Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
ken wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:00 pm
I agree I could word things far more carefully. Could you also do that? Could you follow that order also? Is there any writer or speaker that could NOT word things more carefully?
What you wrote does NOT directly counter My assertion because I did NOT assert what you say you THOUGHT I was asserting.
You asserted something and I'm not going to agree to it if it isn't properly qualified.
You are under no obligation to agree to any thing at all, (especially to some thing that is not properly qualified), and I do NOT want you to agree to any thing at all.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm Yes, one was simply an omission of a detail we both knew about, but the other one (twins must be the same physiological age) is wrong, and is based on countless instances of the same data point and no others.
What was the 'one', which you say we both knew about?
The 'one' that I said that you already knew what I was talking about, which you say I did not properly qualify, was the 'one' about the twins being the same age. That was the only one I picked you up on.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmI have tried to word things most carefully, specifying a frame whenever necessary for instance.
I asked, could you word things far more carefully? If you could not, then why do you expect others to? If you could, then so be it.
Do you want to be told to word things more carefully, each and every time you write what are obvious flaws, to others?
I think it might be found that all people try to word things "most carefully", to their ability at the time of wording, but obviously some people have better wording skills than others have. Some are in early stages of learning while others have already had years of practice.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmHow could two bodies be of differing ages if they age at the same pace AND IF THEY STARTED OUT AT THE SAME AGE? If you would have answered that question then, then what is your answer now?
We're concerned that you're paying no attention to the answers being given because you imply here that no answer to how they can be a different age has been given. There are 50 pages of examples where this is not the case, so those demonstrate how.
I do NOT really care what you, or others, are 'concerned' about. What you, and others, perceive is happening MIGHT NOT actually be happening at all. In fact I have said the opposite is happening. Now, whose perception IS RIGHT?
Saying that a clock ticks slower, supposedly with speed, and basing all further examples on that one example, does NOT show how twin human bodies age differently if they age at the same pace, IF THEY STARTED OUT AT THE SAME AGE. IF ALL clocks tick slower because of speed (and/or gravity), then that could show how the ageing process of human bodies MIGHT happen, under those situations. However, just because one clock ticked slower than another under certain conditions, without ALL the variables taken into consideration does NOT show how human bodies could age differently.
The very simple fact that the words AGE AT THE
SAME PACE
means that they would NOT nor could NOT age differently.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmActually read a few of them.
If I have not missed any, then I have read them all.
The assumptions, beliefs, and confirmation biases in those further examples, which are based solely on the one and supposedly "tested" experimental example are startling obvious. The fact that there were three clocks, which, only one moving clock actually ticked slower than the supposedly "stationary" clock seems to be enough and the only
needed proof to support that what was earlier predicted to happen, for some people.
The fact that one moving clock actually ticked faster than the supposed "stationary" clock just gets instantly explained away, and thus dismissed, because instead of being stationary that clock was 'now' actually moving, in a certain direction. So, then we are back to the time ticks slower with speed being absolutely true because it was just demonstrated so.
To Me, it seems blatantly obvious that what was supposed to happen was going to happen, to those who believed it would happen. So, just one experiment was enough evidence for those believers. The rest of the believers have just followed on, basing all else on that one experiment, which, by the way, actually showed the opposite of what was said was going to happen.
Human beings tend to only find and see what it is that they want to find and see.
The very fact 'that time appears to change according to the speed of a moving object relative to the frame of reference of an observer' can very easily be shown and proven true. Some human beings, however, BELIEVE that this MUST happen so they are not open enough to seeing this evidence.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm What was the actual unbacked assertion that you saw I was supposedly making?
That twins must be the same age.
So, now you are agreeing that you KNEW I was talking about twin human bodies, and NOT talking about two bodies that started out at different ages, right?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmNoax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:39 am Two things born simultaneously do not age in parallel if they don't stay together.
. How much actual evidence is there for this?
Again, 50 pages of answers to this. You're apparently not going to accept my answer given again.
Am I expected to accept, and/or agree to some thing, that is NOT properly qualified?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm If you deny the answer, justify the denial.
