Re: Measuring a system in a superposition of states vs in a mixed state

2018-11-04 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 7:30 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 30 Oct 2018, at 14:21, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 8:58:30 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 29 Oct 2018, at 13:55, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-05-01 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 2/05/2016 1:31 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > wrote: > >> On 2/05/2016 7:52 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: >

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-05-01 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > No, I disagree. The setting *b* has no effect on what happens at a remote > location is sufficiently precise to encapsulate exactly what physicists > mean by locality. In quantum field theory, this is

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-05-01 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 2/05/2016 7:52 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > wrote: > >> That is a semantic matter. There is a problem

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-05-01 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > That is a semantic matter. There is a problem if one insists that > "non-local" means the propagation of a real physical influence (particle of > wave) faster-than-light. But "non-locality" in standard quantum

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-27 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 27/04/2016 4:13 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > wrote: > >> On 27/04/2016 3:22 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: &g

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-27 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 4/26/2016 10:29 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> > wrote: > >> >> >> On 4/26/2016 8:38

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-27 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 27/04/2016 3:22 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au > > wrote: > >> Your simulation assumes the quantum m

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-26 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 4/26/2016 8:38 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: > >> OK, let's say experimenter A measures particle 1, and experimenter B >> measures particle 2. Any given copy of particle 1 has a "

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-26 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Your simulation assumes the quantum mechanical results. In other words, it > assumes non-locality in order to calculate the statistics. Where does the > cos^2(theta/2) come from in your analysis? > The question

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-26 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 27/04/2016 1:13 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 6:45 AM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > wrote: > >> >> You think that "the state

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-26 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 6:45 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > You think that "the state of the other particle" refers to the quantum > state that would be assigned to B given only knowledge of the state of A > (as well as knowledge of how they were entangled originally).

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-26 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 26/04/2016 5:52 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:58 AM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > wrote: > >> >> >> I think you may have miss

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-25 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:58 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > I think you may have missed a salient feature of my little story about > mismatching. The point to which I wish to draw attention is that Alice and > Bob do not know that they are in an impossible world until

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-22 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 22/04/2016 2:46 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au > > wrote: > >> On 22/04/2016 12:53 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-21 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 22/04/2016 12:53 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > wrote: > >> >> >> The point here is that so

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-21 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 22/04/2016 5:17 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > wrote: > >> On 21/04/2016 1:34 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: &

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-21 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 21/04/2016 1:34 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > wrote: > >> So, the fact that these simulated result

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-20 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > So, the fact that these simulated results were supposed to have come from > an entangled singlet pair has not been used anywhere in your simulation. It > has only ever been used to link the copies of Alice and

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-19 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 19/04/2016 10:23 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > wrote: > >> >> The local mathemati

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-18 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 18/04/2016 5:00 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > wrote: > >> On 18/04/2016 2:53 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: &

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-18 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 18/04/2016 2:53 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > wrote: > >> On 18/04/2016 10:11 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: &

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-17 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 18/04/2016 10:11 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > wrote: > >> >> The future light cones

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-17 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > The future light cones of the observers will overlap at a time determined > by their initial separation, regardless of whether they send signals to > each other or not. > Of course, I never meant to suggest

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-17 Thread Jesse Mazer
"A and B perform their measurements at spacelike separation, but each chooses the measurement orientation outside the light cone of the other. There are four possible combinations of results, corresponding to four worlds in the MWI: |+>|+'>, |+>|-'>, |->|+'>, and |->|-'>. Since each observer has a

Re: Anna Stubblefield

2015-10-21 Thread Jesse Mazer
Isn't there a pretty strong consensus among the experts that "facilitated communication" is actually a Ouija board like phenomenon where the facilitator is actually determining all the letters through small muscle movements (the 'ideomotor effect'), whether consciously or subconsciously? >From

Re: MGA revisited paper

2014-08-18 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, August 17, 2014, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/16/2014 10:16 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 16 August 2014 10:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/15/2014 4:34 PM,

Re: MGA revisited paper

2014-08-16 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, August 16, 2014 2:28:32 PM UTC+10, jessem wrote: On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 11:09 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/15/2014 5:30 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Russell

Re: MGA revisited paper

2014-08-16 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, August 16, 2014 11:26:08 PM UTC+10, jessem wrote: I think you're being misled by the particular example you chose involving addition, in general there is no principle that says finding the appropriate entry in a

Re: MGA revisited paper

2014-08-15 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 09:41:00PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 8/14/2014 8:32 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 08:12:30PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: That does seem strange, but I don't know that it

Re: MGA revisited paper

2014-08-15 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 11:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/15/2014 5:30 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 09:41:00PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 8/14/2014 8:32 PM, Russell

Re: CTM and the UDA (again!)

