You can either read and respond to all of this post, or you can take a
short cut by addressing just the following:

You claim *state of motion* is synonymous with the term *being in
motion* and you also say that it's the same as saying the sun is hot.
But then you're also adamant that the passage of time is inversely
proportional to the *state of motion*.

So my questions are these:

How can the passage of time be inversely proportional to being in motion
when one is a rate, and the other is only a description of a condition?
Inverse proportionality is the comparison of two rates.

What units would you use to express those rates? I'm not asking for any
math at this point, or any hypothetical. I'm simply asking for units.
By what units would you express the passage of time, and what units
would you express the inverse rate which you call a *state of motion*?

Go on to read the rest if you want. It gives a detailed account of
where I believe your arguments have failed completely, and also shows
how you've been engaging in personal attacks for no reason whatsoever.

Good Luck.



"tomgee" wrote in message
oups.com...

AllYou! wrote:
"tomgee" wrote in message
oups.com...

AllYou! wrote:
Forgive the top-posting, but I'm simply summarizing our debate
without
snipping anything so that the record is clear.

First of all, your ad hominem attacks are unwarranted. It's a
sure
sign
from someone that they know their arguments are failing. Is that
what
you'd have us believe?

Yeah right, that's exactly what I would have you believe. I do
not
use ad hominem attacks - don't have to. Your responses appeal to
people's emotions and reactionary beliefs and I simply respond in
kind. You know, tit for tat.

"You're a simpleton for thinking that.". That's an ad hominem
attack,
and it's not tit for tat because I've never responded to you that
way.
Dress it up any way you like, but there's simply no reason for it.
You
should be ashamed of yourself for succumbing to your fear of failure
that easily.

"You should be ashamed of yourself for succumbing to your fear of
failure that easily" - that's an ad hominem attack. Funny how you
blame others for doing what you do.


And that was said in direct response to your attack of me, and so for
you to try to even remotely equate the two is simple nonsense. Well, I
guess there's no getting through to you on this point, but just know
that you're making yourself look petty, silly, and very, very afraid.

Second, all I'm trying to do here is to get a finite picture of
your
argument. On one hand, you pinned your entire argument of the
existence of time on the notion that it's inversely proportional
to an object's
state of motion.

The reason you cannot get a good picture of my arguments is
because
you
pick out of context only what you want and often leave out the
very
important qualifying terms people normally use in explanations.
E.g.,
I did not pin my entire argument as you claim above. The fact of
inverse proportion is a sub-topic of my basic argument which is
that
time is a property of matter. You left out my fundamental posit
and
claim that a sub-topic of it is my basic argument. Can you see
your
error in doing that?

There is no such error.

Yes, there is, and until and unless you realize it, you will continue
to misunderstand what anyone says. If you will always make the same
error, it's like talking to a brick wall - no one can ever get through
to you. I have shown that you are confused about everything I have
said because you argue about ideas you don't understand. What is the
sense in talking to someone who cannot understand what you say?

Look, I keep responding by showing you where I believe your argument
fails or simply doesn't make sense, and you keep doing the same. In
that respect, we're equal, and the relative strengths of our logical
arguments will be obvious after we've completed our debate. That (plus
refraining from the kinds of personal attacks in which you engage) is
that nature of a robust debate. What you seem to be missing is that
each of us believes we are right and that the other doesn't understand
our argument. But if all of us were to subscribe to your idea of debate
which is not only to engage in attacks, but to claim as though from some
divine superiority that his argument was so inherently correct that
anyone who disagrees is intellectually inferior, then there'd be no
debates at all. Just ignorant stubbornness.

Below, as well as previously, I've shown over and over again where your
arguments are either contradictory, or circular, or just don't seem to
make any sense at all. Why don't you just confine yourself to
responding to those for as long as you think appropriate, and then stop?
It's really as simple as that.



Sub-topic of not, your whole position either
holds together, or it doesn't.

Yes, and it does hold together - you simply mix up the step-by-step
explanations of my ideas such that you misconstrue my "whole
position".
What you claim is my position is not what I have said at all.

More silliness noted.

Is it your position, or is it not, that
the passage of time can be quantified?

If yes (and if no, then your whole argument of the existence of time
must be revisited), then because you say it's inversely proportional
to
the *state of motion*, then a state of motion is also quantifiable,
correct?

Yes and yes.


OK, so we've finally dispelled that the term is ONLY ("that's all")
another way of saying that an object is in motion. That took much too
much time and effort.

You also said that time is a property of matter and
that the passage of time is needed for change. On the other
hand,
you
also said "A 'state of motion' is a term indicating that an
object
has
motion - that's all."

Well, those two arguments are contradictory.

Oh? How so?

It's surprising that I'd have to spell it out for you in even
greater
detail than I've already done, but in claiming that the term *state
of
motion* is only (i.e., "that's all") another way of indicating that
an
object is in motion, your position is obviously that it's just a
description.

Not surprising at all since you have not been specific enough other
than to claim that the two statements contradict each other. My
explanation of a state of motion is just a description the same as
saying "The Sun is hot". The temperature of the Sun is quantifiable
and so are states of motion and time rates.

Now that's where you contradict yourself. I've explained this so that
virtually anyone can understand it, but it seems I must go even more
slowly. Here's the contradiction.

Anyone who claims the Sun is hot should be able to show that it's
quantifiable by giving units to the term hot (e.g., how hot is it), and
possibly even proposing how hot it is. And because *hot* is
quantifiable, it's more than just a description. But what you fail to
have done is to show how the term *state of motion* could ever be
quantifiable. Yes, yes, I know, you said that it's quantifiable in that
it's inversely proportional to the passage of time, but you've not shown
how that's quantifiable either.

Now here's where you keep blaming me for not understanding what you
mean, and yet you've never supplied any explanation for how either of
those terms is quantifiable in any way. If I'm wrong, then you'd be
able to provide actual rates with actual units.


Now before you claim that I've taken what you said out of
context, the context in which you made that statement in the
following
exchange:

You: "An object's state of motion depends on its mass, density,
and/or
external forces acting upon it at any given time. Thus, an object's
rate of the passage of time can vary because objects can have states
of
motion from "almost still" to just below the speed of light."

Me:
"Well, still (whatever that means), and the speed of light are
rates,
not states. How can you claim that states are not rates, but
express
them in terms of rates?"

You're lying about what I said until you can show where I said that.
To express anything in terms of rates requires the passage of time - a
fact you deny.

You said that in this very thread, on 2/9/2006. Now here's a clear case
where your argument is totally confused. You said exactly what I
quoted, and yet you now find it to be so completely contrary to your
position today, that you're willing to call me a liar.

Anway, now that I've proven that you said exactly that, please finally
answer my question.


So clearly, you keep vacillating between whether or not that term is
just a descriptive one, and whether or not it's quantifiable. So to
end
that confusion, please tell us if that term is quantifiable or not.
If
so, then please tell us how you'd express that quantity, and if not,
then you'll have to explain what you meant by claiming that the
passage
of time is inversely proportional to the state of motion.

To end YOUR confusion - you are the only one here who does not
understand that to say "The Sun is hot" means it has A temperature or
Rates of temperature. To have states of motion means you must have
rates of motion and thus, rates of the passage of time in which
objects
exist.

To say that Sun is hot, the term *hot* can be expressed in units. To
say that a car passes by me at some rate, I can express that rate as a
ratio of units. For the umpteeth time, can you express either the term
*state of motion* in any units whatsoever, and can you show how it's
inverse can be derived? You're the one who chose the analogy to the
term hot, so please follow through.


That term must be more
than a descriptive one. It must be quantifiable if it's
inversely
proportional to the passage of time. So which is it?

You are still confused. A term indicating that an object has
motion
stands on its own needing no specific quantity. It is analogous
to
saying, "the sun is hot", where no specific temperature is
required
for
the statement to be valid. I do not claim that a state of motion
is
inversely proportional to the passage of time. I claim it is the
rate
of the passage of time that is proportional to an object's state
of
motion . In your confusion, you have it backwards.

So it's your position that the rate of the passage of time is
proportional to an object's state of motion, yet on 2/7/06, we had
this
exchange:

Me:
"To demonstrate, I'll bet you can't tell me at what rate time
passes."

You:
"Sure I can, and I have before. Time passes for discrete objects at
rates inversely proportional to their states of motion."

So I agree that I'm confused by those two statements.

You have made it abundantly clear that you are confused by that simple
statement. You seem to ascribe some deep or mystical meaning to the
term "inverse proportion" where it is simply explained by saying that
if an object's state of motion is slower than another object's, its
time rate is faster than for the other object.

All of which should be quantifiable. Saying the Sun is hot can be
demonstrated by quantifying that statement. Can't you quantify your
claims regarding *states of motion*? At this point, I'm not even asking
for any given quantity. I'm just asking for units. In what units would
you express that quantity?

To do valid science, if one asserts that a property is quantifiable,
they must demonstrate such by providing evidence that it's true. Every
quantifiable property in the universe can be expressed in units of one
kind or another, and yet you claim that what you assert as a property of
every object is quantifiable, but just not in any units. Do you see how
that simply doesn't make any sense?


Is the
relationship inversely proportional, or not?

I don't know how to make it any clearer for you. I said from the very
beginning that it was but you still ask about that.

To be inversely proportionate requires the comparison of two ratios, and
ratios consist of the comparison of two quantities. That's a total of
four quantities which can be expressed in very explicit units. Please
give the four units that you'd express the terms *state of motion* and
*passage of time*. You can clear all of this up by doing so.

For someone who claims to
have thought this out in great detail, your sub-positions seem to be
at
odds with your basic positions, and you seem to say many
contradictory
things.

More ad hominem attacks.

An AH attack would be if I called you stupid for doing so. In this
case, I've simply pointed out that your positions *seem* to be at odds
with other, and that you *seem* to have said many contradictory things.
Not only would that not be a personal attack had I simply asserted that
they were, but the fact that I said that they *seem* to be that way, is
very gentlemanly of me for allowing for the possibility that my
impressions might be wrong. In reality, I know there's no chance of
that, but I was being a gentleman about it.


I have thought this out in great detail, and
my ideas are not at odds with each other, and if I had said anything
in
contradiction, you can bet others would have jumped in to point it
out.
You're the only one who sees non-existent contradictions and who does
not see that my ideas had to have taken a lot of thought to come about
and merge with observed phenomena without contradiction of any of it.

And yet, not only do I keep pointing them out, but I also explain where
the contradictions lie, and your whole response amounts to *no they're
not*.



But even more important than your apparent self-contradictions is
the
fact that you've yet to explain how one concept can have a
mathamatical
relationship (i.e., propotionality of some type or other) to another
concept, yet you can't ever seem to express either term in any
quantifiable way. How would you express any amount of the rate of
the
passage of time, and how would you do the math to show [inverse]
proportionality?

This is another point you cannot understand. According to SR and my
previously detailed riddle of the moving train, time rates vary. Even
AE failed to say exactly how much the time differences would be of the
twins, and you know that if the math could be done, he would have done
it.

Notwithstanding the fact that you're wrong about this, AE was always
able to express everything he asserted in proper mathematical terms. So
you're confused about what I'm asking. I'm not even asking for any
hypotheticals and how you'd do the calculations. At this point, I'm
just asking for units. Just first give me units for *state of motion*.


As I've said before, it cannot be done - it can only be approximated
as
to the the age differences. That is because the numerically specific
accrual of time rates depends on an object's states of motion
thoughout
its lifetime, and we cannot ever know what those are except for
objects
that exist within our own time reference frame.

Units.


Also, for some quantity to be inversely proportional to some
other
quantity, both must be rates. So please explain how you'd
express
either rate. What is that ratio?

I don't know the ratio other than that the higher the state of
motion
of an object, the slower its time rate. That's based on the SR
assertion that the astronaut twin will age less than his
Earthbound
twin.

So you're convinced of your theory, yet not only can't you come up
with
any rate, you also can't seem to even express that rate in terms of
any
units at all! So even if you're not willing to construct a
hypothetical of any type, just give me some units. In what units
would
you express the numerator, and what units for the denominator? Can
you
at least give me that?

Well, if AE the greaaat mathematician couldn't give you all that, why
are you asking me? Ask him - he's the one thought up "time dilation".
I just explained it to change it from a mystical experience to an
empirical fact.

AE did give units for everything he expressed. But AE never used the
term *state of motion*. You're the one who seems to have come up with
that one, or at least you subscribe to it, so please give them to me.
This is such a basic question. When AE spoke of time, he used units.
When he spoke of length, or mass, or density, he used units. But when
you speak of the *state of motion*, you can't seem to do any such thing.
Why not?


you can't be too bright

See? That's another personal attack for which there was simply no
call.
I suspect it's because you know that your argument is failing and so
that's scares you which, in turn, gets you mad. But whatever the
reason, it's just not very nice.

It's just tit for tat in our volley of insults. It's not very nice,
true, so stop your ad hominem attacks if my return volleys hurt your
feelings.

I've never insulted you that way. I could do so easily, but I have not.

if you cannot gather from my explanation above
what a state of motion is. Also, you seem to think I said that a
state
of motion can "pass" - see how confused you are? All of my
responses
are on point; it is you who cannot read well enough to keep from
confusing yourself.

What I believe is that you said time passes,

But you asked about a state of motion passing, did you not? That
means
you're confused, in my book.

If the state of motion is inversely proportional to the passage of time,
then both are rates, and the term rate is indicative of a process, and
all processes evolve, or *pass*, to use your vernacular. So yes, for
you to claim that timer passes and that it's rate is inversely
proportional to the *state of motion* is to say that a *state of motion*
is also a process which passes.

So it would seem that your book is not very reliable. ;-)


and that it does so at a
rate, and that the rate is (inversely?) proportional to the state of
motion, which means that the state of motion is also a rate. That
logic
train is perfectly consistent with the scientific and mathematical
precepts, and so if that's not what you meant, then it would seem
that
you are the one who is confused.

Now that was my complete comment, so please address it in context.


Are you trying to claim that every object has an absolute
motion?
What is an internal state of motion? What's more, I asked
you
what a state of motion was, but you then went on to describe
matter, not
a state of motion.

No. I answered your question, you just don't get it.

Do you see it? All you said was that because every singly
visible
object is in motion, it has the property of time, and therefore
it's
in some state of motion or other.

There, you see? That's how you're confusing yourself. I said
that
SINCE every discrete object is in motion, every object is in some
state of motion or other. I did not say that the property of time
accrues
to objects because they are in motion. I said, 1., that time is
a
property of matter. Then I said 2., that time passes at rates
according to an object's state of motion.

And after saying all of that, you still refuse to answer a simple
and
straightforward question, and that is to give a definition of *state
of
motion* without using the term in the definition. Can you do that?
What is the substantive difference between describing an object of
*being in motion*, and of describing it as having a *state of
motion*?

