Iggy

I wouldn't argue that because it is meaningless. You didn't specify relative to what coordinate system and in what manner the car is accelerating so there is no way to say what kind of 'notice' one would take. no If you ever find that you've said the exact opposite of Einstein concerning the theory of general relativity, it is certainly time to put the strawmen and the preaching aside and consider the issue

Yes. An observer on earth's surface with an accelerometer will get that reading. A static observer using the Schwarzschild metric, for example (standing on the surface of a planet), will make that measurement. You would have to explain to me how a change in velocity of 9.8 m/s2 is invariant when it is also zero in a valid coordinate system. The only theory on which I've relied is general relativity. The only interpretation I've given it is exactly the same as Einstein's 1918 -- as I've quoted: "It is certainly correct that from the point of view of the general theory of relativity we can just as well use coordinate system K' [the younger twin is at rest throughout] as coordinate system K [the older twin is at rest throughout]... it means for a man who maintains consistency of thought a great satisfaction to see that the concept of absolute motion, to which kinematically no meaning can be attributed, does not have to enter physics... We are not dealing here with two different, mutually exclusive hypotheses about the seat of the motion, rather with two ways, equally valid in principle, of representing the same factual situation." It is possible that Einstein is misinterpreting his own theory, but simply telling him "you're wrong", no matter how bluntly you say it, isn't going to convince me. I have maintained, from my very first post, that one twin ages less. I can't believe that I have been misinterpreted so badly. Either twin can consider himself at rest throughout the thought experiment and get the correct answer: the twin who accelerates relative to the bulk mass of the cosmos will age less. I showed how it could be calculated from either perspective in post 44. If you think I've been arguing that both twins age less than the other because the other is moving from each perspective then I have seriously failed to communicate. My argument relies on GR being valid. To say that "acceleration" is absolute is to say that the laws of physics are different in different systems of reference... it is to reject the general principle of relativity. It is, in other words, to assert that only the coordinate systems which have some particular observer accelerating at 9.8 m/s2 are valid. If that acceleration is absolute then all correct systems of reference will have that value. General covariance, the principle of relativity, and every reasonable interpretation of GR that I have heard (including Einstein's) does indeed reject that.

I'm not sure how to respond. When I say "feel an inertial force" I mean "detect the fact that one is not in an inertial frame". I mean when mass has weight. Your response, when asked if acceleration was relative, was to say "you can measure your acceleration as a purely local experiment". That's the thing I'm responding to. It isn't true. How would you propose it be done? You're in a box with no windows and an accelerometer measures 9.8 m/s^2 -- are you accelerating? Of course, it's easy to say that you are "accelerating relative to an inertial frame", but I'm the one saying that acceleration is relative. Telling me that you can detect acceleration relative to something isn't a refutation. From that person's perspective the entire universe is rotating. You would have to assert, using general relativity, that rotating a universe about someone subjects everything in that universe to a centrifugal force. Very good arguments have been made that it does not. Pseudo forces are coordinate system dependent. When I say that they can be felt, I obviously mean that they can be felt in the coordinate system in which they exist. It's like proper time. You may not experience someone else's proper time, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Everyone, in whatever coordinate system they are in, needs to agree on a person's proper time -- just like they all need to agree on the magnitude of inertial force (i.e. the extra weight) that the girl on the merry-go-round feels... even if they themselves don't feel it.

