Is Reinterpreting Einstein's Theory a Valid Scientific Endeavor?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lifegazer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Einstein
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the application of reasoned thought to Einstein's theory of relativity, with a focus on exploring philosophical implications rather than challenging the scientific framework itself. The original poster seeks permission to proceed with their arguments, emphasizing that they do not intend to discredit Einstein or alter established equations. Key points include the assertion that light speed is perceived as constant by all observers and that an observer's motion affects their experience of time and space, though they may not notice these changes. Participants express concern about the potential for misinterpretation and the need for clarity in discussing these concepts. The aim is to foster a philosophical dialogue about reality based on scientific principles without undermining the credibility of established science.
  • #101
Originally posted by heusdens
Boy, here we go again. Every materialist assertion must be justified in your opinion.
In a philosophical debate about reality, this should be the case. At least I am trying to support my conclusions with reason. So why do you expect me to just accept assertions as a counter to my argument? Surely you can see the sense in that, if nothing else.
But as you know, every philosophical or theoretical thought system uses basic premises which can't be proofed, but are hold to be reasonable assumptions which are not in doubt.
For the purposes of my own argument, I used basic axioms of Relativity, which relate to the universe as we perceive it.
Now, it is a fact that we perceive a universe as we do. And it is also a fact that Relativity has been proven to qualify the nature of those perceptions. I then proceeded to use these facts to build towards my conclusion. Hence, methodically, I don't see how you can accuse me of assuming anything.
However; clearly, materialists are just assuming that reality exists outside of our perceptions, and that this reality is imposing itself upon our minds. Therefore, I reiterate my complaint: why am I just expected to accept materialistic-assertions as a counter to my own argument? I'm looking for reasoned counters to whatever I say.
The assertion that everything is determined by the universe, is such a basic premise, which can not be proofed. It can be justified however, because any other thought system that is based on the negation of this premise, is more suspicious and more unreasonable then the original premise.
Going on gut-feeling eh.
For instance the negation of the premise that everything is determined by the universe would be that at least something was determined by something else as the universe. We just have to figure out what this "something else as the universe" would be, but it shows up that that is just another name for God. How reasonable is THAT assumption?
Actually, I don't think that the big guy with the white beard has had a mention so far. Not directly, anyway. But I'd be interested in knowing why you think such a conclusion is unreasonable, given that my argument is supposed to be reasoned. More gut-feeling?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #102
Originally posted by Lifegazer
In a philosophical debate about reality, this should be the case. At least I am trying to support my conclusions with reason. So why do you expect me to just accept assertions as a counter to my argument? Surely you can see the sense in that, if nothing else.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

I interpret any deviation from materialism as inspired by idealism, wether this is formulated as a "first cause" or as "mind" which serves as an explenation for the world.
 
Last edited:
  • #103
Originally posted by Tom
Your argument has become an attempt to rewrite relativity to suit your limited understanding.
That's just not true. My recent post to CJames shows that my conclusions are founded upon Relativity as it is understood.
The debate has dealt with side-issues, also. For example, I have clearly pointed-out to you the value of experience itself, and shown how measurement and definition are merely expressions of this experience. Your insistence that "experience has no value" is obviously an oversight on your part. The value of experience is evident in the language we use to define it. Langauge proceeds experience - even mathematical language.
Also, my point to you about dx'/dt' = c', was not a challenge to the constancy of lightspeed - but an attempt to show you how each observer has a unique experience of that numerical value - in exactly the same manner that each observer has a unique experience of '1' meter and '1' second.
Why is it that you so-readily understand the concept that everybody has a unique experience of 1m and 1s; yet cannot extend this chain-of-reason to 1m/s? Clearly, given that each observer has a unique experience of the meter and the second, it should be obvious that any given velocity should be qualified as acknowledging the uniqueness of those parameters.
Among other places, here:

"The two equations you used really need an experiential- qualification: instead of saying dx/dt=c, and dx'/dt'=c, you really need to say: dx/dt=c, and dx'/dt'=c'."
This does not change the speed-of-light for anybody. It merely acknowledges the uniqueness of each observer's meter and second, in relation to the space-time he is observing at any given time.
If the space-twin observes light passing through x meters in a second, it is obvious that this is not absolutely the same thing as the Earth-twin observing light passing through x meters in a second - merely because both twins have a different perception of the meter and the second.
No, what I said is accurate. You only disagree because you have either ignored or dismissed everything I have ever said to you.
The word you are looking for, is 'countered'. I do not ignore you. Nor do I dismiss what you say. I think about what you say and then if I think you are mistaken, I counter you. That's the way a debate should happen.
No, childish grandstanding is your department, not mine.
Well, the fact that I fight to give my argument a fair hearing, is because few people are willing to do just that. Some of the responses in this thread have been completely evasive to my argument. And like I said: if this argument should fail, it should fail by reasoned-counter alone. Not politics or snobbery.
This thread has become a combination of pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy, and I have pointed out where you went wrong along the way.
That's your opinion. But in my opinion, if you do not even acknowledge that 'measurement' is an expression of experience - hence validating the "value of experience" - then how am I expected to reason with you?
 
  • #104
Originally posted by heusdens
Because the assertion are basic assumptions, and the reason we accept the basic assumptions is that the choosen assumptions are more reasonable then the negation of those assumptions.
Why is it more reasonable to believe that a reality exists beyond the Mind, than to believe that only the Mind exists (with its perceptions)?
We all have direct experience of a subjectively-perceived reality (a
mind-ful reality). However, it is completely impossible to even prove the existence of a single thing beyond that mind-ful experience. Hence, I'm struggling to see any justification within that statement. As far as I can see, it would be more reasonable to ~assert~ the existence of 'a Mind' - simply because that is all we have experience of.
I was not arguing about relativity, and for sure we have a more profound debate then relativity. We deal here with the philosophical issue of the basic premises of materialism, with which you seem to have a problem.
A quite-legitimate 'problem', I would say. And yes - it does go deeper than Relativity. However, I don't want to stray too far from the argument I have presented. Not yet, anyway.
This goes basically about wether or not in first instance there is material existence, and only secondary a mind (the approach of materialism) or whether there is at first mind, and only secondary matter (the approach of idealism).

