On 31 Dec 2013, at 02:13, Pierz wrote:
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 7:40:02 AM UTC+11, Liz R wrote:
On 31 December 2013 00:00, Pierz <[email protected]> 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!
I am afraid me too. We are not alone!
Bruno
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
