Hi, You're amazing of patience... but I can predict the end, Edgar won't acknowledge anything because he is convince he got it all about relativity, where clearly he doesn't have a clue... he is the perfect example of what crackpotery is... he thinks that flooding a list with BS, will render the BS true.
Good luck, but it would be amazing the prediction will turn to be false. Regards, Quentin 2014-02-13 19:22 GMT+01:00 Jesse Mazer <[email protected]>: > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Liz, >> >> 'Any point' for observers in different frames is well defined by >> relativity theory itself. The very fact that relativity theory can provide >> 2 equations, one for each separate frame, for any SINGLE relativistic >> scenario requires that to be true. >> > > By "point" do you mean "point in time"? If so, are you saying that even > for observers at different points in space, "relativity theory itself" > provides a unique definition of which points on their worldlines are at the > same "point" in time? This is obviously not true, since there is no > preferred definition of simultaneity in relativity theory itself. You may > think you can deduce the *need* for some "true" definition of simultaneity > in order to make sense of relativity's claims, but objective simultaneity > is clearly not a part of the theory itself in the sense that it won't > appear in any textbooks on the theory. > > > > >> That is what I've continually pointed out to Jesse that's gone over his >> head, that relativity itself uses a common computational background for all >> frames. >> > > It hasn't gone over my head, I have responded over and over again by > pointing out that any mathematical statement about relativity has an > analogue in a purely geometric scenario involving things like tape measures > on a 2D plane. Just as we can describe the twin paradox with different > inertial frames that disagree about which pairs of events have the same > t-coordinates, we can describe things on the plane using different > Cartesian coordinate systems which disagree about which pairs of markings > on the measuring tapes have the same y-coordinate. Does your ill-defined > terminology of "common computational background" refers to the notion of a > unique objective frame-independent analogue of "same t coordinate" (the > analogue being 'same p-time')? If so, my point as always is that you > *don't* similarly conclude that the different Cartesian coordinate systems > in the measuring tape scenario require a "common computational background" > in the sense of an objective coordinate-independent analogue of "same > y-coordinate". And if a perfectly analogous argument involving coordinate > systems in space leads to a conclusion that even you would agree is > erroneous, that implies there is something wrong with the logic of your > argument involving frames in spacetime. > > Even though I've asked you over and over again whether you think there's > any quantitative fact about SR and different frames' descriptions of the > twin paradox scenario which DOESN'T have a direct analogue in the tape > scenario, you've never given a yes-or-no answer to this question, let alone > pointed to a specific quantitative fact you think has no analogue. From > your continued ducking of this question, I guess you probably recognize on > some level that this analogy is problematic for your position. > > > > >> If it didn't it couldn't properly describe relativistic scenarios from >> the separate frame dependent views of all involved observers. >> > > Do you think algebraic geometry (i.e. geometry where we describe shapes in > the context of a 2D coordinate system) "can't properly describe geometric > scenarios from the separate views of all involved coordinate systems"? > > >> >> This hidden and unstated assumption of relativity itself is the basis of >> p-time. >> > > If it's "hidden and unstated" than it isn't part of "relativity theory > itself" in its standard textbook form. It's rather a conclusion that you > draw about the implications of the theory. > > >> >> The dozen or so examples I've given to Jesse show how to compare >> different relativistic frames in a manner completely consistent with >> relativity >> > > > But I've given my own example that shows that your assumptions about > p-time lead to a direct contradiction. You objected to the idea that > "events which occur at the same point in spacetime must have the same > p-time", which was one of the assumptions I used to derive a contradiction, > but clearly you had misunderstood what I meant by "same point in spacetime" > since in > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/GZznkprLuo8Jyou > said "I pointed out maybe a week ago with examples why your notion of > "a same point in SPACEtime" is not the same as a same point in p-TIME. They > are the same is true only when A and B are at the same point in SPACE". But > as I explained in my response at > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/6NoHUw_x0tsJ, > same point in spacetime DOES always include the notion of "same point in > SPACE", this is always how I have used "same point in spacetime" and it's > obvious this must be true from the operational definition I gave (how could > the time for a light signal to reflect off the other observer and return > approach zero if the distance wasn't approaching zero too?). > > So, now that I have clarified that to say events A and B happened "at the > same point in spacetime" means that in any relativistic coordinate system > they would have identical time coordinates AND identical spatial > coordinates, would you now agree that if A and B happened at the same point > in spacetime, they must have been at the same point in p-time? If you do > agree with that, then this is sufficient to derive a contradiction when > combined with your other assumptions (that p-time simultaneity is > transitive, that clocks at rest relative to each other in the absence of > gravity that are synchronized in their rest frame must be synchronized in > p-time too), as I showed with the Alice/Bob/Arlene/Bart example in > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/pxg0VAAHJRQJ. So > if you would agree that events A and B having the same position > coordinates AND the same space coordinates implies they are simultaneous in > p-time, please then look over that example and tell me if you disagree with > any of the numbered conclusions 1-4 about simultaneity in p-time. > > 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]. > 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. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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.
