Philosophy and the Twin Paradox

[Sculptor1]

If they were confirmed literally beyond any doubt at all then there would be nothing to discuss.

In fact there is nothing to discuss.

[creation]

If they were confirmed literally beyond any doubt at all then there would be nothing to discuss.

In fact there is nothing to discuss.

Great, then just as I predicted, it has been verified true.

But just as I also predicted, this will not stop you.

[Steve3007]

viewtopic.php?p=344642#p344642

If we want to look at and discuss this point, then, to me, there is only one thing that I know, for sure, which is confirmed beyond or without any doubt at all, and that is the thoughts within this body. As for absolutely everything else is concerned then they all could be a complete figment of imagination.

This is, of course, vaguely similar to the point made by Descartes when he said "I think therefore I am". Yes, everything but your own thoughts could indeed be a complete figment of your imagination. I agree. However, although it is possible, I don't consider it particularly useful to think that. I prefer to go with the theory that there exists an objective world containing such objects as tables and twins. I find it useful to think that. How about you? Do you find it useful to think that?

But this then would defeat the whole purpose of 'relativity', itself. Well to me anyway.

Yes, it would indeed defeat the whole purpose of "relativity". And that is why the principle of Relativity (whether it's Einstein's of Galileo's principle) is so called. The basic defining principle of Galilean Relativity, of which Einstein's Relativity is an extension, is that no reference frame is objectively more significant than any other.

That is what Atla meant in this post:

viewtopic.php?p=344430#p344430

Because absolutely everything is relative to the observer, and, hitherto, most human beings only look at and see things from their perspective only, individually or collectively, having a notion that there is a particular spatial and temporal reference from which is regarded as more significant, in any sense, than other reference frames, to me, now explains further where, and why, there is still so much confusion coming from, and existing, in regards to this topic.

Why does this explain why there is confusion coming from, and existing, in regards to this topic? What, in your view, is that confusion about?

Okay. But I am not sure why you are saying this, ...

The reason why I am saying this is that, as I said, it is a fundamental starting point to the principle of relativity which began with Galileo. It is my view that this principle of relativity and its implications needs to be understood fully before continuing.

...nor where this is leading to, if anywhere.

As a general rule, the best way to find out where something is going is to read on.

This is the trouble and issue with 'science' and 'theories'. Both never lead to actually discovering, understanding, and knowing what the actual truth is and what the irrefutable facts of things are.

When you refer to "actual truth" do you mean "logically certain truth"? When you refer to "irrefutable facts" do you mean "facts that it would be logically self-contradictory to deny and which could not rationally be doubted"?

If yes, then you are correct to state that nothing at all in science leads to logically certain truths or irrefutable facts. Anybody who engages in any kind of scientific research or observation understands this implicitly. It is so well understood that it is rarely explicitly stated.

If you want logically certain truths, science is not for you. You need to stick to pure logic and mathematics.

Actual truths and irrefutable facts are found, known, and understood in other ways than through science and theories. Science and theories are just to cumbersome and work in a way that is just way too slow of a process, for me.

Then I suggest you stick to pure logic and mathematics.

This is why I do not like to look at theories, nor even make them. They are, after all, just an assumption or guess at what might be true, right, and correct.

I think you are incorrect to state that the predictions of science are either assumptions or guesses. To me, a guess is what I do when somebody tosses a coin and asks "heads or tails?". My belief that there is a table in front of me, or that unsupported objects fall to the ground (for example), are not guesses. But they are also not logically certain truths either.

I much prefer to just look at, and talk about, what is actually true, right, and correct only, instead.

Fair enough. So why have you posted so many comments in a topic which is all about one of the predictions of science? If what you say about yourself if true, I would have expected you to stick to questions of pure logic and to be wholly uninterested in any subject which involves descriptions and predictions of empirical observations.

Yes, you could do this theorizing and waiting,...

Waiting? What did I say I was waiting for? Waiting for evidence to refute my theory that there is a table in front of me? I'm not waiting for that. I'm getting on with my life, happily resting my arms on the table, even though I don't know with certainty that it is there.

...and we could talk about these unknowns for the rest of eternity, and still not get anywhere at all really, and not really being anywhere is about exactly where human beings are, at the moment, in their search for knowledge and understanding, relatively speaking. They are essentially nowhere really.

OK. If that's your view then, as I said, stick to pure logic.

For example, some people want to insist that some theories have already been confirmed, by "absolutely every experiment conducted", but when pointing out that this is just another belief, like all other beliefs, then I am told things like, "But science does not work this way".

When they say that, do you understand what they mean? Do you understand that they are NOT saying that those theories are certain truths?

Well people cannot have things both ways, with whatever suits their current thinking at the time.

They don't seek to have things both ways.

Now if people want to look at and use theories as though they have already been confirmed, and thus insist in a sense that those theories cannot be challenged, and/or refuted, then stick to those views or beliefs, and admit that there is nothing at all to discuss here.

Who insists that theories cannot be challenged?

If, however, people want to look at the truth of things and admit that theories, in essence, are just a guess at what is true, then be prepared to accept that what is assumed or believed to already be verified and true may actually be false.

They are not guesses. You appear to me to think that there are guesses and there is certain truth and there is nothing in between. If you do think that, I disagree.

Either a theory is still able to be falsified, or verified, or it has already been proven true or false.

Could you please define how you're using the word "proven" here. There are at least two distinct uses of that word to my knowledge.

So, either there are theories of relativity still in existence, or relativity has already been proven true, or false. So, which one is it?

We need to establish what you mean by the word "proven" before answering this.

If relativity is still just a theory, then let us continuing discussing. If, however, relativity has already been proven true, then there is NOTHING to discuss, correct?

We need to establish what you mean by the word "proven" before answering this.

So, what is predicted?

We'll come to the details of what is predicted later (if you're interested). We have not yet reached that stage. In general terms, I have already said what is predicted.

If you are going to say that the theory does not make any predictions about traveling at the speed of light, then I am already aware of this.

No, I'm not going to say that. As I've said before, there is nothing wrong with you conducting thought experiments about travelling at the speed of light. We can also conduct thought experiments about travelling arbitrarily close to the speed of light.

But I have NOT reject this at all. In fact I agree wholeheartedly with this.

You appeared, previously, near the beginning of this topic, to have rejected the Theory of Relativity. I must be mistaken in thinking that.

What is the fundamental first principle of the theory that you are assuming I have misunderstood exactly?

It is the principle of relativity. If you have not misunderstood it then what I thought I saw in your words, at first glance, must have been wrong.