In first instance, the materialist assertion, is a basic assumption.
I disagree. I fail to see how you can label an assertion as 'basic' if there is not one jot of proof to support such a reality.
It is something that can not be proven, same as axioms in mathematics can not be proven.
Axioms about mathematics are due different consideration than axioms about 'reality'. Mathematics is a conceptual language of the perceived universe. In fact, whether reality is external or internal would not affect mathematics in the slightest.
So tell me what is unreasonable about this basic assumption of materialism, and tell me what you want to replace it with.
Apart from the objections raised in this post, I could talk about this all day from many different approaches; including causality, evolution, thought (and dreams), motion, space, placebo-effect, emotions, sensory-experience, universal-order and Law... and now, relativity. I've lost track of the number of approaches I've taken in my challenge to materialism. Needless to say, that challenge is legitimate and credible. Unfortunately, few here take it seriously enough to partake of mature debate about such issues.
I interpret any deviation from materialism as inspired by idealism, wether this is formulated as a "first cause" or as "mind" which serves as an explenation for the world.
And?
 
  • #105
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Why is it more reasonable to believe that a reality exists beyond the Mind, than to believe that only the Mind exists (with its perceptions)?
We all have direct experience of a subjectively-perceived reality (a
mind-ful reality). However, it is completely impossible to even prove the existence of a single thing beyond that mind-ful experience. Hence, I'm struggling to see any justification within that statement. As far as I can see, it would be more reasonable to ~assert~ the existence of 'a Mind' - simply because that is all we have experience of.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

And explain me one other thing. There was a time in which the world existed, but not your mind. You don't have direct experience of that, but you have been told. Were all people lying about that fact?
 
  • #106
Lifey

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

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

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

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

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

This contradicts your theory of the singular Mind.

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

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

Your whole universe dances to your tune.

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, as it is misunderstood by you.

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

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

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

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

There are so many unanswered questions with the singular Mind theory. I could sit here typing questions all day long and never finish. Have you got all the answers?
 
  • #107
Originally posted by heusdens
The statement is that a material reality exist, and that our mind is just part of that reality. There is no distinction between 'outside' and 'inside' reality.
Well, I could write an essay challenging this particular stance. But I'll avoid doing so, for now. I'd just like to point out that this statement makes absolutely no distinction between reality and sensory-experience itself. That is not a position which is easily defended, imo.
You argue from a standpoint of solipsism, in which the only reality that exsists, is your own mind. Even the existence of other minds is doubted in that perspective.
For the record, I leave the labelling of my ideas to other readers. I have never-ever labelled myself as anything, other than a rationalist, perhaps.
Also for the record - and I did state this at the end of my initial argument - I reason that all individual perceptions (of conciousness) exist within One Mind, ultimately.
Hence, I do not doubt that 'you' or anyone else exists as a real perception. However, that's all I think that any of us are: a particular perception of existence, within time - of The Mind. I would also extend this argument to any organism which has the capacity of awareness.
Although this is position one can take in theoretical debate, for practical reasons however all solipsists are materiralists (but just won't admit).
I will admit that my awareness interacts with the universe I perceive, and that I am affected (physically & emotionally) by it. But this same thing happens (to a lesser extent) in dreams.
If a solipsist is nearly hit by a car, he will step aside to avoid being hit by the car, and won't argue that the car is not reality, but just something that takes place in his or her mind.
About a month ago, I jumped out of bed with a shriek, punching the air wildly - with my heart pumping fast & hard. I was ~lost in a dream~ which I truly believed was real (specifically, I was being attacked by a figure which emerged from the shadows). Amusing for you, perhaps. But it scared the hell out of me.
Who's to say that this waking-perception of reality does not work in a similar vein?
See how easy it is to prove your real position in life?
Wouldn't it be interesting if you had this conversation in your sleep? Literally. When lost in your dreams, the guy talking to you could say exactly the same things that you are saying to me now.
Please explain to us what will happen to the outer world when your mind dies?
The perception of 'me' may cease to exist, but I am not advocating that I (lifegazer) am The Mind which is behind all of this.
And explain me one other thing. There was a time in which the world existed, but not your mind. You don't have direct experience of that, but you have been told. Were all people lying about that fact?
Same answer as previously.
 
  • #108
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Well, I could write an essay challenging this particular stance. But I'll avoid doing so, for now. I'd just like to point out that this statement makes absolutely no distinction between reality and sensory-experience itself. That is not a position which is easily defended, imo.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same answer as previously.

The way you define The Mind, seems to me this definition fits well perfectly for material existence.
In what way do you make a distinction between material existence and mind?
 