None - that's what I'm trying to tell you: having a state of motion
means it is in motion and thus the two terms are synonymous. A
synonym
is: "word meaning same as another: a word that means the same, or
almost the same, as another word in the same language, either in all
of
its uses or in a particular context. Examples of synonyms in this
sense are 'environment' and 'surroundings' and the verbs 'tear' and
'rip.'" (Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.)


This is where your imprecision with science shows itself more clearly
than ever. If the two are synonymous, then you could just as easily say
that the passage of time in inversely proportional to being in motion.
But *being in motion* is a singular condition and not a rate. That's
like saying that some rate or other is proportional to being heavy.
That's plainly invalid. Some rate or other can't be inversely
proportional to being hot, or heavy, or any other descriptive term. For
a rate to be inversely proportional to something, that something must
also be a rate. So please express the rate using valid units.

AllYou! wrote:
You can either read and respond to all of this post, or you can take a
short cut by addressing just the following:

I know what my options are, but thanks anyway.

You claim *state of motion* is synonymous with the term *being in
motion* and you also say that it's the same as saying the sun is hot.
But then you're also adamant that the passage of time is inversely
proportional to the *state of motion*.

So my questions are these:

How can the passage of time be inversely proportional to being in motion
when one is a rate, and the other is only a description of a condition?
Inverse proportionality is the comparison of two rates.

It can be such because saying "being in motion" is the same as saying
"in a state of motion."

What units would you use to express those rates? I'm not asking for any
math at this point, or any hypothetical. I'm simply asking for units.
By what units would you express the passage of time, and what units
would you express the inverse rate which you call a *state of motion*?

I answered that below.

SNIP

"tomgee" wrote in message
oups.com...

AllYou! wrote:
"tomgee" wrote in message
oups.com...

AllYou! wrote:
Forgive the top-posting, but I'm simply summarizing our debate
SNIP

Second, all I'm trying to do here is to get a finite picture of
your
argument. On one hand, you pinned your entire argument of the
existence of time on the notion that it's inversely proportional
to an object's
state of motion.

The reason you cannot get a good picture of my arguments is
because
you
pick out of context only what you want and often leave out the
very
important qualifying terms people normally use in explanations.
E.g.,
I did not pin my entire argument as you claim above. The fact of
inverse proportion is a sub-topic of my basic argument which is
that
time is a property of matter. You left out my fundamental posit
and
claim that a sub-topic of it is my basic argument. Can you see
your
error in doing that?

There is no such error.

Yes, there is, and until and unless you realize it, you will continue
to misunderstand what anyone says. If you will always make the same
error, it's like talking to a brick wall - no one can ever get through
to you. I have shown that you are confused about everything I have
said because you argue about ideas you don't understand. What is the
sense in talking to someone who cannot understand what you say?

Look, I keep responding by showing you where I believe your argument
fails or simply doesn't make sense, and you keep doing the same. In
that respect, we're equal, and the relative strengths of our logical
arguments will be obvious after we've completed our debate.

When you misunderstand what you read and then respond wrt your
misunderstanding, that is not a logical argument.

That (plus
refraining from the kinds of personal attacks in which you engage) is
that nature of a robust debate.

I have the right to tit so long as you tat. And your belief of what a
debate is shows more misunderstanding on your part.

What you seem to be missing is that
each of us believes we are right and that the other doesn't understand
our argument. But if all of us were to subscribe to your idea of debate
which is not only to engage in attacks, but to claim as though from some
divine superiority that his argument was so inherently correct that
anyone who disagrees is intellectually inferior, then there'd be no
debates at all. Just ignorant stubbornness.

Well, you started the attacks, and I have pointed out exactly where you
have misunderstood what I said, yet you deny all that. How stubborn is
that?

Below, as well as previously, I've shown over and over again where your
arguments are either contradictory, or circular, or just don't seem to
make any sense at all. Why don't you just confine yourself to
responding to those for as long as you think appropriate, and then stop?
It's really as simple as that.

You keep making those claims but you fail to substantiate them. Just
saying something is so don't make it so. I have shown support for
each and everyone of my arguments but you don't recognize that. You
have wasted a lot of time on a silly argument about quantifiability and
even after I explained that not even AE could calculate it (because we
can only quantifly from our frame of reference) precisely or he would
have done so in SR, you still engage in such nonsense. How simple is
that?

Sub-topic of not, your whole position either
holds together, or it doesn't.

Yes, and it does hold together - you simply mix up the step-by-step
explanations of my ideas such that you misconstrue my "whole
position".
What you claim is my position is not what I have said at all.

More silliness noted.

Not silly atall. You claim my position is one thing due to your
practice of excluding or mixing relevant terms, and when I correct you,
you claim it's silliness. How silly is that?

SNIP
OK, so we've finally dispelled that the term is ONLY ("that's all")
another way of saying that an object is in motion. That took much too
much time and effort.

It means much more than that, but to try to explain that to you would
surely be more waste of time.

SNIP
Well, those two arguments are contradictory.

Oh? How so?

It's surprising that I'd have to spell it out for you in even
greater
detail than I've already done, but in claiming that the term *state

SNIP

Not surprising at all since you have not been specific enough other
than to claim that the two statements contradict each other. My
explanation of a state of motion is just a description the same as
saying "The Sun is hot". The temperature of the Sun is quantifiable
and so are states of motion and time rates.

Now that's where you contradict yourself. I've explained this so that
virtually anyone can understand it, but it seems I must go even more
slowly. Here's the contradiction.

Anyone who claims the Sun is hot should be able to show that it's
quantifiable by giving units to the term hot (e.g., how hot is it), and
possibly even proposing how hot it is.

No, that's not true. Anyone who claims the Sun is cold should be able
to say how cold it is relative to the fact that the Sun is hot. It is
an empirical fact that the Sun is hot and not cold. Hot and cold must
be quantified only to know the details of heat and cold. Anyone knows
ice is cold and that the Sun is hot. How hot or how cold things are is
not required knowledge. In fact, even SR cannot precisely quantify
"time dilation" because the rate of the passage of time depends on the
state of motion of each observer.

And because *hot* is
quantifiable, it's more than just a description. But what you fail to
have done is to show how the term *state of motion* could ever be
quantifiable. Yes, yes, I know, you said that it's quantifiable in that
it's inversely proportional to the passage of time, but you've not shown
how that's quantifiable either.

From our time rate settings, we use clocks to quantify the passage of
time. Clocks use seconds, hours, days, weeks, months, and years as
units of time. But you know all that, why must I explain it to you?

Now here's where you keep blaming me for not understanding what you
mean, and yet you've never supplied any explanation for how either of
those terms is quantifiable in any way. If I'm wrong, then you'd be
able to provide actual rates with actual units.

Illogical statement, since even if actual rates with actual units
cannot be calculated, you can still be wrong (and in fact, you are).
Whether you're right or wrong does not depend on whether or not we can
provide actual rates with actual units. Where you're claerly wrong is
where we can see that you misunderstand what you read. E.g., when you
read that "motion is inversely proportional to time" from the written
"time is a property of matter and passes inversely proportional to an
object's state of motion", that is proof positive that you have
misunderstood what you read.

Now before you claim that I've taken what you said out of
context, the context in which you made that statement in the
following
exchange:

You: "An object's state of motion depends on its mass, density,
and/or
external forces acting upon it at any given time. Thus, an object's
rate of the passage of time can vary because objects can have states
of
motion from "almost still" to just below the speed of light."

