TrueHeart

No, you haven't made yourself look foolish! the land is chock full of secondary school science teachers who are just as confused about relativity, I opine. The problem of your confusion begins and ends with your (apparent) belief that there is such a thing as a body's unequivocal motion "through space". But there is no such reality, because the common human conception, "space", is flawed. Space is the absence of ANYthing, and does not constitute a framework, a grid, a backdrop. All motion is relative, so you must put every assertion about "motion" into perspective by identifying what real object that motion is relative to. No distortions can be ascribed to an object just because it is "moving", as that unqualified phrasing makes it seem that an object has velocity with regard to "space" itself. An object has velocity only with respect to another real object. Either object can (in turn) serve in the capacity as the "presumed still observatory", with respect to which the other entity is then in motion.

^^ Mark his words too ^^

Gravity definitely does NOT increase as the relative speed of an object nears lightspeed. And mass does not increase in any real absolute sense either. And a rocket-propelled craft that appears to be travelling at near lightspeed does NOT become harder and harder for its own propulsion system to accelerate. Mark my words.

Every aspect of time is slowed, but ONLY in relation to the clock standard of the presumed still observer. The effect is NOT an absolute unequivocal one! ..as various differently moving observatories will reckon various different time distortions for the same observed entity. (Get it?) But the distortion applies equally to ALL time flow mechanisms: the rate at which atoms vibrate, the rate at which humans age, the rate at which batteries drain, etcetera etcetera.

I saw the same calamity (deleted posts) occur in a thread in another forum section earlier today, but they all returned unharmed in a short time afterwards. Maybe this thread's missing posts will return as well. Um, that was me, not YT2095, who offered the answer to when 1 and 1 equals 3; and me who asked when is 2 plus 2 equal to 3.

This is very cruel of me to be sure! Keep guessing and I'll post the answer in a day or two.

"Greater surface contact". Uh...yeah... mm-hmm. Okey-dokey. I guess you solved it then, pardner.

Ok gpdone, but then according to your theory, it would be even more advantageous to keep just AIR in the hollow!

No, I really don't think so; the satin finish on those scoops repels nearly all the moisture off. Those yeechy ice crystals on ice cream are more likely just from what has condensed out of your freezer's air. That statement just deepens the mystery (to me anyway).

No, that link doesn't answer my question because my inquiry was, "I fail to understand how it would keep the scoop any warmer than a non-antifreeze-filled scoop would."

Yes, you are so right! I should never have posted my question before looking up a source or two. It is so very easy to find any number of shopping sources where the antifreeze thing can be verified. For example, I found this here at Froogle.com. Ok, now there is confirmation... so what's the answer?

Of course there are several designs of ice cream scoop, but I have one that is pretty popular. Naturally, it is extremely rigid and has a deeply concave scoop surface. But get this: it has a hollowed out area inside of it that is supposedly filled with antifreeze. I can't be 100% certain of this, because I no longer have the packaging or label, but word of mouth says that many commercial and/or gourmet ice cream scoops have a hollow filled with antifreeze. Has anyone else heard of this? So my question is why in tarnation would they put antifreeze in it?? A lot of commercial ice cream parlors rinse their scoops in warm or tepid water periodically, so that they will cut through the hard frozen ice cream more easily, but I don't see how antifreeze would assist! Antifreeze can get as cold as anything else, by conduction, as far as I can figure... it's just that it has a much lower freezing point than water. I fail to understand how it would keep the scoop any warmer than a non-antifreeze-filled scoop would.

Typing a message in which every sixth word is some variant of, or akin to, "relativistists". Warning: I'm all caprice, in December!

That's some impressive relativityping!

"Split time" is an understandable and okay conceptualiztion of relativity, in reaction to the fact that there is no universal time standard; and to the fact that all causations are constrained to propagate no quicker than lightspeed. Here's a quote from my web treatise (Addendum 3): You may hear tell that the stars and galaxies we see, because of their great distances and because of the finite speed of light, are really only after-images of what they once were. But relativistically speaking, no! what you see is what you get. We are viewing the distant stars as they are now, because now is the only time that's real for us, as gauged by causality. If a distant star blows up and its offshoot radiations eventually affect the Earth, then we are 'under attack' at the moment of their impact, the moment of causation... nothing else is relevant to physics. In a situation such as that, the X-rays and whatnot are attacking us while we see the star explode. So causality pretty much defines what is real now, and any 'deeper' analysis is at best a derivative and at worst a concoction.