  • #109
Originally posted by heusdens
Reality is material, and anything material is in motion/change. The sensory experience is as material as anything else.
That's easy to say. But I could make you sweat with many awkward questions...
According to you, manufacturing conciousness is fundamentally no more different than manufacturing a brick. The complexity of that 'brick' is acknowledged. But the point remains: You think conciousness is manufactured from matter in motion/interaction.
Given that you equate the brain to some sort of data-interpretor of the external universe (which gave rise to that brain), how do you explain for the artistic free-will which must also be ready-present to transform mathematical input-data into subjective sensory-experience, as well as the ability to have 'emotion'?
This is a highly significant question. There is no sensory-experience upon awareness until and unless the brain already possesses such artistic freedom as to create those perceptions, itself. Not to mention the ability to effect (have power to...) these perceptions of love; pain; red; sweetness; cold; hot; etc., upon its own conciousness.
The brain was a genius BEFORE it had perceived of a single thing. I say this because firstly, it had to understand how to interpret universal-data before it could begin to subjectively-represent that data upon awareness. And secondly, it had to have the ability to think of subjective representation (it had to have 'imagination'), before it could have experience.
Now; that's quite a feat, wouldn't you say? For the material universe (alone) to create a brain with those capabilities before that brain could come to have any 'experiences', is not even remarkable... because "remarkable" does not remotely justify the residual dumbfoundedness which exists when asked to believe that this could ever have been the case.
In my opinion, The Mind reveals herself at her full glory here. And I have only asked the questions in order to see this. I didn't need to read a book, or be a biologist. The questions are questions of reason/cause.
I exist as a 'real perception' in (your/the) mind only?
No. I; you; he; she; we; they... all of us exist as a perception of identity which relates to the things it is conscious of. But these perceptions (mine included), exist in The Mind itself.
God can see himself as a dot against the landscape, or as the landscape itself - dot included. This is obvious from the equally-obvious axiom that "God is all things.".
In other words, if you (or the mind) do not perceive of me, then I do not exist?
The perception of 'you' (in relation to what you see) exists. But that perception is gleaned from limited knowledge. Not from reason. Hence the duality of identity.
There is an outside reality, even when it was not perceived by any mind. There was a sun, there were planets, etc. even before any life began to develop on earth.
I never said that there wasn't. I just infered that The Mind was the perceiver/thinker of such a realm.
If that is your position, then I guess you are just juggling with words, and this One Mind is just another term for material existence.
The arguments I build cannot justify that conclusion. Matter cannot create a brain which knows how to interpret universal-data before ever receiving that data. And neither can it build a brain which has the artistic/imaginative freedom and power to effect the senses and feelings which awareness does experience, prior to having knowledge of how to do such things.
Your awareness interacts with the universe you percieve. But you said you don't acknowledge the fact of an 'outer reality', only the mind itself. What is your awareness interacting with themn, if such an outer reality does not exist in the first place?
Its thoughts and sensory-visions... and its emotions.
One major difference is if you are hit by a car in your dream, this event will probably just wake you up, and not cause you being hurt physically (unless you fall out of your bed, but not by a real car, of course). In reality thought a car hitting you, will cause you real injuries.
Our minds know how to wake-up from those sort of dreams. At such fearful moments, the concious-mind is put on full-alert. Hence we wake up to the dangers of our dreams. Thankfully.
Many mystics and the like - Jesus especially - have all claimed to have woken-up to the Divine reality. Only the future will determine whether such a state-of-mind awaits the whole. But how they 'achieved' such a thing (if indeed they did), is beyond my present understanding. But I believe that they may have - especially Jesus - simply because my philosophy would expect 'a Jesus' to
eventually be born. I know that religious figures should not be used in a philosophical argument. I merely use 'Jesus' as a mirror/example to reflect what I think ~Divine conciousness~ is all about. To give a meaning to what Divine-conciousness may imply.
I hope you are able to make the distinction...
I did. It was a valid point. But I think that waking-up from a fearful-dream is a different prospect to waking-up to Divine-conciousness. The former is a reaction to fear. The latter is a response to supreme-wisdom and an all-loving-heart, so it seems.
Well I remember a dream I had, when I was climbing a tree, and was affraid I was falling out of it. But suddenly in my dream I remember to have said to myself, I should not be affraid, cause it was just a dream. Perhaps this was a dream in which I was almost awake, so I knew it was a dream.
Yes. I once had a dream like that. Did you, like me, manipulate that dream to your own whims? Did you play God?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #110
Originally posted by Lifegazer
That's easy to say. But I could make you sweat with many awkward questions...
According to you, manufacturing conciousness is fundamentally no more different than manufacturing a brick. The complexity of that 'brick' is acknowledged. But the point remains: You think conciousness is manufactured from matter in motion/interaction.
Given that you equate the brain to some sort of data-interpretor of the external universe (which gave rise to that brain), how do you explain for the artistic free-will which must also be ready-present to transform mathematical input-data into subjective sensory-experience, as well as the ability to have 'emotion'?
This is a highly significant question. There is no sensory-experience upon awareness until and unless the brain already possesses such artistic freedom as to create those perceptions, itself. Not to mention the ability to effect (have power to...) these perceptions of love; pain; red; sweetness; cold; hot; etc., upon its own conciousness.


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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

Don't understand this part.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Playing for God is what Bush is doing in Iraq. I abstain from such immoral interventions, causing bloodshed of thousands of Iraqi people.
 
  • #111
Originally posted by Lifegazer
The arguments I build cannot justify that conclusion. Matter cannot create a brain which knows how to interpret universal-data before ever receiving that data. And neither can it build a brain which has the artistic/imaginative freedom and power to effect the senses and feelings which awareness does experience, prior to having knowledge of how to do such things.

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


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

Get the idea?

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

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

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

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

If you don't have a clue of how the material world really works, then go study some physics, chemistry, biology, etc. You might learn how the material world really works.
 
  • #112
Some questions/comments for Lifegazer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's a pitty that still, up to today, so many people keep themselves ignorant from how the world really works, and keep them selves tied up to an outdated belief system, that places the world upside down.
 
  • #113
Originally posted by Lifegazer
I agree with this. However, it's quite interesting that 2 paragraphs later you say this: "Boy, have you got it wrong. First, the “feeling of time passing” is not precisely defined at all." [/color]

Why interesting?

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

Do you mean precedes?

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

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

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

I am saying that the universe has properties that cannot be known a priori, and so must be determined by experimentation.
 
  • #114
Originally posted by Lifegazer
That's just not true. My recent post to CJames shows that my conclusions are founded upon Relativity as it is understood.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"It should be obvious that..."

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are impossible.

What I asked you was:

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

Of course, you never did say so.

edit: insert quote
 
Last edited:
  • #115
Originally posted by Tom
I do not recall doing anything other than ask you to explain what you mean by the "value of experience". I still have not received any sensible answer.

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

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

Tom,

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

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

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

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

and not like this...

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

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

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

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

Heh and tomorrow I may not even agree with this. I am so tirreeeed I keep noddddng ooff.,. I am gouiiing to beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
 
Last edited:
  • #116
Originally posted by Fliption
Let's assume you get up one morning and walk into the bathroom and admire your muscles in the mirror. Then you go to the kitchen and fix yourself some breakfast. Let's also assume you don't have access to any formal device for measuring time i.e. a watch or clock. After you eat your breakfast,you go into the bathroom and look in the mirror and you see an 85 year old man. Would you be surprised? Why?

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

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

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

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

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

But relativity does not make use of any of these fuzzy concepts such as what time and space "feel" like, so there is no point in bringing it up. Relativity only refers to measurements.
 
  • #117
Originally posted by Fliption

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

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

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

Even if you just put someone down a deep cave with no time keeping device, it has been shown that their conception of how much time has passed will drift out of sync with those on the surface. Even though an atomic clock brought with them in a locked and sealed box would keep perfect time with the surface.
 
  • #118
I also want to conduct an imaginary-experiment...

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

I'm hoping that someone can solve my confusion with the time-issue here. For on Earth, a full revolution of the Sun = 1 year.
So; why isn't a full revolution of the Sun, by the space-twin = 1 year? I mean, the space-twin must experience (relatively) less time than someone on Earth (as in the twin paradox). So, therefore, he must experience less time than '1 year'. And yet, he's just done a full revolution of the Sun in the same time that Earth has (same radial).
My confusion may seem vague or naive here. But if the space-twin can see Earth do a full revolution of the Sun, then he must also see the rest of the universe as the Earth does, relative to the Sun. I.e., Earth and the spacetwin should see almost the same nightsky. Upon first-glance, this might not seem relevant. However, if the spacetwin shares the same nightsky as Earth, in what sense can we say that he is experiencing less time (relatively) than someone on Earth, whilst also proclaiming that his experiences are 'normal'?
Where's the source of my confusion? This doesn't make sense to me: that the spacetwin can actually experience less time than someone on Earth, when the observation of the universe from either looks identical.
 
  • #119
Originally posted by Tom
Yes, because it does not take me 55 years to eat a bowl of Raisin Bran.

it took me a bit more than 15; but that is because i never liked raisins as a kid.
 
