-second. Thus, now we see that they aren't really the same thing.
The problem is caused by failing to remember the qualitative differences between space & time, for all observers.
If you distort your own perception of space & time, then you also distort your perception of motion (qualitatively).
You must look beyond 'x', in other words, to recognise the qualitative-difference.

kyleb

Apr1-03, 02:21 PM

that is like saying that if:

x = 2 = 4/2

and:

x = 2 = 2/1

then the value of x is different for each example.

that doesn't wash.

Lifegazer

Apr1-03, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Njorl
We all have different perceptions of the same reality.

Ultimately, I agreed: "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."
We know it is the same reality because we can make accurate predictions of another observer's perceptions based upon our own. If they were seperate realities, this would not be possible.

I know this. That's why I was able to make the single-Mind connection, logically.

The rest seems to be predicated on this illogical conclusion, and so is unsupported.

You do need to address my main argument. You cannot discredit my argument for a 'complaint' which actually supports the conclusion I have made.

Of course, you were implying that we all shared a singular physical-reality, but had diverse perceptions of what that reality was.
So what is reality - even for this physical context - if none of us are actually seeing it the same (absolutely)? How can Einstein's Law's of Relativity apply to Reality, when the very-mathematics of that theory cannot yield a universal-sum (a universal perception) for what that reality is like?
You imply that we all share the same universe/existence. I agree. But the Laws of physics are relative-laws... not absolute-laws. I can categorically state that Einstein's Laws of Relativity do not apply to the singular/[B]absolute[/I] reality which connects us all. They are relative laws.
So, let's discuss that reality you were talking about, if you want. Of course, there is no longer a need to talk in relative terms. Indeed, we must speak in absolute terms now. Whole terms. Singular terms. So finally, we can discuss the realm of the absolute, where no finite and relative consideration is necessary.
Gimme the word, and I'll talk your socks off. [;)]

Njorl

Apr1-03, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
[B]Ultimately, I agreed: "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."
...
I know this. That's why I was able to make the single-Mind connection, logically.

I see.

So you are saying that because you are wrong, you are right. That is a very efficient stance for you to take. It ensures that you can always be right, and I can always ignore you.

I see why people have dismissed you out of hand. You do not have the wherewithal for logical, reasoned, argument. I, and others have pointed out flaws in your logic - obvious ones. You write a few sentences in response that do not, even slightly, contradict the criticism, and consider your critic answered. How could anyone conceivably argue with you?

Njorl

Lifegazer

Apr1-03, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by kyleb
ok, you brought this to the level of insults, not me.

Okay, I apologise. I was angry about the initial responses. I thought they were unfair, unjustified, and evasive - especially Q's. So my tone was one of frustration. Not an excuse really. But a reason.

well sure, but i think you might be better of basing it on more tangible things like the great Pyramid at Giza and the Bible. i am sure you could come up with quite an exaggerate argument based on those facts as well. here is a good example another argument based on such facts if you want some direction

However, to me; this just sounds like another unfair and evasive statement, which neither addresses the issues of my argument, nor takes my argument seriously.

sure, i got that. you think just because people perceive reality differently, that means that each persons creates their own reality. but your argument does not show that at all, it simply declares it.

My argument was clear around this issue: Each observer is experiencing a unique universe of space & time (and the energy in it). When the twins meet again, on Earth, the one who stayed on Earth discovers that he has actually/physically aged 20/30 years older than his brother. These age-distortions are more than mathematics. The space-twin has left Earth; come back; and in that very-space of time has somehow managed to see the universe age 20/30 years less than his brother (in comparison). What this means, of course, is that the actual physical-reality encountered by the space-twin (his universe) has somehow moved several times slower than that encountered by his Earth-bound brother. Of course, this means that one or both of them are mistaken: you can't have a singular-reality being two things at once - except in the mind.
Hence, each perspective of 'reality' is a mind-ful perspective... unique to each individual.

Lifegazer

Apr1-03, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by Njorl
So you are saying that because you are wrong, you are right. That is a very efficient stance for you to take. It ensures that you can always be right, and I can always ignore you.

There's been a misunderstanding here, that's all. No need for the lawyer-type tone.
You'll have to explain to me again why I am wrong. Which part of what I said to you was wrong?
You mentioned singular-realities (not 'many' realities) and many perceptions of it. But that's exactly what I've concluded myself. So why am I wrong?

I see why people have dismissed you out of hand.

Hey - I'm talking - you're scratching. I can only respond to you if you make your arguments clear. Obviously, this isn't the case here. So please explain again, why I am wrong.

You do not have the wherewithal for logical, reasoned, argument.

That all depends upon the 'withals' you need for any specific argument. Which withals would I need before I could actually make this argument? A BSc. in physics, no doubt.
Come on Njorl. I deserve better than this.

I, and others have pointed out flaws in your logic - obvious ones.

Not in this thread you haven't. In fact, there's been a strange silence from the establishment.

You write a few sentences in response that do not, even slightly, contradict the criticism, and consider your critic answered. How could anyone conceivably argue with you?

Again, I apologise for the misunderstanding. I just don't comprehend your meaning, or your anger here.

Lifegazer

Apr1-03, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by kyleb
that is like saying that if:

x = 2 = 4/2

and:

x = 2 = 2/1

then the value of x is different for each example.

that doesn't wash.
'x' is the constant, remember. It is the parameters of existence (length & time), which are subject to distortion/flux.
It's got nothing to do with 4/2 = 2/1. What I'm saying, is that because the second and the meter mean something different (it's all relative) to all observers, then values such as 1m; 1s; and 1 m/s, all mean something unique to each observer. And that's the very-source of the age-difference for the twins - the fact that we're all seeing different perspectives of singular values - constant values (such as 1m, 1s, 1m/s... ).
Let me state it like this: Nobody's 'meter' is exactly like your own.
And nobody's 'second' is exactly like your own. It's all relative.
So, a velocity of x m/s should actually have qualifying-brackets at their side (like x (kyleb's)meter/(kyleb's)second), to let the reader know that the only commonality we share in "x m/s", is the 'x' itself. In personal terms, the "m/s" are mine alone, as I experience them.
Now, 'velocity' is a derivative of distance/time. So clearly, all velocities are implicated here, as a unique experience, where the only commonality between us is the 'x' that precedes those parameters of distance/time. In other words, 'c' is a value which we only share numerically (the x). The m/s, after the 'x', means something unique to all observers. Conclusion: all people have different ~experiences~ of 'c'.

Lifegazer

Apr1-03, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by CJames
(Therefore, each observer's perceptions aren't affected by "motion" but by the relative motion of other observers, clocks, and rulers.)

It is "by the relative motion of other observers, clocks, and rulers.", that an observer is able to discern of his own experiences. But these relative-experiences are first affected/caused by how the observer is moving. If he moves differently (if he gets in his rocket and zooms off), then his actions shall affect his future experiences, compared with others.

However, I don't see how this proves the observer is the source of this perception.

If we're all seeing different perspectives of a singular reality, then the mind must be responsible for creating those perspectives. Reality speaks of itself but once. There is only one true perspective of reality; because there is only one reality. Any diverse opinion of what reality is like, cannot be blamed upon reality itself. It must be blamed upon the observer that is 'looking' at her. It must be blamed upon minds which seem to see reality differently.
One reality. Many perspectives. = Those perspectives are the mind's work.

Yes, everything is subject to relativity, not just observers. Your argument seems to claim that each observer defines how his space time is in his own mind and somehow makes that a reality. But a clock doesn't need a mind to do the same thing.

The clock moves/acts in somebody's perspective. Any 'body' which acts within the perspective of an observer, must obviously move/act in accordance with Einstein's Laws of Relativity - as seen from the perspective of the observer (of that body). The results of the clock-experiment were expected to be ~observed~.

Why does he need to affect space and time, rather than space and time affect him?

If I had a rocket, I'd show you. Our acceleration would change our experiences... would change our space & time. Our actions would mould it to reflect our actions.

Tom Mattson

Apr1-03, 07:19 PM

On LG’s argument:
There is a lot of fine-tuning that I would do to his interpretation on relativity, but I am going to stick to the few issues that most show the weaknesses in this argument.

On speed…

meters... per... second. And since it is demonstrateably-possible to show that experience of time and space is universal; then our definition of speed is as reliant as our universal-experience of '1 second' and '1 meter'. It's an absolute-concept (universal) - as is the experience of time and space.

First, what do you mean when you say that time and space are “experienced”? Time and space are not observable, apart from objects moving within space. Second, what does it mean for speed to be “as reliant as our universal-experience of ‘1 second’ and ‘1 meter’”? I ask these questions because I think they are the key to the mistake in your last sentence. It is not true that speed is as absolute as the experience of space and time.

We can argue that the 'value' of space & time is subject to relative-fluctuation amongst observers. **What must be recognised, is that there is an absolute-understanding of what time and space are, amongst all observers, in relation to their experiences.**
- Even the mathematics of Relativity are dependent upon this! To share the same math, and make relative-comparisons between observers, each observer must have an absolute experience of '1 second', and '1 meter'.

What is “the ‘value’ of space & time”? You say that SR depends on it, but to me it has no discernable meaning.

Ahrkron: There is no such a thing as "THE motion of the observer" in relativity. The main content of the theory is precisely that.

LG: Does the observer actually move, or do the perceptions upon his awareness change?

According to the observer, he does not move. The things around him do.

That's a question I soon want to address. But either the observer has motion in relation to everything else, or everything else has motion in relation to him. And if you are infering the latter (with your statement), then you have saved me a lengthy argument: that 'things' are moving amongst his mind.

The “either…or” above is misleading because of the reciprocity of motion. One person says that an asteroid is moving away from him at velocity v. A person on the asteroid says that the first person is moving away from him at velocity –v. That was the whole point of Ahrkron’s comment.

When I talk about the experience of seconds and meters to be absolute/universal, I do so in the sense that the feeling of time & space never seems to change for each and every individual.
As such, the feeling for '1 second' and '1 meter', is a constant amongst all observers.

This is also misleading. What does a meter “feel” like? What does a second “feel” like? The questions are meaningless, because the notions of meters and seconds have no meaning apart from objects, and every observer will attach a different number of them (meters and seconds) to any pair of events. It would be best to stay away from such vague notions as the “feeling” of time and space.

Now on to the “main post”…

'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.

There is no sense in which the twins experience time and space differently. In fact, this is one of the main motivations of SR: that one should not be able to tell what one’s state of motion without referring to the outside world.

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.

No, that is not clear at all. This makes the same tacit assumption that Janus warned against, namely that time and space have some “base values” from which one deviates when one changes frames. That is not true. The only way the acceleration “tangibly affects” the traveler’s body is in the force he felt while he underwent the acceleration.

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.

For this, you did not even need to bring up relativity. In fact, you do not even need to bring up motion at all. Look at a plank of wood, record the positions of the ends, and measure them. Then rotate it 30o and ask someone else to repeat the measurement. They will not agree, but it is not because the rotation has “tangibly affected” anything.

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.

You have simply assumed the conclusion right here.

There is no reason to say that we all see and feel different realities. It is equally plausible to say that there is one external reality that we all view from different points of view, and that that is where the differences come from.

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.

Again, you are simply assuming the conclusion.

It is equally plausible to say that the external universe feeds data to each mind, and that the differences come from the difference in physical orientation and state of motion of the data receptors (sensory organs).

At best, you can show that your philosophy is consistent with SR, but you cannot show that it is logically entailed by SR. But, I do not even a proof that they are consistent.

Tom Mattson

Apr1-03, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
'x' is the constant, remember. It is the parameters of existence (length & time), which are subject to distortion/flux.
It's got nothing to do with 4/2 = 2/1.

Yes, it does. I have explained it to you many times, but you still will not listen.

If Event A is the emission of a light pulse, and Event B is the detection of that pulse, then the spatial and temporal intervals measured by an observer stationary with respect to the apparatus are dx and dt, respectively. An observer moving with respect to the apparatus is going to measure dx' and dt' for the same two intervals. dx/dt=c, and dx'/dt'=c.

Even though dx is different from dx', and dt is different from dt', they differ by the exact same factor, and the relativity of speeds disappears at v=c.

Kyleb is right on the money here.

In other words, 'c' is a value which we only share numerically (the x). The m/s, after the 'x', means something unique to all observers. Conclusion: all people have different ~experiences~ of 'c'.

This is wrong, and the discussion I gave above is the reason.

Tom Mattson

Apr1-03, 07:26 PM

As a side note, the objections of Q, Njorl, and kyleb are worth reading, as they do specifically address the argument in this thread.

Iacchus32

Apr1-03, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer

Ultimately, I agreed: "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." We are all of one mind, which is of "the moment."

From the thread, "What is is about the moment?" ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32

So what is it about the moment? Except that it stands outside of time and space? Or, does time and space stand within it? Ahh, could this be the origin of both eternity and infinity?
Originally posted by Iacchus32

If just for one moment we took a snapshot of Creation, everything would exist in the here and now, including time and space, which are infinite. Therefore the moment itself must encompass (i.e., stand outside of) everything. Just picture in your mind for "one moment," the universe as a bubble, and you'll see what I mean.

Tom Mattson

Apr1-03, 09:52 PM

Could we please not have two wacked-out philosophies in a single thread? LG's is exasperating enough.

Thank you.

Lifegazer

Apr2-03, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by Tom
Could we please not have two wacked-out philosophies in a single thread? LG's is exasperating enough.
Thank you.
[:)].
I wont have time to reply to your main posts till much later today, unfortunately. But thanks for responding.

Another God

Apr2-03, 08:56 AM

GW tom.

N_Quire

Apr2-03, 11:53 AM

These endless threads are exasperating. As a reader, I have two choices: ignore them or participate in them. From now on I will choose the former course. This thread has nothing to do with philosophy or science. It is an exercise in extreme and idiosyncratic introspection and bends the rules of science and philosophy to fit one person's view of the world. As such, I firmly believe it belongs in pseudo-science.

Lifegazer

Apr2-03, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by N_Quire
These endless threads are exasperating. As a reader, I have two choices: ignore them or participate in them. From now on I will choose the former course. This thread has nothing to do with philosophy or science. It is an exercise in extreme and idiosyncratic introspection and bends the rules of science and philosophy to fit one person's view of the world. As such, I firmly believe it belongs in pseudo-science.
I'm taking no crap from anyone. If you want to rubbish my argument, then deal with the argument I have presented. Okay? Otherwise, take a hike. I'm not interested in hearing unsupported conclusions about my overall-philosophy. Nor am I interested in what you think about my capabilities. I'm only interested in my argument.
If this argument is to be condemned, then it shall be condemned by reason. Not by evasive snobbery.

(Q)

Apr2-03, 06:39 PM

If this argument is to be condemned, then it shall be condemned by reason.

That was accomplished some time ago.

Iacchus32

Apr2-03, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by [Q]
Originally posted by Lifegazer

If this argument is to be condemned, then it shall be condemned by reason. That was accomplished some time ago.
Then why waste your time arguing about it? Like he said, take a hike!

Lifegazer, can you explain your theory in more simplified terms? I'm not a scientist and, although I've had some exposure to the theory of relativity, I'm not totally up on it (to say the least). Can you explain it in a nutshell, without so much of the jargon?

Also, do any of your assertions have anything to do with the speed of thought? and/or the perception of time? Because this I believe is something which is variable.

(Q)

Apr2-03, 08:04 PM

Then why waste your time arguing about it? Like he said, take a hike!

Who are you - the forum police? Or an internet nazi? [:D]

Iacchus32

Apr2-03, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by (Q)
Who are you - the forum police? Or an internet nazi? [:D]
Yeah, do you "see guile" anyone? I'm just pointing out that you contradicted yourself, that's all.

Lifegazer

Apr2-03, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by Tom
On speed…

First, what do you mean when you say that time and space are “experienced”? Time and space are not observable, apart from objects moving within space.

Our whole understanding of the universe comes from sensory-experience. The reason that we know that time and space exist, is because we experience them through our subjective sensations (and feelings), and then proceed to define that reality of experience using labels and mathematics (of our own making). Never forget that the Laws of Physics are founded upon human experience.

Second, what does it mean for speed to be “as reliant as our universal-experience of ‘1 second’ and ‘1 meter’”?

See previous paragraph. 'Mathematical reality' is founded upon human experience. So is language. Even concepts are derived from an analysis of experience.

I ask these questions because I think they are the key to the mistake in your last sentence.

There's no mistake. The Laws of Physics are founded upon human experience, via the senses.

What is “the ‘value’ of space & time”? You say that SR depends on it, but to me it has no discernable meaning.

Then you denounce existence itself. For existence is known through our experiences, and the value which those experiences hold for us.
The mathematics of our experiences are founded upon the value that exists within experience itself.
Since mankind was responsible for labelling his own experiences, we must assume that there is 'value' in mankind's perception of time & space.

This is also misleading. What does a meter “feel” like?

The 'meter' has been defined already, by people more able than myself (mathematicians & physicists), in relation to a common experience of the space we perceive, and the matter in it. I have no greater language than those physicists, to express to you how I perceive of one meter through space.

What does a second “feel” like? The questions are meaningless,

It's not meaningless Tom. Because if we didn't have a clue what 1 second "felt" like (as in our sensation of change), we would never have been able to define '1 second' so that we all understood it.

There is no sense in which the twins experience time and space differently.