Okay, this is already well understood, also.

Good.

Except for the obvious experiment of just LOOKING and just OBSERVING. Remember, the irrefutable fact, Everything is relative to the observer.

Looking at what? Observing what? Remember, I said this:

More generally: no experiment or observation that he does/makes within his own reference frame will give him any clue that he is moving at all.

Do you know what I mean by a "reference frame"? Do you know what I mean by the expression "observation that he does/makes within his own reference frame"? If not, I'm happy to tell you.

If you want another thought experiment, think of sitting inside a windowless train carriage travelling on a perfectly smooth track at constant velocity. Is there anything that you can do inside that carriage to work out how fast it is going?

Unless you say that this is not an irrefutable fact. And, therefore you could refute it, and if so, then how?

I wouldn't write it as "everything is relative to the observer". I would write it as I have already done.

The experiment done, by just observing, WILL provide him with the clue that they are moving.

What experiment? Can you tell me what is observed? Is what is observed within his own reference frame?

If you say so, but how did we discover this? Just by thought alone?

Was it from observation, as well? If yes, then okay.

By observation. As I type this, I can see a car going by on the road outside. I observe that it is moving relative to me.

And so to are all clocks ticking away normally, no matter what speed they are traveling at.

Clocks do not tick slower because they are traveling faster.

Which clocks? How do you ascertain what speed they are travelling at? Travelling relative to what?

Who does? Let them speak up now, or forever hold their peace.

Anybody who is familiar with the Theory of Relativity. I can't make them speak or control what they say.

[Sculptor1]

In fact there is nothing to discuss.

Great, then just as I predicted, it has been verified true.

But just as I also predicted, this will not stop you.

More gibberish

[creation]

viewtopic.php?p=344642#p344642

If we want to look at and discuss this point, then, to me, there is only one thing that I know, for sure, which is confirmed beyond or without any doubt at all, and that is the thoughts within this body. As for absolutely everything else is concerned then they all could be a complete figment of imagination.

This is, of course, vaguely similar to the point made by Descartes when he said "I think therefore I am". Yes, everything but your own thoughts could indeed be a complete figment of your imagination. I agree. However, although it is possible, I don't consider it particularly useful to think that. I prefer to go with the theory that there exists an objective world containing such objects as tables and twins. I find it useful to think that. How about you? Do you find it useful to think that?

I not only think this, I know of a way to look and see from a Truly Objective perspective, which allows to discover what is Objectively True as well.

I also found it very useful to discover and work out that the thoughts within this body is the only thing that I can absolutely know and be sure of, as this helped in understanding what is Objectively True, from what is just subjectively true.

By the way, there is no "your imagination". This is because of who and what 'I' am, objectively, and who and what a subjective person is.

I also prefer to NEVER go with any theories, and instead prefer to just look at and concentrate what is actually true, right, and correct, instead. That way I can SEE the Universe, at best, from the Truly Objective perspective.

But this then would defeat the whole purpose of 'relativity', itself. Well to me anyway.

Yes, it would indeed defeat the whole purpose of "relativity". And that is why the principle of Relativity (whether it's Einstein's of Galileo's principle) is so called. The basic defining principle of Galilean Relativity, of which Einstein's Relativity is an extension, is that no reference frame is objectively more significant than any other.

But there IS one reference from where a Truly Objective view can be gathered. From this vantage point everything is observed and seen objectively, and so this is where Truly Objective viewpoints are obtained.

Obviously there is no reference frame that is objectively "more" significant that any other, as there is only One Objective frame of reference, all other frames of references are just subjective ones.

That is what Atla meant in this post:

viewtopic.php?p=344430#p344430

What part of what atla said in that post did atla mean what you were saying? By the way what part of what you said, do you say that this is what atla meant, as well?

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.

And this is wrong on two counts.

1. From our perspective we would not arrive instantaneously. From our perspective the trip would take as long as it did.

2. We would age just as much as how long the trip took, and our clocks would change the same in relation to how long the trip took.

Because absolutely everything is relative to the observer, and, hitherto, most human beings only look at and see things from their perspective only, individually or collectively, having a notion that there is a particular spatial and temporal reference from which is regarded as more significant, in any sense, than other reference frames, to me, now explains further where, and why, there is still so much confusion coming from, and existing, in regards to this topic.

Why does this explain why there is confusion coming from, and existing, in regards to this topic?

Because there are some people who actually think and/or believe that there is some frames of reference that are regarded as more significant than others.

There is only One frame of reference that is Truly significant and important, that is; the Objective viewpoint, which could not be false, not be wrong, and could not be incorrect. Every other frame of reference comes from just a subjective vantage point, which obviously could hold false, wrong, and/or incorrect viewpoints.

What, in your view, is that confusion about?

That confusion is about space, time, traveling, and effects, to name but just a few.

Okay. But I am not sure why you are saying this, ...

The reason why I am saying this is that, as I said, it is a fundamental starting point to the principle of relativity which began with Galileo. It is my view that this principle of relativity and its implications needs to be understood fully before continuing.

But there are very logical reasons for claiming what is the absolute Truth.

Those reasons are that 'It' is absolutely True. If everything agrees with something, then 'It' is absolutely True.

This can been very easily understood from the vantage point of see things from the reference frame of Objectivity.

...nor where this is leading to, if anywhere.

As a general rule, the best way to find out where something is going is to read on.

Okay, if you say so.

But another general rule is, what I said is generally in relation to what was written before it, in the past, and not what will be written after it, and in the future.

This is the trouble and issue with 'science' and 'theories'. Both never lead to actually discovering, understanding, and knowing what the actual truth is and what the irrefutable facts of things are.

When you refer to "actual truth" do you mean "logically certain truth"?

Yes, for now.

When you refer to "irrefutable facts" do you mean "facts that it would be logically self-contradictory to deny and which could not rationally be doubted"?

Yes, close enough, for now.

If yes, then you are correct to state that nothing at all in science leads to logically certain truths or irrefutable facts. Anybody who engages in any kind of scientific research or observation understands this implicitly. It is so well understood that it is rarely explicitly stated.

Fair enough, and this is the exact reason why I do not necessarily like nor enjoy looking at theories and or science.

I much prefer to just look at what is actually True, from the very outset, and knowing what the actual Truth is, instead of all this theorizing and experimenting, which never actually gets to knowing.

For example, looking at the Truth of things from the outset, one then discovers and knows the Universe is infinite and eternal, relatively instantly, compared to the thousands upon thousands of years theorizing about the Universe beginning, and then going along looking to verify or falsify that theory or prediction.

