On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> I think the basic problem in our discussion, which seems intractable from
> you answers below, is your basic belief that time doesn't doesn't flow,
> that there is no such thing as a now in which you or the twins actually
> exist.
Ghibbsa,
Well, first of all my theory doesn't tell nature what to do, it asks nature
what it does and attempts to explain it. All the issues you raise are good
ones, but when my theory is understood it greatly SIMPLIFIES reality. It
doesn't make it more complex as you claim. And in fact it clar
Jesse,
I think the basic problem in our discussion, which seems intractable from
you answers below, is your basic belief that time doesn't doesn't flow,
that there is no such thing as a now in which you or the twins actually
exist. From your answers it seems clear that you can't even bring your
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:40:14 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> OK, I'm back...
>
> Let me back up a minute and ask you a couple of general questions with
> respect to establishing which past clock times of different observers were
> simultaneous in p-time
>
> The only clock
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> OK, I'm back...
>
> Let me back up a minute and ask you a couple of general questions with
> respect to establishing which past clock times of different observers were
> simultaneous in p-time
>
> The only clocks in this examp
Jesse,
OK, I'm back...
Let me back up a minute and ask you a couple of general questions with
respect to establishing which past clock times of different observers were
simultaneous in p-time
The only clocks in this example are the real actual ages of two twins
1. Do you agree that e
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> Do t and t' refer to proper times for A and B (defined only along each
> one's worldline), or coordinate times in the rest frame of A and B
> (coordinate times have a well-defined value for arbitrary events, and will
> agree with the proper
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> You agree "It is true that they both agree on an overview which says
> things along the lines of "In frame 1, X is true, in frame 2, Y is true""
>
> Presumably what you mean by that is that both A and B agree on (1) A's
> calculat
Jesse,
You agree "It is true that they both agree on an overview which says things
along the lines of "In frame 1, X is true, in frame 2, Y is true""
Presumably what you mean by that is that both A and B agree on (1) A's
calculation of B's t' in A's frame AND (2) B's calculation of A's t in B'
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> 4 questions:
>
> 1. Do you agree that for every relativistic scenario involving 2
> relativistic observers A and B, that relativity provides a description of
> how each observes the other's clock time vary relative to their own cl
Jesse,
4 questions:
1. Do you agree that for every relativistic scenario involving 2
relativistic observers A and B, that relativity provides a description of
how each observes the other's clock time vary relative to their own clock?
That it provides 2 descriptions, both consistent with relati
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:29 PM, LizR wrote:
> On 14 February 2014 06:55, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> See my proximate response to Liz who asked the same question. Basically
>> relativity theory gives you the equations for both frames for any
>> relativistic situation. So all you have
On 14 February 2014 06:55, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> See my proximate response to Liz who asked the same question. Basically
> relativity theory gives you the equations for both frames for any
> relativistic situation. So all you have to do is do the calculations like
> I've explained to
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> I haven't seen any book on relativity point this out even though it is
> quite obviously what relativity actually does. Do you deny relativity gives
> equations for BOTH frames for each single relativistic scenario? That, my
> fri
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> You still don't get it.
>
> There is no frame dependent notion of clock time simultaneity in
> relativity, but when one compares the 2 frames that relativity uses to
> describe a single scenario from both observer frames, one does
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Depends on what you REALLY mean by the same point in spacetime.
>
> If you mean the same point in spaceCLOCKtime, then no, because the twins
> are NOT at the same point in clock time, though they are at the same point
> in space,
Jesse,
I haven't seen any book on relativity point this out even though it is
quite obviously what relativity actually does. Do you deny relativity gives
equations for BOTH frames for each single relativistic scenario? That, my
friend, is frame independence
Answer to second paragraph. Depe
Jesse,
You still don't get it.
There is no frame dependent notion of clock time simultaneity in
relativity, but when one compares the 2 frames that relativity uses to
describe a single scenario from both observer frames, one does get a 1:1
correspondence of which clock times of A's comoving cl
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
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> The same reading in the exact same sense that relativity tells us they do
> which I've already explained for the nth time. It's in the same frame
> independent sense that relativity is able to meaningfully define 2 frames
> for an
Jesse,
The same reading in the exact same sense that relativity tells us they do
which I've already explained for the nth time. It's in the same frame
independent sense that relativity is able to meaningfully define 2 frames
for any 1 relativistic scenario. That gives us the frame independent m
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> See my proximate response to Liz who asked the same question. Basically
> relativity theory gives you the equations for both frames for any
> relativistic situation. So all you have to do is do the calculations like
> I've explai
Richard,
That's my point exactly. He can't. See my response just posted explaining
that in detail.
Edgar
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 1:46:18 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Jesse Mazer
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen
Jesse,
Depends on what you REALLY mean by the same point in spacetime.
If you mean the same point in spaceCLOCKtime, then no, because the twins
are NOT at the same point in clock time, though they are at the same point
in space, and are the same point in p-time.
But if you define same point i
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> See my proximate response to Liz who asked the same question. Basically
>> relativity theory gives you the equations for both frames for any
>> relativistic situatio
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 requir
Jesse,
See my proximate response to Liz who asked the same question. Basically
relativity theory gives you the equations for both frames for any
relativistic situation. So all you have to do is do the calculations like
I've explained to you with nearly a dozen examples.
