Special relativity and sameness

[Bartolomeo]

According to your definition of "see" and "different". You can make any statement true by appropriately defining the used terms.

If one observer located midway between the twins sees them both at age 35, then all observers at that location regardless of their state of motion sees them both at age 35. It makes no difference how they've synchronized their clocks.

Only by your peculiar definition. Your definition is not part of mainstream physics to my knowledge. In my opinion, it is a poor definition, and all of the things that you have said since you came up with this definition are reasons that it is a bad definition.

What kind of definition? I did not make any definitions.

The very first post WITH PICTURES by JesseM. Just think if you change velocity of the moving ruler.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/an-illustration-of-relativity-with-rulers-and-clocks.59023/

 

[Bartolomeo]

I don't think anyone disagrees with his analysis. We just don't see the point of it.

They disagree! But you understand relativity of simultaneity. I think so,

 

[Dale]

What kind of definition? I did not make any definitions.

The first 15 posts of this thread were all about getting clarity on your definition of what it means to be the SAME.

This is highly frustrating. If you believe that you are using a standard definition then please provide a reference where being the SAME is defined. Otherwise, please understand that your definition is a personal definition and is one that others may object to.

 

[Ibix]

They disagree! But you understand relativity of simultaneity. I think so,

No one thinks your analysis is wrong. We just have no idea why you are so intent on hiding the principle of relativity under odd synchronisation conventions.

It's like you and the person next to you have drawn graphs of $y=x^2$. You keep pointing out that only one graph is $y=x^2$, and the other is $(y-y_0)\cos\theta_0+(x-x_0)\sin\theta_0=((y-y_0)\sin\theta_0-(x-x_0)\cos\theta_0)^2$. Well, yes, if you insist on everyone using the same coordinate system. But it would be daft to do so. There's no reason to prefer one graph over the other as "actually" passing through the origin, and insisting on the same coordinate system actually obscures that rather useful fact.

That last is why everyone is looking at you in an odd way. We are discussing a theory that is already notoriously difficult to understand, and you seem to be doing your best to hide anything that simplifies it. There can be good reason for doing that but, as Dale points out in his last post, you don't seem to realize that you are doing it.

 

[Bartolomeo]

Only by your peculiar definition. Your definition is not part of mainstream physics to my knowledge. In my opinion, it is a poor definition, and all of the things that you have said since you came up with this definition are reasons that it is a bad definition.

The first 15 posts of this thread were all about getting clarity on your definition of what it means to be the SAME.
This is highly frustrating. If you believe that you are using a standard definition then please provide a reference where being the SAME is defined. Otherwise, please understand that your definition is a personal definition and is one that others may object to.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-time/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus#Panta_rhei.2C_.22everything_flows.22

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_(philosophy)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity

 

[Vanadium 50]

At best, this is philosophy.

 

[Dale]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-time/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus#Panta_rhei.2C_.22everything_flows.22

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_(philosophy)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity

Not a single one of these references uses your definition. Pretending that they do is not conducive to a good discussion.

 

[Mister T]

Simply posting a list of references with no mention of how they relate to your discussion is also not conducive to a good discussion. Your response to my Post #34 is now the second time you've done this to me: You quote part of my post but don't add any discussion in response to what I'm saying.

In Post #34 I outline a couple of things that appear to be huge misunderstandings on your part. Yet you don't address them.