If you want logically certain truths, science is not for you.

This is what I have been saying.

You need to stick to pure logic and mathematics.

Mathematics is not my forte either. I also do not generally like to stick to just one, nor another, thing.

I prefer to just use thee Truly OPEN Mind, then observations and experiences to gain knowledge. That way I can SEE and UNDERSTAND thee Truth of things, almost immediately.

Actual truths and irrefutable facts are found, known, and understood in other ways than through science and theories. Science and theories are just to cumbersome and work in a way that is just way too slow of a process, for me.

Then I suggest you stick to pure logic and mathematics.

I have already explained my view on your suggestion here.

This is why I do not like to look at theories, nor even make them. They are, after all, just an assumption or guess at what might be true, right, and correct.

I think you are incorrect to state that the predictions of science are either assumptions or guesses. To me, a guess is what I do when somebody tosses a coin and asks "heads or tails?". My belief that there is a table in front of me, or that unsupported objects fall to the ground (for example), are not guesses. But they are also not logically certain truths either.

Okay. So you have not given me any reason here to not keep saying that predictions in science are, in essence, just another assumption and/or guess, in and of themselves.

I much prefer to just look at, and talk about, what is actually true, right, and correct only, instead.

Fair enough. So why have you posted so many comments in a topic which is all about one of the predictions of science?

Because of what is wrong in it.

If what you say about yourself if true, I would have expected you to stick to questions of pure logic and to be wholly uninterested in any subject which involves descriptions and predictions of empirical observations.

What you have expected in regards to 'I' might be the exact opposite of what you would have expected?

Yes, you could do this theorizing and waiting,...

Waiting?

Yes, waiting.

What did I say I was waiting for?

I do not recall you ever saying you were waiting for anything.

Did you say you were waiting for anything?

Waiting for evidence to refute my theory that there is a table in front of me?

No, my answer was not about you.

You wrote:
And that also goes for all theories that we don't normally think of as theories.

So, waiting, was in relation to all theories, and not just yours, and waiting for all of those theories to be either falsified or verified.

I'm not waiting for that.

Okay. But I had never even thought about that, let alone even considered writing it down anywhere.

I'm getting on with my life, happily resting my arms on the table, even though I don't know with certainty that it is there.

Okay.

...and we could talk about these unknowns for the rest of eternity, and still not get anywhere at all really, and not really being anywhere is about exactly where human beings are, at the moment, in their search for knowledge and understanding, relatively speaking. They are essentially nowhere really.

OK. If that's your view then, as I said, stick to pure logic.

Human beings, in this day and age, really do have a "one" or "the other" kind of attitude to about just all things in Life. But this is obviously expected considering how they are brought up, and are taught.

For example, some people want to insist that some theories have already been confirmed, by "absolutely every experiment conducted", but when pointing out that this is just another belief, like all other beliefs, then I am told things like, "But science does not work this way".

When they say that, do you understand what they mean?

I am pretty sure I do. I also completely understand why they do NOT know what I mean.

Do you understand that they are NOT saying that those theories are certain truths?

Yes. They keep reminding me of this fact when I say things one way. But, they are also quick to remind me that some of those theories have already been verified by "absolutely every experiment conducted". Human beings are easy to predict what they will say. This can be verified by experiments using different words and saying things in particular ways.

Well people cannot have things both ways, with whatever suits their current thinking at the time.

They don't seek to have things both ways.

Are you speaking for ALL people, just some people, or just yourself here?

Now if people want to look at and use theories as though they have already been confirmed, and thus insist in a sense that those theories cannot be challenged, and/or refuted, then stick to those views or beliefs, and admit that there is nothing at all to discuss here.

Who insists that theories cannot be challenged?

When people say things like:
We wouldn't age at all, our clock wouldn't change at all either.

Then in a sense they are, more or less, saying "move along there is nothing to look at and discuss here", or in other words, this theory cannot be challenged. See, some people are not as open to the theories, which they believe have already been confirmed and/or verified, being challenged, as others like to think or believe that they are open to theories being challenged.

If, however, people want to look at the truth of things and admit that theories, in essence, are just a guess at what is true, then be prepared to accept that what is assumed or believed to already be verified and true may actually be false.

They are not guesses.

Is this an irrefutable fact, or just your view on this?

You appear to me to think that there are guesses and there is certain truth and there is nothing in between. If you do think that, I disagree.

Well I do not think that, so do you now agree with me?

And, I thought you said you were going to clarify, with me, before making more assumptions, about me, in regards to what I say?

Either a theory is still able to be falsified, or verified, or it has already been proven true or false.

Could you please define how you're using the word "proven" here.

Demonstrated with actual evidence, through tried and tested experiments.

There are at least two distinct uses of that word to my knowledge.

Okay

So, either there are theories of relativity still in existence, or relativity has already been proven true, or false. So, which one is it?

We need to establish what you mean by the word "proven" before answering this.

Okay I have done that already.

If relativity is still just a theory, then let us continuing discussing. If, however, relativity has already been proven true, then there is NOTHING to discuss, correct?

We need to establish what you mean by the word "proven" before answering this.

So, what is predicted?

We'll come to the details of what is predicted later (if you're interested).

Okay, but why the wait?

I prefer to just look at the truth from the outset. You said that what I wrote is not what is predicted in relativity.

We have not yet reached that stage.

Why? How many stages are there, and what do they consist of?

In general terms, I have already said what is predicted.

And what were those general terms, exactly? From what I recall is you have not yet said what is predicted in general terms, you have just said that what I wrote is not what is predicted.

I hope we do not write back and forth for quite some time to get to a stage where you say something like: "You are wrong because that is not what was predicted".

I would find revealing what is actually predicted, to you, in the beginning, so then I know how to respond better to what it actually is that you have, might speed up this process somewhat.

If you are going to say that the theory does not make any predictions about traveling at the speed of light, then I am already aware of this.

No, I'm not going to say that. As I've said before, there is nothing wrong with you conducting thought experiments about travelling at the speed of light. We can also conduct thought experiments about travelling arbitrarily close to the speed of light.

Okay.

But I have NOT reject this at all. In fact I agree wholeheartedly with this.

You appeared, previously, near the beginning of this topic, to have rejected the Theory of Relativity. I must be mistaken in thinking that.

Yes this is because of the way things are written and interpreted.

What is the fundamental first principle of the theory that you are assuming I have misunderstood exactly?

It is the principle of relativity. If you have not misunderstood it then what I thought I saw in your words, at first glance, must have been wrong.