Me:
"Well, still (whatever that means), and the speed of light are
rates,
not states. How can you claim that states are not rates, but
express
them in terms of rates?"

You're lying about what I said until you can show where I said that.
To express anything in terms of rates requires the passage of time - a
fact you deny.

You said that in this very thread, on 2/9/2006. Now here's a clear case
where your argument is totally confused. You said exactly what I
quoted, and yet you now find it to be so completely contrary to your
position today, that you're willing to call me a liar.

That's only because you are lying about what I said. There is no such
statement in the quote above. You lie about me saying that states are
not rates while I express them in terms of rates. You said that, not
me. First, you misunderstand what you read. Next, you attribute your
misunderstanding as a quote from me, then you use your misunderstanding
as a contradiction from me. Tell me truly - how dumb is that?

Anway, now that I've proven that you said exactly that, please finally
answer my question.

SNIP

To end YOUR confusion - you are the only one here who does not
understand that to say "The Sun is hot" means it has A temperature or
Rates of temperature. To have states of motion means you must have
rates of motion and thus, rates of the passage of time in which objects
exist.

To say that Sun is hot, the term *hot* can be expressed in units.

Yes, but it is not required that "hot" be expressed in units for the
statement to be true. We can say that an object is in motion without
having to express its motion in units for it to be true that it is in
motion.

To
say that a car passes by me at some rate, I can express that rate as a
ratio of units. For the umpteeth time, can you express either the term
*state of motion* in any units whatsoever, and can you show how it's
inverse can be derived? You're the one who chose the analogy to the
term hot, so please follow through.

For the umpteenth time, I repeat: N O ! Now, which part of no can you
not understand?

SNIP

You have made it abundantly clear that you are confused by that simple
statement. You seem to ascribe some deep or mystical meaning to the
term "inverse proportion" where it is simply explained by saying that
if an object's state of motion is slower than another object's, its
time rate is faster than for the other object.

All of which should be quantifiable. Saying the Sun is hot can be
demonstrated by quantifying that statement. Can't you quantify your
claims regarding *states of motion*? At this point, I'm not even asking
for any given quantity. I'm just asking for units. In what units would
you express that quantity?

To do valid science, if one asserts that a property is quantifiable,
they must demonstrate such by providing evidence that it's true. Every
quantifiable property in the universe can be expressed in units of one
kind or another, and yet you claim that what you assert as a property of
every object is quantifiable, but just not in any units. Do you see how
that simply doesn't make any sense?

Not atall. Did AE do valid science when he could not calculate
precisely the exact passage of time for the astronaut twin? Another
lie: that I assert time is quantifiable but not in any units. I said
you can quantify it all you want in anyway but it will not be correct
except wrt our time frame of reference. You lie about what I've said
and then you argue that the lie is nonsense, and of course it is,
because it's a lie. Why would you make up a lie that is sensible?

Is the
relationship inversely proportional, or not?

I don't know how to make it any clearer for you. I said from the very
beginning that it was but you still ask about that.

To be inversely proportionate requires the comparison of two ratios,

Illogical. Things can be inversely proportional without comparing
their ratios. Saying they are such does not make them any the less
inversely proportional and giving their ratios does not make them any
more inversely proportional. The former thus does not preclude the
latter. The latter is just more specific but nor necessary for the
former to be true.

and
ratios consist of the comparison of two quantities. That's a total of
four quantities which can be expressed in very explicit units. Please
give the four units that you'd express the terms *state of motion* and
*passage of time*. You can clear all of this up by doing so.

For someone who claims to
have thought this out in great detail, your sub-positions seem to be
at
odds with your basic positions, and you seem to say many
contradictory
things.

More ad hominem attacks.

An AH attack would be if I called you stupid for doing so.

Not so. An AH simply appeals to people's emotions and beliefs rather
than their ability to think. You're using terms you don't know or
which you misunderstand their meaning.

In this
case, I've simply pointed out that your positions *seem* to be at odds
with other, and that you *seem* to have said many contradictory things.
Not only would that not be a personal attack had I simply asserted that
they were, but the fact that I said that they *seem* to be that way, is
very gentlemanly of me for allowing for the possibility that my
impressions might be wrong. In reality, I know there's no chance of
that, but I was being a gentleman about it.

Well, how falsely gentlemanly of you.

I have thought this out in great detail, and
my ideas are not at odds with each other, and if I had said anything
in
contradiction, you can bet others would have jumped in to point it
out.
You're the only one who sees non-existent contradictions and who does
not see that my ideas had to have taken a lot of thought to come about
and merge with observed phenomena without contradiction of any of it.

And yet, not only do I keep pointing them out, but I also explain where
the contradictions lie, and your whole response amounts to *no they're
not*.

You have pointed out nonesuch. You have given us a lot of nonsensical
opinions based on your misunderstandings of what you've read, though.

SNIP

This is another point you cannot understand. According to SR and my
previously detailed riddle of the moving train, time rates vary. Even
AE failed to say exactly how much the time differences would be of the
twins, and you know that if the math could be done, he would have done
it.

Notwithstanding the fact that you're wrong about this, AE was always
able to express everything he asserted in proper mathematical terms.

Oh? So you're claiming that AE was precise about the amount of time
dilation that occurred in SR's Twin Paradox experiment? Citation,
please.

So
you're confused about what I'm asking. I'm not even asking for any
hypotheticals and how you'd do the calculations. At this point, I'm
just asking for units. Just first give me units for *state of motion*.

As I've said before, it cannot be done - it can only be approximated
as
to the the age differences. That is because the numerically specific
accrual of time rates depends on an object's states of motion
thoughout
its lifetime, and we cannot ever know what those are except for
objects
that exist within our own time reference frame.

Also, for some quantity to be inversely proportional to some
other
quantity, both must be rates. So please explain how you'd
express
either rate. What is that ratio?

I don't know the ratio other than that the higher the state of
motion
of an object, the slower its time rate. That's based on the SR
assertion that the astronaut twin will age less than his
Earthbound
twin.

So you're convinced of your theory, yet not only can't you come up
with
any rate, you also can't seem to even express that rate in terms of
any
units at all! So even if you're not willing to construct a
hypothetical of any type, just give me some units. In what units
would
you express the numerator, and what units for the denominator? Can
you
at least give me that?

Well, if AE the greaaat mathematician couldn't give you all that, why
are you asking me? Ask him - he's the one thought up "time dilation".
I just explained it to change it from a mystical experience to an
empirical fact.

AE did give units for everything he expressed. But AE never used the
term *state of motion*. You're the one who seems to have come up with
that one, or at least you subscribe to it, so please give them to me.

So now you're claiming - blindly, I might say - that AE gave us the
formula for calculating the time differences in the Twin Paradox.
Since you know so much, give it to us. But you cannot do that because
it is not possible to make such calculations.

This is such a basic question. When AE spoke of time, he used units.
When he spoke of length, or mass, or density, he used units. But when
you speak of the *state of motion*, you can't seem to do any such thing.
Why not?

Because it is not required for units to be used in making the statement
valid. Your question is illogical and shows a basic misunderstanding
or lack of knowledge about SR.

SNIP

if you cannot gather from my explanation above
what a state of motion is. Also, you seem to think I said that a
state
of motion can "pass" - see how confused you are? All of my
responses
are on point; it is you who cannot read well enough to keep from
confusing yourself.

What I believe is that you said time passes,

But you asked about a state of motion passing, did you not? That
means
you're confused, in my book.

