• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Relativity and absolute spacetime.

Well as I've been saying, the topic of absolute space-time has already been pretty well figured out eighty years ago.

BTW, relativity generally deals with "inertial references", not with "mind".

The unfortunate term "observers" has crept into the vocabulary, which unnecessarily implies that "inertial references" are conscious or something. This is not part of the theory in any way.
 
phildonnia said:
BTW, relativity generally deals with "inertial references", not with "mind".
Click to expand...
I wish the mods would put this back in philosophy. I knew this would happen.
... With all due respect, it does not matter what relativity deals with. The absolute truth of the situation is that the whole experience of the universe occurs within the mind, via the sensations. You have sensations... you become aware of a universe created by those sensations.
Humans do not experience real light - they experience the sensation of light. They do not see real space between real objects - they sense space between sensed-objects.

It's impossible for me to have this discussion in this room. Is this why it was put here? Is this why it remains here?
Are we seeing politics in action here?
 
This is what happens when you use loaded words like "relativity". Everyone just assumes that you want to talk about "relativity".

Next time try calling it "solipsism", and we'll cut out the physics garbage.
 
I want to know who moved this here and I want to know why.
Furthermore, it would have been nice if somebody would have spoken to me about it first.
Bang out of order.
 
lifegazer said:
I wish the mods would put this back in philosophy. I knew this would happen.
... With all due respect, it does not matter what relativity deals with. The absolute truth of the situation is that the whole experience of the universe occurs within the mind, via the sensations. You have sensations... you become aware of a universe created by those sensations.
Humans do not experience real light - they experience the sensation of light. They do not see real space between real objects - they sense space between sensed-objects.

It's impossible for me to have this discussion in this room. Is this why it was put here? Is this why it remains here?
Are we seeing politics in action here?
Click to expand...

And where do you think sensations come from? They aren't spontaneously generated by the mind, you know. Light can affect a person whether they have the sensation of light or not. Space between objects has a definite effect, whether we are aware of that space or not.
 
lifegazer said:
I wish the mods would put this back in philosophy. I knew this would happen.

...

It's impossible for me to have this discussion in this room. Is this why it was put here? Is this why it remains here?
Are we seeing politics in action here?
Click to expand...
So restart the discussion in the other forum and stop replying here! Just let it die.
 
I'm not trying to have the last word here, honest I'm not.

But I was just meditating on TillEulenspiegel's "location", and I realized that the term "interval" is actually used for the square root of the value I described above. It's invariant, in any case.
 
Re: Re: Relativity and absolute spacetime.

phildonnia said:
If you're talking about the theory of special relativity, and not a fuzzy obfuscation of it, then yes, there is absolute reality.

The "interval" between two events will be the same for any inertial reference frame. The interval between two events separated by distance d and time t is d^2/c^2-t^2.

This value is invariant for any given two events, and may represent the absolute reality behind varying relativistic observations.
Click to expand...

Edited:
Correction: d^2/c^2-t^2 is the square of what is called the "interval".
 
phildonnia said:
Please read my post above. There is no absolute space, nor absoulte time. There is absolute "space-time", and we can quantify it.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know and so I sit corrected. I do know that the way LG is using absolute is very different from what you are using.
It would appear that you have stated that the time interval observed between two events will be related in different frames of reference.

This is very different from LG's meaning of absolute in that he feels that there is no external reality and that it is an illusion occuring within the absolute. His is a dualistic philosophy which he maintains is not a dualism.

Thanks for the correction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom