I’ve told you many times before that I do not accept that (1 \div 3 = 0.\dot3). That’s something you have yet to prove.
“1 of 3 parts” is a rather confusing expression. “1/3” is better expressed as “one third”.
Yes. And that stick is “1 stick” long. And each one of the three equally sized squares is “1/3 stick” long.
No, you end up with three thirds of that stick (each square being one third.)
I beg to differ. Didn’t you kind of prove the opposite when you said that when we try to divide 1 by 3 that we never get to finish calculating the result? Doesn’t that mean that we never get to calculate the result of 1 divided by 3? So how can you say that “.333…” is the result? It is not.
My point is that when the Einstein Online article says that the stay-at-home twin has aged by 30 years, they are using the word “year” in a way that is normally used i.e. they use it to mean “the amount of time it takes the Earth to orbit around the Sun”. But when they say that the travelling twin has aged by 2 years, they are using it in a different way. Do you disagree?
What does the word “year” mean? Does it mean “an arbitrary amount of time”? Am I free to use the word “year” to mean “5 seconds”? Or am I not?
The original definition of the word “year” is “the amount of time it takes the Earth to orbit around the Sun”. According to that definition, one year is the same everywhere – it doesn’t matter what planet you’re on. Thus, whatever planet you’re on, regardless of how fast you move, you’d be ~0.24 years older after 88 days.
The fact that they later decided to change the definition of the word to mean “the oribtal period of a planetary body” so that they could say that “One year is 88 days on Mercury” is a different issue. It doesn’t seem particularly relevant.
Let’s set aside the 1 divided by 3 issue for now. Let’s discuss 1 divided by 4, since it eliminates the side issue of 1 not being equally divisible by 3.
The error is in the use of units.
You have 1 stick. You divide that stick into 4 equal parts. Each part is .25 of a stick.
You do NOT have 4 squares, you have 4 parts that are .25 of a stick.
1 divided by 4 equals .25. The unit is stick. 1 stick divided by 4 equals .25 stick. You end up with 4 parts that are .25 stick each.
You do NOT end up with 4 Squares. Squares is not even the unit, and you certainly don’t have 4 sticks, and 1 divided by 4 equals .25.
.25 stick times 4 equals 1.0 stick. It has NOTHING to do with the unit square.
When you cut a stick into 4 equally sized parts, the resulting parts may or may not be squares – that depends on the dimensions of the stick that you cut.
If you have a 20cm x 5cm stick and if you cut it into 4 equally sized parts, each part will be 5cm x 5cm i.e. a square. Each square will be 5cm long, but also, each square will be “1/4 sticks” long (where “stick” is defined as a unit of length corresponding to the length of the stick that we just divided i.e. it’s a unit of length corresponding to 20cm.)
Now, if we take three of those squares and glue them together, we’d end up with a 15cm x 5cm stick. The length of that stick can be expressed as “1 stick” where “stick” means “the unit of length corresponding to the length of the stick that we just glued together”. Can we divide that stick in 3 equally sized parts? You say that we can’t. But we obviously can. Just unglue it. The result is three 5cm x 5cm squares each one of which is “5 cm” long as well as “1/3 sticks” long.
See? I am not talking about “square units”. I am merely demonstrating that a stick can be divided into three equally sized parts. It’s one stick divided into three equally sized parts. It’s 1 divided by 3.
I think your problem is that you don’t realize that “1/3” is in itself a number. It’s not a decimal number, of course, but it is a number – a rational number. The fact that it has no base-10 expression doesn’t mean it’s not a number. It is a number. Perhaps not strictly a number the way natural numbers are, but it is a number in the same exact way that 0.25 is a number. It’s just that it’s a number that has no base-10 representation.
What’s time dilation? Some BS Einstein made up to make his numbers work?
Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity.
If a car is at a zero velocity at a red light, and the light turns green and the car starts to accelerate, what that means is the velocity starts increasing as time elapses.
So:
At t=0 the velocity is 0 m/s
At t=1 the velocity is 8 m/s
At t=2 the velocity is 16 m/s
At t=3 the velocity is 24 m/s
At t=4 the velocity is 32 m/s
At t=5 the velocity is 40 m/s
The velocity is increasing 8 m/s every second, so the acceleration is 8 m/s^2
Every absolute second the car increased it’s velocity 8 m/s, and as the velocity increased the STANDARD SECOND remained constant. The second was the same duration from t=0 - t=1 as it was from t=4 - t=5.
Time did not change as the velocity was increasing. PERIOD!
Disagree. “1/4” means “the result of dividing 1 by 4”. And “1/4 = 0.25” means “the number represented by 1/4 is the same as the one represented by 0.25”.
I don’t think that “1/4” stands for the operation of dividing 1 by 4. I don’t think it stands for the operation itself. Rather, it stands for the result of the operation. So it is a number.
Yes. And your point is?
