creation wrote:First I make it clear that I dispute that time is what is measured by a clock and number 1, but, for the sake of this discussion I agree on the 9 numbered points above.
You said, As two observers recede from each other at constant velocity, each sees the other's clock ticking more slowly than their own, and, if they move towards each other at constant velocity, each sees the other's clock ticking faster than their own, correct?
Yes. It is my understanding that in experiments that are analogous to the one we're considering, this is what has been observed. And it is my understanding that this is what is predicted by a theory which ultimately traces logically back to everyday observations that we ourselves could observe if we wanted to. (As I've said many times: my understanding could be mistaken.) If we wanted to, we could gradually discuss the line of reasoning and the observations that led from everyday observations that we ourselves could observe to what I have said here. We could thereby [re-]assess whether that line of reasoning appears to either or both of us to be valid.
If this is correct, then you also said that the faster the relative velocities, then the more extreme the effect. As relative velocity tends towards the speed of light, each sees the other clock's tick rate tend towards stopped, correct?
Yes, if they're receding from each other at close to the speed of light.
If both of these are correct, then the first flaw I see, which obviously may not be with clarification, is how could a faster relative velocity towards each other each see the other's clock now tick rate tend towards stop, (meaning slower?) when at constant velocity they see each other's clock ticking faster than their own....
"(meaning slower?)" - Yes. Meaning slower.
Clarification: I didn't say it quite as you've said it above. What I said was this: In both cases they're moving at constant velocity relative to each other. When moving away from each other at that velocity they each see the other's clock ticking slower than their own. When moving towards each other at that velocity they each see the other's clock ticking faster than their own. If that velocity is larger, then in both cases the effect is more extreme.
It's important to remember something that you pointed out a while ago (I think). I think you pointed out somewhere that what they directly observe
, is not necessarily
what we might think is "really happening". You were right to point out that critical distinction. But in my view, as a general rule, the first thing to do is to be clear as to what is observed in experiments, and what the theory predicts would be observed (and see if the two agree). Once we're absolutely clear on that, only then do we move onto our speculations as to what is "really happening" under the hood (as it were) which might be consistent with what is observed. And, in so doing, we examine just what we mean when we talk about what is "really happening". We may even find ourselves questioning whether the notion of what is "really happening" makes any sense without reference to what might possibly be observed. Or we may not.
...So, why at a constant velocity towards each other they see the other's clock tick rate is faster than their own clock but as soon as the relative velocities towards each other is faster then the other's clock tick rate slows down, than their own?
As clarified above, that's not quite what I said. Let's make sure we've got that clarified before we move on.
What does "faster the relative velocities" actually refer to? Does it just mean, in lay people's terms, 'speeding up' or "going faster", relative to each other? Or, is there some whole completely different meaning that one has to be a part of some particular group to fully understand the "actual meaning of the term "relative velocity"?
No, you don't have to be part of a particular group. The word "velocity" has a standard meaning in physics that can be looked up by anyone with access to the internet or a physics textbook. It simply means "change of position with respect to time". So it has a size and a direction. It can be visualised as an arrow. Conventionally, the word "speed" is just used to refer to the direction part, not the size. So if I am travelling at 60mph north, my velocity is "60mph north" and my speed is "60mph". So the term "a high velocity" means that the size of that arrow is long compared to what it would be for "a low velocity".
The significance of the word "relative" is that we're talking about the change of position of one object, as measured from the other object
, with respect to time. Example: if I am on a train travelling at a speed of 60mph - a velocity of 60mph north - I'm implicitly talking about my velocity relative to the surface of the Earth. My velocity relative to my seat is zero. If somebody is walking down the aisle of the train from the front to the back at 4mph, then their velocity relative to me is 4mph south. Their velocity relative to the Earth is 56mph north.
I find it easier to see this more clearly if I draw a diagram.
If, and when, one is putting forward an idea, then commenting by something like; "current knowledge is sufficient", " current knowledge has already been proven, verified, or confirmed", or "current knowledge should be the baseline from which to move forward on", then obviously these people are not at all trying to be clear about what the idea actually is. They are just attacking, without ever even knowing what the idea actually is.
I agree. That's one reason why I have never said those things and why I stated to Greta that I disagree with her on that point.
In my personal view, it is a good idea to try not to conflate different posters'/people's words. Nobody has any control over what other people say.
In my personal view, it is also a mistake to rely either on appeals to authority or appeals against
authority. We should not assume that just because a particular view is labelled the "status quo" it is right. But equally, we should not assume that just because a particular view is labelled the "status quo" it is wrong. Being the "status quo", or applying any other label, should be irrelevant to whether the view is deemed right or wrong. All that matters is the reproducible evidence put forward and the arguments made. Saying something like "Science says it, so, for that reason alone, it must be right" is a mistake. Equally, saying something like "Science says it, so it's part of a religious cult" is a mistake. The label we attach to the person or body of people who said something does not affect the validity or otherwise of their arguments. If somebody repeatedly fixates on such labels, without having read what the people to whom the labels have been attached actually said, then that somebody is (in my view) not making an argument. They are (to use a sporting analogy) tackling the man, not the ball.
(Note: I am not accusing you of either of the two things that I have listed above, which I believe to be mistakes. I'm just giving my view of them.)
Do the ones who make critiques of those arguments also have to be prepared to listen to critiques of their critiques?
Yes. But listening and replying takes time...
Obviously their critiques could actually be false, misleading, nonsensical, or illogical as well, correct?
...Correct. So the difficult question for all of us
then becomes this: with finite time available, and an indefinitely large number of potential critiques (and critiques of critiques, and critiques of critiques of critiques...), how do we decide which critiques to address and which to leave for another day? Could we think of some method of filtering critiques and concentrating most of our attention on those that have the most chance of advancing knowledge by having a genuine point to make, so that the task is manageable? In a world filled with people, all with different views, how do we decide who to talk to and who to respectfully decline to engage with?