Jesse, Sorry, that should read t will always = t'', not, t will always + t'.
Edgar On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:13:51 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Jesse, > > Your condition C. was not example dependent. You just need to rephrase > your condition C. as two observers with no relative motion AND in identical > gravitational fields. Then it does hold and is consistent with conditions A > and B. I already gave several examples. > > In this case both A's and B's clock will always read the same clock times. > t will always + t'.. Both A and B will agree to this, and whenever t = t' > they will be in the same p-time present moment. And this will be true > retrospectively as well. > > Couldn't be clearer! > > Edgar > > > > On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:37:22 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jesse, > > OK, I see which assumptions A, B, and C you are referring to now. I was > looking for them in the link you gave. > > I agree assumption C is incorrect because I NEVER CLAIMED that. I even > gave an example in which it was NOT true. Specifically when A is in a > gravitational field and his clock is running slower than B's. > > > > Yes, but my example was one from SR with no gravitational fields. Are you > saying you never meant to claim that for two SR observers at rest with > respect to each other, if their clocks are synchronized in their mutual > rest frame that means their clocks are synchronized in p-time? But In the > post at > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/vfnF3MS7WsUJyou > said: > > 'Yes is the answer to your question "if two clocks are at rest relative to > one another and "synchronized" according to the definition of simultaneity > in their mutual rest frame, do you automatically assume this implies they > are synchronized in p-time?"' > > Do you wish to retract your answer of "yes" to my quoted question there? > > > Jesse > > > > > > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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"? > > ... -- 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.
