Jesse, My answer to your last paragraph is yes, as I understand it...
For transitivity ignore my first post on that, and just read the second that concludes there IS transitivity.. Edgar On Sunday, February 9, 2014 3:22:28 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net<javascript:> > > wrote: > > Jesse, > > 1. is correct. There is an objective truth that past events are > simultaneous in p-time. Recall I also gave the exact same answer yesterday > or the day before. > > > Thanks. So how about the issue of transitivity? If event A and event B > were objectively simultaneous in p-time, and event B and event C were > simultaneous in p-time, does this necessarily imply A and C were > simultaneous in p-time, or not? > > > > > It will always be able to determine what clock time t in one frame > occurred at the same p-time of any t' in another frame, but the actual > values of those t's and t''s will depend on the conditions in the preceding > paragraph, on the choice of frames. Which is what I said at least several > separate times in the preceding days. > > > By "clock time" you mean the actual physical reading on a clock, not any > other notion of coordinate time, right? Say one event is clock 1 reading > t=50 seconds, and another event is clock 2 reading t=30 seconds. These > events either ARE or AREN'T objectively simultaneous, correct? There can't > actually be different, equally valid answers to that question that depend > on one's "choice of frames", so when you say it will "depend on the > conditions in the preceding paragraph, on the choice of frames", do you > just mean that there are rules that tell us the objective truth about > p-time simultaneity should match some PARTICULAR frame's definition of > simultaneity, but that the particular frame that must be used depends on > the physical details of the objects involved, like whether the two clocks > are at rest relative to one another (in which case the rules say you *must* > use their rest frame's definition of simultaneity to determine p-time > simultaneity, you don't have any "choice" in the matter). Is this right or > am I still misunderstanding your wording? > > Jesse > > > > > > > > Edgar > > On Sunday, February 9, 2014 2:42:43 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote: > > Jesse, > > No, "the definition of p-time simultaneity itself depends on the > arbitrary "choice of coordinate system" is NOT true. I clearly stated > otherwise and explained why. Please reread if it isn't clear. > > > > Rereading doesn't help, I just don't understand what you mean since I > can't think of another way to interpret "Yes, the PARTICULAR 1:1 > relationship only exists with respect to some arbitrary coordinate system > (which I stated as just some other clock). The choice of that coordinate > system is of course arbitrary." > > Perhaps another question would help. Say it's true in some sense that a > meteor impact on Mars happens at the "same p-time" as a lightning strike on > Earth. Does either of these capture your view on how p-time works? > > 1. The fact that these events are "simultaneous in p-time" is an objective > truth by itself, it requires no context of a particular reference frame > (though there may still be a rule for determining this objective truth that > refers to reference frames, like "two events happening to objects that > share the same rest frame are objectively simultaneous in p-time if and > only if they are simultaneous in the time coordinate of their mutual rest > frame). > > 2. It is an objective truth that these events are "simultaneous in p-time" > in the context of one frame, and "not simultaneous in p-time" in the > context of another frame, but there is no frame-independent objective truth > about which events are simultaneous in p-time. > > If either of these does capture your view, please point out which one...if > neither does, then perhaps in trying to explain your view to me you could > keep in mind that these are the only two options *I* can imagine at the > moment, so perhaps you could explain how your third alternative would > differ from each of these two in turn. > > > > > > As for your last example, establishing past p-time simultaneity across > multiple frames is NOT transitive > > > So does "p-time simultaneity across multiple frames" mean that p-time > simultaneity is frame-dependent, as suggested in option 2 above? If not I > don't know how to interpret that phrase. > > > > > (in your sense of using the same intermediate frame t value). You can only > establish it between any two frames (at a time) in general because the > relativistic differences between multiple frame relationships as in your > example are not transitive. > > However take clocks A, B and C. You can always determine same past p-times > between A and B, and between B and C IN TERMS OF their clock time > relationships as calculated by standard relativity theory. However you > cannot in general say that because B's t' = A's t, and B's t' = C's t'' > that t and t'' were at the same p-time. Relativity doesn't work like that > as I'm sure you know. > > > > Relativity doesn't talk about p-time at all, so not sure what you mean. > Perhaps you would take my option 1 above, but you would just say that > although there are objective truths about p-time simultaneity, these truths > aren't transitive? In other words you could be saying that there is a > frame-independent objective truth that events A and B are simultaneous in > p-time, and a frame-independent objective truth that events B and C are > simultaneous in p-time, but this does not imply that A and C are > simultaneous in p-time. Is that right or am I still misunderstanding your > view? > > Jesse > > > > On Sunday, February 9, 2014 12:47:49 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote: > > Jesse, > > Same thing as I'm saying. My other clock time is just a clock centered in > your coordinate system. It's the same idea. If you look at the equations of > relativistic clock time they are always of the general form dt'/dt = f( ). > I just note that the dt with respect to which dt' is calculated is another > clock. You simply note that other clock is some coordinate system. Exactly > the same. MY clock is the clock at the origin of YOUR coordinate system. > The equations are exactly the same. The concept is exactly the same. You > are talking about the exact same thing as I am. > > Yes, the PARTICULAR 1:1 relationship only exists with respect to some > arbitrary coordinate system (which I stated as just some other clock). The > choice of that coordinate system is of course arbitrary. That's irrelevant > because with EVERY choice of a coordinate system there will be some such > 1:1 relationship on the basis of which clock times can be used to determine > the same points in p-time. Depending on the choice of coordinate system > those clock times will of course be different but there will be such a > relationship that defines the clock times in ANY two relativistic systems > such that a same point in p-time can be defined in terms of a 1:1 relation > between those clock times. > > > Are you saying that the definition of p-time simultaneity itself depends > on the arbitrary "choice of coordinate system"? I thought p-time > simultaneity was supposed to be an objective matter, so the question of > whether any two past events were simultaneous in p-time could have only one > TRUE answer. I > > ... -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
