But, if someone is to say, for example, now let us think about and discuss what would happen if we could travel at a distance of such and such and from a particular perspective it would take this long, and the traveler would age this much, for the reason of ...., to only be instantly told something like, the theory has been verified by absolutely every experiment conducted and/or this theory has been tested so well that it is correct with no reasonable doubt.Steve3007 wrote: ↑December 30th, 2019, 5:38 pmThanks Thom.Thomyum2 wrote:Just to add, my post wasn't meant with any disrespect - actually Steve3007, your well-reasoned and articulate posts bring much sanity to a lot of these discussions and are much appreciated.
I think a good discussion of the twin paradox would require at least some knowledge of Einstein's Relativity and its origins; the reasons why it was felt to be necessary. The problem, in my experience, is that the people who make the boldest unsupported assertions about these kinds of subjects tend to be those who have made the least effort to properly research that which they reject. The poster called "gater" perhaps being the best example of this currently on the forum (though there have been quite a lot of others in the years I've been coming here). In the quote from you above, unlike such people, you recognize the limits of your own knowledge. But the irony is that you may well find that you know a lot more about the subject than people who don't show such humility and loudly, repeatedly proclaim their own infinite wisdom. For myself, I'm not an expert either. I have only a Bachelors degree in physics and only a layman's knowledge of the subject beyond first degree level. But I don't claim otherwise. I only ask people, if they wish to make assertions on a subject, to back those assertions with reason and evidence.I do think though, that a good discussion on the twin paradox would naturally presume a pretty good knowledge of relativity in advance (something I don't have, which is why I've stayed out of it so far)...
Obviously, if people are not going to even think of something else, they are not going to listen to anything else, and so they will not discuss anything else. They believe they already know what is true, so no amount of asserting with reason and evidence achieves anything at all. Once people are in belief mode, then are not open to anything, including reason, evidence, proof, and/or even facts.
This is why there are still people in this day and age who still believe that the earth is flat. Absolutely NOTHING works on people who believe.
If there is no one open enough to even consider a thought, then what use is there putting out an idea or an assertion on a subject?
I assert that if a traveler could travel at the speed of light then they would take four years to travel a distance of four light years away, and if they took a clock with them, then that traveler and that clock would change at the same rate as if they remained on earth for four years. This is because the actual trip takes four years as well as because 'time', itself, is not a physical thing, so the speed of travel cannot affect the rate of change of physical things.
Now if anyone is open to think about this and discuss, then let us. But if anyone just wants to tell me that some experiment has been done and the matter is already settled, then do not bother. Obviously you are not open enough to consider and discuss the matter.
I am looking for logically reasoned discussions about new things. Continually going over the same out stuff will obviously not result in new outcomes or discoveries.
And, those 'not yet completely come to terms with' ideas and concepts, which will benefit humanity philosophically and greatly are what I am leading towards.Steve3007 wrote: ↑December 30th, 2019, 5:38 pmYou may be right. It may be a subject more suited to a physics forum. But this philosophy site does contain a Science section. It depends on the extent to which you think that the discoveries and claims of the theories of physics have philosophical implications....and I wonder if re-litigating the theories of relativity maybe isn't the best thing for a philosophy forum to try to tackle - haven't scientists already been doing this for the last 100 years?
Yes. I think you're right. The same goes for Quantum Mechanics. That, I think, is why Relativity and Quantum Mechanics keep coming up, in various guises, as topics on this site.But I've been following the thread because it's of great interest to me and I appreciate hearing the ideas. My sense has always been that relativity has tremendous implications for philosophy that we have not yet completely come to terms with, which may be underlying some of these strong opinions.
People see an incompatibility between relativity and quantum mechanics, for example, but I do not see this, so I cannot discuss this incompatibility that themselves see. Only they can express what they are. What I see however, is how relativity and quantum mechanics are compatible, and just one and the same thing. To me they are already Unified, just like absolutely Everything is United together as One. But I am expected to know certain things like some of the knowledge of einstein's relativity and/or the history of how it came about. To me, that is unnecessary, and truthfully if anyone expects me to have some particular knowledge then if they were truly serious about this, then they, themselves, could just write it down. I am pretty sure they could keep it shorter than the writings that they have done so far, which has not actually said anything that has achieved much at all anyway.
If what one expects another to know cannot be written down and explained in simple terms, then what is that saying about if you cannot explain it simply then really how well do you know or understand it yourself?
I have absolutely no degree, the tiniest amount of education, absolutely no ability nor patience to study and learn, what cannot just be simply and easily explained anyway. To me Life, Itself, and understanding Life is extremely simple and easy. Only human beings complicate things and make things hard.
I am just a very slow and very simple kid in Life. I, unfortunately, see things differently from what I call "human beings" and so I have a great deal of trouble communicating with "them", on the most basic of terms.