I apologize -- I missed responding to a lot of good points. Clearly, throwing a baseball doesn't cause the universe to accelerate. Different coordinate systems have different properties. Specifically, in terms of general relativity, the gravitational field looks different in each. I don't think switching coordinate systems necessarily means causing a change in those properties in the way you're thinking. As an analogy, the kinetic energy of the umpire is zero from the pitcher's perspective, but it is much larger from the baseball's perspective. Throwing the baseball doesn't really "cause" the kinetic energy of the umpire to change as if the baseball had to push him. In the same way... I don't think that igniting thrusters on a spacecraft causes a uniform gravitational field to appear throughout the universe, nor does it cause everything in the universe to accelerate in freefall in that field. The coordinate system changes. But, you are assuming that feeling a pseudo-force necessarily means that you are accelerating (you are changing velocity). That is a presumption that general relativity does not make. You can be "at rest" (not changing velocity) in general relativity and yet feel an inertial force. For example, if you used an accelerometer right now it would tell you that you're accelerating. But, general relativity would let you use a coordinate system where you're at rest right now on the surface of a planet. Likewise, in a spaceship in deep space if there is a uniform gravitational field throughout the universe against which you are holding yourself motionless with thrusters then you could describe yourself as stationary -- not accelerating -- but feeling an inertial pseudo-force. If that coordinate choice is valid in general relativity then acceleration is not an absolute thing. It depends on perspective. The spaceship accelerates relative to earth and the rest of the cosmos, while earth and the cosmos accelerates relative to the spaceship. But, in GR the gravitational field of accelerating mass has a component that acts to drag things in the direction of acceleration. If everything out there is accelerating in one direction, while you're in a spaceship, you would expect to have to hold yourself motionless against that gravitational field by firing thrusters. As a result, you would feel an inertial force even though you are at rest -- just like sitting on the surface of a planet. It is also the uniform gravitational field that resolves the asymmetrical time dilation from the perspective of the younger twin. If GR is correct that the coordinate systems are equally valid then it isn't that "the spaceship is absolutely accelerating" and it isn't that "the universe is absolutely accelerating", but that they are accelerating relative to one another. It is a matter of perspective. I find that idea intuitive and agreeable. Like Einstein said, "it means for a man who maintains consistency of thought a great satisfaction to see that the concept of absolute motion, to which kinematically no meaning can be attributed, does not have to enter physics" no Enlightening. Thank you.

It is impossible for both of the frames in the twin paradox to be inertial. Please, slow down and read what I'm saying. You might be mixing me up with another member. That would explain things. You mentioned special relativity, not I. I don't know why you keep referring to it. I'm the bloke that asserted that acceleration is relative. SR asserts only the equivalence of inertial frames. It is obviously ill equipped to even deal with the subject. I don't know why you brought it up in post 23 and I don't know why you continue to talk about it. I'm going to quote the relevant bits of the link I posted in hopes it can illuminate where I'm coming from. Now, please, understand: my claim is not founded in special relativity. I'm saying that the twin who we normally think of as "accelerating" has just as much right to consider himself at rest in his coordinate system... which is only natural. I am always at the center of my coordinate system. I should have the right to say that it is the other twin who is changing velocity. Does GR not give me the freedom to say that?

DrRocket, you're not addressing what I'm saying at all. I'm not claiming that inertial frames are universal. I'm not saying that measurements can be taken from non-inertial frames in SR. I'm not saying that both frames are inertial in the twin paradox. The following link was translated from german, so it is somewhat cumbersome to read, but it was written by Einstein and expresses the same thing I'm saying. If read, I think it would get us on the same page. Dialog about...

I have discussed nothing but general relativity. Special relativity is the special case of uniform motion and in it uniform motion is special. That's fantastic, but I don't think it quite addresses my argument. Everyone is a priori equating inertial forces with acceleration. This is the premise against which I'm arguing and it is the premise which GR overthrows. Why does Ariana feel an inertial force? This is the question. Either she is stationary in a gravitational field or she is accelerating. It depends on how you look at it. It's relative. The fact that she does feel an inertial force doesn't prove that she is accelerating in an absolute sense. That is a fact which cannot be denied. Perhaps I'm explaining this horrifically. Einstein belabors the point here: Dialog about...

In fact, that is precisely what cannot be done. If I'm in a windowless elevator it is impossible to tell if I am accelerating toward the surface of a planet or floating in deep space. I can tell if I'm in an inertial frame, but that doesn't automatically tell me that I'm "accelerating" in an absolute sense. In one coordinate system I may be accelerating while I'm at rest in another. The only way to make acceleration absolute is to declare all non-inertial coordinate systems invalid. You could understand my confusion maybe when you say that acceleration isn't relative, but the explanations so far include descriptions only of "acceleration relative to..." an inertial frame or the bulk mass of the universe or some other thing. The argument seems somewhat circular to me. In the same way that there is no preferred inertial frame in SR, there should be no preferred coordinate system in GR, so I think it is exactly relative in that sense. What I'm hearing is that the 'traveling' twin cannot consider himself at rest -- cannot use a coordinate system where he is at rest -- but I don't understand the physics to say that. I think he can. I agree that inertial forces are absolute. Thank you for the correction. I didn't know that. In principle, however, I think the point stands. It could be accomplished. I understand what you're saying, but give me some credit here. If I'm in a spaceship in deep space and there are no windows and I find myself pushed against the rear of the craft I can use general relativity to declare two different, and equally true, scenarios: I am accelerating relative to most everything else in the universe (all of that stuff being at rest) and I feel an inertial force as a result. I am at rest and most everything else in the universe is accelerating (changing velocity). When mass accelerates there is an associated gravitational field. I would expect that field to push me against the back end of the craft since I'm at rest in the uniform gravitational field. Everything else is freefalling in the field so I'm the only thing feeling the inertial force. Einstein himself gave this thought experiment (with a train that changed velocity relative to its surroundings as I recall) to make the point that both frames were valid and gave the correct answer. Neither is any more correct than the other -- one is just more cumbersome and unintuitive. But, that shouldn't be an argument against its validity. The acceleration of the spaceship is a coordinate choice. That's how it makes sense to me, but like I say, I can never get anyone to agree.

