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.”
“ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.