Jesse, So we can only discuss your ideas and not mine? I suggest the way to progress is to discuss and compare both which is what I was/am doing...
Yes, I'd like to understand your take on "whether relativity can give a coherent account of what phrases like "same point in spacetime" .... really mean physically." I think I understand that from your reflected light test. But my point remains that that just provides a limited definition of a local same point in spacetime. It does NOT explain WHY the twins meet in that same present moment. Rather it just defines that they do after the fact with the reflected light test. But it doesn't explain why and that is something relativity can't seem to calculate or explain. What relativity does here is admit there is something it can't explain or calculate (why the twins meet in a shared present moment) and then says well at least we can define it locally with a reflected light test. But that is not sufficient to explain why. Only my p-time theory seems to be able to do that.... Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 5:06:55 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Jesse, >> >> Once again, for the nth time, you are making statements about CLOCK time >> simultaneity with which I agree. That has nothing to do with the same >> present moment of p-time. >> > > Because you were *asking* about whether relativity can give a coherent > account of what phrases like "same point in spacetime" and "same coordinate > time" really mean physically, that was what this whole tangent was about > until you suddenly switched to explaining how things work in your own > theories (and even then it seemed like the discussion of your own theories > was meant to be confined to the comments in square quotes). You even > started off the post that I was responding to with "OK, let's see if I > understand your coordinate spacetime model the same way you do"--*my* > coordinate spacetime model (i.e. the standard relativistic one as > understood by physicists), not your own p-time model. Then after some > extended discussion you said "Does this model [ignoring my peripheral > comments in square quotes] express what you mean by coordinate time?" > > Perhaps you could address just the last paragraph of my post, which was > specifically about whether you were still maintaining there was some > inherent (non-metaphysical) incoherence in "my" model: > > 'You seem to be just giving a lecture about how things work in your own > metaphysical view, rather than trying to understand how a physicist using > relativity can coherently talk about the two twins having different ages at > the "same time" or at the "same point in spacetime", which I thought was > the original point of your post at > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/I29-svr5V70Jwhere > you said "How does your theory, or relativity, account for or predict > this same point with different clock times starting from when the one twin > leaves on his journey? Is there any choice of frames which computes this > result in relativity theory? If so what? If not then we must assume a > separate kind of time in which it is true. That is p-time." Leaving aside > your metaphysics for the moment, do you actually think there is anything > internally incoherent the description I've given about what it means to say > the twins' two different clock readings can happen at the same coordinate > time (using local readings on coordinate clocks of the type I described), > or can coincide at the same point in spacetime (using the operational > definition I gave earlier)? Are you satisfied that relativity theory can > give a coherent operational account of the meaning of these phrases even if > you find the account unsatisfying metaphysically? If so, then it's > obviously not true that we "must" assume p-time to explain things like the > twin experiment, even if you might *prefer* to explain it by making use of > such an assumption. If you're not satisfied with my operational account, > please give a critique which focuses only on the flaws or undefined > elements you see in that account, without making any reference to your own > alternate account involving p-time and "clocks running at c" and so forth.' > > Jesse > > -- 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.