It is not symmetrical. I said as much. One can, however, use the same physics (GR) in either coordinate system (where either twin is at rest throughout) and get the correct answer. I'm not saying that acceleration relative to an inertial frame is relative. I'm saying acceleration is relative. Acceleration means change in velocity.

Bingo. As long as the frames are inertial (constant velocity motion) the time dilation will be symmetric between the two frames — each will see the other's clocks as running slow. But as soon as one of them accelerates, this symmetry is broken. I've had trouble with this and would appreciate any perspective. Acceleration, to me, seems self-evidently relative. If the velocity between two twins is changing then either can consider himself at rest and consider the other to be accelerating. It would be a coordinate choice. Newton's apple accelerates relative to the earth, and the earth accelerates relative to the apple. Only by equating inertial motion with constant velocity does acceleration break symmetry, but I wouldn't understand insisting on that type of equivalence because there are counterexamples. A person could even implement a twin paradox experiment where neither twin feels inertial forces. The Apollo 13 astronauts were able to turn about and head back toward earth weightless the whole way. It makes more sense to me to allow a sort of reciprocity principle between relatively accelerating frames -- that is to say, it is not that one frame is at rest and the other changes velocity. But rather, the different amounts of mass in the two different coordinate systems makes it asymmetrical. In one frame a spaceship is at rest while most of the mass of the universe is changing velocity and in the other most everything is at rest while just a small spaceship changes velocity. It seems so clear to me that's the thing that makes the situation asymmetrical, but I can never get anyone to agree with me.

Here's a free pdf of the study, Distant Healing': A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials To buttress the captain's very good and rashly rejected blog entry, from the wikipedia article on p-values: Because, for example, over 90% of articles in the Journal of Applied Psychology during the early 1990s used significance testing, there has been a controversy and a lot of criticism in that field and other social sciences regarding its widespread use and misuse. There is a particularly good article by Jacob Cohen getting into it here: The Earth Is Round (p < .05). A cherry-picked well-turned phrase: EDIT: since NHST is the tool used in Distant Healing': A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials, it would be difficult to understand or discuss the one without the other.

I couldn't argue with that if I wanted to. I'm not sure if you mean that as a suggestion or a question, but my answer -- my opinion -- would be no. Owl has appealed to his own authority as an expert in a couple different fields a couple dozen times on this forum and no one has seriously confronted him on the tactic, at least as far as I've seen -- I haven't followed most of it. Perhaps it is bad form to do so, but I've become absolutely filled to the brim with it and would prefer not to be silent on the claims any longer -- especially knowing that they are false. He introduced it in this topic and he continues to repeat the claims despite my suggestion that he "get himself back on topic". So long as that is the case, I think it matters quite a lot. Oh, My, No!!! I'm thinking of how best to put this without offending... Imagine a classical debate -- something like huxley vs. wilberforce. Imagine the moderator in the middle of that debate saying "If you don't believe your opponent then ignore that part of the argument and move on". Could you imagine? It doesn't... well.. it doens't make sense to me.

You leaned on your own authority in psychology at least twice before it was refuted. What year were you "certified"?

