That reminds me of that adage about for evil men rule the world if good men do nothing.
You do have a good point, though I shudder at the gross over generalization of the populace, especially since I can't disagree.
However, if that is the case, then why do the critical thinkers have more influence and prestige if the rest of society is full of "suckers"

yeah well... The reconciliation of special and general relativity lies in relative perspective.

Indeed someone is eating their words ;)

You do realize we can't know everything I hope..

On a side note. Time is energy.

Yeah. Was a joke about the trolling thing nevermind. Oh and you refuted your own argument and so also, invalid.

And no chicken.

Good response though :)

And I think you spelled refuting wrong. No troll in it and I kinda thought the first one I replied to was trolling...but yea

I can't refute this argument so I will leave you with this. Those who want to know the meaning of life do not know they have posed the answer as a question.

the reason it is a problem is the list of bankers you forgot to mention in that 1% who are responsible for creating a system of debt that fabricate wealth at will while risking a huge economic collapse when the false profits are audited out of whatever companies the debt gets hammered into. The system of banking and governance is long overdue for a revolution. We need to start thinking and acting together as a species if we expect to survive

there was no measurement but an observation. Your argument is invalid. There is no spoon.

Philosophers are misplaced in society because they should have been the ones to engineer the society with logic but were instead being jailed and executed over people's 'beliefs'. Those that seek to learn being murdered by people who think there's an invisible man in the sky. Irony that is not lost on me and I guess we don't have it that bad.

It is logical that the logicstitians are using their logic in tandem with society and the sciences.

I have to disagree since philosophy gave us our sciences and the whole point is that the philosophers ask the questions that direct the sciences, not to mention the practical application of the skills philosophy teaches.
I'd love to make a career out of philosophy, it is the only thing I am really passionate about that way. I want to get funding for a bigass think tank to employ philosophers. I'm lazy so I'll probably just plan it and then not but it's not a bad idea

Propinquity! One can quantify interpersonal relationships using felific calculus :)

First off this seems like a non issue question as morality is subjective and is relative to an individual and is based off that individuals internal and external locus of control.

But my most simple and direct response which carries my point would be that any of the things you think is wrong or is right is just something that "is" and there is no truth value to any label of right, wrong or moral. They are perspectives. That is all.

Like I did I the first response. There is no paradox since we know thanks to general relativity the actual truth value of the time that passes for each twin. A man can be wrong without creating a paradox.

The waters muddy further with consideration of time differentials that we can quantify as seconds appearing under certain circumstances while the time in another place moves at its usual pace.. I did just post a thread with a postulation for a categorization of time as energy :something we know and understand and have a basis for comparison study and principals for behaviours that we can apply to studying time and behaviours of time. Besides that it is fun to think about, even if there is a proof to refute the idea, which I am curious for; i assume someone must have had the thought before me.

Not a virus but similar in reproductive methodology which overpopulates and either spreads to a new area or dies with the host they devour.

As I am influenced by ideas of moral relativity and the principals therein, I agree with you to a point in that any mindset framed from an emotional place will tend not to be completed or often the logical process has been interrupted by emotional thinking.
I believe an overly optimistic person would be just as self defeating and moreover being positive while you're trapped in a burning house (excuse the metaphor) then the positivity perspective could be even more detrimental and frankly resembles mental illness. Be a realist. Nothing is good or bad and the universe doesn't care about the ideas of right and wrong that our society accepts and propagates. the attacks that ensue to a speaker of such a bold statement, evokes by emotional responses instead of a logical approach. These conversations end with insults instead of refutation and the unrefuted argument is ignored and forgotten amidst the emotions and drama.

Could time dialation not be studied with particle beams fired into a rotating electromagnetic field? Is this not already a thing?

that's is a perceptual problem and not a paradox

this is not a paradox but a simple error of judgment on behalf of the twin who perceives the ships' clock to be ticking slower. Special relativity is itself relative to its own "special" circumstance and will not resolve with general relativity without the same special conditions. By definition we cannot resolve the two directly but by identifying false paradoxes such as this one which is no more than a perception or belief issue if special relativity can't prove that which we know by practice then obviously something is there that shouldn't be or something is missing.

Truth is not an object that you can define in the universe. Truth is a constant value which must exist before the universe or any other existence and one could speculate that it is the only thing that must always be. For example the statement "before the universe existed" demonstrates the ability to give a value to the non-existence of the universe at that point and the truth value of the statement, be the answer true or false, demonstrates the truth value that existed before the universe became.
This look at truth should answer the question "can the universe be defined" to have an answer as it has truth value or it does not. However, as the observer here has literally mapped everything themself, the answer was always Yes, and the observer has quantified and defined the universe by observing it.
Even while the scope may be beyond our comprehension, what ' is' or that which 'exists' must indeed have an end as that is the simple nature of our universe.