On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 7:40:02 AM UTC+11, Liz R wrote:
> On 31 December 2013 00:00, Pierz <pie...@gmail.com <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 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.

Reply via email to