On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 7:40:02 AM UTC+11, Liz R wrote: > > On 31 December 2013 00:00, Pierz <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> I have to admit I'm starting to derive a weird kind of enjoyment from >> this debate. Liz and frequentflyer: you guys are my heroes. Though >> "anodyne" means "pain-relieving", which is not how I would describe Roger's >> theories. I would choose the word "jejune" instead. >> > > Thank you :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) > > (Although like any good writer, I only come here to avoid having to work > on my novel... :-( >
Me too Liz! > >> Edgar, ole buddy ole pal. You're wrong mate. Has some tiny skerrick of >> the possibility of this osmosed through the blood-brain barrier yet? Take >> your long "proof" of the common present moment. Once again the flaw is >> clear to everyone but you. You describe a graph with lines describing the >> two separated travellers. Now you draw a vertical line from one to the >> other and thus "prove" they share the same moment at all times. The problem >> is your privileging of the vertical line - ie the one orthogonal to >> traveller 'a'. There are many lines that could be used to connect the two >> travellers' moments from other frames of reference. There is no single >> "vertical" line that can be privileged above others. >> >> Sure, when two people shake hands they share a common moment so to speak, >> because the event is a single point in space time. The problem is proving >> simultaneity while the observers are apart. >> >> I'm going to give you a challenge here. Take two spatially separated >> events. How do you know if these two events occur at the same time (ie, in >> the same common present moment)? I presume you think they either shared a >> CPM or didn't, that the universal line of time either passed through the >> two events together or in sequence. Please show how you will prove one or >> the other. If you can suggest an experiment to prove this, I'll give you >> $100. If your experiment involves clocks, however, well we know that >> simultaneity will be relative to inertial frame of reference, so that won't >> do. >> >> Brent, you seem to be both highly knowledgeable on physics and relativity >> and impartial on the subject of Edgar, so you can decide if he has met the >> challenge. i.e., if you say cough up, I cough up. Hope you don't mind the >> burden of responsibility! >> >> BUT, if I don't have to cough up, then I submit that it is established >> that we only share a unique common present moment at exact points of >> coincidence in space-time, e.g., the handshake, and that your theory is >> worthless for all practical purposes (and therefore wrong). >> > > I will throw in a bottle of wine if my other half hasn't polished off the > 16 I got him for Xmas before then (OK, technically it was a present from > work, but he's the main wine drinker, so.... it saved a lot of thought > about socks....!) > >> >> > > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