So; one twin ages 30-years, for example, less than his brother (mentally and physically, we must assume); yet you say there is no sense in which these twins have experienced time & space differently.
That's a remarkable conclusion Tom. And I see no sense in it.

In fact, this is one of the main motivations of SR: that one should not be able to tell what one’s state of motion without referring to the outside world.

I understand that. But if we are to accept 'motion' as a real phenomena, and we note that the motion of the observer does affect the spacetime-universe he perceives (as evident in the twin-paradox); then the only conclusion is that the observer's perception of self-motion (that he has velocity), has distorted that observer's perception of his own space-time (in relation to other observers). I.e.: the observer's perception of self-motion is the underlying source of how he shall see the rest of his universe (space-time), in comparison to that motion.
In other words: the way an individual experiences time & space, in comparison to me, is dependent upon how he is seeing his own space & time in relation to his own perception of self-motion in relation to everything else.

I refer to the outside-world to know my own state-of-motion. But when I accelerate in reference to this previously known-state, I am now the cause for distorting spacetime - and my new experience of space-time will not correlate with my previous experience of spacetime. So; self-motion is the underlying-cause of a specific spacetime-experience.

There is no reason to say that we all see and feel different realities. It is equally plausible to say that there is one external reality that we all view from different points of view, and that that is where the differences come from.

I made this point to Njorl. Ultimately, there is only one reality - of course. The fact that we see so many diverse opinions of this reality is actually a proof that the mind is holding reality to ransom. That the mind is responsible for the reality it is seeing.

Lifegazer

Apr2-03, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by Tom
If Event A is the emission of a light pulse, and Event B is the detection of that pulse, then the spatial and temporal intervals measured by an observer stationary with respect to the apparatus are dx and dt, respectively. An observer moving with respect to the apparatus is going to measure dx' and dt' for the same two intervals. dx/dt=c, and dx'/dt'=c.

But x' does not = x (absolutely).
Neither does t' = t (absolutely).
These things are obvious in the twin paradox. There is a real difference between t':t and x':x, which accounts for the age-distortion they would experience.
The two equations you used really need an experiential- qualification: instead of saying dx/dt=c, and dx'/dt'=c, you really need to say: dx/dt=c, and dx'/dt'=c'. Because the experience of c is unique to each individual.
There is a commonality in the numerical-value we use. But there is no commonality in the parameters we perceive, of that numerical-value - namely: meters per second. 'X' meters per second is a unique experience for all individuals, since meters and seconds are unique to the individual.

Even though dx is different from dx', and dt is different from dt', they differ by the exact same factor

Of course. But that factor is qualified by distance & time. Hence each individual is giving that factor a different qualification. A different meaning to the factor.

Tom Mattson

Apr2-03, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
[Our whole understanding of the universe comes from sensory-experience. The reason that we know that time and space exist, is because we experience them through our subjective sensations (and feelings), and then proceed to define that reality of experience using labels and mathematics (of our own making). Never forget that the Laws of Physics are founded upon human experience.

Of course, everything we know about the universe comes from measurement. That is not in dispute. My point was that space and time themselves are not perceived, but rather moving objects are. This is not really that important, I think.

There's no mistake. The Laws of Physics are founded upon human experience, via the senses.

There is a mistake, because, as I said, “It is not true that speed is as absolute as the experience of space and time.”{

Then you denounce existence itself. For existence is known through our experiences, and the value which those experiences hold for us.
The mathematics of our experiences are founded upon the value that exists within experience itself.
Since mankind was responsible for labelling his own experiences, we must assume that there is 'value' in mankind's perception of time & space.

LOL

No, I do not denounce existence. I simply do not understand your bizarre language, which is why I asked the question. You still have not shed any light on the “value of space/time”. If it is simply measurements of spatial and temporal intervals, then please just say so.

It's not meaningless Tom. Because if we didn't have a clue what 1 second "felt" like (as in our sensation of change), we would never have been able to define '1 second' so that we all understood it.

The question (“what does a second feel like?”) is meaningless because it has no unique answer. When Einstein said,

”Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it feels like an hour. Sit and talk with a pretty girl for an hour, and it feels like a minute. That’s relativity.”

he was only joking, of course--but there is a grain of truth to it. The “feeling” of time passing (if that does really exist) is not precise enough for science or philosophy. It is better to stick to “measurements” of time passing, as on a clock.

So; one twin ages 30-years, for example, less than his brother (mentally and physically, we must assume); yet you say there is no sense in which these twins have experienced time & space differently.
That's a remarkable conclusion Tom. And I see no sense in it.

Then you need to try harder, because it is correct. The twin who takes off notices nothing strange before or after blasting off from Earth. You seem to be forgetting the Golden Rule of science: The universe dictates its nature to us, not the other way around.”

I understand that. But if we are to accept 'motion' as a real phenomena, and we note that the motion of the observer does affect the spacetime-universe he perceives (as evident in the twin-paradox); then the only conclusion is that the observer's perception of self-motion (that he has velocity), has distorted that observer's perception of his own space-time (in relation to other observers

My point was that motion does not affect a person’s perception of the workings of the universe, as codified in the laws of physics. Of course, spatial and temporal measurements are affected.

I refer to the outside-world to know my own state-of-motion. But when I accelerate in reference to this previously known-state, I am now the cause for distorting spacetime - and my new experience of space-time will not correlate with my previous experience of spacetime. So; self-motion is the underlying-cause of a specific spacetime-experience.

There is no reason to say that. You can always regard yourself as stationary. That was the whole point of my discussion on reciprocity.

I made this point to Njorl. Ultimately, there is only one reality - of course. The fact that we see so many diverse opinions of this reality is actually a proof that the mind is holding reality to ransom. That the mind is responsible for the reality it is seeing.

There is no reason to conclude that the mind is “responsible” for it. It is both possible and plausible to say that the material universe is “responsible” for generating the excitations in our brains.

But x' does not = x (absolutely).
Neither does t' = t (absolutely).

That is exactly what I said.

The two equations you used really need an experiential- qualification: instead of saying dx/dt=c, and dx'/dt'=c, you really need to say: dx/dt=c, and dx'/dt'=c'.

That is incorrect. dx/dt=dx’/dt’=c exactly.

Because the [u]experience[/b] of c is unique to each individual.

No. The only way to “experience” c is to measure it. There is no difference for any two observers.

There is a commonality in the numerical-value we use. But there is no commonality in the par
ameters we perceive, of that numerical-value - namely: meters per second. 'X' meters per second is a unique experience for all individuals, since meters and seconds are unique to the individual.

That is irrelevant. It is entirely possible to construct Lorentz invariants from frame-dependent quantities. I’ll explain it in my “Special Relativity” thread in the Physics forum, as soon as enough people get interested.

Tom: Even though dx is different from dx', and dt is different from dt', they differ by the exact same factor

LG: Of course. But that factor is qualified by distance & time. Hence each individual is giving that factor a different qualification. A different meaning to the factor.

No. The factor is just a number. Asking people to accept that dx/dt is not the same as dx’/dt’ is—exactly as kyleb said—the same as asking people to accept that 1/2 is not the same as 2/4.

It doesn’t wash.

Tom Mattson

Apr2-03, 11:10 PM

I would like to point out that we are getting lost in all sorts of side issues here. To boot, they are issues that have already been discussed in PF v2.0 (eg: the fact that c really is the same for everyone). LG, you are kind of sandbagging your own topic here, because none of these issues has to do with discrediting materialism. It has only to do with discrediting relativity.

You said that your aim was to show that we are not obligated to accept materialism if we accept science, and that you are not "anti-science". This topic has mutated into just the opposite: It has nothing to do with discrediting materialism, and it is degenerating into an anti-science thread.

Janus

Apr2-03, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer

I understand that. But if we are to accept 'motion' as a real phenomena, and we note that the motion of the observer does affect the spacetime-universe he perceives (as evident in the twin-paradox); then the only conclusion is that the observer's perception of self-motion (that he has velocity), has distorted that observer's perception of his own space-time (in relation to other observers). I.e.: the observer's perception of self-motion is the underlying source of how he shall see the rest of his universe (space-time), in comparison to that motion.
In other words: the way an individual experiences time & space, in comparison to me, is dependent upon how he is seeing his own space & time in relation to his own perception of self-motion in relation to everything else.

I refer to the outside-world to know my own state-of-motion. But when I accelerate in reference to this previously known-state, I am now the cause for distorting spacetime - and my new experience of space-time will not correlate with my previous experience of spacetime. So; self-motion is the underlying-cause of a specific spacetime-experience.

You say "I understand that" and then go on to write 3 paragraphs showing that you don't.
Why do you bother to ask for input from those that have a better grasp of Relativity then you do, when you are just going to ignore it?

I made this point to Njorl. Ultimately, there is only one reality - of course. The fact that we see so many diverse opinions of this reality is actually a proof that the mind is holding reality to ransom. That the mind is responsible for the reality it is seeing.

It is nothing of the sort. Take two men each standing next to a building and some distance apart form each other. To each man, the Other building will have a smaller angular size compared to the one he is standing next to. This is just a matter sight lines and the relative distance between the two.

Neither can you say that is the "viewer's" distance from the other building, rather than the other building's distance from the "viewer" that "causes" this. It is meaningless to distinguish between the two. You can only talk about the distance between the two, and not which one is "really" removed from the other.

The same is true for velocity; you can never say which object is "really" moving, and it is meaningless to make the distinction.

And like Relative distance, Relative velocity has effects on the measurements between objects.

There is no need to assume that is just "tricks of the mind".

Iacchus32

Apr3-03, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by Tom
LG, you are kind of sandbagging your own topic here, because none of these issues has to do with discrediting materialism. It has only to do with discrediting relativity.
Knowledge is material (form). Wisdom is immaterial (essence). This in and of itself is a discredit to materialism, if materialism by itself is to be considered an answer.

If I'm correct, then the whole point of his argument is to discredit materialism, in order to allude to a "spiritual reality" beyond it. I for one believe that one exists (notice I said "believe" here for your benefit), which is the only reason why I bring it up. And, although I still haven't quite figured out his "complete assessment," I do see a lot of validity to the things he says about human perception (which others seem to want to dismiss?). I don't know, sometimes you have to be willing to look at things a bit differently in order to get at what someone's trying to suggest?

Lifegazer

Apr3-03, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Tom
The question (“what does a second feel like?”) is meaningless because it has no unique answer.

A second has a unique meaning for each individual, as does a meter.
If this was not so, then what's the Lorentz transformation about? What's the twin paradox about? The mathematics depend upon unique experience of spatial and temporal perception; or there can be no mathematics of Relativity.
However, it is my contention that there is a constancy within the human-mind of how a meter is perceived in relation to everything else. And there is also a constancy within the human-mind of how that mind perceives change in relation to those things which exist within his awareness.
My personal 'meter', for example, is a constant - because it is judged in relation to other things. 'Distort' the space between me & the moon, for example, and you distort my understanding of a meter, accordingly. Hence, my experience of that 'meter' remains constant - even though my space, in this case, has altered.
And that's exactly what happens with Relativity: There is no doubt that the space & time of each individual is affected, comparatively with other observers, as he accelerates through space. The twin-paradox proves this. And yet, how each twin experiences his meter and his second, remains constant. The feel for any mathematical-value of time & space is constant, regardless of how that time & space is actually distorted.

The “feeling” of time passing (if that does really exist) is not precise enough for science or philosophy. It is better to stick to “measurements” of time passing, as on a clock.

The feeling of passing-time is so precise that a whole science of Relativity is founded upon it. It is this constancy of feeling/perception/sensation (for all observers), which enables science to apply universally-perceived laws of motion.

Then you need to try harder, because it is correct. The twin who takes off notices nothing strange before or after blasting off from Earth.

I acknowledge this. This is exactly what I've been talking about, all along. The human perception of a meter and a second is a constant, regardless of the fact that space & time are clearly affected/distorted by motion.

You seem to be forgetting the Golden Rule of science: The universe dictates its nature to us, not the other way around.”

The universe does not know what a meter is; nor a second.

There is no reason to conclude that the mind is “responsible” for it. It is both possible and plausible to say that the material universe is “responsible” for generating the excitations in our brains.

When two people have different experiences of the same universe, then how do you conclude that those different experiences are supplied by that universe?
You say that such a scenario is plausible. Will you please explain your reasoning behind that conclusion?

No. The factor is just a number. Asking people to accept that dx/dt is not the same as dx’/dt’ is—exactly as kyleb said—the same as asking people to accept that 1/2 is not the same as 2/4.

Exactly: the factor is just a number to which both observers concur. However, dx/dt and dx'/dt' (the factor) are meaningless without the qualifying parameters which proceed that value. Those qualifying-parameters are, of course, meters and seconds. And all observers have a unique perspective of meters and seconds in relation to the universe he perceives.
Hence; though the factor is universal, the qualification of that factor using personal parameters of experience, actually gives an individual meaning to each observer, of that factor.

Lifegazer

Apr3-03, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Tom
I would like to point out that we are getting lost in all sorts of side issues here.

My argument pertains to reality. It is obvious that we should have to talk about things other than physics.

To boot, they are issues that have already been discussed in PF v2.0 (eg: the fact that c really is the same for everyone).

Where did I say that it is not?

LG, you are kind of sandbagging your own topic here, because none of these issues has to do with discrediting materialism. It has only to do with discrediting relativity.

Nonsense Tom. I am using Relativity as a means to my conclusions. If I discredit Relativity, then I instantly discredit those very conclusions.

You said that your aim was to show that we are not obligated to accept materialism if we accept science, and that you are not "anti-science". This topic has mutated into just the opposite: It has nothing to do with discrediting materialism, and it is degenerating into an anti-science thread.
You've completely made that up, for effect. And if you haven't made it up, then you should justify it.
Any comments I have made here are challenging materialism. Fact. Not science.

N_Quire

Apr3-03, 09:13 AM

Lifegazer wrote: "I'm taking no crap from anyone. If you want to rubbish my argument, then deal with the argument I have presented. Okay? Otherwise, take a hike. I'm not interested in hearing unsupported conclusions about my overall-philosophy. Nor am I interested in what you think about my capabilities. I'm only interested in my argument.
If this argument is to be condemned, then it shall be condemned by reason. Not by evasive snobbery."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

This is standard Lifegazer practice. Anyone not agreeing with your endless repetition of the same argument is insulted and told to go elsewhere. What you are doing and saying is nothing new. There exist entire systems of thought which ignore or suspend the laws of nature. Such systems have millions of followers and provide many of them with meaning. They are variously entitled religion, the occult, astrology, pseudo-science, mysticism, etc, etc.

Your thought is firmly entrenched within that tradition. It is not science and it is not philosophy. If I am to be polite, it is phenomenology, a thoroughly discredited philosophy. If I am to be accurate, you engage in pseudo-scientific babble or mysticism which displays little or no understanding of established knowledge. It goes round and round in circles and enlightens no one. So yes, I will take a hike.

Janus

Apr3-03, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by Lifegazer

Nonsense Tom. I am using Relativity as a means to my conclusions.

No you are not, You are using "LG's mis-interpretations of Relativity"

And even then, there is no logical connection between your "means" and "conclusions".

Lifegazer

Apr3-03, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by N_Quire
Lifegazer wrote: "I'm taking no crap from anyone. If you want to rubbish my argument, then deal with the argument I have presented. Okay? Otherwise, take a hike. I'm not interested in hearing unsupported conclusions about my overall-philosophy. Nor am I interested in what you think about my capabilities. I'm only interested in my argument.
If this argument is to be condemned, then it shall be condemned by reason. Not by evasive snobbery."

This is standard Lifegazer practice.

Yes. From time to time I have to remind people such as yourself that attacking my persona or capability does not discredit my argument - because it doesn't even address my argument.
It seems to me that you cannot grasp this simple point... because the content of this post is again equally-meaningless in regards to my argument.

Anyone not agreeing with your endless repetition of the same argument is insulted and told to go elsewhere.

That's not true. Anyone who condemns me and my philosophy - without justification - is told to go elsewhere. Reasoned criticism of my argument is welcomed, and is responded to respectfully. But you've made two antagonistic posts here that mention nothing I have said in my argument. And that's a disgrace. Do you understand?

What you are doing and saying is nothing new. There exist entire systems of thought which ignore or suspend the laws of nature. Such systems have millions of followers and provide many of them with meaning. They are variously entitled religion, the occult, astrology, pseudo-science, mysticism, etc, etc.

How does this address my argument? Which specific points of my argument have you countered with this propoganda?

Your thought is firmly entrenched within that tradition.

My thought is entrenched within reason.

It is not science and it is not philosophy. If I am to be polite, it is phenomenology, a thoroughly discredited philosophy.

LOL. That's absolute nonsense. I cordially invite you to prove that materialists are absolutely-correct. Otherwise, I demand that you retract that statement, for sincerity's sake.

If I am to be accurate, you engage in pseudo-scientific babble or mysticism which displays little or no understanding of established knowledge. It goes round and round in circles and enlightens no one. So yes, I will take a hike.
More antagonistic non-referential nonsense and snobbery. But this shall be the last of it. You must learn to counter reason directly. You must learn to address arguments specifically.

kyleb

Apr3-03, 11:37 AM

sersiously Lifegazer, present some reason and no one will be complaining. [s(]

N_Quire

Apr3-03, 12:13 PM

Lifegazer, If it were serious philosophy or science, I would be willing to debate. However, this topic is pseudo-science or, if you like, introspective theory development with no scientific or philosophical basis, which is why I have hiked.

