Jesse, But I just gave you an empirical method to determine which separate observer clock times coincide with the same p-time, and I gave nearly a half dozen examples of actually doing that.
And YOU were the one that suggested you assume some of my assumptions and tell me whether my other statements were consistent or not. Also I don't see any "assumptions A and B above or whether they should also include C". I see observers A, B, C but I don't see what assumptions you label with those letters... Edgar On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:19:12 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net<javascript:> > > wrote: > > Jesse, > > If you don't agree with anything I've said, with any of the answers I've > provided to your numerous questions, then I have to assume your motive is > asking all these questions is not to learn anything about the theory (since > you say your mind is already made up and you believe in block time) but > presumably just to try to uncover any contradictions that would falsify the > theory? > > > No, it's mainly been to show that your own attempts to uncover > contradictions that falsify block time--like the idea that the notion of > the twins meeting "at the same point in spacetime" with different clock > times requires some new idea of time that block time can't account > for--don't actually succeed in doing so. This has been the point of my > spatial analogies, to show that any such argument you could make involving > quantitative facts about the twin paradox would have a directly analogous > argument involving quantitative facts about the measuring tape, yet you > wouldn't agree that there is any new idea of "same point in y" needed > there, I believe you think ordinary geometry can handle spatial facts about > the measuring tape just fine. On that subject, you still haven't answered > my question about whether you think there are any particular quantitative > facts about the twin paradox that you would make use of in such arguments > that *don't* have direct spatial analogies. > > Another thing I have been doing in my discussions with you was to try to > show that p-time would have to be purely "metaphysical" in the sense that > there'd be no empirical procedure for deciding whether events were > simultaneous in p-time, but that isn't the same as falsifying it, I don't > think there's anything logically wrong with adopting presentism as a > metaphysical "interpretation" of relativity theory, even though I don't do > so myself. > > > > > Well, that's fine, and a useful exercise, but apparently after all this > discussion you haven't been able to do that so far. Is that correct? > > > In fact I think I may have found a contradiction in your statements that > A) there's a unique objective truth about whether two events are > simultaneous in p-time, B) this truth is transitive, and C) if two objects > are at rest relative to each other, readings on their clocks that are > simultaneous in their inertial rest frame are simultaneous in p-time. Can > you please consider the scenario I described in the post at > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/pxg0VAAHJRQJwith > the two pairs of twins, and tell me if you disagree with any of the > individual numbered statements 1-4 about which events must be simultaneous > in p-time according to your rules? > > If I have found a contradiction of course this doesn't disprove the very > idea of p-time, but it would probably imply that you have to drop > assumption C), which I think would leave you without any rule for > empirically deciding which events are simultaneous in p-time, supporting my > point that this can only be a purely "metaphysical" notion. > > > > And you say if by agree we just mean taking my assumptions you COULD tell > me if you agreed or not. But in fact you have never to my recollection said > you agreed with anything even given those assumptions. So given those > assumptions what DO you agree with? > > > You've never asked me to adopt some assumptions I don't actually believe > in and tell me what they would imply, that isn't a common thing to do in a > discussion like this (you haven't done it with block time assumptions > either). And "given those assumptions what DO you agree with" is a very > broad question, could you narrow it down by mentioning the specific > assumptions I should adopt (for example, whether they would only include > assumptions A and B above or whether they should also include C even though > I think this leads to conclusions that contradict presentism), and specific > ideas you want to know if I agree or disagree with given these assumptions? > > Jesse > > > > Why is this could not a WOULD? > > Edgar > > > On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:46:14 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote: > > Jesse, > > Before I go the trouble of answering your 4 questions on your example > could you please tell me if you agree with the 3 examples I provided, and > the p-time simultaneities I stated there? > > > What do you mean "agree with"? I don't even agree there is any such thing > as an objective frame-independent truth about simultaneity, I think block > time is quite satisfactory. And if there was an objective simultaneity, > which you would call simultaneity in p-time, I would see no reason to think > it should obey the postulates you suggest, like the postulate that for two > clocks at rest relative to one another, simultaneous readings in their rest > frame should automatically be simultaneous in p-time. > > Are you just asking me to consider the hypothetical that *if* there was > such a thing as objective p-time simultaneity, and *if* it respected the > postulates you believe in, would I *then* agree with your analysis of > various examples? If that's all you're asking I can tell you if I agree > with your analysis of various examples given these hypotheticals. But if > you are asking me to agree or disagree on anything more than that, then my > answer is "no, I don't agree with your statements about p-time because I > don't believe in your basic premises." > > > > > I gave simpler examples to make p-time simultaneity easier to understand, > so it makes no sense to address your slightly more complex examples until > we agree on my 3. > > Also in general it would be useful if you could let me know what you do > agree with that I say about p-time. Your MO is just to continually ask > question after question without usually indicating what answers of mine you > agree with or don't. To conduct an objective discussion it helps to know > what we agree with as well as what we don't. Don't you agree? > > > Sure, but I thought you understood that I was an advocate of block time, > so that it would go without saying that I wouldn't agree with any > statements that presupposed p-time. None of the statements I ask you to > agree or disagree with presuppose block time, they are either questions > about your own beliefs about p-time, or questions about your use of > examples from relativity theory to make arguments for a need for p-time. > > Jesse > > > > > > On Sunday, February 9, 2014 5:45:07 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote: > > Jesse, > > My answer to your last paragraph is yes, as I understand it... > > For transitivity ignore my first post on that, and just read the second > that concludes there IS transitivity.. > > Edgar > > > > OK, then in the scenario I described, please tell me if you disagree with > any of the conclusions 1-4 about which events are simultaneous in p-time: > > Start by considering their initial positions, velocities and clock times > in a c > > ... -- 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.