Okay.

Okay, this is already well understood, also.

Good.

Looking at what?

Objects.

Observing what?

Objects.

Remember, I said this:

Yes I remember this quite well. The very reason I wrote what I did, above, where you quoted me above your quote here, is because of this exact quote of yours here.

Do you know what I mean by a "reference frame"?

Without you clarifying for me, yourself, I will never know. But I think I know what you mean.

Do you know what I mean by the expression "observation that he does/makes within his own reference frame"? If not, I'm happy to tell you.

Please tell me, and while you are at it, so I am more clearer, from your perspective, you might as well tell me what you mean when you say, "reference frame". Then I can tell you more about why I wrote about just looking and just observing.

If you want another thought experiment, think of sitting inside a windowless train carriage travelling on a perfectly smooth track at constant velocity. Is there anything that you can do inside that carriage to work out how fast it is going?

No. But now that you added the word "windowless", then that changes the whole dynamics of the discussion.

Not that it really matters to this subject, but just how many forms of human transport are created, which involves windowless modes of travel?

Unless you say that this is not an irrefutable fact. And, therefore you could refute it, and if so, then how?

I wouldn't write it as "everything is relative to the observer". I would write it as I have already done.

When you say you would not write 'it' as ....., and, when you say you would write 'it' as ...., then what does both of those 'it's' refer to exactly?

The experiment done, by just observing, WILL provide him with the clue that they are moving.

What experiment?

Looking and observing.

Can you tell me what is observed?

Objects, coming closer, and going past.

Is what is observed within his own reference frame?

That all depends on what exactly do you mean by "his own reference frame" in the example given.

If you say so, but how did we discover this? Just by thought alone?

Was it from observation, as well? If yes, then okay.

By observation. As I type this, I can see a car going by on the road outside. I observe that it is moving relative to me.

So, it IS from observation we know things.

Therefore, it IS from observation that he does/makes within his own reference frame that will give him a clue that he is moving at all, correct?

If this is correct, then could you please explain the contradiction with your statement and proposition:
More generally: no experiment or observation that he does/makes within his own reference frame will give him any clue that he is moving at all.

If, however, that was not correct, then could you please explain why you said that it was, By observation. When I asked you:
How did we discover, your claim that; We, sitting here on Earth, are already moving at almost the speed of light relative to all kinds of other objects?

And so to are all clocks ticking away normally, no matter what speed they are traveling at.

Clocks do not tick slower because they are traveling faster.

Which clocks?

ALL clocks.

How do you ascertain what speed they are travelling at?

Because ALL clocks, if working properly, with enough power source, and if created to tick at the same rate, will tick at the same rate no matter how fast they are traveling (nor how far away from earth they are), so it does not matter what speed they are traveling at.

Travelling relative to what?

This also does not matter.

This is because of the irrefutable fact. Absolutely everything is relative to the observer.

Who does? Let them speak up now, or forever hold their peace.

Anybody who is familiar with the Theory of Relativity. I can't make them speak or control what they say.

Okay.

But do you dispute what I said?

If yes, then why?

By the way, I have presented my view of things, and so far no one has contested what I have actually said. As can be evidenced here, I am just continually told of what the theory of relativity says, which if we go back to the beginning from near when I started in this thread when I said:
Now, you can keep informing me of what you have been taught, from others, which you now believe is the truth of things. But, I am not really interested in what you nor others have been taught and believe is true. I much prefer to just look at what actually happens and actually does occur instead.

What can be seen things have not really progressed past this at all.

I am just usually told something like: "You are wrong", and not much else at all. I was even told that what I wrote was not what the theory of relativity predicts, to which I asked for confirmation about what was the actual prediction made by relativity, only to be told that that will come at a later stage. All while I am also being told what I should stick to, and what I should not do.

I think I know what I am doing. I have made a claim, or two, of which I say I do not need others for help nor support. So, either my claims are True and Right, or they are false and/or wrong. I appear to be saying things, which completely contradict what others accept as being true, so where are the challenges against what I have claimed?

[creation]

Great, then just as I predicted, it has been verified true.

But just as I also predicted, this will not stop you.

More gibberish

Some might now say that that prediction has now been confirmed.

[Sculptor1]

More gibberish

Some might now say that that prediction has now been confirmed.

gibber, gibber.....

[Steve3007]

I don't think it's worth trying to address every point in the post to which I'm replying any more. And I don't have time. So I'll stick to what I regard as the most important points.

...The basic defining principle of Galilean Relativity, of which Einstein's Relativity is an extension, is that no reference frame is objectively more significant than any other.

But there IS one reference from where a Truly Objective view can be gathered. From this vantage point everything is observed and seen objectively, and so this is where Truly Objective viewpoints are obtained.

What is that "Truly Objective" reference frame's velocity relative to the reference frame in which I am at rest? What is that "Truly Objective" reference frame's velocity relative to the reference frame in which you are at rest? Which objects are at rest relative to that "Truly Objective" reference frame?

Fair enough. So why have you posted so many comments in a topic which is all about one of the predictions of science?

Because of what is wrong in it.

If you think that the predictions of science are guesses because they do not lead to irrefutable facts (i.e. propositions that it would be logically self-contradictory to deny) then, in order to be internally consistent, you would not think it is either right or wrong. You would consider it irrelevant.

So, waiting, was in relation to all theories, and not just yours, and waiting for all of those theories to be either falsified or verified.

Nobody is waiting for this. All of the existing laws of physics are being used now. People are finding them useful. Not just me. All over the world people are getting on with their lives, making good use of tables and chairs that they don't know for certain to exist.

When people say things like:
We wouldn't age at all, our clock wouldn't change at all either.

Then in a sense they are, more or less, saying "move along there is nothing to look at and discuss here", or in other words, this theory cannot be challenged.

If somebody were to say that then, in my view, their words would be incorrect or incomplete.

They are not guesses.

Is this an irrefutable fact, or just your view on this?

It is my understanding and usage of the word "guess".

Could you please define how you're using the word "proven" here.

Demonstrated with actual evidence, through tried and tested experiments.

Ok. That is one usage of the word "proven". It means testing an objective empirical proposition by an empirical observation, as in the old saying "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". In that sense of the word, I can prove whether it is raining outside by looking out of the window; I can prove whether there is a table in front of me by looking and feeling in front of me; I can prove whether somebody else's clock shows a different time to my own by looking at the two clocks etc. None of those proofs (in that sense of the word) lead to certain knowledge. All empirical propositions demonstrated by empirical observations (whether or not those observations were made by me or made by somebody else and reported to me) could potentially be falsified by future empirical observations.

