Bufofrog

No, that's not the apparent paradox. Different inertial frames meet? What do you mean by that? That's poorly worded. Let's just say SR predicts that the traveling twin ages less. What frame do you think that is? If you're saying at speeds much less than c, you usually ignore relativistic effects, then I agree.

The numbers and the facts are the persuasive part.

How ironic lol

Why would anyone waste their time doing that? It's just a chat bot...

I thought this was about free will as opposed to a deterministic future. I see I am wrong and this is a discussion that is going down several philosophical rabbit holes.

That is a weird thing to say unless you define free will differently than me. How do you define free will.

We have. That is not a 'special rule' that is part of the theory.

Some made up random answer.

No, the sentence was about sideways motion of Andromeda relative to the milky way. OK. Not as much as you might think. The outer edges of galaxies rotate almost as fast as the center. OK. I didn't say there wasn't a detectable blue/red shift that I recall.

Yes. From Wiki about Andromeda–Milky Way collision: Taking also into account the Sun's motion, Andromeda's tangential or sideways velocity with respect to the Milky Way was found to be much smaller than the speed of approach (consistent with zero given the uncertainty) and therefore it will eventually merge with the Milky Way in around 5 billion years.

Great joke. While that is true it has no relevance to much of anything except that the speeds are different.

You can ignore it when you are trying determine the red shift of very distant galaxies. The Andromeda galaxy is going to hit milky way, it isn't fake. This stuff really seems to be confusing you, have you tried googling the topic to gain some more understanding?

Your thoughts were not a theory 6 years ago and are still not a theory today. Yelling does not make an idea a theory either.

I more or less agree with that. I find philosophical discussions tedious and boring. I think I have reached my limit on this particular thread.

That has nothing to do with free will vs a predetermined future.

I would say, "of course". I can't imagine why he wouldn't eat the fawn and it would be pretty stupid not to eat the fawn but of course he has the choice.

Sure. Maybe Yahweh just started the universe last Wednesday programed all our past memories and the future is all set in stone. I guess without evidence you can make any claim you want. However, I feel 100% that I am making freewill decisions and that's more than enough for me. IOW with the absence of evidence I gotta go with my gut.

What are you talking about? Why in the world would prisons become obsolete? I (like every other sane person) feel 100% that I make my own decisions for one.

I put our free will at 100%. By that I mean the future is not predetermined. I can choose to do anything that is physically possible, the result of my choice may have dire consequences, but I am certainly free to make that choice.

That is a pop-sci article explanation. In pop-sci articles the authors typically are trying to give the nonscience reader and idea of the overall concept in a very brief article which is usually at the expense of accuracy. Authors of these articles usually use analogies (like the big bang was an explosion) that can be misleading.

Do you have a source for that? I am not sure what you mean by beyond the Laws of Physics.

You haven't improved anything your just spouting random WAGs that pop into your head. It's just a waste of time, good bye.

Every use of 'v' in your equation is velocity so I am not sure why you think I would be talking about a volume. Did you forget that V1 and V2 are also velocities? When you say "speed of the observer", what is the speed is relative to?

The recession velocity of the farthest galaxies exceed the speed of light so your equation must be wrong since your equation 'blows-up" if v=c.

You could of just said, "dunno".