On Friday, January 17, 2014 11:30:16 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Quentin, > > No, not at all. They are NOT at the same spacetime coordinates because > their clock time t values are different. Only if their clocktime t values > as well as their x,y,z values were the same would they be at the same > spacetime coordinates. I hate to say it but that is quite obvious.... > > But they are in the exact same p-time present moment because they can > shake hands and compare clocks.... >
I think that the p-time is the abstraction. That's why there is a relativity of simultaneity. If p-time were real, there could be no relativity of simultaneity. Craig > > Edgar > > > > On Friday, January 17, 2014 11:24:33 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > > 2014/1/17 Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> > > Stephen, > > Your argument is fine. It's standard GR. BUT for the nth time it's talking > about CLOCK TIME simultaneity, rather than the present moment of p-time. It > still doesn't seem to register that there is a difference even though the > fact of the twins meeting with different clock times in the SAME present > > > They are at the same present moment *because* they are at the same > spacetime coordinates, that's the only and unique reason as to why they can > meet at that moment, there is absolutely no need of an unexistant p-time. > > Quentin > > > moment clearly demonstrates they are different. > > You can argue no inherent absolute clock time simultaneities till the cows > come home and I will agree EVERY TIME. > > But that just ain't the p-time present moment as the twins prove over and > over .... > > Edgar > > > > On Thursday, January 16, 2014 11:13:14 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > Dear Edgar, > > I already wrote up one argument against the concept of a universal > present moment using the general covariance requirement of GR. Did you read > it? It is impossible to define a clock on an infinitesimal region of > space-time thus it is impossible to define a "present moment" in a way that > could be "universal" for observers that exist in a space-time. There are > alternatives that I have mentioned. > The non-communicability of first person information, that leads to the > concept of FPI, is another argument that may be independent. (I am not so > sure that it is truly independent, but cannot prove that the intractability > of smooth diffeomorphism computations between 4-manifolds is equivalent to > first person indeterminacy.) > If the information cannot be communicated then it also follows that > there cannot exist a single computation of the present moment information. > Your premise falls apart. There is an alternative but it requires multiple > computations (an infinite number!). Can you handle that change to your > thesis? > > Frankly, your arguments are very naive and you do not seem to grasp that > we are only responding to you because we try to be nice and receptive in > this list to the ideas of members. There does reach a point where the > discussion becomes unproductive. It has been useful for me to write > responses to you as it improves my ability to write out my reasoning. I > need the exercise > > ... -- 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.