If the state of motion is inversely proportional to the passage of time,
then both are rates, and the term rate is indicative of a process, and
all processes evolve, or *pass*, to use your vernacular. So yes, for
you to claim that timer passes and that it's rate is inversely
proportional to the *state of motion* is to say that a *state of motion*
is also a process which passes.

So it would seem that your book is not very reliable. ;-)

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it.

and that it does so at a
rate, and that the rate is (inversely?) proportional to the state of
motion, which means that the state of motion is also a rate. That
logic
train is perfectly consistent with the scientific and mathematical
precepts, and so if that's not what you meant, then it would seem
that
you are the one who is confused.

Now that was my complete comment, so please address it in context.

I did higher up above.


None - that's what I'm trying to tell you: having a state of motion
means it is in motion and thus the two terms are synonymous. A
synonym
is: "word meaning same as another: a word that means the same, or
almost the same, as another word in the same language, either in all
of
its uses or in a particular context. Examples of synonyms in this
sense are 'environment' and 'surroundings' and the verbs 'tear' and
'rip.'" (Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.)

This is where your imprecision with science shows itself more clearly
than ever.

Very nasty and falsely gentlemanly AH attack duly noted.

If the two are synonymous, then you could just as easily say
that the passage of time in inversely proportional to being in motion.

You can say that if you wish. Why do you say, "If"? Do you disagree?

But *being in motion* is a singular condition and not a rate. That's
like saying that some rate or other is proportional to being heavy.
That's plainly invalid.

Illogical. It is not like saying that atall. Saying "being in motion"
is like saying an object is in a state of motion. "Heavy" is
inappropriate in your analogy.

Some rate or other can't be inversely
proportional to being hot, or heavy, or any other descriptive term.

Correct. That's why your analogy above fails.

"tomgee" wrote in message
ups.com...
AllYou! wrote:
You can either read and respond to all of this post, or you can take
a
short cut by addressing just the following:

I know what my options are, but thanks anyway.

You claim *state of motion* is synonymous with the term *being in
motion* and you also say that it's the same as saying the sun is
hot.
But then you're also adamant that the passage of time is inversely
proportional to the *state of motion*.

So my questions are these:

How can the passage of time be inversely proportional to being in
motion
when one is a rate, and the other is only a description of a
condition?
Inverse proportionality is the comparison of two rates.

It can be such because saying "being in motion" is the same as saying
"in a state of motion."

I guess you missed the part about the comparison of two rates, so I'll
ask once again but in a slightly different way. Whereas inverse
proportionality is the comparison of two rates, and *being in motion* is
not a rate, but a description of a condition, then your claim that the
passage of time is inversely proportional to being in motion is invalid.
What is your support for refuting that fact?

What units would you use to express those rates? I'm not asking for
any
math at this point, or any hypothetical. I'm simply asking for
units.
By what units would you express the passage of time, and what units
would you express the inverse rate which you call a *state of
motion*?

I answered that below.

No you didn't. You never gave any such units.



SNIP

"tomgee" wrote in message
oups.com...

AllYou! wrote:
"tomgee" wrote in message
oups.com...

AllYou! wrote:
Forgive the top-posting, but I'm simply summarizing our
debate
SNIP

Second, all I'm trying to do here is to get a finite picture
of
your
argument. On one hand, you pinned your entire argument of
the
existence of time on the notion that it's inversely
proportional
to an object's
state of motion.

The reason you cannot get a good picture of my arguments is
because
you
pick out of context only what you want and often leave out the
very
important qualifying terms people normally use in
explanations.
E.g.,
I did not pin my entire argument as you claim above. The fact
of
inverse proportion is a sub-topic of my basic argument which
is
that
time is a property of matter. You left out my fundamental
posit
and
claim that a sub-topic of it is my basic argument. Can you
see
your
error in doing that?

There is no such error.

Yes, there is, and until and unless you realize it, you will
continue
to misunderstand what anyone says. If you will always make the
same
error, it's like talking to a brick wall - no one can ever get
through
to you. I have shown that you are confused about everything I
have
said because you argue about ideas you don't understand. What is
the
sense in talking to someone who cannot understand what you say?

Look, I keep responding by showing you where I believe your argument
fails or simply doesn't make sense, and you keep doing the same. In
that respect, we're equal, and the relative strengths of our logical
arguments will be obvious after we've completed our debate.

When you misunderstand what you read and then respond wrt your
misunderstanding, that is not a logical argument.

That assumes that you're right that I misunderstood you, but I've had
enough of your silliness. I'll simply ignore it from now on, and let
others draw their own conclusions about you.


That (plus
refraining from the kinds of personal attacks in which you engage)
is
that nature of a robust debate.

I have the right to tit so long as you tat. And your belief of what a
debate is shows more misunderstanding on your part.

Silliness noted.

What you seem to be missing is that
each of us believes we are right and that the other doesn't
understand
our argument. But if all of us were to subscribe to your idea of
debate
which is not only to engage in attacks, but to claim as though from
some
divine superiority that his argument was so inherently correct that
anyone who disagrees is intellectually inferior, then there'd be no
debates at all. Just ignorant stubbornness.

Well, you started the attacks, and I have pointed out exactly where
you
have misunderstood what I said, yet you deny all that. How stubborn
is
that?


Silliness noted.


Below, as well as previously, I've shown over and over again where
your
arguments are either contradictory, or circular, or just don't seem
to
make any sense at all. Why don't you just confine yourself to
responding to those for as long as you think appropriate, and then
stop?
It's really as simple as that.

You keep making those claims but you fail to substantiate them. Just
saying something is so don't make it so. I have shown support for
each and everyone of my arguments but you don't recognize that. You
have wasted a lot of time on a silly argument about quantifiability
and
even after I explained that not even AE could calculate it (because we
can only quantifly from our frame of reference) precisely or he would
have done so in SR, you still engage in such nonsense. How simple is
that?


Silliness noted.



Sub-topic of not, your whole position either
holds together, or it doesn't.

Yes, and it does hold together - you simply mix up the
step-by-step
explanations of my ideas such that you misconstrue my "whole
position".
What you claim is my position is not what I have said at all.

More silliness noted.

Not silly atall. You claim my position is one thing due to your
practice of excluding or mixing relevant terms, and when I correct
you,
you claim it's silliness. How silly is that?


Silliness noted.



OK, so we've finally dispelled that the term is ONLY ("that's all")
another way of saying that an object is in motion. That took much
too
much time and effort.

It means much more than that, but to try to explain that to you would
surely be more waste of time.


So at one time, you said "that's all", and now you claim that it's much
more than that. Silliness noted.


Well, those two arguments are contradictory.

Oh? How so?

It's surprising that I'd have to spell it out for you in even
greater
detail than I've already done, but in claiming that the term
*state

SNIP


Silliness noted.



Not surprising at all since you have not been specific enough
other
than to claim that the two statements contradict each other. My
explanation of a state of motion is just a description the same as
saying "The Sun is hot". The temperature of the Sun is
quantifiable
and so are states of motion and time rates.

Now that's where you contradict yourself. I've explained this so
that
virtually anyone can understand it, but it seems I must go even more
slowly. Here's the contradiction.

Anyone who claims the Sun is hot should be able to show that it's
quantifiable by giving units to the term hot (e.g., how hot is it),
and
possibly even proposing how hot it is.

No, that's not true.

Sure it is. Hot, is a relative term, and so to relate it to other
objects which are also hot to some extent, units are required.

Anyone who claims the Sun is cold should be able
to say how cold it is relative to the fact that the Sun is hot.

And the only way to *say* snicker that is with the use of units. How
else could you *say* snicker again it in any scientifically valid way?