CJames

Apr3-03, 01:46 PM

I see a lot of semantics here about the meaning of a second, the meaning of a meter, the meaning of constant speed. It all pretty much deviates from the ultimate point.

LG, I'm going to try to paraphrase your argument. Let me know if I'm making a mistake.

"Because experience is unique to the observer, experience is created by the observer."

Is that correct?

If it is, I don't see any logic connecting the premise to the conclusion. If there is some, please post it. And despite your objections to it, please use the established form of logic, not the "reason" you always refer to. Make sure the premises necessarily imply the conclusion. I should be able to replace oranges with apples in your argument, and the conclusion still be true. The validity of a logical argument is about the structure of the argument, not the content of the information.

Tom Mattson

Apr3-03, 05:00 PM

A second has a unique meaning for each individual, as does a meter.
If this was not so, then what's the Lorentz transformation about? What's the twin paradox about? The mathematics depend upon unique experience of spatial and temporal perception; or there can be no mathematics of Relativity.

No, seconds and meters are precisely defined, and those definitions do not change from one observer to another. The fact that different people disagree on measurements does not conflict with that.

My personal 'meter', for example, is a constant - because it is judged in relation to other things. 'Distort' the space between me & the moon, for example, and you distort my understanding of a meter, accordingly. Hence, my experience of that 'meter' remains constant - even though my space, in this case, has altered. And that's exactly what happens with Relativity: There is no doubt that the space & time of each individual is affected, comparatively with other observers, as he accelerates through space.

There is no reason that your “understanding of a mteter” should be distorted. All relativity tells you is that measurements are affected in a way that we previously did not know about.

The twin-paradox proves this. And yet, how each twin experiences his meter and his second, remains constant. The feel for any mathematical-value of time & space is constant, regardless of how that time & space is actually distorted.

The feeling of passing-time is so precise that a whole science of Relativity is founded upon it. It is this constancy of feeling/perception/sensation (for all observers), which enables science to apply universally-perceived laws of motion.

Boy, have you got it wrong. First, the “feeling of time passing” is not precisely defined at all. Second, SR does not make any use of such a notion. It speaks only of measurements.

Tom: You seem to be forgetting the Golden Rule of science: The universe dictates its nature to us, not the other way around.”

LG: The universe does not know what a meter is; nor a second.

Of course not, but the outcome of the measurements we perform on things in the universe is determined by the universe, not by reason or common sense. That was my point.

When two people have different experiences of the same universe, then how do you conclude that those different experiences are supplied by that universe?
You say that such a scenario is plausible. Will you please explain your reasoning behind that conclusion?

I did not conclude it (edit: that materialism is necessary), any more that you concluded that it all takes place in The Mind. My point was that the two notions (SR and materialism) are consistent with each other.

edit: I gave the discussion earlier, namely that the difference in our observations can be attributed to the difference in physical orientation of data receptors. What is so hard to understand about that?

Exactly: the factor is just a number to which both observers concur. However, dx/dt and dx'/dt' (the factor) are meaningless without the qualifying parameters which proceed that value. Those qualifying-parameters are, of course, meters and seconds. And all observers have a unique perspective of meters and seconds in relation to the universe he perceives. Hence; though the factor is universal, the qualification of that factor using personal parameters of experience, actually gives an individual meaning to each observer, of that factor.

This makes absolutely no sense.

Tom Mattson

Apr3-03, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
My argument pertains to reality. It is obvious that we should have to talk about things other than physics.

Your argument has become an attempt to rewrite relativity to suit your limited understanding.

Where did I say that it is not?

Among other places, here:

"The two equations you used really need an experiential- qualification: instead of saying dx/dt=c, and dx'/dt'=c, you really need to say: dx/dt=c, and dx'/dt'=c'."

Nonsense Tom. I am using Relativity as a means to my conclusions. If I discredit Relativity, then I instantly discredit those very conclusions.

No, what I said is accurate. You only disagree because you have either ignored or dismissed everything I have ever said to you.

You've completely made that up, for effect. And if you haven't made it up, then you should justify it.
Any comments I have made here are challenging materialism. Fact. Not science.

No, childish grandstanding is your department, not mine. This thread has become a combination of pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy, and I have pointed out where you went wrong along the way.

Tom Mattson

Apr3-03, 05:49 PM

N Quire: It is not science and it is not philosophy. If I am to be polite, it is phenomenology, a thoroughly discredited philosophy.

LG: LOL. That's absolute nonsense. I cordially invite you to prove that materialists are absolutely-correct. Otherwise, I demand that you retract that statement, for sincerity's sake.

N Quire is correct, and no proof of materialism is needed to understand his point. You are supposed to be the one doing the proving here, and you have not done it. You are drawing flak because you keep insisting that you have proven your case, despite the holes in your argument. In this case, you have simply assumed and asserted your conclusion. I noted where you did it a couple of pages ago.

Lifegazer

Apr4-03, 04:20 AM

Originally posted by CJames
I see a lot of semantics here about the meaning of a second, the meaning of a meter, the meaning of constant speed. It all pretty much deviates from the ultimate point.

But it's integral to the ultimate point. If there are a hypothetical infinite-number of observers with an infinite-number of perceptions/understandings of reality - and yet, only one absolute-reality shared by all - then it is plainly obvious that what each observer is 'seeing' is a construct of his own mind, in relation to that reality.

LG, I'm going to try to paraphrase your argument. Let me know if I'm making a mistake.

"Because experience is unique to the observer, experience is created by the observer."

Is that correct?

That is one main point, and I have briefly commented upon it above.
But the main point for pushing this argument, is that the observer himself is responsible for the particular/unique spacetime he is observing, via his own motion/acceleration in relation to the 'things' which he is observing.
For example, when the space-twin accelerates from Earth, he distorts his own spacetime - fact. When he comes back to Earth, his spacetime changes again, in line with that of his now-older brother.
Clearly, the motion of the observer wrt the things he perceives of, is responsible for the particular space-time he is experiencing... is responsible for the particular reality he is observing.
It should be remembered that Relativity isn't just some sort of weird mind-thing which happens to each individual. We're discussing tangible/physical changes here, experienced by each observer. Each observer's experience of physical-reality is different, and the nature of that reality is dependent upon the actions/motion of that observer.
Clearly, if the very-nature of the universe you can see is physically altered at the whim of your own motion, then it is as clear as daylight that the reality you can see is somehow dependent upon you. Your whole universe dances to your tune.
Your whole universe is happening inside your own mind. As is mine. As is everyones.

If it is, I don't see any logic connecting the premise to the conclusion. If there is some, please post it.

In brief, as above. But I have discussed these things in detail, throughout the thread.

Lifegazer

Apr4-03, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by Tom
No, seconds and meters are precisely defined, and those definitions do not change from one observer to another. The fact that different people disagree on measurements does not conflict with that.

I agree with this. However, it's quite interesting that 2 paragraphs later you say this: "Boy, have you got it wrong. First, the “feeling of time passing” is not precisely defined at all."
If physics and maths are formulated upon human-experience, and those feelings/sensations/perceptions are not precisely defined, then how is it that seconds and meters are precisely defined, as you yourself have acknowledged?
What you're failing to realise, is that the definition of a second is a definition of the “feeling of time passing”. Language proceeds experience.
Not only are you comments in contradiction of one-another; they also show that you haven't grasped this essential point. ~Definition~ is an expression of experience.
So, if the "“feeling of time passing” is not precisely defined at all", then obviously, we would have no definition of time - seconds.

There is no reason that your “understanding of a mteter” should be distorted. All relativity tells you is that measurements are affected in a way that we previously did not know about.

My personal understanding of a meter (and of a second) is a fixed-constant, gleaned in relation to the universe I am perceiving. So, even as spacetime is distorted, I would not notice it, because my ~understanding~ is not affected.
But the twin-paradox proves that "personal understanding" is irrelevant here - because spacetime is subject to distortion/flux - as proved by the twin-paradox, for example.

Of course not, but the outcome of the measurements we perform on things in the universe is determined by the universe, not by reason or common sense. That was my point.

Are you insisting (as materialists do) that the physical-universe is directly responsible for the Laws which govern it?
Any argument which challenges materialism (as does mine, here), cannot simply be countered with #assertions# that everything is determined by the universe. You must at least justify those assertions.

heusdens

Apr4-03, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Are you insisting (as materialists do) that the physical-universe is directly responsible for the Laws which govern it?
Any argument which challenges materialism (as does mine, here), cannot simply be countered with #assertions# that everything is determined by the universe. You must at least justify those assertions.

Boy, here we go again. Every materialist assertion must be justified in your opinion. But as you know, every philosophical or theoretical thought system uses basic premises which can't be proofed, but are hold to be reasonable assumptions which are not in doubt.
The assertion that everything is determined by the universe, is such a basic premise, which can not be proofed. It can be justified however, because any other thought system that is based on the negation of this premise, is more suspicious and more unreasonable then the original premise.
For instance the negation of the premise that everything is determined by the universe would be that at least something was determined by something else as the universe. We just have to figure out what this "something else as the universe" would be, but it shows up that that is just another name for God. How reasonable is THAT assumption?

Lifegazer

Apr4-03, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by heusdens
Boy, here we go again. Every materialist assertion must be justified in your opinion.

In a philosophical debate about reality, this should be the case. At least I am trying to support my conclusions with reason. So why do you expect me to just accept assertions as a counter to my argument? Surely you can see the sense in that, if nothing else.

But as you know, every philosophical or theoretical thought system uses basic premises which can't be proofed, but are hold to be reasonable assumptions which are not in doubt.

For the purposes of my own argument, I used basic axioms of Relativity, which relate to the universe as we perceive it.
Now, it is a fact that we perceive a universe as we do. And it is also a fact that Relativity has been proven to qualify the nature of those perceptions. I then proceeded to use these facts to build towards my conclusion. Hence, methodically, I don't see how you can accuse me of assuming anything.
However; clearly, materialists are just assuming that reality exists outside of our perceptions, and that this reality is imposing itself upon our minds. Therefore, I reiterate my complaint: why am I just expected to accept materialistic-assertions as a counter to my own argument? I'm looking for reasoned counters to whatever I say.

The assertion that everything is determined by the universe, is such a basic premise, which can not be proofed. It can be justified however, because any other thought system that is based on the negation of this premise, is more suspicious and more unreasonable then the original premise.

Going on gut-feeling eh.

For instance the negation of the premise that everything is determined by the universe would be that at least something was determined by something else as the universe. We just have to figure out what this "something else as the universe" would be, but it shows up that that is just another name for God. How reasonable is THAT assumption?
Actually, I don't think that the big guy with the white beard has had a mention so far. Not directly, anyway. But I'd be interested in knowing why you think such a conclusion is unreasonable, given that my argument is supposed to be reasoned. More gut-feeling?

heusdens

Apr4-03, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
In a philosophical debate about reality, this should be the case. At least I am trying to support my conclusions with reason. So why do you expect me to just accept assertions as a counter to my argument? Surely you can see the sense in that, if nothing else.

Because the assertion are basic assumptions, and the reason we accept the basic assumptions is that the choosen assumptions are more reasonable then the negation of those assumptions.

For the purposes of my own argument, I used basic axioms of Relativity, which relate to the universe as we perceive it.
Now, it is a fact that we perceive a universe as we do. And it is also a fact that Relativity has been proven to qualify the nature of those perceptions. I then proceeded to use these facts to build towards my conclusion. Hence, methodically, I don't see how you can accuse me of assuming anything.
However; clearly, materialists are just assuming that reality exists outside of our perceptions, and that this reality is imposing itself upon our minds. Therefore, I reiterate my complaint: why am I just expected to accept materialistic-assertions as a counter to my own argument? I'm looking for reasoned counters to whatever I say.

I was not arguing about relativity, and for sure we have a more profound debate then relativity. We deal here with the philosophical issue of the basic premises of materialism, with which you seem to have a problem.

This goes basically about wether or not in first instance there is material existence, and only secondary a mind (the approach of materialism) or whether there is at first mind, and only secondary matter (the approach of idealism).

In first instance, the materialist assertion, is a basic assumption.
It is something that can not be proven, same as axioms in mathematics can not be proven.

But the choice of this basic assumption is of course not arbitrary.

So tell me what is unreasonable about this basic assumption of materialism, and tell me what you want to replace it with.

Actually, I don't think that the big guy with the white beard has had a mention so far. Not directly, anyway. But I'd be interested in knowing why you think such a conclusion is unreasonable, given that my argument is supposed to be reasoned. More gut-feeling?

I interpret any deviation from materialism as inspired by idealism, wether this is formulated as a "first cause" or as "mind" which serves as an explenation for the world.

Lifegazer

Apr4-03, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by Tom
Your argument has become an attempt to rewrite relativity to suit your limited understanding.

That's just not true. My recent post to CJames shows that my conclusions are founded upon Relativity as it is understood.
The debate has dealt with side-issues, also. For example, I have clearly pointed-out to you the value of experience itself, and shown how measurement and definition are merely expressions of this experience. Your insistence that "experience has no value" is obviously an oversight on your part. The value of experience is evident in the language we use to define it. Language proceeds experience - even mathematical language.
Also, my point to you about dx'/dt' = c', was not a challenge to the constancy of lightspeed - but an attempt to show you how each observer has a unique experience of that numerical value - in exactly the same manner that each observer has a unique experience of '1' meter and '1' second.
Why is it that you so-readily understand the concept that everybody has a unique experience of 1m and 1s; yet cannot extend this chain-of-reason to 1m/s? Clearly, given that each observer has a unique experience of the meter and the second, it should be obvious that any given velocity should be qualified as acknowledging the uniqueness of those parameters.

Among other places, here:

"The two equations you used really need an experiential- qualification: instead of saying dx/dt=c, and dx'/dt'=c, you really need to say: dx/dt=c, and dx'/dt'=c'."

This does not change the speed-of-light for anybody. It merely acknowledges the uniqueness of each observer's meter and second, in relation to the space-time he is observing at any given time.
If the space-twin observes light passing through x meters in a second, it is obvious that this is not absolutely the same thing as the Earth-twin observing light passing through x meters in a second - merely because both twins have a different perception of the meter and the second.

No, what I said is accurate. You only disagree because you have either ignored or dismissed everything I have ever said to you.

The word you are looking for, is 'countered'. I do not ignore you. Nor do I dismiss what you say. I think about what you say and then if I think you are mistaken, I counter you. That's the way a debate should happen.

No, childish grandstanding is your department, not mine.

Well, the fact that I fight to give my argument a fair hearing, is because few people are willing to do just that. Some of the responses in this thread have been completely evasive to my argument. And like I said: if this argument should fail, it should fail by reasoned-counter alone. Not politics or snobbery.

This thread has become a combination of pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy, and I have pointed out where you went wrong along the way.
That's your opinion. But in my opinion, if you do not even acknowledge that 'measurement' is an expression of experience - hence validating the "value of experience" - then how am I expected to reason with you?

Lifegazer

Apr4-03, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by heusdens
Because the assertion are basic assumptions, and the reason we accept the basic assumptions is that the choosen assumptions are more reasonable then the negation of those assumptions.

Why is it more reasonable to believe that a reality exists beyond the Mind, than to believe that only the Mind exists (with its perceptions)?
We all have direct experience of a subjectively-perceived reality (a
mind-ful reality). However, it is completely impossible to even prove the existence of a single thing beyond that mind-ful experience. Hence, I'm struggling to see any justification within that statement. As far as I can see, it would be more reasonable to ~assert~ the existence of 'a Mind' - simply because that is all we have experience of.

I was not arguing about relativity, and for sure we have a more profound debate then relativity. We deal here with the philosophical issue of the basic premises of materialism, with which you seem to have a problem.

A quite-legitimate 'problem', I would say. And yes - it does go deeper than Relativity. However, I don't want to stray too far from the argument I have presented. Not yet, anyway.

This goes basically about wether or not in first instance there is material existence, and only secondary a mind (the approach of materialism) or whether there is at first mind, and only secondary matter (the approach of idealism).

In first instance, the materialist assertion, is a basic assumption.

I disagree. I fail to see how you can label an assertion as 'basic' if there is not one jot of proof to support such a reality.

It is something that can not be proven, same as axioms in mathematics can not be proven.

Axioms about mathematics are due different consideration than axioms about 'reality'. Mathematics is a conceptual language of the perceived universe. In fact, whether reality is external or internal would not affect mathematics in the slightest.

So tell me what is unreasonable about this basic assumption of materialism, and tell me what you want to replace it with.

Apart from the objections raised in this post, I could talk about this all day from many different approaches; including causality, evolution, thought (and dreams), motion, space, placebo-effect, emotions, sensory-experience, universal-order and Law... and now, relativity. I've lost track of the number of approaches I've taken in my challenge to materialism. Needless to say, that challenge is legitimate and credible. Unfortunately, few here take it seriously enough to partake of mature debate about such issues.

I interpret any deviation from materialism as inspired by idealism, wether this is formulated as a "first cause" or as "mind" which serves as an explenation for the world.
And?

heusdens

Apr4-03, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Why is it more reasonable to believe that a reality exists beyond the Mind, than to believe that only the Mind exists (with its perceptions)?
We all have direct experience of a subjectively-perceived reality (a
mind-ful reality). However, it is completely impossible to even prove the existence of a single thing beyond that mind-ful experience. Hence, I'm struggling to see any justification within that statement. As far as I can see, it would be more reasonable to ~assert~ the existence of 'a Mind' - simply because that is [B]all we have experience of.

