Jesse, The point to understand here is the very fact that relativity describes different frames that are BOTH simultaneously true from different relativistic perspectives requires that there actually is a background independent of any PARTICULAR frame that all frames are true within..
This unrecognized aspect of relativity is the absolutely necessary simultaneous p-time reality that all separate relativistic descriptions of reality are true within and can be true within. I know you won't understand this, but still it is true, and it is critical to understanding what reality actually is... Edgar On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:45:23 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Jesse, > > I agree that Individual relativistic equations from a particular > coordinate system don't support p-time simultaneity but comparing both > equations of the two coordinate systems in the system, e.g. twin A and twin > B, relativity clearly DOES imply a notion of p-time simultaneity because it > does allow a 1:1 relationship between the comoving clock times in their own > frames of A and B. > > Thus when we compare A and B's coordinate systems we do find a 1:1 clock > time to the same p-time relationship. That's exactly what I did in my > examples. > > This is one more of several ways that relativity either implies or > requires a common p-time background to all relativistic calculations and > phenomena. > > Edgar > > > > On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:27:38 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jesse, > > Both, but you completely ignored my broad conceptual argument I gave first > thing this morning of why relativity itself assumes an unstated present > moment background to all relativistic relationships. > > > You mean the post at > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/mHoddIqTX7kJ? But > I didn't ignore it at all, I responded to it at > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/yDwctm892xMJby > pointing out some crucial parts early on I disagreed with, on which the > entire argument after that seemed to rest. In particular, "relativistic > calculations" do not support the idea of a unique 1:1 relationship between > clock times, since different frames give *different* relationships between > clock times and clock rates, and all frames are considered equally valid. > Of course I realize that p-time *postulates* such a unique 1:1 > relationship, but you seemed to say relativistic calculations themselves > provided one, which just isn't true. > > > Sorry, but I disagree on your second point. P-time simultaneity does NOT > have purely spatial analogues. > > > I never asserted p-time simultaneity had spatial analogues. My point was > that for any argument you made to try to *establish* the need for p-time > using quantitative observations about the twin paradox (as opposed to just > assuming p-time as a given), I could point to a spatial analogue. > > If you weren't interested in trying to provide a demonstration to convince > others that block time is flawed and that p-time is needed, but were merely > talking about what would be true *if* p-time existed, then I wouldn't > bother bringing up spatial analogues. But it seems to me you are indeed > trying to make an argument for it, not just assume it, so they are quite > relevant to that. > > So, the question remains: do you think there are any quantitative aspects > of the twin paradox scenario (involving clock times, coordinate times, > relativistic equations, etc.) which DO NOT have direct spatial analogues in > the measuring tape scenario? If so what are they? > > Jesse > > > > > Clock time does, at least in your weak sense..... I did explain that at > length more than once... > > Edgar > > > > On Sunday, February 9, 2014 3:29:39 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jesse, > > The crux of my answer to the crossed tapes question was that yes that > would be true of clock time but not for p-time. Again you are using the > question to argue against clock time simultaneity. And I agree with that > 100%. It's just not p-time... > > > But weren't you trying to use the twin paradox scenario to make an > *argument* in favor of p-time, rather than just assuming it from the start? > If so, then I'm wondering if the argument just involves pointing to some > broad conceptual understanding of what happens in the twin paradox > scenario, or if you think there are specific numerical facts that don't > have any good interpretation under a purely "geometric" understanding of > spacetime (like the fact that they can be at the "same point in spacetime" > but have elapsed different ages since their previous meeting). If it's the > latter, then it's reasonable to point out that these numerical facts have > exact analogues in purely geometric facts about the measuring tapes (like > the fact that the tapes can cross at the "same point in space" but have > elapsed different tape-measure distances since their previous crossing). > > Jesse > > > > > > Edgar > > > > On Sunday, February 9, 2014 2:22:20 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jesse, > > It's not clear to me what you mean by, "in every coordinate system the > time-coordinate of A = the time-coordinate of B. Are you actually > disagreeing with that (please answer clearly yes or no)". > > The way I understand that the answer is clearly NO. The whole idea of > relativity is that the time coordinates (clock times) of A and B are NOT in > general the same in either A nor B's coordinate systems, or any other > coordinate system. > > > I think I see where you are confused--the term "time coordinate" does NOT > in general mean the same thing as "clock times" in relativity, it only does > if the clock in question is a coordinate clock (part of a ruler/clock > system as I described), or happens to agree exactly with a coordinate clock > at the same point in spacetime. The time on a clock which isn't a > coordinate clock is referred to as a "proper time" for that clock, not a > "time coordinate". So with that clarification on the terminology used by > physicists, would you agree with my quoted statement above? > > > > <span style="border-collapse:collapse;font-family:arial,sa > > ... -- 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.
