Stosh

Great Mh, Since as Captain Barbosa stated, It appears we have an accord. ,I looked up the antimatter thing, its just matter with a reversed spin, its still affected by gravity, the anti is just hype.

I have seen Plato's cup and table, but not his cupness and tableness.

Iff.all that EXists is one, existing thing, Then what is not manifest is that which is not existing=. Monist view. That a thing can and does have an opposite, = dualism Your view? That the only thing that exists has an opposite, which doesnt exist.=dualistic monism Or sometimes a thing has an intellectual opposite but materially speaking there are no opposites =Stosh view= Common sense.

Mh, should I figure it that you think the views part ways, beginning together? I dont see where. You provide no rationale to assist me in reaching an agreeing position. I do see however, abundantly the interwoven nature of the isms. The donut has no opposite, but you conceive truth from lie. I dont see where the isms are parted. Is this dualistic monism or is the pairing of opposites, ?alternating with monism.

VK, I contend they are the same. Light side of the mountain, shadow of the valley, see the pairing? And you must admit a pairing so intimate, is a union of sorts. Why should you feel cause to preserve an imaginary rift? If yang behavior is to be eschewed, yin behavior promoted,,then the distinctions have been preserved, ,, Right and wrong,, good and bad, beauty and ugliness,, are preserved ,reborn perhaps, as soon as virtue is distinguished, vice is outlined, and from there the departure from monism has taken root. There is no actual dualistic opposite to that which is concrete, a banana is not an opposite to a donut...mass is not an opposite to energy. Join me and agree you have been wrong.

A belated Happy thanksgiving from me too, and hoping yall and none of those close to you were injured shopping.

You should have asked him what he meant, since seeing things as paired opposites really isnt any different from dualistic monism,( same number of letters even) . However eastern wisdom IMO lies in realizing that the best solution, is not at the extremes, but in the middle. ( ironically , choosing the middle as most virtuous , sets itself polemic to the extremes! ) So,,in the east one pretends virtue is moderate , not pointing in any general direction ,,and in the west ,one pretends its absolute in direction.

One post is a short trip.

Thats poetic and interesting, thanks for sharing it with me. Though its a lot to encompass at one sitting. ...... Its a poem to hear over a lifetime.

Reminds me of that old joke, " Youre just being contrary." ...." No I'm not" ....."See ! " Where there is some rationale that people may defend against appropriare criticism, the also defend agaist what they feel is wrong or unjust. I like the line there about 'necessary virtue" tho, yep ones anger may often be self justified. Take away that sense of justice, the desire for it, and theoretically one has to deal with less anger. Ironic, isnt it? Justice and safety, the meat of a shadow?

Im prepared to accept either way

Glad that refreshes you , My heads spinning , but I just am not on board with Einsteins formula, I like Lorenz's better. I agree with your objection. We would be wishing them a Happy New Year every four of their months and they would appear to be travelling at three c according to their 'proper time' , unless the distance compresses. ... or they recalculate how fast light travels in mph.

Makes sense ,, from a motivation standpoint. To grasp at the esoteric , and find appreciation of its nuances is rewarding. There's stuff to appreciate beyond the mundane and obvious, and once aware of it , it will be something to enjoy always. I'm a big fan of the mundane however, and understand the lightness which some folks attribute to some subjects.

Yeah that sounds fine to me too, thing is its really pretty useful to maintain the illusion that we know what time it is , so we can synchronize, , show up for work , pick ripe fruit , and so forth.

True, but emptying a beer glass, similar to returning to earth , brings you only back only to a relative and arbitrarily determined starting point. Since supposedly light sets a speed limit maximum within a given time zone, zero movement in that time zone is considered as slow as one can go,, but if there are other time zones then one could possibly slow down further than to the one on earth. A lower kinetic energy state than being still is , on earth.

Also , this is a bit of a side bar , Im more angled at the fact that the degree of distortion varies with relative speed.

