Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

@layman,

I dont know if that answer was up to the standard expected here . Where were the insults, the claims that if people have put rovers on Mars then you must be stupid, the "I understand it but I wont explain it to you", the "clearly if you dont agree with me then you must be wrong"....

I am going to have to give you a thumbs up for that because all the good answers get a thumbs down . You will just have to try harder... Mad

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

I dont know if that answer was up to the standard expected here . Where were the insults, the claims that if people have put rovers on Mars then you must be stupid, the "I understand it but I wont explain it to you", the "clearly if you dont agree with me then you must be wrong"....

Heh, Ionus, you're right. I find it very difficult to match that exacting standard.

0 Replies

@layman,

This is what we bet on....

Quote:

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?"

Now... tell me which clock you think is running slower. If I prove you wrong, does that mean I win the bet? Or will you still insist without evidence that you are correct.

1 Reply

@parados,

Hahahhaha. I don't see anything about a bet there. Try again. Clue--look for the word "bet."

There is no rational way you could possibly think that was the bet---why waste your time and mine with this crap?

Why? Well, to welch, of course.

1 Reply

@layman,

Your "bet" was here...
http://able2know.org/topic/265997-52#post-5903221

I responded here.

http://able2know.org/topic/265997-52#post-5903255

Your bet references this post which is what I bet on.
http://able2know.org/topic/265997-51#post-5902650

Now it seems you didn't bet on the specifics in the post you referenced. You have decided to simply move the goal posts and claim you won just as I said you would.
http://able2know.org/topic/265997-52#post-5903255

So.. tell us what you think the bet is with a link to the specific post. I doubt you will. You will simply continue to play the child and stamp your feet and call me names.

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Your "bet" was here...
http://able2know.org/topic/265997-52#post-5903221

Haha. No, it definitely was not, as your next reference shows.

Quote:

I responded here.

http://able2know.org/topic/265997-52#post-5903255

Yes, you did respond there, where the bet was clearly referred to by me (who you quoted) as follows:

Quote:

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?

But you ignore, and try desperately to revise, the bet itself. Nice try welcher. The reference to a "$10,000 bet" is quite clear. NOW cite the post where that wager was propsed, why don't you?

Let me guess, eh? Because you're a welcher, that's why, weasel.

0 Replies

@parados,

The bet was simple:

Quote:

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

All the circumstances and statements made leading up to the proposed bet, and adding additional clarification of what the question was (as if that were even needed) were summarized here, and you know it:
http://able2know.org/topic/265997-54#post-5905588

I need the money for my upcoming spring bash, to which I have now invited over 1500 people. Pay up, please. Cash only.

2 Replies

@layman,

When did you manage to make time move in the other direction?

I agreed to the bet March 7th. You cite a post of March 10th to tell us where you proposed the bet.

Let us know when you provide your proof for the bet. Until then, you are simply blowing smoke.

1 Reply

@layman,

What is even funnier is I posted this....

parados wrote:

This is what we bet on....

Quote:

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?"

You proceed to claim that isn't what we bet on...

Then you post what you think shows we bet on and it says the exact same words I posted that you just denied were the bet. Like I said, you have decided to just make **** up and declare yourself the winner.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

You proceed to claim that isn't what we bet on...

Because it isn't. Anyone who wasn't a lying welcher would concede that. You never will and I guess I'll just have to resign myself to the fact that if I want to collect the money I'm entitled to, I'll have to beat it out of you.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

I agreed to the bet March 7th. You cite a post of March 10th to tell us where you proposed the bet.

Hahaha. Nice try. You are a joke. The date I posted it (again) has NOTHING to do with when it was originally said--a date which can be easily determined by actually reading the (past) posts cited in the more current post. You know what the bet was. Your attempts to evade it are predictable, even if cowardly.

1 Reply

@layman,

OK.. so tell us again.. what is the EXACT bet then tell us how you proved you are correct.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to fail to do that.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

OK.. so tell us again.. what is the EXACT bet

http://able2know.org/topic/265997-54#post-5905588

0 Replies

@layman,

The time difference will be one way (one clock will be earlier than the other) or null, depending on the plane trajectory. Of course, it is impossible that both clocks be earlier than the other.

The difference is also unlikely to be in the order of magnitude you use in your examples (5 mn). I would expect a very very small difference, expressed in picoseconds.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Of course, it is impossible that both clocks be earlier than the other.

Tell that to Parados, eh? He has consistently asserted, and bet, otherwise.

1 Reply

@layman,

Well then, you should expect a check of $10,000... Can you spare 5 grand? I helped you win big time.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Of course, it is impossible that both clocks be earlier than the other.

Of course it's impossible, as every respectable physicist will readily acksnowledge. Nonetheless, I have asked this question many time in this thread:

Assume that A and B are both moving inertially and are also moving with respect to each other, which they both acknowledge. Now then If:

1. A claims that B's clock is moving slower than his, AND
2. B claims that A's clock is moving slower than his, THEN
3. Is it possible for BOTH of them to be right?

I don't recall a single SR "expert" conceding that both cannot possibly be right.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Of course it's impossible, as every respectable physicist will readily acksnowledge. Nonetheless, I have asked this question many time in this thread:

Assume that A and B are both moving inertially and are also moving with respect to each other, which they both acknowledge. Now then If:

1. A claims that B's clock is moving slower than his, AND
2. B claims that A's clock is moving slower than his, THEN
3. Is it possible for BOTH of them to be right?

That's a much better question than the twins paradox. But maybe the twins paradox was Langevin's way to explain this question to the masses. In any case, in SR there is no solution that I know of, other than: "the question does not apply, since they will never be able to experimentally verify what the answer is."

This suggests that SR is 'locally' valid only: at that monent, at this point of the trajectory, if one object is close enough to the speed of light compared to another object, then X, Y and Z are observed (eg time dilatation, length reduction, mass increase). However, the values of X, Y and Z cannot be 'summed' or integrated over long distances and long periods. They don't necessarily 'add up'. This is what 'local' means in this context.

I BELIEVE that general relativity attempts to solve these sorts of problems by looking at the macro picture and integrating gravity. The problem is that its equations are far more complex, and very hard to solve... So there is progress on this front but it is very slow: we lack the mathematics to crack the case.

I suppose another way to look at it is to say that time dilatation and other odd SR-predicted phenomena are mere illusions or perception issues due to high relative speed, like the dopler effect. But since time dilatation has been observed experimentally, i think that doesn't work. Time is not absolute in GR either.

1 Reply

@layman,

All you have to do is prove that one clock is always correct no matter which frame of reference you use. You can't do it because you only pick one frame of reference as has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

All you have to do is prove that one clock is always correct no matter which frame of reference you use

Still trying to change the bet, I see. There was a multiple choice question with 4 choices given. You took one choice, I took the other 3. The question was about a real-life experiment concerning TWO CLOCKS and nothing else. That was the whole point of the question--to eliminate crap that you were trying to claim on the basis of mushy abstractions which were completely senseless.

In the Hafele-Keating experiments, was each clock found to be slower than the other? Yes or no? The answer is NO!

Pay up.

1 Reply

Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know