I have attempted to show what I observe, but I can not get past the beliefs that you, and others, have.
Are you at all open to the fact that the answers you, and others, have given could be WRONG?
I also do NOT deny your given answers. I just do NOT, yet, see how they logically follow. I also observe what I perceive to be the confirmations biases, the assumptions, and the beliefs that led you to coming to the answers you have and give. I observe the attempts made to try to justify the "support" that you give to back up your already gained concluded answer, but I do not accept your "justifications" made as I see the flaws within them, which I have tried to explain. But it is just about impossible, if it is not completely impossible, to explain some thing to some one who believes the opposite.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm Repeated asking makes no progress.
Not if the same repeated answers are given.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm No, we lack the resources and technology to accelerate such a person without killing him. The evidence was verified in multiple more reasonable ways.
Which, if I am correct, that "evidence", which you see, you are NOT going to give and explain again, right?
To Me, saying, A clock ticked slower, traveling in a certain direction, around earth compared to another clock that stayed in the same place on earth is NOT verified evidence that a human body will age slower when it travels at speed. That might be enough evidence and proof, for you, but I need more than just that.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmHumans make terrible clocks, but we have done experiments with terrible clocks (radioactive samples for instance) at insane relative speeds, as well as accurate clocks at relatively low speeds.
If that is only what you NEED for evidence to see what you are saying is true and correct, then so be it. I obviously just NEED more evidence than you do to accept what you do. That is NOT to say that what you are saying is true and correct is NOT true and correct, that is just saying I NEED more evidence to see and accept what you say you see and accept here.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmI have NOT based any thing on people who always stay together. Are there two people who have ALWAYS stayed together? I have NOT previously observed that. Also, WHAT EVIDENCE is there that two things born "simultaneously" do not age in parallel if they do not stay together? And, what are they using to base measurements upon?
There have been thus far zero humans that have left the general frame of their home planet. You repeatedly point this out to me, but when I point it out to you, you balk.
What do you mean by, "you balk"? I am NOT the one who is having questions posed at, so what am I supposedly "balking" at? If, and when, I am asked clarifying questions, then I will answer them.
You are the one who is "balking", or, in other words, NOT answering the questions.
So, hitherto zero humans have left the general frame of their home planet, but to you there is ENOUGH evidence to support and prove that twins born at the same time age differently when one is traveling at speed, is this right?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmWhat I WAS basing things on, which was NOT what you thought, was in regards to the answer, to the question WHAT could be possibly used as a bench mark to measure if a human body ages more or less slowly than another?
I didn't say that. They age at the same pace (one year per year, which doesn't even have a unit), but need not be the same age. The traveler twin has existed for less duration than the Earth twin. They both age at the same pace which is 1. What could possibly be used as a benchmark is perhaps the watch on his wrist.
So, to you, the conclusion that a traveling twin HAS, without any doubt, existed for less duration than the twin which stayed on earth is based solely on the clock or watch that they take with them, is this right?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmAnother body, like a human body twin, is NOT some thing that could be accurately used to measure if one body has aged more than another.
Correct. Bodies make lousy clocks. Good for long term, but lousy on the fine precision. Yet you seem bent on accepting tests on only this poor choice of verification.
Well I am NOT "bent" on accepting tests on only this poor choice of verification. I have been asking you to tell Me what is it that they use for "verification" purposes. Your quote immediately above this one is the first time I have seen you answer that clarifying question. I could have assumed that you would say "clocks", or other things, but I do NOT like to assume any thing. I much prefer to wait for YOUR answer, and thus clarification first. I just wrote what could NOT be accurately used. I was, therefore, obviously NOT, as you assumed, using that to accept as a test.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm They've used such lousy clocks in tests, but ones that are a lot easier to get up to speed.
So, to you, 'clocks' are used in tests as they are a lot easier to get up to "speed"?
"Up to the
speed" of what exactly? Where they looking for a result, prior to the test?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmFor information purposes that is NOT evidence. That is JUST what is ASSUMED would happen. ASSUMING some thing will happen does NOT mean that it will happen.
