Philosophy and the Twin Paradox

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Philosophy and the Twin Paradox

Post by creation »

Steve3007 wrote: December 30th, 2019, 5:38 pm
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.
Thanks Thom.
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)...
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.
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.

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.
Steve3007 wrote: December 30th, 2019, 5:38 pm
...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?
You 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.
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.
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.
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.

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.
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Philosophy and the Twin Paradox

Post by creation »

Sculptor1 wrote: December 30th, 2019, 2:01 pm
creation wrote: December 30th, 2019, 12:00 pm

Is this an absolute unambiguous irrefutable fact?



From a certain perspective this is very true. But we are a long way of looking at and discussing this.



Yes this is all very obvious.
So obvious in fact that you challenging my refutation of trickery is absurd.
Yes it would be absurd and is absurd to those who could have and have been tricked.

See the one who is doing the tricking is an expert at deception and deceit and so they have you fooled into believing and teaching things are true, which obviously are not.
Sculptor1 wrote: December 30th, 2019, 2:01 pm
If I recall correctly I have already explained this phenomena.
I think you mean phenomenon.
Okay. Thank you for the correction.
Sculptor1 wrote: December 30th, 2019, 2:01 pm I do not think we need that explained actually. We all went to school.
Not all of us, some of us did not. Some of us, like me, are still learning new and more things. Some, like me, have an absolute great deal more to learn and understand, as you are proving here.

Also, if you think you do not need that explained actually, then why did you explain it yourself. I was just saying, If I recalled correctly, I had already explained the phenomenon, which you had just already explained. I had just explained it another way.

So, if you do not think you need that explained, why then did you explain it yourself?
Sculptor1 wrote: December 30th, 2019, 2:01 pm
Human beings still in this day and age use the wrong terminology that the sun rises and the sun sets because people still say things on what they observe, and not on what is actually true, right, or correct.
It's a matter of convenience. I bet you do it too.
Saying, "it is a matter of convenience", is just another great example of being tricked, that is; being fooled into believing and/or saying things, which are completely false and/or untrue, and believing that this is just done out of convenience and not out of being misguided and/or misinformed. Continuing on expressing what is obviously completely old absolutely wrong and/or false is an example of how easily one can be so fooled and so simply deceived by lies and deception. The "justifications" they use to minimize and do the wrong they do also comes from lying and deceiving one's own self.

If you keep expressing and saying what is wrong and obviously untrue, then do not expect the generation to be expressing and saying what is right and the truth.
Sculptor1 wrote: December 30th, 2019, 2:01 pm
As I said, the 'tricking' comes from the BELIEVING, something is true.
You were wrong. Tricking comes from an act of deliberate deception.
Obviously if someone is believing something to be true, when it is not, then an act of deliberate deception has come from somewhere?

Why would a person even want to believe something is true, when it actually is not?

If you, yourself, are believing something is true, when it is not, then who do you think is the one that has been deliberately deceiving 'you'?

Could it be the senses, which tell someone like "steve3007", or could it be 'you', yourself, who is deliberately deceiving 'you'?

If the actual Truth is just HERE for all to observe and see, then why do some people BELIEVE things to be true, when they are NOT?

When who this is who does the deliberate deceiving, and why they do this, is learned and becomes known, then that helps in learning just how the Mind and the brain work. Or, when you learn how the Mind and the brain work then that helps in learning who is doing the deliberate deceiving, and why they do this also. Either way ALL-OF-THIS comes back onto itself to be completely self-explanatory.
Sculptor1 wrote: December 30th, 2019, 2:01 pmBut some people see conspiracies everywhere.
Some may do. But is having the ability to see conspiracies EVERYWHERE even truly possible, and really something that some people actually do do? Surely all people see the truth of things, sometimes?

Or, even could saying, "But some people see conspiracies everywhere", just be a conspiracy, in and of itself? Could it be a way to be deliberately deceptively to 'try to' deflect the issue and spotlight off of one thing, and move the attention onto focusing on something else? which may also be completely irrelevant, by the way?


Obviously people have views, from what they have observed. This goes without saying.

It is when people start BELIEVING these observed things as being actually true, when they are not, this is when people are tricking themselves.


[/quote]
[/quote]
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Philosophy and the Twin Paradox

Post by creation »

Sculptor1 wrote: December 30th, 2019, 2:07 pm
creation wrote: December 14th, 2019, 6:15 am
There is no dispute about the outcome at the reunion.

There should be some dispute as they will both be the exact same age.

Ageing depends on how long one is existing for.

Both exist for the same length.

Therefore, they will be the same age as each other, whenever they meet up.
The simple and verifiable fact is that when the twins meet up they shall be at different ages since they will have existed for different lengths of time.
I could also say, The simple and verifiable fact is that when the twins meet up they shall be the same ages since they will have existed for the same length or, what you call, "time".

