Leaderboard

No. Not at all. Conceptually only. Or choose your own example of a sport with a XY advantage where XX individuals also want to compete at what they would consider their highest level. I think we both (and certainly CY would as well, but he hasn't replied to me since I questioned his conceptualized solution) realize the potential performance curves of XY individuals, XX individuals, and other individuals, will be different in every sport, and that in the vast majority of physical sports with a well known XY advantage there will be significantly more (many times more) XY athletes capable of competing at the level coinciding with what is currently considered elite XX performance. And I think you further know that defining those curves with reasonable accuracy will be problematic. Yet somehow you think eliminating the female category and replacing it with a second tier otherwise open category based on choosing some cut off point will lead to an acceptable outcome. (for any group other than the sub-elite XY individuals that will no doubt dominate the category) I want to know why you think that is likely or even plausible; Why you think you have conceptualized a solution that others can't see. I don't need to know details at this point, and I don't need to know why it's important that society becomes less discriminatory...which I think everyone here agrees with.

Not necessarily. My suggestion here is those curves already exist within the sex discriminated sports divisions. The easy example is junior varsity versus varsity sports. You either qualify or you do not. All sports have embedded in the athlete selection process skills and competence based thresholds. That doesn't change just because we start caring less whether one was assigned male or assigned female nor whether one is trans. I must first ask you, what is your cut-off point for the definition of "female?"

Firstly, no one in this thread is a professional athlete AFAIK so no direct interest in who comes first, so why shout unfair? Secondly, this is an absurd argument: Every athlete knows the rules of the game they play and everyone here knows the rules are arbitrary, so why shout unfair? In @beecee example rugby; why stop a women playing in a male team, if a. she wants too b. she's good enough and tough enough? Thirdly, I don't care if my peers disapprove, that's why I'm fighting in this corner. 😉 Please explain how this question is not fundamentally about bias, specifically the cultural bias that women are the weaker sex?

I’m having difficulty gauging your understanding, based on what is written here. Are you thinking that (kinematic) time dilation is merely an optical effect, and produces no measurable physical consequences other than what an observer can visually see? He perceives it as dilated (‘slowed’), because they are in relative motion with respect to one another. He also perceives it as dilated, because they are likewise in relative motion. In the formula for kinematic time dilation, the relative speed appears squared, so its relative sign (moving towards or away) is irrelevant. He perceives both A and B to be dilated (slower), because he finds himself in relative motion with respect to both those frames. He perceives his own watch at C to be ticking normally (no dilation), because there is no relative motion between himself and his watch. They are in the same frame. No, because he’s in the same frame as that clock, so there is no relative motion. Kinematic time dilation arises due to relative motion between frames. Observer C himself notices nothing special - his own clock ticks at 1 second per second from his own point of view (no relative motion). However, he sees both A and B going slower - and conversely both A and B see C ticking slower from their own vantage points. That’s because in the frame of the train, both A and B are in motion whereas the train appears stationary; whereas in frames A and B, the train in frame C is in motion, whereas A/B are stationary. In both cases, the respective observer sees the other clock to be in motion, and thus dilated. The observers just trade places. Because kinematic time dilation isn’t something absolute that ‘happens’ locally to a clock - it is a relationship between frames/clocks. Think about it - from the vantage point A, the train is in relative motion with some constant speed v, whereas A itself appears stationary. From vantage point of the train on the other hand, frame A is in relative motion with that same speed, whereas the train appears stationary. In both cases the relationship between the frames is the same one - relative motion at speed v - so they both see the same thing, namely the other frame’s clock being dilated. This is also exactly what the mathematics tell you. The relationship between frames is the same one irrespective of which frame you find yourself in - there’s the same relative motion (v is always the same), thus in each case the clock that’s seen to be moving is dilated with respect to the observer, and never appears to be speeding up; you’re plugging the same v into the same formula to obtain time dilation, no matter which frame you are in. All observers are of course right, even if they don’t agree - but only in their own local frames. This is why measurements of time are not absolute, but depend on which frame they are performed in. This is quite a paradigm shift as compared to our own non-relativistic experience of the world, so it is quite understandable that it seems confusing or even paradoxical at first. You might wonder whether there are quantities that are not frame-dependent, meaning all observers agree on them, irrespective of relative motion; the answer is yes, but to find them you need to account for both time and space simultaneously. Time dilation always goes hand-in-hand with length contraction, and vice versa. Note that what we are discussing here are kinematic effects - if you add gravity, things become more complicated still. So the main points are: 1. Kinematic time dilation is a relationship between clocks (frames), and not something that ‘happens’ locally to a clock. It’s meaningless to say that a single clock is dilated. Nonetheless, this relationship is real (it’s a geometric rotation in spacetime, as it turns out), and thus produces real physical consequences; it’s not just on optical ‘illusion’ based on what you might visually see (though of course optics are affected by this too, so there are corresponding visual effects). 2. Motion is also a relationship between frames, and not an absolute property of an object. 3. Measurements of time or space on their own are observer-dependent. Hopefully this helps.

What do you suggest? I’m ONE resident in ONE state with tens of millions of other residents within a country of 50 states. At least 18 of those states have already passed laws preventing trans kids from playing sports, and bills are moving through legislatures of other GOP led states now. I’ve got backbone in spades. So, I will ask again… what do you suggest? How do I “stop that ‘particular piece of legislation’?”

You do not have an adequate understanding of relativity to contribute here.

Not where I come from. While there are criteria as there should be they are not excluded. I suggest that you, (please don't take it personally, I'm speaking collectively 🙄) get some back bone, much as your President ascribed to after your latest massacre, primrilly due to of course to the ease of obtaining aussault weapons and your general weird gun laws...or lack thereof. Why potentially drive women away from sport in general, because of another stupid potential American law. The majority of women, (damn! I repeat myself) in my country are satisfied with the status quo and the efforts to keep them from playing against the males in top grade professional rugby, who are generally far more aggressive, tougher, faster, with the ability to absorb hard hits and the probable resultant injuries. While of course probably able to hold there own in darts, etc.

MPMin’s understanding of the problem is correct. The clock time will appear to slow from Einstein’s perspective and the clock should appear redshifted. Einstein’s motion away from the clock can not make the clock in the tower tick slower. The clock ticks as normal, but from Einstein’s view the clock does tick slower. Also, from the perspective of an observer at the clock tower, Einstein’s clock ticks slower. But if Einstein’s clock is actually ticking slower, he should see his clock and the tower either keeping time in sync or running faster. There is an illusion here and no clocks are actually ticking slower. Think about it and guess again.