Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

You continue to simply claim you are correct when your entire premise was invalid

But, nonetheless, many people then want to act like that definition somehow creates, determines, or controls reality. It doesn't. They don't make the distinction, and honestly speaking, I don't think your post does either.

Your premise is wrong since Washington DC is not a reference frame.

THE QUESTION; LATER BET ON:

@parados, Quote:

Quote:

Actually they are both at rest since each sees their own inertial frame as at rest. You assume there is only one reference point with only one observer.

Let's assume there are 50 billions reference points (50 billions objects, all moving inertially but each going at a different speed than the others). All 50 billion "assume" that they are at rest. Are they ALL right? So nobody's moving at all, really?

How does a "frame of reference" change your speed?

Let's stop all the speculation and PUT THIS TO A TEST.

Two clocks. Both read 12:00 and both are at a naval station in Washington D.C.

One clock is taken aboard a plane, the other is not moved at all.

The plane takes off for a flight, then returns 6 hours later. When it returns the clock which went nowhere now reads 6:00. Will the clock which went on the plane trip read:

1. Also 6:00, the same as the other?
2. Earlier than 6:00 (say 5:55)?
3. Later than 6:00 (say 6:05) or
4. EACH CLOCK WILL READ EARLIER THAN THE OTHER?

If you don't pick #4, then shut up about "each being slower than the other." If you DO pick #4, please explain just how THAT could possibly work, OK?http://able2know.org/topic/265997-47

FIRST RESTATEMENT OF THE QUESTION: Have an answer to the question, Parados? Hint: This experiment has been done, and the answer is known: [WHOLE QUESTION WAS REPEATED, THEN] Is your answer #4? 1. The guy on the airplane says that he is motionless, that Washington D.C. is moving, and that Washington's clock is running slower.

2, The guy in Washington says that he is motionless, that the airplane is moving, and that the airplane's clock is running slower.

Answer the question: Do YOU contend that "both are correct?"http://able2know.org/topic/265997-47#post-5901932

SECOND RESTATEMENT OF THE QUESTION Then what is the answer? Do YOU contend that "both are correct?" Yes or no? http://able2know.org/topic/265997-48#post-5901942

THIRD RESTATEMENT OF THE QUESTION With respect to the speed difference, do YOU contend that "both are correct?" Yes, or no? http://able2know.org/topic/265997-48#post-5901944

THE PROPOSED BET: Parados, what-say, you and me, we place a small wager on this? Say about $10,000. I'm gunna just haul off and take a wild-ass guess sayin that each clock ain't slower than the other. We on? http://able2know.org/topic/265997-48#post-5902016

RESTATEMENT OF THE BET: Parados, you never respond to any particular posts of mine, you just come back with some vague non sequitur. I proposed an $10,000 bet to you. You have yet to tell me if we are "on" with that bet. Are we? http://able2know.org/topic/265997-52#post-5903221YOUR

ACCEPTANCE OF THE BET: YOU said: layman wrote: Parados, you never respond to any particular posts of mine, you just come back with some vague non sequitur. I proposed an $10,000 bet to you. You have yet to tell me if we are "on" with that bet. Are we?

Do you dispute anything that I said in this post (just for one example of a post you refuse to confront)?

http://able2know.org/topic/265997-51#post-5902650

I will be happy to take the bet http://able2know.org/topic/265997-52#post-5903221

Your first reference to any bet was in response to my statement on general relativity.

You do realize you are making inaccurate statements about what happens to clocks that fly around the world, don't you?

It seems you don't even know what the bet is. I certainly don't because you keep changing it

What is the accurate statement? Is it that "each clock runs slower than the other?" If not, you LOSE THE BET.

..ask me which statement I agree with in something that has nothing to do with my bet..

Actually they are both at rest

Let's stop all the speculation and PUT THIS TO A TEST....4. EACH CLOCK WILL READ EARLIER THAN THE OTHER? If you don't pick #4, then shut up about "each being slower than the other." If you DO pick #4, please explain just how THAT could possibly work, OK?

Parados, what-say, you and me, we place a small wager on this? Say about $10,000. I'm gunna just haul off and take a wild-ass guess sayin that each clock ain't slower than the other. We on?

I will be happy to take the bet.

A rock rolling down a hill, from it's frame it isn't moving at all but instead the ground beneath it is doing all the moving. All the rock is doing is spinning in place. It becomes absurd

Is it that "each clock runs slower than the other?" If not, you LOSE THE BET.

And you simply declare you are correct as I said you would.

Let me ask you a question. If you have Clock A and Clock B and someone gets on a plane with Clock B and flies around the world which of the following occur?

We are back to you simply claiming you won when you can't prove your result. Right where I always said we would be.

The terms of the bet were repeated again and again. I bet that the answer was either 1, 2, or 3. You bet it was 4. Is the right answer 4?

Is it? Do you have even the slightest scrap of evidence that each clock ran slower than the other when these experiments were done?

Or are you just trying to welch?