Im working on it Brian, I have to remember math from 30years ago . http://physics.bu.edu/py106/notes/Relativity.html If our two observers are stationary relative to each other, they measure the same time. If they are moving at constant velocity relative to each other, however, they measure different times. As an example, let's say one observer stays on the Earth, and the other goes off in a spaceship to a planet 9.5 light years away. If the spaceship travels at a speed of 0.95 c (95% of the speed of light), the observer on Earth measures a time of 10 years for the trip. The person on the spaceship, however, measures a much shorter time for the trip. In fact, the time they measure is known as the proper time. The time interval being measured is the time between two events; first, when the spaceship leaves Earth, and second, when the spaceship arrives at the planet. The observer on the spaceship is present at both locations, so they measure the proper time. All observers moving relative to this observer measure a longer time, given by: In this case we can use this equation to get the proper time, the time measured for the trip by the observer on the spaceship: So, during the trip the observer on Earth ages 10 years. Anyone on the spaceship only ages 3.122 years. It is very easy to get confused about who's measuring the proper time. Generally, it's the observer who's present at both the start and end who measures the proper time, and in this case that's the person on the spaceship. That is Arbitrary, as implied, ,, his frame is shifting and so he is a bad candidate for establishing whats proper. ( If, in his view , he takes three times less duration to reach the planet and calculates his travel at three c , then hes not the right person to assert proper time ) Length contractionCarrying on with our example of the spaceship traveling to a distant planet, let's think about what it means for measuring distance. The one thing that might puzzle you is this: everything is relative, so a person on the Earth sees the clock on the spaceship running slow. Similarly, the person on the Earth is moving at 0.95c relative to the observer on the spaceship, so the observer on the ship sees their own clock behaving perfectly and the clock on the Earth moving slow. So, if the clock on the spaceship is measuring time properly according to an observer moving with the clock, how can we account for the fact that the observer on the ship seems to cover a distance of 9.5 light years in 3.122 years, which would imply that they're traveling at a speed of 3.04c? I dont think it makes sense to assert that the traveler sees his motion at .95c , yet calculates the time he is taking to traverse the space three times faster unless he is deciding during the trip to calculate distances three times shorter when looking forward than back at earth. Whether he looks back at the receding earth or forward to planet X his time frame is the same slowed rate ,, That absolutely can not be true. For one thing, one of the implications of relativity is that nothing can travel faster than c, the speed of light in vacuum. c is the ultimate speed limit in the universe. Unfounded assertion was inserted here, its self fulfilling. For another, two observers will always agree on their relative velocities. Supports what I stated above about looking forward and back , and conflicts with a velocity calculation of three c. If the person on the Earth sees the spaceship moving at 0.95c, the observer on the spaceship agrees that the Earth is moving at 0.95c with respect to the spaceship (and because the other planet is not moving relative to the Earth), everyone's in agreement that the relative velocity between the spaceship and planet is 0.95c. Again , he cant calculate a trip toward X at three c and simultaneously calculate a rate of .95c I have more I need to read to get caught up to you on this question, but this should illustrate where I'm just not on board yet.

I thought we flattened out as we sped up , (and more energy was input on a vector) this distortion being real and relative to our current frame of reference not just a perceptual phenomena. Agreed , no argument on that. But whilst adding energy into the system along the vector I am distorted flatter , and flatter the faster I go, and stay that way as long as I cruise on that vector , BUT I can also slow down back to earth speed , cant I ? remove energy from that vector of travel ? and stretch back to earths level of distortion? as I go slower and slower ? I cant add the new input energy required-for- the slowdown , to the acceleration-required- energy input, that would calculate me as going even faster, not slowing down. ( if that was possible ,I could get to close to the speed of light by just going back and forth in the parking lot for a few years, right? ) Ok Ill wait on that.

You weren't getting the point of the question as I tried to describe it in the scenario, so I'm trying to rephrase to accommodate . You chose an arbitrary floating point of zero time distortion earth, but since its arbitrary , I can choose halfway to Antares. If you accelerate and up in a slower time zone , and then stay there , the difference in atomic clocks would accumulate while one coated at speed. However If one were in actuality decelerating, the time difference would accumulated this time indicating the speedup. ( from a clock halfway to Antares) ,,, If folks zap some particle in circles there is only acceleration relative to the floating zero time distortion of the lab. Such tests maybe cant show deceleration.

I dont see what you arent getting We're on the same page the whole way. But with decelleration being the same as acceleration .. except for direction,, then according to the direction one would be stretched back into shape,rather than being spacially foreshortened.. or an atomic clock would come back to ticking at the same rate back on earth though reading a different date (since theoretically you couldnt add the two accellerations, That would put you at the speed of light. )

Well that makes sense, but Im not going to agree with Vmarco on the now moment , Its now when I say its now, and the moment is as long as I say it is, functionally speaking this works better I miss his posts though.

dunno, about the speed of expansion , How do you determine where the universe ends , or if there's anything at all out there ,if no matter and no light have gotten from any of it to earth? ( the expansion of space exceeding the rate light can traverse it ) , Looking through a scope ,Im thinking , the stars one could see, would present a border distance with an empty background,(depending on how long the light has been travelling to earth from some particular distance).

So if I'm coasting at half the speed of light towards Antares, my rate of time is slowed (relative to normal space ) , and put on my engines in the other direction and bring my speed back up to half the speed of light, my acceleration is now back to zero relative to my original speed, and this acceleration makes my time speed up relative to the external space, but its called deceleration? ... Then one should be able to determine an original zero acceleration value based on whether the application of ones engine slows or speeds up time in each direction moved. Right? (Like a doppler shift.)

The reflecting it does get to do ,with all the universe shining at it , should be of comfort. Possibly making for a very happy mirror. I always wondered though, if a thing is said to be accellerating some fraction of the speed of light ,, relative to what exactly? In a rocket ,Id be accelerating away from any thing around , for an infinite radius, at different calculated rates depending on my vector.

I suppose the photons dont know they ever left , poor unfulfilled photons