Is Reinterpreting Einstein's Theory a Valid Scientific Endeavor?

[Lifegazer]

In this topic (If I am allowed), I shall be concerned with applying reasoned-thought to specific issues concerned with Einstein's theory of Relativity.
This first post is to the mentors and to the people who complain to Greg. I want to know if I am going to be allowed to proceed, before I do proceed. I need to know where I stand.
Note: It will not be my intention here to state that Einstein was wrong. Indeed, my argument depends upon him being right so that I can discuss concepts such as 'absolute-lightspeed'. Hence, whatever I say here shall not change ANY mathematical equation which Einstein has formulated, nor any conceptual-conclusion, such as "All observers see lightspeed as 'c'". As such, you cannot accuse me of being anti-science.
The whole point of my arguments here (and I cannot emphasise this enough), is not to denounce Einstein as wrong; but to show that there is another level of information which is to be gleamed from what Einstein has showed us.
Ultimately, I'll only be extending reason to Einstein's theory. I won't want to change a single thing about it[. I'll just be seeking to change a few views about reality.
As such, I ask that the powers-that-be allow me to proceed. I promise to do so in a way that will not demise the value of science, nor denounce the credibility of Einstein, nor seek to challenge any mathematical-equation ever formulated.
And if I promise to do those things, then at least tell me why you won't let me proceed. Note: All materialistic bias shall be highlighted.

 

[Eh]

Will you read criticisms of your claims, and reply to points made? That seems to be the key issue with your posts.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Eh
Will you read criticisms of your claims, and reply to points made? That seems to be the key issue with your posts.

I shy-away from no remark. Make a sincere complaint, and I'll respond.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I shy-away from no remark. Make a sincere complaint, and I'll respond.

The problem is, when we do that, your typical response is, "Your complaint is meaningless" or "You haven't addressed my argument" or some other evasive tactic.

Post what you want to post. We are watching, and will step in when you go wrong. If one of us corrects you, we expect you to accept it and try to learn from it, not fight us tooth and nail. If that happens, we'll shut it down and ask you to move on. The days of "lifegazer-on-physics" topics going nowhere for 10+ pages are over.

 

[N_Quire]

My limited experience is that the topics tend to sprawl. After five or more pages, there is little or no convergence because there is no agreement from the outset on meanings of basic words and concepts such as reason, mind, cause, effect, and meaning itself.

I am afraid this might be another opportunity for you to tell everyone they have got it all wrong or have misunderstood you because we/they do not accept the idiosyncratic twist and spin you give to words.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
Post what you want to post. We are watching, and will step in when you go wrong. If one of us corrects you, we expect you to accept it and try to learn from it, not fight us tooth and nail. If that happens, we'll shut it down and ask you to move on. The days of "lifegazer-on-physics" topics going nowhere for 10+ pages are over. [/B]

Okay... thanks. Just try to remember that I'm merely trying to use specific information/facts gleamed from physics to make further philosophical conclusions about reality. That's all I'm interested in. I want a discussion about 'reality' more so than I do about physics. Try to bare that in mind when I begin posting.

 

[kyleb]

well have at it already!

 

[Another God]

I always do.

What needs to be remembered on your behalf though, is that even though you are not particularly concerned with the Physics facts, you must understand them to a degree which enables you to make your extrapolations from them.

Even though you aren't contending the fact that 1D strings exist, for example, you can't use that claim to make a point, if that point is actually made by contradicting the theory behind the 1D strings. (For example...)

Just remember that.

 

[russ_watters]

Just try to remember that I'm merely trying to use specific information/facts gleamed from physics to make further philosophical conclusions about reality.

(Discussion starter) Isn't that comletely outside the scope of what science does? It seems to me that any attempt along those lines is futile.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by russ_watters
(Discussion starter) Isn't that comletely outside the scope of what science does? It seems to me that any attempt along those lines is futile.

Philosophy-forum russ. Not physics. I'll be attempting to use known facts as a basis for a reasoned argument in regards to 'reality'. I won't be attempting to formulate a new scientific theory, or to ammend what's already on the scientific-table.
It's important that readers understand this, before I start.

 

[drag]

LG, what's with all this - prepare/attempt/try...
Get on with it man !
If you say something wrong people will
correct you. (It won't be the first time,
after all...).

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Alright, I'm ready to hear your idea, lifegazer. I think your mind works on a tangent that most people never aspire to, and that is to be commended. Obviously you don't know everything, and will need to be corrected sometimes, but I have never seen you make a claim (except perhaps in your claims about string theory) that had no basis/merit.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
...I have never seen you make a claim that had no basis/merit

And I thought I was being respectful(no offense).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag

And I thought I was being respectful(no offense).

Well, seriously, no idea is entirely without merit, but lifegazer's do show some actual insight.

(Quiet, drag, I'm trying to encourage lifegazer to post (just kidding, lifegazer ))

 

[Lifegazer]

I want to show the reader that Einstein's work leads to an hitherto-unexpected conclusion. Specifically - as most of you have already guessed - I want to show the reader that the 'reality' we are perceiving does emanate from a subconcious-aspect of the Mind itself. I.e., that Einstein's laws of Relativity are laws which reflect the way the Mind imposes 'reality' upon 'awareness'.
That's my aim. It's a philosophical-aim - a reasoned aim. If it affects science, it does so only to the extent that it shows the source of our perceptions to be, ultimately, non-material. I.e., if my argument challenges anything, then it challenges materialism - not science. I am of the opinion that being scientific about our perceived-universe does not oblige us to be materialists. And as this is the philosophy forum, I reserve my right to discredit materialism whilst not being derogatory about science.

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

I request acceptance, or ammendment of the above facts, before I proceed. Tom? Janus? Anyone in the know?

 

[drag]

You got my humble O.K. to go on LG.
(Is it all going to be in parts like this ?
One can really boost the post count here,
not that anyone's counting... )

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by drag
You got my humble O.K. to go on LG.
(Is it all going to be in parts like this ?
One can really boost the post count here,
not that anyone's counting... )

I'm sorry about that. The reason for me proceeding like this is because my hands are tied. My philosophy antagonises many people, it seems. So I have to be a bit careful with this one, as I'm directly discussing facts from a scientific theory.

 

[kyleb]

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

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

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.

time and space are always changing, and we are all in motion relative to many things; but yes mass effects space-time.

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

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.

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.

 

[ahrkron]

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 (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, 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]

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 preferred frame of reference which the observer is moving with respect to. Relativity denies the existence 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 existence of a preferred frame of reference. (The one in which time and space operated at their "base" values).

This tacit assumption of a preferred 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]

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]

Originally posted by Janus
This tacit assumption of a preferred 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 preferred 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 preferred 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]

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]

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]

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.**[/color]
- 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]

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]

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]

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)]

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]

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.

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]

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 existence of a preferred frame of reference. (The one in which time and space operated at their "base" values).

This tacit assumption of a preferred 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]

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]

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]

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]

Greetings !

LG, this is turning into a physics debate...
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 ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by drag
LG, this is turning into a physics debate...

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).[/color]
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.[/color]
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'.[/color]
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 referring 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]

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]

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 occurring.

'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.[/color]

Edited for color-highlight, for easy reference.

 

[(Q)]

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]

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 criticize it. Don't argue against it from some sort of psuedo authority position.

 

[Lifegazer]

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)]

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]

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]

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]

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)]

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]

What has happened before isn't relevant 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]

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]

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]

What the? Where did all the debating go? Where's Tom, I want to 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 haven't seen before. I hope you can continue to present your arguments in this manner. Thank you. --Carter