But does me saying this prove it to be true? Do you saying what you said prove it to be true?

What are you going to use as verifiable fact, and what am I going to use as verifiable?
Sculptor1 wrote: December 30th, 2019, 2:07 pmThis effect has been demonstrated by the simple means of flying two planes around the direction of the earth's motion in opposite directions.
If you really want to look at and DISCUSS this, then let us do it. But if you believe that this has already been proven to be absolutely without any doubt, 100% absolutely true, then there is nothing to discuss, right?
Sculptor1 wrote: December 30th, 2019, 2:07 pmAs the motion of the earth subtracts from one and adds for another
Subtracts from 'what' exactly, and adds for another 'what' exactly?

What does the motion of the earth supposedly subtract from, and add for, EXACTLY?
Sculptor1 wrote: December 30th, 2019, 2:07 pmthere is a difference in velocity significant enough to make their internal clocks read at different times when they land.
There is also just the simple direction each clock traveled, relative to each other, which made each clock read differently when reunited.

Or, is this just not even a possibility, and thus not even worth considering, looking at, and/or discussing?

Saying something similar to; "But the "experts" have already delved into and considered this", is not going to help in OUR discussion. If they have already looked into this simple explanation, then is there any writings in relation to that, which I could be link to?
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Philosophy and the Twin Paradox

Post by creation »

Sculptor1 wrote: December 30th, 2019, 3:16 pm
Tamminen wrote: December 30th, 2019, 2:22 pm
From the article:

However, this need not have anything to do with time dilation, and I think no one in the research group had such a possibility in mind.
Atomic clocks do not have any telomeres.
Atomic clocks have been used to verify the theory of time dilation.
Has the theory of time dilation been verified, or is it said that the theory of time dilation has been verified?

Two very different things, with two very different consequences.
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Philosophy and the Twin Paradox

Post by creation »

Sculptor1 wrote: December 30th, 2019, 6:10 pm
Tamminen wrote: December 30th, 2019, 3:34 pm
Yes, of course. This was just about the implications of that article. Telomeres as such are markers of biological age, as far as I know, but I doubt that they can be measured so accurately that time dilation could be proved by them.
If telomeres are the "measure of biological time" as you suggest then they could only grow shorter. Whatever the evidence is of this un-referenced and dubious sounding report, does not change the fact that if you travel faster, less time passes subjectively.
If it is a fact that less, so called, "time" passes subjectively, then there is nothing to discuss, right?

If yes, then what is it in contention with the "twin paradox" then?

I thought the idea that, so called, "time", actually does pass slower or faster or not, was still open to some people. Is there anyone left still open to idea that maybe, just possibly, so called, "time" neither slows down nor speeds up with velocity, and/or gravity?

If there is, then would you like to discuss this issue here, or in another thread?
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Philosophy and the Twin Paradox

Post by creation »

Sculptor1 wrote: December 30th, 2019, 6:22 pm Okay, let's get real, The telomeres are probably completely irrelevant here.

Time dilation is a fact of nature, and has been verified by 2 airplanes. One flying east and one flying west, carrying atomic clocks, clones of another one on the ground.
You can read all about it here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment

This is not contested, and supports Einstein's prediction.
But it is contested. But obviously not by anyone who you are willing to listen to.

And, why use the phrase, "and supports Einstein's prediction"? Is this done because it appears as though it gives the " uncontested, so called, "verification" " more weight, or for some other reason?
Sculptor1 wrote: December 30th, 2019, 6:22 pmIt does not matter a jot if you don't like it, if you do not agree with it philosophically.
If philosophy cannot follow science, then it is without merit.
By all means critique the test. But no one who is serious about science has done that.
In fact since 1971 the experiment has been replicated, and refined and stands without contest or critique in nearly half a century.
So, again, what is it that, so called, "scientists" are in contention about here exactly?

What is in the theories of relativity, which is incompatible, inconsistent, and or in contradiction, which is being questioned or contested by people?
Sculptor1 wrote: December 30th, 2019, 6:22 pm
Tamminen said
I think the idea was that we have two synchronized "clocks", the telomeres of the twins, and use them like the clocks in the twin paradox (which in fact is just a prelude to the real twin paradox). We use the shortening of the telomeres as a measure of elapsed time. Impossible in practice, but a thought experiment for proving that time dilation also happens with biological age, not only usual clocks.
This is completely irrelevant.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Philosophy and the Twin Paradox

Post by Steve3007 »

creation wrote: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.
That proposition (about what people do when they are in "belief mode") can be put to the test.

