Many so called moral people empathise with others but still do bad things to them.

@Jolanta Yes. Empathy isn't a cure-all for all the bad things we do to each other, some knowing and intentional, some unknowing and accidental. But then, neither is morality a cure-all for all the bad things we do to each other. In fact, we are capable of doing tremendously bad things to each other in the name of morality.

Light is both photons and waves of radiation.. combining two light beams DOES NOT DOUBLE ACCELLERATION but may increase heat and illumination somewhat.....do physicists really fall for this trick of yours??? I do agree wealthy/powerful people are not intelligent and ARE manipulative of beliefs and personalities to get to their positions.....educational institutions are regurgitation machines and real work is accomplished in APPLIED SCIENCE and observations for predictive results....too much "medicine" is contrived for pharma profits instead of real cures

Who said anything about acceleration? It's about relative speed. There are a lots of ways of disproving STR and one major fault which GTR shares with STR in that they both generate event-meshing failures unless you add Newtonian time to them (which is banned in both models) - all simulations of them cheat by smuggling this Newtonian time in to hide the event-meshing failures.

STR can be disproved in many different ways based on the contradictions that it generates. My duck pond analogy is a good place to start (because it reproduces the maths of relativity in a classical system and shows where physicists are breaking the rules):-

Imagine a pond with ducks swimming about on it, all of them swimming at speed q (which stands for quack). This speed q is the fastest speed that we're allowed to move anything about at on the pond, and we call it the speed of duck. It is equivalent to the speed of light c, but the speed of duck is much easier to visualise. We're also going to have a rule that ducks always swim at the speed q, just as light travels at c.

Now we design a duck clock to serve as the equivalent of a light clock. This is a long box with four sides but no roof and no floor, and we can float it on the water, perhaps by having each end attached to the middle of a canoe, the canoes aligned perpendicular to the clock. A duck will swim up and down the channel inside it, going from one end to the other and back, and it will do this continually, perhaps being rewarded by a bit of grain to eat at each end. Every time it returns to one of the ends, the clock registers a tick, just as a light clock registers a tick every time a pulse of light returns from the mirror to the the detector by the laser. Because length contraction is governed by the speed of light, our duck clock will not contract to zero length at the speed of duck if it's aligned with its direction of travel through the water, so we will need to keep it aligned perpendicular to any movement of the clock over the water. If we do this, it will behave just like the light clock, slowing down the ticking rate as the clock is moved faster over the water, and it will stop ticking altogether if it's moved at the speed of duck, just as a light clock would stop ticking if it was moved at c.

We can now run the twins paradox with a pair of duck clocks on water, and it is no coincidence that we get exactly the same numbers of relativity coming out of it as we get in the space case with clocks in rockets. We start with two duck clocks sitting side by side on the water and watch the two ducks swim up and down their channels at q, the speed of duck. Both clocks tick in sync with each other. Now, we're going to leave one of the clocks (clock A) where it is while we take the other clock (clock B) for a walk. We paddle along through the pond and take the clock with us at 0.866q to the right. After a while, we turn round and take clock B back the way at 0.866q to the left. When the two clocks are reunited, we see that during their separation, the stay-at-home duck clock ticked twice as often as the travelling duck clock, exactly as happens with light clocks when one twin moves away at 0.866c and then returns at 0.866c. The numbers are the same, just with different units for the speed.

How do we account for this version of the twins paradox on the duck pond? We can see clearly that it's the speed of the clock relative to the water that makes the moving clock run slow - the duck in clock B had to swim twice as far through the water as the duck in clock A to produce each tick. We can also analyse it from the frame B perspective though and pretend that the travelling clock was stationary relative to the water during the first leg of its trip, and that analysis appears to fit the facts too, apart from the fact that we know that it's really clock A that's stationary relative to the water, but if we ignore that reality, we can use any frame at all for our analysis and we will always predict that the travelling clock will tick half as often as the stay-at-home clock.

We can run the experiment again, this time by actually having clock A move the whole time at 0.866q to the left while clock B is stationary relative to the water during the first leg and then moves at 0.99q to the left during the second leg, and again we will see that clock B ticks half as often as clock A during its trip. And again we will be able to pretend the clock A is stationary relative to the water and crunch all the numbers on that false basis to get the same prediction yet again that clock A ticks twice as often as clock B. All frames will generate the same numbers for the clock ticks and for the relative tick rates of the two clocks regardless of which frame actually describes the reality.

We can also apply the Einsteinists’ method and claim that the accelerations have a key role. We can treat clock A as if it is in frame A, clock B as if it's in frame B during the first leg of its trip, and clock B as if it's in frame C during the second leg of its trip, and yet again we will get a prediction that clock A ticks twice as often as clock B. That is relativity in action in a Newtonian system with duck clocks on a pond.

