If you’re curious about how relativity deals with the situation, just ask. You guys are being very aggressive lmao, I have no idea why. All I have to say is “relativity doesn’t deal with this situation in the way presented” and people come out of the woodwork to insult me, without even bothering to ask why I think that lmao. You guys could do to relax a little bit.
“If you don’t believe the bible is the holy word of god - then I have no more to say about physics and reality.”
Okay mate – just out of temporary boredom (and a bit of disappointment) - go ahead and regale us on the relevance of relativity to what it means to be centered.
Okay, here’s a question about Special Relativity. The second postulate assumes the measured speed of light to be constant. If a single light is emitted from the center of a cube that is in motion in space, will the light hit the center of each wall at the same time?
I would like to continue talking to you, but I would really like it if you could chill out and not make it so unnecessarily hostile. Do you think you could try that for a bit?
First I want to explain why relativity is important to this question. I’m not bringing up relativity because it’s just some random silly thing, I’m bringing up relativity because it is the central focus of this thread.
The thread title says Stopped Clock Paradox. The thread is about a paradox.
At the end of his paragraph about relativity, James says “And that is where the paradox comes in.”
We’re in a thread about a paradox, and the paradox comes in because of relativity. I’m not arbitrarily talking about relativity, I am literally focusing on what the topic of the thread is - a supposed paradox that comes in because of relativity.
Another sentence by James on the first page is “Let’s resolve the issue of whether Relativity theory can answer this before we get into RM:AO’s answer.” I’m not just materialising relativity’s relevance, James says it’s important to resolve.
If you’re willing to now grant me that me giving the relativistic take on this situation is at least on topic, that would be a good starting point for us to have a non hostile conversation.
I can’t be responsible for your sensitivities and insecurities mate. I haven’t been cursing you or calling you names. Tell us your story.
Is relativity on topic in the context of the thread or not? Is understanding how relativity deals with this situation relevant given the op and James words, or is it some silly random thing that has nothing to do with this thread?
Yeah, it’s hilarious that a philosopher would want to talk about ideas without slinging shit. So funny. Philosophers are so funny. Slinging shit is so much more fun.
Grow up motor. You can disagree with someone without slinging shit. You’d have better conversations if you managed to figure out how.
Being CENTERED is. Relativity is only one of the proposed arguments - so he filled in that blank. If you think he did that part wrongly - point it out.
What is the basic flaw in what he explained - not merely the end result?
I’ve asked you several questions concerning Relativity which you ignored. I didn’t sling any shit, that’s your “sensitivities and insecurities mate.”
Can you answer my Relativity question now? Will a single light emitted from the center of a cube in motion in space hit the center of the walls at the same time in the cube? A simple yes or no will do.
I cannot tell if you think relativity is relevant or not. Are you asking me what the basic flaw is from the point of view of relativity? Or if I start talking about relativity again, are you going to start comparing it to someone talking about a bible again?
You’re leaving it very ambiguous, I don’t want it to be ambiguous: are we talking about relativity, or not?
“So you’re good with spreading misinformation? Everyone has a right to spread their own BS? Relativity is BUNK so stop spreading BS!”
Talking about relativity in a thread about a paradox in relativity is not spreading misinformation. You are slinging shit. If you don’t want to talk about relativity, you don’t have to. Don’t tell me I’m spreading misinformation by talking about relativity in a thread about a paradox in relativity. I’m discussing the topic at hand, that’s all.
When I have already shown the paradox in Relativity, and how that paradox is caused by the second postulate being FALSE, then I have the right to call Relativity BUNK and people that spread BUNK are spreading misinformation.
MD’s BOX absolutely proves how the second postulate is FALSE. Yet you continue to spread BS!
I have invited you to explain what relativity has to do with being centered in any way other than - or in disagreement with - what James explained. You seem to just want to cast your vote and then give a long lecture on relativity (probably not addressing the issue of being centered).
Again - give us your lecture. We’ll see if you can relate it back to being centered.
If you don’t think what I have to say is relevant, I don’t need to say it. That’s fine. I’m available to talk about why the paradox presented in relativity is not actually a paradox in relativity. Do you care to hear that specifically?
Start by explaining the second postulate.
I’m not currently taking requests. I said Phyllo was right, I can explain that. I’m not explaining second, third, or fifteen postulates, I’m not explaining why the moon is tidally locked, and I’m not explaining the metaphors in The Matrix movies. If you want to hear why Phyllo was right, you’re in the right place. If you don’t want to hear that, I don’t have anything to offer you at this moment.
I think you could have explained it twice over by now. You don’t seem to be adding anything to the conversation. I don’t see why you need my permission.
If I have to snuggle your ears and tickle your toes — forget it. I’ll just assume you had no legitimate argument.
How can you speak about Special Relativity and not be able to explain the second postulate? The problem is created by a false second postulate, and yet you want to skip that explanation? Go figure.
You’ve been making out for pages that me talking about relativity is off topic. I don’t want to waste my time arguing for something if you’re just going to say “that argument is off topic”. I don’t need permission, I want permission - I want permission because I don’t like to show up at bus stops and start ranting to people about stuff they aren’t interested in. I’m not going to take the time to explain it to you if you’re not interested in the explanation.
You keep talking about being interested in things that I’m not here to explain. I’m not here to talk about the abstract concept of centering. I’m here to do one thing only: explain why this so-called paradox in relativity is not a paradox in relativity. If you don’t want to hear that, I won’t explain it. It will take effort to explain it, so I’ll save the effort for someone who cares.
If you do care, let me know.