The statement is that a material reality exist, and that our mind is just part of that reality. There is no distinction between 'outside' and 'inside' reality.

You argue from a standpoint of solipsism, in which the only reality that exsists, is your own mind. Even the existence of other minds is doubted in that perspective.

Although this is position one can take in theoretical debate, for practical reasons however all solipsists are materiralists (but just won't admit). If a solipsist is nearly hit by a car, he will step aside to avoid being hit by the car, and won't argue that the car is not reality, but just something that takes place in his or her mind.

See how easy it is to prove your real position in life?

(Unless you are both solipsist and suicidal, of course...)

I disagree. I fail to see how you can label an assertion as 'basic' if there is not one jot of proof to support such a reality.

I think there is a whole reality that supports the position of materialism. It is has been proven a fruitfull position and has lead to many scientific discoveries. If it would not be for the materialist position, there would not have been so much bothering in researching the material world, and discover how the material world realy works.

Apart from the objections raised in this post, I could talk about this all day from many different approaches; including causality, evolution, thought (and dreams), motion, space, placebo-effect, emotions, sensory-experience, universal-order and Law... and now, relativity. I've lost track of the number of approaches I've taken in my challenge to materialism. Needless to say, that challenge is legitimate and credible. Unfortunately, few here take it seriously enough to partake of mature debate about such issues.

Please explain to us what will happen to the outer world when your mind dies?

If allt things only happen within your mind, I care to know about that.

Maybe you relax from the position of solpisism, and at least consider the fact that not only your mind exists, but also those of others.
Which would at least lead to the fact that there is an 'outside' reality.

Unless of course you claim that all minds are parts of one bigger mind.

And explain me one other thing. There was a time in which the world existed, but not your mind. You don't have direct experience of that, but you have been told. Were all people lying about that fact?

(Q)

Apr4-03, 10:52 AM

Lifey

then it is plainly obvious that what each observer is 'seeing' is a construct of his own mind, in relation to that reality

Or, they are all simply observing the same reality – a much more plausible and simple explanation.

Clearly, the motion of the observer wrt the things he perceives of, is responsible for the particular space-time he is experiencing... is responsible for the particular reality he is observing.

The observer, when in motion, views everything within his surroundings as occurring and functioning perfectly normal. In other words, to him, he is not experiencing anything at all. To him, he views himself and his surroundings at rest and not moving at all. How do you explain that?

It should be remembered that Relativity isn't just some sort of weird mind-thing which happens to each individual.

This contradicts your theory of the singular Mind.

Clearly, if the very-nature of the universe you can see is physically altered at the whim of your own motion, then it is as clear as daylight that the reality you can see is somehow dependent upon you.

This would suggest we have control over the universe and how it is shaped/formed. How do you explain the universe prior to our existence within it?

Your whole universe dances to your tune.

His tune is the Samba, theirs is the Tango, and mine might be the Cha-Cha-Cha. Everyone dances to a different tune. Again, this would contradict your theory of the singular Mind,

Your whole universe is happening inside your own mind. As is mine. As is everyones.

Therefore, the universe did not exist until… when? Was it the advent of music or the amoeba?

Any argument which challenges materialism (as does mine, here)

You yourself are a materialist – do you have a computer, TV, stereo, car? Or do you live in a cave or a tree with nothing but a few sticks and stones? The word, “hypocrite” comes to mind.

My recent post to CJames shows that my conclusions are founded upon Relativity as it is understood.

No, as it is misunderstood by you.

I have clearly pointed-out to you the value of experience itself, and shown how measurement and definition are merely expressions of this experience

This also contradicts your singular Mind theory. If the universe, as you suggest, is happening inside your mind, the concept of ‘experience’ should not exist. How can you experience anything if it is all in your mind?

Why is it more reasonable to believe that a reality exists beyond the Mind, than to believe that only the Mind exists (with its perceptions)?

Again, that would suggest the universe never existed up until… when? Why would this singular Mind choose this universe? Why not a universe where we can travel instantaneously from one point to another? How many people were of this singular Mind when it first originated? When did this singular Mind first originate? Why does the singular Mind have control over me and I am unable to control any part of it? I wish to change this reality – why can’t I do it? Why does the singular Mind contain so many idiots who are unable to rationalize? Does the singular Mind work like an ant colony or a bee hive? Is there a queen?

There are so many unanswered questions with the singular Mind theory. I could sit here typing questions all day long and never finish. Have you got all the answers?

Lifegazer

Apr4-03, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by heusdens
The statement is that a material reality exist, and that our mind is just part of that reality. There is no distinction between 'outside' and 'inside' reality.

Well, I could write an essay challenging this particular stance. But I'll avoid doing so, for now. I'd just like to point out that this statement makes absolutely no distinction between reality and sensory-experience itself. That is not a position which is easily defended, imo.

You argue from a standpoint of solipsism, in which the only reality that exsists, is your own mind. Even the existence of other minds is doubted in that perspective.

For the record, I leave the labelling of my ideas to other readers. I have never-ever labelled myself as anything, other than a rationalist, perhaps.
Also for the record - and I did state this at the end of my initial argument - I reason that all individual perceptions (of conciousness) exist within One Mind, ultimately.
Hence, I do not doubt that 'you' or anyone else exists as a real perception. However, that's all I think that any of us are: a particular perception of existence, within time - of The Mind. I would also extend this argument to any organism which has the capacity of awareness.

Although this is position one can take in theoretical debate, for practical reasons however all solipsists are materiralists (but just won't admit).

I will admit that my awareness interacts with the universe I perceive, and that I am affected (physically & emotionally) by it. But this same thing happens (to a lesser extent) in dreams.

If a solipsist is nearly hit by a car, he will step aside to avoid being hit by the car, and won't argue that the car is not reality, but just something that takes place in his or her mind.

About a month ago, I jumped out of bed with a shriek, punching the air wildly - with my heart pumping fast & hard. I was ~lost in a dream~ which I truly believed was real (specifically, I was being attacked by a figure which emerged from the shadows). Amusing for you, perhaps. But it scared the hell out of me.
Who's to say that this waking-perception of reality does not work in a similar vein?

See how easy it is to prove your real position in life?

Wouldn't it be interesting if you had this conversation in your sleep? Literally. When lost in your dreams, the guy talking to you could say exactly the same things that you are saying to me now.

Please explain to us what will happen to the outer world when your mind dies?

The perception of 'me' may cease to exist, but I am not advocating that I (lifegazer) am The Mind which is behind all of this.

And explain me one other thing. There was a time in which the world existed, but not your mind. You don't have direct experience of that, but you have been told. Were all people lying about that fact?
Same answer as previously.

heusdens

Apr4-03, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Well, I could write an essay challenging this particular stance. But I'll avoid doing so, for now. I'd just like to point out that this statement makes absolutely no distinction between reality and sensory-experience itself. That is not a position which is easily defended, imo.

Reality is material, and anything material is in motion/change. The sensory experience is as material as anything else.

For the record, I leave the labelling of my ideas to other readers. I have never-ever labelled myself as anything, other than a rationalist, perhaps.
Also for the record - and I did state this at the end of my initial argument - I reason that all individual perceptions (of conciousness) exist within One Mind, ultimately.
Hence, I do [B]not doubt that 'you' or anyone else exists as a real perception. However, that's all I think that any of us are: a particular perception of existence, within time - of The Mind. I would also extend this argument to any organism which has the capacity of awareness.

I exist as a 'real perception' in (your/the) mind only? In other words, if you (or the mind) do not perceive of me, then I do not exist? People and material objects however do exist, whether they are perceived or not.

There is an outside reality, even when it was not perceived by any mind. There was a sun, there were planets, etc. even before any life began to develop on earth.

But I hold it your argument then will be that even before any life was in existence, this One Mind did exist, and was perceiving all of this?

If that is your position, then I guess you are just juggling with words, and this One Mind is just another term for material existence.

I will admit that my awareness interacts with the universe I perceive, and that I am affected (physically & emotionally) by it. But this same thing happens (to a lesser extent) in dreams.

Your awareness interacts with the universe you percieve. But you said you don't acknowledge the fact of an 'outer reality', only the mind itself. What is your awareness interacting with themn, if such an outer reality does not exist in the first place?

About a month ago, I jumped out of bed with a shriek, punching the air wildly - with my heart pumping fast & hard. I was ~lost in a dream~ which I truly believed was real (specifically, I was being attacked by a figure which emerged from the shadows). Amusing for you, perhaps. But it scared the hell out of me.
Who's to say that this waking-perception of reality does not work in a similar vein?

A dream is as real as reality, although there are differences. A dream is a process going on in your mind, without real perceptions.
But the dream is real, in the sense that it involves material processes in your head.

One major difference is if you are hit by a car in your dream, this event will probably just wake you up, and not cause you being hurt physically (unless you fall out of your bed, but not by a real car, of course). In reality thought a car hitting you, will cause you real injuries.

I hope you are able to make the distinction...

Wouldn't it be interesting if you had this conversation in your sleep? Literally. When lost in your dreams, the guy talking to you could say exactly the same things that you are saying to me now.

Well I remember a dream I had, when I was climbing a tree, and was affraid I was falling out of it. But suddenly in my dream I remember to have said to myself, I should not be affraid, cause it was just a dream. Perhaps this was a dream in which I was almost awake, so I knew it was a dream.

The perception of 'me' may cease to exist, but I am not advocating that I (lifegazer) am The Mind which is behind all of this.

Same answer as previously.

The way you define The Mind, seems to me this definition fits well perfectly for material existence.
In what way do you make a distinction between material existence and mind?

Lifegazer

Apr4-03, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by heusdens
Reality is material, and anything material is in motion/change. The sensory experience is as material as anything else.

That's easy to say. But I could make you sweat with many awkward questions...
According to you, manufacturing conciousness is fundamentally no more different than manufacturing a brick. The complexity of that 'brick' is acknowledged. But the point remains: You think conciousness is manufactured from matter in motion/interaction.
Given that you equate the brain to some sort of data-interpretor of the external universe (which gave rise to that brain), how do you explain for the artistic free-will which must also be ready-present to transform mathematical input-data into subjective sensory-experience, as well as the ability to have 'emotion'?
This is a highly significant question. There is no sensory-experience upon awareness until and unless the brain already possesses such artistic freedom as to create those perceptions, itself. Not to mention the ability to effect (have power to...) these perceptions of love; pain; red; sweetness; cold; hot; etc., upon its own conciousness.
The brain was a genius BEFORE it had perceived of a single thing. I say this because firstly, it had to understand how to interpret universal-data before it could begin to subjectively-represent that data upon awareness. And secondly, it had to have the ability to think of subjective representation (it had to have 'imagination'), before it could have experience.
Now; that's quite a feat, wouldn't you say? For the material universe (alone) to create a brain with those capabilities before that brain could come to have any 'experiences', is not even remarkable... because "remarkable" does not remotely justify the residual dumbfoundedness which exists when asked to believe that this could ever have been the case.
In my opinion, The Mind reveals herself at her full glory here. And I have only asked the questions in order to see this. I didn't need to read a book, or be a biologist. The questions are questions of reason/cause.

I exist as a 'real perception' in (your/the) mind only?

No. I; you; he; she; we; they... all of us exist as a perception of identity which relates to the things it is concious of. But these perceptions (mine included), exist in The Mind itself.
God can see himself as a dot against the landscape, or as the landscape itself - dot included. This is obvious from the equally-obvious axiom that "God is all things.".

In other words, if you (or the mind) do not perceive of me, then I do not exist?

The perception of 'you' (in relation to what you see) exists. But that perception is gleaned from limited knowledge. Not from reason. Hence the duality of identity.

There is an outside reality, even when it was not perceived by any mind. There was a sun, there were planets, etc. even before any life began to develop on earth.

I never said that there wasn't. I just infered that The Mind was the perceiver/thinker of such a realm.

If that is your position, then I guess you are just juggling with words, and this One Mind is just another term for material existence.

The arguments I build cannot justify that conclusion. Matter cannot create a brain which knows how to interpret universal-data before ever receiving that data. And neither can it build a brain which has the artistic/imaginative freedom and power to effect the senses and feelings which awareness does experience, prior to having knowledge of how to do such things.

Your awareness interacts with the universe you percieve. But you said you don't acknowledge the fact of an 'outer reality', only the mind itself. What is your awareness interacting with themn, if such an outer reality does not exist in the first place?

Its thoughts and sensory-visions... and its emotions.

One major difference is if you are hit by a car in your dream, this event will probably just wake you up, and not cause you being hurt physically (unless you fall out of your bed, but not by a real car, of course). In reality thought a car hitting you, will cause you real injuries.

Our minds know how to wake-up from those sort of dreams. At such fearful moments, the concious-mind is put on full-alert. Hence we wake up to the dangers of our dreams. Thankfully.
Many mystics and the like - Jesus especially - have all claimed to have woken-up to the Divine reality. Only the future will determine whether such a state-of-mind awaits the whole. But how they 'achieved' such a thing (if indeed they did), is beyond my present understanding. But I believe that they may have - especially Jesus - simply because my philosophy would expect 'a Jesus' to
eventually be born. I know that religious figures should not be used in a philosophical argument. I merely use 'Jesus' as a mirror/example to reflect what I think ~Divine conciousness~ is all about. To give a meaning to what Divine-conciousness may imply.

I hope you are able to make the distinction...

I did. It was a valid point. But I think that waking-up from a fearful-dream is a different prospect to waking-up to Divine-conciousness. The former is a reaction to fear. The latter is a response to supreme-wisdom and an all-loving-heart, so it seems.

Well I remember a dream I had, when I was climbing a tree, and was affraid I was falling out of it. But suddenly in my dream I remember to have said to myself, I should not be affraid, cause it was just a dream. Perhaps this was a dream in which I was almost awake, so I knew it was a dream.

Yes. I once had a dream like that. Did you, like me, manipulate that dream to your own whims? Did you play God?

heusdens

Apr4-03, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
That's easy to say. But I could make you sweat with many awkward questions...
According to you, manufacturing conciousness is fundamentally no more different than manufacturing a brick. The complexity of that 'brick' is acknowledged. But the point remains: You think conciousness is manufactured from matter in motion/interaction.
Given that you equate the brain to some sort of data-interpretor of the external universe (which gave rise to that brain), how do you explain for the artistic free-will which [B]must also be ready-present to transform mathematical input-data into subjective sensory-experience, as well as the ability to have 'emotion'?
This is a highly significant question. There is no sensory-experience upon awareness until and unless the brain already possesses such artistic freedom as to create those perceptions, itself. Not to mention the ability to effect (have power to...) these perceptions of love; pain; red; sweetness; cold; hot; etc., upon its own conciousness.

The brain does not accept 'mathematical data' but get it's impulses from the nerve system, which is biochemical stuff. The nerve system is a complex biological/neurlogical system itself. I don't have enough knowledge to explain it in detail, but I think there are lots of source of information around that explain how the brain and nerve system function, as far as we now know.

The brain was a genius BEFORE it had perceived of a single thing.

What is your time reference here? The time scale of a human individual, growing from conception to a full human grown up being, or the development of the brain in human history/evolution?

On a human time scale, the answer is that this is of course the case, because the human brain and body is fully equiped on birth. Would that fact surprise you? I don't think this is a remarkable fact.

The other way around would be more remarkable, having your brains grow, when it is needed to respond to certain outside stimuli.
Human biology, or biology in general, does not provide for such 'quick evolution'. It would be rather impractical also.

I say this because firstly, it had to understand how to interpret universal-data before it could begin to subjectively-represent that data upon awareness. And secondly, it had to have the ability to think of subjective representation (it had to have 'imagination'), before it could have experience.

To explain in detail how this ability comes from 'dumb' atoms and molecules, is a long story. It has costed several billions of years of evolution of life forms to come up with such a complex system.

But I don't follow exactly what your argument is about you present here. Of course the layers of material existence the human brain is made of, are far too complex to be understood in full detail.

But your argument is more or less that because of this complexity, you don't seem to accept it's material origins.

Now; that's quite a feat, wouldn't you say? For the material universe (alone) to create a brain with those capabilities before that brain could come to have any 'experiences', is not even remarkable... because "remarkable" does not remotely justify the residual dumbfoundedness which exists when asked to believe that this could ever have been the case.

In my opinion, The Mind reveals herself at her full glory here. And I have only asked the questions in order to see this. I didn't need to read a book, or be a biologist. The questions are questions of reason/cause.

But from reason alone you won't be able to comprehend a human mind in full detail. And I talk about human mind, cause I don't consider 'The Mind' as a real entity, only as an abstract entity.

So in my mind it is not 'The Mind' that reveals his full glory, but it is material existence that reveals it's glory. The only conclusion that can be made is that material existence already contains the capacity or potential to develop human minds.

No. I; you; he; she; we; they... all of us exist as a perception of identity which relates to the things it is concious of. But these perceptions (mine included), exist in The Mind itself.
God can see himself as a dot against the landscape, or as the landscape itself - dot included. This is obvious from the equally-obvious axiom that "God is all things.".

There is only material existence, of which also humans and human minds are made of and upon. A mind is best thought of of a very complex material system in a living organism, that is able to be aware of the outside world and itself in a very sophisticated way.

The perception of 'you' (in relation to what you see) exists. But that perception is gleaned from limited knowledge. Not from reason. Hence the duality of identity.

