Einstein Was Right

[Paradox]

Paradox I have few allies who recognize the deficiencies of contemporary physics. Let us suppose for a moment that you are absolutely correct in that this science has much to learn (perhaps even to unlearn). Does your style of approach towards people make them more likely or less likely to explore this possibility?

 

Have you seen what I have had to cop on this thread??

Thing is, since I have spent ten or more years getting to know the relevant material, I know just how belligerent and dogmatic A-to-O is being, when other people here might have missed the subtleties of it. Note that I never replied abruptly to anyone before they had behaved in a more obnoxious way towards me.

 

Since none of you seem to like what I have to say, and since it's clear that we are doing nothing but churning up old turf, I shall shoot your fox and leave you all to discuss relativity among yourselves. Enjoy!!! (I somehow doubt many of you will, though -- baying for blood that most people here seem to be.)

[Legion]

Have you seen what I have had to cop on this thread??

I've not read most of it, just enough to get the flavor. If people are berating you for daring to question their authorities then perhaps it is to be expected. My advice is to rise above it. This is a very, very difficult thing to do. I have a very difficult time being calm, cool, and collected while being treated with contempt. My natural impulse is to return contempt for contempt.

[AlphaToOmega]

Paradox I have few allies who recognize the deficiencies of contemporary physics.

 

I too have issues with parts of physics and cosmology. So its not like he's arguing with someone who agree's with everything for the sake of it.

There are many physicists that disagree with parts of physics.

What I have noticed however is that there is very little that he seem's to agree with.

He wants to redefine the world of physics and maths to fix the it, but, its not broken, there's just mysteries there like there always was.

[AlphaToOmega]

Have you seen what I have had to cop on this thread??

 

You are ignorant of your role in this thread no matter how many times its pointed out.

 

Thing is, since I have spent ten or more years getting to know the relevant material, I know just how belligerent and dogmatic A-to-O is being, when other people here might have missed the subtleties of it. Note that I never replied abruptly to anyone before they had behaved in a more obnoxious way towards me.

 

Ten years. I think you need to actually take a course on physics and maths.

Self taught only gets you so far unless you are a prodigy to the world of mathematics and physics.

Guess what. You aren't.

Oh, you also claim that ten years ago you could have "cut every relativist to pieces".

Now you're saying you've you've spent ten or more years studying this.

So about ten years ago you were only new to the subject yet you were still so full of confidence that you could out do all the people that spend far longer studying the field.

 

 

 

You think people should take your "self educated" time seriously when you dismiss others, hundreds of thousands of others, who are formally trained in mathematics and physics.

You dismiss the tens of thousands who dedicate their life towards understanding the same field who come up with testable and verifiable predictions and break new ground in order to fully test them to make sure they comply.

You disregard the regular confirmations of the theory and all the applications it has spawned because it lacks to your mind, "logical substance".

That's another way of saying the results are irrelevant due your ignorance of the theory.

Then you have the arrogance to claim you can "cut every relativist to pieces" and arguing with those who disagree you equate to "arguing with absolute stupidity".

 

These are the things you did before I started with the sarcasm.

I even pointed it out to you and said I'll drop the sarcasm if you drop your arrogance.

You did not. You didn't understand what I meant by that since you continued to justify your arrogance as correct. Just like you don't understand relativity.

 

You dismissed the results BEFORE understanding even the process. You had to ask me what a blind test was.

Then you dismissed it anyway because it didn't address what you said about Grossman.

An experiment must address your views on Grossman before it can be accepted. Okie Dokie then.

It takes years to analyse the data and you in the space of 5 hours can dismiss it.

40years of careful preparation and years of data collection and analysis.

In 5 hours, you can process everything and dismiss it.

The reality is, you couldn't download all that data in five hours let alone process it.

 

Since none of you seem to like what I have to say' date=' and since it's clear that we are doing nothing but churning up old turf, I shall shoot your fox and leave you all to discuss relativity among yourselves. Enjoy!!! (I somehow doubt many of you will, though -- baying for blood that most people here seem to be.)

[/quote']

 

 

Let me explain lack of objectivity to you Paradox, actually, let me give you an example:

 

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, what we are assessing on this thread is the logical substance of the theory -- not experimental findings and whether or not they yield a close match.

 

 

What exactly was this thread about?

The title, "Einstein was right"

The very subject matter was regarding the results of the Gravity probe B experiment that was long awaited and started over 40years ago which confirms Einstein's predictions.

