Philosophy ILP style

Have you ever thought that perhaps this ‘discourse’ is way below somes’ pay grade? …I gather you haven’t.

I’ve barely interacted with MD out of All here, so you cannot possibly be referring to me as the puppy dog, can you?

I think he’s referring to Magnus because Magnus is making some great posts and I agree with them. Pood doesn’t like that because Magnus is getting likes from me, but pood has nobody giving him likes.

He’s basically jealous of the attention Magnus is getting from me.

Emotion over reason, mon dieu… Pood, putting a spanner in the conversational works.

That “definition” (which it isn’t) declares that there is no relativity (whether there is or not).

James’ definition doesn’t prohibit anything. It is a description of what the word “time” means (to rational people anyway). It neither promotes nor prohibits time relativity - just like the definition of the word “God” doesn’t dictate whether God exists - and without an agreed definition of the words being used - debates are just nonsense.

Anyone going to address this?

I’ll address it.

Everything is always moving. That means there’s no initial point unless every part of distance is called an initial point. That means that for everything moving, no matter how fast or where it ‘starts’, there are an infinite number of starting points.

At this point I’m starting to shrug my shoulders that nobody debates me and everyone calls me the board idiot.

At this point, I may decide to switch to a different reality where people do actual philosophy.

It’ll make me happier.

make that move. You know you want to.

_
@Obsrvr: make the watch an activity tracker watch, and it will monitor their movements… or lack of.

That’s sort of true except that there is no way to find the “absolute still” because everything is comparison.

You can’t just go up to point A and say that the clock there is running faster than yours. You don’t have the required information to make the calculation. You have the current space-time coordinates for YOU and A but you need another pair of coordinates from a previous time.

The traveling twin synchronizes his clock with the earth clock (same position and time) and then after returning compares his clock to the earth clock (same position and two time values). He concludes that he was the one moving.

That’s true. You decide what you want to use as the starting point. Choosing a convenient starting point simplifies the mathematical calculations.

It’s true, as I believe Sculptor said upthread, that this thread is brain dead. But not because of me!

I am giving standard science that is well-attested by evidence and experiment. Motor Daddy is offering crank rhetoric. It’s really that simple.

This is not like a philosophical dispute over whether we have free will, or the nature of morality, or the ethics of abortion, etc., where there are no clear-cut scientific answers. Here, the answers are clear-cut, according our best science.

It would be as if someone came on this board and argued that the sun is actually a giant tortilla, and someone else said, no, it’s a thermonuclear furnace in the sky. Are reasonable people, provided that they informed of the facts, really going to suggest that a legitimate dispute is going on here?

And so it is with this “dispute.”

Take this foolishness about using the sun as some kind of universal clock. We have two twins who from the surface of the earth measure a star to be five light years distant. One twin blasts off at a certain relativistic velocity. When he comes home his clock says that eight years have passed. The earth clock says ten years have passed.

It is being suggested that the twin whose clock read eight years is actually ten years old, just like the earth twin, because the earth has made ten revolutions around the sun. It’s nonsense. Revolutions around the sun have nothing to do with. All that matters is the elapsed time as measured from the point of view of a frame, and for the twin, it is true that eight years elapsed in his frame and ten years elapsed in the earth twin’s frame. (And the traveling twin did not exceed the speed of light because his journey was relativistically length-contracted.)

To underscore the absurdity of the argument, suppose a twin blasted off at such a velocity that when he returns home, eight years elapsed on his clock, and 40,000 years elapsed on earth.

Wow! Is the traveling twin now 40,000 years old? Hey, how’d THAT happen? NOBODY can live that long. So there is my reductio of this absurd argument being put forth.

Also, what happens if the sun and earth vanish? Does that mean it is no longer possible to tell time anywhere in the universe?

Why doesn’t he conclude that they both could have been moving during the same duration of time? We know the Earth moves around the Sun. So while the traveler was gone the Earth was moving. To make matters worse, we know the Earth ROTATES about its own axis while it’s orbiting the Sun. So we know for a fact that Earth is in motion during the travelers trip. But you’re not concerned with that, are you? You PRETEND that the Earth is “at rest” in order for your Relativity math to work. Your whole complaint in Relativity is that there is no absolute rest frame, but you go on to pretend that the Earth is at rest for your math to work. Funny!

