Atheism and Faith

[PureX]

Disbelief is not a kind of belief. It is a lack of belief.

It is quite literally a kind of belief. It is the kind of belief that assumes the proposition being posed/considered is not valid.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is quite literally a kind of belief.

That is not true. A belief is a position which is held to be true. Disbelief is to not hold that a particular position is true.

belief
noun

1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
2. trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).

disbelief
noun

1. inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.

So "disbelief" is not a belief. It is the withholding of belief.

It is the kind of belief that assumes the proposition being posed/considered is not valid.

False. It does not assume that proposition is false or invalid, it simply doesn't accept it as true.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Relativity implies that every perspective is biased.

Of course it is.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Hey, you were the one that asked if you did your diagrams appropriately. I pointed out where you did, where you did not, and how to read them. If you don't want to learn how to use them, then don't ask. You then went on to ask me to fill in some numbers on a diagram and asked a question that made no sense in context. I asked for clarification and showed how to fill in the boxes appropriately with a certain designation of the relevant events.

I'm not sure why anything I have said is 'over the top'.

Hey, yourself ... time for a trip down memory lane:

1. But it was not until I discovered the Loedel Diagram and how to draw one portraying my Double Triplets scenario, that I cast off the last bit of self-doubt.

2. And how does a Loedel diagram show a problem? if anything, it shows exactly why there is NOT a problem.

3. Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps you can clear up something for me. Remember my previous "Two Spaceship, Double Sets of Triplets" scenario?

4. I wrote: blah, blah, blah.
5. And I asked two more questions:

• Capice?

• If so, did I draw my Loedel Diagrams adequately?

Note: I said something in #1. And YOU asked ME a question in #2.
Like the idiot I am, I decided to give answering YOUR question a shot, by trying to "show" you why.
In #3, I responded to your statement following your question in #2, with "Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps you can clear up something for me." FYI: Drawing and understanding Loedel's was NOT what I wanted you to clear up.
Then I asked my first question, in #3: "Do you remember my previous ... scenario?" It was a simple question requiring nothing more than "yes" or a "no".
I added some figures (#4) and asked my second question in the same post (#5.a.): "Capice?", followed by my third question (#5.b) : "Did I draw my Loedel Diagrams adequately?"

In other words, YOUR question preceded my failed attempt to answer it. What amuses me is that your typical relativist knee-jerk response was to critique my table and Loedels as if they were the product of one of your students; and that annoyed me so much that I decided not to show you what it was that I originally intended to show you and what it was that I was willing to allow you to clear up for me.

 

[Polymath257]

In other words, YOUR question preceded my failed attempt to answer it. What amuses me is that your typical relativist knee-jerk response was to critique my table and Loedels as if they were the product of one of your students; and that annoyed me so much that I decided not to show you what it was that I originally intended to show you and what it was that I was willing to allow you to clear up for me.

Well, I'm sorry if pointing out why your second diagram was inadequate and the mistakes on your first bothers you.

Loedel diagrams are NOT associated with the POV of either spaceship, but rather an intermediate frame that is symmetric to both ships. Maybe by clearing up that issue, your other issue doesn't even arise?

 

[Terry Sampson]

Loedel diagrams are NOT associated with the POV of either spaceship

You teach your class your way and I'll teach mine my way. Historically and "officially", I recognize that Loedels are NOT associated with the POV of either spaceship. But my making mine associated with one or the other POV is NOT a "high crime and misdemeanor" under any federal, state, or local law. It's just an offense to them who think there's a proper and orthodox way to draw them and a vulgar and disturbing way to draw them.

but rather an intermediate frame that is symmetric to both ships.

I know about "the intermediate frame." That's the main reason I like Loedels so much. You can't do that with Minkowskis. I used to curdle more than one Relativist's milk by saying: "Oh, neat. That's what the two frames look like in Absolute Space."

Maybe by clearing up that issue, your other issue doesn't even arise?

Nope. I can strip a Loedel down to bare bones, omitting all the stuff that offends your sense of propriety or leave my decorative and my "issue" remains. Duplicating the bare bones Loedel, one for each frame, and adding in all my decorative artwork doesn't make my issue go away.[/QUOTE]

 

[Polymath257]

You teach your class your way and I'll teach mine my way. Historically and "officially", I recognize that Loedels are NOT associated with the POV of either spaceship. But my making mine associated with one or the other POV is NOT a "high crime and misdemeanor" under any federal, state, or local law. It's just an offense to them who think there's a proper and orthodox way to draw them and a vulgar and disturbing way to draw them.

