MigL

As was asked of me ... Who would those people be ? Can you name names ?

I envy ScienceNostalgia101. Must be so nice to live in a world where clothing norms, and fashion sense are your biggest concern. Just kidding SN101 😀 .

I'll remind you of that , the next time you put down a 'crank' as delusional, when he/she has some misguided idea about science. I don't know who that argument is directed at; if you re-read my post, you might realize that doesn't apply to what I posted. What I posted was the following ... Let's try to keep the discussion honest.

I can only speak for myself, and I've never suggested Trans people are delusional. If you can live a happier, more fulfilling life as a member of the gender you were not born as, why should I stand in the way. I have suggested 'some' people are delusional, and since some people includes some Trans people, then some Trans people must also be delusional ( see set theory ). To clarify, I see 4 possible choices, on a sliding scale ... 1 - you identify as male to various degrees 2 - you identify as female to various degrees 3 - you identify as both to varying degrees 4 - you identify as neither with a varying degree of conviction and, as mentioned, the sliding scale between the 4 variations. ( like an x-y co-ordinate graph, you can be anywhere on that graph, not just the extremes ) Where on these axis, of gender/non-gender and male/female do you find 'ze', or any of the other 50-odd pronouns which are in use ( look it up ) ? Is that an indication of delusion ? Or can you scientifically defend that all those pronouns are valid ? Are we merely giving in to people some of whom may be delusional in fear of hurting their feelings ? What if I'm of the opinion that giving in to delusional people only makes the situation worse for everyone involved ?

@tar Are you really arguing about the results/methods of the Hafele-Keating experiments with a guy who designs/builds atomic clocks for a living ? Surely you must realize you don't have enough firepower to win that battle 🙂 .

As far as Dave Chapelle goes, if you don't like what he has to say, you have the option of not watching/listening. Why try to muzzle him by having him cancelled ? Ricky Gervais says it better than I can ... since we're now discussing comedy.

From any valid frame, inside the universe, length is frame dependent, as so many people have repeatedly told you. There is NO valid frame outside the universe ( block or any other model; nor other dimensions in the way you describe ), from which to measure the train. The OP is ill-posed, and cannot be answered, or even considered, as such.

I can respect ( OK, tolerate ) differing opinions and beliefs. I cannot respect differing facts if those facts are wrong. And the distance to Saturn is a fact ( wormholes or not ).

If someone sues you for repeatedly calling them by the 'wrong' pronoun, it goes to court, and the judge rules that you are in violation of their personal rights, does it not become case law then ? And it can be cited in any future cases; it effectively becomes law of 'common practice'. Our Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has many such cases, and a similar reason for 'stacking' your Supreme Court; an 'activist' judge can decide law. Do you want the name of the judge 😄 . ( and yes, I realize this is a 'slippery slope' argument )

Well, if someone who looks like a he tells you he/she is a she and to refer to him/her as 'she', you can choose to be courteous and do so, but you also have the right to say "No, I don't think you are a she, in my opinion you are a he." And no one has the right to take that choice away from you.

Sorry, md65536, obviously it cannot be devoid of time as that is a component of its dimensionality. It is devoid of time passage. From the link I previously provided Eternalism (philosophy of time) - Wikipedia "It is sometimes referred to as the "block time" or "block universe" theory due to its description of space-time as an unchanging four-dimensional "block", as opposed to the view of the world as a three-dimensional space modulated by the passage of time."

I would agree with that. And I would also agree with INow, that he may have crossed a line and offended people, and if you were to say "I am offended by his jokes, and will no longer listen to D Chapelle" I would understand that. What I don't understand is someone saying "I am offended by his jokes, will no longer listen to him, and will make sure no one else can either". Seems to be the total opposite of "I don't agree with what you said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", the very definition of free speech. And I see many parallels between the above example, and what we have been discussing. Every one has the right to have an opinion; no one has the right to dictate to others wwhat their opinion should be.

And that is not true for any other, equally valid frame. It is only approximately true even for the person on the telescope 1 meter behind you. What makes your frame so special ???

You can choose foliations with the same T value for your frame, but that will be different from a foliation from another observer's frame. All are equally valid. The 'Block' Universe model is essentially devoid of time, as past, present and future are all present in the 'Block'. It is sometimes known as 'eternalism'; see here Eternalism (philosophy of time) - Wikipedia The worldline of an event does not move; it is already there. This statement supports my argument that length contraction is not actually happening and is just an illusion. I think you should read up on the Block Universe model; you don't seem to understand it.