I don’t agree with that. 0-9 are digits and these are different for different numeral systems. Digits are merely numbers that have simple representations from which more complex representations can be constructed to represent other numbers. Anything can be a digit. “F” is a digit in hexadecimal system and it stands for fifteen.
Each number can be represented in any number of ways. “Fourteen”, “14”, “10+4”, “2x7”, “2+2+2+2+2+2+2”, “28/2”, 0xE and XIV are all different representations for one and the same number.
Because it doesn’t know whether you’re done punching or not. What if you want the result of “1/4+10” instead of “1/4”? Your calculator isn’t that smart yet.
Well, that’s what you claim. How are we going to resolve that disagreement?
This thread right here has exactly 14 replies. You can count the replies if you want. Are you telling me the number of replies it has is not a number?
I finally figured out what he is doing with that distorted graph - he is slyly conflating time-dilation with positional time registration. It is invalid to claim that the front of the ship is at x1,t1 “at the same moment” that the back of the ship is at x2,t2 where t1 is not equal to t2. He is claiming that at all times - time is different at every location even in the same frame. That constitutes a different bit a nonsense.
So I am still waiting for a sensible explanation for the traveling twin paradox.
When they use 3 observers - SP says that no observer has privilege. And if you choose observer 3 (the one returning to Earth) as the inertial frame - the only way to know that observer 1 is the older more inertial one is by the fact that he is older (his clock ran faster) - that is giving privilege to observer 1.
So I don’t believe there is a valid non-acceleration explanation. And the acceleration issue seems to be merely something for the traveling observer to note in order to give proper credit for who is more inertial. But that still doesn’t explain away an absolute inertial frame where a clock will always run faster than any others.
Now MD is saying that “14” is not a number.
So the “real number line” has only 10 digits now (counting 0 as a digit - he might object to that too)?
You’re fueling the fire. You’re doing so by 1) rolling your eyes, 2) showing how bewildered you are that someone believes something or that someone might be believing something, and 3) accusing them of doing bad philosophy, all the while not doing much, if anything, to counter what they are saying.
I know the standard response. “What he’s saying is dumb, so he deserves it”. Well, I’d rather read dumb thoughts than other people’s misplaced and unrefined expressions of frustration and dissatisfaction.
Not true at all. I provided as much counter argumentation as you with him. He has proved beyond credulity that he is arguing merely to defend a prior position that he took and is willing to abuse language, common sense, integrity, and sanity to accomplish his self-righteous claim “I am right”.
I think it was you who once said “sometimes a person needs to be told when they are wrong”. When the person doesn’t hear reason - all that is left is to merely point out the cruel reality that he has accepted insanity as “good reasoning” and is foisting it on others - vainly attempting a spread of a disease - not greatly different than Wokism. It is excuse-making and insulting - not mere innocent mistakes in reasoning.
I am not saying you never provided any argumentation. Of course you did, plenty of it. But the last time you addressed him you provided nothing but that which can, and will, irritate him (as well as every single person reading the exchange and hoping for the discussion to move forward.)
As far as I’m concerned, as long as someone is making an attempt to explain why they think what they think and/or why they don’t believe something someone else believes, it’s all good. I don’t care about their motivations, all I care about is their reasons. Their reasons are either convincing or they are not. And he appears to be meeting that criteria.
And it doesn’t seem like he’s aggressively pushing his ideas, so how exactly is he spreading a disease? It looks like he’s merely saying what he believes and why he believes it – he’s merely doing it frequently and persistently. He also seems to be pretty interactive. He might not be someone who’s easy to convince and/or someone you can easily learn from, but then, how are you going to change that without ruining his self-esteem? I don’t think that what you’re doing – rolling your eyes, showing how bewildered you are, saying he’s a bad philosopher – is going to do the trick. In fact, it seems like only bad things can come from it.
And you appear to be one of those who actually believe that O’Biden is making innocently poor decisions (assuming you know anything about it at all). O’Biden is NOT at all innocent – neither is MD - although far far less dangerously so.
You said as long as someone is giving their reasons you have no complaint – I just gave my reasons - so by your own reasoning - you have no legitimate complaint of me.
When I count, I count 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.0 and then I have to change the ones number 9 to a 0, and place a 1 in the “TENS” decimal position. It looks like this 10.0, then 11.0, 12.0, 13.0 and finally 14.0
I have a name for 14.0, it’s “fourteen.”
You are so used to calling the decimal 14.0 “fourteen” you think there is a number 14 but there isn’t, that is the decimal 14.0 which is the number 1 in the Tens position, and the number 4 in the Ones position.
So how do you divide 1.0 Stick into 4 parts, and end up with 1.0 Square, if you claim 1 divided by 4 equals 1/4. If so, then it’s 1 Stick divided by 4 equals 1/4 Stick.
It is not 1.0 Square, it is 1/4 Stick, because 1.0 divided by 4 equals 1/4 according to you.
You are mixing units if you claim you divide 1.0 Stick into 4 parts, and end up with 1.0 Square. You did not end up with 1.0 Square, you end up with 1/4 Stick.