It is
an empirical fact that the Sun is hot and not cold. Hot and cold must
be quantified only to know the details of heat and cold. Anyone knows
ice is cold and that the Sun is hot. How hot or how cold things are
is
not required knowledge. In fact, even SR cannot precisely quantify
"time dilation" because the rate of the passage of time depends on the
state of motion of each observer.

Hot is a quantity which must be measurable in order to be scientifically
valid. Claims that *everyone knows* is nonsense.


And because *hot* is
quantifiable, it's more than just a description. But what you fail
to
have done is to show how the term *state of motion* could ever be
quantifiable. Yes, yes, I know, you said that it's quantifiable in
that
it's inversely proportional to the passage of time, but you've not
shown
how that's quantifiable either.

From our time rate settings, we use clocks to quantify the passage of
time. Clocks use seconds, hours, days, weeks, months, and years as
units of time. But you know all that, why must I explain it to you?

Those are not rates, nor are they units of the *passage of time*. You
went to great lengths in the past to draw the distinction between time,
and the passage of time. I know that time can be expressed in units,
but those are fundamental units and not rates. What you failed to learn
wherever it was you got your education is the basic concept of
proportionality.

So if time is expressed in units of seconds, how is the rate of its
passage expressed?

Now here's where you keep blaming me for not understanding what you
mean, and yet you've never supplied any explanation for how either
of
those terms is quantifiable in any way. If I'm wrong, then you'd be
able to provide actual rates with actual units.

Illogical statement, since even if actual rates with actual units
cannot be calculated, you can still be wrong (and in fact, you are).


Silliness noted.

Whether you're right or wrong does not depend on whether or not we can
provide actual rates with actual units. Where you're claerly wrong is
where we can see that you misunderstand what you read.


Silliness noted.

E.g., when you
read that "motion is inversely proportional to time" from the written
"time is a property of matter and passes inversely proportional to an
object's state of motion", that is proof positive that you have
misunderstood what you read.


Silliness noted. You're doing a lot of hand waving, but in the end,
it's clear that you can't answer a simple and valid question. To claim
that one value is proportional to another, those values must be of
rates, and to have valid rates, it must be possible to express those
rates in terms of some units. Those are the simple facts of
mathematical and scientific life. And so for you to keep refuting those
facts, and to keep insisting that no units are required in order to
express a value, much less a rate, shows that your education is woefully
lacking.

You inablity to express your claims interms of any units is noted.


Now before you claim that I've taken what you said out of
context, the context in which you made that statement in the
following
exchange:

You: "An object's state of motion depends on its mass, density,
and/or
external forces acting upon it at any given time. Thus, an
object's
rate of the passage of time can vary because objects can have
states
of
motion from "almost still" to just below the speed of light."

Me:
"Well, still (whatever that means), and the speed of light are
rates,
not states. How can you claim that states are not rates, but
express
them in terms of rates?"

You're lying about what I said until you can show where I said
that.
To express anything in terms of rates requires the passage of
time - a
fact you deny.

You said that in this very thread, on 2/9/2006. Now here's a clear
case
where your argument is totally confused. You said exactly what I
quoted, and yet you now find it to be so completely contrary to your
position today, that you're willing to call me a liar.

That's only because you are lying about what I said.

It was a direct quote, and I gave the reference for it. Silliness
noted.


There is no such
statement in the quote above.

On 2/9/06, you said exactly that in this thread.

you said:

"Thanks for asking. It is of utmost importance to remember at all times
that every single visible object in the universe is always in motion.
Having motion, they also have the property of time, always. Thus, they
are always in some state of motion or another. For e.g., moving in
space as a discrete object is one state of motion that can be defined
by comparing its speed with another object. But visible objects also
have internal motions, as we all know. Even if an object could stand
perfectly still, it would have an internal state of motion.

"The states of motion I refer to are the sum total of external and
internal motions of a body. Before AE, a mass had energy due to the
fact it was a mass, just like in E=mc^2, but it also had energy due to
it's state of motion, as in E=mc^2+(energy of motion). AE left off the
energy of motion factor because it is not needed in his measurements
within SR. However, it is necessary in describing reality so people
find it hard to bear in mind that AE's E=mc^2 is a special case of the
general case of mass and energy and as such it is an induction valid
only in certain cases that do not need to include the energy-of-motion
factor.

"I am not saying that a "state" "passes". Time passes. It passes at
certain rates that are dependent upon an object's state of motion. An
object's state of motion depends on its mass, density, and/or external
forces acting upon it at any given time. Thus, an object's rate of the
passage of time can vary because objects can have states of motion from
"almost still" to just below the speed of light. Absolute "stillness"
is not possible for objects, just like light speed is not possible for
them. For matter, those are the limits of existence in that form, and
beyond those limits it cannot be called matter any longer, and so it is
no longer in the time dimension and does not age. It is no involved in
the entropy process."

Do you see it now? You owe me an apology.

You lie about me saying that states are
not rates while I express them in terms of rates.

Where have you ever expressed a state of motion as a rate?
Do so here and now --------


You said that, not
me. First, you misunderstand what you read. Next, you attribute your
misunderstanding as a quote from me, then you use your
misunderstanding
as a contradiction from me. Tell me truly - how dumb is that?

More silliness noted.


Anway, now that I've proven that you said exactly that, please
finally
answer my question.



To end YOUR confusion - you are the only one here who does not
understand that to say "The Sun is hot" means it has A temperature
or
Rates of temperature. To have states of motion means you must
have
rates of motion and thus, rates of the passage of time in which
objects
exist.

To say that Sun is hot, the term *hot* can be expressed in units.

Yes, but it is not required that "hot" be expressed in units for the
statement to be true. We can say that an object is in motion without
having to express its motion in units for it to be true that it is in
motion.

But you should be able to express the degree to which the Sun is hot
should you ever be able to measure it, and this would require the use of
units. Accordingly, you should be able to express the degree to which
an object is in a *state of motion* should you ever be able to measure
or calculate it, and this would require units. So what are those units?

To
say that a car passes by me at some rate, I can express that rate as
a
ratio of units. For the umpteeth time, can you express either the
term
*state of motion* in any units whatsoever, and can you show how it's
inverse can be derived? You're the one who chose the analogy to the
term hot, so please follow through.

For the umpteenth time, I repeat: N O ! Now, which part of no can
you
not understand?

OK then. You finally admit that you don't have a clue as to what units
you'd use to quantify the rate which you call the *state of motion*.
Well, it's clear then that this is simply scientifically invalid. My
case has been made. Thanks.

You have made it abundantly clear that you are confused by that
simple
statement. You seem to ascribe some deep or mystical meaning to
the
term "inverse proportion" where it is simply explained by saying
that
if an object's state of motion is slower than another object's,
its
time rate is faster than for the other object.

All of which should be quantifiable. Saying the Sun is hot can be
demonstrated by quantifying that statement. Can't you quantify your
claims regarding *states of motion*? At this point, I'm not even
asking
for any given quantity. I'm just asking for units. In what units
would
you express that quantity?

Well?


To do valid science, if one asserts that a property is quantifiable,
they must demonstrate such by providing evidence that it's true.
Every
quantifiable property in the universe can be expressed in units of
one
kind or another, and yet you claim that what you assert as a
property of
every object is quantifiable, but just not in any units. Do you see
how
that simply doesn't make any sense?

Not atall. Did AE do valid science when he could not calculate
precisely the exact passage of time for the astronaut twin?

