I just did,... your p-time is unnecessary, does not explain anything... your answer to my post, proves that you don't understand relativity at all... so I think there is not much left to discuss...
If you could just explain what your p-time is supposed to solve and answer this question: is there a truth fact about simultaneity in p-time of two distant events ? Yes/No (a yes or a no is all I ask, nothing more). Quentin 2014-02-25 0:18 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]>: > 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 <[email protected]>: >> >> >> 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 <[email protected]>: >> >> 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 <[email protected]>: >> >> 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 [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. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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.
