When I checked the Rational Scientific Method ("RSM") Facebook group page this morning, I found that RSMer Bill Gaede has just created a brand new YouTube video in which he attempted to debunk Einstein's theory of velocity-based Time Dilation.
It's interesting how professional the video looks. Mr. Gaede is either very skilled in creating videos, or he has a very skilled professional working for him. I strongly suspect it is the latter, since Mr. Gaede clearly has at least one other person handling the camera work when he gives his sermons before audiences.
Interestingly, the new video quickly shows where Mr. Gaede misunderstands Time Dilation. Not surprisingly, it has to do with a definition of a word. The word is "year." At about the 2:15 mark in the 4¼ minute video, Mr. Gaede explains that "a year has always been defined as one revolution of the Earth around the Sun." And he asks if the Earth went around the Sun one time or 50 times during the traveler's trip into space. "It certainly couldn't be both," Mr. Gaede observes. And then he preposterously argues that the traveling twin said that the Earth went around the Sun only once. Of course, the traveling twin never said any such thing. He said he aged one year.
The Earth went around the Sun 50 times for BOTH twins. Using the orbit of the Earth around the Sun as a clock is very much like the way I describe using a pulsar to keep time on my Time Dilation web page. But, Mr. Gaede somehow seems to think that the Earth could only have gone around the Sun once if the traveling twin only aged "one year." He concludes his new YouTube video with this:
Someone might ask, "Where's the catch? GPS would not work if the twin paradox were to be found to be wrong."
That "catch" lies in the fact that Relativity is offering an irrational physical interpretation to an observation. Irrational explanations are the sole province of religion. It does not follow that the Earth goes around the Sun fifty times for one sibling and one time for his twin simply because a clock runs slower or faster in outer space.It's more mumbo jumbo having to do with what is "rational" and what is "irrational" according to RSMers. And it is suspiciously similar to the recent discussion I had with "Clapton" on my blog page about Time Dilation. "Clapton" also argued that Einstein and I were saying that Time Dilation is caused by a clock running slow. "Clapton" wrote:
"The analogy is perfectly valid: if "Time Dilation" is caused by slowed down clocks, then "Space Expansion" is caused by a shrunken yardstick.Of course, no one claimed that Time Dilation is caused by "slowed down clocks." Previously, I thought that "Clapton" was "DXer" using a different name. Now this new evidence seems to very strongly indicate that "Clapton" was actually Bill Gaede. It seems highly unlikely two people could have that same bizarre misunderstanding about what causes Time Dilation while at the same time having a fixed and inviolate definition of the word "year."
It's the same thing."
No one said that the Earth went around the Sun a different number of times for one twin than the other. Just the opposite. Time Dilation says that the Earth went around the Sun the same number of times for both twins, BUT the traveling twin physically aged only one year while the stationary twin aged 50 years.
For Mr. Gaede, however, his apparent word-based religion says the word "year" is sacred and a twin cannot "age" 1 "year" while the Earth orbits 50 times. It is evidently blasphemous to claim the traveling twin "aged" 1 "year" when the word "year" decrees that he MUST have aged 50 years, just like his twin.
Yes, both twins aged 50 "years," based upon the number of times that the Earth went around the Sun, but the traveling twin could OBSERVE the Earth traveling faster based upon how time was measured aboard his space ship. This is where "Clapton" argued that two different "standards" for one year were being used. To Mr. "Clapton," fifty years passed for both twins, based upon the "standard" he uses for one year, and that is all that is important.
I countered by arguing,
NO, WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT IS THAT THE CLOCK THAT MOVED SHOWS LESS TIME HAS PASSED THAN THE CLOCK THAT DID NOT MOVE.It appears that this is an "irrational physical interpretation" for Mr. Gaede. To be "rational" one can have only one definition for "year" and one definition for "aged." Definitions are sacred and to use them incorrectly is blasphemous and "irrational." A NEW WORD is needed to describe the physical change and the different view of Time the traveling twin experienced. Thou shalt no use "year," and thou shalt not use "age," since RSMers hold those words to be sacred and their definitions cannot be violated.
It EXPLAINS why clocks run slower on satellites than on earth. It EXPLAINS why muons traveling at high speed exist longer than muons traveling at slower speeds. It EXPLAINS why an atomic clock flown across the Atlantic on an airplane will show less time has passed than a clock that did NOT move.
You appear to be arguing that you do not want any explanations. The only thing you seem to care about is that the clock that did not move is the "CORRECT" time.
No one is arguing against your belief. I'm just trying to EXPLAIN the scientific concept of Time Dilation and why it happens. Time Dilation EXPLAINS things that happen in the universe. If you do not care about such things, then why argue with people who want to understand science?
Among truly "rational" people, of course, some common ground could be found. But the RSMers have blocked me from posting to their Facebook page, and the ability to post comments has been disabled for the new video. That way they do not need to discuss anything or answer any questions. On the RSMer Facebook page, Mr. Gaede wrote this:
Einstein's Twin Paradox should be used to measure the level of idiocy of people. If you accept that a traveler will be 50 years younger than his twin brother simply because he travels fast, we violate not only the definition of the word 'twin', but more importantly of the word 'year'. Anyone believing this nonsense is really hopelessly hypnotized by authority.He makes it very clear: To RSMers, words are sacred and inviolate. Period.
"Idiots" like me and Albert Einstein should have used different words. Of course, RSMers have the final authority on how every word is defined. So, in effect, all explanations of real science are forbidden by the RSM word priests.
How can you communicate or discuss anything with a Truther who believes his definition of a word is the only valid definition (i.e. "the truth"), and he creates his own definitions for key words used in science?