Don't understand this part.

I never said that there wasn't. I just infered that The Mind was the perceiver/thinker of such a realm.

The arguments I build cannot justify that conclusion. Matter cannot create a brain which knows how to interpret universal-data before ever receiving that data. And neither can it build a brain which has the artistic/imaginative freedom and power to effect the senses and feelings which awareness does experience, prior to having knowledge of how to do such things.

Its thoughts and sensory-visions... and its emotions.

The long history of evolution of life forms from simple macromolecules that had the ability to self-reproduce, to the human species, is a too long and too complex story, an can for sure not be interpreted by way of statements like you state here.

This evolutionary process can be divided into billions and billions of steps, which are in itself very complex. For sure the ability to process the information around us, was not 'created' in one step.

i don't know what your argument comes from. How do you know that your statement is true or not? You just mention something contradictionary, but it seems to me, you realy never bothered in the first place how evolutionary processes, even the most simple ones, did take place.

I hold it your argument is just based on ignorance, and not on true knowledge about the material processes that did take place in the evolution.

What you don't seem to understand is that without any real knowledge about even a few steps in the history of evolution, your statements just sound like plain ignorance.

And by the way, the brain as a very complex ensemble of specialised human cells, is in no way able of knowing what it is doing, it is just performing the job, and creates the functions needed for the mind to be a conscious observer.

Same way as the microchip has no way of knowing what kind of program is it performing, it just has hard wired code that deals with the input, and prodeces the output.

The only difference is that the latter needed an intelligent designer for designing the microchip, and the first costed billions of years of evolution and the right conditions to do the job.

Our minds know how to wake-up from those sort of dreams. At such fearful moments, the concious-mind is put on full-alert. Hence we wake up to the dangers of our dreams. Thankfully.

Yes. So, eventually we will react to the outer world in a materialistic way, that is we recognize that an apporaching object that looks like a car, can cause us serious damage. At that moment, we do not stumble and think if and or wether that car is real, or just an illusion of our mind, cause we will be dead before we determined that!

In our debates, in which we don't experience such stimuli, we might think we react in a different way, as we actually react when we are being put under the stimuli of such an event.
So our mind knows how to react to 'outer reality' and reacts to it accordingly, even when we are not consiously aware of that reality.

Many mystics and the like - Jesus especially - have all claimed to have woken-up to the Divine reality. Only the future will determine whether such a state-of-mind awaits the whole. But how they 'achieved' such a thing (if indeed they did), is beyond my present understanding. But I believe that they may have - especially Jesus - simply because my philosophy would expect 'a Jesus' to
eventually be born. I know that religious figures should not be used in a philosophical argument. I merely use 'Jesus' as a mirror/example to reflect what I think ~Divine conciousness~ is all about. To give a meaning to what Divine-conciousness may imply.

Such a state of the mind is based on stimuli of certain parts of the brain, causing 'religious feelings', so they can be ultimately be defined in terms of how the brain works, and the material processe that determine the way the brain functions. Don't worry.

I did. It was a valid point. But I think that waking-up from a fearful-dream is a different prospect to waking-up to Divine-conciousness. The former is a reaction to fear. The latter is a response to supreme-wisdom and an all-loving-heart, so it seems.

It can be quite well explained in terms of the right chemistry in the brain, causing such sensations.

Yes. I once had a dream like that. Did you, like me, manipulate that dream to your own whims? Did you play God?

I don't know what this has to do with 'playing god', it was just a dreamlike state that was very close to a conscious state (just moments before awaking), in which the dream state was left, and I was in the process of awaking. Otherwise, i could not have thought that way.

Playing for God is what Bush is doing in Iraq. I abstain from such immoral interventions, causing bloodshed of thousands of Iraqi people.

heusdens

Apr4-03, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
The arguments I build cannot justify that conclusion. Matter cannot create a brain which knows how to interpret universal-data before ever receiving that data. And neither can it build a brain which has the artistic/imaginative freedom and power to effect the senses and feelings which awareness does experience, prior to having knowledge of how to do such things.

Its thoughts and sensory-visions... and its emotions.

Now if such a thing happend in, let's say, six days, I would call that a miracle, indeed, and would reject such a weird explenation! But seen on a time scale of several billions of years, and examining all the small steps that in itself are quite complex, this makes sense to someone. Although we might never be able to know the full complexity and full details of all the billions steps involved in this process, from what we already know we have a glimpse of the immense and total complexity that was involved in this evolutionary longs lasting process.

Get the idea?

Further, what gives you the idea that there must have been a mind that had thought about 'creating' brains, before a brain was developed?

Your reasoning is realy weird, in that you have a total lack of knowledge about how the material world works.

Does a water molecule know at what temperature it must transform from the liquid form into gas? No, the gas molecule simply acts according to the properties a water molecule has.
Put many water molecules together, heat it, and you'll see at normal pressure the water to boil at 100 degrees celcius.
Where is that knowledge stored? How does the water know at what temperature to boil?

These are similar interpretations as you have put forward, but which make it a bit more clear, that they are foolish interpretations.

If you don't have a clue of how the material world realy works, then go study some physics, chemistry, biology, etc. You might learn how the material world realy works.

heusdens

Apr4-03, 08:08 PM

Some questions/comments for Lifegazer.

Since in your previous post you reveal more clearly your point of view, which is ultimately an Idealistic approach, involving a 'Super mind' annex 'Creator' thing, ans since you refute to accept the material explenation of the development of the human mind, let's confront you with some pitfalls in your thinking.

Firstly, materialism tries to understand the world, and the material processes that go on in the world, as it IS, and not how we think it is. This requires us to examine and reexamine the material world in all it's aspects and features, and try to come up with real explenations. And the only way one can explain things is to define things in terms of already known things and phenomena. You can only understand complexity from more simple things, and built up your explenation from that.

Your 'explenations' work the other way around. Even to explain the most simple things, involves in your approach the existence of a 'Super Intelligent Supreme being', which in itself is not in any way understood. The world is already an immense complex system, but you seem to need an even more complex system, a creator, that has built or created everything. If a human brain was a result of an intelligent designer, it follows that the designer must have had more complex brains as the brain he designed. Which of course leads us to the question, who created the brains of the creator, ad infinitum.
In other words, this way of explaining things does not lead to any answers, but move away from it.

Furthermore, from human history and it's early development, it can be clear that the emerge of God and religion as human concepts, have to do with the fact that in early manhood, while human beings were fully equipped with almost the same brains as we have now, there was a lack of knowledge on almost anything.
Humans did not understand why sometimes the hunt was good, and sometimes they nearly starved to death. They did not understood why they became ill, why their land drowned, and why their lives were full of suffering. They would feel that there suffering maybe was to blame by their own misbehaviour, or were caused by some hidden and unknown being or force, and they invented symbols for this, and invented rituals to serve these 'beings' or 'spirits'.

For all the effects from the outside world, there was a lack of real knowledge. To compensate for this lack of knowledge, an ultimate and hidden force was invented, just to satisfy the curious, and to ease the pain. Later on this Gods of nature were replaced with culturally developed Gods, and which finally lead to a concept of monotheism.

In our current situation we face however the fact that human knowledge has grown immensely, and religion has no real purpose anymore. Religion is outdated, but still holds many millions of people in ignorance and is a willing tool for dictators to suppress their people. It keeps people ignorant from how the material world realy works, and makes them servicable to the needs and greeds of the upper class.
Humanity however has the ability to free itself from any outside danger the world offers, and also has the ability to control it's own form of society, in order to provide for all people in their needs.

It's a pitty that still, up to today, so many people keep themselves ignorant from how the world realy works, and keep them selves tied up to an outdated belief system, that places the world upside down.

Tom Mattson

Apr4-03, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I agree with this. However, it's quite interesting that 2 paragraphs later you say this: "Boy, have you got it wrong. First, the “feeling of time passing” is not precisely defined at all."

Why interesting?

If physics and maths are formulated upon human-experience, and those feelings/sensations/perceptions are not precisely defined, then how is it that seconds and meters are precisely defined, as you yourself have acknowledged?
What you're failing to realise, is that the definition of a second is a definition of the “feeling of time passing”. Language proceeds experience.

Do you mean precedes?

Not only are you comments in contradiction of one-another; they also show that you haven't grasped this essential point. ~Definition~ is an expression of experience.
So, if the "“feeling of time passing” is not precisely defined at all", then obviously, we would have no definition of time - seconds.

There is no contradiction in my comments. You erroneously equate "feeling" with "measurement", simple as that.

Are you insisting (as materialists do) that the physical-universe is directly responsible for the Laws which govern it?

I am saying that the universe has properties that cannot be known a priori, and so must be determined by experimentation.

Tom Mattson

Apr4-03, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
That's just not true. My recent post to CJames shows that my conclusions are founded upon Relativity as it is understood.

Nope. What's more, you aren't even in a position to make this kind of an assessment, since you have never studied the subject.

The debate has dealt with side-issues, also. For example, I have clearly pointed-out to you the value of experience itself, and shown how measurement and definition are merely expressions of this experience. Your insistence that "experience has no value" is obviously an oversight on your part. The value of experience is evident in the language we use to define it. Language proceeds experience - even mathematical language.

I do not recall doing anything other than ask you to explain what you mean by the "value of experience". I still have not received any sensible answer.

Also, my point to you about dx'/dt' = c', was not a challenge to the constancy of lightspeed - but an attempt to show you how each observer has a unique experience of that numerical value - in exactly the same manner that each observer has a unique experience of '1' meter and '1' second.

If you say that the two (c and c') are different somehow, then you are saying that they are not constant. I don't know how you could say otherwise.

Why is it that you so-readily understand the concept that everybody has a unique experience of 1m and 1s; yet cannot extend this chain-of-reason to 1m/s?

I can extend it to 1m/s. What I have been trying to pound into your head is that it does not extend to 3*108m/s.

Clearly, given that each observer has a unique experience of the meter and the second, it should be obvious that any given velocity should be qualified as acknowledging the uniqueness of those parameters.

"It should be obvious that..."

That is your favorite logical operator. Unfortunately, it proves nothing.

The word you are looking for, is 'countered'. I do not ignore you. Nor do I dismiss what you say. I think about what you say and then if I think you are mistaken, I counter you. That's the way a debate should happen.

As Njorl said, you do not even remotely address the objections that are offered to you.

Well, the fact that I fight to give my argument a fair hearing, is because few people are willing to do just that. Some of the responses in this thread have been completely evasive to my argument. And like I said: if this argument should fail, it should fail by reasoned-counter alone. Not politics or snobbery.

Your argument is as dead as a doornail. We have been fair, and we have rejected it because it is completely devoid of logic. You never established any connection between relativity and the impossibility of a material universe. All you did was assert it, and you were called on it.

That's your opinion. But in my opinion, if you do not even acknowledge that 'measurement' is an expression of experience - hence validating the "value of experience" - then how am I expected to reason with you?

You are impossible.

What I asked you was:

No, I do not denounce existence. I simply do not understand your bizarre language, which is why I asked the question. You still have not shed any light on the “value of space/time”. If it is simply measurements of spatial and temporal intervals, then please just say so.

Of course, you never did say so.

edit: insert quote

Fliption

Apr4-03, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by Tom
I do not recall doing anything other than ask you to explain what you mean by the "value of experience". I still have not received any sensible answer.

OK guys. I don't really want to get too involved in this because I will admit I am not qualified. Also, my eyes are drooping here so don't be too harsh with me if I fail to contribute any value. But let me see if I can help out with this question of Tom's above.

While I'll be the first to admit that I cannot personally defend nor express an opinion on LG's conclusions,(not yet anyway) I actually think I understand what he's talking about when he talks about the "value of experience". I'll assume that people here are not just trying to be difficult on purpose and really are curious.

Tom,

Let's assume you get up one morning and walk into the bathroom and admire your muscles in the mirror.[:D] Then you go to the kitchen and fix yourself some breakfast. Let's also assume you don't have access to any formal device for measuring time i.e. a watch or clock. After you eat your breakfast,you go into the bathroom and look in the mirror and you see an 85 year old man. Would you be surprised? Why? What proof do you have that decades have not passed? The answer is "yes" you would be surprised. You don't need a watch to be able to tell the difference between an hour and a few decades. That is the experience value of time. It should always be somewhat correlated to a formal measure of time but in the example above, it is not. If this really happened you would think you were going nuts.

But yet this is what happens in the case of the twins paradox. The space twin returns to find his earth twin is an old man. The space twins "experience of time" no longer correlates with the actual measure of time of his earth twin.

Now Tom you may actually have understood all this before. Your quote about from Einstein seems to recognize this concept and just throw it out the window because it is unreliable. Perhaps it is. But let me ask a question. In the twins paradox, I have always understood the potential dialoge between the twins to go like this:

Space Twin: "You're an old man! But I was only gone for a year!"
Earth Twin: "Nonsense! You were gone for 60 years. I have lived a full life since you left."

and not like this...

Space Twin: "Oh my god it's good to be back. Seems like I've been gone for so many YEARS! But my clock practically stopped working and I haven't aged a bit! I am so confused."

So the theory seems to suggest what would happen with the mindful "experience of time". Why would it do this if it is not making assumptions about how the experience of time works? It's claiming that the experience of 1 second will remain the way it always has for both twins. Yet somehow one of the twins has managed to separate his experience of 1 second from the actual measured second of the other twin.(The first dialgue and not the second)

If the paradox story is accurate it does seems to be addressing the "experience of time" and not just throwing it away as irrelevant. Please let me know if I'm off base.

The relevance of all this to LG's conclusions I'll leave to you guys to sort out.

Heh and tomorrow I may not even agree with this. I am so tirreeeed I keep noddddng ooff.,. Im gouiiing to beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Tom Mattson

Apr5-03, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
Let's assume you get up one morning and walk into the bathroom and admire your muscles in the mirror.[:D] Then you go to the kitchen and fix yourself some breakfast. Let's also assume you don't have access to any formal device for measuring time i.e. a watch or clock. After you eat your breakfast,you go into the bathroom and look in the mirror and you see an 85 year old man. Would you be surprised? Why?

Yes, because it does not take me 55 years to eat a bowl of Raisin Bran.

But yet this is what happens in the case of the twins paradox. The space twin returns to find his earth twin is an old man. The space twins "experience of time" no longer correlates with the actual measure of time of his earth twin.

Your first example is not what happens in the twin paradox. It's always the other guy's clocks and meter sticks that look screwed up, never my own.

Now Tom you may actually have understood all this before. Your quote about from Einstein seems to recognize this concept and just throw it out the window because it is unreliable.

I throw it out for two reasons. One, it is ill-defined. Two, this thread is supposed to be about how relativity implies The Mind.

But relativity does not make use of any of these fuzzy concepts such as what time and space "feel" like, so there is no point in bringing it up. Relativity only refers to measurements.

Janus

Apr5-03, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Fliption

Let's assume you get up one morning and walk into the bathroom and admire your muscles in the mirror.[:D] Then you go to the kitchen and fix yourself some breakfast. Let's also assume you don't have access to any formal device for measuring time i.e. a watch or clock. After you eat your breakfast,you go into the bathroom and look in the mirror and you see an 85 year old man. Would you be surprised? Why? What proof do you have that decades have not passed? The answer is "yes" you would be surprised. You don't need a watch to be able to tell the difference between an hour and a few decades. That is the experience value of time. It should always be somewhat correlated to a formal measure of time but in the example above, it is not. If this really happened you would think you were going nuts.

The problem with this example is that even though you've never glanced at a clock, There are plenty of other clues in your environment. to give you "time Clues" (For instance, As Tom mentioned, eating your cereal. If it had actually taken decades, the milk would have been really sour by the time you finished.

If however, you took away all such clues (say put you in a sensory deprivation tank). You would soon lose all track of passing time. Seconds can feel like hours.

Even if you just put someone down a deep cave with no time keeping device, it has been shown that their conception of how much time has passed will drift out of sync with those on the surface. Even though an atomic clock brought with them in a locked and sealed box would keep perfect time with the surface.

Lifegazer

Apr5-03, 01:56 PM

I also want to conduct an imaginary-experiment...

Imagine two orbits around the Sun. The first orbit is that of Earth. The second orbit is that of the space-twin. His velocity is not that important, as long as we recognise that he is travelling extremely fast (c/2, for example).
What is important, is that the radius of this second orbit is exactly the right distance from the Sun, to enable the space-twin to share the same radial (approx.) as Earth, from the Sun, as he moves at C/2. In other words, the Sun; Earth, and the space-twin, all share the same radial.

I'm hoping that someone can solve my confusion with the time-issue here. For on Earth, a full revolution of the Sun = 1 year.
So; why isn't a full revolution of the Sun, by the space-twin = 1 year? I mean, the space-twin must experience (relatively) less time than someone on Earth (as in the twin paradox). So, therefore, he must experience less time than '1 year'. And yet, he's just done a full revolution of the Sun in the same time that Earth has (same radial).
My confusion may seem vague or naive here. But if the space-twin can see Earth do a full revolution of the Sun, then he must also see the rest of the universe as the Earth does, relative to the Sun. I.e., Earth and the spacetwin should see almost the same nightsky. Upon first-glance, this might not seem relevant. However, if the spacetwin shares the same nightsky as Earth, in what sense can we say that he is experiencing less time (relatively) than someone on Earth, whilst also proclaiming that his experiences are 'normal'?
Where's the source of my confusion? This doesn't make sense to me: that the spacetwin can actually experience less time than someone on Earth, when the observation of the universe from either looks identical.

kyleb

Apr5-03, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Tom
Yes, because it does not take me 55 years to eat a bowl of Raisin Bran.

it took me a bit more than 15; but that is because i never liked raisins as a kid. [:D]

Fliption

Apr5-03, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by Tom
Yes, because it does not take me 55 years to eat a bowl of Raisin Bran.