Don't forget you were also a professor of philosophy Your many different careers in your many different professions must really have gotten in the way of your bricklaying

Have I really become your longstanding boogeyman, or are you just posturing? I've never spent any time debunking your credentials before a few days ago. I never cared enough to look them up. Dry hole. Ok... I do feel bad so I'm going to try to help you out. Your writing suggests an insecure pathological liar. Now, that may not be true. I don't know. Your writing could be delusional and anchored in a firm belief in everything that's written for all I know. But, whatever the case, you've made an uncorrectable error. You've blatantly lied about something that could be checked. You can't be a psychologist without a record. It's not a matter of opinion or delusion, it's a matter of fact. You don't become a psychologist by declaring yourself one or deluding yourself into believing you are one. So... this is my advice. Leave here now, where you've already lost all credibility and cannot recover, and start again. Start telling a different lie somewhere else. Something that isn't so easily refuted by anyone with half a sense and a keyboard. I would say that is the only recourse left to you, but you do have a couple other choices. The masochistic one... stick around and dig your hole as deep as you can. I can't imagine what you think you gain from this, but there it is. Or, the honorable one. Tell a story that's true for once. See where that gets you. I've always believed that old dogs can learn new and enjoyable tricks. I hold no hope that this is the case for you, but I do like surprises.

Are you one?

yeah, yeah, yeah... You have no record of being licensed as a *psychologist*, either active or inactive, by the Oregon State Board of *Psychologists* Examiners. You've been caught. Is that clear?

that's where I searched and that's where you're not. Clear? I have not and would not reveal your personal info to anyone and I've not and would not communicate with you except via this forum. If that is your idea of stalking then you really need to get out more. If posting your name and other info all over the internet is your idea of a desire for privacy then you aught to rethink your approach. While I would take that as a compliment, it isn't true. Your honesty has been rejected far and wide before and by many others here than I. by all means... get yourself back on topic. I expect to make no headway here

You clearly have an easier time convincing yourself of that than anyone else. I just checked, and you've never been licensed as a psychologist in the state in which you live. I'm sure next you'll come up with some story about how you practiced before records were kept or in some other country or whatever other BS. I don't care. I really don't. I feel absolutely sorry for you with your bragging about how you are a polymath genius professional with a high IQ and whatever else. Honestly, if you can't look yourself square in the face and like what you see then what do you expect of the people here?

Nice of you to tell me my intentions. You introduced your psychic vision, not me. It is an entirely subjective experience meaning the only way other people can judge it is to take your history into account. The boy that cries wolf doesn't get to say, "the first two times I cried wolf have no place here". A nun who has been witnessing miracles all her life and telling stories about crying statues all her life doesn't get to demand that one of her entirely subjective stories gets taken in isolation, that the others not even be mentioned, and called a fact. That would be silly.

It happened for a fact and we have no idea what happened. Any questions? A bricklayer moonlighting as a psychologist. That would make a fantastic sitcom.

You did so here: It makes more sense when put into context. Perhaps you have good reasons for not wanting to discuss it, but if spiritual visions, or any type of subjective experience, are the true reason you hold certain beliefs about consciousness and the cosmos -- things you've been talking about on this forum -- then you may be doing yourself a disservice in not being upfront about that. The conclusion of the paper is, Is that your position? Distance healing is difficult to study, but it should be studied more? EDIT: Since it keeps coming up, aren't you a stone mason? Did you take that up after your career in psychology?

and also, I think, confirmation bias. If you read some of Owl's writings, like... I had a very happy childhood... which gave me faith that love and good will was the majority of prevailing "reality." From this faith came confidence to explore "other realms" of Spirit and "magic", cosmology on larger scale than "life as we know it" ,and ultimately transcendence of all time/space "scales." ...I shared briefly (in the "Behold the Beauty" page) that I took my first out-of-body journey (to the "center of the cosmos") at age five under Dad's guidance, in deep hypnotic trance. This was his way of answering my question, "How big is God?"... ...There are many true stories of our family's early experiments with hypnosis and telepathy... ...Of the many Visions I received over the years, the greatest of these, before the "Cosmic Wave" and prophecy, came to me in 1980 after a week in solitude on Mt. Shasta. I was on a vision quest for clarification of the Great Pyramid Prophecy, which I had studied for many years... You get the impression of someone who might, since childhood, frequently 'see' telepathic visions of other people. If a good amount of Owl's time is spent having psychic visions of other places and magical connections to other people, it would be odd if one of them didn't end up with at least a malleable resemblance to reality.

but some things they just can't be forced to swallow

Sure. Keep trying. I'm sure you'll figure out how this was done eventually.