This pretty much sums up your whole argument. The counter point is to assume otherwise,
I do NOT have a "counter point" as I have NO "view" in the first place.
I was pointing out that ASSUMING that human bodies age slower with speed, does NOT meant that that is what will happen.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmthat humans are the sole physical process that does not age according to the duration it has existed.
I am NOT sure what you are alluding to here.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmYou're right. I have no evidence against that assertion.
Did I ever say you have no evidence against what you perceive is an assertion of Mine?
What is the actual "assertion" you perceive I am making?
Do you human beings actually realize that just because another is asking them clarifying questions about what they, themselves, see or believe is true does NOT necessarily mean that the one asking the question has an opposing nor any alternate view at all. In fact some times I observe the exact same answers and outcomes as others do, but because I do NOT see and follow the supposedly "logical evidence" that others see and follow I consistently ask clarifying questions in the hope that they can and will find WHAT actually does support, to Me, and provide actual evidence, for Me, for what they are saying IS TRUE and CORRECT. If better, more accurate, evidence can be found, then why not look for it?
I have only been asking for what is the actual evidence that human bodies age slower with speed. You tell Me that you have given that already. I accept that that is what you say and if those answers are the best you can give, then so be it.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm You'd have to come up with a different way to predict the age of somebody not on Earth, and absent that backing of your alternate view, it carries no weight.
I have NO known way at all of predicting the age of some body not on earth. I am the One who has been question what can be used to accurately measure the ageing differences of different human bodies. You are the ONE who is saying that human bodies CAN and DO age differently to others when traveling at speed, based solely on the "verified", to you, evidence that clocks tick slower with speed.
Also, I have NO alternate view, as you suggest, I am just questioning others about the view that they have and which they state IS TRUE, RIGHT, and CORRECT. Remember I remain open always so I do NOT hold a view.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmNoax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:39 amYes, please do.
Can you provide any examples of when I have supposedly done that?
No, I can't, which is why I mentioned it.
Okay.
So, obviously My inability to properly qualify what it is that I actually mean has led to more miscommunication. To make My question "properly qualified" for you to be able to understand it correctly, Can you provide any examples of when I have supposedly NOT done what you say to "please do"?
If your answer is "Yes", then will you provide some examples of when I have supposedly made assumptions based solely on my perception and not on some thing factual?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmLook, if you want to know the mechanics of relativity (like questions about how far away A-C is in other frames or how to compute the age of the twins given a trip description, read an intro text on relativity.
Making assumptions about twins ageing differently is NOT some thing I want to know.
You asked quite a list of questions about it in the prior post to which I answered. Why ask if you don't want to know?
Because I am learning how to write more succinctly. My inability to communicate successfully is obvious, right? The more questions I ask, then the more I can learn. I am not always necessarily asking questions to get "THE" answer to that particular question is asking for, some times I ask questions to provoke a response. What it IS that people actually say and see, throughout a discussion, and the WAY people respond is what I really want to KNOW. Learning HOW to get past what stops and/or distorts human beings from learning more is what I am wanting to know and trying to learn how communicate better. The things that stops and prevents human beings from learning far more than they do now IS the very thing that stops and prevents them from truly listening to others. Learning what to communicate exactly and how to communicate that sufficiently and succinctly so that human beings will rid themselves of what it is that causes their slowness at learning, and which is what is leading to their downfall also, is what I really want to know.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmAll those answers I gave can be had from standard texts.
Yes I know. I have seen some of those "standard" texts.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmWhat I want to KNOW is HOW does any person KNOW what WILL happen if NO experiment has been done yet?
Relativity has been well verified by empirical tests.
What part of 'relativity' exactly has been supposedly "well verified by empirical tests"?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm Are you asserting otherwise (denial of the tests),
NO.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmor do you suggest (again) that human aging is the sole physical process that does not proceed at a pace corresponding to the duration of existence?
I have NEVER even remotely implied, suggested, nor alluded to that? Why do you think that I have, and why do you keep thinking that that is what I suggest?
What is the 'pace' corresponding to the duration of existence?
Is it not you who is the one who says that the pace of the ageing process depends on how fast a thing is traveling?
