By "full information" I mean the observers incorporate all their data into their qualitative conclusions. If their qualitative conclusions conflict the only reason is that they neglected to measure a critical attribute.
About the velocity question. We must be careful about what we mean when...
This is a similar objection to the one you raised earlier with length, width, and height. I resolved it by clarifying that X must, of course, be an explicit statement containing full information. In the LWH example I said the observers were "being sloppy" if they just said "X is 4 meters long, Y...
No, nothing you said makes sense. Nobody made an error. The color-blind person points and says "light gray". He's not in error unless he then states that "light gray" is not the color of a stop light. The normal person thinks the color-blind person is in error because s/he assumes the...
All you did was move the B a little closer to the A and away from the C. You didn't change reference frames, you just inexplicably and unjustifiably moved the objects under study around.
You're going to have to justify to me how, at an instant, one person can measure 5 and another 3. So far you...
Fundamentally, what is your justification for this symbol "time" referring to a "dimension"? An equation can have as many parameters in it as we want, they don't equal dimensions. This is not an issue that can be resolved mathematically. Mathematics deals with useful descriptive models. Time is...
Here we have A lying "5" away from B and "6" away from C:
000000000000000000000
0000000000A0000000000
000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000
0000000000B0000000000
0000000000C0000000000
000000000000000000000
Did I make the...
The color blind person says "light gray" and the normal person says "red". The sounds they utter are not what is important, what is important is the physical referent of the sound, i.e. what it points to in reality. If both actually define what they mean by gray and red, they will find that they...
A cannot be both X and "not X". No matter what frames we're in. Like I said, in rotated frames we're not all measuring length, there's no contradiction here.
It's not a frame. The UM is an abstraction that is useful for thinking and contemplating the universe. It refers to what we would see IF...
It's not "as simple as that". The keyword, the meaning of which you have taken for granted, is move. What does it actually mean to move? Do you have to see something move for it to have moved? That doesn't make any sense.
Incorrect. Each entity has the same location no matter whose looking...
There is no justification for declaring time as a "dimension". Not only does our daily experience indicate that entities are 3D in the sense that they have extent in three mutually perpendicular directions, but mathematically what we insert and label "time" behaves entirely differently. There is...
Motion: two or more locations of an object
Location: the set of distances from an object to every other object in the universe
Are you saying a human being has to measure a couch in order for the couch to have extent? Why should Nature conform to what a human being is limited to doing? Of...
Wrong. You agree that I see heads. I agree that you see tails. I agree that I see tails. You agree that you see heads.
In any frame two observers cannot come to diametrically opposite conclusions. This is logically inadmissable. In the coin example I don't conclude "the coin IS heads", that...
It is, indeed, impossible to logically conclude that any entity is motionless. The confusion and debate comes from the lack of a clear, unambiguous definition of "motion".
Motion: Two or more locations of an object.
Location: The set of distances from an object to every other object in the...
I think you misunderstand. An event, action, or entity cannot be both "X" and "not X", even from different perspectives. You hang from the ceiling and see heads on a coin, I lay on the floor and see tails. There is no contradiction here. I see tails and you see heads, neither of us disagree on...