Not illegal, of course. It's just that the two diagrams will be identical.

I know about "the intermediate frame." That's the main reason I like Loedels so much. You can't do that with Minkowskis. I used to curdle more than one Relativist's milk by saying: "Oh, neat. That's what the two frames look like in Absolute Space.

Somehow I knoew you were going for that one.

Nope. I can strip a Loedel down to bare bones, omitting all the stuff that offends your sense of propriety or leave my decorative and my "issue" remains. Duplicating the bare bones Loedel, one for each frame, and adding in all my decorative artwork doesn't make my issue go away.

I showed you how to fill in the diagram using a characterization of the relevant events. But you have to use actual events (A1 and B2 are adjacent, for example) as opposed to what you had in your tables.

And I did tell you how to fill in the gram when the actual events are given. Changing to a different POV won't change the numbering at all.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Somehow I knoew you were going for that one.

 

[Polymath257]

I know about "the intermediate frame." That's the main reason I like Loedels so much. You can't do that with Minkowskis. I used to curdle more than one Relativist's milk by saying: "Oh, neat. That's what the two frames look like in Absolute Space."

Actually, you *can* do it with Minkowski frames. In fact, the Loedel frame *is* one particular Minkowski frame. The main problem for a general frame is determining the relevant time and space lines in the diagram (which are easy to find in a Loedel because the time for one is perpendicular to the space of the other).

 

[Terry Sampson]

Not illegal, of course. It's just that the two diagrams will be identical.

Brilliant observation, Sherlock.

But you have to use actual events

Well, yeah.

Changing to a different POV won't change the numbering at all.

Trivial pursuit: Someday, when you've got nothing better to do, print up one of my two frames on one side of a sheet of paper, then print the other frame on the other side of the same sheet. Then hold the sheet of paper up to the light and notice how all world lines and lines of simultaneity are identical. Events 1, 5, and 9 are in the same place on both sides. Events 3 and 4 are simultaneous on both sides, as are events 6 and 7. But because 3, 4, 6, and 7 shift with "rotation", 3 and 4 on one side are 4 and 3 on the other side, and 6 and 7 on one side are 7 and 6 on the other side.

 

[Polymath257]

Trivial pursuit: Someday, when you've got nothing better to do, print up one of my two frames on one side of a sheet of paper, then print the other frame on the other side of the same sheet. Then hold the sheet of paper up to the light and notice how all world lines and lines of simultaneity are identical. Events 1, 5, and 9 are in the same place on both sides. Events 3 and 4 are simultaneous on both sides, as are events 6 and 7. But because 3, 4, 6, and 7 shift with "rotation", 3 and 4 on one side are 4 and 3 on the other side, and 6 and 7 on one side are 7 and 6 on the other side.

Your table:

The problem is that what you have labeled as 'Event 2', for example, is *two different events*. One event is 'A1 adjacent to B2' and a *different* event is 'A2 adjacent to B1'. The same happens for what you have labeled Events 3,4,6,7, and 8.

So let's look at *actual * events (space and time the same). I don't care how you number them, but let's do it like this:

1. When A1 is adjacent to B1
2. When A2 is adjacent to B1
3. When A3 is adjacent to B1
4. When A1 is adjacent to B2
5. When A2 is adjacent to B2
6. When A3 is adjacent to B2
7. When A1 is adjacent to B3
8. When A2 is adjacent to B3
9. When A3 is adjacent to B3

Can we agree these are the events and not the pairs you listed in your table?

Then, spaceship A sees the following sequence:

1
4
2 and 7 simultaneous
5
3 and 8 simultaneous
9

While spaceship B sees the following sequence of events:

1
2
3 and 4 simultaneous
5
6 and 7 simultaneous
8
9

Finally, in the intermediate frame (Loedel frame), the sequence of events is

1
2 and 4 simultaneous
3, 5, and 7 simultaneous
6 and 8 simultaneous
9

Can we agree that these are accurate descriptions of what each observer sees? And that we can get all of this from the Loedel diagram (which is the first one you gave)?