If so, then considering ALL things travel at differing speeds, then that would imply ALL things age at a mismatched pace, correct?
Also, what is the duration of existence, and, what is that duration measured against?
There are many other clarifying questions arising but I will leave them for now.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm Or have I somehow missed what you're suggesting?
I think you have completely missed what I am suggesting.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm I cannot think of a third option. You'll probably deny the latter, so it must be denial of the tests, in which case I simply invite you to perform them yourself.
The "tests" you provide have already been done, of which I will use, and the more I look into them the more they are verifying what I have already observed, seen, and makes sense to Me.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmNoax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:39 am If you want to know why it must be like that, and that the naive model you have been pushing cannot be the case, most texts have a section up front about how it was worked out from only one empirical piece of evidence: The invariant speed of light.
And there My friends is what I thought was the case but did not know for sure.
Not so. The speed of light suggested the theory since the absolute model did not predict it.
A proposed 'speed of light', in a vacuum, might have help a human being come up with or make up a theory, but 'the speed of light', itself, did NOT suggest any thing. How do you propose it could?
Also, there is only ONE absolute labelled "model" and that IS the real thing, Itself.
What "absolute" model are you referring to, and what do you propose it did not predict?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm The verification came from further falsification tests, all of which have passed.
Why are they called "falsification" tests? Does that some how give them more "weight" in their support of the thing that was said would happen?
Why not, instead, just do a test and just wait completely openly to see
what ACTUALLY HAPPENS?
Trying to perform a "falsification" test, or a "verifiable" test, means that there is already a preconceived outcome, which can influence what readings are taken and then given.
What other tests prove that time slows down with speed?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmNo book was written before then.
"No" book?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmThis for instance:
Anyway, I do NOT want to know "why it must be like that". I much prefer to explain and show WHY human beings BELIVE some things MUST BE LIKE THAT, even when to others IT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT LIKE THAT AT ALL.
Said in caps no less. Must be true.[/quote]
So, again, I will ask, WHAT (exactly) was obvious?
If you can NOT provide "what" exactly was obvious, then, once again, we others have NO idea what you are referring to and talking about.
You said, My sole argument is intuition, (and that is carries no weight).
I said, My sole argument is NOT intuition, (which by the way is from how you define 'intuition' that is) and so your conclusion is wrong.
I then asked, WHY did you assume such a thing.
You wrote, because I said, "it was obvious".
I then asked, WHAT was obvious?
To which you re-wrote what I wrote. However I purposely used the word 'it' in what I wrote, without stipulating what the 'it' actually refers knowing full well that others would make assumptions, which you have proven with verifiable evidence. You have NO idea what I was referring to but you based your conclusion that My sole argument is 'intuition'. You did this because you made AN assumption. Until you can clearly SHOW what I said WAS OBVIOUS, then all you are doing is making assumptions, and "jumping to" a conclusion, as they say, which I can demonstrate is wrong.
As I said,
I much prefer to explain and show WHY human beings BELIEVE some things MUST BE LIKE THAT, even when to others IT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT LIKE THAT AT ALL. This has nothing whatsoever to do with 'intuition'. I much prefer to explain and show WHY human beings BELIEVE some things MUST BE LIKE THAT, like the sun revolves the earth, even when to others IT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT LIKE THAT AT ALL. To some people the sun revolving the earth was NOT LIKE THAT AT ALL and IT WAS OBVIOUSLY NOT LIKE THAT AT ALL. But the reason WHY other human beings BELIEVE that the sun MUST revolve the earth (even though it is and was obviously not like that at all) is because human beings make assumptions, based on past experiences, and make or "jump to" conclusions, based on those assumptions, BEFORE the actual truth is KNOWN. Human beings do NOT like to look stupid or to accept that what they see and believe is true could actually be wrong, so they will "fight to the death", for lack of better wording, of what they ALREADY BELIEVE is true. You will "fight' for YOUR SIDE and for the view that you are holding onto dearly. You will try to look for things that I do, instead of just answering clarifying questions, which has been shown to be what has happened. I have NO side to "fight" for nor look from so I just ask clarifying questions to show how much you actually KNOW. You had NO idea what I said was obvious, but you tried to use Me saying, thus doing, that as some way you could show that My, wrongly by the way, perceived "sole argument" carried no weight here. Instead of providing more evidence and proof for what you say and/or believe is true, you instead make up assumptions about what I say, and then try to dismiss that completely made up assumption. Just like what happened when one person was trying to say that the earth revolves around the sun, the others, the believers and followers, tried to ridicule the person by making up assumptions about imagined arguments and dismissing them instead of looking at what was ACTUALLY being said and thus what the ACTUAL arguments were.
