On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:30 AM, Stephen P. King <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 7/22/2011 2:11 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:44 AM, Stephen P. King > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On 7/22/2011 1:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >>> >>> All the relevant parts of relativity which imply block time have been >>> confirmed. The above is like arguing against gravity because Newton's >>> theory wasn't compatible with the observations of Mercury's orbit. >>> >>> Hi Jason, >> >> Could you be more specific? Exactly which "relevant parts which imply >> block time have been confirmed" and how? > > > Special relativity, time dilation due to speed, non simultaneity of events > reported by observers in different reference frames, and so on. > > And to Brent's point, regarding the conflict between relativity and QM, > that issue is with GR, SR is not in conflict with QM. > > This paper explains it well: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2408/ > > Jason > > Hi Jason, > > I will check that paper, thanks! But here is the thing about the > implications of relativity of simultaneity: Since it prohibits any form of > absolute synchronization of events, this in turn restricts how the entire > space-time manifold can be considered as parceled up into space-like and > time like regions. > Imagine that spacetime is a 3 dimensional instead of four dimensional. Now take any object's velocity through that space time, and consider a plane perpendicular to the direction of that velocity. The content of that plane is considered the "present" for that reference frame. This is more clear if you consider euclidean space time rather than Minkowski space. The only difference you need to make to convert spacetime to Euclidean is to imagine that every object's velocity through space time is c. *Relativity Visualized* is a good book which explains this view, but this site also explains it: http://www.relativitysimplified.com/ . It enables an intuitive understanding of all the strange effects like time dilation and length contraction. Since we see only the three dimensional "shadow" of objects, an object with a different velocity is rotated in space time. It is like having an umbrella pointed straight at the sun vs. it being tilted, if it is tilted its shadow becomes compressed along the direction it is tilted. > In other words, there cannot exist a single Cauchy hypersurface what acts > as the set of initial (or final) conditions for a GR field equation for the > entire universe. > The fact that relativity iplies a unique present for every reference frame is one of the main arguments for block time. How can the car driving past you have a present containing different real objects than yours? Presentism assumes the present is the set of real objects at a given period of time, but what is real to you now in this moment is different from what is real to me in the same moment if we are moving relative to each other (even if we are at the same location). See: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Rietdijk%E2%80%93Putnam_argument The paper I cited also goes on to counter objections made to that argument. Thanks, Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
