"Poetry is a kind of ingenious nonsense." -- Isaac Newton.
Also, purportedly in the only opera he ever attended, he fled in the third act.
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 pmYou asserted something and I'm not going to agree to it if it isn't properly qualified.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.
What was the 'one', which you say we both knew about?
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.
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?Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmWe'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.How 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?
If I have not missed any, then I have read them all.
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?
Am I expected to accept, and/or agree to some thing, that is NOT properly qualified?
I have attempted to show what I observe, but I can not get past the beliefs that you, and others, have.
Which, if I am correct, that "evidence", which you see, you are NOT going to give and explain again, right?
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.
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.Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmThere 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.I 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?
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 pmI 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.What 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?
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 pmCorrect. 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.Another 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.
So, to you, 'clocks' are used in tests as they are a lot easier to get up to "speed"?
I do NOT have a "counter point" as I have NO "view" in the first place.
I am NOT sure what you are alluding to here.
Did I ever say you have no evidence against what you perceive is an assertion of Mine?
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.
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 pmYou 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?Making assumptions about twins ageing differently is NOT some thing I want to know.Look, 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.
Yes I know. I have seen some of those "standard" texts.
What part of 'relativity' exactly has been supposedly "well verified by empirical tests"?
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?
I think you have completely missed what I am suggesting.
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.
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?Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmNot so. The speed of light suggested the theory since the absolute model did not predict it.And there My friends is what I thought was the case but did not know for sure.
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?
Said in caps no less. Must be true.[/quote]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.
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?
Again, what do you perceive is My actual view?
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.
Are you saying that you already do KNOW what the actual truth is, although you have NO such physical evidence for this?
Where is and what is the ACTUAL true and real evidence that a traveling twin ages less than the other one?Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmConfirming my suspicion above. Denial of evidence it is.I 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.
You have twisted this so far that your assumptions are getting bent beyond repair.
Did you even read what I wrote in response to davidm's example, or, did you completely miss it?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."
It only took 50 or so pages to get you to ask some.
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.Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmHard 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.A "younger" twin can only be, AFTER a trip, right?
The contradiction of "traveler" being "stationary" speaks for itself.
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.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
It appears as though you got Me. I will now just have to accept and agree that what is being proposed IS absolutely true and right, correct? Is that what you would like?davidm wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:43 pmReally Ken? NO idea? Scroll back several pages where, in answer to my "clarifying question," you definitively stated that the twins would have aged the SAME -- no difference on their clocks.
Now, suddenly, you have NO idea?
Potential falsification is a fundamental component of the scientific method. Hypotheses have to be subject to it or else they are deemed invalidken wrote:
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
Even better. Thank you for finally doing this.
Once again you have got it wrong. I am able to recognize SOME of the PERCEIVED contradictions that others will make. I even KNOW before I write that some of what I will say will be PERCEIVED as contradictory. I continue to write that way however, to emphasize that if what I have said was clarified BEFORE assumptions were made, then I could show how the perceived contradictions are NOT really a contradiction at all.
I already know what you are trying to communicate/show to Me. You have explained that many times already, you just never explained the particular reason for why you see what you see. And, now that you have made comments I can show you WHY what you perceive as being absurd or contradictory may NOT be that at and after all.
The ONLY THING YOU HAVE SHOWN HERE SO FAR, out of all your accusations, is that I have said "how it is", which I have NEVER said that I did NOT do anyway, by the way. So, if you want to point out any more contradictions and/or inconsistencies now that I have seen what you have proposed and after I have been given a chance to reply to those accusations, then go ahead I am more than willing to discuss them too.Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:16 pm(If ALL people do this, that includes you.)
I have already clearly stated that YES THAT INCLUDES ME.
(Oh, I guess it doesn’t include you.)Surely you understand that I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.
WHY guess that and make that assumption?
Did you really NOT notice that I said ASSUMPTIONS and beliefs? So, that in of itself means that when i am making assumptions that then i am distorting the actual truth and/or are being completely blinded from the actual truth. I have NEVER said I NEVER make assumptions. What I have said is I do NOT like to make assumptions.