By the way 'caps' do NOT necessarily mean "Must be true". 'Caps' can some times mean read and hear what it is that is actually been written and said. Saying some parts louder than others, with caps, is some times used in order to make the actual or particular point, that one is making, hopefully more clearer, and thus better understood.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmAlso, I have NOT been pushing any model, naive or not, at all. I have NO model.
This is why you're not being taken seriously. No model cannot compete against a model that makes good predictions.
I have NOT yet even begun to show a model. Do you remember I say look at
what IS instead of making up theories and/or models?
And, if you have already decided that NO MODEL can compete against a model that makes "good predictions", then we already KNOW what you have decided to believe in, and follow.
Also, did you mean "No model can compete against ...", "A model cannot compete against ...", or "No model cannot compete against ...", or, some thing else?
And, to Me, it seems like an extremely preconceived conception to have, that another model could not compete against a model that makes "good" predictions. Do you mean a model that HAS MADE "good" predictions, with the word "good" meaning that the predictions have ALREADY been verified as being indisputably true and correct?
What is there to be taken seriously in in what I have been writing? Most of what I write is just asking clarifying questions? If people are not taking seriously clarifying questions, then what does that actually mean?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm Your naive view works for someone who stays on/near Earth, and you since you will never need otherwise and are not in charge of devices that need a better model, it works for you.
Again, what do you perceive is My actual view?
Also, what I actually observe and see was done by looking from lots of different perspectives and especially from ones NOT just of an on, nor near of, an earth's perspective at all. In fact it was I who was trying to get you, and others, to look from other perspectives, which would show in much greater detail a much bigger thus much more truer view, but that perspective has consistently been denied as being NOT even being able to even be looked at.
And, you saying that my naive view works for those who stay on/near earth and that it works for me shows just how out of touch you are with Me. You have NOT even begun to grasp what I observe, instead you just make up more assumptions about what I see.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmBut then why are you here pushing it as some sort of alternate truth to which you're 'open minded' only because you refuse to examine it more closely.
The reason I do NOT examine your assumed and imagined view that I supposedly have is because I have NO real idea what it is that you THINK I view. Remember it is all of your making. Without clarifying you will NEVER KNOW what I see and understand. Assuming you do know is NOT helping you at all.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmI have NO idea if a traveling twin would age less, more, or not at all compared to the other one that did not leave.
Yes, we've noticed this.
Are you saying that you already do KNOW what the actual truth is, although you have NO such physical evidence for this?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmI have NOT yet seen any evidence for any thing regarding this SO I will just remain OPEN. I am certainly NOT going to believe some thing WILL happen just because some people say it WILL. When the tests and experiments are performed, if they are, only then will I be able to look at and see what the ACTUAL results are.
Confirming my suspicion above. Denial of evidence it is.
Where is and what is the ACTUAL true and real evidence that a traveling twin ages less than the other one?
Saying, "because one clock ticked slower at speed than another one, then a traveling twin will age less than the other twin" IS NOT ACTUAL EVIDENCE.
What was the name of the actual test done conducted on twins?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm Admittedly, that's better than humans not aging over the duration of their existence.
You have twisted this so far that your assumptions are getting bent beyond repair.
This is why davidm brought up the jumping into the sun example. Nobody has tried that either, so according to the argument you are using here, you consider there to be no evidence that it would be a harmful thing to do. You consider it an act of open mindedness and not willful ignorance to suggest that one might survive that act.