My Absolute Velocity Box can prove to be at absolute zero velocity. It’s when the light sphere makes it to all the receivers in .5 seconds. It looks like a perfect circle in the box that touches all four receivers at the same time, with the center of the box remaining at the center of the light sphere. That necessarily means the box did not move in space for the measured .5 seconds. That necessarily means an absolute zero velocity in space. The speed of light to all the receivers is .5/.5=1.0c.

If a twin blasted off and came back after 40,000 years elapsed on Earth, then that twin is 40,000 years old.

You don’t like that, but you’re good with a watch claiming it took 8 years for the Earth to make 40,000 laps around the Sun?

What a hypocrite!

What happens if the Sun and Earth vanish? What happens if your spaceship clock dies on your journey? Did the twin not age because the clock died?

You are way out there, Dude!

Try this video

The bottom line is we can idealize away all accelerated frames and the time differential still holds because earth twin occupies one frame only vs. two frames for outgoing and inbound trip.

I don’t see why not. If you assume that you are not currently still - any movement might be a slowing down toward the stillness - taking away from your original velocity.

If there is an absolute still where clocks rotate faster - simply systematically move from a given origin to each point on the compass and back until you discover what direction of motion caused your clock to move more quickly. You can know that your clock ran faster by having communication to someone back at the origin.

Special relativity proposes that movement in any direction will retard your clock regardless of how fast you were originally moving - and it never catches back up. That seems to imply that because everything is always moving away from wherever it originally was - everything must be delaying itself - eternally. As anything orbits - it is under constant acceleration - and everything orbits.

There has to be a type of movement that restores a clock that has been retarded - else every clock throughout the entire universe would have to just get slower and slower and slower. That would mean the entire universe would one day come to a complete stop - not due to heat-death but because everything kept getting delayed and eventually time and aging simply stopped.

Something is not adding up.

But the problem is that the explanation simply concludes the whichever clock ran faster is the origin.

Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity. The rate is measured in the standard second, so an acceleration of 10 m/s^2 means the velocity is increasing 10 m/s every second.

So an initial velocity of 30 m/s has a velocity of:

40 m/s at T=1 Seconds
50 m/s at T=2 Seconds
60 m/s at T=3 Seconds

You knew that?? Sure you did. Did you also know that the seconds are the standard second, and not changing duration as the velocity was increasing? Sure you did!

According to Relativity, the faster you go the slower time elapses. Whoopsie, the seconds were not changing as the velocity was increasing. Every 10 m/s increase took exactly 1 second. LOL

I guess I don’t understand how an observer “occupies two frames”. What does that mean? :-k

I said this already,

But it bears repeating.

Adrenaline adds more energy to the brain which allows time to slow down.

When this reaction is the opposite, time speeds up.

This evolved to allow us to detect and handle threats better.

A very simple way you can detect this phenomenon is to walk down a trail for the first time.

It will seem like a normal walk… takes a while. You’re constantly looking for threats.

As you walk this trail 1000 times, the subconscious has memorized the potential threats (less adrenaline) and it will seem like no time passed from start to finish.

This is also why people say that time moves faster as you age. Life itself is like that trail. We get so used to it, that the energy pumping into the brain to detect threats decreases.

Travelling faster, does take/position the faster object to its destination quicker.

When the faster object has reached its destination, both the faster and slower objects will still have moved within the same timeframe… regardless of distance traveled.

What travelling faster does seem to do, is save on exertion/effort/etc.

Think of 100 meter dash for 2 runners. The distance is fixed at 100 meters. There is only 1 clock that measures the time.

The fastest runner is at the finish line in 10 seconds.
The slower runner is at the finish line in 20 seconds.

Time elapsed at the exact same rate for both runners, even though 1 runner was twice as fast as the other runner.

The faster runner had a speed of 100 meters per 10 seconds, or 10 meters per second (10 m/s)
The slower runner had a speed of 100 meters per 20 seconds, or 5 meters per second (5 m/s)

There was only one clock, and time elapsed at the EXACT same rate for both runners, even though they ran at different speeds.

If both runners weighed exactly the same weight:

The fastest runner had more POWER
The slowest runner had less POWER

Power=work/time

They both did the same work, which is moving their weight 100 meters.

One runner had more power than the other because he performed the work in less time.