  • #120
Originally posted by Tom
Yes, because it does not take me 55 years to eat a bowl of Raisin Bran.
Oh so you're saying that eating a bowl of Raisin Bran is a way of measuring time? Lol then what isn't? No wonder you're struggling to define the experience of time passing.
Your first example is not what happens in the twin paradox. It's always the other guy's clocks and meter sticks that look screwed up, never my own.

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

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

From your perspective, I'm struggling to see what would not be considered a measurement of time. It seems that just the act of experiencing anything is itself a measure of time (like eating breakfast). If this is true then LG does have a problem I think.
 
Last edited:
  • #121
Originally posted by Fliption
From your perspective, I'm struggling to see what would not be considered a measurement of time. It seems that just the act of experiencing anything is itself a measure of time (like eating breakfast). If this is true then LG does have a problem I think. [/B]
You've lost me. Why?
 
  • #122
Originally posted by Janus
The problem with this example is that even though you've never glanced at a clock, There are plenty of other clues in your environment. to give you "time Clues" (For instance, As Tom mentioned, eating your cereal. If it had actually taken decades, the milk would have been really sour by the time you finished.

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

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

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

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

I would think this would be an easy scientific thing to find out. Once we know this, then I think it impacts LG's argument greatly.
 
Last edited:
  • #123
Originally posted by Lifegazer
I also want to conduct an imaginary-experiment...

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

If you go back and read your experiment and replace the word "experience" with the word "measurement", you can see that it looks like you are questioning the theory of relativity. It seems like, from the responses I got above, that Tom and others don't see a distinction between the experience and measurement of time. To them they are the same thing. So this may be why there seems to be the obvious confusion of motive on this thread.
 
  • #124
Originally posted by Lifegazer
You've lost me. Why?

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

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

According to Tom and Janus, the experiences seem normal because they are consistent with the distortion. For example, if you are accelerating and distorting space/time and time is relatively speeding up, then your perception of time will also speed up simply because your perception of time is based on the speed of your environment. It takes Tom 15 minutes to eat his cereal. To Tom, it will always take 15 minutes to eat his cereal regardless of how fast he is traveling. The difference in opinion I think is that you're thinking that the "perception of time" is a distinct thing in and of itself. Whereas the others here are thinking it is simply the byproduct of experiencing ones environment. To them it is no surprise that the perception in time will be consistent with the distortion of space/time.
 
Last edited:
  • #125
Tom wants me to quantify this feeling for time. My point to him was that physical measurements are the expression of this value. They quantify this qualifying-parameter of all existence - feel - by themselves.
IMO, (Tell me if I'm wrong LG) LG see's perception of time and measured time as separate things.
I view the ~feeling~ of time as absolute/universal (amongst all observers). I view the measurement of time as relative. So yes, they are separate things.
You guys, however, see perception of time as the same as measured time.
Don't confuse perception with feeling. It's easily done, and I probably overlook this linguistic-distinction myself, frequently. However, this issue has never been so relevant to one of my threads, as now. You see, 'perception' is the actual judgement of what you think you are seeing. But this judgement is dependent upon a ~feel~ for what you are perceiving/judging (measuring) - in relation to everything else.
Thus, if the space-twin's reality is actually distorted, his ~feel~ for what a meter and a second are in relation to this New-Everything, does not change. The mind knows exactly how to fathom a meter & second from this 'new reality'. The mind's ~feel~ of time & length from any distorted reality remains universally-correct (constant). But because the nature of 'everything' is relatively-distorted via motion, the new measurements of 1 meter and 1 second will be different than on Earth (for the spacetwin; relatively).
In your view, the only way you can separate the perception of time and measured time is to eliminate the act of experiencing anything.
In which case, they also eliminate the ability to measure anything. Measure proceeds 'feel'.
I would think this would be an easy scientific thing to find out. Once we know this, then I think it impacts LG's argument greatly.
I think I have sufficiently-shown that science is built upon a feeling for everything. If you distort 'the everything' then you only distort the measure of things within that everything. You do not distort the mind's capacity to fathom what it feels in relation to that everything. Do you understand my drift?
 
  • #126
Originally posted by Fliption
That's an interesting imaginary experiment.
I hope so. I was afraid of coming-across as naive in regards to this topic. That's why I asked questions, rather than make conclusions (at this point).
**But please - can I have a physics-boffin answer those questions from that imaginary-scenario (on the previous page of this thread), as I want to relate it to my argument if my suspicions are correct. Thankyou.**
As I said in the beginning, I'm not qualified to say.
You don't need to be a physicist here. We're discussing 'reality' - not physics. You have a high intelligence - don't be afraid to use it.
I just wanted to point out to you why I think Tom and others think you are questioning science as opposed to materialism.
My neck's on the block here. Every time I post, I know that I face eviction from these forums. Yet I love these forums. I don't want to be evicted. Hence I would never condemn scientific equations as incorrect (since I don't believe that they are, anyway!). I would only ever qualify those equations in relation to reality. That's why I keep emphasising my challenge to materialism.
If you go back and read your experiment and replace the word "experience" with the word "measurement", you can see that it looks like you are questioning the theory of relativity.
I think this is a language issue (not a physics issue). I'm hoping my previous post to you may clarify my position.

Edit: I have just posted the following-text in another thread. However, I couldn't resist making-it-known here, also:
***My topic about Relativity is about 'Relativity', and I use the axioms of that theory to promote the reality of Mind, thus bringing-about the demise of materialism {if accepted, of course}... as opposed to the demise of Einstein's work.[/color].***
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #127
Originally posted by Lifegazer
What is important, is that the radius of this second orbit is exactly the right distance from the Sun, to enable the space-twin to share the same radial (approx.) as Earth, from the Sun, as he moves at C/2. In other words, the Sun; Earth, and the space-twin, all share the same radial.

I will have to work this out in detail, but I am almost certain that if the three bodies share the same radial in one frame, that they cannot possibly do so in any other frame. The relativity of simultaneity comes into play here: the three bodies are simultaneously co-linear for one observer, so they cannot be so simultaneously aligned for any observer in a different state of motion.
 
  • #128
Originally posted by Fliption
Oh so you're saying that eating a bowl of Raisin Bran is a way of measuring time? Lol then what isn't? No wonder you're struggling to define the experience of time passing.

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

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

OK

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

Any dynamic process with a known rate can be used to measure time.
 
  • #129
Originally posted by Tom
I will have to work this out in detail, but I am almost certain that if the three bodies share the same radial in one frame, that they cannot possibly do so in any other frame.
Well; I'll be hoping for some sort of reason for making that statement. I fail to see how two bodies can share the same radial, yet see 'the circle' (so to speak), differently.
The relativity of simultaneity comes into play here: the three bodies are simultaneously co-linear for one observer, so they cannot be so simultaneously aligned for any observer in a different state of motion.
I've not heard of that before. But is it relevant? I want to explain the relative time-differences between two observers that do share the same radial.