However, if we do use the Einsteinists’ method, we need to look at its explanation of events. When clock B turns around, it changes frame, and in doing so, it changes its calculation about the current time on clock A. In the duck pond case though, we can see light that comes to us from clock A so fast that we can see that these calculations of the current time on clock A are not true representations of the actual time on clock A at all. They are actually nothing more than fantasy physics using a method which makes an illegal move, and it's only a lucky accident of the maths of relativity that it provides the correct answers for some aspects of the action. Think about that carefully: the method is clearly irrational in the duck pond case, but it produces the right tick rate ratio and the right numbers of ticks for the two clocks. How can this bonkers method suddenly become valid in the case of light clocks moving through space?

We can also introduce duck clock E and have it operate in the area where clock B turns round at the half way point of its trip, and clock E keeps changing direction, moving at 0.866q to the right, then at 0.866q to the left, then at 0.866q to the right, etc. over and over again. We can see clock E changing the frame it's using to calculate the time on clock A, and we can see that it is wildly wrong with at least half of its claims. Only an idiot would say that this clock is producing true statements about the time on clock A. No one rational would claim that all of its statements about the time on clock A are true - rational people would recognise that at least half of them are false, and indeed, in most cases they would recognise that almost all of them are false. Importantly though, clock E in the lightclocks-in-space case also reveals that half of its claims about the time on clock A cannot be true either. Here's the key point: any method that changes frame mid-analysis (and thereby mixes frames) is changing the asserted speed of water relative to clock A, but the actual speed of water relative to clock A never changes. In the light case, a change in frame changes the asserted speed of light relative to clock A. That's why it's an illegal move - just as illegal as a frame change in the duck pond analogy.

This analogy is designed to help people see the reality of what's going on with light travelling through space too. The maths is the same for the duck-clocks-on-pond case, for a sound-clocks-in-air case, and for the light-clocks-in-space case, and the mechanisms are the same. All the duck clocks are actually in the same absolute frame all the time, while all other frames are misrepresenting reality. The clocks are in all other frames too all the time, but those other frames are simply proposed realities that happen to be untrue.

Now, what sort of magic do we have to introduce to make an illegal move in the duck analogy valid in the light-clocks-in-space case? Einstein wanted to get rid of the space fabric, so let's try to do the same thing for the duck analogy by getting rid of the water. We now have to make the ducks swim through nothing instead of through water, so let's allow them to do that by magic. We can tolerate a bit of magic, but we cannot tolerate contradiction. So, what do we have left to control the speed of the duck in clock A now that there's no water? What is it moving at q relative to? This clock is in frame A, so we make this duck move at q relative to clock A. That's simple. What about the duck in clock B though. During the first leg of clock B's trip, clock B is in frame B, so let's have our duck in clock B move at q relative to clock B. And during the second leg of clock B's trip, clock B is in frame C, so let's have our duck in clock B move at q relative to clock B again throughout the second leg. But let's now hide the clocks by making them invisible and look carefully at how the ducks are behaving in a single frame. We find that one of the ducks is moving at a speed >q. That's what happens in the light-clocks-in-space case too. Make the clocks invisible and study how the light is behaving: you would have light travelling faster than light. The method is revealed to be mathematically illegal.

That's why mixing frames is banned. We need to do the analysis with all three clocks in the same frame for valid analysis, and that means we can do one of the following things. (1) Use frame A and have both the ducks move at q relative to that frame. When we do that, clock B is running slow throughout both legs of its trip. (2) Use frame B and have both the ducks move at q relative to that frame, in which case we have B ticking twice as fast as A during the first leg, and about three and a half times more slowly than A during the second leg. (3) Use frame C and have both the ducks move at q relative to that frame, in which case we have B ticking about three and a half times more slowly than A during the first leg, and twice as quickly as A during the second leg. Those are just three out of an infinite number of frames that we could use for the analysis.

If case (1) is a true representation of reality, then (2) and (3) are necessarily false. If case (2) is a true representation of reality, then (1) and (3) are necessarily false. If case (3) is a true representation of reality, then (1) and (3) are necessarily false. We know that if one frame is the true representation of reality, all other frames are misrepresentations of reality. Clock E's alternating contradictory assertions prove that: we know for certain that at least half of its claims are false, even in a case where we have thrown away the medium and pretended that we can manage without it. We can also have a clock called A2 which is also at rest in frame A but which hangs out at the point where twin B turns round half way through his trip. Let’s also have clock A sound an alarm at the moment when it thinks twin B is turning round. Clock E moves past clock A2 over and over again in opposite directions, and whenever they’re together it passes to A2 its latest assertion about what’s going on at clock A, thereby producing the following series of assertions: “the alarm has gone off at clock A”; “the alarm hasn’t gone off yet at clock A”; “the alarm has gone off at clock A”; “the alarm hasn’t gone off yet at clock A”; etc. No rational observer at A2 is going to declare all those claims to be true: half of them have to be false. For STR to be right, all of those assertions would have to be true, but mathematics tells us that half of those assertions must be false, so STR is disproven. Whether the existence of the medium is accepted or denied, an absolute frame is required as a key part of the mechanism for the events that we see happen (and the denial of the medium is also daft in any case).

