Is Reinterpreting Einstein's Theory a Valid Scientific Endeavor?

[Lifegazer]

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.

 

[CJames]

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.*

 

[CJames]

(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.

 

[Lifegazer]

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.

 

[Janus]

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.

 

[Lifegazer]

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.

 

[(Q)]

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?

 

[quantumdude]

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 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.

 

[Kerrie]

i regret to have to close this thread...doesn't seem that much progress has been made...

 

[ahrkron]

Let it go a little further,... if you will. There may be some interesting replies coming on rotations on relativity...

 

[quantumdude]

As a matter of fact, I started a thread on that Monday, and am working towards a solution.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=908