Jesse, The point to understand here is the very fact that relativity describes different frames that are BOTH simultaneously true from different relativistic perspectives requires that there actually is a background independent of any PARTICULAR frame that all frames are true within..
This unrecognized aspect of relativity is the absolutely necessary simultaneous p-time reality that all separate relativistic descriptions of reality are true within and can be true within. I know you won't understand this, but still it is true, and it is critical to understanding what reality actually is... Edgar On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:45:23 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Jesse, > > I agree that Individual relativistic equations from a particular > coordinate system don't support p-time simultaneity but comparing both > equations of the two coordinate systems in the system, e.g. twin A and twin > B, relativity clearly DOES imply a notion of p-time simultaneity because it > does allow a 1:1 relationship between the comoving clock times in their own > frames of A and B. > > Thus when we compare A and B's coordinate systems we do find a 1:1 clock > time to the same p-time relationship. That's exactly what I did in my > examples. > > This is one more of several ways that relativity either implies or > requires a common p-time background to all relativistic calculations and > phenomena. > > Edgar > > > > On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:27:38 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote: > > Jesse, > > Both, but you completely ignored my broad conceptual argument I gave first > thing this morning of why relativity itself assumes an unstated present > moment background to all relativistic relationships. > > > You mean the post at > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/mHoddIqTX7kJ? But > I didn't ignore it at all, I responded to it at > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/yDwctm892xMJby > pointing out some crucial parts early on I disagreed with, on which the > entire argument after that seemed to rest. In particular, "relativistic > calculations" do not support the idea of a unique 1:1 relationship between > clock times, since different frames give *different* relationships between > clock times and clock rates, and all frames are considered equally valid. > Of course I realize that p-time *postulates* such a unique 1:1 > relationship, but you seemed to say relativistic calculations themselves > provided one, which just isn't true. > > > Sorry, but I disagree on your second point. P-time simultaneity does NOT > have purely spatial analogues. > > > I never asserted p-time simultaneity had spatial analogues. My point was > that for any argument you made to try to *establish* the need for p-time > using quantitative observations about the twin paradox (as opposed to just > assuming p-time as a given), I could point to a spatial analogue. > > If you weren't interested in trying to provide a demonstration to convince > others that block time is flawed and that p-time is needed, but were merely > talking about what would be true *if* p-time existed, then I wouldn't > bother bringing up spatial analogues. But it seems to me you are indeed > trying to make an argument for it, not just assume it, so they are quite > relevant to that. > > So, the question remains: do you think there are any quantitative aspects > of the twin paradox scenario (involving clock times, coordinate times, > relativistic equations, etc.) which DO NOT have direct spatial analogues in > the measuring tape scenario? If so what are they? > > Jesse > > > > > Clock time does, at least in your weak sense..... I did explain that at > length more than once... > > Edgar > > > > On Sunday, February 9, 2014 3:29:39 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote: > > Jesse, > > The crux of my answer to the crossed tapes question was that yes that > would be true of clock time but not for p-time. Again you are using the > question to argue against clock time simultaneity. And I agree with that > 100%. It's just not p-time... > > > But weren't you trying to use the twin paradox scenario to make an > *argument* in favor of p-time, rather than just assuming it from the start? > If so, then I'm wondering if the argument just involves pointing to some > broad conceptual understanding of what happens in the twin paradox > scenario, or if you think there are specific numerical facts that don't > have any good interpretation under a purely "geometric" understanding of > spacetime (like the fact that they can be at the "same point in spacetime" > but have elapsed different ages since their previous meeting). If it's the > latter, then it's reasonable to point out that these numerical facts have > exact analogues in purely geometric facts about the measuring tapes (like > the fact that the tapes can cross at the "same point in space" but have > elapsed different tape-measure distances since their previous crossing). > > Jesse > > > > > > Edgar > > > > On Sunday, February 9, 2014 2:22:20 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote: > > Jesse, > > It's not clear to me what you mean by, "in every coordinate system the > time-coordinate of A = the time-coordinate of B. Are you actually > disagreeing with that (please answer clearly yes or no)". > > The way I understand that the answer is clearly NO. The whole idea of > relativity is that the time coordinates (clock times) of A and B are NOT in > general the same in either A nor B's coordinate systems, or any other > coordinate system. > > > I think I see where you are confused--the term "time coordinate" does NOT > in general mean the same thing as "clock times" in relativity, it only does > if the clock in question is a coordinate clock (part of a ruler/clock > system as I described), or happens to agree exactly with a coordinate clock > at the same point in spacetime. The time on a clock which isn't a > coordinate clock is referred to as a "proper time" for that clock, not a > "time coordinate". So with that clarification on the terminology used by > physicists, would you agree with my quoted statement above? > > > > <span style="border-collapse:collapse;font-family:arial,sa > > ... -- 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.