 

Where did you get the idea that this thread is most importantly about the, "logical substance of the theory" as seen by you and not the experiment and its findings?

 

It is about the Gravity probe B results confirming Einstein's predictions.

 

How the hell can you make such an absurd claim?

Do you not have basic English reading comprehension skills?

 

Once again you redefine something to what you want it to be about then complain that we are sticking with the subject.

You redirected it to how Newton's law was not interpreted correctly.

What has that got to do with the "Gravity probe B" experiment or this thread?

 

You derailed this thread then you complain that we're not discussing what you derailed it to yet we have entertained your derailment by responding to you anyway.

You just didn't like that we don't support your view.

You'll note that much of this thread has been discussion of your red herrings, not the actual subject that was started.

 

But hey, its all here for people to read.

 

 

 

 

 

[Vigile]

These are the things you did before I started with the sarcasm.

I even pointed it out to you and said I'll drop the sarcasm if you drop your arrogance.

You did not. You didn't understand what I meant by that since you continued to justify your arrogance as correct. Just like you don't understand relativity.

 

I fear he will never see the points you are making:

 

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652/DSECTION=symptoms

 

arcissistic personality disorder symptoms may include:

 

* Believing that you're better than others

* Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness

* Exaggerating your achievements or talents

* Expecting constant praise and admiration

* Believing that you're special and acting accordingly

* Failing to recognize other people's emotions and feelings

* Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans

* Taking advantage of others

* Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior

* Being jealous of others

* Believing that others are jealous of you

* Trouble keeping healthy relationships

* Setting unrealistic goals

* Being easily hurt and rejected

* Having a fragile self-esteem

* Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional

 

The irony of NPD is you wear it on your sleeve, obvious to all others, yet you cannot see it within yourself.

[bornagainathiest]

Have you seen what I have had to cop on this thread??

I've not read most of it, just enough to get the flavor. If people are berating you for daring to question their authorities then perhaps it is to be expected. My advice is to rise above it. This is a very, very difficult thing to do. I have a very difficult time being calm, cool, and collected while being treated with contempt. My natural impulse is to return contempt for contempt.

 

Hello Legion.

 

I'm addressing this message to you and not to Paradox, in the hope of getting some balance and clarity on the issue of his 'treatment' here.

 

Before I go down this path let me say that I am aware of and acknowledge that you harbor deep suspicions of things cosmological. I have no problem with your views on this. We are all entitled to hold our own p.o.v. and a diversity of viewpoints is, in my opinion, a healthy thing. However, there is an underlying principle (the principle of membership equality and equivalence) that goes hand-in-hand with this entitlement to hold to our own views.

 

Here's how I believe it works.

 

You and I and all members are entitled to hold to any position on any issue. That is both our choice and our right. However, balancing this freedom is the responsibility to be held accountable for our views, should anyone question them. This should come as no big surprise because this is exactly what we expect visiting Christian Apologists to do when asked by us - be accountable for their claims, their views and anything else they put forward. Likewise, they have the equal right to hold us to account for what we say, what we cite and so forth. This principle of equality is a fundamental cornerstone of not just this forum, but our democratic society as well.

 

Do I get to vote more than once for a Presidential candidate? No. Why? Because, I'm entitled to act on an equal basis with my fellow citizens, not as a priveleged individual with special exeptions. Ditto, the law. If the speed sign says 50, that applies equally to all. I don't have any special legal, moral or ethical rights to claim exeption from this limit. 50 applies to me too.

 

So how does this apply to Paradox?

Putting it simply, he refused to be called to account on the following issues...

 

1. ...and science needs the seal of endorsement/approval from philosophers, because...?

2. Why does science need or require philosophers to confer anything upon the scientific community?

3. Where and when did philosophers acquire any authority over scientists?

4. Other spheres of human activity can police themselves quite adequately, so why do scientists need philosophers to police them?

 

Please note that he had no trouble at all critisizing pro-Relativity science and scientists from his philosophical p.o.v., but when I asked him to justify himself and say why philosophers had the right to do this, he refused to be called to account. Here's his reply.

 

Sorry, BAA, but I have already been led off on about five different tangents as it is, on this thread, and any more will just result in overload for me. If I don't answer anyone's questions here, it's because they're either crap or they are one tangent too many.