Your stated position is that this kind of proof leads only to guesses and that you prefer not to have much to do with it.

The second kind of proof is logical proof. Logical proofs do not rely on empirical observations. They are logically bound to be true in the sense that denying them would lead to self-contradiction. They are enunciations of our determination to use certain symbols in certain ways. They demonstrate the truth of tautologies and the falseness of oxymorons. These proofs cannot tell you anything about the observed world. They cannot tell you anything at all about whether it is currently raining outside, whether there is a table in front of you or the relative tick-rates of clocks.

All of the proofs of mathematics are examples of these kinds of proofs. Your's and RJG's claims that the Universe is infinite and eternal are what you and RJG (if you were thinking clearly) would regard as logical proofs like this. You and RJG propose that one doesn't need to make any empirical observations to demonstrate that the Universe is infinite and eternal. RJG has made it clear that he is of the opinion that their truth can be arrived at by thought and logic alone. You have indicated that you agree with him. (I disagree and have already had long discussions with RJG about this in the past which I probably won't be repeating.)

If you do not already know the difference between those two distinict and different uses of the word proof, It is my opinion that you should learn it.

So, what is predicted?

We'll come to the details of what is predicted later (if you're interested).

Okay, but why the wait?

I prefer to just look at the truth from the outset. You said that what I wrote is not what is predicted in relativity.

Given the particular way in which you have used the word "truth" I do not see why you regard anything that anybody will ever empirically observe or predict as helping you to "look at the truth". But since you ask anyway:

This is what is predicted by the Special Theory of Relativity.

If two observers are receding from each other at constant relative velocity (i.e. they are in different inertial reference frames) then, while this is happening, they will each observe ticks from the the other's clock more slowly when they compare it to their own, or to any clock which is in the same inertial reference frame as themselves. If two observers are moving towards each other then, while this is happening, they will each observe ticks from the other's clock as faster than their own, or than any clock which is in the same inertial reference frame as themselves.

An observer in an inertial reference frame that is moving relative to another inertial reference frame will measure/observe all distances in that other inertial reference frame to be shortened in the direction of motion when compared to distances in his own inertial reference frame. So if our two twins each carry with them a ruler (as well as a clock) and if, as with the clocks, they have established those rulers to be identical when they are in the same inertial reference frame as each other, when moving relative to each other they will each measure the other's ruler to be short relative to their own.

I you do not understand any of the meaning of any of the terminology in the above, please say so. If you do not say, I assume you know the standard meanings, in this context, of all the words I'm using. If you've read enough about what Special Relativity says in order to know enough about what it predicts in order to critique those predictions then you will already be very, very well versed in this kind of terminology.

But I give a definition of the term "reference frame" below.

I would find revealing what is actually predicted, to you, in the beginning, so then I know how to respond better to what it actually is that you have, might speed up this process somewhat.

Having been through the series of logical arguments, starting from things that I have personally observed and/or conducted experiments about, that ultimately led to what I have described above, I think that what is described above is indeed what would be observed. This process involves various empirical observations that I and others have made. I may have been hallucinating all of my observations. Those other may have been hallucinating. Those others may have been lying. Those others may themselves not exist and be hallucinations. I may have mis-read my observations. Others may have mis-read their observation. I may have made a mistake in the logical arguments. I may be a disembodied mind in an otherwise empty Universe, etc, etc. All of those things may be true. Based on current evidence, I don't find it useful to think that they are. That works for me.

Do you know what I mean by the expression "observation that he does/makes within his own reference frame"? If not, I'm happy to tell you.

Please tell me, and while you are at it, so I am more clearer, from your perspective, you might as well tell me what you mean when you say, "reference frame". Then I can tell you more about why I wrote about just looking and just observing.

Two or more objects are in the same reference frame as each other if they are stationary relative to each other. A reference frame can, if you like, be thought of as a notional set of axes (plural of axis) in space. Objects in that reference frame do not move relative to those axes. An inertial reference frame is one that is not accelerating or in the presence of gravity. If an object is described as being stationary or "at rest" in, or with respect to (WRT), a reference frame this means that it is stationary WRT to all other objects that are stationary WRT that reference frame.

Note: for the sake of brevity, above, I have often referred to objects being "in" a reference frame. The fuller and more formally correct thing to talk about is objects that are "stationary WRT" a reference frame.

So when I talk about "observation that he does/makes within his own reference frame" I mean observations of other objects that are "in" that reference frame; that are stationary/at rest relative to that reference frame.

No. But now that you added the word "windowless", then that changes the whole dynamics of the discussion.

If you understand what I mean by "observation that he does/makes within his own reference frame" then you will understand why I used the word "windowless" and you would expect me to do so. By the same token, you would understand why I stipulated, in this thought experiment, that the train tracks are "smooth".

[creation]

I don't think it's worth trying to address every point in the post to which I'm replying any more. And I don't have time. So I'll stick to what I regard as the most important points.

...The basic defining principle of Galilean Relativity, of which Einstein's Relativity is an extension, is that no reference frame is objectively more significant than any other.

But there IS one reference from where a Truly Objective view can be gathered. From this vantage point everything is observed and seen objectively, and so this is where Truly Objective viewpoints are obtained.

What is that "Truly Objective" reference frame's velocity relative to the reference frame in which I am at rest?

It is the same 'at rest' for you as for everything else.

What is that "Truly Objective" reference frame's velocity relative to the reference frame in which you are at rest?

The same.

Which objects are at rest relative to that "Truly Objective" reference frame?

Every object.

See, contrary to popular belief, velocity does not affect the reference frame. Velocity only appears to affect reference frame.

Fair enough. So why have you posted so many comments in a topic which is all about one of the predictions of science?

Because of what is wrong in it.

If you think that the predictions of science are guesses because they do not lead to irrefutable facts (i.e. propositions that it would be logically self-contradictory to deny) then, in order to be internally consistent, you would not think it is either right or wrong. You would consider it irrelevant.

But predictions of science, which are, to me, just more or less guesses in and of themselves, may actually lead to irrefutable facts. Why did you assume or believe that I thought that they do not lead to irrefutable facts?

I do think scientific theories, such as the ones of relativity, irrelevant.

So, waiting, was in relation to all theories, and not just yours, and waiting for all of those theories to be either falsified or verified.

Nobody is waiting for this. All of the existing laws of physics are being used now. People are finding them useful. Not just me. All over the world people are getting on with their lives, making good use of tables and chairs that they don't know for certain to exist.

