Is Reinterpreting Einstein's Theory a Valid Scientific Endeavor?

[Lifegazer]

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]

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]

Originally posted by CJames
What the? Where did all the debating go? Where's Tom, I want to 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 traveling 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)]

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 traveling 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]

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 traveling towards the observer from any direction is affected[/color] 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)]

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]

Originally posted by 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.

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 separate realities, this would not be possible.

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

Njorl

 

[CJames]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 separate 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/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]

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."
...
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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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 30^o 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.

 

[quantumdude]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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

Thank you.

 

[Lifegazer]

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 won't have time to reply to your main posts till much later today, unfortunately. But thanks for responding.

 

[Another God]

GW tom.

 

[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.

 

[Lifegazer]

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)]

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

That was accomplished some time ago.

 

[Iacchus32]

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)]

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

Who are you - the forum police? Or an internet nazi?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by (Q)
Who are you - the forum police? Or an internet nazi?

Yeah, do you "see guile" anyone? I'm just pointing out that you contradicted yourself, that's all.

 

[Lifegazer]

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.[/color]

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]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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 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.

 

[quantumdude]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

sersiously Lifegazer, present some reason and no one will be complaining.

 

[N_Quire]

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]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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]

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]

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." [/color]
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 realize, is that the definition of a second is a definition of the “feeling of time passing”. Langauge 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[/color], 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]

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?