Is Reinterpreting Einstein's Theory a Valid Scientific Endeavor?

[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

 

[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.