 

[Terry Sampson]

Can we agree

Time out while I chew,

 

[Terry Sampson]

1. When A1 is adjacent to B1
2. When A2 is adjacent to B1
3. When A3 is adjacent to B1
4. When A1 is adjacent to B2
5. When A2 is adjacent to B2
6. When A3 is adjacent to B2
7. When A1 is adjacent to B3
8. When A2 is adjacent to B3
9. When A3 is adjacent to B3

Can we agree these are the events

Yes.

and not the pairs you listed in your table?

By ignoring my table? Yes.

Continuing to chew...

 

[Polymath257]

Yes.

By ignoring my table? Yes.

Continuing to chew...

Not 'ignoring your table'. In fact, your table shows what I said except that you didn't identify events, but rather the order each ship sees things happen.

In fact, if you look at the SA column, you will find exactly what I said spaceship A will see.

If you look at the SB column, you will find exactly what I said spaceship B will see.

But what you have listed as 'event 2' in your table is two different events (my 2 and 4).

 

[Terry Sampson]

Then, spaceship A sees the following sequence:

1
4
2 and 7 simultaneous
5
3 and 8 simultaneous
9

Looking at my diagram, I get:

1
2
3 and 4
5
6 and 7
8
9

• Where's your 6 (i.e. A3 adjacent to B2)?
• I'm trying to figure out
  • why you have 2 and 7 simultaneous when I have 3 and 4 simultaneous, and
  • why you have 3 and 8 simultaneous when I have 6 and 7 simultaneous?

 

[Polymath257]

Looking at my diagram, I get:

1
2
3 and 4
5
6 and 7
8
9

• Where's your 6 (i.e. A3 adjacent to B2)?
• I'm trying to figure out
  • why you have 2 and 7 simultaneous when I have 3 and 4 simultaneous, and
  • why you have 3 and 8 simultaneous when I have 6 and 7 simultaneous?

Oops, sorry. For spaceship A, event 6 (as I labeled it) goes just before 9.

Once again, look at the events themselves.

I have the events 'A2 adjacent to B1' and 'A1 adjacent to B3', which I have labeled 2 an 7, as simultaneous for spaceship A. In your table, these events appear on lines 3 and 4 of the SA column.

I also have the events 'A3 adjacent to B1' and 'A2 adjacent to B3', which I labeled as 3 and 8, as simultaneous events for spaceship A. These appear on lines 6 and 7 in your table in the SA column.

The point is that the lines of your table do not represent events. They just represent the order in which A or B sees things happen.

So, for example, the event 'A3 is adjacent to B1' is what I have labeled event 3. This single event appears as line 7 of the SA column and also in line 4 of the SB column, even though this is only *one* event.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Then, spaceship A sees the following sequence:

1
4
2 and 7 simultaneous
5
3 and 8 simultaneous
6
9

While spaceship B sees the following sequence of events:

Having discovered my gross errors and corrected them, here's my substantially revised Frame A Diagram, with lines of simultaneity passing through all events from Frame A's POV.
The order of events in my diagram is:
1
4
2 and 7 simultaneous
5
3 and 8 simultaneous
6
9

I believe we are in agreement, regarding those events, now.

 

[Terry Sampson]

While spaceship B sees the following sequence of events:

1
2
3 and 4 simultaneous
5
6 and 7 simultaneous
8
9

Having discovered my gross errors and corrected them, here's my substantially revised Frame B Diagram, with lines of simultaneity passing through all events from Frame B's POV.
The order of events in my diagram is:
1
2
3 and 4 simultaneous
5
6 and 7 simultaneous
8
9

I believe we are in agreement, regarding those events, now.

 

[Polymath257]

Having discovered my gross errors and corrected them, here's my substantially revised Frame A Diagram, with lines of simultaneity passing through all events from Frame A's POV.
The order of events in my diagram is:
1
4
2 and 7 simultaneous
5
3 and 8 simultaneous
6
9

I believe we are in agreement, regarding those events, now.

View attachment 34457

OK, now put in the red lines representing the times for spaceship B. Go down the SB column in your table and draw the appropriate lines.

 

[Polymath257]

Having discovered my gross errors and corrected them, here's my substantially revised Frame B Diagram, with lines of simultaneity passing through all events from Frame B's POV.
The order of events in my diagram is:
1
2
3 and 4 simultaneous
5
6 and 7 simultaneous
8
9

I believe we are in agreement, regarding those events, now.

View attachment 34458

I didn't see this prior to my previous post.

Good!

Now, if you do horizontal black lines you will find the order in the intermediate frame.