 

And, conspiracy theorist that I am, your four 'questions for Paradox' look to me for all the world like a trap designed such that you can fling more comments at me that say how arrogant and what-have-you I am, because a forum such as this demands but a few lines in the way of reply, and any such answer would not serve me or anyone else attempting to answer them, well. But your questions would all require essay-length, if not book-length, if not longer answers.

 

Alright, if you want some form of answer, I'll just do my usual cop-out (as you think of it) -- namely, answering with another question. That is: Why don't we just get rid of philosophers completely? But honestly, as I have said, I really don't want to pursue this.

 

Now Legion, some serious questions for you.

 

1.

If the topic in question were some aspect of Christianity and a Christian Apologist had written that...

A. He wouldn't be answering because the questions put to him were either crap or one tangent too many.

B. He wouldn't be answering because he suspected the questions were some kind of trap.

C. He wouldn't be answering because the questions would require book-length replies.

...yet he still thought that everything he wrote was valid, that everything he wrote should be accepted as true and that he was entitled to openly critisize others without expectation of any comeback, would you call that being fair and equal?

 

2.

If we expect a Christian Apologist to be called to account for what they write, but an anti-Einstein Philosopher is exempt from this fair and equal measure, isn't that operating a double-standard?

 

3.

Do you now see how I've treated Paradox no differently from Rayskidude, Thumbelina or any other Christian Apologist? What applies equally to them and to us MUST apply to Paradox as well. Have I made my point?

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I contend that Paradox brought all of this 'grief' upon himself.

He would not respect the principle of equivalence that I've explained above.

He expected preferential treatment and would not accept his proper place as an equal member of this forum.

 

We even see that he's still in denial, painting himself as the victim of an unfair campaign of persecution, when it's quite clear that he either can't or won't abide by the equalities we all strive to operate by.

 

So, my conscience is clear on this one.

I've used studied insults, sarcasm and mockery in my dealings with Christians - when these things were called for.

Paradox's case is no different.

 

His overriding desire to be different and special and priveleged was the cause of this.

 

BAA.

[Legion]

1. ...and science needs the seal of endorsement/approval from philosophers, because...?

2. Why does science need or require philosophers to confer anything upon the scientific community?

3. Where and when did philosophers acquire any authority over scientists?

4. Other spheres of human activity can police themselves quite adequately, so why do scientists need philosophers to police them?

I think it could be effectively argued that science is a branch of philosophy. I think most practicing scientists are relatively unconcerned about this. They implicitly trust that their philosophical foundations were properly constructed many years ago, and are somewhat impatient with trips to the basement of the scientific edifice. But one of my favorite scientists was forced by necessity to re-examine these foundations and he discovered some things which, if adopted or believed, severely constrains our view of Natural Law.

 

I think it is appropriate to remind these scientists of David Hawkins when he says, "Philosophy may be ignored but not escaped, and those who most ignore least escape."

[bornagainathiest]

1. ...and science needs the seal of endorsement/approval from philosophers, because...?

2. Why does science need or require philosophers to confer anything upon the scientific community?

3. Where and when did philosophers acquire any authority over scientists?

4. Other spheres of human activity can police themselves quite adequately, so why do scientists need philosophers to police them?

I think it could be effectively argued that science is a branch of philosophy. I think most practicing scientists are relatively unconcerned about this. They implicitly trust that their philosophical foundations were properly constructed many years ago, and are somewhat impatient with trips to the basement of the scientific edifice. But one of my favorite scientists was forced by necessity to re-examine these foundations and he discovered some things which, if adopted or believed, severely constrains our view of Natural Law.

 

I think it is appropriate to remind these scientists of David Hawkins when he says, "Philosophy may be ignored but not escaped, and those who most ignore least escape."

 

Thank you for this, Legion.

 

I welcome this input. It's given me something new to consider, something which (sadly) Paradox was either unable or unwilling to do.

 

Thanks again,

 

BAA.

[skepticalme]

Oh, what the hell -- here it is, from a message board (here, a sample):

 

Mr Obvious:

 

<<I've been debating someone who claims that no relativist has an answer to this:

 

http://homepage.ntlw....elativity.html

 

Any help appreciated. >>

 

 

 

The reason why this article is wrong is that one does not observe thier own Lorentz transformation. All (v/c) calculations are made from an external frame. This is why two clocks can appear to tick slower than each other. To a person traveling with thier respective clock it appears to measure time at its normal rate, only clocks external to this frame appear to tick slower. This is not a contradiction because there is no absolute time for either to be measured against. If you have three clocks, A, B and C. Clocks A and C take off in opposite direction at equal velocitties as measured by B and B is left behind in the middle. From the perspective of A , clock B ticks slower than A and clock C ticks Slower than B. From the perspective of C the reciprical is true. From the perspective of B, A and C are synconized and tick slower than B.

