Jesse, As I read this it's simply a way to define what your 'same point of spacetime is' but that doesn't answer my question of how it predicts that the end point will be such a same point of spacetime from the fact that the start point was?
You seem to be just defining the conclusion rather than calculating it from the initial conditions as I asked. Edgar On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 2:54:39 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Jesse, >> >> Let me ask you this simple question. You agree that there is "a same >> point in spacetime" that both twin meet at and in which their clock times >> are different. >> >> How does your theory, or relativity, account for or predict this same >> point with different clock times starting from when the one twin leaves on >> his journey? >> >> Is there any choice of frames which computes this result in relativity >> theory? If so what? >> > > > Yes, all of them predict it. In the context of any allowable choice of > coordinate system, if two events occur at exactly the same position and > time coordinates, then that leads to the conclusion that they must have > occured at the "same point in spacetime" in a coordinate-independent sense > (understood either in terms of spacetime geometry or in terms of the > operation definition I mentioned). So if any given frame assigns the same > space and time coordinates to a pair of clock-readings for each twin, like > "twin A turns 30" and "twin B turns 40", that implies these events happened > at the same point in spacetime, and it always works out that other frames > assign this pair of events identical coordinates too. > > Jesse > > > >> >> If not then we must assume a separate kind of time in which it is true. >> That is p-time. >> >> I think this question gets to the crux of the disagreement.... >> >> Edgar >> >> On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:40:41 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Jesse, >>>> >>>> A couple of points in response: >>>> >>>> 1. Even WITHOUT my present moment, the well established fact of a 4-d >>>> universe does NOT imply block time nor require it. Clock time still flows >>>> just fine in SR and GR. >>>> >>> >>> I would agree that the 4D mathematics of relativity theory doesn't >>> require the ontology of block time, though I don't see any alternative to >>> block time besides some sort of "metaphysically preferred" definition of >>> simultaneity (which wouldn't contradict relativity as long as long as this >>> definition wasn't "preferred" by the measurable laws of physics). I don't >>> know what you mean by "clock time still flows" in SR and GR--it only >>> "flows" in the sense that its value is different at different points along >>> a worldline, the same sense in which we could say that "distance from the >>> end of the wire" flows along a piece of wire (i.e. the value of "distance >>> from the end of the wire" is different at different points along the wire). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> No clock time simultaneity of distant (relativistic is a better >>>> descriptor) events does NOT imply time is not flowing at those events. >>>> This >>>> is quite clear. It's a fundamental assumption of relativity that time >>>> flows. >>>> >>> >>> What mathematical element of relativity corresponds to your notion of >>> "flow"? >>> >>> >>>> >>>> In fact relativity itself conclusively falsifies block time as it >>>> requires everything to be at one and only one point in clock time due to >>>> the fact that everything always travels at the speed of light through >>>> spacetime. I find it baffling that so many can't grasp this simple fact. >>>> >>> >>> Huh? "Everything moves at the speed of light through spacetime" is not >>> how most physicists would describe relativity, and those few who do are >>> just speaking in a colorful way about the magnitude of the 4-velocity >>> always being equal to c. And the 4-velocity is just defined as a vector >>> whose components give you the rate of change of the spacetime coordinates >>> t,x,y,z relative to proper time. >>> >>> Nothing about this notion is contrary to the notion of block time--as an >>> analogy, if we have a piece of wire embedded in a block of ice and forming >>> some type of curved shape, and we use an x,y,z coordinate system to >>> describe different points within the block and on the wire, then at every >>> point along the wire we can define a vector whose components give the rate >>> of change of x, y, z coordinates relative to "proper length" at each point >>> (where "proper length" refers to the distance between that point and the >>> end of the wire--or some point along the wire marked "0"--as measured along >>> the the wire itself). And in fact it's not hard to show (I can give you the >>> derivation if you like) that using these purely spatial definitions, the >>> magnitude of *this* vector must always be 1 at every point on the wire, >>> regardless of the shape of the wire. Would you describe this situation by >>> saying "every wire-point moves at the same speed through the block of ice", >>> even though we are talking about wires that from our point of view are >>> completely static, frozen in a particular shape within the block? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2. You complain about me not answering a few of your questions. As I've >>>> explained before I have limited time to post here because running my >>>> business keeps me very busy. >>>> >>>> And please note that a lot of my posts have received NO answers at all >>>> either, e.g. >>>> >>>> a. Several major posts, some as new topics, on my theory of how >>>> spacetime emerges from quantum events. Apparently this has just sailed >>>> over >>>> everyone's heads with not a single meaningful comment, not even any >>>> negative ones which is pretty surprising among this crowd! Apparently no >>>> one is interested in understanding the nature of time at the quantum level? >>>> >>>> b. My post on a solution to Newton's Bucket. Also no relevant responses. >>>> >>>> c. Several thought experiments lending very strong support to my >>>> present moment theory, posted just a couple days ago. Again zero response. >>>> And weren't those directed to YOU? >>>> >>>> d. Several thought experiments designed to dig into the fine points of >>>> various aspects of time dilation. Again only a vague comment or two on >>>> 'asymmetry' but zero actual analysis of the points I raised. >>>> >>>> e. Several other new topics on basic issues of science and >>>> epistemology. Again no relevant responses. >>>> >>> >>> Those posts were not part of an ongoing discussion with *me*, though. >>> I'm not asking you to respond to every argument I make, just to respond to >>> posts that are part of ongoing discussions with you, in which I raise >>> serious difficulties with arguments you have presented to me. And I don't >>> mind if you take your time in getting back to me, but it is rather >>> suspicious when you continually ignore my requests to address specific >>> issues I've raised with you, even when you do apparently have time to >>> respond to other posts of mine. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> As for your comment that "you have no idea what moving in clock time >>>> could mean" pull your head out of your physics books and watch your watch >>>> for a little while and see if the hands are moving. If not, you are in >>>> block time. >>>> >>> >>> >>> So does your argument for "movement in clock time" depend on our >>> conscious perceptions, rather than any sort of well-defined quantitative >>> measurements? It's not obvious to me that my perception of movement is >>> anything more than a mental comparison between what I'm seeing now and my >>> very short-term memory of what I was seeing half a second or less >>> earlier...and of course the idea of comparing memories or other records >>> with current observations still makes perfect sense in a block time view. >>> >>> I am interested in the issue of the difference between conscious >>> perceptions ("qualia" as philosophers refer to them) and objective physical >>> facts, and I have considered the possibility that if there is a "theory of >>> consciousness" of the type that the philosopher David Chalmers discusses, >>> then perhaps the "flow of time" would play a more fundamental role there >>> than it does in physics. But I don't see that this implies any *unique* >>> subjective present--if I can imagine a multiverse where different versions >>> of me are having different experiences, I can equally well imagine that >>> there are different mes-at-different-ages having distinct experiences, each >>> of them experiencing their own "flow" of time...it'd be a bit like a series >>> of TV screens which are each playing the same movie, but where each screen >>> is one frame ahead of the screen to its left, so screens at sufficiently >>> far-apart positions can be showing completely different parts of the movie. >>> >>> Jesse >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
