First I would appreciate it if you didn't snip my proximate post that you 
are replying to... 

Anyway we MUST choose a frame that preserves the symmetry because remember 
we are trying to establish a 1:1 proper time correlation BETWEEN THE TWINS 
THEMSELVES (not them and anyone else), and it is only a symmetric frame 
that preserves the facts as EXPERIENCED BY THE TWINS THEMSELVES. ALL we 
need to do in my p-time theory is demonstrate that each twin can correlate 
his OWN proper time with that of the other twin.

All the other frames are the views of OTHER observers, not the views of the 
twins themselves which is all that we need to consider to establish whether 
the TWINS THEMSELVES can establish a 1:1.

Obviously if all observers agreed on an invariant 1:1 correlation we never 
would have to establish the 1:1 on a successive observer pair basis and 
then try to prove it transitive as I've consistently worked on doing. 

MY theory establishes this 1:1 correlation BETWEEN THE ACTUAL TWINS 
THEMSELVES on a pairwise basis, not on the basis of any invariance. 
Therefore it obviously uses a symmetric frame that is consistent with how 
those two twins experience their own and each other's realities and doesn't 
require input from any other frames to do that.

MY theory then attempts to prove these correlations are transitive on a 
pair by pair basis, not by considering all irrelevant frames and trying to 
establish some invariance that I agree is impossible.

Does this make it clear what my theory is trying to do? The theory is based 
on pair wise correlations, not invariance....


On Friday, February 28, 2014 11:55:40 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen <<javascript:>
> > wrote:
> You point out that from the POV of all arbitrary frames they won't be, BUT 
> the point is we MUST use a frame that MAINTAINS the real and actual 
> symmetry to determine the ACTUAL REALITY of this situation.
> Why? You give no rational justification for why "reality" should coincide 
> with the frame where the coordinates assigned to their paths are 
> symmetrical as opposed to any other frame which makes the same physical 
> predictions, this just seems like a quasi-aesthetic intuition on your part. 
> But I also have a more definitive argument against identifying 
> "simultaneity in the frame where their paths look symmetrical" with any 
> sort of absolute simultaneity--because, as I have said over and over, it 
> leads directly to contradictions when we consider multiple "symmetrical" 
> pairs of observers, and the transitive nature of absolute 
> simultaneity/p-time. If you will just respond to my Feb 24 post at 
> you promised to do earlier, then as soon as we are completely settled on 
> the matter of whether events that have the same space and time coordinates 
> in an inertial frame must have happened at the same p-time, we can go back 
> and look at the Alice/Bob/Arlene/Bart example at 
> PROVES that a contradiction follows from your assumptions, given
> ...

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 post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to