Philosophy ILP style

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.

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!