In this post:

viewtopic.php?p=344358#p344358

I have quoted the particular part, from your many long posts, which contains a thought experiment about the topic. That thought experiment can be examined. As I said in that post, I am happy to address that thought experiment when I have time. But it is New Year's Eve today and I may not have time immediately.
Tamminen
Posts: 1347
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: Philosophy and the Twin Paradox

Post by Tamminen »

Steve3007 wrote: December 31st, 2019, 4:21 am In this post:

viewtopic.php?p=344358#p344358

I have quoted the particular part, from your many long posts, which contains a thought experiment about the topic. That thought experiment can be examined. As I said in that post, I am happy to address that thought experiment when I have time. But it is New Year's Eve today and I may not have time immediately.
Waiting for your analysis of that thought experiment, because the line of thought is in fact very clear and consistent. I understood it completely. But...
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Philosophy and the Twin Paradox

Post by Atla »

But it doesn't address Relativity, does it. If we could travel at light speed, from our perspective we would reach any point in the universe instantaneously. We wouldn't age at all, our clock wouldn't change at all either.
True philosophy points to the Moon
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Philosophy and the Twin Paradox

Post by Steve3007 »

Atla wrote:But it doesn't address Relativity, does it. If we could travel at light speed, from our perspective we would reach any point in the universe instantaneously. We wouldn't age at all, our clock wouldn't change at all either.
You may be in what creation would describe as "belief mode". I presume you stated what you did, above, because you've read that it's what Relativity predicts. I've read that too. But the object of the exercise is not simply to tell creation what we have read about Relativity. If past experience is anything to go by, he won't be impressed by that. The object of the exercise is, essentially, to rediscover the reasons why Relativity was deemed to be necessary in the first place by conducting a thought experiment and attempting to carefully follow the consequences of that thought experiment. It was thought experiments (gedankenexperiment) similar to this - imagining travelling at the speed of light - which were conducted by Einstein and which led him down the path to Special, and later General, Relativity.

Who knows, maybe we will conclude something different and decide to throw out Relativity? We won't know until we try. Either way, whether we re-affirm Relativity or decide that it doesn't make sense, we will have done something useful and interesting.
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Philosophy and the Twin Paradox

Post by Atla »

Steve3007 wrote: December 31st, 2019, 11:46 am
Atla wrote:But it doesn't address Relativity, does it. If we could travel at light speed, from our perspective we would reach any point in the universe instantaneously. We wouldn't age at all, our clock wouldn't change at all either.
You may be in what creation would describe as "belief mode". I presume you stated what you did, above, because you've read that it's what Relativity predicts. I've read that too. But the object of the exercise is not simply to tell creation what we have read about Relativity. If past experience is anything to go by, he won't be impressed by that. The object of the exercise is, essentially, to rediscover the reasons why Relativity was deemed to be necessary in the first place by conducting a thought experiment and attempting to carefully follow the consequences of that thought experiment. It was thought experiments (gedankenexperiment) similar to this - imagining travelling at the speed of light - which were conducted by Einstein and which led him down the path to Special, and later General, Relativity.

Who knows, maybe we will conclude something different and decide to throw out Relativity? We won't know until we try. Either way, whether we re-affirm Relativity or decide that it doesn't make sense, we will have done something useful and interesting.
Since all the predictions were confirmed so far, defaulting to absolute space and time is more of a "belief mode".
True philosophy points to the Moon
User avatar
Thomyum2
Posts: 366
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James

Re: Philosophy and the Twin Paradox

Post by Thomyum2 »

There's actually a very informative article on Wikipedia that covers the Twin Paradox in a lot more detail than has been explored here. I'd recommend it as background reading for this discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.”
— Epictetus
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7094
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Philosophy and the Twin Paradox

Post by Sculptor1 »

creation wrote: December 30th, 2019, 11:17 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: December 30th, 2019, 2:01 pm
So obvious in fact that you challenging my refutation of trickery is absurd.
Yes it would be absurd and is absurd to those who could have and have been tricked.
I'd hate to be you.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7094
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Philosophy and the Twin Paradox

Post by Sculptor1 »

creation wrote: December 30th, 2019, 11:33 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: December 30th, 2019, 2:07 pm
The simple and verifiable fact is that when the twins meet up they shall be at different ages since they will have existed for different lengths of time.
I could also say, The simple and verifiable fact is that when the twins meet up they shall be the same ages since......
No you could not.
The fact of time dilation is not contested.
On another post you said you did not go to school.
That might be forgivable. But ignorance of something as basic as this, when the evidence is so easily available is not.
You might as well insist that the moon is made of green cheese as to refute time dilation.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7094
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Philosophy and the Twin Paradox

Post by Sculptor1 »

creation wrote: December 30th, 2019, 11:37 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: December 30th, 2019, 3:16 pm
Atomic clocks do not have any telomeres.
Atomic clocks have been used to verify the theory of time dilation.
Has the theory of time dilation been verified, or is it said that the theory of time dilation has been verified?

Two very different things, with two very different consequences.
It has been verified, and has been replicated several times.
The results comply with the results expected by the theory.
No one contests this.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021