Oh so you're saying that eating a bowl of Raisin Bran is a way of measuring time? Lol then what isn't? No wonder you're struggling to define the experience of time passing.

Your first example is not what happens in the twin paradox. It's always the other guy's clocks and meter sticks that look screwed up, never my own.

Oh yes, I am aware of that. I think you missed the point of that story. Step back a bit. The only similarity I was pointing out is that you now have an inconsistency in "experienced time" and actual measured time on the original planet. It would be the same thing as my example except you have to travel like the space twin did to achieve it.

But relativity does not make use of any of these fuzzy concepts such as what time and space "feel" like, so there is no point in bringing it up. Relativity only refers to measurements. [/B]

From your perspective, I'm struggling to see what would not be considered a measurement of time. It seems that just the act of experiencing anything is itself a measure of time (like eating breakfast). If this is true then LG does have a problem I think.

Lifegazer

Apr5-03, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
From your perspective, I'm struggling to see what would not be considered a measurement of time. It seems that just the act of experiencing anything is itself a measure of time (like eating breakfast). If this is true then LG does have a problem I think. [/B]
You've lost me. Why?

Fliption

Apr5-03, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Janus
The problem with this example is that even though you've never glanced at a clock, There are plenty of other clues in your environment. to give you "time Clues" (For instance, As Tom mentioned, eating your cereal. If it had actually taken decades, the milk would have been really sour by the time you finished.

If however, you took away all such clues (say put you in a sensory deprivation tank). You would soon lose all track of passing time. Seconds can feel like hours.

Even if you just put someone down a deep cave with no time keeping device, it has been shown that their conception of how much time has passed will drift out of sync with those on the surface. Even though an atomic clock brought with them in a locked and sealed box would keep perfect time with the surface.

Yes, Janus I had thought of all of that. Just like Tom's cereal. So you're saying the same thing as Tom. The implication of this is that the act of experiencing is itself a measurement of time. You're saying that the most likely way a persons perception of time can be led astray from actual clock time is if we place that person into an atmosphere where there is nothing to experience. Like a dark cave etc.

IMO, (Tell me if I'm wrong LG) LG see's perception of time and measured time as separate things. You guys, however, see perception of time as the same as measured time. In your view, the only way you can separate the perception of time and measured time is to eliminate the act of experiencing anything.

I would think this would be an easy scientific thing to find out. Once we know this, then I think it impacts LG's argument greatly.

Fliption

Apr5-03, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I also want to conduct an imaginary-experiment...

That's an interesting imaginary experiment. As I said in the beginning, I'm not qualified to say. I just wanted to point out to you why I think Tom and others think you are questioning science as opposed to materialism.

If you go back and read your experiment and replace the word "experience" with the word "measurement", you can see that it looks like you are questioning the theory of relativity. It seems like, from the responses I got above, that Tom and others don't see a distinction between the experience and measurement of time. To them they are the same thing. So this may be why there seems to be the obvious confusion of motive on this thread.

Fliption

Apr5-03, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
You've lost me. Why?

LG, I went back to your original starting point to see where I think it falls apart, if what Janus and Tom are saying is acceptable. The problem is in number 3. Here it is...

3) However, even though time & space are altered by motion, the observer will not notice anything different. His experiences will seem 'normal'.

According to Tom and Janus, the experiences seem normal because they are consistent with the distortion. For example, if you are accelerating and distorting space/time and time is relatively speeding up, then your perception of time will also speed up simply because your perception of time is based on the speed of your environment. It takes Tom 15 minutes to eat his cereal. To Tom, it will always take 15 minutes to eat his cereal regardless of how fast he is traveling. The difference in opinion I think is that you're thinking that the "perception of time" is a distinct thing in and of itself. Whereas the others here are thinking it is simply the byproduct of experiencing ones environment. To them it is no surprise that the perception in time will be consistent with the distortion of space/time.

Lifegazer

Apr5-03, 05:27 PM

Tom wants me to quantify this feeling for time. My point to him was that physical measurements are the expression of this value. They quantify this qualifying-parameter of all existence - feel - by themselves.

IMO, (Tell me if I'm wrong LG) LG see's perception of time and measured time as separate things.

I view the ~feeling~ of time as absolute/universal (amongst all observers). I view the measurement of time as relative. So yes, they are separate things.

You guys, however, see perception of time as the same as measured time.

Don't confuse perception with feeling. It's easily done, and I probably overlook this linguistic-distinction myself, frequently. However, this issue has never been so relevant to one of my threads, as now. You see, 'perception' is the actual judgement of what you think you are seeing. But this judgement is dependent upon a ~feel~ for what you are perceiving/judging (measuring) - in relation to everything else.
Thus, if the space-twin's reality is actually distorted, his ~feel~ for what a meter and a second are in relation to this New-Everything, does not change. The mind knows exactly how to fathom a meter & second from this 'new reality'. The mind's ~feel~ of time & length from any distorted reality remains universally-correct (constant). But because the nature of 'everything' is relatively-distorted via motion, the new measurements of 1 meter and 1 second will be different than on Earth (for the spacetwin; relatively).

In your view, the only way you can separate the perception of time and measured time is to eliminate the act of experiencing anything.

In which case, they also eliminate the ability to measure anything. Measure proceeds 'feel'.

I would think this would be an easy scientific thing to find out. Once we know this, then I think it impacts LG's argument greatly.
I think I have sufficiently-shown that science is built upon a feeling for everything. If you distort 'the everything' then you only distort the measure of things within that everything. You do not distort the mind's capacity to fathom what it feels in relation to that everything. Do you understand my drift?

Lifegazer

Apr5-03, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
That's an interesting imaginary experiment.

I hope so. I was afraid of coming-across as naive in regards to this topic. That's why I asked questions, rather than make conclusions (at this point).
**But please - can I have a physics-boffin answer those questions from that imaginary-scenario (on the previous page of this thread), as I want to relate it to my argument if my suspicions are correct. Thankyou.**

As I said in the beginning, I'm not qualified to say.

You don't need to be a physicist here. We're discussing 'reality' - not physics. You have a high intelligence - don't be afraid to use it.

I just wanted to point out to you why I think Tom and others think you are questioning science as opposed to materialism.

My neck's on the block here. Every time I post, I know that I face eviction from these forums. Yet I love these forums. I don't want to be evicted. Hence I would never condemn scientific equations as incorrect (since I don't believe that they are, anyway!). I would only ever qualify those equations in relation to reality. That's why I keep emphasising my challenge to materialism.

If you go back and read your experiment and replace the word "experience" with the word "measurement", you can see that it looks like you are questioning the theory of relativity.

I think this is a language issue (not a physics issue). I'm hoping my previous post to you may clarify my position.

Edit: I have just posted the following-text in another thread. However, I couldn't resist making-it-known here, also:
***My topic about Relativity is about 'Relativity', and I use the axioms of that theory to promote the reality of Mind, thus bringing-about the demise of materialism {if accepted, of course}... as opposed to the demise of Einstein's work..***

Tom Mattson

Apr5-03, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
What is important, is that the radius of this second orbit is exactly the right distance from the Sun, to enable the space-twin to share the same radial (approx.) as Earth, from the Sun, as he moves at C/2. In other words, the Sun; Earth, and the space-twin, all share the same radial.

I will have to work this out in detail, but I am almost certain that if the three bodies share the same radial in one frame, that they cannot possibly do so in any other frame. The relativity of simultaneity comes into play here: the three bodies are simultaneously co-linear for one observer, so they cannot be so simultaneously aligned for any observer in a different state of motion.

Tom Mattson

Apr5-03, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
Oh so you're saying that eating a bowl of Raisin Bran is a way of measuring time? Lol then what isn't? No wonder you're struggling to define the experience of time passing.

It is not a measurement, but it does give me a loose gauge to determine what is normal. I would not expect to have aged more than about 15 minutes after breakfast.

Oh yes, I am aware of that. I think you missed the point of that story. Step back a bit. The only similarity I was pointing out is that you now have an inconsistency in "experienced time" and actual measured time on the original planet. It would be the same thing as my example except you have to travel like the space twin did to achieve it.

OK

From your perspective, I'm struggling to see what would not be considered a measurement of time. It seems that just the act of experiencing anything is itself a measure of time (like eating breakfast). If this is true then LG does have a problem I think.

Any dynamic process with a known rate can be used to measure time.

Lifegazer

Apr5-03, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by Tom
I will have to work this out in detail, but I am almost certain that if the three bodies share the same radial in one frame, that they cannot possibly do so in any other frame.

Well; I'll be hoping for some sort of reason for making that statement. I fail to see how two bodies can share the same radial, yet see 'the circle' (so to speak), differently.

The relativity of simultaneity comes into play here: the three bodies are simultaneously co-linear for one observer, so they cannot be so simultaneously aligned for any observer in a different state of motion.
I've not heard of that before. But is it relevant? I want to explain the relative time-differences between two observers that do share the same radial.

Edit: If I don't get an answer within 36+ hours, then I'll post what I think may be happening within this scenario, and how it supports my own specific theory about reality. I mean, if there are no answers by the boffs, then I can hardly be accused of going against the scientific explanation of my scenario.

Fliption

Apr5-03, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Tom wants me to quantify this feeling for time. My point to him was that physical measurements are the expression of this value. They quantify this qualifying-parameter of all existence - feel - by themselves.

I think I have sufficiently-shown that science is built upon a feeling for everything. If you distort 'the everything' then you only distort the measure of things within that everything. You do not distort the mind's capacity to fathom what it feels in relation to that everything. Do you understand my drift?

Hmmm. Now it seems that you and Tom are actually agreeing to some extent. Except he is saying that the feel of time passing results from experiencing the change/motion in the environment and you are saying that the ability to measure the change/motion of the environment is the result of this "feeling of time passing". LOL All we've done is back the materialism debate up a bit. Which came first the chicken or the egg?

Don't confuse perception with feeling. It's easily done, and I probably overlook this linguistic-distinction myself, frequently. However, this issue has never been so relevant to one of my threads, as now. You see, 'perception' is the actual judgement of what you think you are seeing. But this judgement is dependent upon a ~feel~ for what you are perceiving/judging (measuring) - in relation to everything else.

OK. The way you are using the word feeling is the same way I
intended perception to be used.

Thus, if the space-twin's reality is actually distorted, his ~feel~ for what a meter and a second are in relation to this New-Everything, does not change. The mind knows exactly how to fathom a meter & second from this 'new reality'. The mind's ~feel~ of time & length from any distorted reality remains universally-correct (constant).

Hmm. Let's take an analogy. You will get a distinctive sensation from eating an Orange. Regardless of what anyone tells you it is, once you eat it you say "Thats an Orange." Even if you were to visit another planet and pick a fruit and eat it and get the same sensation, you would claim it is probably an Orange. Whether it really was or not doesn't matter. So does this mean that the Orange comes from this universal sensation? Or does the sensation come from the Orange?

It seems the second and the meter are the same thing. They are just human created concepts. It only makes sense that this mindful concept will remain constant as space is distorted. Just like the taste of an orange does. The concept of "Orange" is always associated with that sensation; Regardless of how the environment is distorting things. It may actually be an Apple. But if it gives me that sensation my mind associates with an Orange...then it is an Orange. Same with a meter or a second.

In which case, they also eliminate the ability to measure anything. Measure proceeds 'feel'.

But what about Janus' example? What if you were put in a dark cave and you could see and hear nothing? You are given a watch but you can't see it in the dark. When you are let out, you may "feel" as if 3 days have gone by. But then you look at the watch and realise that only a day has gone by. So in this case, all experience has been taken away from you and as a result has taken away your ability to properly feel the passage of time. Yet at the same time the watch was actually measuring time correctly.

Fliption

Apr5-03, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
You don't need to be a physicist here. We're discussing 'reality' - not physics. You have a high intelligence - don't be afraid to use it.

With what I was referring to you do have to be a physicist. I was talking about being able to give a scientifically valid interpretation of relativity with regards to your experiment. I don't have enough knowledge about the theory to say what the explanation is. But I'm hoping that maybe one of the science gurus can help.

Tom Mattson

Apr5-03, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I've not heard of that before. But is it relevant? I want to explain the relative time-differences between two observers that do share the same radial.

I have no idea of where you are going with this, so you tell me: is it relevant to your point if they are not co-linear in every frame?

Edit: If I don't get an answer within 36+ hours, then I'll post what I think may be happening within this scenario, and how it supports my own specific theory about reality.

My advice: Do not count Sunday. I know I will not be working on this tomorrow.

I mean, if there are no answers by the boffs, then I can hardly be accused of going against the scientific explanation of my scenario.

How do you figure?

Making up your own solution to suit your pet philosophy is not right no matter what any of us does. If we do not get back to you with the solution in 36 hours, then the proper thing to do is wait.

Or better yet, pick up a book and start studying.

Janus

Apr5-03, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I also want to conduct an imaginary-experiment...

Imagine two orbits around the Sun. The first orbit is that of Earth. The second orbit is that of the space-twin. His velocity is not that important, as long as we recognise that he is travelling extremely fast (c/2, for example).
What is important, is that the radius of this second orbit is exactly the right distance from the Sun, to enable the space-twin to share the same radial (approx.) as Earth, from the Sun, as he moves at C/2. In other words, the Sun; Earth, and the space-twin, all share the same radial.

I'm hoping that someone can solve my confusion with the time-issue here. For on Earth, a full revolution of the Sun = 1 year.
So; why isn't a full revolution of the Sun, by the space-twin = 1 year? I mean, the space-twin must experience (relatively) less time than someone on Earth (as in the twin paradox). So, therefore, he must experience less time than '1 year'. And yet, he's just done a full revolution of the Sun in the same time that Earth has (same radial).
My confusion may seem vague or naive here. But if the space-twin can see Earth do a full revolution of the Sun, then he must also see the rest of the universe as the Earth does, relative to the Sun. I.e., Earth and the spacetwin should see almost the same nightsky. Upon first-glance, this might not seem relevant. However, if the spacetwin shares the same nightsky as Earth, in what sense can we say that he is experiencing less time (relatively) than someone on Earth, whilst also proclaiming that his experiences are 'normal'?
Where's the source of my confusion? This doesn't make sense to me: that the spacetwin can actually experience less time than someone on Earth, when the observation of the universe from either looks identical.

Their observation of the universe isn't identical however.

This can be answered Either by SR or GR

In SR the space twin sees the Universe contracted along the axis of movement by a much greater extent than the Earth does. Thus the space twin sees the circumference of his orbit as smaller. And thus it takes him less time to complete an orbit at c/2 by his measurement than what the Earth twin measures as the Space twin's time to complete the orbit . The Earth twin measures the Space twin's clock as moving slower because of the relative velocity diference between the two.

Another way of looking at it is to use GR. in this case, the space twin and Earth are considered as stationary (and the universe revolving around them) in a Gravitational field that is a combined result of the Sun's gravitational field (pulling them in) and the gravitational field due to the centrifugal effect (pulling him out). At any distance further away from the sun sharing a radial with the Earth, this second field will be the greatest.( at the exact distance of the Earth they cancel out to zero)

As a result, the space twin will see himself as Lower in that combined field than the Earth twin. Since clocks run slower lower in a gravity field than clocks higher in the same field, the Earth clock will run faster than his.

The Earth twin in this case, sees himself as higher in this same field, and sees the space twin's clocks run slower due to the same gravitational time dilation.

Lifegazer

Apr6-03, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by Janus
Their observation of the universe isn't identical however.

This can be answered Either by SR or GR

In SR the space twin sees the Universe contracted along the axis of movement by a much greater extent than the Earth does. Thus the space twin sees the circumference of his orbit as smaller.
And thus it takes him less time to complete an orbit at c/2 by his measurement than what the Earth twin measures as the Space twin's time to complete the orbit . The Earth twin measures the Space twin's clock as moving slower because of the relative velocity diference between the two.

I'm a bit confused here. I'm aware that the space-twin does experience less time than the Earth-twin. But if they occupy the same radial at any given time (adherence of the experiment), then they share the same night-sky. Hence, both observers should see the universe behaving in an identical manner. And that's why I cannot make any sense of the time distortion; for in what sense can we say the space-twin will experience the same universe as somebody on Earth, yet experience less time than somebody on Earth? It appears (to me) that the space-twin can only experience less time if he thinks everything (the universe) is moving in fast-motion. But if this was the case, the ~normality~ of his experiences would be compromised. And wouldn't this contradict our understanding of Relativity, whereby all observers are thought to have a 'normal experience'?

Another way of looking at it is to use GR. in this case, the space twin and Earth are considered as stationary (and the universe revolving around them) in a Gravitational field that is a combined result of the Sun's gravitational field (pulling them in) and the gravitational field due to the centrifugal effect (pulling him out). At any distance further away from the sun sharing a radial with the Earth, this second field will be the greatest.( at the exact distance of the Earth they cancel out to zero)

As a result, the space twin will see himself as Lower in that combined field than the Earth twin. Since clocks run slower lower in a gravity field than clocks higher in the same field, the Earth clock will run faster than his.

