Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Thanks for a great discussion, JD!
But when I think about
communicating relativity to a layperson, I need help still on one
sticking point (down below, after this summary):
distance != path
easy to visualize with the ruler/odometer pairing
clock is not to ruler; clock is to odometer; clock ticks are to ruler
Although when we ended the trip and compared rulers, they were still
identical, and when we compared clock ticks at the end of the trip,
they were still identical too, even while the odometers and times
were different, there remains, in the layperson's eyes, this one
amazing asymmetry: one person is actually older (without, for
example, also being shorter).
The OP was about a layperson who would not accept relativity. I'd bet
that the arguments laid out here (even without data) would be
extremely persuasive, except for this one last part (the aging). And
what do we then have left:
1. Talk about esoteric evidence (eg muon lifetimes or accelerator
operation) that they will resist?
2. Try to convince them that our aging must also be dictated by some
biological clock that simply cannot work differently (proof by
blatant assertion)?
3. Merely quote Minkowski, that we must abandon space and time and
combine them instead into spacetime?
OK fine, fair enough, perhaps that *is* all we got.
More than enough
for us, but in every discussion I can imagine with a layperson, I'll
lose them at the very end of what is otherwise a brilliant
presentation.