NO, what you have once again just ASSUMED and the conclusion that you have just jump to is total ignorance of WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING.
If you would like to look at and discuss what I wrote in reply to davidm's example, then we can look at some thing with far more credibility than your ridiculous ASSUMPTION here.
WHY do you, human beings, seem to NEVER ask for clarification and instead just make up the most ridiculous ASSUMPTIONS and jump to the most inconceivable CONCLUSIONS, some times, thinking that that will counter act what another is saying?
You are so far WRONG about what My "argument" IS that you have taken this past laughable stage now.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmIndeed, nobody has done just that, so no direct evidence. But complete denial of indirect evidence (sun appears really hot, and ken is not the sort of creature that survives such temperatures (also not directly verified)) would be willful ignorance. "Of the tens of billions of people who have ever lived, not one has died by falling into the sun. Therefore, being open minded, it is OBVIOUS that falling into the sun is not fatal."
Did you even read what I wrote in response to davidm's example, or, did you completely miss it?
If it is the former, then WHY NOT try and attack that, instead of assuming that I think in some way, which would obviously appear as stupid as you are trying to make out here?
If it is the latter, then I suggest reading it BEFORE saying the absolutely ridiculous things that you are assuming here.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmSo why the denial of the indirect evidence of relativity and yet (presumably) not denial of the sun fatality evidence? You said I never asked questions of you. I just did there.
It only took 50 or so pages to get you to ask some.
There is NO denial of the indirect evidence of relativity, by Me, so there is NO reason why you ASSUME there is. You are making that ASSUMPTION all by your lonesome.
Now, to you, what does 'relativity' NEED evidence of any way? What is there about 'relativity' that NEEDS to be evidenced? What does 'relativity' actually mean or propose, to you?
The reason I KNOW that a human body would stop breathing and pumping blood when it gets closer to the sun is because of the first hand experience that this body has had with the sun, AS I HAVE ALREADY PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED when I responded to the example davidm gave.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
A "younger" twin can only be, AFTER a trip, right?
Hard to parse that. The twin that makes the trip is younger when the two meet again. When not in each other's presence, the assessment of which is younger is ambiguous as is the assessment of which one made the trip.
Again ONLY AFTER the trip is made could it be proven there is a "younger" twin or not. So, making an "assessment" while the trip is being made, or as you say not in each other's presence, is again ONLY AN ASSUMPTION. So again, WHY make an ASSUMPTION BEFORE you have the actual evidence? And, as to who made the trip the answer is obvious, whoever is decided to make the trip. There is NOTHING that 'stationary' can be measured against so that would mean every thing is moving.
If some people want to make guesses about what would be observed from a perspective that they are obviously not in and decide how that frame would be seen compared to another frame, then that is quite a different thing from
WHAT ACTUALLY DOES HAPPEN.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm Remember the specific traveler frame example: Traveler is stationary and ages 70 days. The Earth twin travels on spaceship Earth, and ages 75hours.
The contradiction of "traveler" being "stationary" speaks for itself.
There is NO such thing as what 'stationary' could be measured against yet.
Also what you propose is NOT WHAT ACTUALLY DOES HAPPEN because NO actual test has been carried out yet. When an actual test is done, then we can look at the actual findings, until then I will remain open. What you have proposed is OBVIOUSLY only what is ASSUMED to happen, which is based on the findings of ONE clock, out of two clocks, that supposedly ticked slower when it "traveled" compared to another third clock.
But if the two star systems are in the galaxy labelled "milky way", and that galaxy is said to be 'moving' at 1.3 million miles per hour, then words 'reasonably stationary' is really a VERY RELATIVE expression, right
If the galaxy is said to be moving at 1.3 million mph, then whoever says that is referencing some frame in which it moves at that speed. I was speaking of the frame of the local exercise, where the two systems are stationary enough to have their separation distance printed in a book. Different frame than this other one you just referenced.
The two systems are reasonably stationary in that frame, and the galactic core moves in that frame at about 40% of the speed you reference, so it was not the solar frame being referenced by whoever quoted the 1.3mmph figure.
[/quote]