Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

Funny. Please find the post where you posited that and a bet was made.

But what follows is not a "solution," it is a mere evasion of the question:


Logic does not depend on application in any given circumstance. Logic alone can answer the question. Refusing to answer is not a "solution."

The answer will always, by strict logical necessity, be: No, it is not possible for each clock to actually run slower than the other.

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

I see several posts there.

Post 1. You propose 4 items and NO bet.
Post 2. You propose 2 items and no bet.
Post 3. You propose there are only 2 items. No bet
Post 4. You propose there are only 2 items. No bet
Post 5. You propose a bet and give only 2 choices
Post 6. You propose a bet that gives 2 choices in the linked . One is the plane clock is always slower and one is the ground clock is slower. I accept that bet


No, there was never a post with 4 choices and a bet. I accepted the bet based on this post from you.
http://able2know.org/topic/265997-51#post-5902650.

This is your bet post that I accepted.
http://able2know.org/topic/265997-52#post-5903221
This is the post you linked to that I accepted as the basis of the bet.
http://able2know.org/topic/265997-51#post-5902650

Now it seems you are simply changing the bet trying to introduce several posts that have nothing to do with what I accepted. I accepted the bet based on your post where you claimed the flying clock would always be slower than the ground clock. Do you accept that is the bet or are you going to keep introducing things I never bet on?

I think you need to assume a universal frame of reference to reach that conclusion, though, and there lies the problem. In SR there's no such thing.

Completely wrong. That post contained TWO questions, only ONE of which referred to a "bet." The one which referred to the bet was referring to the then long-outstanding bet I had proposed, after you had repeatedly ducked the question (about both being correct--i.e., each clock running slower than the other).

Pay up.

Ollie, if what you are saying is that SR attempts to obliterate logic, and make the application of logic impossible, then, yeah, you're right. But that's not a problem for logic. It's a problem for SR.

Logic does not depend on an absolute frame.

There is absolutely NOTHING illogical about saying that A believes B's clock is slower than his, and B believes A's clock is slower than his. Curious, but not illogical.

But it is completely illogical to then say "and both are correct."

And, as I already said, logic does not depend on making measurements in any given case. I don't have to go out and empirically test a claim that Bob is taller than Mike, and Mike is taller than Bob. No matter what their heights would actually measure out to be is totally irrelevant. The answer (that it is impossible) can be given without making any measurement whatsoever.

So you don't even know what the bet is? OK.. I'll accept your check any time then.

Nice try. We both know.

Pay up.

Logic itself remains unproven, as you must know. It can be modeled mathematically, to a certain extent (e.g. Boolean logic), and nothing more. Some logicians and philosophers are working on alternative logic models, e.g. what happens if the axiom of excluded middle is taken out... I don't think much of that, gut-feeling wise, but you never know. Maybe they'll find something useful.

More importantly, logic is NOT formally contradicted by SR. "In this frame of reference, this thing appears to happen, and in that other frame of reference, the opposite thing appears to happens." That's not really a contradiction, it's just saying that it all depends on your frame of reference.

If you want to say that "each is correct, given his assumptions," then that says nothing about reality. Yes each has a VALID argument, given his assumptions. His conclusion does follow from his premise(s). But each argument cannot be "sound."

By it's very nature as a "scientific" theory, SR relies on it's ability to make accurate predictions, whether or not it's predictions are ever actually measured. Testing each particular outcome of SR's prediction is NOT a requirement of the theory.

I made a bet based on your specific post. I provided specific links to that post and the post where you posited a question that I accepted as the bet. You now claim that post isn't the bet. You can't provide a single post that tells us what the bet actually is. Based on your post where I accepted the bet, you would lose. You simply declare that wasn't the bet and claim you won.

Exactly.

Pay up.



That post is where you ACCEPTED the bet, not where the bet was initially proposed. The (long-outstanding) bet is specifically referred to, but not restated, word for word. No need for that.

Pay up.

Here's what you're trying to do now:

I propose to you a bet on an upcoming baseball game. You say: "let me think about it."

Later that day, I ask you two questions, to wit:

1. Have you decided to take the bet? and
2. You goin out for dinner tonight?

Then you say: Yeah, I'm taking the bet.

Then, after you lose, you say the bet was on whether or not you were going out to dinner that night.

Nice try.

Pay up.

Whatever. SR was developed to explain one particular experiment, and it does that well. However, it's only applicable in limited circumstances, e.g. when gravity can be safely neglected, and on the 'local' level. When one cannot neglect gravity and/or when a diachronic explanation of a phenomenon is required -- that is to say, to explain any real-life astronomical phenomenon extending over some non-negligible length of time -- then GR is required. The problem is that we don't know how to solve GR equations (Einstein field equation) under most circumstances.... That's why SR is still around: its equations are simple enough, and many GR situations can be approximated through SR equations, by neglecting this and that variable, so scientists still use SR when they think they can afford to.

Same issue applies to quantum mechanics: the Schrödinger equation is supposed to describe any quantum system, including therefore the entire universe. It's the equation that rules the world... The problem is we don't know how to solve it other than for the simplest of systems (one atom of hydrogen or helium), and even then, only through some simplifications and approximations.

In fact, the same issue applied to Newtonian physics, that are far from obvious to compute once you go beyond three celestial objects. We would be hard-pressed to predict the trajectories of, say, 5 or 6 objects of similar size interacting with one another through Newtonian gravity, even if we knew everything we needed to know about their initial position, speed, spin, etc. The calculations are just beyond our present grasp of the mathematics involved. We can calculate the trajectories of planets in the solar system because the size of the sun respective to the planets' is so large that one can safely neglect the gravitational pulls exerted by the planets on the sun, thus simplifying the equations quite a lot.

Which is EXACTLY what I just said. However, you are ignoring everything else I said in the very same post (and elaborated upon in the post preceding it).

Sorry?

about what?

I didn't understand your post.

I don't believe that's an accurate statement at all, Ollie. The mutual attraction MUST be considered and accounted for in Newtonian mechanics. It is just because of such considerations that the planets do NOT "revolve around the sun." Nor does the sun itself "remain relatively motionless." It too revolves. They ALL revolve around the only point the that is, within the system, entirely motionless. That is the center of all gravity in the planetary system, the barycenter. With respect to that point, all objects in the solar system, sun included, keep changing position because of the mutual attractions amongst ALL of them.