Darn, t' NOT t''! Edgar
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:37:54 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Jesse, > > Sorry, that should read t will always = t'', not, t will always + t'. > > Edgar > > On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:13:51 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >> >> Jesse, >> >> Your condition C. was not example dependent. You just need to rephrase >> your condition C. as two observers with no relative motion AND in identical >> gravitational fields. Then it does hold and is consistent with conditions A >> and B. I already gave several examples. >> >> In this case both A's and B's clock will always read the same clock >> times. t will always + t'.. Both A and B will agree to this, and whenever t >> = t' they will be in the same p-time present moment. And this will be true >> retrospectively as well. >> >> Couldn't be clearer! >> >> Edgar >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:37:22 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Jesse, >> >> OK, I see which assumptions A, B, and C you are referring to now. I was >> looking for them in the link you gave. >> >> I agree assumption C is incorrect because I NEVER CLAIMED that. I even >> gave an example in which it was NOT true. Specifically when A is in a >> gravitational field and his clock is running slower than B's. >> >> >> >> Yes, but my example was one from SR with no gravitational fields. Are you >> saying you never meant to claim that for two SR observers at rest with >> respect to each other, if their clocks are synchronized in their mutual >> rest frame that means their clocks are synchronized in p-time? But In the >> post at >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/vfnF3MS7WsUJyou >> said: >> >> 'Yes is the answer to your question "if two clocks are at rest relative >> to one another and "synchronized" according to the definition of >> simultaneity in their mutual rest frame, do you automatically assume this >> implies they are synchronized in p-time?"' >> >> Do you wish to retract your answer of "yes" to my quoted question there? >> >> >> Jesse >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:19:12 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Jesse, >> >> If you don't agree with anything I've said, with any of the answers I've >> provided to your numerous questions, then I have to assume your motive is >> asking all these questions is not to learn anything about the theory (since >> you say your mind is already made up and you believe in block time) but >> presumably just to try to uncover any contradictions that would falsify the >> theory? >> >> >> No, it's mainly been to show that your own attempts to uncover >> contradictions that falsify block time--like the idea that the notion of >> the twins meeting "at the same point in spacetime" with different clock >> times requires some new idea of time that block time can't account >> for--don't actually succeed in doing so. This has been the point of my >> spatial analogies, to show that any such argument you could make involving >> quantitative facts about the twin paradox would have a directly analogous >> argument involving quantitative facts about the measuring tape, yet you >> wouldn't agree that there is any new idea of "same point in y" needed >> there, I believe you think ordinary geometry can handle spatial facts about >> the measuring tape just fine. On that subject, you still haven't answered >> my question about whether you think there are any particular quantitative >> facts about the twin paradox that you would make use of in such arguments >> that *don't* have direct spatial analogies. >> >> Another thing I have been doing in my discussions with you was to try to >> show that p-time would have to be purely "metaphysical" in the sense that >> there'd be no empirical procedure for deciding whether events were >> simultaneous in p-time, but that isn't the same as falsifying it, I don't >> think there's anything logically wrong with adopting presentism as a >> metaphysical "interpretation" of relativity theory, even though I don't do >> so myself. >> >> >> >> >> Well, that's fine, and a useful exercise, but apparently after all this >> discussion you haven't been able to do that so far. Is that correct? >> >> >> In fact I think I may have found a contradiction in your statements that >> A) there's a unique objective truth about whether two events are >> simultaneous in p-time, B) this truth is transitive, and C) if two objects >> are at rest relative to each other, readings on their clocks that are >> simultaneous in their inertial rest frame are simultaneous in p-time. Can >> you please consider the scenario I described in the post at >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/pxg0VAAHJRQJwith >> the two pairs of twins, and tell me if you disagree with any of the >> individual numbered statements 1-4 about which events must be simultaneous >> in p-time according to your rules? >> >> If I have found a contradiction of course this doesn't disprove the very >> idea of p-time, but it would probably imply that you have to drop >> assumption C), which I think would leave you without any rule for >> empirically deciding which events are simultaneous in p-time, supporting my >> point that this can only be a purely "metaphysical" notion. >> >> >> >> And you say if by agree we just mean taking my assumptions you COULD tell >> me if you agreed or not. But in fact you have never to my recollection said >> you agreed with anything even given those assumptions. So given those >> assumptions what DO you agree with? >> >> >> You've never asked me to adopt some assumptions I don't actually believe >> in and tell me what they would imply, that isn't a common thing to do in a >> discussion like this (you haven't done it with block time assumptions >> either). And "given those assumptions what DO you agree with" is a very >> broad question, could you narrow it down by mentioning the specific >> assumptions I should adopt (for example, whether they would only include >> assumptions A and B above or whether they should also include C even though >> I think this leads to conclusions that contradict presentism), and specific >> ideas you want to know if I agree or disagree with given these assumptions? >> >> Jesse >> >> >> >> Why is this could not a WOULD? >> >> Edgar >> >> >> On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:46:14 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Jesse, >> >> Before I go the trouble of answering your 4 questions on your example >> could you please tell me if you agree with the 3 examples I provided, and >> the p-time simultaneities I stated there? >> >> >> What do you mean "agree with"? >> >> ... > > -- 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.