Besides that fact, people also are NOT always making assumptions and/or believing. It is only at those time WHEN people are making assumptions and/or believing things that that is when they are then distorting, or being blinded from, the ACTUAL TRUTH. How this fits in better and more with the bigger picture I have is to see 'assumptions' relating to distorting the actual truth while 'beliefs' relating to blinding one from the actual truth. To show how this all forms together perfectly to make a thorough, complete big picture would take years of writing for me.
If you have any examples of when assumptions do not distort the actual truth and/or any examples of when beliefs do not blind one from the actual truth, and thus you can counter what I say here, then will you share them with us?
(That’s what you appear to have just said above.)Did you assume, think, or believe that what I said would apply to all people but not to me?
But you have to remember that what appears to YOU is NOT necessarily what IS, true.
You took the words I NEITHER BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE ANYTHING to mean that I also NEVER make assumptions as well.
As I have just explained, hopefully, when i am assuming (and/or believing), then i also am distorting (and/or being blinded from) the actual truth ALSO.
ALL people, from a certain age, and who are capable of making assumptions and believing things, ALL make assumptions and believe things AND when they are doing that, then they are distorting and/or being blinded from the actual truth.
(And now you’re saying it again.)I NEITHER believe nor disbelieve any thing, IN GENERAL, ALWAYS, FOREVER MORE, et cetera. FULL STOP.
Just because I said it again, that does NOT mean that it means what you think it means. What appears to you is NOT necessarily what IS, happening. AND, what you think this implies does NOT necessarily mean that is what it does imply.
Did you notice that I did NOT, AGAIN, say that i do NOT make assumptions?
(Okay, so that’s what you're saying the Truth IS.)the Truth IS what is agreed upon and accepted by ALL.(You just did.)I do not recall telling people how some thing "is"
Just because you noticed that I just did some thing, does NOT mean that at the time I wrote, I do not RECALL telling people how some thing "is" that I recalled telling people how some thing is. At the time I wrote that I did NOT recall telling people how some thing is. That might appear inconsistent but on further investigation it is NOT. I did NOT say that I did not tell people how some thing is. At that moment I did NOT recall telling people how some thing is, which is very consistent with what WAS happening, at that time.
(Again, you’re saying what IS.)there is One single view, which can fathom ALL. That view is made up of ALL views. From this vantage point ONLY is the view point from which I talk about.
Are you proposing this is contradictory or inconsistent in of itself?
(You just did.)I do not recall ever saying "how it is".
Did you purposely repeat the exact same thing again here?
As I previously stated, at that moment I did NOT recall ever saying "how it is". BUT, now that you have pointed it out it is obvious that I DID.
(You just said that the Truth IS what is agreed upon and accepted by ALL.)there is NO THING that I am aware of "that must be agreed upon and accepted by all". The fact is I have been saying the very opposite of that.
Yes I may have just said that the Truth IS what is agreed upon and accepted by ALL, BUT that certainly does NOT mean that there is any thing that MUST BE agreed upon and accepted by ALL.
The Truth IS, what is agreed upon and accepted by ALL, and what is NOT agreed and accepted by ALL is that there must be some thing agreed upon and accepted by ALL. Therefore, there is NO contradiction nor inconsistency there, at least that I can see and am aware of anyway. If, however, you can see any contradiction and/or inconsistency, then will you show them to us?
(You’ve been unable to see them.)When, and if, there are any distortions and inconsistencies in what I write... /...I will be the first one to acknowledge and them and correct them.
More the truth is not until now you have proposed what you see. Assuming that I have been unable to see distortions and inconsistencies in what I write is a very wrong assumption as I know full well that some of what I write will APPEAR very distorted, very contradictory, and very inconsistent to some people. I do this on purpose.
Also, THIS IS WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE,
When, and if, there are any distortions and inconsistencies in what I write, then I am the first one who wants to be made aware of them. I can not correct that of which I am unaware of. So please point them out to Me at your first opportunity to. I will be the first one to acknowledge and them and correct them.
Did you NOTICE how much, by disregarding or dismissing some of what I write, distorts WHAT I ACTUALLY DID WRITE AND SAY?
AS I SAID PREVIOUSLY, I will be the first one to acknowledge and correct the distortions and inconsistencies AFTER they are pointed out to Me. I do NOT like to accuse you of purposely doing some thing, which you may of really only unintentionally did, but if you are going to quote what I say, then please quote what I ACTUALLY said. The distortion that you have created, by NOT providing ALL of what I ACTUALLY said, can some times become unrepairable.