2014-07-27 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:46 AM, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: On 23 July 2014 17:49, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: So, why not adopt a Tegmark-like view where a physical universe is *nothing more* than a particular abstract computation, and that can give us a well

Re: CTM and the UDA (again!)

2014-07-27 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:13 PM, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: On 27 July 2014 17:27, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: I don't see why that should follow at all, as long as there are multiple infinite computations running rather than the UDA being the only one, I may

Re: CTM and the UDA (again!)

2014-07-27 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:04 PM, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: On 27 July 2014 18:46, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: But when you say by this point in the argument, do you mean there was some earlier step that established some good *reasons* for why we should

Re: CTM and the UDA (again!)

2014-07-25 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: HI Jesse, David, On 23 Jul 2014, at 18:49, Jesse Mazer wrote: Had some trouble following your post (in part because I don't know all the acronyms), but are you talking about the basic problem of deciding which

Re: CTM and the UDA (again!)

2014-07-23 Thread Jesse Mazer
Had some trouble following your post (in part because I don't know all the acronyms), but are you talking about the basic problem of deciding which computations a particular physical process can be said to implement or instantiate? If so, see my post at

Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse

2014-07-20 Thread Jesse Mazer
Hopefully someone with a better understanding of these things will comment, but I believe it has to do with what physicists call the hierarchy problem, here are some links for your perusal: http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-hierarchy-problem/

Re: Interesting Google tech talk on QM

2014-04-29 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 3:02 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: *Brent(?) wrote*: No I never read that, but hell yeah, MWI worries me! Doesn't it worry you? I mean I know at one level that in a very real sense it doesn't matter whether it's true or not, since the other universes can

Re: Interesting Google tech talk on QM

2014-04-29 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 10:24 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote: On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 04:19:01PM -0400, Jesse Mazer wrote: The MWI advocate David Deutsch had a quote about choices and morality in the article at http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17122994.400-taming

Re: Interesting Google tech talk on QM

2014-04-23 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 7:08 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 April 2014 22:29, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Hi Liz, The billions make sense to me, to be honest. Even before the earth, we still didn't exist. It sounds like poetic liberty for a mind blowing amount of

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-21 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Spud, But reducing human overpopulation IS the main problem facing the planet, the ecosystem, and the human species itself. Assuming that increasing technology will somehow solve the problem is, I fear, naive. It is

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-21 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:19 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for, Google seems to think it's Rich Client Platform but that doesn't sound

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-21 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux

Re: Entropy and curved spacetime

2014-03-21 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:00 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 Mar 2014, at 22:33, LizR wrote: Am I right in assuming that in a quantum mechanical universe you can trace the history backwards? Absolutely not because in Quantum mechanics 2 very different states can evolve

Re: Entropy and curved spacetime

2014-03-21 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 Mar 2014, at 20:17, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:00 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 Mar 2014, at 22:33, LizR wrote: Am I right in assuming that in a quantum mechanical

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-20 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:55 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Very well, go ahead and power it all down. Shut off the cars, kill the lights, take a bike. Are you suggesting that we continue to burn filthy coal, or horrible uranium, while we try to goose up solar and wind to replace it?!! Why

Re: Entropy and curved spacetime

2014-03-18 Thread Jesse Mazer
Yes, if you have the exact present quantum state and you're assuming the normal quantum rules for continuous wavefunction evolution, you can determine the past quantum state. The answer might change if you assume that there's an objective physical reality to the collapse of wavefunction with