To the question in your
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. That is what I've continually pointed
out to
On 13 February 2014 03:00, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> 5. The easy way is just to pause the experiment at any point and compare
> clocks (that is in effect what the twins do when they meet) because this
> immediately re-synchronizes clock rates enabling the real actual age
> differences up till then
On 13 February 2014 03:00, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> He's another way to understand it which might be clearer. It's from the
> perspective of an arbitrary observer A.
>
> 1. A (me) is always in the current moment of P-time as P-time progresses,
> because that is the only locus of actual r
Jesse,
He's another way to understand it which might be clearer. It's from the
perspective of an arbitrary observer A.
1. A (me) is always in the current moment of P-time as P-time progresses,
because that is the only locus of actual reality because it's only in this
current moment of p-time t
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Not at all. 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,
>
Jesse,
But I just pointed out in my previous reply that your example is NOT even
correct relativity. Non-accelerated relative motion does NOT cause any
actual age differences because it's symmetric. A and B are in the exact
same relative motion with respect to each other so the effect has to be
Jesse,
Not at all. 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
every observer is ALWAYS at the same point in p-TIME because
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Let me clarify my response since I see it's slightly ambiguous.
>
> First every observer in the universe is ALWAYS at the same point in p-time
> ALL the time with all other observers. No exceptions.
>
> The question is what clock
On 12 February 2014 15:23, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Let me clarify my response since I see it's slightly ambiguous.
>
> First every observer in the universe is ALWAYS at the same point in p-time
> ALL the time with all other observers. No exceptions.
>
> The question is what clock times
Jesse,
Let me clarify my response since I see it's slightly ambiguous.
First every observer in the universe is ALWAYS at the same point in p-time
ALL the time with all other observers. No exceptions.
The question is what clock times of various observers correspond to a same
point of p-time?
T
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> "Instantaneously pause" has no frame-independent meaning in relativity, do
> you disagree? If A and B are in relative motion, and unlike my example
> above, B is *not* at the same point in spacetime as A when A turns some age
> (say 60), then
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Your example does NOT establish any inconsistency. I NEVER said "I'm
> pretty sure you've said before that you agree that if SR predicts two
> clocks meet at a single point in spacetime, their two readings at that
> point must be
Jesse,
Your example does NOT establish any inconsistency. I NEVER said "I'm pretty
sure you've said before that you agree that if SR predicts two clocks meet
at a single point in spacetime, their two readings at that point must be
simultaneous in p-time)." That is NOT true. Only if there is no
On 12 February 2014 05:29, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:45 AM, 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 sy
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> 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
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:13 PM, 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
> a
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.
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 mot
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 an
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 unr
Edgar, you wanted me to address your examples so I will, although I thought
it better to hold off on this until we settled the question of whether the
basic assumption you seem to be making in case #1 leads to contradictions.
Given your recent post at
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Edgar L. Owen 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 tru
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 i
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:45 AM, 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, relativit
Jesse,
But I just gave you an empirical method to determine which separate
observer clock times coincide with the same p-time, and I gave nearly a
half dozen examples of actually doing that.
And YOU were the one that suggested you assume some of my assumptions and
tell me whether my other stat
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen 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
> y
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 tim
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
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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"? I don't
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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
htt
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?
I gave simpler examples to make p-time simultaneity easier to understand,
so it makes no sense to add
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> 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
>
OK, then in the scenario I described,
Jesse,
PS: Because P-time doesn't have an intrinsic metric like clock time and
space do
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
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> The crux of my answer to the crossed tapes question was
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.
Sorry, but I disagree on your second point. P-time simultaneity does NOT
have purely sp
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
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 eve
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.
2. is INcorrect.
However the question of what clock times in different frames correspond to
that objective same time in p-time i
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...
Edgar
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 2:22:
Jesse,
Let me try to clarify my response to your A, B, C past p-time simultaneity
example, because I think I misstated it in my previous post.
Assume three observers A, B, C, with three clock times t, t' and t''. It is
important to specify these are the clock time readings of their OWN clocks
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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
Liz,
I did explain it in considerable detail. As usual you either aren't paying
attention or things aren't registering
Read my previous posts for the explanation
Edgar
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 2:02:25 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 10 February 2014 07:44, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 th
On 10 February 2014 07:44, Edgar L. Owen 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.
>
> You haven't *explained *this. Y
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.
As for your last example, establishing past p-time simultaneity across
multiple frames i
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
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen 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( ).
>
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> The ages are the only 'real' clocks here because they are not arbitrary
> but real and actual and cannot be reset. They show different clock times in
> the same present moment. All other clocks are arbitrary.
>
> I don't know what
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
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse, et al,
>
> A Propros of our discussion of determining same past moments of P-time let
> me now try to present a much deeper insight into P-time, that illustrates
> and explains that, and see if it makes sense. I will show how relativit
Jesse, et al,
A Propros of our discussion of determining same past moments of P-time let
me now try to present a much deeper insight into P-time, that illustrates
and explains that, and see if it makes sense. I will show how relativity
itself implicitly assumes and absolutely requires P-time to
Something like this?