Talk of time speeding up and light travelling across the cosmos in a few days tends to refute that boast of yours.

Ahh! many gracious thanks

Humankind might also consider this remedy. Once a person's soul (psyche) goes to eternal damnation, ie. he/she 'acquires' a "HISTORY of mental illness", whether deserved or not (whether misdiagnosed or not); THEN, that person should be entitled to collect a guaranteed disability pension for the rest of their natural life... without ever again having to fill out any forms or submit to any examination or review, or anything at all of that nature. Once the condemnation is chiseled in stone so to speak, then and forever after that person's entitlement to subsistence funding must rightly be automatic and ever unquestioned.

To Verusamore: I thank you heartily, but the folks in question are "conscious" of voice messages, so to state that those messages come from the "consciousness" is merely a tautology and says too little. My inquiry was, from where do the voices originate. To Glider: Thank you, but one would think that a Ph.D, whose main interest is Psych, would be able to rightly spell "schizophrenia". What I deeply appreciate though is your labelling your answer as a "theory". I guess what that "kernel" is that I sought was resolution of this humongous issue: If those 'voices' are theorized to originate only from the person's own brain, then what do we make of the messages received by (for example) every Pope to date, each of whom has claimed to receive messages from 'God'. Do we take those all to be "hallucinations"?? I mean, is belief in atheism a prerequisite for acceptance of Psych? So, regarding psychiatrists, who are these "men in black" (so to speak) to whom we grant every absolute aristocratic power? the power to make life&death decisions, the power to make freedom versus incarceration decisions, the power to make decisions of due process versus summary process?? Oh sure... you can glibly assert that shrinks only interfere with civil liberties "in the most extreme cases", and where "clear and present danger" is evident. But where's the jury in all of that, pray tell? How does the community know what is really going on behind those closed doors? Can we be at all certain that there isn't some chicanery at work, some corruption, maybe even pay-offs? Who is the aristocrat in a free society and why does he get to wield King George-like powers? He is an atheist, apparently. And when he condemns a soul ("psyche" is an exact synonym for "soul", according to Webster's Collegiate), it is forever. Where's the Science?? Before 1973, homosexuality was deemed a "mental illness". Where's the Science, hmmm? Nowadays, homosexuality is no mental disease at all! Where's the Science? What science declared homosexuality a disease before 1973; and what science declared it a non-issue after that point? I see political correctness, not science. I see no science; I see an absence of science. And most importantly, if a gay individual had been diagnosed before 1973, does that mean he now goes through his whole life with the label, "history of mental illness"?? Shrinks rely on their training, not Science. So, who trained the shrink? who trained the trainer of the shrinks? Is this some "ascendency", like the order of Shao-Lin priests?? When the shrink can snatch the pebble from his master's palm -- then "he has learned"? GIMME A BREAK, SUCKAH! Pardon my tirading, but there is a point to this all. In my community, and in many communities, a homeowner can be cited for failing to mow his lawn. [if it gets too long and dried out, it becomes a fire hazard.] So I suggest legislating it to be a misdemeanor, "failure to maintain one's 'mental hygiene'". Then, if a guy insists on contesting the psych evaluation, he can argue his innocence before a jury of his peers -- before he is CONDEMNED FOREVER AND FOR ALL ETERNITY AND FOR ALL PURPOSES AND FOR ALL TIME AS HAVING A FRIKKIN "HISTORY OF MENTAL ILLNESS". NOW do you get it, suckers!?

A fairly sizeable segment of the populace claims to "hear voices". What I'd like to know is, from where do those voice messages originate?

Huh?? whaddya mean? I have only the one (belly) button, and no, you will never have occasion to "push" it.

I happened across this oldish post of yours, gib65, and although you have grown more astute in subsequent posts, I wish to offer some correction here. First, you obviously meant L divided by 300,000 -- not multiplied. But more importantly, the formula is only half right. It would take that long (L/300k sec.) only according to the vantagepoint of the light signal recipient. From the viewpoint of the signal sender it would require extra time to catch up to the other receding entity. Please get it straight. Also get straight that there is only one "a" in "time dilation".

In this world of ours, there is no such thing as a physical object moving at lightspeed; it has been proven to be impossible -- it could never happen. Everyone can see everyone else... there are NO exceptions!

Yes, correct; at least that's how I understand it to be!

Oh hey! check that! I think I've confused Brunei with Abu Dhabi. Please forgive me!