Hence, the spacetwin will see the same nightsky (the universe) moving in faster-motion than previously, on Earth. Thus, his 'experience of normaility' seems compromised, again. Is that correct?

Edit note: had to change slow-motion to fast-motion. Realised I had made an error.

Lifegazer

Apr6-03, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by Tom
I have no idea of where you are going with this, so you tell me: is it relevant to your point if they are not co-linear in every frame?

The relevance is that by sharing the same radial, that they experience the same universe (by observation) at all times. Hence, I cannot understand how both observers can see the same universe whilst having a different experience of time - whilst also thinking that everything appears to be 'normal'. Something seems to be compromised here. Specifically, it appears that the space-twin must be having an abnormal experience, as though the rest of the universe must be moving in faster-motion, relative to himself. But that would compromise our understanding of Relativity (the 'normality' of it)... would it not?
This is the source of my confusion.

Edit note: I made the same error as in my previous post. Corrected from slower-motion to faster-motion.

Janus

Apr6-03, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I'm a bit confused here. I'm aware that the space-twin does experience less time than the Earth-twin. But if they occupy the same radial at any given time (adherence of the experiment), then they share the same night-sky.
Hence, both observers should see the universe behaving in an identical manner.

The Earth, the Space twin and the Nightsky are in three different frames of reference. If you consider the universe as stationary, then the Earth is moving at 30km/s, and the space twin at c/2 relative to it respectively. If the night sky has a different realtive velocity to each, they cannot see the universe as behaving in an identical manner.

And that's why I cannot make any sense of the time distortion; for in what sense can we say the space-twin will experience the same universe as somebody on Earth, yet experience less time than somebody on Earth? It appears (to me) that the space-twin can only experience less time if he thinks everything (the universe) is moving in slow motion. But if this was the case, the ~normality~ of his experiences would be compromised. And wouldn't this contradict our understanding of Relativity, whereby all observers are thought to have a 'normal experience'?

For the Space twin everything is normal. It is the universe around him that has changed. The circumference of his "orbit" is only 8.19 e12 km rather than the 9.46 e12 km as measured from Earth. Thus at c/2 by it only takes 27310176 rather than 31536000sec to complete an orbit.

Since the Earth shares his radial, by his clock it will also only take 27210176 sec for the Earth to complete an orbit.

But because of the considerations mentioned in my previous post, if he were watching the Earth through a telescope, he would see the Earth clocks running faster than his by a factor of 1.15... Meaning that he will see the Earth clock measuring 31536000 sec per orbit.

From the Earth, things again, are normal. You would measure the Space twin as traveling a circumference of 9.46 e12 km in 31536000 sec. However, you would see the space twin's clock running at a rate of .866... meaning you would see it as measuring 27210176 sec per orbit.

Each observer will see the same events in the Nightsky, they just won't agree as to the length of time said events take to occur by their clock.

The Principle of Relativity holds

Lifegazer

Apr6-03, 11:18 PM

I want to point-out that this following response is not a challenge against the fact that space-time is actually distorted. Nor is it a challenge to the mathematics which can prove this. It's a challenge to our vision of 'reality'.
Originally posted by Janus
The Earth, the Space twin and the Nightsky are in three different frames of reference.

How does the night-sky have a frame of reference? Its a whole. Its own frame of reference is the observer(s) who sees it.
The frames of reference - of relevance - are that radial I mentioned, and the observers upon 'it' who are looking at that nightsky.

If you consider the universe as stationary, then the Earth is moving at 30km/s, and the space twin at c/2 relative to it respectively.

So: All observers on Earth are measuring the velocity of that Earth, relative to everything else.
However; it should be noted that the velocity of all observers who were born on Earth, is gleaned in relation to that Earth. The Earth is used as a universal-frame of observer-motion. Agreed?
So; any observer from Earth would actually be judging motion in relation to his understanding of velocity, gleaned from his own velocity-relations with the Earth.
Hence, the velocity of any observer is wrt Earth. That is our true frame of reference, when defining velocities.
So; would it not be more-correct to say that the Earth is moving at 30km/s, relative to everything else (which is really moving in relation to that Earth)... and that the space-twin is moving at c/2 relative to the Earth?

If the night sky has a different realtive velocity to each, they cannot see the universe as behaving in an identical manner.

But how can the night-sky, of itself, have a different relative-velocity to each, if they share the same radial of existence?
I'm not saying that it can't, or that it doesn't. All I'm saying to you, is that these things are happening within the minds of individuals. That's why I keep pointing-out that I don't disagree with the math or anything. I'm just trying to show that this is a mind-reality, and am thus challenging materialism - not science. So please have a serious think about my comments.

For the Space twin everything is normal.**It is the universe around him that has changed.**

But my scenario doesn't allow for this comment. The spacetwin is aligned with the Earth and the Sun (in this scenario). And it's impossible to see a different version of the sphere-of-view from somebody who shares the same radial of existence, unless your mind is playing tricks with the light, so to speak. And it just so happens that this is exactly the case; for 'time' and 'space' (the personal-experience of them) is distorted, as we try to move amongst the light-things which we can see. Our motion/acceleration against the light-things produces a distortion in space-time. And yet, we haven't moved at all in relation to any light. How can we have done this, when the light hits us at the same velocity, from every direction, regardless of our own velocity in relation to the things which we can see?
Our relationship with light is static. We cannot move closer to it, or further away. Hence the universal perception of its velocity-value means that we do not move in relation to light. We move in relation to something beyond our observed-perception. We move in relation to conceptual-absolutes. Entities of the mind. We move amongst the reasoned-backdrop of a mind.

Einstein's theory is really a theory about how the observer gleans 'motion' (velocity) in relation to Earth, and then proceeds to judge the outer-universe within the context of this intimate-relationship. Einstein's theory is really centred upon the observer himself, because our whole understanding of motion is gleaned in respect to our own existence, relative to the Earth we stand upon.

The circumference of his "orbit" is only 8.19 e12 km rather than the 9.46 e12 km as measured from Earth.

It is curious that the faster you try to go, that the slower you actually go.
Here, the mathematics tell us that as the space-twin accelerates from Earth and tries to achieve the conditions of this scenario, that his orbit will be between the Earth and the Sun (eventually), along the same radial.
Now, it is clearly impossible for the inner-spoke of a wheel to be travelling faster than the outer-spoke. So, what's really going on here? The answer is clear to see - if you've given this response serious consideration - that the harder you try to accelerate from Earth, the slower you will actually go in relation to the Earth (which is on the same spoke, further-out).
In fact, your answer confirms that any space-man who tries to accelerate from Earth and conform to the conditions of this scenario will actually fry in the sun - since if he had the ability to achieve 0.9c, for example, his orbit would place him probably inside the Sun itself. That's a scary-thought. And somebody should think twice before jetting-off at ridiculously-high velocities (in the distant-future, of course)... unless our technology of sun-cream is more impressive.
This discussion also raises an interesting question: if any astronaught was to try and conform to the stipulations of this 'experiment' and follow the radial of the Earth:Sun, outwardly as he accelerated, then at what point does his orbit become between the Earth and the Sun (inwardly-orbit)? At what point does the outwardly-acceleration change direction towards the Sun?
Hopefully, you'll recognise that such a reversal is impossible. A constantly-accelerating body cannot accelerate, first away from two bodies on the same radial, and then suddenly decide to go inbetween them as a result of his actions.
Actually, reason does allow for this if we accept that each observer's perception of the universe is unique to his own head... and that he is seeing a mindful-reality. That reality is dependent upon his actions in relation to it. And if that is the case, then each observer is the centre of his existence. We cannot grace anything outside the observer as "the centre". The observer is the centre.

Thus at c/2 by it only takes 27310176 rather than 31536000sec to complete an orbit.

I have no beef with your mathematics. Don't forget this when you judge me (or you Tom). I'm merely trying to say that the mathematics of Einstein's work do prove that the reality we see must! be in ~a mind~. These posts are my case to you. In fact, I insist that Einstein's mathematics must be correct!!! I'm just saying that the mathematics point to a specific Reality of existence which Einstein (and materialists) have not grasped from those mathematics. I.e.: that Reality is a Mind.

if he were watching the Earth through a telescope, he would see the Earth clocks running faster than his by a factor of 1.15...

How do you reconcile this statement with the statement "the observer experiences normality."?
How can the observer be experiencing 'normality' when the rate-of-change of all matter (all clocks) he can observe, is different to his own clock-of-experience? After all, if everything beyond the observer has a different clock, then what clock does the observer have?
I would suggest that his "clock-of-experience" is in-built. It's a self-referential thing. An in-built mindful thing. A constancy amongst all minds. And that's why I suggest that ~experience~ of time & space is founded upon a principle given by the mind itself. A constant-principle of experience is what the mind gives/takes from each experience.
And in this case, the mind gives/takes that all motion (of the self and other bodies) is in relation to a Law which does not allow for an observer to move amongst 'light'. Yet it does allow for motion between the things, of that light.

Meaning that he will see the Earth clock measuring 31536000 sec per orbit.

Actually; I don't think that this comparison is possible until both observers compare notes, upon meeting again. It's a relative distortion, remember. Not an actual one as observed from outside of this 'meet'.

From the Earth, things again, are normal. You would measure the Space twin as traveling a circumference of 9.46 e12 km in 31536000 sec. However, you would see the space twin's clock running at a rate of .866...
You're advocating that on Earth, it's possible to see two different realities of the space-twin: that of his clock and that of your clock, at the same time. But since what you see is the factory of your own clock, such a statement doesn't make sense. There's only one perceived reality. There is no duality/diversity which is evident in a singular perception.

Each observer will see the same events in the Nightsky, they just won't agree as to the length of time said events take to occur by their clock.

Exactly. Which means that the reality both observers are seeing is a product of their minds; since it is impossible for many observers to see a singular-reality in such a diverse-manner unless those observer's minds are making a reality for themselves, so to speak. However; the constancy (Law) that exists amongst the diversity of all observers, shows that all observers have a common value of what 'space' and 'time' do mean, in relation to the Whole which the observer does see. I.e., all observer's minds have a common-~feel~ for time & space. This is what I was refering to, earlier. The whole never changes in relation to 'yourself'... and as such, experience is a constant.

The Principle of Relativity holds
Which principle of Relativity tells you that 'materialists' are right?

Tom Mattson

Apr7-03, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
How does the night-sky have a frame of reference? Its a whole. Its own frame of reference is the observer(s) who sees it.

You are getting confused. Janus is talking about the "fixed stars", I think. That is only an approximation. If you prefer, take the sun as stationary, which gives the 3rd frame of reference.

The frames of reference - of relevance - are that radial I mentioned, and the observers upon 'it' who are looking at that nightsky.

OK, so take 3 points on the radial: the sun (in place of the night sky), the Earth, and the space twin.

So; would it not be more-correct to say that the Earth is moving at 30km/s, relative to everything else (which is really moving in relation to that Earth)... and that the space-twin is moving at c/2 relative to the Earth?

You get to set the initial conditions however you want.

But how can the night-sky, of itself, have a different relative-velocity to each, if they share the same radial of existence?
I'm not saying that it can't, or that it doesn't.

Take the sun as the third frame, and this should become obvious.

But my scenario doesn't allow for this comment.

Then your scenario is not set in the actual universe.

The spacetwin is aligned with the Earth and the Sun (in this scenario). And it's impossible to see a different version of the sphere-of-view from somebody who shares the same radial of existence, unless your mind is playing tricks with the light, so to speak.

No. The predictions here are not what is perceived, they are what a lifeless measuring instrument would record. What is percreived by a human can be predicted by correcting for the finite propagation speed of the light.

So, what's really going on here? The answer is clear to see - if you've given this response serious consideration - that the harder you try to accelerate from Earth, the slower you will actually go in relation to the Earth (which is on the same spoke, further-out).

No, the more you accelerate, the faster you go.

I have no beef with your mathematics. Don't forget this when you judge me (or you Tom). I'm merely trying to say that the mathematics of Einstein's work do prove that the reality we see must! be in ~a mind~. These posts are my case to you.

We understand that. We also understand that you are wrong. You are:

1. Misunderstanding the explanations we give.
2. Applying bad logic to them.
3. In the process of 1 and 2, steering the whole discussion to the conclusion you like.

Which principle of Relativity tells you that 'materialists' are right?

He is reminding you that relativity holds not because he is trying to prove materialism, but because he is trying to get you to stop running in the wrong direction with your misunderstanding of it.

edit:

If you really want to get to the bottom of this, then you might want follow along here:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=908

Janus

Apr7-03, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer

How does the night-sky have a frame of reference? Its a whole. Its own frame of reference is the observer(s) who sees it.
The frames of reference - of relevance - are that radial I mentioned, and the observers upon 'it' who are looking at that nightsky.

A frame of reference in Relativity is any coordinate system in which the components have no relative velocity with respect to each other and are at equal gravititational potential. In This case we can consider the night sky as being all in one frame of reference (The Relative apparent motions of the stars to to each other are inconsequential for this thought experiment ,as are their relative gravitational potential. Each are small enough to be ignored.)

In your example, the Earth and spacetwin are said to be traveling around the sun, But wrt what? You could say the Sun, but the sun rotates itself(And not all in one piece either).
The "fixed stars" make a better reference to measure that rotation by.

We are free to pick any reference point we want to in examining the problem. Nothing says we are constrained to only those frames that contain observers. (Remember, you are asking for Relativity's take on this, and this is what Relativity says. )

[/b]

So: All observers on Earth are measuring the velocity of that Earth, relative to everything else.
However; it should be noted that the velocity of all observers who were born on Earth, is gleaned in relation to that Earth. The Earth is used as a universal-frame of observer-motion. Agreed?
So; any observer from Earth would actually be judging motion in relation to his understanding of velocity, gleaned from his own velocity-relations with the Earth.
Hence, the velocity of any observer is wrt Earth. That is our true frame of reference, when defining velocities.
So; would it not be more-correct to say that the Earth is moving at 30km/s, relative to everything else (which is really moving in relation to that Earth)... and that the space-twin is moving at c/2 relative to the Earth?

[/B]
You keep getting this mixed up. If you are choosing the Earth as your frame of reference, then everything else is moving WRT to it ( and the Earth is considered stationary). If you are considering the Earth as moving then it has to be WRT to another Frame of Refernce(The one containing the Night sky, for instance) which you considered stationary. There is no such thing as a "true" frame of Reference , only one chosen as the most convenient for our puposes. ( You just must be careful not to switch frames in mid analysis.)

But how can the night-sky, of itself, have a different relative-velocity to each, if they share the same radial of existence?

[quote]
Imagine a record player, (remember those. You are standing next to it. (playing the part of a fixed star in the night sky.) The spindle is the sun, the Earth sits at the edge of the label, and the Space twin at the edge of the record along a line through the spindle and "Earth" If you measure the velocity of the edge of the record (Along with the space twin) relative to your self it will be greater than that of the edge of the label (we are talking linear velocity, not angular velocity)

Conversely, If the mesurements were made From the edge or label. each will measure a different velocity relative to you.)
[quote]
But my scenario doesn't allow for this comment. The spacetwin is aligned with the Earth and the Sun (in this scenario). And it's impossible to see a different version of the sphere-of-view from somebody who shares the same radial of existence.

Sharing the same radial does not assure that you will see the same thing. If you consider the system as moving, then each element along that radial has a different velocity.

If you consider the radial as stationary, The the two observers would still see a different things. In order for the space twin to stay in his "orbit" he has to be held there by something (firing his engines towards the sun. etc.) Otherwise he would just fly off into space and not maintain his Forced "orbit". In my previous post, I pointed out that this is the same as a gravitational field that tries to push the space twin away fromt the sun. (it is only by the grace of his engines that he can maintain a constant distance from the sun.

At the distance of the Earth, this field and the sun's field cancel out. The Earth and Space twin are therefore at different gravitational potentials relative to the stars of the Night sky. and see the night sky differently as a consequence.

In fact, your answer confirms that any space-man who tries to accelerate from Earth and conform to the conditions of this scenario will actually fry in the sun - since if he had the ability to achieve 0.9c, for example, his orbit would place him probably inside the Sun itself. That's a scary-thought. And somebody should think twice before jetting-off at ridiculously-high velocities (in the distant-future, of course)... unless our technology of sun-cream is more impressive.
This discussion also raises an interesting question: if any astronaught was to try and conform to the stipulations of this 'experiment' and follow the radial of the Earth:Sun, outwardly as he accelerated, then at what point does his orbit become between the Earth and the Sun (inwardly-orbit)? At what point does the outwardly-acceleration change direction towards the Sun?
Hopefully, you'll recognise that such a reversal is impossible. A constantly-accelerating body cannot accelerate, first away from two bodies on the same radial, and then suddenly decide to go inbetween them as a result of his actions.

More confusion on your part. I said the "circumference" decreases for the space twin, not the radius. His distance from the sun remains constant. (both as measured by him and the Earth.

You are trying to apply Euclidean geometry to conditions to which it doesn't apply. Relativistic geometry is non-Euclidean (This is the Space-time curvature which causes gravitational Lensing etc.

The space twin will never see himself as moving "closer" to the Sun.

How do you reconcile this statement with the statement "the observer experiences normality."?
How can the observer be experiencing 'normality' when the rate-of-change of all matter (all clocks) he can observe, is different to his own clock-of-experience?