Edit: If I don't get an answer within 36+ hours, then I'll post what I think may be happening within this scenario, and how it supports my own specific theory about reality. I mean, if there are no answers by the boffs, then I can hardly be accused of going against the scientific explanation of my scenario.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #130
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Tom wants me to quantify this feeling for time. My point to him was that physical measurements are the expression of this value. They quantify this qualifying-parameter of all existence - feel - by themselves.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

But what about Janus' example? What if you were put in a dark cave and you could see and hear nothing? You are given a watch but you can't see it in the dark. When you are let out, you may "feel" as if 3 days have gone by. But then you look at the watch and realize that only a day has gone by. So in this case, all experience has been taken away from you and as a result has taken away your ability to properly feel the passage of time. Yet at the same time the watch was actually measuring time correctly.
 
Last edited:
  • #131
Originally posted by Lifegazer
You don't need to be a physicist here. We're discussing 'reality' - not physics. You have a high intelligence - don't be afraid to use it.

With what I was referring to you do have to be a physicist. I was talking about being able to give a scientifically valid interpretation of relativity with regards to your experiment. I don't have enough knowledge about the theory to say what the explanation is. But I'm hoping that maybe one of the science gurus can help.
 
  • #132
Originally posted by Lifegazer
I've not heard of that before. But is it relevant? I want to explain the relative time-differences between two observers that do share the same radial.

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

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

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

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

How do you figure?

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

Or better yet, pick up a book and start studying.
 
  • #133
Originally posted by Lifegazer
I also want to conduct an imaginary-experiment...

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

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

Their observation of the universe isn't identical however.

This can be answered Either by SR or GR



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

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

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

The Earth twin in this case, sees himself as higher in this same field, and sees the space twin's clocks run slower due to the same gravitational time dilation.
 
  • #134
Originally posted by Janus
Their observation of the universe isn't identical however.

This can be answered Either by SR or GR



In SR the space twin sees the Universe contracted along the axis of movement by a much greater extent than the Earth does. Thus the space twin sees the circumference of his orbit as smaller.
And thus it takes him less time to complete an orbit at c/2 by his measurement than what the Earth twin measures as the Space twin's time to complete the orbit . The Earth twin measures the Space twin's clock as moving slower because of the relative velocity diference between the two.
I'm a bit confused here. I'm aware that the space-twin does experience less time than the Earth-twin. But if they occupy the same radial at any given time (adherence of the experiment), then they share the same night-sky. Hence, both observers should see the universe behaving in an identical manner. And that's why I cannot make any sense of the time distortion; for in what sense can we say the space-twin will experience the same universe as somebody on Earth, yet experience less time than somebody on Earth? It appears (to me) that the space-twin can only experience less time if he thinks everything (the universe) is moving in fast-motion. But if this was the case, the ~normality~ of his experiences would be compromised. And wouldn't this contradict our understanding of Relativity, whereby all observers are thought to have a 'normal experience'?
Another way of looking at it is to use GR. in this case, the space twin and Earth are considered as stationary (and the universe revolving around them) in a Gravitational field that is a combined result of the Sun's gravitational field (pulling them in) and the gravitational field due to the centrifugal effect (pulling him out). At any distance further away from the sun sharing a radial with the Earth, this second field will be the greatest.( at the exact distance of the Earth they cancel out to zero)

As a result, the space twin will see himself as Lower in that combined field than the Earth twin. Since clocks run slower lower in a gravity field than clocks higher in the same field, the Earth clock will run faster than his.
Hence, the spacetwin will see the same nightsky (the universe) moving in faster-motion than previously, on Earth. Thus, his 'experience of normaility' seems compromised, again. Is that correct?


Edit note: had to change slow-motion to fast-motion. Realised I had made an error.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #135
Originally posted by Tom
I have no idea of where you are going with this, so you tell me: is it relevant to your point if they are not co-linear in every frame?
The relevance is that by sharing the same radial, that they experience the same universe (by observation) at all times. Hence, I cannot understand how both observers can see the same universe whilst having a different experience of time - whilst also thinking that everything appears to be 'normal'. Something seems to be compromised here. Specifically, it appears that the space-twin must be having an abnormal experience, as though the rest of the universe must be moving in faster-motion, relative to himself. But that would compromise our understanding of Relativity (the 'normality' of it)... would it not?
This is the source of my confusion.

Edit note: I made the same error as in my previous post. Corrected from slower-motion to faster-motion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #136
Originally posted by Lifegazer
I'm a bit confused here. I'm aware that the space-twin does experience less time than the Earth-twin. But if they occupy the same radial at any given time (adherence of the experiment), then they share the same night-sky.
Hence, both observers should see the universe behaving in an identical manner.
The Earth, the Space twin and the Nightsky are in three different frames of reference. If you consider the universe as stationary, then the Earth is moving at 30km/s, and the space twin at c/2 relative to it respectively. If the night sky has a different realtive velocity to each, they cannot see the universe as behaving in an identical manner.



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

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

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

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

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

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

The Principle of Relativity holds
 
  • #137
I want to point-out that this following response is not a challenge against the fact that space-time is actually distorted. Nor is it a challenge to the mathematics which can prove this. It's a challenge to our vision of 'reality'.
Originally posted by Janus
The Earth, the Space twin and the Nightsky are in three different frames of reference.
How does the night-sky have a frame of reference? Its a whole. Its own frame of reference is the observer(s) who sees it.
The frames of reference - of relevance - are that radial I mentioned, and the observers upon 'it' who are looking at that nightsky.
If you consider the universe as stationary, then the Earth is moving at 30km/s, and the space twin at c/2 relative to it respectively.
So: All observers on Earth are measuring the velocity of that Earth, relative to everything else.
However; it should be noted that the velocity of all observers who were born on Earth, is gleaned in relation to that Earth. The Earth is used as a universal-frame of observer-motion. Agreed?
So; any observer from Earth would actually be judging motion in relation to his understanding of velocity, gleaned from his own velocity-relations with the Earth.
Hence, the velocity of any observer is wrt Earth. That is our true frame of reference, when defining velocities.
So; would it not be more-correct to say that the Earth is moving at 30km/s, relative to everything else (which is really moving in relation to that Earth)... and that the space-twin is moving at c/2 relative to the Earth?
If the night sky has a different realtive velocity to each, they cannot see the universe as behaving in an identical manner.
But how can the night-sky, of itself, have a different relative-velocity to each, if they share the same radial of existence?
I'm not saying that it can't, or that it doesn't. All I'm saying to you, is that these things are happening within the minds of individuals. That's why I keep pointing-out that I don't disagree with the math or anything. I'm just trying to show that this is a mind-reality, and am thus challenging materialism - not science. So please have a serious think about my comments.
For the Space twin everything is normal.**It is the universe around him that has changed.**
But my scenario doesn't allow for this comment. The spacetwin is aligned with the Earth and the Sun (in this scenario). And it's impossible to see a different version of the sphere-of-view from somebody who shares the same radial of existence, unless your mind is playing tricks with the light, so to speak. And it just so happens that this is exactly the case; for 'time' and 'space' (the personal-experience of them) is distorted, as we try to move amongst the light-things which we can see. Our motion/acceleration against the light-things produces a distortion in space-time. And yet, we haven't moved at all in relation to any light. How can we have done this, when the light hits us at the same velocity, from every direction, regardless of our own velocity in relation to the things which we can see?
Our relationship with light is static. We cannot move closer to it, or further away. Hence the universal perception of its velocity-value means that we do not move in relation to light. We move in relation to something beyond our observed-perception. We move in relation to conceptual-absolutes. Entities of the mind. We move amongst the reasoned-backdrop of a mind.

