Life is short and then you die.
I can’t wait forever.
I can only assume that you don’t want to move and you are letting your flag fall. Game over. You lose on time.
I think it’s now clear what he is getting at but as soon as you present a counter example or conflicting idea, he goes into mysticism. He doesn’t deal with any challenge.
But the transformation is just math. What does the stationary observer see? How should the contraction be interpreted? If there are several objects moving around, what is happening to space, if anything?
Hell, on another forum, I actually gave them the answer (without explaining WHY it had to be) as a favor and a clue to pursue just to shorten the endeavor. They ignored it and started spouting theories. Theories are merely other people’s suppositions. And none of their suppositions get out of the same paradox. It is a paradox for ALL current theories. So just go with what you know - “Definitions involved”. The rest is merely logic.
But as I have explained, emotionalism is what prevents your intelligence from resolving the paradox.
An answer without an explanation. Hilarious. James cracks me up. 
Then you aren’t “bored”, huh. 
…just incapable… 
That was a belly buster, I must admit.
As for your paradox teasing, I’m done with it.
Not surprised.
I knew to not allow too much hope.
To the mind’s intelligence, this is a trivial logic problem, quite easily resolved in minutes or less.
But to the heart, it is an insurmountable stump.
The heart forbids the mind from doing its job.
Buddha would probably just smile and shake his head with a sigh.
I don’t really understand how these are significant questions. For example, the number of objects moving around doesn’t really matter, since reference frames don’t come into existence simply because an object is in motion; they always are there to be used.
Yes, everyone who bothers to learn the science is merely emotional. Everyone who can do the relevant mathematics is merely emotional.
The one person who has all the answers but that can’t do a physics problem is “logical”, not mentally ill.
Frames of reference are the mathematical model. There is also an experience and a philosophical interpretation of that experience. On a philosophy site, those kinds of questions are significant.
Look on the bright side… This is your opportunity to concentrate on Eugene, who still puts up with your nonsense.
You haven’t been able to come up with any legitimate criticism of what I propose to and about his TEW theory.
I also lost interest in that trainwreck thread. There are only so many times that someone can be called a liar.
You ought to be nicer to him. You’re running out of audience members
I’m not the one concerned with an audience.
He is the one selling a theory.
And your pointless anger at me doesn’t help you resolve puzzles either.
Note that neither of you found anything to point out as error in this;
Based on my wire thought experiment, space contracts. Therefore, your standard equations are not applicable and calculations must be performed with transformed coordinates.
Of course we didn’t: it’s a bunch of irrelevant algebra.
It’s just as effective as the “A=A” nonsense of the Randians.
Your supposition concerning what “might happen” to a wire is pretty irrelevant compared to the defined terms of the scenario. So no, jumping into the use of a suppositional theory and ignoring the very definition of what is happening is a bit… religious.
Well that certainly explains why you can’t do the math. 
I am sure that anyone who reads this thread and sees my post with actual numbers for this scenario and your half-assed gifs will draw the same conclusion that you did.
1 Like