On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 7:51 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On 12/23/2018 4:04 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 23, 2018, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> >> >> On 12/22/2018 4:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 10:01 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 12/21/2018 5:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:46 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/20/2018 9:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>>> > I am not advocating any global reference frame, just mentioning that >>>> > for a particular observe, they can define a present that works for >>>> > them (in their own reference frame). From their point of view they >>>> can >>>> > consider themselves at rest (whether they are or are not). >>>> >>>> They can define it in words, but can they define it physically. >>>> >>>> >>> What is wrong with using the 3-d hyperspace perpendicular to their >>> direction through spacetime? >>> >>> >>> That's words. How shall they determine whether event X in distant >>> galaxy Y is simultaneous with their clock reading Z? Is their "direction >>> through spacetime" constant over billions of years? >>> >> >> If the event occurred N-light years away, and light from that event >> arrives in N-years, then it can be considered simultaneous with the >> observer. >> >> >> You mean it could have been considered simultaneous if the observer had >> known it at the time and the observer had not changed motion in the >> intervening years. >> >> >> If their direction through spacetime changes, they must change their >> interpretation of what constitutes the present. >> >> >> So as I get up and walk to the garage, whole galaxies of events switch >> from my past to my future. What is the physical significance of this? >> >> >> Brent >> > > > Nothing, beyond showing we exist in a 4d spacetime with no objective > present (a block time). > > > That's what I thought you wanted to conclude. But it doesn't follow. The > specious present is just a mathematical construct and has no physical > significance. It says no more than that one can make a 4D map. > So do you believe that presentism is compatible under relativity? If one puts two synchronized clocks (one at the front, and one at the read) of a rocket, and then the rocket accelerates, the rocket attains a tilted direction in space time, and while the rocket remains at a positive velocity, the rear-ward clock will be "ahead in time" of the forward clock. The rocket is reaching through the dimension of time which explains the discrepancy of the clocks. When the rocket comes to rest, the rocket will have "0" reach through the proper time dimension, and the clocks will again appear synchronized. If something can have an extent through the proper time dimension, how can this be compatible with presentism? Jason -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
