Philosophy Coalition of Truth style: “any answer other than my own is obfuscation.”
You know, being one of the “my TOE or you’re wrong” dupes of James S. Saint.
Oh, and he is one of the particularly arrogant dogmatist here in that regard because he carries this over into the is/ought world as well.
No.
“What is distance?”
“Length.”
" 
"
When your measuring device says that time/duration is passing slower (possibly even stopped) - why don’t you believe your measuring device?
Because traveling takes time. According to you, If I were to travel at the speed of light, my clock would stop. I know that is BS because it takes 25,000 years for light to travel from Earth to the center of the galaxy, traveling AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Light’s clock elapses 25,000 years, but you say time would stop if I was traveling along with light. Light itself recognizes it takes 25,000 years, but you say it takes NO TIME! Complete BS!
Why the BS? Because Einstein couldn’t figure out how to keep the speed of light constant and make his theory work, so he created a BOX OF BAND-AIDS. “Once a Fudger always a Fudger!” in my best Jennifer Aniston voice! LOL
I didn’t get deep into the subject, so there’s a possibility that I’m messing some things up. But my suspicion is that Motor Daddy is right.
There is a very clear distinction between perception of time and time itself. He gave an example earlier. If 8 hours at work feel like a year to you, does that mean that those 8 hours are a year? Does that mean time is passing slower for you? I don’t think so. And what about a child with progeria? Is time passing faster or slower for the child simply because the child is aging faster? I don’t think it does. I seriously doubt it that time is some arbitrary subjective thing (as postmodernists would certainly like it to be the case.) I’d say it’s very much real. How you describe it is arbitrary. How you experience it is subjective. But time itself isn’t either of those.
I can look at a clock and easily tell how much its hands have moved since some earlier momemt. However, it’s significantly more difficult to verify that those movements correspond to known units of time (seconds, minutes and/or hours.)
I can very easily tell that a sweep hand (the one that is supposed to count seconds) has moved certain number of times since the clock has started running. But it’s not so simple to determine whether it moves one second at a time. It hinges upon the definition of the word “second” which I’m pretty sure is tied to Earth (it’s not an abstract unit of time like James’s tick.)
The above is problematic from a basic level of measuring, is right.
But basically time exists not a measure of some thing, and it is superfluous to claim that the sundial measures the circumference of the earth as it revolves around the sun in 24 hours.
Time is am arbitrary calculation , for before the planetary system’s genesis. other beings may have measured from other revolving systems.
The universal measurement of time does depend On C squared, where the relativeness of it is implied to change duration, as masses which participate change the the length is variable
In that sense relatively inclusive lengths determine each other.
While austronauts’span of time changes, within the relative space between the velocity of the spaceship relative to that existing between the ship and against that of the projected destination, that inclusive space is superimposed upon by the velocity of the planetary system as it moves with respect to other cosmological movements, including the largest theoretical relativity between our cosmos and others, in a sea of similar universes.
( If you go along with that interpretation)
The idea of levels and levels of universes ad-infinitum can boggle the mind, to veer out of the forum’s intent, but then maybe there is probability that the idea of an absolute universe can exist, after all
I may not totally understand the philosophical underneath assumptions of the mathematical and logical presumptions, but neither do those models have absolute bearing.
If space time is curved in an absolute sense, it still could comply to the requirements of an infinite universe.But another view may merely eliminite finite and infinite bounderies as determinates, like the ancients used to with their early model of an infinite structure consisting of turtles laying on one another’s back.
The idea of nothingness with no consisting energy or matter may collapse , and perhaps this accounts for boundaries to form on a state where the cosmos is collapsing , as in red giants collapse into black holes. The giant central black hole may create an equally growing nothingness where boundaries may be formed with other galaxies, but before this happens, the curveture may create different lAyers of bubbles of time.
In essence, there may be no time and all of it condenses toward the instantenious point, where all cosmos with incredible frequency breathe in and out, so as to create the perfect foundation.
With this incredibly naive interpretation I rest my case.
Just a thought.
When philosophers talk of bubbles and physicists of foam, that is what they also are trying to correlate.
He isn’t. You blokes have a lot to learn about time, I guess.
I only raised the issue as an example of how discussions go on ILP - people make wild assumptions then dig in. 
The same could be said about the air temperature - but we are talking in the objective science sense.
Just something to think about - The second hand is spinning - the Earth is whirling - the Earth is orbiting - the Sun is orbiting - and the Milky Way is streaking across space – so how fast is that second hand really moving?
I’m guessing you two weren’t here some 10 years ago when James and Carleas debated about this topic. I didn’t get to watch all of it - but it got deep into the details. James demonstrated flaw in Special Relativity but accuracy in General Relativity - in a few threads.
“By definition” -
“Time is the MEASURE of RELATIVE change.”
Your point being?
I asked about a clock traveling in an Einstein train at the speed of light. MD could see that the second hand would not be able to move without exceeding the speed of light - so he avoided the issue saying that the clock has to be moving slower - slower relative to what? - how slow is it moving through space right now?
The educated point is that time is a measure of relative movement - relative to something else - relative to the observer. When anything is moving at the speed of light relative to any observer - the measure of relative changing (“time”) aboard the moving object is frozen - nothing aboard the light speed train can move relative to anything else aboard the train - at all - no aging, no clock movement, no thought - total suspension and stagnation. And that means that “time” (the relative changing aboard the object) has stopped.
Any slowing down of the train allows for any clocks or relative movements or aging aboard the train to begin - time begins to be restored. But as long as the train is moving at all - it’s clocks will be moving slower than the observer’s clocks. That has been tested - it isn’t merely speculation.
Everything is moving - every clock is speeding through space - so which clock is accurate? Which is slowed? It is a matter of relative motion between the observer and the clock in question. Every observer will see the clock that is moving with him as the accurate clock - all other clocks will appear to be slower.
And that is what those equations are about - the Lorentz and James’ proposed correction - how much will a moving clock slow down. James had a really long debate with Carleas in his Stopped Clock Paradox thread (part 1 and 2). He outlined the confusion and a special relativity flaw.
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.
This isn’t a serious thread. If this were a serious philosophy forum, it would have been trashed long time ago.
Is someone forcing you to keep responding, or is it that you can’t control yourself?
I proved it many times over, but you continue to ignore. Closing your eyes and plugging your ears doesn’t mean I didn’t prove my case.
I already have a thread providing PROOF of Absolute Velocity, of which you haven’t responded to yet. Still waiting, but not holding my breath!!
What is a serious thread?
What is a serious philosophy forum?
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.
You mean like you proved that it is impossible to topple a stack of 3 blocks?
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.
This is all so ridiculous.
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.