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.
Don’t forget to tell her about Einstein’s clock synchronization method. That should throw here for a loop. Oh, and the part about how simultaneity is relative too, that will really open her eyes.
…and the bottom line is that Eastern Standard time is the same in Florida as it is in New York. I mean EXACTLY the same time. So If I am in New York, and I look at my clock and it reads 12:00:00, I KNOW FOR A FACT that 1,000 miles away in Florida it is EXACTLY 12:00:00.
Explain that one, Father Time?
Or, rather, next to nothing. I’m not an astrophysicist. I don’t have either the formal education or the background to discuss it “in depth”. No doubt about that.
On the other hand, I’m not an arrogant, caustic know-it-all who insists that in regard to practically everything under the sun, others either think like me or they are idiots.
No, you’re not quite as ludicrous in this regard as those like Sculptor. And you haven’t proclaimed a Coalition of Truth as those like obsrvr524 have.
But you are in the general vicinity of this embarrassing frame of mind.
Any particular reason?
Pood-
You and phyllo seem to be the only ones on this thread who have any comprehension of relativity (whether it is right or not). So can either of you straighten me out on the following issue?
How would they determine that it wasn’t observer 3 who was standing still instead of observer 1?
The idiocy that you are guilty of is letting, someone who does not know jack shit abou the topic, drag you down the rabbit hole.
I cannot say if your grasp of science is perfect, since life is far too short to follow this brain dead thread.
I’ve already clear stated the facts and evidence of time dilation which has been rejected by Motormouth.
It would be pointless allowing that troll top bate me further.
No one, except your GP needs to know what goes on in your box. YUK!
tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.vnmv … =300&h=300
Here’s another examplor of why the ILP style is shite.
As if what you believe has relavance to the truth of science.
IOt was already going down the wrong road when MD denied time dilation.
Although MD is dead wrong about time dilation, Pood has failed to explain his point about distance.
Do I have to understand the entire theory? Am I criticizing the entire theory? What is it that I am criticizing? Do you know or do you merely think that you know? How can we go about discovering the answer to that question?
Perhaps we should return this post of mine:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 3#p2831163
You have previously said that you can’t figure out what I’m trying to say. I appreciate your honesty. But why not make an effort to try to understand what I’m saying? Have you considered asking questions? What exactly stops you from doing so?
In an effort to try to clarify my position, I will try to answer one of the questions you previously asked.
Let’s go.
Because age isn’t time. Age is the extent to which a body has changed. You can become old within very short time. It takes 70 years for an average human to become old. Some humans, however, become old within a dozen years (e.g. children with progeria.) Animals, in general, age faster. And so on.
Measuring how much time has passed by looking at how much someone has aged isn’t particularly reliable. If you measure time by looking at how much a child with progeria has aged, you can easily end up thinking that 70 years have passed, when in fact, only 13 years have passed.
I think that, according to the standard definition (the one that constitutes “folk ontology”, so to say), the word “time” refers to something that is universal i.e. something that’s the same for everyone. Basically, time is by definition universal.
The length contraction issue is simple enough -
Since speed = distance / time if you are going to say that the time measures differently (clocks moving slower) but the speed measures the same (speedometer reads the same) - it follows that the distance must also measure differently.
Yes it is.
Thanks for your input.
You are welcome.
Age is how much time has accumulated since the point in time you started keeping track. It’s got nothing to do with wrinkles or being senile, or bald.
I am 57 years old. Time started accumulating for me when I was born. I have traveled 57 times around the Sun.
If I go on a journey at close to the speed of light, and I return, and the Earth went around the Sun 20 more times while I was gone, then I am 77 years old.
It does not matter what my traveling clock reads, it matters what standard of time I am using to measure my age.
You can’t start counting years at birth with how many times you’ve been around the Sun, and then switch to some clock that accumulates time at a different rate, and suddenly claim you only aged 5 years since you’ve been gone.
What matters is how many more times around the Sun the Earth made it while you were gone. You can’t mix apples and oranges and call them oranges, it doesn’t work that way!
…and someone that accumulates time at a different rate needs to convert their rate to my rate in order to communicate accurately.
Two different rates of time being called the same thing is mixing apples and oranges. You can’t call it a second if it’s a different duration of time. Simples really!
That’s correct. But note that words often have more than one meaning. The word “age”, for example, is one of them. The one that you provided isn’t the only one. It’s the irrelevant one (or out-of-context one), that’s for sure. But it’s certainly not the only one.
We say that children with progeria age faster in the sense that their bodies change faster compared to other people. They get wrinkles faster, in a sense. And when we do so, we’re not talking about time. And that’s the concept of age people use when they say that the stay-at-home twin has aged more than the travelling twin. They are not talking about time. They are talking about how much the twins’ bodies have changed – specifically, how old they got.
Right, I agree. But that is a language problem calling wrinkles “aging.”
The physical process of a body changing is not its age. Strictly speaking, age is simply time since birth.
If I build a deck on my house today, in 10 more laps around the Sun my deck will have an age of 10 years. What the deck looks like in 10 years is totally irrelevant. The deck is simply 10 years old.
And your “clock” represents what we use to measure your age. It is merely what we say when talking about how fast things are changing in your environment. And the point is that you and your environment change slower when you speed faster.
As you speed away it will appear to you that the Earth is orbiting the Sun much faster than before. So the number of times of orbit doesn’t change but your clock and your aging slows.