 

As for the twin paradox, there is a simple solution. Length contraction. If one twin travels towards a galaxy 1 million light years away with a Lorentz factor of 1 million then from thier perspective the distance to that galaxy contracts to a distance of one light year. To the travele,r the trip appears to be 1 ly out then 1 ly back at nearly c , giving a total travel time of just over two years. To the twim that remains behind it appears that the traveler is making a trip 1 million ly out then 1 million ly back at nearly c, giving a total travel time of just over 2 million years.

[Paradox]

Oh, what the hell -- here it is, from a message board (here, a sample):

 

Mr Obvious:

 

<<I've been debating someone who claims that no relativist has an answer to this:

 

http://homepage.ntlw....elativity.html

 

Any help appreciated. >>

 

 

 

The reason why this article is wrong is that one does not observe thier own Lorentz transformation. All (v/c) calculations are made from an external frame. This is why two clocks can appear to tick slower than each other. To a person traveling with thier respective clock it appears to measure time at its normal rate, only clocks external to this frame appear to tick slower. This is not a contradiction because there is no absolute time for either to be measured against. If you have three clocks, A, B and C. Clocks A and C take off in opposite direction at equal velocitties as measured by B and B is left behind in the middle. From the perspective of A , clock B ticks slower than A and clock C ticks Slower than B. From the perspective of C the reciprical is true. From the perspective of B, A and C are synconized and tick slower than B.

 

No, as I have said the whole reliance on observation is a red herring. Imagine if the clocks are fitted with a device that jets ink onto a screen standing mid way between the moving objects. The ink jet is set off by a contact-activated trigger when one clock brushes past the other. Consider that the ink prints a figure that is the clock time. Will the figures be the same for different frames or different? If different, which will be the later?

 

As for the twin paradox, there is a simple solution. Length contraction. If one twin travels towards a galaxy 1 million light years away with a Lorentz factor of 1 million then from thier perspective the distance to that galaxy contracts to a distance of one light year. To the travele,r the trip appears to be 1 ly out then 1 ly back at nearly c , giving a total travel time of just over two years. To the twim that remains behind it appears that the traveler is making a trip 1 million ly out then 1 million ly back at nearly c, giving a total travel time of just over 2 million years.

 

Same problem, I'm afraid. If velocity is purely relative, there is no deciding which twin should be the older and which should be the younger, and which is length-contracted relative to the other. They are both older than each other.

[skepticalme]

Oh, what the hell -- here it is, from a message board (here, a sample):

 

Mr Obvious:

 

<<I've been debating someone who claims that no relativist has an answer to this:

 

http://homepage.ntlw....elativity.html

 

Any help appreciated. >>

 

 

 

The reason why this article is wrong is that one does not observe thier own Lorentz transformation. All (v/c) calculations are made from an external frame. This is why two clocks can appear to tick slower than each other. To a person traveling with thier respective clock it appears to measure time at its normal rate, only clocks external to this frame appear to tick slower. This is not a contradiction because there is no absolute time for either to be measured against. If you have three clocks, A, B and C. Clocks A and C take off in opposite direction at equal velocitties as measured by B and B is left behind in the middle. From the perspective of A , clock B ticks slower than A and clock C ticks Slower than B. From the perspective of C the reciprical is true. From the perspective of B, A and C are synconized and tick slower than B.

 

No, as I have said the whole reliance on observation is a red herring. Imagine if the clocks are fitted with a device that jets ink onto a screen standing mid way between the moving objects. The ink jet is set off by a contact-activated trigger when one clock brushes past the other. Consider that the ink prints a figure that is the clock time. Will the figures be the same for different frames or different? If different, which will be the later?

 

I'm not entirely sure I am visualizing your though experiment correctly, so correct me if I am wrong here. The set up for your experiment is essentially the same as mine but with the A and C clocks equal distance from B moving at equal velocities in opposite directions converging on B, correct? If this is true then the time will be the same, but A will still see B tick slower than itself and C slower than B. The reason for this is synchronicity. From the perspective of A, it will pass B much sooner than C will and vis versa, C will think it passed B first. From the perspective of B it will appear that A and C arrive at the same time.