You don't seem to understand the difference between being able to do an
actual calculation, and not even having the tools with which to do it.
Notwithstanding the fact that you're wrong about AE, the fact is that
I'm not asking you to perform any calculation regarding any specific
situation. All I'm asking for is for you to give me the units that
you'd use if you were to quantify what you claim is quantifiable. Every
quantifiable property in the universe can be expressed in units of one
kind or another, yet you claim to know of a property for which this is
not true. Amazing.



Another
lie: that I assert time is quantifiable but not in any units. I said
you can quantify it all you want in anyway but it will not be correct
except wrt our time frame of reference. You lie about what I've said
and then you argue that the lie is nonsense, and of course it is,
because it's a lie. Why would you make up a lie that is sensible?


More silliness noted.


Is the
relationship inversely proportional, or not?

I don't know how to make it any clearer for you. I said from the
very
beginning that it was but you still ask about that.

To be inversely proportionate requires the comparison of two ratios,

Illogical.


More silliness noted.

Things can be inversely proportional without comparing
their ratios.

snicker

Saying they are such does not make them any the less
inversely proportional and giving their ratios does not make them any
more inversely proportional. The former thus does not preclude the
latter. The latter is just more specific but nor necessary for the
former to be true.

Give me one example, just one, of a real life situation where you can
claim that two entites are inversly proportional without comparing their
ratios. You should be able to provide just one, correct?


and
ratios consist of the comparison of two quantities. That's a total
of
four quantities which can be expressed in very explicit units.
Please
give the four units that you'd express the terms *state of motion*
and
*passage of time*. You can clear all of this up by doing so.

Well?


For someone who claims to
have thought this out in great detail, your sub-positions seem
to be
at
odds with your basic positions, and you seem to say many
contradictory
things.

More ad hominem attacks.

An AH attack would be if I called you stupid for doing so.

Not so. An AH simply appeals to people's emotions and beliefs rather
than their ability to think. You're using terms you don't know or
which you misunderstand their meaning.


More silliness noted.

In this
case, I've simply pointed out that your positions *seem* to be at
odds
with other, and that you *seem* to have said many contradictory
things.
Not only would that not be a personal attack had I simply asserted
that
they were, but the fact that I said that they *seem* to be that way,
is
very gentlemanly of me for allowing for the possibility that my
impressions might be wrong. In reality, I know there's no chance of
that, but I was being a gentleman about it.

Well, how falsely gentlemanly of you.


More silliness noted.


I have thought this out in great detail, and
my ideas are not at odds with each other, and if I had said
anything
in
contradiction, you can bet others would have jumped in to point it
out.
You're the only one who sees non-existent contradictions and who
does
not see that my ideas had to have taken a lot of thought to come
about
and merge with observed phenomena without contradiction of any of
it.

And yet, not only do I keep pointing them out, but I also explain
where
the contradictions lie, and your whole response amounts to *no
they're
not*.

You have pointed out nonesuch. You have given us a lot of nonsensical
opinions based on your misunderstandings of what you've read, though.


More silliness noted.


This is another point you cannot understand. According to SR and
my
previously detailed riddle of the moving train, time rates vary.
Even
AE failed to say exactly how much the time differences would be of
the
twins, and you know that if the math could be done, he would have
done
it.

Notwithstanding the fact that you're wrong about this, AE was always
able to express everything he asserted in proper mathematical terms.

Oh? So you're claiming that AE was precise about the amount of time
dilation that occurred in SR's Twin Paradox experiment? Citation,
please.

That's not what I said, and it shows how terribly confused you are.
What I'm addressing here is not the precision with which he, or you,
could do various calculations. Instead, I'm saying that every property
has a quantity, and that even if we were to wildly estimate or speculate
as to that quantity, we'd have to be able to do so using units. That's
universally true, and yet you claim that matter has certain properties
which you can't seem to be able to express in terms of any units. I
don't care at this time the precision with which you could calculate,
estimate, speculate as to quantity, but whichever of those you choose,
you must be able to assign units to those quantities in order for you
claim to be valid, and until you do, it's not.

So
you're confused about what I'm asking. I'm not even asking for any
hypotheticals and how you'd do the calculations. At this point, I'm
just asking for units. Just first give me units for *state of
motion*.

Well?


As I've said before, it cannot be done - it can only be
approximated
as
to the the age differences. That is because the numerically
specific
accrual of time rates depends on an object's states of motion
thoughout
its lifetime, and we cannot ever know what those are except for
objects
that exist within our own time reference frame.

Also, for some quantity to be inversely proportional to some
other
quantity, both must be rates. So please explain how you'd
express
either rate. What is that ratio?

I don't know the ratio other than that the higher the state of
motion
of an object, the slower its time rate. That's based on the
SR
assertion that the astronaut twin will age less than his
Earthbound
twin.

So you're convinced of your theory, yet not only can't you come
up
with
any rate, you also can't seem to even express that rate in terms
of
any
units at all! So even if you're not willing to construct a
hypothetical of any type, just give me some units. In what units
would
you express the numerator, and what units for the denominator?
Can
you
at least give me that?

Well, if AE the greaaat mathematician couldn't give you all that,
why
are you asking me? Ask him - he's the one thought up "time
dilation".
I just explained it to change it from a mystical experience to an
empirical fact.

AE did give units for everything he expressed. But AE never used
the
term *state of motion*. You're the one who seems to have come up
with
that one, or at least you subscribe to it, so please give them to
me.

So now you're claiming - blindly, I might say - that AE gave us the
formula for calculating the time differences in the Twin Paradox.

That formula is contained in the LT, and AE used those in his SR.
Moreover, in GR, he gave us how gravity would affect time dilation as
well, and all of this has been verified by experimental data, using
units.


Since you know so much, give it to us. But you cannot do that because
it is not possible to make such calculations.

snicker More silliness noted.

This is such a basic question. When AE spoke of time, he used
units.
When he spoke of length, or mass, or density, he used units. But
when
you speak of the *state of motion*, you can't seem to do any such
thing.
Why not?

Because it is not required for units to be used in making the
statement
valid. Your question is illogical and shows a basic misunderstanding
or lack of knowledge about SR.

More silliness noted.

if you cannot gather from my explanation above
what a state of motion is. Also, you seem to think I said
that a
state
of motion can "pass" - see how confused you are? All of my
responses
are on point; it is you who cannot read well enough to keep
from
confusing yourself.

What I believe is that you said time passes,

But you asked about a state of motion passing, did you not? That
means
you're confused, in my book.

If the state of motion is inversely proportional to the passage of
time,
then both are rates, and the term rate is indicative of a process,
and
all processes evolve, or *pass*, to use your vernacular. So yes,
for
you to claim that timer passes and that it's rate is inversely
proportional to the *state of motion* is to say that a *state of
motion*
is also a process which passes.

So it would seem that your book is not very reliable. ;-)

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it.

I know what my options are, but thanks anyway. ;-)


and that it does so at a
rate, and that the rate is (inversely?) proportional to the
state of
motion, which means that the state of motion is also a rate.
That
logic
train is perfectly consistent with the scientific and
mathematical
precepts, and so if that's not what you meant, then it would
seem
that
you are the one who is confused.

Now that was my complete comment, so please address it in context.

I did higher up above.

Not true.


None - that's what I'm trying to tell you: having a state of
motion
means it is in motion and thus the two terms are synonymous. A
synonym
is: "word meaning same as another: a word that means the same, or
almost the same, as another word in the same language, either in
all
of
its uses or in a particular context. Examples of synonyms in this
sense are 'environment' and 'surroundings' and the verbs 'tear'
and
'rip.'" (Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.)