Okay.

When people say things like:
We wouldn't age at all, our clock wouldn't change at all either.

Then in a sense they are, more or less, saying "move along there is nothing to look at and discuss here", or in other words, this theory cannot be challenged.

If somebody were to say that then, in my view, their words would be incorrect or incomplete.

Okay. I wonder if the person who said that will see your words here?

They are not guesses.

Is this an irrefutable fact, or just your view on this?

It is my understanding and usage of the word "guess".

Okay.

Could you please define how you're using the word "proven" here.

Demonstrated with actual evidence, through tried and tested experiments.

Ok. That is one usage of the word "proven". It means testing an objective empirical proposition by an empirical observation, as in the old saying "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". In that sense of the word, I can prove whether it is raining outside by looking out of the window; I can prove whether there is a table in front of me by looking and feeling in front of me; I can prove whether somebody else's clock shows a different time to my own by looking at the two clocks etc. None of those proofs (in that sense of the word) lead to certain knowledge. All empirical propositions demonstrated by empirical observations (whether or not those observations were made by me or made by somebody else and reported to me) could potentially be falsified by future empirical observations.

Yes agreed.

Just like the empirical observations that supposedly "confirmed" that time accelerates or decelerates depending on the speed at which an object is moving, this "confirmation" could also potentially be falsified by future empirical observations.

Your stated position is that this kind of proof leads only to guesses and that you prefer not to have much to do with it.

But proofs lead to proving one thing or another, so it is not my stated position that this kind of proof leads on to guesses at all. Why did you assume or believe that I had that kind of position.

Also, if human beings want to make more guesses and theories, on proofs, then that is there prerogative, but they do not have to.

The second kind of proof is logical proof. Logical proofs do not rely on empirical observations. They are logically bound to be true in the sense that denying them would lead to self-contradiction. They are enunciations of our determination to use certain symbols in certain ways. They demonstrate the truth of tautologies and the falseness of oxymorons. These proofs cannot tell you anything about the observed world. They cannot tell you anything at all about whether it is currently raining outside, whether there is a table in front of you or the relative tick-rates of clocks.

But they could, for example, tell you, but only if you are listening, that time accelerates or decelerates depending on the speed at which an object is moving is false and wrong.

The fact that logical proofs can tell you this is because 'time', itself, is not some thing, which could even accelerate or decelerate.

But this is just my view, which some people will completely ignore.

All of the proofs of mathematics are examples of these kinds of proofs. Your's and RJG's claims that the Universe is infinite and eternal are what you and RJG (if you were thinking clearly) would regard as logical proofs like this. You and RJG propose that one doesn't need to make any empirical observations to demonstrate that the Universe is infinite and eternal. RJG has made it clear that he is of the opinion that their truth can be arrived at by thought and logic alone. You have indicated that you agree with him. (I disagree and have already had long discussions with RJG about this in the past which I probably won't be repeating.)

If I recall correctly I have NEVER proposed that one does not need to make any empirical observation to demonstrate that the Universe is infinite and eternal. Why did you assume or believe that I have proposed such a thing.

If you do not already know the difference between those two distinict and different uses of the word proof, It is my opinion that you should learn it.

Are you ever going to stop assuming and/or believing that I do not know certain things, stop just concentrating on this, and ever move onto looking at and discussing what I have proposed?

We can forever more keep looking at what I do not know, or more correctly what you assume and/or believe what I do not know, or we can look at what I have already said and proposed.

So, what is predicted?

We'll come to the details of what is predicted later (if you're interested).

Okay, but why the wait?

I prefer to just look at the truth from the outset. You said that what I wrote is not what is predicted in relativity.

Given the particular way in which you have used the word "truth" I do not see why you regard anything that anybody will ever empirically observe or predict as helping you to "look at the truth". But since you ask anyway:

The truth is also what IS real, right, and/or correct as well.

Also, given the particular way you just used the terms 'empirically observe' 'or predict' I wonder if you are aware of just how completely different these two things could actually be from each other?

This is what is predicted by the Special Theory of Relativity.

If two observers are receding from each other at constant relative velocity (i.e. they are in different inertial reference frames) then, while this is happening, they will each observe ticks from the the other's clock more slowly when they compare it to their own, or to any clock which is in the same inertial reference frame as themselves. If two observers are moving towards each other then, while this is happening, they will each observe ticks from the other's clock as faster than their own, or than any clock which is in the same inertial reference frame as themselves.[/quote]

This is what is said/predicted to happen, BUT, obviously this could never happen. Besides the fact that no observer could ever notice nor observe any difference in ticks from other's clocks because of what speed they would have to be traveling at, and thus what the distances are that would be made, in the predicted scenarios, and so this is not demonstrable, the truth is this just would also never happen because 'time' is not some actual thing that could even fluctuate.

An observer in an inertial reference frame that is moving relative to another inertial reference frame will measure/observe all distances in that other inertial reference frame to be shortened in the direction of motion when compared to distances in his own inertial reference frame. So if our two twins each carry with them a ruler (as well as a clock) and if, as with the clocks, they have established those rulers to be identical when they are in the same inertial reference frame as each other, when moving relative to each other they will each measure the other's ruler to be short relative to their own.

This is what is said/predicted to happen, BUT, obviously this could never happen. Besides the fact that no observer could ever notice nor observe any such things, in the predicted scenarios, and so this is not actually demonstrable, the truth is this just would also never happen because 'distance' does not fluctuate just because an observer is traveling at a speed.

The predictions besides be not possible to demonstrate, are also not even possible because of what 'time' and 'distances' actually are.

All you are doing is expressing what the predictions are. I am not sure or not if einstein left out the word 'appear' or not. But just this one word is where all the confusion, inconsistencies, and discrepancies lay and come from.

In the above example what is said or predicted to happen is only what APPEARS to happen, and not what REALLY happens.

I you do not understand any of the meaning of any of the terminology in the above, please say so. If you do not say, I assume you know the standard meanings, in this context, of all the words I'm using. If you've read enough about what Special Relativity says in order to know enough about what it predicts in order to critique those predictions then you will already be very, very well versed in this kind of terminology.

But special relativity and what it predicts is extremely easy to critique, and it is very simple to show where and why the predictions are wrong. But some people BELIEVE that special relativity and its predictions have already been confirmed and verified, so then they are not open to listening to anything else.

But I give a definition of the term "reference frame" below.

I would find revealing what is actually predicted, to you, in the beginning, so then I know how to respond better to what it actually is that you have, might speed up this process somewhat.

