On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:39 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 1/15/2014 2:54 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> Dear Edgar,
> I will have to agree with LizR here. SR in fact makes the notion of a
> present moment a nonsensical concept, as SR shows how there does not exist,
> nay cannot exist any global frame of simultaneity. This prevents the
> existence, if SR is correct and good evidence tells us that it is, of any
> thing like a global present moment.
> "That dog don't hunt!"
> But notice that Edgar makes two kinds of arguments:
> First, the local event argument - if two bodies interact it must be at the
> same moment (he neglects to to mention that it must also be at the same
> Second, the continuity argument - if two bodies interact at two different
> events than at any given time between those two events both bodies exist
> and this means that they are existing in the same moment, even though they
> are in different places..
> Curiously, in his online blog about SR he takes the same approach as Lewis
> Carrol Epstein in his excellent little book "Relativity Visualized". He
> notes that everything is always traveling at the speed of light. If you're
> 'standing still' that means you're just traveling in the time direction.
> So if you move in the space direction you must give up some speed in the
> time direction. Epstein calls this a useful myth and doesn't misused it.
> Edgar assumes that 'time direction' is fixed like Newtonian space.
In what sense is it a myth? That is one thing I could not figure out from
his book. Is it because proper-time is not rightfully a spatial dimension?
Or is there some other reason?
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.