(Right... you do not see... no matter how many times or ways someone points it out to you... and despite your claim that you want to learn how to communicate better.)I do not see that My absolute phrases necessarily contradict what else I have said.
Is it A inconsistency, or, does it, at the moment or on first glance, APPEAR as an inconsistency, to you?Lacewing wrote:So are they seeing it all the time, or are they being blinded from it completely? Which is it?
This is the first time you have given any real feedback. There was no thing to resist before.Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 amYou see, Ken, you said you want to learn to communicate better, but if you're unwilling or unable to see/recognize the inconsistencies and how they break down the communication, then I don’t know what part of communication you are truly willing to improve... because you are showing resistence to valid feedback.
A good observation, which to a certain degree I agree with.
That is an extremely distorted view of what I actually do.
But it does match and flow with other things that I have said. You just assume and/or believe they do NOT. Through clarification you could have already found out what the actual truth is.
Or, you are NOT seeing the broader message from each and every statement that I write, which would be totally understandable because I have NOT even begun to discuss, give, nor deliver the full and broad message YET.
And you could be seeing, or reflecting on, some thing, which does NOT even exist.
I clicked on the quote button, which automatically attributed that to you, I obviously was NOT paying 100% attention and so responded to what I read.Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 amKen, that question you mistakenly attributed to me (above) was yours... and I already answered you... so, here, you are questioning your own question.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
Because the broader sees ALL, the beauty, magnificence, the love, the humor, et cetera AS WELL AS the ugly, the destruction, the wars, the abuse, et cetera. Obviously the 'broadest' view of all sees ALL things, and NOT just some things. That is why I framed it like that. If you are going to talk about a 'broad' view, then you have to be looking at all things and not just pick and choose some things that you want to look at and see.
What is it exactly that you are proposing that I am saying that is so "absurd" about you?
What do you mean by 'dense'?
I KNOW, you tell Me that you look at and see all the beauty and magnificence, (only). You say it is there for entertainment purposes.Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 amSuch as you did again, below:I don't view myself as standing behind a curtain watching all of the horrors go on, Ken.
You are free to choose to do whatever you like. If you want to love the ugliness and the abuse of others more, then so be it. I am NOT telling you what to do nor should do.
I did say that ON PURPOSE. I asked you what you would "say or think" (I do not recall fully now) if I said things like the hate within you. I WANTED you to say things like that is a misrepresentation based on YOUR assumptions, et cetera, and that I have NO IDEA. I WANTED you to say things like that so that you might remember just how many times you make misrepresentations about Me, which I have continually said are caused by your continual assumptions.
Do YOU project?
And, I have clearly explained that what you say you see is NOT necessarily what IS.
Or, maybe I am saying I ALREADY HAVE IT.
To show you how easily it is to mischaracterize so hopefully will take some sort of notice how often you do it.
There are many other sayings also. Do you have any proof or evidence how that is true?
If you accept child abuse is just a part of ALL that is, then continue on your "merry" way. I prefer to do some thing about stopping it, completely.
You are free to think any thing you like. But how true your thoughts actually are is another matter.
ALL have divine within them.
We are already ALSO doing a selfish, uninspiring dance of destruction in all kinds of forms to.Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am “Looking behind the curtain” is just a way of saying that one is looking beyond the illusion of and for onesself. There is not some holy/divine place that only some can go, or that all should go. We’re already doing a divine, magnificent dance of creation in all kinds of forms.
No, the truth is what it is, what all or most people believe is often wrong. At one time most people believes the Earth was flat, but they were wrong.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:15 pmBut then there are theoretical tachyons that are said to travel faster than light. And the Cosmic Inflation theory states that the universe grew by a factor of 10 to the 16th power in less than 10 to the negative thirty seconds, so from the central point of expansion outward in all directions the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light. Of course they just theorized that to make their math work. Speculation, or real science? Obviously the pull of a black hole is greater than the speed of light or light could escape it.
I didn't say that. Clocks are presumed to measure time. If they read less, it is because there is less duration to measure, not due to ticking slow.