I have to ask ... What do you guys think of the Dave Chapelle controversy ? He makes some pretty offensive comments about Trans people in his routine. And while I might say he has the right to make those comments, because comedy is an art form ( and sometimes it has to be offensive ), you might say his audience then has the right to view/judge him in a negative light, as on offensive, hurtful individual. And I could agree with that. But that is not all they are doing. It is not enough to voice their objections and distaste for his opinions with opinions of their own; they want him cancelled. They want his ability to voice those nasty opinions shut down. I don't even need to mention that most who want him cancelled probably have not even seen the show, as his satire is trying to get people to realize that every one out there has a story. In fact the last half hour is devoted to a story about a Trans friend of Dave's, who killed herself in part due to other's criticism/bullying. Is lack of understanding ( of nuances ) now a reason to be offended ? Your thoughts/opinions are, of course, welcome.

Phi provides his opinion on the usage of "suffer fools", and Intoscience provides his alternate opinion, yet Intoscience is accused of 'judging' by Dimreepr, and of being intolerant of other's opinions by others. Then INow chimes in with the implication that ... Intoscience has a problem with Trans people. IOW, transphobic. I, and anyone else reading this, expect better.

Science and religion are based on differing paradigms. The former is based on evidence, the latter is a 'faith', which you either have or don't have ( no evidence required ). A good scientist can separate the two, and does not use one to validate aspects of the other ( as they are not compatible ). Or, a good scientist may not require religion, and choose not to have faith, in which case he has no issues. A bad scientist cannot separate religion ( faith and beliefs ) from science, and fills in the gaps in his knowledge with a deity/creator. No 'truth' or questions required, Dim.

Why not? Because the 'Block' Universe is a product of GR, and, as such, does not allow a universal frame of reference. A 'God's eye' view of the universe, past, present, and future, would be such a frame, and not allowed by GR.

Thank you. Was the pun intentional ? Nice one.

The 'Block' Universe model does not allow for motion because it encodes past, present, and future. Worldlines are the paths that events take through space AND time. Similarly the BU model does not allow for 'external' observers. As the BU model is based on GR, it is self-consistent with its rules, including length contraction, and the impossibility of an external frame of observation which encompasses the whole universe. IOW, the extra-dimensional observers of the OP are non-sensical.

See the bolded; something that is demonstrably false cannot be an opinion. The Canadian Charter of Rights ( our 'constitution' ) enshrines basic human rights as 'laws', so if the ability to dictate to others how you will be addressed is recognized as a basic right, then it effectively becomes law enforceable by the Canadian human rights tribunal/Commission. The only way around it is by using the Charter's not-withstanding clause, which apparently only Quebec is allowed to use for 'protecting' their language in a bilingual country, and 'protecting' secularism by removing the religious rights to religious symbols ( but that is another thread/discussion; maybe JP will take up that cause next )

Your worldview ( Subjective ) shapes your opinion. Why is mine, if I so choose ( also subjective ) any less valid ? ( once you make self-identity a 'basic right', it will be essentially law according to our ( Canadian ) constitution because only Quebec is allowed use of the 'Not withstanding' Clause )

In a 'block' universe ( 3D+T ) nothing is moving. Events trace out worldlines within the 'block'. So why would you even expect to see length contraction in that model.

Long time ago. There are not billions of objective realities, but there are billions of subjective realities, and the only one that matters to anyone is their own. Similarly, having an opinion is a way of sharing your own subjective reality with others, and because that subjective reality oftentimes clashes with the subjective reality of those others, we have offense, and conflict. Any opinion is bound to offend someone ( as J Peterson has said, to bring us back to the OP ). The answer to this problem should NOT be denying someone the right to their own opinion, rather, understanding that most ( not all ) are equally valid, and, should I choose to recognize/validate your opinion, I do so as a courtesy, not a requirement ( whether by law, financial repercussions, or social pressure ).

For a while, I thought Infamouse was invoking Zeno's paradox, and the ability to measure to greater and greater detail, as proof of infinities. Then I realized he was just stringing Cosmology buzz-words together, in a word salad of nonsense, and stopped reading.