How does Einstein’s light clock explain time dilation?

[Will Bouwman]

But it is from these short-sighted, NARROWED, and LIMITED ways of looking and seeing things this is the reason WHY 'you', human beings, are taking SO LONG to catch up, and SEE and RECOGNIZE what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of things ARE, EXACTLY.

We're doing our best with the data available. What we human beings know, which you clearly do not, is that even if we discover something to believe and it is never contradicted, we will not know it is the absolute truth, because the imagination is such that it will always be possible to generate alternative hypotheses. Something is the absolute truth, but it is empirically indistinguishable from any number of theories that explain the universe equally well. If you claim to know that only one theory could fit all the evidence, you lack imagination.

[Skepdick]

I'm happy to concede that at any moment, the universe is in a particular arrangement...

That includes entangled arrangements and simutaneity

The entire point being that there's currently no coherent notion of a "moment".

Every nugget of human intuition wants to think of a moment as "distinct point in time" ala pausing a video to obtain a still-frame, but points are the wrong abstractions for the job; which makes the entire notion of "simultinaity" a bit fuzzy.

Naturally, the human intuition gravitates to such models because all total computable functions have a fixed point..

Lucky for us though...points need not be primitives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointless_topology

[Will Bouwman]

The entire point being that there's currently no coherent notion of a "moment".

Every nugget of human intuition wants to think of a moment as "distinct point in time" ala pausing a video to obtain a still-frame...

That seems perfectly coherent. It looks to me like ontology against epistemology. I don't see why the fact that we can't tell what every part of the universe is doing at a given 'moment', they are not all doing something.

[wtf]

As I said to seeds:

I'm happy to concede that at any moment, the universe is in a particular arrangement...

That includes entangled arrangements and simutaneity. The type of absolute time I mean is the sort that exists independently of anything happening, the type that would keep ticking even if nothing existed. Is there a type of absolute time you think simultaneity supports?

My understanding is that special relativity precludes the claim that "at any moment, the universe is in a particular arrangement ..." That is precisely the point. There is no universal moment in relativity.

If nothing existed, that would include ticking clocks. They tell us that before the big bang, neither time or space existed.

You can't empirically assert/establish the "instantaneity" of entanglement because you can't perform "simultaneous" measurements across non-zero distances. Any synchronisation mechanism which would enable you to do that violates the causal speed limit.

Makes sense. I don't know how the quantum theorists account for that.

[Skepdick]

They tell us that before the big bang, neither time or space existed.

"before the big bang" is a statement in a language using temporal semantics.

Lol.

[Will Bouwman]

My understanding is that special relativity precludes the claim that "at any moment, the universe is in a particular arrangement ..." That is precisely the point. There is no universal moment in relativity.

Again, it's ontology versus epistemology. Of course the universe is in the condition it is in, we just can't gather the information to tell what that is, except from our own relative point of view.

[Age]

But it is from these short-sighted, NARROWED, and LIMITED ways of looking and seeing things this is the reason WHY 'you', human beings, are taking SO LONG to catch up, and SEE and RECOGNIZE what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of things ARE, EXACTLY.

We're doing our best with the data available.

Here we have another example of EXCUSES, which these human beings, back in the days when this was being written, would quite frequently USE.

"We're doing our best', or, "We can only do our best", were very common EXCUSES USED, back in those 'olden days'.

What these people had not yet worked out and did not yet realize was that if they were, supposedly, doing their 'best', then they could not do any 'better'. Which, really, was just an EXCUSE for not even trying to do any better, and thus staying STUCK where they were.

Now, we all have the same 'data' here. So, why do you 'imagine' that 'we' have come to different conclusions, from 'you'?

I am pretty sure the ones who believed and insisted that the sun revolves around the earth also believed that they were 'doing their best with the data available' as well.

Also, if you remember when we had the same 'data' regarding the earth relative to the sun, then what do you imagine led to the difference in conclusions there?

What we human beings know, which you clearly do not, is that even if we discover something to believe and it is never contradicted, we will not know it is the absolute truth, because the imagination is such that it will always be possible to generate alternative hypotheses.

Here we have an example of why these humans beings were so slow. 'Beliefs' and ' hypotheses' slowed them down tremendously. These things were preventing them from learning, and from understanding, what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY,

Something is the absolute truth, but it is empirically indistinguishable from any number of theories that explain the universe equally well.

AND, as I have been continually EXPLAINING, making these assumptions or theories only slow and prevent 'you', human beings, from seeing and recognising the ACTUAL Truth. Which, by the way, is very distinguishable from those Wrong and Incorrect theories that obviously do NOT explain the Universe that well AT ALL.

If you claim to know that only one theory could fit all the evidence, you lack imagination.

But I would NEVER claim such an ABSURD thing as this. So, what you say here is moot.

[Age]

I'm no physics expert, don't even pretend to play one on the internet. Just wondering how you can condemn absolute time to "naive realism," when entanglement is instantaneous.

I'm no physics expert, don't even pretend to play one on the internet either, but entanglement has no bearing on the sort of absolute time I'm talking about.
As I said to seeds:

I'm happy to concede that at any moment, the universe is in a particular arrangement...