Good for you! So, I have to ask ... did he start giving you advance notice, or did you see a lot of movies?

@Lauren

The only person I can change and control is myself. We divorced when Claire was five for other reasons.

After Claire was born, Terry eventually matured and planned ahead more. But his tendency to act scattered and sloppy continued. He gets emotionally upset. I am the calm parent.

I have never been an imprecise thinker. I see the forest and the trees. Am more forgiving. When I feel hurt, I try to listen for the kernel of truth, learn from it and let the bad feelings go.

As a parent, I take the long view. "This is temporary," I thought when Claire was a rebellious teenager. It was.

@LiterateHiker

Indeed, and that's a very logical way to deal with life. I think also that it's the optimal way to raise a secure child who then has the confidence and intellectual tools to proceed. They depend on us to maintain control, remain calm, and communicate with them.

That's a great answer. I've never understood why women put up with that shit, but they do.

I am a humanist, Intelligent well that depends on how and who maesures it

Who is this "We" of whom you speak? I voted for Clinton. I even donated to the DNC. He's not my fault.

@Paul4747 Whom you chose to vote for is irrelevent, WE are all Americans and WE Americans voted him in. I did not vote for him either, does not change that WE, as Americans, chose him. That is unless you want to no longer be a part of that larger WE called American.

@Davesnothere ......
........
....I'm thinking it over.

@Davesnothere Well, the majority of Americans DID NOT choose him. But, too many of us did; and that causes me great despair.

@Leontion "???? The majority of those who voted did not vote for him. Saying "we" chose him just because we are US citizens is incorrect. "
WE, the American Voters, VOTED him in.
What you or I chose for our vote is irrelevent.
WE, as in the sum TOTALITY, via our election system, wound up with Trump in the end.

WE, as in Americans.

When people do as you are doing and saying "Not me< I didn't pick him!" is you are claiming since your choice was not selected, either his selection does not count OR you don't want to be an American anymore. A part of a group that wound up with him after the vote.

THIS IS A SYMPTOM OF TRIBALISM. Somehow you are seeing yourself as MORE connected to your party/ideals than you are to your membership as an American Citizen, rther than seeing your ideals of what an American is or ought to be as being trampled.

How do we unite if you don't feel like a part of the whole anymore? So much so that either you are not American, or the other guys are not. Not that the ideals are being destroyed, transformed into something else.

@Leontion " I'm defined as a US citizen because I was born here and lack the resources to leave"
So then you hold no desire for "life, Liberty, and the pursit of happiness", you do not espouse even the noblest of American Ideals?

"My citizenship is not part of my identity."
You might want to reconsider that since it is your citizenship (ie membership in the big club) which has afforded you the "rights" to even have this conversation.

"So I am LESS tribal than those who identify with groups.
I don't belong to a political party."
Me too, I do not belong to any party either, and my inner circle is small composed of loved ones. However that does not exclude me and mine from the policies enacted by those olitical powers, does it?

"I identify with people who are honest, kind, and trustworthy."
So do I.

"I reject the group of "we elected him." I'm not tribal enough to say that-- it's just not true, for me."
Then your rejecting actual reality as the total of all our votes led to his winning of the electoral, thus "WE AMERICANS", elected him even if we did not vote that way, it is nonetheless the result of all our actions and all our efforts combined.

You either consider yourself, and your loved ones ON THIS DIRT worth fighting for or not. I think it is shameful to not embrace both your humanity and your Americanism as ONE, and push for AMERICA to be more your ideal, rather than just quit because you did not get your way, wish you could use a geographical solution, when there is not one. You just change the names on the problems, we live on the same globe.

"it's possible that I just didn't get born in a country enough like me to have ever identified."
THAT is not at all how I view citizenship in America. It is not "well this fiots me well, so I'll go with it", rather "These things need to change, so I will set out to try and change them, because a rule of law (dying on the spit as I type) makes that possible.

"The French will strike instead of whining online. They've embedded it in their culture. I adore this characteristic."
THIS TOO is an American Ideal, with the bloody history to show it is as true here as there.

It seems to me like somehow you got the idea you had to fit into America, rather than making it fit you.

