Of course there is a rational justification for selecting one frame over 
another in many cases. All frames are NOT equal when it comes to 
representing ACTUAL physical facts.

E.g. we can choose various frames to make someone's age pretty much any 
number we like but nevertheless they are still actually the age they think 
they are. If Alice is really 30 we can choose a frame in which she is all 
sorts of different ages but she is still actually 30. Different VIEWS of 
her age don't change her actual age. Isn't that obvious, and don't you 
agree with this?

Your expertise in relativity is clear but you don't seem to understand that 
all frames are NOT equal when it comes to representing actual physical 
fact. You don't understand the fundamental notion in relativity that some 
frames represent actual physical fact, but others represent only HOW OTHER 
OBSERVERS VIEW those physical facts. 

This is quite obvious from the age example above, but it also applies to 
the actual relationship BETWEEN TWINS in my examples. The relationship 
between twins is exactly that, it is a RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ONLY THOSE 
TWINS. Of course you can come up with frames in which that relationship is 
VIEWED differently, but that DOES NOT CHANGE the actual relationship 
between the twins TO THEMSELVES which is what my theory is based on because 
that is the ACTUAL REALITY of that physical situation. It is not just some 
arbitrary VIEW of that reality, it is the REALITY ITSELF. My theory 
recognizes the need to concentrate on actual physical fact as opposed to 
VIEWS of physical facts.

There is a simple CRITERION to determine whether we are talking about 
PHYSICAL FACT or a VIEW of a physical fact. If the parties TO THE FACT 
AGREE on their views of the fact then that agreed view probably represents 
the actual physical fact. If they DO NOT agree then this disagreement 
represents VIEWS of physical facts rather than the FACTS THEMSELVES. I can 
perhaps think of a few explainable exceptions but this is the generally 
applicable criterion.

For example the different ages of the twins when they meet is AGREED by 
both twins. Thus it is a physical fact. But the different ages of twins in 
relative motion is NOT AGREED by both twins. Thus those are VIEWS OF FACTS, 
RATHER THAN THE FACTS THEMSELVES. An absolutely crucial distinction in 
understanding what relativity is all about.

If we can agree on this obvious point, and that we CAN establish a 1:1 
proper time correlation on this basis, then I look forward to considering 
your example which you claim PROVES this 1:1 proper time correlation is not 
transitive. I'm pretty sure it is transitive when properly understood but 
am certainly willing to consider your 'proof'.


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 fr
> ...

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