Einstein's theory is really a theory about how the observer gleans 'motion' (velocity) in relation to Earth, and then proceeds to judge the outer-universe within the context of this intimate-relationship. Einstein's theory is really centred upon the observer himself, because our whole understanding of motion is gleaned in respect to our own existence, relative to the Earth we stand upon.
The circumference of his "orbit" is only 8.19 e12 km rather than the 9.46 e12 km as measured from Earth.
It is curious that the faster you try to go, that the slower you actually go.
Here, the mathematics tell us that as the space-twin accelerates from Earth and tries to achieve the conditions of this scenario, that his orbit will be between the Earth and the Sun (eventually), along the same radial.
Now, it is clearly impossible for the inner-spoke of a wheel to be traveling faster than the outer-spoke. So, what's really going on here? The answer is clear to see - if you've given this response serious consideration - that the harder you try to accelerate from Earth, the slower you will actually go in relation to the Earth (which is on the same spoke, further-out).
In fact, your answer confirms that any space-man who tries to accelerate from Earth and conform to the conditions of this scenario will actually fry in the sun - since if he had the ability to achieve 0.9c, for example, his orbit would place him probably inside the Sun itself. That's a scary-thought. And somebody should think twice before jetting-off at ridiculously-high velocities (in the distant-future, of course)... unless our technology of sun-cream is more impressive.
This discussion also raises an interesting question: if any astronaught was to try and conform to the stipulations of this 'experiment' and follow the radial of the Earth:Sun, outwardly as he accelerated, then at what point does his orbit become between the Earth and the Sun (inwardly-orbit)? At what point does the outwardly-acceleration change direction towards the Sun?
Hopefully, you'll recognise that such a reversal is impossible. A constantly-accelerating body cannot accelerate, first away from two bodies on the same radial, and then suddenly decide to go inbetween them as a result of his actions.
Actually, reason does allow for this if we accept that each observer's perception of the universe is unique to his own head... and that he is seeing a mindful-reality. That reality is dependent upon his actions in relation to it. And if that is the case, then each observer is the centre of his existence. We cannot grace anything outside the observer as "the centre". The observer is the centre.
Thus at c/2 by it only takes 27310176 rather than 31536000sec to complete an orbit.
I have no beef with your mathematics. Don't forget this when you judge me (or you Tom). I'm merely trying to say that the mathematics of Einstein's work do prove that the reality we see must![/color] be in ~a mind~. These posts are my case to you. In fact, I insist that Einstein's mathematics must be correct! I'm just saying that the mathematics point to a specific Reality of existence which Einstein (and materialists) have not grasped from those mathematics. I.e.: that Reality is a Mind.
if he were watching the Earth through a telescope, he would see the Earth clocks running faster than his by a factor of 1.15...
How do you reconcile this statement with the statement "the observer experiences normality."?
How can the observer be experiencing 'normality' when the rate-of-change of all matter (all clocks) he can observe, is different to his own clock-of-experience? After all, if everything beyond the observer has a different clock, then what clock does the observer have?
I would suggest that his "clock-of-experience" is in-built. It's a self-referential thing. An in-built mindful thing. A constancy amongst all minds. And that's why I suggest that ~experience~ of time & space is founded upon a principle given by the mind itself. A constant-principle of experience is what the mind gives/takes from each experience.
And in this case, the mind gives/takes that all motion (of the self and other bodies) is in relation to a Law which does not allow for an observer to move amongst 'light'. Yet it does allow for motion between the things, of that light.
Meaning that he will see the Earth clock measuring 31536000 sec per orbit.
Actually; I don't think that this comparison is possible until both observers compare notes, upon meeting again. It's a relative distortion, remember. Not an actual one as observed from outside of this 'meet'.
From the Earth, things again, are normal. You would measure the Space twin as traveling a circumference of 9.46 e12 km in 31536000 sec. However, you would see the space twin's clock running at a rate of .866...
You're advocating that on Earth, it's possible to see two different realities of the space-twin: that of his clock and that of your clock, at the same time. But since what you see is the factory of your own clock, such a statement doesn't make sense. There's only one perceived reality. There is no duality/diversity which is evident in a singular perception.
Each observer will see the same events in the Nightsky, they just won't agree as to the length of time said events take to occur by their clock.
Exactly. Which means that the reality both observers are seeing is a product of their minds; since it is impossible for many observers to see a singular-reality in such a diverse-manner unless those observer's minds are making a reality for themselves, so to speak. However; the constancy (Law) that exists amongst the diversity of all observers, shows that all observers have a common value of what 'space' and 'time' do mean, in relation to the Whole which the observer does see. I.e., all observer's minds have a common-~feel~ for time & space. This is what I was referring to, earlier. The whole never changes in relation to 'yourself'... and as such, experience is a constant.
The Principle of Relativity holds
Which principle of Relativity tells you that 'materialists' are right?
 
  • #138
Originally posted by Lifegazer
How does the night-sky have a frame of reference? Its a whole. Its own frame of reference is the observer(s) who sees it.

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

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

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

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

You get to set the initial conditions however you want.

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

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

But my scenario doesn't allow for this comment.