This is what I mean by denial of evidence. There's hardly been one verification of it. A test of it is performed every second of every day. The example we've been looking at is not presented as evidence. Just answering questions for the sake of understanding.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.
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.
That's right, despite my interpretation of your comments to assert otherwise. You've said no, it's not that you expect a twin to age over 8 years in under 5 months. Perhaps you think that A-C is some sort of anomaly that tacks on 8 years to each visitor that comes there. I'm just guessing because you haven't been very specific about why that scenario would differ from all the scenarios that have actually been done.The very simple fact that the words AGE AT THE SAME PACE means that they would NOT nor could NOT age differently.
There is no observer in that statement since there is no way to directly observe dilation since it involves events not present at the observation point. You say this can easily be proven true, yet you don't seem to accept the evidence.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.
Never expected you to accept it. I think some of the others are frustrated at your apparent denial, but that's them. I'm more amused by it. I thought the subject of debate was why this stuff should be accepted. What differentiates your position from one of denial of a specific theological stance, or perhaps an interpretation of QM?Am I expected to accept, and/or agree to some thing, that is NOT properly qualified?
You have an observation of something that falsifies anything we've said? If not, then what you observe isn't evidence one way or the other, and the denial of the positive evidence goes unjustified.
Absolutely. But ignorance is the wrong path to being open. Knowing the theory, understanding it, and making it better is the way to go. Very few theories are just plain wrong. The Earth is not flat, but the surface of a sphere is effectively flat at close range. The round earth was a minor adjustment to the geometry, the exact same sort as relativity. You seem to consider it a virtue to be open to flat Earth because you have all you experience on an apparently flat place. You consider the rest of us sheep for following the obviously wrong texts that teach of a round planet. You've attempted to point out the flat Earth you observe, but cannot get past the beliefs that us others have. We should not necessarily accept flat Earth, but be at least open to it. Well I'm not. Baaaaa....Are you at all open to the fact that the answers you, and others, have given could be WRONG?
Look up the thought experiments then. All of it logically follows from just fixed light speed. Your refusal to follow the illustration might justify your naive personal view, but it does not justify your bashing of the rest of us for accepting the hard evidence. Ignorance is not a valid argument.I also do NOT deny your given answers. I just do NOT, yet, see how they logically follow.
Correct. You seem to have a track record for not acknowledging evidence, perhaps because it was not done by you personally.Which, if I am correct, that "evidence", which you see, you are NOT going to give and explain again, right?
Clocks accurately measures duration in their own frame. Not accurate to say one ticks slower, because if it did, the other clock would be ticking faster, which contradicts the situation described from the frame of what was the slower clock.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.
I understand. But why go on the forum then and post that we're all wrong to accept our education? Why is this stance of denial a good thing for anybody else, especially those of us who need to know this stuff to engineer things like rockets that need to get to their proper destinations, or GPS devices? Flat earth works until you're in charge of scheduling airline routes.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.
There have yet to be any exceptions to this. All humans have stayed sufficiently together to make their age adjustments far less than the precision to which human age can be measured. The worst adjustment was on the order of a second, and the precision is on the order of nearly a decade. Here there is one data point from which you draw your stance of denial.I have NOT based any thing on people who always stay together. Are there two people who have ALWAYS stayed together?
You did it just above. You denied that people stay together.What do you mean by, "you balk"?
No, they age at the same pace of one day per day, unless you consider it closed minded of me to assume that. They've had people in space for years, and they don't seem to age faster due to being in space. So the traveler is probably not going to age significantly different than one day per day just because he's in an enclosed box with life support. But it's an assumption. Maybe there's a magic aging ray that hits you out past the Kuiper belt. Have to keep an open mind about that one.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?
Never said that. From the traveler frame, one existed for 70 days, and the Earth twin existed for only 3. The watch was brought up as a way to measure the elapsed time if either twin found it inconvenient to have an age-o-meter shoved up his wazoo at the end of it all.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?
The low-precision ones are. The accurate ones probably haven't been accelerated to anything faster than they've done to humans.So, to you, 'clocks' are used in tests as they are a lot easier to get up to "speed"?
