Quentin, I just answered those exact two questions of yours. Why are asking the same two questions again?
Edgar On Monday, February 24, 2014 6:22:04 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > 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] <javascript:>>: > > 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 > > < > > ... -- 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.
