On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jesse, > > So we can only discuss your ideas and not mine? > No, but it's pretty irritating when you ask me questions specifically about *my* (relativistic model), and then when I give you answers you suddenly change the subject and make scolding comments like "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." And now when I explain that I was just responding to your questions and give you quotes showing that you had been asking about my model, instead of apologizing for losing track of what we'd been talking about you get all pouty and pretend I'm saying we can only discuss my ideas. I just don't like being scolded for giving an on-topic response to some questions of yours, that's all. > 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. > Like I said, it can also predict that this will happen in advance, by using an inertial coordinate system and the known equations of physics to predict both the path and clock readings of the twins and to model the light signals being sent out and reflected between them, and predicting what their clocks read at the point where the reflection time goes to zero. > 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) > Can you give an operational definition of this "shared present moment", one that goes beyond just the observation that the time between an action directed at the other gets an almost immediate response (whether we're talking about light signals or just about one twin saying "hey!" and observing the other to immediately begin turning around)? Or is the existence of this "shared present moment" only verifiable in terms of conscious experience or metaphysical intuitions or something? 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.