Then your scenario is not set in the actual universe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

edit:

If you really want to get to the bottom of this, then you might want follow along here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=908
 
Last edited:
  • #139
Originally posted by Lifegazer


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

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

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

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


[/b]

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

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



But how can the night-sky, of itself, have a different relative-velocity to each, if they share the same radial of existence?
Imagine a record player, (remember those. You are standing next to it. (playing the part of a fixed star in the night sky.) The spindle is the sun, the Earth sits at the edge of the label, and the Space twin at the edge of the record along a line through the spindle and "Earth" If you measure the velocity of the edge of the record (Along with the space twin) relative to your self it will be greater than that of the edge of the label (we are talking linear velocity, not angular velocity)

Conversely, If the mesurements were made From the edge or label. each will measure a different velocity relative to you.)

But my scenario doesn't allow for this comment. The spacetwin is aligned with the Earth and the Sun (in this scenario). And it's impossible to see a different version of the sphere-of-view from somebody who shares the same radial of existence.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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



How do you reconcile this statement with the statement "the observer experiences normality."?
How can the observer be experiencing 'normality' when the rate-of-change of all matter (all clocks) he can observe, is different to his own clock-of-experience?
The observer experiences no changes within his frame of refernce, (all clocks belonging to his frame run at the same rate.

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


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

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

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

Now let's cut to the chase.


Basically your whole argument comes down to this.

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

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

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

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

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

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


So, Relativity actually makes it much more reasonable to assume that an external reality exists, than to assume that it is all internally generated.
 
  • #140
Thanks for the responses. It seems that my example has proved an aid to learning, if nothing else.
I want to chew-on a few things before responding, later today.
 
  • #141
With all due respects, I think you both missed the point of my posts.
I'm asking you to consider this:-

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

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

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

This post (in conjunction with my others), if accepted, would kill materialism - not science. Please bare that in mind if you respond.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #142
I appologize for my "leave of absence." Hello again everybody. Before I read the rest of this topic, I will respond to LG's last argument with me:
But the main point for pushing this argument, is that the observer himself is responsible for the particular/unique spacetime he is observing, via his own motion/acceleration in relation to the 'things' which he is observing.
Again, there is no logical connection. If there is logic here, you are missing a premise. This is logically valid:
1. Each individual finds different values for space and time measurements.
2. Individuals who observe different values for space and time live in separate existences.
3. Each individual lives in a separate existence.

Notice that the premises necessarily imply the conclusions. The second premise, however, is unsound as it has no backing behind it. Your argument must have premises that imply the conclusion.
For example, when the space-twin accelerates from Earth, he distorts his own spacetime - fact. When he comes back to Earth, his spacetime changes again, in line with that of his now-older brother. Clearly, the motion of the observer wrt the things he perceives of, is responsible for the particular space-time he is experiencing... is responsible for the particular reality he is observing.
again, the observer is never in motion, that is a postulate of relativity. There is no preferred reference frame. The observer exists within the present reference frame, so there is no movement for the observer.

It should be remembered that Relativity isn't just some sort of weird mind-thing which happens to each individual. We're discussing tangible/physical changes here, experienced by each observer. Each observer's experience of physical-reality is different, and the nature of that reality is dependent upon the actions/motion of that observer.
By tangible I assume you mean measureable. Yes, there is a measureable difference between measurements made in different reference frame. However, once again, there is no "motion of that observer."
Clearly, if the very-nature of the universe you can see is physically altered at the whim of your own motion, then it is as clear as daylight that the reality you can see is somehow dependent upon you. Your whole universe dances to your tune.
Your whole universe is happening inside your own mind. As is mine. As is everyones.
Once again, there is no "your own motion". The speed of light is constant for every observer. That is why different individuals observe different measurements, because ultimately all measurements are based upon this ultimate speed. The theory can be described entirely in terms of physical experiments. The one thing you can really adress is why the speed of light is constant for each observer. By principle of charity I ask you to use the constancy of the speed of light as a premise for your argument. MAKE SURE you include ALL the premises necessary to imply the conclusion that *all individuals help to create there own existence yet all are connected in some way.*
 
  • #143
(pant, pant) Okay, I read it all. So, the present big argument:
I'm hoping that someone can solve my confusion with the time-issue here. For on Earth, a full revolution of the Sun = 1 year.
So; why isn't a full revolution of the Sun, by the space-twin = 1 year? I mean, the space-twin must experience (relatively) less time than someone on Earth (as in the twin paradox). So, therefore, he must experience less time than '1 year'. And yet, he's just done a full revolution of the Sun in the same time that Earth has (same radial).
Alright, this wording is really messing with my head. The meaning of the night sky in your argument is bafling. From the sun (assuming it as a point) the stars sky is at rest. From Earth (assuming it as a point) the stars are rotating about the sun every year. From the starship, the stars are rotating about the sun every year as well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

such motion cannot truly occur.
Well there you go.

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

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

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

Is this correct?

First off, the three individuals do not have the same view of the night sky, which blows away the rest of the argument. Second, you assume that the only way "c" is constant is if it's speed is the product of your mind. Third, the premise that the three individuals see the same night sky (which again, they do not) doesn't imply that each individual generated his/her own perception of the universe.
 
  • #144
A few points CJ...
Originally posted by CJames
again, the observer is never in motion, that is a postulate of relativity. There is no preferred reference frame. The observer exists within the present reference frame, so there is no movement for the observer.
The observer's velocity is wrt Earth. I have explained why, in an earlier post.
Secondly, when you say that the observer is never in motion, you are merely supporting my argument that motion occurs within the mind.
Thirdly, no materialist should be arguing that point, clearly.
The meaning of the night sky in your argument is bafling. From the sun (assuming it as a point) the stars sky is at rest. From Earth (assuming it as a point) the stars are rotating about the sun every year. From the starship, the stars are rotating about the sun every year as well.
I dealt with this specifically, in my previous post. From the starship, the stars are rotating every couple of months, and a full revolution of the Sun takes a couple of months, also.
However, the night sky has nothing to do with reference frames (unless, as tom and janus have been, you use it as a reference frame.)
Well I am using it as a reference frame.
On Sun or Earth, there is no "sense" of motion. In other words, no acceleration is felt. The sun is "at rest." The Earth is in a gravitational field which (if the Earth is considered to be a point) precicely cancels out the centrefugal force of its "movement" around the sun.
I agree with this. That's why human understanding of velocity is gleaned wrt Earth.
Lg:- "1). The velocity of light is the same for all observers. We cannot blame the light for this phenomenon."

- We don't have to "blame" anything. In any case, why can't it simply be that this is the way that light is? Why do you immediately throw out this possibility?
There must be a cause for the experienced distortion of spacetime. And it is clear that this cause is linked with the observer's own velocity wrt Earth.
Lg:- "2). The heavens are in the same position for anyone who exists upon this radial. We cannot blame the heavens for this phenomenon."