 

As for the twin paradox, there is a simple solution. Length contraction. If one twin travels towards a galaxy 1 million light years away with a Lorentz factor of 1 million then from thier perspective the distance to that galaxy contracts to a distance of one light year. To the travele,r the trip appears to be 1 ly out then 1 ly back at nearly c , giving a total travel time of just over two years. To the twim that remains behind it appears that the traveler is making a trip 1 million ly out then 1 million ly back at nearly c, giving a total travel time of just over 2 million years.

 

Same problem, I'm afraid. If velocity is purely relative, there is no deciding which twin should be the older and which should be the younger, and which is length-contracted relative to the other. They are both older than each other.

 

No, because the twin that remains behind has no velocity relative to the distant galaxy (or whatever imaginary turn-around point there could be). The only length they see contract is the travelers, who would look like a perpendicular sheet of paper traveling 1 million ly out and back again at nearly c. The traveler IS moving relative to the turnaround point so they see space contract in front of them. The traveler sees themselves going a much shorter distance than the twin that stays behind sees, 2 ly as opposed to 2 million ly.

[Paradox]

I'm not entirely sure I am visualizing your though experiment correctly, so correct me if I am wrong here. The set up for your experiment is essentially the same as mine but with the A and C clocks equal distance from B moving at equal velocities in opposite directions converging on B, correct? If this is true then the time will be the same, but A will still see B tick slower than itself and C slower than B. The reason for this is synchronicity. From the perspective of A, it will pass B much sooner than C will and vis versa, C will think it passed B first. From the perspective of B it will appear that A and C arrive at the same time.

 

The only difference is that I have cut out the third clock in between the other two (actually, I replaced it with a screen onto which clock times get printed), as it's superfluous, and cut out the observers too, because my point is that they are unnecessary. You can think of it another way: imagine both clocks have big, steel hands that are so designed that the two clocks can only pass one another if their hands are both indicating the same time. So it's effectively a time-locked through-way. Now, will they be able to pass or will they not? See my point: observation is entirely superfuous to the physics of it.

 

 

[quote name='skepticalme' timestamp='1308315574'

No, because the twin that remains behind has no velocity relative to the distant galaxy (or whatever imaginary turn-around point there could be). The only length they see contract is the travelers, who would look like a perpendicular sheet of paper traveling 1 million ly out and back again at nearly c. The traveler IS moving relative to the turnaround point so they see space contract in front of them. The traveler sees themselves going a much shorter distance than the twin that stays behind sees, 2 ly as opposed to 2 million ly.

 

The distant galaxy is then in the same reference frame as the earth.

[bornagainathiest]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6AA7Q0vBz5s/S9yKN38YCEI/AAAAAAAAExs/I0ZWotFzGrE/s1600/Stephen+King%27s+IT+2.PNG

 

IT'S back!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paradox wrote... I shall shoot your fox and leave you all to discuss relativity among yourselves.

That fox didn't stay dead for long!

 

BAA.

[skepticalme]

I'm not entirely sure I am visualizing your though experiment correctly, so correct me if I am wrong here. The set up for your experiment is essentially the same as mine but with the A and C clocks equal distance from B moving at equal velocities in opposite directions converging on B, correct? If this is true then the time will be the same, but A will still see B tick slower than itself and C slower than B. The reason for this is synchronicity. From the perspective of A, it will pass B much sooner than C will and vis versa, C will think it passed B first. From the perspective of B it will appear that A and C arrive at the same time.

 

The only difference is that I have cut out the third clock in between the other two (actually, I replaced it with a screen onto which clock times get printed), as it's superfluous, and cut out the observers too, because my point is that they are unnecessary. You can think of it another way: imagine both clocks have big, steel hands that are so designed that the two clocks can only pass one another if their hands are both indicating the same time. So it's effectively a time-locked through-way. Now, will they be able to pass or will they not? See my point: observation is entirely superfuous to the physics of it.

 

Each clock sees itself pass the screen first. Clock A passes the screen and prints out a time, continues past it where passes by clock B, then sees clock B print out the same time as it passes the screen. Clock B passes the screen prints out a time, continues past it where it passes clock A, then sees clock A print out the same time as it passes the screen. Each clock sees itself get to the screen first and the other some point afterward, but they both print out the same time. In your time-lock through way example they would pass because to the throught way they would get there at the same time, but each would see itself go through before the other.