This is where your imprecision with science shows itself more
clearly
than ever.

Very nasty and falsely gentlemanly AH attack duly noted.

More silliness noted.

If the two are synonymous, then you could just as easily say
that the passage of time in inversely proportional to being in
motion.

You can say that if you wish. Why do you say, "If"? Do you disagree?

My case is now proven.

But *being in motion* is a singular condition and not a rate.
That's
like saying that some rate or other is proportional to being heavy.
That's plainly invalid.

Illogical. It is not like saying that atall. Saying "being in
motion"
is like saying an object is in a state of motion. "Heavy" is
inappropriate in your analogy.

You even said that saying that an object is in a state of motion is like
saying that the Sun is hot. How is that different than saying an object
is heavy?

Some rate or other can't be inversely
proportional to being hot, or heavy, or any other descriptive term.

Correct. That's why your analogy above fails.

And therefore so did yours about the Sun being hot.

Units?

AllYou! wrote:
"tomgee" wrote in message
ups.com...
AllYou! wrote:
You can either read and respond to all of this post, or you can take
a
short cut by addressing just the following:

I know what my options are, but thanks anyway.

You claim *state of motion* is synonymous with the term *being in
motion* and you also say that it's the same as saying the sun is
hot.
But then you're also adamant that the passage of time is inversely
proportional to the *state of motion*.

So my questions are these:

How can the passage of time be inversely proportional to being in
motion
when one is a rate, and the other is only a description of a
condition?
Inverse proportionality is the comparison of two rates.

It can be such because saying "being in motion" is the same as saying
"in a state of motion."

I guess you missed the part about the comparison of two rates, so I'll
ask once again but in a slightly different way.

I guess you missed the part about "being in motion" meaning the same as
being "in a state of motion" and as such the rate is calculable if
certain factors are known. If those certain factors are not known,
however, it can only be said that an object is in motion even though we
cannot determine its rate of motion.

Whereas inverse
proportionality is the comparison of two rates, and *being in motion* is
not a rate, but a description of a condition, then your claim that the
passage of time is inversely proportional to being in motion is invalid.
What is your support for refuting that fact?

My support is that your "fact" is only your opinion unsupported by
logic and so my claim is indeed valid even if you don't agree.

What units would you use to express those rates? I'm not asking for
any
math at this point, or any hypothetical. I'm simply asking for
units.
By what units would you express the passage of time, and what units
would you express the inverse rate which you call a *state of
motion*?

I answered that below.

No you didn't. You never gave any such units.

Yes, I did: Seconds, minutes, hours, days, and years, etc. What part
of that did you not understand?

SNIP
Second, all I'm trying to do here is to get a finite picture
of your argument. On one hand, you pinned your entire argument of
the existence of time on the notion that it's inversely proportional
to an object's state of motion.

The reason you cannot get a good picture of my arguments is
because you pick out of context only what you want and often leave out the
very important qualifying terms people normally use in explanations. E.g.,
I did not pin my entire argument as you claim above. The fact of
inverse proportion is a sub-topic of my basic argument which is that
time is a property of matter. You left out my fundamental posit and
claim that a sub-topic of it is my basic argument. Can you see your
error in doing that?

There is no such error.

Yes, there is, and until and unless you realize it, you will
continue to misunderstand what anyone says. If you will always make the
same error, it's like talking to a brick wall - no one can ever get
through to you. I have shown that you are confused about everything I
have said because you argue about ideas you don't understand. What is
the sense in talking to someone who cannot understand what you say?

Look, I keep responding by showing you where I believe your argument
fails or simply doesn't make sense, and you keep doing the same. In
that respect, we're equal, and the relative strengths of our logical
arguments will be obvious after we've completed our debate.

When you misunderstand what you read and then respond wrt your
misunderstanding, that is not a logical argument.

That assumes that you're right that I misunderstood you, but I've had
enough of your silliness. I'll simply ignore it from now on, and let
others draw their own conclusions about you.

Fine with me.

That (plus refraining from the kinds of personal attacks in which you engage)
is that nature of a robust debate.

I have the right to tit so long as you tat. And your belief of what a
debate is shows more misunderstanding on your part.

Silliness noted.

SNIP

Anyone who claims the Sun is hot should be able to show that it's
quantifiable by giving units to the term hot (e.g., how hot is it),
and
possibly even proposing how hot it is.

No, that's not true.

Sure it is. Hot, is a relative term, and so to relate it to other
objects which are also hot to some extent, units are required.

Silliness notd.

Anyone who claims the Sun is cold should be able
to say how cold it is relative to the fact that the Sun is hot.

And the only way to *say* snicker that is with the use of units. How
else could you *say* snicker again it in any scientifically valid way?

Silliness noted.

It is
an empirical fact that the Sun is hot and not cold. Hot and cold must
be quantified only to know the details of heat and cold. Anyone knows
ice is cold and that the Sun is hot. How hot or how cold things are
is not required knowledge. In fact, even SR cannot precisely quantify
"time dilation" because the rate of the passage of time depends on the
state of motion of each observer.

Hot is a quantity which must be measurable in order to be scientifically
valid. Claims that *everyone knows* is nonsense.

Silliness noted.

And because *hot* is
quantifiable, it's more than just a description. But what you fail
to have done is to show how the term *state of motion* could ever be
quantifiable. Yes, yes, I know, you said that it's quantifiable in
that it's inversely proportional to the passage of time, but you've not
shown how that's quantifiable either.

From our time rate settings, we use clocks to quantify the passage of
time. Clocks use seconds, hours, days, weeks, months, and years as
units of time. But you know all that, why must I explain it to you?

Those are not rates, nor are they units of the *passage of time*. You
went to great lengths in the past to draw the distinction between time,
and the passage of time. I know that time can be expressed in units,
but those are fundamental units and not rates. What you failed to learn
wherever it was you got your education is the basic concept of
proportionality.

AH attack noted. Listen, dimwit, those are units of the passage of
time whether you like it or not. Rates are expressed by using those
units plus other units of other factors required to calculate rates.

So if time is expressed in units of seconds, how is the rate of its
passage expressed?

We express it as being 60 seconds in one minute, etc. Actually, as I
understand it, the smallest unit of time is the chronon, which is about
10^-24 seconds. A chronon is the time it takes for a photon to travel
the distance of the diameter of an electron. So you can also use
chronons to express time rates.

Now here's where you keep blaming me for not understanding what you
mean, and yet you've never supplied any explanation for how either
of those terms is quantifiable in any way. If I'm wrong, then you'd be
able to provide actual rates with actual units.

Illogical statement, since even if actual rates with actual units
cannot be calculated, you can still be wrong (and in fact, you are).

Silliness noted.

Deep denial and fear of being wrong noted.

Whether you're right or wrong does not depend on whether or not we can
provide actual rates with actual units. Where you're claerly wrong is
where we can see that you misunderstand what you read.

Silliness noted.

Deep denial and fear of being wrong noted.

E.g., when you
read that "motion is inversely proportional to time" from the written
"time is a property of matter and passes inversely proportional to an
object's state of motion", that is proof positive that you have
misunderstood what you read.

Silliness noted. You're doing a lot of hand waving, but in the end,
it's clear that you can't answer a simple and valid question.

That's your hands doing it, not mine. You're running scared now. Your
whole world is crashing down on you. You are beginning to see how
little you know about anything and you're panicking. Settle down -
it's not the end of the world. You'll survive and eventual