- Well, again, this is not the case. The heavens do not appear the same for any of the three celestial bodies.
My previous post explains why all observers on the same radial of motion have an identical experience of 360-degrees of heavenly motion. No matter how fast the space-twin moves, his observation of the constellations will be identical as they are upon Earth.
I ask you again to read that explanation.
First off, the three individuals do not have the same view of the night sky, which blows away the rest of the argument.
The night sky is identical for anyone residing upon the aforementioned radial of motion. That nightsky will rotate in the same 360-degree manner.
Read my previous post again. It's important.
 
  • #145
Originally posted by Lifegazer
With all due respects, I think you both missed the point of my posts.
No, we haven't, You just aren't understanding the explanations.



This raises an interesting point: When sombody upon Earth has completed a revolution of the Sun's orbit, he says that he's experienced a year of time. However, as in the twin-paradox, the spacetwin will say that only a couple of months have passed (for him).
Define "year". If you mean the time it takes to make one revolution, Then both observers, say that it takes a "year" to go around the sun If you mean a certain number of seconds, then each observer gets a different answer for how much time it takes per revolution.

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





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

No, if his time rate is running slower(As predicted by Relativity) you would expect him to see less time occur per revolution.

OTOH, within his frame, time hasn't slowed him (But time has sped up on Earth, but the circumference of the universe has decreased, and it will take him less time for it to complete a revolution around him.

And you don't need any "observers" for this to be true. You could just use samples of radioactive isotopes. The one on Earth will decay faster than the other.

You simply do not understand Realtivity well enough to use it as an argument.
 
  • #146
Originally posted by Janus
No, we haven't, You just aren't understanding the explanations.
Your explanations are avoiding making a response to significant revelations I have shown.
The most significant of these revelations is that all observers (upon the aforementioned radial) will see the exact-same night-sky, as they revolve around the Sun.
Define "year". If you mean the time it takes to make one revolution, Then both observers, say that it takes a "year" to go around the sun If you mean a certain number of seconds, then each observer gets a different answer for how much time it takes per revolution.
Your statement clearly expresses the point I've been making all-along. If the Earth-twin experiences several-times more seconds per year/revolution than the space-twin (whilst simulataneously following the same radial-of-motion and observing the same rotation-of-nightsky), then it is clearly apparent that both observer's experience of space-time is a product of his own mind.
In this scenario which I have presented, the nightsky (the universe) is a constant frame of reference for all observers upon the radial-of-motion. Thus, since all observers see the same velocity of light, the only manner in which the apparent space-time distortions occur, is through the action of the mind itself. The mind is responsible.
Time units such as "day" and "year" which are based on astronomical observation, are variable, Fixed time units like the second, aren't and are the proper units to use in this scenerio. Your use of "Year" is just confusing you.
Let's not argue about the semantics of defining a year. It's not important.
The significant point is that each observer experiences a full revolution of the Sun in a different amount of experienced time/seconds. He also sees a full revolution of the heavens in a different amount of time/seconds.
Given that each observer shares the same radial-of-motion and also experiences the exact-same nightsky, the perception of time and space
is clearly a function of the observer's own mind. This is the point which I wish you to address.
OTOH, within his frame, time hasn't slowed him (But time has sped up on Earth, but the circumference of the universe has decreased, and it will take him less time for it to complete a revolution around him.
All/any circumferences will complete a revolution in the exact-same moment. As I said, a 360-degree revolution of the nightsky is identical for both observers, as is a 360-degree orbit of the Sun.
Thus, the apparent time differences experienced by each observer are clearly a function of the observer's mind.
 
  • #147
Lifey

the only manner in which the apparent space-time distortions occur, is through the action of the mind itself. The mind is responsible… the perception of time and space is clearly a function of the observer's own mind… the apparent time differences experienced by each observer are clearly a function of the observer's mind…

This is the point which I wish you to address.

You state a position not based on observation or evidence because you claim the observations and evidence don’t exist, but are a function of the mind. According to you everything is a function of the mind – there exists no reality in your worldview. You state your claim in a “matter-of-fact” way, yet your so-called reasoning supports the argument against you.

You fail to understand the very obvious mixture of fallacies to which your argument is supported in that your argument cannot even explain the very obvious of questions. You even fail to comprehend or ignore the definitions and explanations presented to you.

If no reality exists, how does the mind exist? How did the mind come into existence if nothing existed before? How can the mind exist if it is a function of itself?
 
  • #148
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Your explanations are avoiding making a response to significant revelations I have shown.
The most significant of these revelations is that all observers (upon the aforementioned radial) will see the exact-same night-sky, as they revolve around the Sun.

How is that a revelation? We all know they see the same night sky. They just see it differently.

Your statement clearly expresses the point I've been making all-along. If the Earth-twin experiences several-times more seconds per year/revolution than the space-twin (whilst simulataneously following the same radial-of-motion and observing the same rotation-of-nightsky), then it is clearly apparent that both observer's experience of space-time is a product of his own mind.

No, it is not "clearly apparent". It could also be a product of the material universe, feeding data into their minds. Why can you not see this?

In this scenario which I have presented, the nightsky (the universe) is a constant frame of reference for all observers upon the radial-of-motion. Thus, since all observers see the same velocity of light, the only manner in which the apparent space-time distortions occur, is through the action of the mind itself. The mind is responsible.

Wrong again. Only physical effects are taken into account in SR. In fact, the predictions of relativity can be recorded by mindless[/color] rods and clocks. Why can you not see this?

Since the next two paragraphs end with the same mantra "clearly a function of the observer's mind", there is no point in addressing it.

Listen to Janus: You simply do not understand relativity well enough to use it in an argument.
 
  • #149
i regret to have to close this thread...doesn't seem that much progress has been made...
 
  • #150
Let it go a little further,... if you will. There may be some interesting replies coming on rotations on relativity...
 

Similar threads

Scientific law vs. theory, Newton vs. Einstein
Replies
18
Views
4K
Does Einstein's General Theory of Relativity imply graviton?
Replies
3
Views
4K
Is Sabine Hossenfelder the Key to Unlocking New Theories in Physics?
Replies
3
Views
677
A Lorentz-Einstein law of motion for a point particle
Replies
1
Views
1K
Einstein's later thoughts on EPR
Replies
9
Views
2K
I'm looking for someone to talk to about mathematical physics
Replies
1
Views
602
Is the Einstein–Cartan theory renormalizable?
Replies
1
Views
2K
Does Accepting Einstein's Theory Mean Rejecting Newton's?
Replies
25
Views
20K
How Can the Philosophies of Great Physicists Guide Us Beyond the Standard Model?
Replies
6
Views
4K
Deriving Geodetic Line by Einstein: Clarifying Difficulties
Replies
2
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top