Having been through the series of logical arguments, starting from things that I have personally observed and/or conducted experiments about, that ultimately led to what I have described above, I think that what is described above is indeed what would be observed.

Thinking what 'would be' observed in experiments is a very strong indication of 'confirmation biases' showing.

This process involves various empirical observations that I and others have made.

Will you share what empirical observations you have made?

I may have been hallucinating all of my observations. Those other may have been hallucinating. Those others may have been lying. Those others may themselves not exist and be hallucinations. I may have mis-read my observations. Others may have mis-read their observation. I may have made a mistake in the logical arguments. I may be a disembodied mind in an otherwise empty Universe, etc, etc. All of those things may be true. Based on current evidence, I don't find it useful to think that they are. That works for me.

If you do not find it useful to think that they are, then why think of them, and worse still say them here?

Now, to me, you appear to be one of these types of persons that believes enough has been done and that what special relativity is confirmed enough to not look at anything else. For example, I have not seen anything I have written highlight, discussed, nor expressed as being wrong, for any reasons given.

What I have noticed instead, however, is just a continue reaffirming that special relativity and its predicts have been confirmed sufficiently enough, for you.

Do you know what I mean by the expression "observation that he does/makes within his own reference frame"? If not, I'm happy to tell you.

Please tell me, and while you are at it, so I am more clearer, from your perspective, you might as well tell me what you mean when you say, "reference frame". Then I can tell you more about why I wrote about just looking and just observing.

Two or more objects are in the same reference frame as each other if they are stationary relative to each other. A reference frame can, if you like, be thought of as a notional set of axes (plural of axis) in space. Objects in that reference frame do not move relative to those axes. An inertial reference frame is one that is not accelerating or in the presence of gravity. If an object is described as being stationary or "at rest" in, or with respect to (WRT), a reference frame this means that it is stationary WRT to all other objects that are stationary WRT that reference frame.

Note: for the sake of brevity, above, I have often referred to objects being "in" a reference frame. The fuller and more formally correct thing to talk about is objects that are "stationary WRT" a reference frame.

So when I talk about "observation that he does/makes within his own reference frame" I mean observations of other objects that are "in" that reference frame; that are stationary/at rest relative to that reference frame.

Okay. Just sounds like the typical jargon that every industry uses, which keeps "others" who are not seriously involved in that industry, separated, or just 'not in the know'.

But the way you appear to know the language, or jargon, that they use and appear to know what they say and discuss, sadly though you really only just repeat what they say without ever appearing to actually look deep into what it is they actual discuss and talk about. For example, will you please tell us what this 'time' thing is, which is said, or predicted, to accelerate or decelerate depending on the speed at which an object is moving?

And, after you explain that, if you can and do, then will you explain how exactly that the aging process of a human being could actually accelerate or decelerate depending solely on the speed at which they are moving?

If you understand what I mean by "observation that he does/makes within his own reference frame" then you will understand why I used the word "windowless" and you would expect me to do so.

But I do not expect anything at all, from anyone, from anywhere.

If I am to understand why you used the word "windowless", this time, and I would expect you to use it, this time, then what about last time, when I was saying that just through looking and observation the traveler could have worked out velocity?

By the same token, you would understand why I stipulated, in this thought experiment, that the train tracks are "smooth".

This is for the same reason you would understand why I stipulated, in that thought experiment, that "smooth" tracks are needed for the train to travel 'in time'.

[Steve3007]

It is the same 'at rest' for you as for everything else...The same....Every object.

Since I am not at rest with respect to everything else, what you say above is logically self-contradictory.

See, contrary to popular belief, velocity does not affect the reference frame. Velocity only appears to affect reference frame.

I have no idea what you mean by the above statement. It simply makes no sense, given the standard definitions of terms like "velocity" and "reference frame".

But predictions of science, which are, to me, just more or less guesses in and of themselves, may actually lead to irrefutable facts. Why did you assume or believe that I thought that they do not lead to irrefutable facts?

Predictions of science, based as they are on empirical evidence, can never lead to irrefutable facts as you have used that term.

I do think scientific theories, such as the ones of relativity, irrelevant.

I do not think you would spend such a lot of time discussing them if you believed this.

Just like the empirical observations that supposedly "confirmed" that time accelerates or decelerates depending on the speed at which an object is moving, this "confirmation" could also potentially be falsified by future empirical observations.

What you have said above is an incorrect description of what 'empirical observations have supposedly "confirmed"'. It is an incorrect use of words like "accelerate". Do you wish to give an alternative definition of the word "accelerate" to the standard definition? Do you know the standard definition of that word?

But proofs lead to proving one thing or another, so it is not my stated position that this kind of proof leads on to guesses at all. Why did you assume or believe that I had that kind of position.

Your words.

But they could, for example, tell you, but only if you are listening, that time accelerates or decelerates depending on the speed at which an object is moving is false and wrong.

No they couldn't because, as I said, your use of words like "accelerate" makes no sense.

If I recall correctly I have NEVER proposed that one does not need to make any empirical observation to demonstrate that the Universe is infinite and eternal. Why did you assume or believe that I have proposed such a thing.

RJG proposed it and you agreed.


I'll leave it there. Creation, I've tried to engage you in rational discussion about this topic but it is my opinion that your views are too muddled and inconsistent to engage with. It is my opinion that you need to do some more research.

[Steve3007]

Creation, if you want me to continue talking to you, please first research some basic terminology. It's not "jargon". Just simple words like "velocity", "accelerate", "inertial". "reference frame" and "proof". If you disagree with the standard definitions of those terms please provide your own. I'm happy to discuss the subject but I can only do that if your sentences make some kind of sense, given the definitions of the words in those sentences. At this stage, many of them don't.

If you don't want me to continue talking to you then there is no need for you to do these things and I will bid you goodbye and thank you for the conversation.

[Atla]

What you do not get is, relativity is NOT yet verified...

As I said, it was verified in every experiment ever conducted. Not just 'APPARENTLY', but 'REALLY'. Everyone knows this here, except you, it's basic knowledge. You just refuse to be open because you think that your 'logic' is coming from the Universe and it's infallible.

For example they 'REALLY' sent clocks into high orbit to circle the Earth, and then brought the clocks back. After the trip, the clocks 'REALLY' deviated from the clocks left on Earth.
Or the GPS system, which you might be using sometimes as well, has to be 'REALLY' adjusted regularly, because time 'REALLY' runs at a different rate for satellaties compared to people on the ground.

