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 <[email protected]> > > 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 [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.
