Do you have any idea what this actually means within the context of the universe itself, or how this information relates to that universe, or are you just parroting knowledge passed onto you from another source?
The former. It's really quite easy to understand.
Yes, really. Until you get to the point where you understand what the theory of relativity is, then nothing you say about it is going to make any sense.
Look, it's possible that you have some good ideas. The problem is that you have yet to demonstrate that you can focus your ideas to the point that any of them can be evaluated.
Do you now comprehend that scientists are studying the order inherent within the experience of the universe yielded via the sensations? This is an undeniable fact, since humanity cannot study anything other than it's own experience. All I want to know is whether you understand it?
I might answer that question in another thread without the mush, (
i.e. make a precise enough statement of what you're trying to say and stick to it), and the answer would not necessarily be "no," but if you're going to talk about relativity, then you should understand what it is to the extent that you can avoid making false statements about it.
I want you to get what relativity
is straight before you start waving your hands about the implications.
Now, you are saying that there is absolute spacetime. So, since you think that I don't know what I'm talking about and that you obviously do, I hereby challenge you to explain what, in itself, absolute spacetime is within the context of the experience of this world which we are having.
Sure. It's a structure that humans (and everything else that is matter) perceive from different vantage points.
I'm not for a minute suggesting that there isn't Something absolute or singular upon/within which all of this relativity-experience occurs, but to describe that thing as absolute-spacetime is pathetic.
You don't even know what relativity is. Seriously, you don't.
I cannot complain that you think what I say pathetic, since I have a similar opinion of what you say. Actually, I consider it quite the compliment.
But at least get relativity right first. This is probably futile, but I am trying to encourage you to learn what relativity is.
I'm sorry mate, but if you don't see anything special about an energy that will always be perceived to move at the same velocity regardless of your own velocity, then you haven't given it much thought.
What do you mean by "an energy"? Are you talking about light? It's already been explained to you, but you don't understand. The Minkowskian norm of an interval traversed by any massless particle is zero, and therefore,
c is the only speed it can go at.
For example, let's swap 'light' for 'cats'. Imagine that the velocity of all things in the universe, including light, was relative to your own motion. Except cats. Cats would always be perceived to be moving at 20m/s regardless of your own velocity. So, any intelligent person would regard the motion of cats as "special" with comparison to everything else. But not you, apparently, since you see no big deal about an energy that apparently disregards your own motion!
Again, it's been explained to you, over and over again.
c is "special" not because light goes at
c. Light and all massless particles have to go at
c because
c is "special." The only thing "special" about light is that it has no rest mass. It's also the only particle that's known to be massless and has also been detected by itself.
Think man, think. And think within the context of 'light' being a sensation, rather than a real energy existing outside of yourself and moving through real space & time.
I think quite a great deal, thank you very much.
As I said earlier, science studies the order inherent within the exerience of the world, yielded by sensations. And 'light' is a sensation. And the reason why there is a constant relationship between the observing mind and the sensation of light, is because light is not an object in a real world... and neither is the observing mind.
Besides being a bald assertion, this is a non-sequitur.
Oh, so light doesn't have any "special" properties? Then perhaps you could explain to this forum why it ALONE moves through the same [supposedly] real universe as every-thing else, but, unlike everything else, it's velocity is not perceived relative to your own.
Why should I try to justify something that we don't even know is true? There are good reasons to think that gravitons and gluons behave the same way. So there's no basis on which to say that it's just light. It's only recently that there's been a consensus that neutrinos have mass. We're still exploring.
Climb the ladder mate. This isn't a test about who knows more about physic's terminology regarding any specific theory. This thread is a wake-up-call, asking you to see beyond all of that and ask questions.
Sorry, but you aren't even asking questions in such a way that it is possible to deal with the questions. I'm pretty sure that you're terribly impressed with your own profundity, but you really do seem to lack the ability or willingness to focus.
but not what we would expect). I have to tell you that I was a big worried about you commiting suicide to try to prove that you are something else that your body, the god you used to talk about.
