As I've explained on a number of occasions SR has nothing to say about why
clock times are different in a SHARED same actual present moment in which
the twins coexist for the rest of their lives after they meet up again. SR
(actually GR for the twins since their clocks read different due to
relative accelerations) explains perfectly why clock times can end up
non-simultaneous, but not why that clock time NON-simultaneity occurs in an
actual present moment simultaneity. The fact of an actual Present time
simultaneity is the only way we can measure and confirm the clock time
NON-simultaneity. It is the necessary reference to make that observation.
All of SR and GR time theory actually assumes an unrecognized absolute
background frame of reference against which the clock time phenomena are
formulable and measurable.
If we can even say things change and a different (or the same) we
absolutely have to be able to compare them relative to some background
frame. That unrecognized background frame is Present time which is the same
for all observers. If there was no common background present time it would
be impossible to even compare various clock time t values to see if they
were different or the same. All comparisons assume a shared standard frame
of reference. That is Present time.
That same common Present time is experimentally confirmed at the same space
location by the handshakes of observers with different clock times, and
logically confirmed for spatially separated observers as outlined in my
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 10:54:12 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
> Hi Liz,
> The Two kinds of time theory is original with me dating back to 2007.
> I've presented it in quite a clear logical framework from a couple
> different perspectives in my posts to this group. The logic is quite clear
> and quite convincing, but only when the underlying concept is clearly
> understood. The proper approach (as for all new theories) is to first
> understand and assume the concept, then follow the logic to see whether it
> works or not.
> The crux of the theory that absolutely must be understood to comprehend it
> is the assumption there are actually two completely distinct kinds of time.
> As long as one is confused with the other, specifically as long as Present
> Moment time is confused with or tried to be measured or described by clock
> time measures or SR clock time theory, it will be impossible to comprehend.
> That is sadly true of all critics of the theory here. There is always some
> attempt to describe or critic Present Moment time with clock time theory.
> That just doesn't work....
> In the theory the math of SR stands unchanged and completely accepted, it
> just is NOT applicable to Present Moment time in any way whatsoever, it is
> only and elegantly applicable to clock time as it always was. All of the
> arguments against my theory presented so far make this mistake of trying to
> apply and measure Present Moment time on the basis of the clock time theory
> of SR, and so they all miss the target.
> And I do give a valid convincing argument that in fact Present Moment time
> is clearly not the same as clock time. It's really hard for me to see how I
> could make it any clearer.
> The basic problem, I fear, is that the notion of a single time is just too
> massively embedded the people's psyches for them to raise their heads and
> confront and understand the very obvious and easy to prove fact that it's
> not true. it's like trying to convince ancient men of the street that the
> earth was a sphere rather than flat. The evidence, even the visual
> evidence, is quite clear, but it was still an impossible paradigm shift for
> them to make.
> One wonders how long it will take for people to understand and accept that
> there are two kinds of time. The evidence is overwhelming, but the paradigm
> shift is apparently just too much for people....
> If your theory preserves completely the math and time of special
> relativity, why is some other time required? What more does P-time explain
> that isn't covered by relativity?
> On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 5:40:48 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>> The reason I asked the original question in this thread is to get some
>> idea of the background to Edgar's work, in particular, I was interest to
>> know if there is any logical or mathematical underpinning to it, if it is a
>> development of ideas that have been previously published, and so on.
>> Getting an instant defensive reaction - and not even from Edgar! - seems
>> just a wee bit over the top.
>> So Edgar, can you fill in the background to you work - the relevant logic
>> / maths, any other people's works you are building on, theories you are
>> extending, references, etc?
> 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
> Visit this group at <http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>
> For more options, visit <https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out>
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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.