[image: Inline images 1]
--
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 g
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Consider another simple example:
>
> A and B in deep space. No gravity. Their clocks, t and t', are
> synchronized. They are in the same current p-time moment and whenever t =
> t', which is always their clock times confirm they ar
The hole in zero is like the closed circular string which in two dimensions
maps
everything outside of it to its interior with a r->1/r mapping in every
direction.
If so then infinity is mapped to the center of the zero, like 1/0=infinity.
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 11:19 PM, LizR wrote:
> Heh heh.
Heh heh. Have you ever read "The Hole In The Zero" by M K Joseph?
On 9 February 2014 17:17, wrote:
>
> It can't be understood intellectually. I turn to art. Paint the frontiers,
> string theory knackers yards. brains and their higher consciousness. The
> world that has everything where nothing e
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 3:44:09 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 07:18:06AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> > Liz,
> >
> > No 5D embedding space. The rate of expansion is just the intrinsic
> > processor cycle 'rate'. The only real measure of that is how it
> mani
On 9 February 2014 14:10, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Liz,
>
> See my other post that discusses the minimum p-time cycle time must be
> less than the minimum possible interval of events, where I discuss that...
>
So I assume that's a yes, then.
>
> Edgar
>
> On Saturday, February 8, 2014 7:49:03 PM
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 07:18:06AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Liz,
>
> No 5D embedding space. The rate of expansion is just the intrinsic
> processor cycle 'rate'. The only real measure of that is how it manifests
> in the computations it produces because only they have any measure because
>
Liz,
See my other post that discusses the minimum p-time cycle time must be less
than the minimum possible interval of events, where I discuss that...
Edgar
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 7:49:03 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 9 February 2014 04:18, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> No 5D em
Jesse,
Consider another simple example:
A and B in deep space. No gravity. Their clocks, t and t', are
synchronized. They are in the same current p-time moment and whenever t =
t', which is always their clock times confirm they are the same current
p-time as well as the same clock time.
Now m
On 9 February 2014 04:18, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Liz,
>
> No 5D embedding space. The rate of expansion is just the intrinsic
> processor cycle 'rate'.
>
> What is this 'rate' ? Is it like 'time' ?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" gr
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 2:57:44 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Liz,
>
> No, that's not my idea. See my proximate reply to Ghibbsa.
>
> Edgar
>
I wusn't messin' with your idea man promise! I was just ranting away full
of good intentions but basically a bit sick in the head.
>
>
>
> On
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> I gave you a clear easy to follow and understand procedure that I believe
> works in every case to determine if any two clock time labeled events
> occurred in the same p-time moment or not.
>
No you didn't, because you just used
Jesse,
A simple example:
Suppose A and B. Assume no relative motion but A is in a gravitational well
that makes his clock runs 1/2 the speed of B's clock. Assume both clocks
were synchronized when the gravitational field at A suddenly turned on. In
this simple case both A and B were in the sam
Jesse,
I gave you a clear easy to follow and understand procedure that I believe
works in every case to determine if any two clock time labeled events
occurred in the same p-time moment or not.
I'm sorry if you don't see how it works. I don't see how I can make it much
clearer. It's just apply
Jesse,
The ages are the only 'real' clocks here because they are not arbitrary but
real and actual and cannot be reset. They show different clock times in the
same present moment. All other clocks are arbitrary.
I don't know what else I can add to this. I did address all of your
questions whet
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> No, they do NOT have the same time coordinates in their respective frames
> because their clocks read different t-values.
>
In the post you're responding to here I had another request for
clarification which you didn't answer:
"
On 9 February 2014 11:28, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> HOW would you "back calculate" it though? Even if we set aside my
> questions about gravity above and just look at a case involving flat SR
> spacetime, your answer gives no details. If you have any procedure in mind,
> could you apply it to a simple
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Yes, I think there is always a way to determine if any two events happen
> at the same point in p-time or not, provided you know everything about
> their relativistic conditions.
>
> You do this by essentially computing their relat
On 2/8/2014 12:15 AM, LizR wrote:
I think Edgar's basic idea is that there is a plane of simultaneity which sweeps through
space-time, and that all events in space time intersect with it - for example an
astronaut moving at 0.9c will be intersecting it at the same time as his twin on Earth,
but
Jesse,
Yes, of course there is an objective truth that events such as you mention
happen at the clock times they did according to clocks on earth. How could
we think otherwise?
As for how to determine whether past events happen at the same p-times see
my just previous post in response to your
Jesse,
Yes, I think there is always a way to determine if any two events happen at
the same point in p-time or not, provided you know everything about their
relativistic conditions.
You do this by essentially computing their relativistic cases BACKWARDS to
determine which point in each of thei
Edgar, it's very frustrating trying to have a discussion with you when I
repeatedly ask you questions that are meant to clarify things that seem
unclear to me in your arguments, and you just completely ignore these
questions and just give me a broad restatement of your overall views, which
for me u
201 - 300 of 555 matches
Mail list logo
