If a clock is expected to measure seconds, minutes and hours, then clocks that do so are the ones that are accurate. All other clocks are broken.
And since these units of time are tied to Earth, the clock that is on Earth is most likely to be accurate whereas the one on a high-speed rocket travelling through space is most likely to be inaccurate.
Thus, when a twin returns after 50 years trip on a high-speed rocket telling us that his stopwatch is showing that he was travelling for 40 years, he isn’t to be trusted. “Year” is a word representing the time it takes the Earth to make one revolution around the Sun. It doesn’t mean “An arbitrary chosen period of time”. You don’t even need a clock. You just have to look at how many times the Earth has orbited around the Sun.
One has to pick a vantage point in order to describe anything. That in itself doesn’t make descriptions inaccurate. There is a number that accurately describes how many meters per second the second hand moves relative to the Earth. There is also a number that accurately describes how many meters per second the second hand moves relative to the Sun. And so on. All of these different descriptions would be saying one and the same thing. They would be describing one and the same thing (how fast something moves) the same way. It’s similar to how trichromats see certain objects to be of one color whereas dichromats see them to be of another. Neither is necessarily wrong. They might be (and often are) simply describing reality from two different vantage points. The same can be done with time.
I said you gave me a BS scenario and expected a logical answer. You never mentioned an Einstein train. Einstein’s train is said to be “at rest” and it’s the tracks that are moving. Einstein’s frame of the train can not move!
My absolute velocity box is in motion in space, there is no other object to have a relative motion to. There is no “tracks” that can be said to be the one in motion.
In Einstein’s version of my box, he says the box can not move, because the TIME it takes for light to reach the receivers is always .5 seconds, and the light always hits all the receivers at the same time in the box.
I clearly proved that his world is BUNK!
…and a sidenote, obsrvr524, if you are really James Saint and can’t respond because you’ve faked your own disappearance to observe how people react, it must really suck! You are trapped in a world of having to constantly reference James just to make his (your) case. Bwahahahahahaha
That is not showing time, it is showing motion, which is distance/time.
Time is a light bulb emitting light, and when the light sphere has a radius of 299,792,458 meters, the time is T=1 Second. The light traveled for a duration of 1 second and the length of the path proves it!
I didn’t want to argue this whole topic in this thread - but I guess this continued argumentation is also a demonstration of “Philosophy ILP style”.
You only proved that you don’t understand much about the whole time issue - and that it would take a great deal to catch you up on it. I thought Mr Anderson understood the subject better.
You can - and will - believe as you like - but I don’t think James would have need to return as anyone other than James - even if he was just - as you insinuate - wanting to “observe how people react”.
If you want to argue this time issue - do it on the appropriate thread - when I find the time and feel like responding - educating you - I will - until I don’t.
Personally, I would like a philosophy forum where people learn something and improve. It doesn’t have to be serious. It would probably be better if it was not serious.
It must be a thread dedicated to a philosophical subject.
The subject of this thread is a forum member (not a philosophical subject.)
One that is moderated in a way that encourages fruitful philosophical exchanges. This one doesn’t match that definition because it’s barely moderated.
I think everyone would.
This forum is already lacking in seriousness. More importantly, philosophy is a serious subject. There is no philosophy that isn’t serious. That must be something else (:
The subject is a list of what I think are fallacies and errors that are posted over and over on this forum. Sure, I used Biggus as the source. He keeps posting this stuff. He has made more than 42,000 posts … more than anyone else on this forum by a huge margin.
By sheer volume of posts, he has made himself the face of ILP.
People can comment. Fallacies and errors? Yes, no. Why?
Am I wrong?
The posts are very serious. Theists versus atheists. Capitalism versus Communism/Marxism. Vax versus antivax. Conservative versus Liberal.
Hardly a hint of a light touch, humor, tolerance, sympathy and understanding.
More like hostility, contempt, derision and insults.
Right. The title of the thread is “Philosophy ILP style” suggesting that you’re not merely addressing iambiguous but pretty much the entire forum. Indeed, you’re kind of making a claim that this entire forum is a joke. And though I don’t doubt that, I don’t think that starting a thread where you make fun of the entire forum is a productive thing.
Your list isn’t a list of quotes, it is a list of beliefs that you supposedly hold. Of course, we all know that you don’t and that you’re merely acting as if you do. But why would you do so if you’re trying to be serious? And we all know where these statements come from and we all know that they come from the same person: Mr. He Who is Ambiguous. Why? Aren’t there other forum members who hold false beliefs? How about Ecmandu? I am surprised there is no Ecmandu on the list. Where’s the “All sex is psychopathy” claim? That suggests to me that iambiguous is much more of a problem than Ecmandu – much more of a nuisance – and the reason this thread was started in the first place.
The fact that there are so many entries in your list suggests to me that you never had any intention of discussing these things. People can barely discuss one statement a time, let alone ten different statements. The greater the number of different subjects within a thread, the more difficult it becomes to discuss anything.
You have a point. But that’s not the kind of seriousness I had in mind. They are serious in a way, but at the fundamental level, they aren’t really, aren’t they? Seriousness entails being quite careful when it comes to making decisions. These guys are for the most part irrational.
The scenario mooted above is impossible, because there is no valid reference frame in which light is at rest. If there were, postulate 2 of SR would be false and that would be the end of the theory right there.
Motor Daddy, is your avatar an actual photo of you? Somehow it fits so well!
So, no, if a train is moving at .5c or at any velocity, no one on the train thinks the train is at rest and that the tracks are actually moving. This is because the choo-choo train accelerates and decelerates, judders on the tracks, occasionally stops at crossings, etc. IOW, it’s not an inertial frame. Einstein’s postulate 1 applies only to inertial frames.
Again, respond to my diagram in Absolute Velocity thread and we can continue this discussion with all the facts in front of us. CLEARLY light is not measured to be c in the box. If you think there is a mistake, let’s hear it in that thread!
Making a statement like “this is all so ridiculous” is nonsense. Debate the facts, rather than making drive-by statements.
