Quentin, Ah, and I had hopes for you for a moment there, but those hopes have just been dashed...
Sadly it's you who don't understand the perfectly valid points I'm making.... In any case even if you were correct, and you most certainly aren't, and relativity did explain all of that, that still would NOT establish any inconsistency between relativity and P-time which was your original claim which you have been unable to back up. Edgar On Monday, February 24, 2014 6:11:30 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > > 2014-02-24 23:50 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net <javascript:>>: > > > Quentin, > > Ah, at last a couple of meaningful questions! > > Actually relativity does NOT explain how the twins can have different > clock times in the same present moment AND compare and agree on them in > spite of what you say. I'll explain why... > > > Relativity perfectly explains it... it is simply because they compare > their proper time at the *same spacetime coordinate*. > > > Of course one can place a coordinate clock at their meeting place and that > can be used to define a standard time for the event of their meeting. But > that is just cheating because that clock simply ignores the real fact or > their real actual different ages. > > > WTF ? > > > It's operationally no different than one twin just resetting his clock to > the other's clock and them claiming that's somehow the REAL time. > > > ???? > > I leave it there, that's just another proof, if I needed one more, that > you just don't understand what you're talking about. > > Quentin > > > It isn't, because it is completely arbitrary just like the coordinate > clock, and it ignores the real fact that their ACTUAL clocks which are > their ages are different. Basically it ignores the whole fact of the trip > which is what you claim it explains. > > P-time is different because it is not arbitrary. Instead it is an absolute > background to ALL relativistic events, and it is real and actual, because > all observers agree they are actually alive in a present moment because it > is the basic empirical observation of their existence, just as you and I > experience that. And as empirical observations are the basis of all > scientific knowledge the empirical observation of existing in a present > moment that we all have must also be accepted. > > And to answer your last question, yes there is an absolute simultaneity of > any two distant events in P-time. As I've explained to Jesse, and > demonstrated with numerous examples, the clock times that correlate to to > the same past P-times are not always directly observable, but they can > always be calculated if we have knowledge of the relativistic frames of any > two observers. > > I will be happy to respond further to any questions you may have.... > > Best, > Edgar > > > On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:45:24 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Just first, explain what p-time is supposed to solve in the first place > that relativity doesn't. (if you come back again with the possibility for > the twins to meet up, relativity doesn't need p-time for that, so you > should find a real problem p-time solve that relativity alone can't). > > Then answer the following: > > Is there an objective fact about the simultaneity of two distant event in > p-time ? Yes/No > > Quentin > > > 2014-02-24 19:11 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net>: > > Quentin, > > Even if that were true, and it's not, it doesn't even address your > contention my theory is inconsistent with relativity, which remains > unproved and simply an unfounded opinion on your part. > > Perhaps you are trying to change the subject because you can't prove your > original contention? That's fine, just man up and admit it... > > Edgar > > > > On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:59:10 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Yes, you didn't know proper time and coordinate time, and now you're > mastering it... you're the best joke of the internet... you should open a > circus. > > Quentin > > > 2014-02-24 18:56 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net>: > > Quentin, > > The pitiful thing is that you don't understand that is a true statement > exactly as stated. It's a comment on definitions of terminology another > poster was using, rather than actual theory. > > Keep trying my friend, but if that is the best you can do it will take a > very long time! > > Edgar > > > > On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:43:20 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > For your p > > ... -- 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.
