Thing about sr and gr is that it spawned a philosophical movement that contradicts itself…
Everything is correct and all interpretations are correct (from the point of view of the observer)
So… if I say I’m right, I’m right, and if you say I’m wrong, you’re right.
This is a HUGE theme in ILP.
We have physics relativism, social relativism, linguistic relativism and cognitive relativism.
You’ve spread BS, that’s all you’ve done.
When asked how many meter sticks laid end to end is 42 light years, you tucked your tail between your legs, turned around, and walked the other way, and pretended that you didn’t hear the question.
I’ll make it more simple for you:
How many meter sticks, laid end to end, is it for a distance of 1 light second? Can you answer that question, or does it baffle your little mind?
The gravity of light speed warps space-time at critical mass. None of this applies.
I actually don’t believe in gr or sr in terms of the core fundamental explanations. It’s easy to poke holes in both.
It’s not an explanation if they do not understand it. The purpose of an explanation is to make things clear to someone. If it doesn’t make things clear to that intended someone, it’s not an explanation. At best, it’s an attempt at explanation. The point I’m making is that it’s the other person (the explainee) – not you (the explainer) – who gets to decide whether or not what you provided is an explanation. If the other person doesn’t get it, it’s NOT an explanation. If they say “You didn’t explain anything!”, you better believe them. Perhaps you tried but you clearly didn’t succeed at it. And your job as an explaner is to do whatever is necessary to help the other person understand your point. You set that goal for yourself, didn’t you? You decided to explain something to someone. It’s your responsibility. If you realize there’s nothing that can change the other person’s mind (which I believe is rarely, if ever, the case) or that it’s not worth your time to do what is necessary to change their mind (which I can accept to be frequently the case), you are expected to give up and go do something else. If you find it difficult to obey that law, you can always ask a mod to help you with it. But of course, you don’t have to. Some mods, bieng kind, will help you even though you never asked for help.
Alright. How exactly?
Right. And when someone calls you “stupid”, they are not insulting you, they are merely observing that you are stupid.
Your intentions aren’t particularly relevant. The consequences of your actions, however, are. You are supposed to discuss the subject of the debate. The subject of this debate isn’t “Is Magnus Anderson confused?” That’s a different subject, one that has nothing to do with the current one, which makes it a diversion. When you introduce a new subject to the discussion, your mind gets split and your performance becomes suboptimal. Suddenly, you’re discussing two subjects at the same time. You’re discussing what someone is, and at the same time, you’re discussing Relativity Theory. And that mistake then spreads to other participants. Suddenly, everyone is duscussing many different things at once. Moreover, it’s a particular type of subject. It’s a type of subject that people are more likely to stick to thereby making them completely forget about the original one. Noone wants other people to talk about them in public. Finally, it’s non-philosophical. There’s very little place on philosophy forums to discuss who its forum members are.
That’s what you think, that much I agree.
I don’t think anyone should be obliged to respond to points directed at them. That should be one of the main rules of the forum.
On the other hand, you have an option to ask me to address anything you think I haven’t addressed. Just link me to the post I ignored and ask me to respond to it. And I may do so. Can you link me to a point of yours that I haven’t responded to?
But why do I have to understand the two postulates? Is it really true that it’s necessary for me to do so?
The theory of general and special relativity have NOTHING TO DO with what you are saying above.
In fact, Einstein wanted to call his theory the theory of INVARIANCE, but by then “relativity” had spread far and wide,
Einstein’s theory is indeed about INVARIANCE.
This made me laugh. LOL
Because if you don’t understand the two postulates, you can’t understand anything else about the theory (a theory that has been confirmed literally thousands of times)?
Do you think that could be the reason it is necessary for you to understand the two postulates, if you want to understand the theory?
Right, this thread pretty much confirms that “philosophy ILP style” leaves much to be desired.
…and I will add,
Flannel Jesus has been very tolerant of my sometimes wild antics and actions, and I appreciate it. I really am trying to do better, please bear with me some more. 