The observer experiences no changes within his frame of refernce, (all clocks belonging to his frame run at the same rate.

OTOH, The fact that he sees other clocks in other frames of reference, running at different rates than the ones in his, is normal by the Rules of Realtivity. Just because we don't see this effect as measureable at the low relative velocities of everyday life, does not make it abnormal.

Actually; I don't think that this comparison is possible until both observers compare notes, upon meeting again. It's a relative distortion, remember. Not an actual one as observed from outside of this 'meet'.

You're advocating that on Earth, it's possible to see two different realities of the space-twin: that of his clock and that of your clock, at the same time. But since what you see is the factory of your own clock, such a statement doesn't make sense. There's only one perceived reality. There is no duality/diversity which is evident in a singular perception.

If I'm on Earth, and I point my telescope towards the spacetwin, I will see his clock as running slow. It will take 1.15... secs according to my clock for his clock, that I see in my telescope, to tick 1 sec. This is what Relativity says; That measurement made between frames in relative motion wrt each other will differ, than measurements made within each frame.

Now let's cut to the chase.

Basically your whole argument comes down to this.

Relativistic effects are contrary to what we commonly consider "Normal behavior". (Even though you still haven't shown that you actually understand these effects)

To explain this, you assume that "reality" is generated internally by "the mind"( some universal subconscious) . and that each indivdual mind(conscious) subjectively interprets this internal Reality.

But what you fail to explain is why this "mind" would generate a "Reality", that the conscious apparently finds absurb. It would make much more sense if the Mind generated a "Reality" that more suited what the conscious expects to see. (For instance, one in which light had different relative velocities to differernt observers, space follows Euclidean geometry etc.) Such a Reality would make much more sense to the "conscious".

But, on the other hand, if there is an external reality, one that imposes itself on the mind through experience, then things make perfect sense.

In everyday experience of this external world, we are not "exposed" to relatistic effects because they are too small to be noticeable, the world around appears to obey classical Physics and Euclidean geometry. As a result of such constant exposure to said experience, our minds are conditioned(by external reality) to accept this as "natural".

Then when we are exposed to conditions (Very high relativistic speeds or large gravity potential differences), where things don't behave as we expect them to, our minds rebel at the notion, such behavior seems "unnatural" , Even though it isn't, it is just that our minds aren't conditoned to easily accept this as natural.

So, Relativity actually makes it much more reasonable to assume that an external reality exists, than to assume that it is all internally generated.

Lifegazer

Apr8-03, 04:59 AM

Thanks for the responses. It seems that my example has proved an aid to learning, if nothing else.
I want to chew-on a few things before responding, later today.

Lifegazer

Apr9-03, 10:39 PM

With all due respects, I think you both missed the point of my posts.
I'm asking you to consider this:-

Picture the two orbits, and the radial from the Sun. Now; when Earth does a full rotation around the Sun, then the constellations change their apparent position because of Earth's 360-degress orbit around the Sun. And so, throughout the course of a full-revolution of the Sun, the heavens seem to rotate about us 360-degress. And this same effect would be observed by the space-twin, also.
This is what I want to get your attention to. If both observers are sharing the same radial of revolution around the Sun, then the rate at which the heavens will seem to rotate around both observer's nightsky, is always identical. When two observer's share the same radial of motion, then they will see a night-sky with the same motion around them!
This is inescapably true. Or else mathematics & logic aren't worth a dime. And so the conditions of this scenario enable me to state an absolute-fact: That no matter what speed the twin achieves (any speed), he will see an identical nightsky (baring the trivial differences in their positions upon the radial), as somebody on Earth.
This raises an interesting point: When sombody upon Earth has completed a revolution of the Sun's orbit, he says that he's experienced a year of time. However, as in the twin-paradox, the spacetwin will say that only a couple of months have passed (for him).
So; what's going on with the space-twin? He's just completed a full-revolution of the Sun, whilst still seeing the heavens move around him - exactly like they do for us, here on Earth, 360-degress.
Thus, the spacetwin's head is mashed. It must be. The heavens are in the same positions for both of us. And our own positions amongst the heavens is almost absolute, also. And yet he sees time and space, differently to anyone on Earth. He's nuts right?
... 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.
How do we know this? Simple:-
1). The velocity of light is the same for all observers. We cannot blame the light for this phenomenon.
2). The heavens are in the same position for anyone who exists upon this radial. We cannot blame the heavens for this phenomenon.
3). That leaves the observer... and his mind. The perception of time & space being distorted is the mind's own creation, as well as the mind's own awareness. The universe (external reality) is not responsible for this phenomenon.

I can now extend this argument further:-
The experience of '1 meter', and of '1 second', is definitely the mind's creation. The mind creates its own experience of the universe (within the context of [relative] time & space perception).
That's why the space-twin sees the same universe as us, yet can still experience time & space differently to us.
The reason that the mind has to distort space-time, seems obvious:- it is clearly an effect of the observer's own motion through the things that he is seeing. Spacetime is distorted as an effect of the observer's own velocity wrt the Earth (I mentioned this earlier - and it is important - human understanding of personal-velocity is derived from the observer's motion wrt the Earth). Hence, his velocity wrt Earth has determined the twin's perception of Spacetime. And it is different to ours. Yet he sees the same universe (he really does).
When an observer accelerates from Earth, his mind distorts that observer's perception of space & time.

I'm not saying that Einstein's Law is wrong. I'm just saying that it proves that the observer is responsible for how he experiences the universe.
The observer moves within A Mind's inner-perceptions, interacting with the Mind's own awareness of 'light'. But true motion (within the mind's awareness) is illusionary (as it is also illusionary in a dream, for example). Therefore, such motion cannot truly occur. The only way that the awareness of such motion against light is possible (in the mind) is to ~distort~ the individual observer's perception of space & time.
Voila - 'Relativity'. But all founded upon an observer-constant understanding of time & space. The universal-experience of '1 meter', and '1 second', I was refering to earlier in the debate. Or rather, the universal-understanding (amongst all obervers) of what time and space are.

This post (in conjunction with my others), if accepted, would kill materialism - not science. Please bare that in mind if you respond.

CJames

Apr10-03, 02:01 AM

I appologize for my "leave of absence." Hello again everybody. Before I read the rest of this topic, I will respond to LG's last argument with me:
But the main point for pushing this argument, is that the observer himself is responsible for the particular/unique spacetime he is observing, via his own motion/acceleration in relation to the 'things' which he is observing.Again, there is no logical connection. If there is logic here, you are missing a premise. This is logically valid:
1. Each individual finds different values for space and time measurements.
2. Individuals who observe different values for space and time live in separate existences.
3. Each individual lives in a separate existence.

Notice that the premises necessarily imply the conclusions. The second premise, however, is unsound as it has no backing behind it. Your argument must have premises that imply the conclusion.

For example, when the space-twin accelerates from Earth, he distorts his own spacetime - fact. When he comes back to Earth, his spacetime changes again, in line with that of his now-older brother. Clearly, the motion of the observer wrt the things he perceives of, is responsible for the particular space-time he is experiencing... is responsible for the particular reality he is observing.again, the observer is never in motion, that is a postulate of relativity. There is no prefered reference frame. The observer exists within the present reference frame, so there is no movement for the observer.

It should be remembered that Relativity isn't just some sort of weird mind-thing which happens to each individual. We're discussing tangible/physical changes here, experienced by each observer. Each observer's experience of physical-reality is different, and the nature of that reality is dependent upon the actions/motion of that observer.By tangible I assume you mean measureable. Yes, there is a measureable difference between measurements made in different reference frame. However, once again, there is no "motion of that observer."

Clearly, if the very-nature of the universe you can see is physically altered at the whim of your own motion, then it is as clear as daylight that the reality you can see is somehow dependent upon you. Your whole universe dances to your tune.
Your whole universe is happening inside your own mind. As is mine. As is everyones.Once again, there is no "your own motion". The speed of light is constant for every observer. That is why different individuals observe different measurements, because ultimately all measurements are based upon this ultimate speed. The theory can be described entirely in terms of physical experiments. The one thing you can really adress is why the speed of light is constant for each observer. By principle of charity I ask you to use the constancy of the speed of light as a premise for your argument. MAKE SURE you include ALL the premises necessary to imply the conclusion that *all individuals help to create there own existence yet all are connected in some way.*

CJames

Apr10-03, 04:01 AM

(pant, pant) Okay, I read it all. So, the present big argument:
I'm hoping that someone can solve my confusion with the time-issue here. For on Earth, a full revolution of the Sun = 1 year.
So; why isn't a full revolution of the Sun, by the space-twin = 1 year? I mean, the space-twin must experience (relatively) less time than someone on Earth (as in the twin paradox). So, therefore, he must experience less time than '1 year'. And yet, he's just done a full revolution of the Sun in the same time that Earth has (same radial).Alright, this wording is really messing with my head. The meaning of the night sky in your argument is bafling. From the sun (assuming it as a point) the stars sky is at rest. From Earth (assuming it as a point) the stars are rotating about the sun every year. From the starship, the stars are rotating about the sun every year as well.

However, the night sky has nothing to do with reference frames (unless, as tom and janus have been, you use it as a reference frame.) It is true that normally, three things that have no relative velocity to each other are considered to be within the same reference frame. And it is true that in the scenario you set up, niether the sun, the earth, or the starship is moving in relation to any other of the three objects. HOWEVER, it becomes clear that the objects are in fact within different reference frames when you take a closer look.

On Sun or Earth, there is no "sense" of motion. In other words, no acceleration is felt. The sun is "at rest." The earth is in a gravitational field which (if the earth is considered to be a point) precicely cancels out the centrefugal force of its "movement" around the sun. However, the starship is in a position where centrefugal force is felt. Under classical physics, centrefugal force is a ficticious force. However, under relativity there is no way to differentiate between the force of acceleration, and the force of gravity. The starship, therefore, cannot be said to exist within the same reference frame as the sun.

1). The velocity of light is the same for all observers. We cannot blame the light for this phenomenon. We don't have to "blame" anything. In any case, why can't it simply be that this is the way that light is? Why do you immediately throw out this possibility?

2). The heavens are in the same position for anyone who exists upon this radial. We cannot blame the heavens for this phenomenon.Well, again, this is not the case. The heavens do not appear the same for any of the three celestial bodies. From the point of view of the sun, the neaby stars are at rest. From the reference frame of the earth, some stars are more distant, some closer, and they all appear to be rotating around the sun. From the point of view of the spacecraft, some stars are much more distant than they were from Earth, some are much closer, and all are moving at very different speeds. And again, there's no need to "blame" anything on anything.

The perception of time & space being distorted is the mind's own creationThere is no need for this. The perception of spacetime by a camera would end up the same, and the results are entirely dependant on the constancy of "c", not the "motion of the observer."

The reason that the mind has to distort space-time, seems obvious:- it is clearly an effect of the observer's own motion through the things that he is seeing.The observer is always at rest. It is an effect of the motion of things he is seeing, not "the observer's own motion."

such motion cannot truly occur.Well there you go.

This post (in conjunction with my others), if accepted, would kill materialism - not science. Please bare that in mind if you respond.No, it would not, because it is not yet a valid argument.

Again, I will try to paraphrase your entire post LG (and will continue to do so for every important post, to be sure I understand what you are talking about):

There is a reference frame in which three individuals have the same view of the night sky, yet have different perceptions of spacetime. Since there is no reason that "c" should be constant for all observers, the only way each individual percieves these differences in spacetime is because each individual has generated his/her own perception of the universe.

Is this correct?

First off, the three individuals do not have the same view of the night sky, which blows away the rest of the argument. Second, you assume that the only way "c" is constant is if it's speed is the product of your mind. Third, the premise that the three individuals see the same night sky (which again, they do not) doesn't imply that each individual generated his/her own perception of the universe.

Lifegazer

Apr10-03, 09:02 AM

A few points CJ...
Originally posted by CJames
again, the observer is never in motion, that is a postulate of relativity. There is no prefered reference frame. The observer exists within the present reference frame, so there is no movement for the observer.

The observer's velocity is wrt Earth. I have explained why, in an earlier post.
Secondly, when you say that the observer is never in motion, you are merely supporting my argument that motion occurs within the mind.
Thirdly, no materialist should be arguing that point, clearly.

The meaning of the night sky in your argument is bafling. From the sun (assuming it as a point) the stars sky is at rest. From Earth (assuming it as a point) the stars are rotating about the sun every year. From the starship, the stars are rotating about the sun every year as well.

I dealt with this specifically, in my previous post. From the starship, the stars are rotating every couple of months, and a full revolution of the Sun takes a couple of months, also.

However, the night sky has nothing to do with reference frames (unless, as tom and janus have been, you use it as a reference frame.)

Well I am using it as a reference frame.

On Sun or Earth, there is no "sense" of motion. In other words, no acceleration is felt. The sun is "at rest." The earth is in a gravitational field which (if the earth is considered to be a point) precicely cancels out the centrefugal force of its "movement" around the sun.

I agree with this. That's why human understanding of velocity is gleaned wrt Earth.

Lg:- "1). The velocity of light is the same for all observers. We cannot blame the light for this phenomenon."

- We don't have to "blame" anything. In any case, why can't it simply be that this is the way that light is? Why do you immediately throw out this possibility?

There must be a cause for the experienced distortion of spacetime. And it is clear that this cause is linked with the observer's own velocity wrt Earth.

Lg:- "2). The heavens are in the same position for anyone who exists upon this radial. We cannot blame the heavens for this phenomenon."

- Well, again, this is not the case. The heavens do not appear the same for any of the three celestial bodies.

My previous post explains why all observers on the same radial of motion have an identical experience of 360-degrees of heavenly motion. No matter how fast the space-twin moves, his observation of the constellations will be identical as they are upon Earth.
I ask you again to read that explanation.

First off, the three individuals do not have the same view of the night sky, which blows away the rest of the argument.

The night sky is identical for anyone residing upon the aforementioned radial of motion. That nightsky will rotate in the same 360-degree manner.
Read my previous post again. It's important.

Janus

Apr10-03, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
With all due respects, I think you both missed the point of my posts.
No, we haven't, You just aren't understanding the explanations.

This raises an interesting point: When sombody upon Earth has completed a revolution of the Sun's orbit, he says that he's experienced a year of time. However, as in the twin-paradox, the spacetwin will say that only a couple of months have passed (for him).

Define "year". If you mean the time it takes to make one revolution, Then both observers, say that it takes a "year" to go around the sun If you mean a certain number of seconds, then each observer gets a different answer for how much time it takes per revolution.

Time units such as "day" and "year" which are based on astronomical observation, are variable, Fixed time units like the second, aren't and are the proper units to use in this scenerio. Your use of "Year" is just confusing you.

So; what's going on with the space-twin? He's just completed a full-revolution of the Sun, whilst still seeing the heavens move around him - exactly like they do for us, here on Earth, 360-degress.
Thus, the spacetwin's head is mashed. It must be. The heavens are in the same positions for both of us. And our own positions amongst the heavens is almost absolute, also. And yet he sees time and space, differently to anyone on Earth. He's nuts right?

No, if his time rate is running slower(As predicted by Relativity) you would expect him to see less time occur per revolution.

OTOH, within his frame, time hasn't slowed him (But time has sped up on Earth, but the circumference of the universe has decreased, and it will take him less time for it to complete a revolution around him.

And you don't need any "observers" for this to be true. You could just use samples of radioactive isotopes. The one on Earth will decay faster than the other.

You simply do not understand Realtivity well enough to use it as an argument.

Lifegazer

Apr10-03, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Janus
No, we haven't, You just aren't understanding the explanations.

Your explanations are avoiding making a response to significant revelations I have shown.
The most significant of these revelations is that all observers (upon the aforementioned radial) will see the exact-same night-sky, as they revolve around the Sun.

Define "year". If you mean the time it takes to make one revolution, Then both observers, say that it takes a "year" to go around the sun If you mean a certain number of seconds, then each observer gets a different answer for how much time it takes per revolution.

Your statement clearly expresses the point I've been making all-along. If the Earth-twin experiences several-times more seconds per year/revolution than the space-twin (whilst simulataneously following the same radial-of-motion and observing the same rotation-of-nightsky), then it is clearly apparent that both observer's experience of space-time is a product of his own mind.
In this scenario which I have presented, the nightsky (the universe) is a constant frame of reference for all observers upon the radial-of-motion. Thus, since all observers see the same velocity of light, the only manner in which the apparent space-time distortions occur, is through the action of the mind itself. The mind is responsible.

Time units such as "day" and "year" which are based on astronomical observation, are variable, Fixed time units like the second, aren't and are the proper units to use in this scenerio. Your use of "Year" is just confusing you.

Let's not argue about the semantics of defining a year. It's not important.
The significant point is that each observer experiences a full revolution of the Sun in a different amount of experienced time/seconds. He also sees a full revolution of the heavens in a different amount of time/seconds.
Given that each observer shares the same radial-of-motion and also experiences the exact-same nightsky, the perception of time and space
is clearly a function of the observer's own mind. This is the point which I wish you to address.

OTOH, within his frame, time hasn't slowed him (But time has sped up on Earth, but the circumference of the universe has decreased, and it will take him less time for it to complete a revolution around him.

All/any circumferences will complete a revolution in the exact-same moment. As I said, a 360-degree revolution of the nightsky is identical for both observers, as is a 360-degree orbit of the Sun.
Thus, the apparent time differences experienced by each observer are clearly a function of the observer's mind.