Jesse, Yes, but respectfully, what I'm saying is that your example doesn't represent my method OR results.
In your example of A and B separated but moving at the same velocity and direction, and C and D separated but moving at the same velocity and direction, BUT the two PAIRS moving at different velocities, AND where B and C happen to pass each other at the same point in spacetime here is my result. Assuming the acceleration/gravitation histories of A and B are the same and they are twins; AND the acceleration/gravitation histories of C and D are the same and they are twins, then A(t1)=B(t1)=C(t2)=D(t2) which is clearly transitive between all 4 parties. We don't know what t1 and t2 are because you haven't specified their acceleration histories or birth dates, but whatever they are the equation above will hold. The problem is that your careful analysis simply DOES NOT use MY method which depends on the actual real physical causes (acceleration histories) to deternine 1:1 age correlations between any two observers. It uses YOUR method to prove the standard lack of simultaneity between VIEWS of pairs of actual physical events. This is a WELL KNOWN result of relativity WITH WHICH I AGREE! But for the nth time, my method concentrates on the ACTUAL RELATIONSHIP, rather than VIEWS of that actual relationship. This is a simple, well accepted logical distinction which most certainly applies here to the ACTUAL age correlations of people.. If a man and a wife love each other that is a real actual physical relationship. The fact that someone else thinks they don't love each other may well be his real VIEW, but it does NOT change or affect the ACTUAL love between the man and his wife. No matter how many times I state this it doesn't seem to sink in.... Edgar On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 10:36:10 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > > Jesse, > > First I see no conclusion that demonstrates INtransitivity here or any > contradiction that I asked for. Did I miss that? > > > No, I was just asking if you agreed with those two steps, which show that > different pairs of readings are simultaneous using ASSUMPTION 2. If you > agreed with those, I would show that several further pairs of readings must > also be judged simultaneous in p-time using ASSUMPTION 1, and then all > these individual simultaneity judgments would together lead to a > contradiction via the transitivity assumption, ASSUMPTION 3. I already laid > this out in the original Alice/Bob/Arlene/Bart post, but since you > apparently didn't understand that post I wanted to go over everything more > carefully with the exact x(t) and T(t) functions given, and every point > about simultaneity stated more carefully. > > I thought you would be more likely to answer if I just gave you two > statements to look over and verify rather than a large collection of them, > but if you are going to stubbornly refuse to answer the opening questions > until I lay out the whole argument, here it is in full:</d > ... -- 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.