I’ve never read or heard that, but I have no reason to disbelieve you.
Now invariance is an interesting word…
It means always staying the same and never changing.
That’s nothingness.
We have two parts to existence:
Continuity (invariance)
And change (motion)
When you say something like “motion that doesn’t change”
Lots of logical problems emerge. Definitional logic.
Yet, according to you, I am not doing my “job” when I allegedly fail to explain something to you. Yet you have no comparable “job” — to meet me halfway and respond to the points I directed toward you, all of which were in fact attempts to explain to you, that which you claim I fail to explain!
This is ludicrous.
Of course you are not obliged to respond to me, and I am not obliged to try to teach you anything.
The invariances in Einstein’s theory are both c and the spacetime interval. Both are objectively and universally true. Those who have tried to hijack the theory to prove something or other about the relativity of morals or the relativity of truth, or whatever, are talking out of their ass.
Reality is exactly the same for all observers in relativity theory. What differs are relativistic measurements of duration and length, and that is all.
That’s not what I said.
What I said is that your job is NOT to talk about me. In other words, you are not supposed to tell me things such as “You are confused”. You are also not supposed to assume the role of a teacher. (In a debate, there will always be someone who is teaching and someone who is learning but its participants aren’t supposed to talk about who’s playing which role before disagreements are resolved.)
I already told you that you are free to leave. You don’t have to explain anything to me if you don’t want to. But if you do, if you want to make an attempt to explain things to me, you are obliged to not talk about me.
Distance and time are what it’s all about. Relativity tries to toss the standard clock, and the standard ruler out the window. The theory tosses known standards out the window in favor of “everyone has a right to claim their distance and time is correct” just because they have a ruler and a clock. They do NOT, the standards were in place, and speed is distance/time. To claim all this nonsense about contracting rulers, different rates of clocks, how simultaneity is relative, etc is all a bunch of nonsense!
My box proves the speed of light is constant in space, and that the speed of light is measured to be different in the box, so his 2nd postulate is BUNK! When you can tell me why it takes .65 seconds for the light to reach the Z receiver than we can talk. Until then, you are avoiding the truth in favor of your BS. That is the reason people claim morals, truth and such are thrown out the window in relativity, because the standards were tossed in favor of “everyone is entitled to their own BS.”
Pood wrote:
“ Reality is exactly the same for all observers in relativity theory. What differs are relativistic measurements of duration and length, and that is all.”
Ecmandu replies:
Ok. You really need to clean up your language.
If reality is EXACTLY the same for all observers… (One being - all exactly the same)
You just made one necessary being necessary plural beings.
I’m interested psychologically why you wrote it that way.
Then you went on a different tangent and stated that what DIFFERS is duration and length.
You do realize there is no ‘differs’ in “reality is the same for ‘all’ observers” right? That means there’s only one observer. Which is nothing at all.
Then you go on to say that nothing at all differs in duration and length.
I’m literally parsing your post as exactly what it means.
That’s why my first sentence in this post was about you needing to clean up your language.
I already have attempted to explain this issue to you. You have failed to respond to my explanations. Then you ask why you need to understand Einstein’s two postulates. The answer, of course, is that if you do not understand the two postulates, it is impossible for you to understand the theory. Since you have not responded to my explanations and have stated that you are under no obligation to understand the two postulates, there is nothing more I can say to you. To say that I have failed to explain this to you is wrong. It is you who have failed to make any effort to understand. The onus is on you and not me.
_
Is distance… as well as time, relative? is where the MD/Pood exchange took a sorry turn.
Well, one thing is clearly beyond all doubt: both are fulminating fanatics hell bent on making fools of each other.
Though pinning down the winner is still too close to call.
That’s because you know nothing about the topic under discussion.
Yes, both distance and time are relative, and each is tied to a frame. You get time dilation because you get length contraction, and you get both of those because light is invariant c in all inertial frames. I have twice linked a discussion of this today just upthread. If anyone wishes to learn about this matter, they are free to click the link.