Who is wrong? The guy who labelled as a paradox the twin-experiment? It is indeed not a paradox. But you're also labelling it a perceptual problem, so again, who's perceptual problem?A man can be wrong without creating a paradox. — Myttenar
OK, you think one of the twins has a perceptual problem. Not so. He sees his clock ticking at normal pace, and he's right. If you assert that he is wrong about this, then please don't explain this stuff to vesko.↪vesko 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. — Myttenar
There isn't one. Everybody is correct about their ages and the durations of their experience. The only problem is the presumption of absolute time, which is something no instrument can measure, and hence has no evidence of existence.can you explain to me what is perceptual problem,if possible with examples. Thanks. — vesko
Absolute time is fiction. I can't prove there are no invisible pink unicorns, but I can't detect them either.Does it means that absolute time is some dimension not known or measured by us on this planet?? — vesko
Doppler shift, yes. Light is the same speed in any frame. It is not the same frequency or wavelength. Those are frame dependent measurements.Does the red-shift seen in the color of light from distant stars represent the distance between us and that star, as in has distance been tightly correlated to that effect through another reliable measure of distance?
Because there's other interpretations, such as a doppler frequency shift due to velocity between us, which looks a bit odd in the face of light-speed is always the same in every frame of reference. — AngleWyrm
Because there's other interpretations, such as a doppler frequency shift due to velocity between us, which looks a bit odd in the face of light-speed is always the same in every frame of reference. Particularly when those measurements suggest a speed of closure or departure between them and us greater than c.
And it also looks peculiar when placed in the immediate vicinity of the Expanding Universe theory, where distance is said to change. Sorta makes one wonder what exactly is meant by velocity = time/distance — AngleWyrm
Speed is distance/time. Velocity is a vector, so it has a directional component. One can accelerate (also a vector quantity) and change velocity without changing speed.Does anyone here disagree that speed is a measurement defined as velocity = distance/time? — AngleWyrm
It is still distance, but Meta's post above is correct. Distance is a local measurement that begins to alter meaning for significantly separated things.If distance loses it's meaning of 1 lightyear = 1 lightyear then I suggest that isn't science it's some sort of perspective modification that is creating meaninglessness.
Seems to me that change takes time, so as to be classified as change in the first place.
Which, together with the mentioned empirical perspective (no change implies no time), intrinsically relates time and change. — jorndoe
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.