99.5% of lightspeed, and yes, they were looking for a result. The clocks had perhaps a 10% error rate."Up to the speed" of what exactly? Where they looking for a result, prior to the test?
Yes you do. I've pointed it out. You'd not be posting if you had no view that we're seemingly not getting.I do NOT have a "counter point" as I have NO "view" in the first place.
The wording implies you're not one. Bridge troll perhaps? You should put it in your profile.Do you human beings actually realize...
You fail to understand our stance. Doubt of a view is acceptable, but only in the face of a better alternative. There are examples of views that were considered truth but then discarded. In almost all cases, the view discarded was interpretation, not science. The other cases the view was improved upon, not discarded. Newtonian mechanics is still valid, just incomplete. People were not closed minded to accept Newtonian physics taught at the time. Progress was made not by denial of the theory, but by noting inconsistencies, thus identifying places in need of refinement. You've identified zero inconsistencies, and don't seem to be trying to. Instead you're evangelizing the ignorance view of denial of the evidence we have. It seems to be the wrong path because it does not lead to any knowledge at all.I have NO known way at all of predicting the age of some body not on earth.
Not if you deny the answers given. You still know nothing if you throw all the answers in the 'maybe' pile.The more questions I ask, then the more I can learn.
It has parts? Don't know how to answer this.What part of 'relativity' exactly has been supposedly "well verified by empirical tests"?
One day per day, or I.E. 1.What is the 'pace' corresponding to the duration of existence?
No to the first. Human aging is a measure of decomposition. Living humans tend to predictably change appearance over time, and fall apart after around 80 years. Other things don't necessarily age like that. A buried bone might age really slow and be found as a fossil millions of years later, and another one might break down in months in a harsher environment. So things do age at mismatched paces. The aging of a bone is far less predictable.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
Duration as used in this thread is the time between two events. It can be measured by any physical process. The more stable/predictable the process, the more accurate the measurement.Also, what is the duration of existence, and, what is that duration measured against?
I also suspect you think that.I think you have completely missed what I am suggesting.
Fixed light speed was not something that was proposed. It was measured, and that measurement was unexpected. They knew their model at the time was not complete.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?
Not what a model is.Also, there is only ONE absolute labelled "model" and that IS the real thing, Itself.
Newtonian absolute space. It predicted that if you were not stationary, one could measure different times for light to go forward vs. backwards.What "absolute" model are you referring to, and what do you propose it did not predict?
Yes. If there are two models and they make different predictions, all one need do is test the thing that is predicted differently, which matches one model hopefully, and serves as a falsification of the other. Don't mean the winning model is perfect, but it is better. QM interpretations are supposedly vastly different views, but lack falsification tests and thus are not science theories, but merely philosophical interpretation. They are trying to identify falsification tests which would elevate them to science.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?
That's exactly what they do. But you seem to support the ignoring of what ACTUALLY HAPPENS. Not sure why that needed to be in caps like that.Why not, instead, just do a test and just wait completely openly to see what ACTUALLY HAPPENS?
There is no verifiable test. It's all about falsification. QM interpretations are full of verifiable tests, but lack falsification. Hence they're not science, and there is no solid grounds for asserting one of them being more correct.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.
Predictions about where planets are observed. Measurement of gravity waves. Lifetimes of exotic particles in fast moving environments like LHC.What other tests prove that time slows down with speed?
Sorry, all the context has been removed. Not bothering to hunt down the origin of that snippet.
You're the one who yelled that IT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT LIKE THAT AT ALL. You don't know? I was just commenting on the caps usage, which seems to be the argument which makes your assertion of obviousness true. I didn't assume anything about what you actually find obvious, since in your efforts to remain unclear, you decided to omit from that statement.So, again, I will ask, WHAT (exactly) was obvious?Noax wrote:Said in caps no less. Must be true.ken wrote: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.
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.
Caps is considered yelling, and rude. Italics with mixed case implies emphasis. Your statement of obviousness did not include what was obvious other than "human beings BELIVE some things MUST BE LIKE THAT", leaving off what they believe things must be like. Knowing that part might allow me to comment on how obvious some unstated alternative position is.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.
We noticed that. Hence us not taking you seriously.I have NOT yet even begun to show a model.This is why you're not being taken seriously. No model cannot compete against a model that makes good predictions.
