2014/1/18 Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net>

> Craig,
>
> I think you are late to the discussion and missed some of my previous
> posts.
>
> First the present moment of p-time is directly OBSERVABLE. It's the most
> basic observation of our existence from birth to death. That is undeniable,
> and direct observation is the foundation of all scientific truth...
>
> Second the well known "relativity of simultaneity" refers to CLOCKTIME,
> not to P-time. It describes how clocks run at different rates INSIDE of the
> present moment of p-time which is the sole locus of reality. The relativity
> of simultaneity is well accepted by all but it refers to equivalent clock
> time t values, not to the present moment of p-time which is an entirely
> separate phenomena as demonstrated conclusively by the fact of the twins'
> differing clock time t values in the same present moment of p-time.
>
> If there were not a common shared present moment the twins would not even
> be able to compare their clocks to agree their clock times read different t
> values. I hate to say it again but that it trivially obvious...
>

I hate to say it again, but it is trivially wrong... the unique reason is
because they are at the same event, same inertial frame, same spacetime
coordinate.

Don't you agree with that?
>
> No I don't.

Quentin


> Edgar
>
>
> On Friday, January 17, 2014 1:23:55 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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 fol
>>
>> ...
>
>  --
> 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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
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.

Reply via email to