koti

Well said. But the truth is out there at every point in time regardless. How could it be otherwise?

I agree. Plus the truth doesn’t care about any of that. The truth was there at the BB, when first bacteria started to form on earth, when Newton formulated laws of motion, when Einstein formulated GR and its there now - a universal truth. Newton had no idea about relativity yet relativity of simultaneity was happening all around when he was inventing infititesimal calculus to later formulate laws of motion. I can see the other view which Strange is presenting, its just not appealing to me.

Relativity of simultaneity is the truth. The issue were having is the definition of the word „truth” Im using a broader view, you’re looking at individual issues.

I have a simpler and broader view which I'm trying to convey but it's not working out so far.

I would suggest you do no such thing. Charging a laptop battery in a minute would cause an explosion. You need to be more specific on what battery type you want to use in what exact device, what current, etc.

I made a bet with @StringJunky few weeks ago as to if someone new on the forum was a religious nut or not and I lost a beer, so it is temping to get that beer back. You have to be specific on what you want to bet on though. We both know very well that there are no preferred frames in relativity and that due to different measurments things are different in different frames. That is the truth. Is it absolute? I don’t know...maybe we find out 50 years from now that this is not the whole picture - the truth doesn’t care about that too. Can’t you see how all this proves my point of view on truth? I would love to read it. You will show the truth about the relativity of truth

The fact that you are not convinced that all truth's are absolute does imply that all truths are not absolute. There are people who are convinced that there are preferred frames in relativity but it doesn't mean that there actually are preferred frames in relativity. I said "Based on my understanding of what truth is" It seems we have a different understanding? This is getting dangerously close to the "light is visible or not" thread.

I think its very clear what I said - "Based on my current understanding of what truth is" and based on that current understanding I am basing my view (its a view, yours is a view too) Sure. You can state that 2+2=4 is also an opinion but it's a boring line of thinking imo. I haven't ignored it, I explained it in my statement about QM above. The simultaneity example, which you think undermines the concept that truth is absolute, is false in my opinion. The truth is weird in this case but its weirdness doesn't mean it is not there. It doesn't matter how strange the truth is or whether we know it or not, or whether it can be knowable or not. If you have a system/situation in which a "thing" is both true and false at the same time then that fact is the truth.

Based on my current understanding of what truth is, it doesn't matter that I don't know what the absolute truth is or that its unknowable. None of these things matter. Mentioned quantum superposition which causes two events to hover until observation is performed, or whatever other answer other than the Copenhagen interpretation is correct have no more meaning than any other example. As I mentioned earlier - it doesn't matter how complex the system is, the truth doesn't care. I will have to look up what those Gödel math problems are, this is interesting.

Sure. But the truth doesn’t care about Marcus Aurelius’s statement too, nor about the fact that you posted it twice in this thread. The abstract concepts of truth that we are discussing here can be exposed to iterpretation, I agree. The absolute truth that I am leaning towards in this discussion doesn’t care about that too. If things can neither be true or false or whatever other scenario, then that is the truth. Not that it would change anything but could you give an example of a thing that is neither true or false?

In this case the truth is that it is silly to state a question whether one is true and the other not

So the ball spin would add up to the overall mass/energy of the system, that is clear. Will the ball’s gravitational potencial be increasing as well? I guess what I mean is will relativistic mass or rest mass change? I know its not a good idea to use these terms but Im too dull to phrase it better.

Sure. But the truth still doesn’t care, its always there however complex the system is. Feynman once said something along the lines of - Maybe nature is to be summerized in a theory of everything and maybe it will turn up to be an endless onyon like layer construct which we will never uncover fully” The truth still doesn’t care about his statement, or about anything said in this thread or about anything for that matter.

No its not, the truth either is or is not and is not affected by anything. It cannot be changed, infulenced, the truth is a done deal state. Always.

The truth doesn’t care about these dilemmas.

This confirms what I wrote in my previous posts that the only instance when the objectivity, validity (or whatever) of truth can be debated is when the concept of truth should not be applied to that issue.

Evolution is nothing compared to the atrocities in the Christian narrative: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/sex/long.html

A ball (frame1) with a rest mass of 1kg moving at some significant fraction of c, accelerating further at 1m/s without friction relative to a frame2. It's relativistic mass (or energy) would be some value which is larger than that of a stationary steel ball relative to frame2... its rest mass would be still 1kg regardless of relative motion and/or acceleration so its gravitational potential would be also the same regardless of relative motion and/or acceleration. What happens to the gravitational potential of the ball if we add rotation to it? Does the gravitational potential change? And if yes, should the rest mass change? (That would seem odd)

I've seen that one some time ago, I liked it.

I prefer "Argumentum ad anus extractus"

As usual, very insightful, thank you for your post Janus.

Much obliged.

I have a related question Eise. How do I calculate how much heavier a battery is when its charged compared to when its discharged?

I’ve seen that bowl or glass many times, I always assumed its there to prevent dust or some accidental contamination. The thought that people might spit on food layed out in a hotel buffet is seriously disturbing.