I am not a nationalist either, we have done so much horribly wrong. To me that is impetus to do better, not quit the team you wee born into.

@Leontion "I am not an idealist, so that is a big place where we are different."
What makes you think I'm an idealist?
I would not say so.

" I did not take part in Trump winning, and your saying I did isn't going to change that."
Did you for for him ? That is a positive influence
Did you vote against him? That is a negative influence
Did you not vote? Thats a neutral influence, negative as seen by the loserand positive as seen the winner.
THEN that is all tallied, and OUR choice is made.

For me this is about language. IF your American and then YOU TOO were part of that selection process. The process did not select who you preferred. That does not mean you did not take part in his election, you did, you voted against it. To say "It's not my choice!" is to deny the process itself took place, that you had NO EFFECT, TOOK NO PART in it.

Because YOU don't feel like an American does not change your citizenship, only your disregaurd and lack of appreciation of it.

@Leontion Shameful is how it feels to me, like your a person who would rather quit than fight for what you think is right.
Because it does not pertain to you?

@Leontion "Yet I do not feel any obligation to see myself as part of Trump's election."
and yet you admit you were, that you voted against, so you were a part of his election too.

To me, that IS tribalism. You refuse to be any part of the label as you see it, rather than making a new label.
To say Since the GOP won, I'm not part of that while you WERE and voted against them, is to deny your own input.

@Leontion Look. I am not trying to have an arguement, but I think you fail to see exactly how you are presenting yourself, how it appears to me from your words.
First, you claim to be an activist, to create a better society I assume?
Since your American by birth that would mean creating a better society for America (and hopefully beyond).
That is effort and work for the tribe you disavow, the one you were born into and reside in and pay taxes to and vote in its political process.

YES, Shameful again. It is how you are presenting yourself. As a person who wants all the benefits of being in the American trbie, but disavows that very tribe when the vote did not go your way.

Its not a different perspective which causes my boggle, but the reality that you are painting yourself both as an activist and an apathest at the same time.

IF your not a member of the Tribe to which you have membership then you need to quit that tribe or your actions all look hypocritical.

AND you seem not to even see that.

@Leontion I think I see where we are miscommunicating.

You said " I'm not doing those things for a tribe-- I'm doing them for other humans."
THAT is the biggest tribe of all, a tribe(set)including all humans.

You and I both are members of that set(tribe), and inside that set(tribe) lies the set (tribe)of all Americans.
SO when you do activism for the people of your state, you are also doing activism for the (tribe) set of the state and the (tibe) nation, America.

In my view you belong to that set by birth, you take actions like voting and actisim which you think will benefit those people (who are all also in that tribe(set).
Then say your not a part of that tribe(set).

I see tribe as "a group of humans", its most simple useage. A microculture of some kind, be it large or small.

def-"a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader:"

YOU see tribe as something with a ton of baggage you do not wish to be affiliated with, which is the same way many of us feel, but we are associated by birth and citizenship even if opposed by choice.

@Leontion "I don't identify with team USA-- however, I am legally a citizen."
EQUALS member of that tribe, set of humans beings including all us citizens.

Your not arguing with me, your arguing with language and definitions.

"I do not believe in "ideals"-- a word you used, and the reason I called you an idealist."
All the things you fight for are your ideals, otherwise you would not fight for them.

THIS
" I did not participate in electing Trump-- I participated only in trying to prevent his election."
Is exactly what I said, and the result of your resitance was Trump got elected, that is what the tribe your a member of selected. BY PARTICIPATING your effort was a part of the total at the end.

I don't see what your saying as "your position", I see it as irrational in the extreme.
ALLEGORY.
WE are all in the Ship of state. Some of us rowing forward, some backward, and some not at all. Because the ship did not move in the direction you prefer does not mean your not in the boat anymore. You would have to jump out or be thrown out, right?
How you FEEL about that reality is "your position", that feeling does not change your position in the Ship of state.

This is not, for me, about trying to force you into anything. All I have tried to do here is explain how irrational the idea you have expressed to me seems.

Please feel no obligation to respond, my intent was only to inform you that the way you are expressing yourself on this particular point strikes me as very irrational, self contradictory. I meant you no ire or ill will, I find it irrational.

I think Kant had the most appropriate study of morality with his Categorical Imperative.

@Geoffrey51 If I remember right, is that not the one, which is basically based on the same logic as grand mother's ? "How would it be if everyone did that."

@Fernapple Sort Of.

It’s more like the good Will is important but ultimately it must be directed as good intent I.e. to do good because it is good to do it, rather than do good with an ulterior motive.

There’s a great In Our Time on Kant.from around a couple of years ago.

@Geoffrey51 Ah, yes I remember now, the one I am thinking of, is called the, universalization principle. It is very good too.