🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@trinsec

He meant heroine, he just cant spell :)

@skells

@matrix

Here is the video this is from...

https://youtu.be/A-YcBYUfgtc

Funny thing is the heavier woman was ranked at the bottom by both men and women by appearance.. 4th place by the women, last place by the men.

She only got bumped up by the women when they said they were considering personality.

@jojo

Personally I dont find fuck to be all that disgusting ::shrug::

@AlmostAmerican @RacistReimu @RacistZikaBaby @creamqueen @sapphire @slovborg @Vivernu

@khird

Valid points.

@miamiautumn @arteteco @Sphinx

@saxnot I strongly disagree and support him. Though might i suggest you elucidate your reasoning so others can consider your point and potentially change their minds.

@arteteco

We will have to see his explanation. I think at a minimum if it is just a matter of misinterpretation, he should at least specify in his description explicitly and in no uncertain terms that he opposes adult-child sexual interactions. Given the subject matter and the potential for "dog whistles" this seems like a good precautionary measure to avoid misinterpretation of an already dicey subject.

@miamiautumn @Sphinx @khird

@arteteco

Not sure, which is the only reason i am giving the OP a chance to respond before I act. My vote may change if they give an explanation I am happy with. Some of their boosts and other comments may suggest they are ok with sexual interactions with minors.

Consider the following post: https://qoto.org/@miamiautumn/105899139124992358

This particular part of that post: "Most pro-contact ideology holds that child-adult sex could exist without an inherent risk for harm greater than potential benefit" seems to suggest that one contact ideology is that sex with minors is perfectly acceptable and non-harmful. Assuming I am interpreting this correctly that would suggest that the account condones adult-child sex, and that such interaction is a "contact ideology"

@miamiautumn @Sphinx @khird

@seroom to me slow moving clocks dilating makes a lot of sense.. the slower you move a clock the less it dilates, but the longer it needs to stay in motion. So it will in the end dilate the same regardless of how fast you move it for the same distance.

That said if we are just talking about preference in terms of what we assume with our equations, then constant c should be prefered for no other reason than it produces the simplest model and gives the same results as more complex models where c is not one-way constant. The simplest model that gives correct results should always be preferred. But just because its preferred doesnt mean it dictates reality :)

@3ammo and yes the conversation was interesting and I'm glad we had it.

@3ammo Yes i think most of this has been dueling definitions and perhaps a little philosophy at best.

My philosophy is that anything that is unknowable and untestable is in all possible states and once and isnt particularly worth talking about "one true reality".. To me the unobservable nature of one-way c is of the same sort as the unknowable nature of variables in the heisenberg uncertainty principle. That is nothing and everything is true at the same time until it can be observed and since it can never be observed it exists in a state of superposition with itself where any arbitrary interpretation is equally valid and true.

@seroom

Also someone recommended this amazing video shortly after my original post.. It says a lot of the same things I have said (though I hadnt seen the video before, its just these are common thought experiments reused in the scientific community anyway)... It explains everything i have been trying to explain with some visualizations:

https://invidious.fdn.fr/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k

@3ammo @Science

@seroom There are many schemes that would all result in consistent clock synchronization.. in fact as long as your scheme preserves two-way light speed and breaks one-way light speed (or doesn't break it) you will have a consistent and equivalent clock synchronization scheme that works.. and thats the key here. Now if there is some reality and one-way c has some asymmetry, or symmetry, then only one of the many schemes may result in clocks truly being synchronized (though this is impossible to know or ever do).. but the point is any of the infinite schemes that picks arbitrary asymmetries for c will result in clocks that will give meaningful consistent experimental results, so we really don't have to care about "true synchronization" which is unknowable anyway.

Did you see my earlier example where i showed two scenarios, one with symmetric c and the other asymmetric c and both using a time synchronization approach that assumes symmetric c, and how both scenarios in both universes give the apparent same results? Thats an important one.

@seroom

Now your hitting on the crux of the problem. The problem comes from the inehrent fact that clock synchronization is not about actually synchronizing clocks in any reality... it is about creating a convention which when applied to clocks will give you consistent experimental results. Thats the key in all this. When we synchronize clocks in the typical einstein convention for it the result is such that experiments will give consistent results regardless of if c is symmetric or asymmetric, so the problem becomes moot.

@3ammo @Science

@3ammo

> What I am saying is that we are not allowed to make statements like "In reality, c is anistropic, but whenever we measure it it looks like everything is symmetric". That statement is not forbidden because we have an experiment that contradicts it (we already established that it's compatible with measurements), but because it's logically incompatible with the framework we already chose. Why is logically incompatible? Because it asserts that there is a fundamentally anisotropic physical effect, without a theory behind it. If we decide to put a theory behind it, then that theory will have to conform to the symmetry *because we said so*. If it does, then it will have some isotropic signal.

So we somewhat agree here. I do agree that no one could ever say "in reality one-way c is anisotropic", theory or no theory in not even testable and will not contradict existing theory if true anyway so not even theoretically testable.

What I am saying, which is more important really is that for the exact same reasons you cant say "in reality one-way c is anisotropic" you **also** can not say "in reality one-way c is isotropic", for all the same reasons, there is no theoretical framework you could use to prove it.

So my point all along has been "It is fundamentally unknowable due to the physical laws" and since the theoretical laws are a description of the physical laws it is also unknowable in theory.

So to take my point back another step, not only is the isotropy of one-way c unknowable, but whatever it does in reality (be isotropic or anisotropic) you will never have a way to discern one from the other. It is inherently unfalsifiable. Which is also why the idea that it is isotropic is merely a convention, it makes our math easier and any assumption of its nature gives the same results so we pick the one that is mathematically the easiest to do.