 

 

No, because the twin that remains behind has no velocity relative to the distant galaxy (or whatever imaginary turn-around point there could be). The only length they see contract is the travelers, who would look like a perpendicular sheet of paper traveling 1 million ly out and back again at nearly c. The traveler IS moving relative to the turnaround point so they see space contract in front of them. The traveler sees themselves going a much shorter distance than the twin that stays behind sees, 2 ly as opposed to 2 million ly.

The distant galaxy is then in the same reference frame as the earth.

 

Using the example of a galaxy was just an easy reference point. Any point 1 million light years from Earth will due. You don't even need the Earth as a starting point, they could be floating in space. To the traveler the distance to that point is only 1 ly. The traveler doesn't experiece their own Lorentz transformation, that is why the trip only takes 1 year from their perspective but takes 1 million years to the twin that stayed behind. The traveler is the only one getting closer to the turnaround point. The other stays a fixed distance from the turnaround point, otherwise they would both be travelers.

[Paradox]

Each clock sees itself pass the screen first. Clock A passes the screen and prints out a time, continues past it where passes by clock B, then sees clock B print out the same time as it passes the screen. Clock B passes the screen prints out a time, continues past it where it passes clock A, then sees clock A print out the same time as it passes the screen. Each clock sees itself get to the screen first and the other some point afterward, but they both print out the same time. In your time-lock through way example they would pass because to the throught way they would get there at the same time, but each would see itself go through before the other.

 

 

I am really sorry if this sounds rather dismissive or intolerant -- and it is not meant as such -- but it is precisely this kind of protracted argument, squeezing into every possible conceptual niche that can conceivably be dug into special relativity, that made me too weary of relativity debates to really give it much further cop.

 

Oh, that's in addition to the name-calling, flagrant misrepresentation, allegations constructed around psycho-babble, and general abuse from the hardliners who have too much pride to admit that they are wrong. Mentioning no names. But I don't place you in that category, so I'm prepared to go on a little bit longer.

 

As I said, I have eliminated observers. There is no 'seeing' what happens. Physics isn't about optical illusions; illusions can't open the time lock I was speaking about. Your "each clock sees itself..." is just not acceptable as part of a physical explanation.

 

In my example with the print-outs, I want to know what clock times are printed out as the two clocks brush past each other. No relativist will ever answer that question.

 

The traveler doesn't experiece their own Lorentz transformation, that is why the trip only takes 1 year from their perspective but takes 1 million years to the twin that stayed behind.

 

But the one who stays behind is supposed to be the one who sees the universe operate the more quickly.

[Paradox]

Superfluous post - edited

[ScifiChick]

skepticalme - Thanks for dropping by this thread. You are a fantastic communicator and reading your explanations of relativity is something I can wrap my head around without feeling like it's going to explode.

[ScifiChick]

 

Oh, that's in addition to the name-calling, flagrant misrepresentation, allegations constructed around psycho-babble, and general abuse from the hardliners who have too much pride to admit that they are wrong. Mentioning no names. But I don't place you in that category, so I'm prepared to go on a little bit longer.

 

 

From my perspective, you started with the name calling and the dismissive attitude as well as refusing to answer direct questions. But, as I say, that's my perspective. Perhaps it's all relative.

 

 

 

[AlphaToOmega]

Twin paradox easy explanation. It relies on one fact, that the speed of light is constant. Since this has been tested many times its easy to go from there.

 

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_twin_paradox.htm

[Paradox]

Oh, that's in addition to the name-calling, flagrant misrepresentation, allegations constructed around psycho-babble, and general abuse from the hardliners who have too much pride to admit that they are wrong. Mentioning no names. But I don't place you in that category, so I'm prepared to go on a little bit longer.

 

 

From my perspective, you started with the name calling and the dismissive attitude as well as refusing to answer direct questions. But, as I say, that's my perspective. Perhaps it's all relative.

 

 

 

I have read a fair few of your posts, ScifiChick, and there is a very good reason for my not having responded to any of them previously: I see a very sly, manipulative (particularly with language), proud, superficial, callous, jealous, elbow-their-way-to-the-top individual. Consonant with that, you're someone who left their religion apparently because their idea for a play had been nicked. Seems the acme of petty-mindedness, if you ask me. But bear in mind that I am not here to do any name-calling, I'm just doing a bit of observational critique, about which I hope you can prove me wrong.

