Jesse, To address your question. I'll start with your terminology. Your A>B>C doesn't follow and I'll show why it doesn't.
"Same space and time coordinates"? In which coordinate system? In general these will be different in different coordinate systems, and as you yourself have pointed out choice of coordinate system is arbitrary in relativity. So if twins A and B happen to have the same clock time coordinates at the same point in space they could well be at that point in space in entirely different p-times OR they could be there at the same P-time. That depends on their relativistic history and choice of coordinate systems. Let me clarify. Take a point Px,y,z in space. One twin could pass through that point at earth time 1989 when his proper clock (actual age) was 30, and then ten years later in 1999 the other twin could pass through that point P when his proper clock (actual age) was 30. In this case they would NOT be at the same point in p-time even though 10 years apart they DID have the exact same "space and time coordinates". So no that is not the same as nor does it imply your next term, namely "same point in spacetime defined operationally". However if we use your operational definition of "same point in spacetime" by your reflected light test, then yes that does imply they are at the same point in p-time. However there are many other cases where A and B are at the same point in p-time this operational definition does NOT cover. I've explained those in detail, and demonstrated they do always exist, and are always transitive, with numerous examples and given a clear procedure of how to determine same p-times in terms of clock times in all relativistic cases in an entirely consistent way. Does that answer your question to your satisfaction? Edgar On Sunday, February 23, 2014 11:11:49 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Hi Jesse, >> >> First, my name is Edgar, not Edward.... >> >> OK, even though I've answered this question of yours on several >> occasions, I'm willing to finally put it to bed once and for all. >> >> So please state in a non-ambiguous manner exactly what the question is >> AND what you think the implication of it is. >> >> As I understand it your question is there some exact relativistic clock >> time analogue of two tape measures crossing. Is that correct? And if so, >> what's the point? What difference does it make in your mind one way or the >> other? >> > > Clear evidence that you are not even bothering to follow the links when I > link back to an earlier post and ask you to address a question. The tape > measure analogy is another issue you haven't responded to when I asked you > about it, and I would eventually like to discuss that as well, but the > question I was asking about here had nothing to do with tape measures or > geometric analogies, I stated several times that it was the question in the > last two paragraphs of my post at > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/LF0Xcds_qtQJwhich > begins with "If > we have some coordinate system where relativity predicts the event of > Alice's clock reading 30 happens at exactly the same space and time > coordinates as the event of Bob's clock reading 40 ... ". This question > deals with the issue of whether two events that have the same space and > time coordinates in some coordinate system are guaranteed in relativity to > satisfy the operational definition of "same point in spacetime" that I had > provided earlier. If I can get you to see that "same space and time > coordinates ->implies-> same point in spacetime defined operationally > ->implies-> same moment in p-time", then we can go back to discussing the > Alice/Bob/Arlene/Bart example that I think shows a basic contradiction in > your claims about how p-time simultaneity works, since your only response > when I asked you to address that example was to deny that events at the > same point in spacetime necessarily occur at the same p-time. So I'd like > to prioritize this for now and we can get back to the measuring tapes > later, and meanwhile I'll respond to your own questions if you are willing > to respond on this subject in parallel. > > Jesse > > >> >> >> On Saturday, February 22, 2014 9:17:45 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Jesse, >>>> >>>> 1. Do you agree you are actually a particular age right now today as >>>> you read this? >>>> >>> >>> Hey, more questions! But as usual, I see you demand that I answer your >>> questions while you pointedly ignore the question I have repeatedly asked >>> you about the meaning of "same point in spacetime", even after I put the >>> question into a form that only requires a simple "agree/disagree" type >>> answer--again see the last two paragraphs of >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/LF0Xcds_qtQJ. >>> Sorry Edward, but this is really rude behavior, adults having a civil >>> discussion understand that they are each expected to make some effort to >>> address the other's questions and arguments, you can't expect to have the >>> unique power to dictate what will be discussed (especially when the line of >>> discussion you are so stubbornly ignoring is one stemming from an argument >>> of mine that I think shows a basic mathematical contradiction in your ideas >>> about p-time simultaneity). I will be happy to answer all your questions >>> and arguments in detail, just as I have always done in the past, if you are >>> willing to address my question in some way--even if it's not a simple >>> agree/disagree answer, but something else like saying that you find the >>> question unclear and in need of clarification. But if you outright refuse >>> to talk about anything but your own preferred lines of argument, then I'll >>> take that as a sign that you are unwilling to show any basic respect to >>> others who disagree with you, and that you are only interested in lecturing >>> about your ideas rather than engaging in two-way conversation, in which >>> case there'd be no point in my responding to your posts any further. >>> >>> 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] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > -- 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.
