On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:
> Jesse, > > PS: It is well known that accelerations and gravitation are the ONLY > causes that produce real actual age rate changes. These real actual age > rate changes are real and actual because 1. ALL OBSERVERS AGREE on them > when they meet up and check them, and 2.BECAUSE THEY ARE PERMANENT. > No, they produce real actual differences in TOTAL ELAPSED PROPER TIME BETWEEN MEETINGS, which all frames agree on. This tells us nothing about the moment-by-moment "rates" of each clock between meetings, unless you are simply talking about the AVERAGE ticking rate between meetings (and all frames do agree on the ratio between two clock's AVERAGE ticking rate between meetings, since the average ticking rate for clock #1 between meetings in any frame is [proper time elapsed on #1 between meetings / coordinate time between meetings] and the average ticking rate for clock #2 is [proper time elapsed on #2 between meetings / coordinate time between meetings], thus the ratio of the two averages is [proper time elapsed on #1 between meetings / proper time elapsed on #2 between meetings] which all frames will agree on). > Relativity agrees on this when the parties MEET. All my method does is to > give a method to calculate these real actual changes BEFORE they meet, when > the parties are still separated or in relative motion or acceleration or > gravitation. > It gives a "method" which is based on simply ASSUMING FROM THE START that the clock rates behave a certain way between the meetings, without ever deriving or demonstrating this from more basic premises. Even a fellow presentist could easily disagree with your assumptions, and you would have no ARGUMENT for convincing him that your assumptions are correct, using starting premises that you both could agree on. And as always, my example with two pairs of twins demonstrates that your methods lead to a direct contradiction where two different ages of A have to labeled simultaneous in p-time--if you disagree, the only intellectually honest way to show I'm wrong is to go through my numbered "STATEMENTs" about p-time simultaneity, and tell me which is the first that is not a valid inference using your method. > > This is incredibly simple to understand if you can just escape the notion > that all VIEWS of an age relationship are somehow the same as the ACTUAL > relationship itself. The views DO differ and these VIEWS ARE VALID VIEWS, > but they don't affect the actual RELATIONSHIP THEY ARE VIEWING which is > what my method calculates. > > Again, this is a difference in INTERPRETATIONS of relativity. It does NOT > contradict the equations of relativity itself. It simply uses the one that > describes the actual relationship rather than ones that describe VIEWS of > that relationship. > > Aren't you at least able to understand what I'm saying even if you don't > agree with it? I see no evidence you are even able to do that.... > I understand that your method gives a way of deciding which events are simultaneous in p-time in your theory, it just that: a) I don't think you have any argument for the validity of your method that doesn't simply assume p-time simultaneity works the way you want it to from the start, something that even another presentist who believes in absolute simultaneity could reasonably disagree with b) I think your method can be used to derive a contradiction, even though you don't understand that yet and seem to be refusing to engage with the nitty-gritty details of my example. Jesse > > On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 2:13:24 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote: >> >> Jesse, >> >> Yes, you are right. I phrased it incorrectly. >> >> What I meant to say was not that each individual view was somehow >> weighted, but that all views considered together would tend to cluster >> around m >> >> ... > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