We would fall beind a better model in a moment.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.
I meant the lack of model cannot compete again an existing model, however poor.Also, did you mean "No model can compete against ...", "A model cannot compete against ...", or "No model cannot compete against ...", or, some thing else?
None of the above. I was talking about a non-model.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?
We disagree that we're sheep just because we accept verified scientific findings.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?
Your attempts presumed conditions known to be false. You can prove anything on such ground, and it would just show that your assumptions are probably wrong. Relativity is based only on one assumption, and that was one known to be true, yet counterintuitive. That led to some very counterintuitive falsification tests.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.
You've implied that you're not human, so perhaps you're quite right about my assumptions about what you see. I base it off what I see, and other than the software that runs my cellphone nav app, I get little day to day experience that would be different between relativity being the case or not.You have NOT even begun to grasp what I observe, instead you just make up more assumptions about what I see.
This is why everybody labels you a troll. You prattle on about what you see and understand, but don't tell us those things, and they type paragraphs about how much we don't know about you. If you see and understand something we don't, then produce it. If you won't because you prefer to whine about how much you're misunderstood, then you're a troll in our eyes.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.
These forum posts are virtual I suppose. Does that count as physical evidence? Certainly not proof since the knowledge level you choose to portray might in fact not correspond at all to what your actual level is. So no, I don't know the truth of it.
We should keep a count of this question. Nobody has ever traveled far from Earth. It is admittedly an assumption that a human in deep space ages at one day per day out there, just like he does in near-space.What was the name of the actual test done conducted on twins?
Another implication of not being human.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?
Yet you consider it open-mindedness to reject the implications of that evidence. That's willful ignorance in my book.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.
No, not an assumption. It is ambiguous. That's different than an assumption. I'm claiming no assumptions.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.
No. It is not about decisions. In fact it is about acceleration. One (or both) of them must accelerate in order for the two to meet again.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.
This is wrong.There is NOTHING that 'stationary' can be measured against so that would mean every thing is moving.
They're not guesses. Nobody but you claiming that there's guessing going on.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.
Ah. An attempt at stating a contradiction, coupled with the refutation you seek no less. The traveler is stationary relative to his ship for instance. He's in his seat, and a while later, still in it. Sounds pretty stationary to me. What definition of stationary do you have that contradicts that? You seem to refer to stationary in some absolute sense, but that would imply a definition from an alternate view which you've stated you don't have, so I'm left unclear as to what you're suggesting. Relativity says there is no absolute (not relative to anything) way to test for being stationary, and your comment above agrees with that rather that contracts it as you seem to have intended. If light speed were not fixed, then there would be an easy test.The contradiction of "traveler" being "stationary" speaks for itself.There is NO such thing as what 'stationary' could be measured against yet.
Why assume that?
I was unaware that I was MEANT TO or HAD TO respond, to responses. If I have just missed to respond to any of your responses to My claims, which you wanted Me to respond to, then just point them out to Me, I WILL gladly respond.
I was starting to observe special relativity had not much to do with reality, and pondered questioning this earlier.
If a point is not yet known, then it is not lost. It is just not yet known.
Special relativity is an idealization of local flat spacetimes that ignores gravity, troll. As has been explained to you. That is why it is subsumed under general relativity, which has also been explained to you. Troll.ken wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:10 amI was starting to observe special relativity had not much to do with reality, and pondered questioning this earlier.
Also, I would hope einstein quickly realized that special relativity has bugger all to do with reality, einstein was the one who made up special relativity, right?
If a point is not yet known, then it is not lost. It is just not yet known.
If the point that special relativity has bugger all to do with reality has been written clearly earlier in this thread, then I, for one, missed it.
But that is NOT what I mean.davidm wrote: ↑Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:21 pmThere are no "frame independent answers" if by this you mean, "two frames in relative motion that will agree on an objective time and space."ken wrote: ↑Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:42 pm
ALL of My questions from now on will be in relation to travelers and distances, and NOT any inertial frame of reference, unless otherwise stipulated. It is the 'inertial reference frame' that causes the contradictory, inconsistent, and confusing views people form regarding this. ALL My questions will be 'frame independent'.
Would you like to provide a link to where this has been explained to Me?