 

But instead of proving me wrong, I suspect you will take weaker, hackneyed option of just turning it all around and saying, in the usual unsubstantiated way, that I am guilty of all those traits myself. How clever! Oh, and there'll be the predicable extra person or two who join in with the thread to do the rather fun thing of agreeing with the jackals, then leaving.

 

So, anyhow, I don't trust you, ScifiChick. And of course many might not trust me, but at least I present reasoned arguments for people to take or leave -- which, as far as I am concerned, is what we are here for.

 

And, despite what you say, I have answered every reasonable question that hasn't been going off on a wild tangent -- quite unlike AlphatoOmega, who's the current ring leader in stirring up the ludicrous misrepresentation (which will be transparent to many but is evidently opaque to you) of my views on this thread subject. Since you are evidently unaquainted with the substance of this discussion, I think you are in a poor position to judge what has constitutes a serious, incisive question that I have dodged. You are free to identify one such question, of course.

 

I did not start any name calling -- as I have already said, I only respond as per the 'like with like' philosophy, but am sufficiently generous in this regard to afford a period of patience. BAA, for one, has had a fair dose of such patience and his quota, I feel, is almost exhausted. I have never said anything to him that should incite any of what he has dished out to me. Similarly, I have never done anything to you to provoke your bit of unpleasantness towards me, above.

 

I'm not sure that I would have jumped on your reply like this were it not for the ongoing chorus of vacuous misrepresentation of me that seems to be just a knee-jerk reaction to my defending myself and my viewpoint. The more I ignore it (because frankly I consider it a waste of time) the more it seems to feed off its own rancidity. I am frankly sick of jackals, and the kind of school-playground making-of-sport, as I describe above, that I often think some of you come here for.

 

I am not going to be goaded into any more of this, especially since I am trying to have an exchange with Skepticalme.

[ScifiChick]

[bornagainathiest]

Oh, that's in addition to the name-calling, flagrant misrepresentation, allegations constructed around psycho-babble, and general abuse from the hardliners who have too much pride to admit that they are wrong. Mentioning no names. But I don't place you in that category, so I'm prepared to go on a little bit longer.

 

 

From my perspective, you started with the name calling and the dismissive attitude as well as refusing to answer direct questions. But, as I say, that's my perspective. Perhaps it's all relative.

 

 

 

I have read a fair few of your posts, ScifiChick, and there is a very good reason for my not having responded to any of them previously: I see a very sly, manipulative (particularly with language), proud, superficial, callous, jealous, elbow-their-way-to-the-top individual. Consonant with that, you're someone who left their religion apparently because their idea for a play had been nicked. Seems the acme of petty-mindedness, if you ask me. But bear in mind that I am not here to do any name-calling, I'm just doing a bit of observational critique, about which I hope you can prove me wrong.

 

But instead of proving me wrong, I suspect you will take weaker, hackneyed option of just turning it all around and saying, in the usual unsubstantiated way, that I am guilty of all those traits myself. How clever! Oh, and there'll be the predicable extra person or two who join in with the thread to do the rather fun thing of agreeing with the jackals, then leaving.

 

So, anyhow, I don't trust you, ScifiChick. And of course many might not trust me, but at least I present reasoned arguments for people to take or leave -- which, as far as I am concerned, is what we are here for.

 

And, despite what you say, I have answered every reasonable question that hasn't been going off on a wild tangent -- quite unlike AlphatoOmega, who's the current ring leader in stirring up the ludicrous misrepresentation (which will be transparent to many but is evidently opaque to you) of my views on this thread subject. Since you are evidently unaquainted with the substance of this discussion, I think you are in a poor position to judge what has constitutes a serious, incisive question that I have dodged. You are free to identify one such question, of course.

 

I did not start any name calling -- as I have already said, I only respond as per the 'like with like' philosophy, but am sufficiently generous in this regard to afford a period of patience. BAA, for one, has had a fair dose of such patience and his quota, I feel, is almost exhausted. I have never said anything to him that should incite any of what he has dished out to me. Similarly, I have never done anything to you to provoke your bit of unpleasantness towards me, above.