That includes entangled arrangements and simutaneity. The type of absolute time I mean is the sort that exists independently of anything happening, the type that would keep ticking even if nothing existed.

Well considering that that definition of 'absolute time' is itself, an absolute impossibility to exist, there is NO wonder why you think what 'you' do here.

Is there a type of absolute time you think simultaneity supports?

What, EXACTLY, is 'simultaneity' to you?

And, will you provide examples of these alleged 'entangled arrangements'?

[Will Bouwman]

AND, as I have been continually EXPLAINING, making these assumptions or theories only slow and prevent 'you', human beings, from seeing and recognising the ACTUAL Truth. Which, by the way, is very distinguishable from those Wrong and Incorrect theories that obviously do NOT explain the Universe that well AT ALL.

If you claim to know that only one theory could fit all the evidence, you lack imagination.

But I would NEVER claim such an ABSURD thing as this. So, what you say here is moot.

Read that first paragraph again Age; it is precisely the absurd thing you say you would never claim.

[Age]

AND, as I have been continually EXPLAINING, making these assumptions or theories only slow and prevent 'you', human beings, from seeing and recognising the ACTUAL Truth. Which, by the way, is very distinguishable from those Wrong and Incorrect theories that obviously do NOT explain the Universe that well AT ALL.

If you claim to know that only one theory could fit all the evidence, you lack imagination.

But I would NEVER claim such an ABSURD thing as this. So, what you say here is moot.

Read that first paragraph again Age; it is precisely the absurd thing you say you would never claim.

LOL

You are, once again, SO FAR from the ACTUAL Truth of things here.

And, ONCE AGAIN, if you just sought out CLARIFICATION, FIRST, BEFORE you made this ABAURD CLAIM here now, then you would NOT be SO Wrong as you are.

Furthermore, I am NOT even sure what you are seeing, which made you make such a RIDICULOUS and ABSURD CLAIM as you just did here.

[Will Bouwman]

You are, once again, SO FAR from the ACTUAL Truth of things here.

Age, I won't be responding to anything further of yours until you can demonstrate that you understand your own posts, because if you can't handle that, there is very little prospect of you understanding what anyone else writes.

[Skepdick]

My understanding is that special relativity precludes the claim that "at any moment, the universe is in a particular arrangement ..." That is precisely the point. There is no universal moment in relativity.

Again, it's ontology versus epistemology. Of course the universe is in the condition it is in, we just can't gather the information to tell what that is, except from our own relative point of view.

That's not ontology vs epistemology. That's wishful thinking vs epistemology.

When you speak of "THE condition" (of the universe) it sounds like you've already assumed a deterministic ontology, but the implication of Bell's theorem is that no deterministic theory can match the predictions of QM; so all the information we've already gathered tells us what it isn't.

Of course, you are free to disregard the evidence and assume whatever ontology pleases you.

[Will Bouwman]

My understanding is that special relativity precludes the claim that "at any moment, the universe is in a particular arrangement ..." That is precisely the point. There is no universal moment in relativity.

Again, it's ontology versus epistemology. Of course the universe is in the condition it is in, we just can't gather the information to tell what that is, except from our own relative point of view.

That's not ontology vs epistemology. That's wishful thinking vs epistemology.

Well, wtf was talking about special relativity, not QM as you refer to here:

When you speak of "THE condition" (of the universe) it sounds like you've already assumed a deterministic ontology, but the implication of Bell's theorem is that no deterministic theory can match the predictions of QM; so all the information we've already gathered tells us what it isn't.

If you take a quantum system, it is in the quantum state it is in irrespective of the theory anyone uses to describe that state. Same for any other system.

Of course, you are free to disregard the evidence and assume whatever ontology pleases you.

A theorem is different to evidence, but I take your point.

[Age]

You are, once again, SO FAR from the ACTUAL Truth of things here.

Age, I won't be responding to anything further of yours until you can demonstrate that you understand your own posts, because if you can't handle that, there is very little prospect of you understanding what anyone else writes.

LOL
LOL
LOL

It is OBVIOUSLY 'you', "will bouwman", is the one here who is NOT understanding what is being written and said. And, it is 'you' also who is NOT even bothering to even try to understand what is being written and said here. 'you' just BELIEVE what 'you' do, and, to 'you', that is all that is needed here.

Also, 'you' 'trying to' to DISTRACT and DECEIVE here is NOT being UNNOTICED. So, what this MEANS would be VERY OBVIOUS.

It is 'you' here who can NOT handle some thing, and that is that it was 'you' who made another mistake because 'you' did NOT gain clarity first.

[Age]

You are, once again, SO FAR from the ACTUAL Truth of things here.

Age, I won't be responding to anything further of yours until you can demonstrate that you understand your own posts, because if you can't handle that, there is very little prospect of you understanding what anyone else writes.

You do not want to respond to me because you do not like it when I point out and show when you are Wrong and Incorrect, like above.

It is you who is not understanding here, as I just showed and PROVED True.