[creation]

What you do not get is, relativity is NOT yet verified...

As I said, it was verified in every experiment ever conducted.

I know you have said this. I have repeated this a few times already. I have done this to point out the fact that you believe that this has been confirmed, and as such there is really nothing more to discuss. Is this correct or not?

Also, I have NEVER disagreed with the results of those experiments. What you are not hearing me say is it is only the 'interpretation' of those results that have verified, or confirmed, 'that', what was said was predicted to happen. Human beings have 'confirmation biases' and so will see, or 'interpret', things or "results" in a way, which confirms 'that' what they think or believe will happen anyway. This 'interpreting' things, in a particular, which confirms what was expected to happen anyway, happens far more and far more stronger when the prediction is believed to be true, or believed to happen, rather than just thought to happen.

I say the "results" have just been misinterpreted, or more correctly the reason why the results, which actually contradicted each other and contradicted what was predicted to happen, were just changed, so as to fit in nicely with the predicted results. This is just because of how 'confirmation biases' work. People do not even know they are seeing or interpreting "results" wrongly or differently. The power of belief and/or 'confirmation bias' happens so subtle that people do not even know or even recognize when it is happening to them.

I say, What was said was predicted to happen, because I am unaware of what exact interpretation each person had, of what the prediction actually was, to them. Remember each person puts their own meanings, and thus puts their own interpretations, into what they read, see, and observe.

To me where the whole flaw of this began has been in the interpretation, or misinterpretation, of the 'prediction' itself.

And as I have already said I do not know if it was in einstein's thinking, or in einstein's writings, or in the way others have interpreted einstein's writings. Or, even if the flaw started earlier than this in how einstein has interpreted, or misinterpreted, actual previous writings he had been reading.

So, I do not know where the flaw actually began. I just know how to fix it, sort it out, and/or resolve it. Once this is done, then I am sure those who are read up on history or like to read up on history will very quickly work out where this flaw began. But like each and every flaw in human thinking and understanding they all came from the exact same place, that is; just in a misinterpretation of what is actually real, true, right, and correct.

Not just 'APPARENTLY', but 'REALLY'.

Your BELIEF in this is strikingly obvious.

Everyone knows this here, except you, it's basic knowledge.

"Everyone"?

Also, people can and do behave just like sheep, that is; they follow others, and follow on from what they are told, and are taught to believe is true. Actually, everyone can do this.

To me, a majority of the scientific community, in these days, are just like the religious people, in past days. The scientific community has proven that they can be more religious, in a sense. They behave very religious like, just dressed in white coats, now. They worship a God-like figure, believe every word that that "God" says, and then will be unyielding in their belief, and also insist wholly that their chosen following is absolutely true and right. But to pretend that they are not like the religious people of the past, and to pretend that they are somewhat open, these new breed of religious people will, in regards to their chosen following, say that it is just a "theory", and so say it is still open to be falsified. Yet, truthfully, they believe the exact opposite is true.

You just refuse to be open because you think that your 'logic' is coming from the Universe and it's infallible.

Talk about projection when 'refusing to be open' and 'thinking about one's own logic being infallible'.

What evidence do you have to your CLAIM that I think my 'logic' is coming from the Universe and it is infallible?

Also, where do you think or believe 'logic' actually comes from exactly?

And, do you believe that 'logic', itself, is fallible or infallible?

For example they 'REALLY' sent clocks into high orbit to circle the Earth, and then brought the clocks back.

"High orbit" is a very relative, and thus very subjective, term.

Anyway, are you under some sort of disillusionment that I do not already know what you wrote here?

You seem to certainly misinterpreted my use of the 'REALLY' word as well.

After the trip, the clocks 'REALLY' deviated from the clocks left on Earth.

You REALLY do not know what I know, do you?

What you said here is VERY true. I have NEVER disputed this at all.

Unfortunately though, remember there was an increase, AND a decrease, in the orbiting clocks, RELATIVE to the "stationary" clock on earth,
which automatically falsifies speed as being the reason for the deviation?

But because einstein is like a God to some people, these people want to believe everything einstein predicted, so it was very easy to see and interpret the results, IN A WAY, as being 'confirmation' of einstein's prediction.

The actual reason there was a deviation in those clocks is because of direction, and not speed.

This, coincidentally, was what I had predicted earlier, and it was only on reading the results of the hafele–keating experiment where I saw that this had even been done, and that the results verified, or confirmed, my predictions. Now, obviously, the interpretation of the results which I SEE, might be caused by, or be a direct result of, the 'confirmation biases' I unintentionally had, and may still have. But, my interpretations, combined with what else I know, make far more sense, to me, then what has been expressed so far.

Or the GPS system, which you might be using sometimes as well, has to be 'REALLY' adjusted regularly, because time 'REALLY' runs at a different rate for satellaties compared to people on the ground.

You REALLY have misinterpreted my use of the word REALLY, and it appears you REALLY do not yet know what I mean, and meant with that word.

Anyway, I do not dispute that the gps systems are designed with the results from the relativistic experiments. I never have.

By the way 'time' does NOT run at any rate, let alone a different rate, for anyone nor anything, anywhere.

The onboard clocks, however, in gps satellites are designed to "tick" at a slower frequency than ground reference clocks, and gps receivers have built into them microcomputers, to compute not just for performing the normal positioning calculations, but to also compute any additional special relativistic timing calculations required, using data provided by the satellites. So, calculations are not made solely by the different run rate on the satellites. Calculations, for additional special relativity timings, are being made continuously. These continuous calculations are needed, and are made because of the direction of travel, and maybe more so because of where the satellites are RELATIVE to where the receivers are, and not because of the wrongly presumed speed and gravitational effects.

I just dispute the interpretations of the results, or more correctly the interpretations of the predictions, but probably more correctly the interpretation of the words that are used to discuss special and general relativity. Clocks in other 'reference frames' SHOULD, APPEAR, or SEEM to tick at different rates, compared (or relative) to an observer in other 'reference frames'. This is exactly what APPEARS to happen. But what ACTUALLY happens will never be found on the superficial level that this is currently being looked at and discussed here. What ACTUALLY happens and occurs can only be found on a much deeper look and discussion into this.

[Atla]

...

No, it's not because of the 'direction' of travel, you just came up with that, and it also contradicts what you said so far.

[Atla]

Are you even open to the truth that the rate of ageing may have absolutely nothing at all to do with what you believe, that is; the speed and/or direction of traveling?

As a spokesman for the Universe, you aren't doing a very authentic job don't you think?