 

I'm not sure that I would have jumped on your reply like this were it not for the ongoing chorus of vacuous misrepresentation of me that seems to be just a knee-jerk reaction to my defending myself and my viewpoint. The more I ignore it (because frankly I consider it a waste of time) the more it seems to feed off its own rancidity. I am frankly sick of jackals, and the kind of school-playground making-of-sport, as I describe above, that I often think some of you come here for.

 

I am not going to be goaded into any more of this, especially since I am trying to have an exchange with Skepticalme.

 

Merriam -Webster Definition of ACCOUNTABILITY

 

: the quality or state of being accountable; especially : an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions.

 

 

The person who will not be held accountable can never be proven wrong.

 

The person who thinks they are 'above' accountability, cannot be trusted.

 

The person who cannot understand accountability should not be trusted.

 

We Ex-Christian's hold ourselves accountable to each other.

 

All Christian apologists are held accountable by us for what they write here.

 

Ditto anyone joining or visiting this forum.

 

Nobody is above this principle.

 

Nobody is exempted from it.

 

If someone can't or won't be held accountable for what they write, they rightly deserve any scornful or mocking treatment they get.

 

BAA.

[Paradox]

 

The person who will not be held accountable can never be proven wrong.

 

The person who thinks they are 'above' accountability, cannot be trusted.

 

The person who cannot understand accountability should not be trusted.

 

We Ex-Christian's hold ourselves accountable to each other.

 

All Christian apologists are held accountable by us for what they write here.

 

Ditto anyone joining or visiting this forum.

 

Nobody is above this principle.

 

Nobody is exempted from it.

 

If someone can't or won't be held accountable for what they write, they rightly deserve any scornful or mocking treatment they get.

 

BAA.

 

 

Agreed. And I am the only person on this thread who has tried to remain focused on reason, substantiation, justification -- something sadly lacking in those who have consistently tried to deflect the course of the thread or misrepresent my standpoint.

[skepticalme]

I am really sorry if this sounds rather dismissive or intolerant -- and it is not meant as such -- but it is precisely this kind of protracted argument, squeezing into every possible conceptual niche that can conceivably be dug into special relativity, that made me too weary of relativity debates to really give it much further cop.

 

Oh, that's in addition to the name-calling, flagrant misrepresentation, allegations constructed around psycho-babble, and general abuse from the hardliners who have too much pride to admit that they are wrong. Mentioning no names. But I don't place you in that category, so I'm prepared to go on a little bit longer.

 

As I said, I have eliminated observers. There is no 'seeing' what happens. Physics isn't about optical illusions; illusions can't open the time lock I was speaking about. Your "each clock sees itself..." is just not acceptable as part of a physical explanation.

 

In my example with the print-outs, I want to know what clock times are printed out as the two clocks brush past each other. No relativist will ever answer that question.

 

There are no optical illusions being employed. Observers in different reference frames can never agree on the simultineity of events, this is one of the effects of dialating time. Simultineity is relative.

 

In your print-out example, the times will be the same. Both times however, will be slower than a clock next to the screen. One clock flies by and prints out 12:00, the other clock flies by at a later time and prints out 12:00. A clock next to the screen reads 12:05.

 

 

 

 

 

The traveler doesn't experiece their own Lorentz transformation, that is why the trip only takes 1 year from their perspective but takes 1 million years to the twin that stayed behind.

 

But the one who stays behind is supposed to be the one who sees the universe operate the more quickly.

 

You are mistaken. The traveler returns younger.

[Paradox]

There are no optical illusions being employed. Observers in different reference frames can never agree on the simultineity of events, this is one of the effects of dialating time. Simultineity is relative.

 

In your print-out example, the times will be the same. Both times however, will be slower than a clock next to the screen. One clock flies by and prints out 12:00, the other clock flies by at a later time and prints out 12:00. A clock next to the screen reads 12:05.

 

Let's say that SR is true, and we have two clocks, clock A and clock B, such that when they pass, clock A reads, to an observer in the frame of clock B, 2 pm while his own clock reads 3pm. Then by SR, clock B reads, to an observer in the frame of clock A, 2pm while his own clock reads 3pm.

 

You say the readings printed out will be the same. What will that clock reading be?

 

PS The Hafele-Keating experiment 1) had a huge clock drift and 2) would falsify relativity if it showed a bona fide discrepancy, by demonstrating that the passage of time is objectively recordable.

 

But the one who stays behind is supposed to be the one who sees the universe operate the more quickly.

 

You are mistaken. The traveler returns younger.

 

He is younger precisely because his universe is supposed to operate slower.