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-13 Thread Jesse Mazer
-sense becomes active. Yes, there a few spiders left after environmental degradation. -Original Message- From: Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 12:47 am Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-12 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:29 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: *On Behalf Of *LizR I must admit I've heard the extinction rate is way higher than usual - asteroid / methane burp high.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-12 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 2:52 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Autism, schmatism. Let me address this situation in concise terms, and if you want to discuss, we can discuss. But you refuse to discuss the Royal Academy/National Academy of Sciences paper, apparently (I take this as a sign that you

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-12 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 7:36 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: My integrity is not the issue, Yes it is, since you made an error in your reading of the Royal Society/National Academy of Sciences paper, and instead of admitting the error you simply ignore the issue even when I repeatedly question

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-11 Thread Jesse Mazer
about global warming while U.S. conservatives and libertarians typically aren't, liberals=bad, therefore it must be a power grab!) Jesse -Original Message- From: Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Mar 10, 2014 1:15 pm

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-11 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 1:50 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: because before you initiate a policy that will impoverish the world for many generations and kill lots and lots and lots of people What

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-11 Thread Jesse Mazer
is the greatest aphrodisiac. -Original Message- From: Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: 11-Mar-2014 14:03:15 + Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:33 PM, spudboy...@aol.com

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-10 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:31 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: According to Chris, Climate is not the weather or the local weather. So if this suggestion is correct, its local anomalies over the years, driven onward, by El Nino' or La Nina' ? According to a report released, last week, by the

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-10 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:52 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: That looks like a pretty crappy match to me. What the hell happened 450 million years ago? And why did the CO2 start to drop 150 million years ago

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-09 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 1:34 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: A black market degenerates into a cutthroat cartel True, but the blackness of the market has nothing to do with the nature of the commodity being transacted, it's black because somebody in government decided to make it

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-08 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, I guess I'm supposed to take that as a yes? You do agree that A's world line is actually shorter than C's (even though it is depicted as longer) because A's proper time along it is less than C's from parting to

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-08 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: And B's worldline consists of the following five segments: Segment 1 (blue): Remaining at rest in C's frame, from t=1999 to t=2009 Segment 2 (red): ACCELERATION 1 from t=2009 to t=2011 Segment 3 (blue): Moving

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-08 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 1:56 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: Then who would ever want to live under a free market system if as you admit the transnational drug gangs are an exemplar of a well evolved

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-08 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, OK, Assume c=1 and start with your sqrt((t2 - t1)^2 - (x2 - x1)^2) to calculate what you say is the proper time on a time-like interval. Using your method, which I assume is correct I do see that A's proper time

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-08 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, PS: And in your nice long numerical example, which I thank you for, it seems to me what you are doing is calculating the proper time length of every segment of A's trip in terms of C's proper time. Isn't that

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-07 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Finally hopefully getting a minute to respond to at least some of your posts. I'm looking at the two 2 world line diagram on your website and I would argue that the world lines of A and B are exactly the SAME

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-07 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Do you understand why the world line that is depicted as LONGER in the typical world line diagram is ACTUALLY SHORTER? E.g. in your diagram do you understand why even though A's world line looks longer than C's

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-06 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, Sure, but aren't the different lengths of world lines due only to acceleration and gravitational effects? So aren't you saying the same thing I was? Isn't that correct my little Trollette? (Note I wouldn't have

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-06 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Yes, from the point any two observers in the same inertial frame synchronize clocks, their clocks will be synchronized in p-time BUT ONLY FROM THEN ON (we can't know if they were previously synchronized unless we

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-06 Thread Jesse Mazer
, but somehow it didn't occur to me that reference frame is a synonym for frame of reference, which is what ALL frames are called. So I edited my post below to use the term index frame instead, since I'm indexing other frames by their velocity relative to this frame: On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Jesse

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-05 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-05 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Here's another point for you to ponder: You claim that all frame views are equally valid. What would you say the weighted mean of all frame views is? Weighted how? I can't see any weighing that doesn't itself

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-05 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Yes, you are right. I phrased it incorrectly. What I meant to say was not that each individual view was somehow weighted, but that all views considered together would tend to cluster around my results for any

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-05 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: 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

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-05 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Yes, the views are infinite on several axes, but that can be addressed simply by enumerating views at standard intervals on those axes. But velocity intervals which are equal when the velocities are defined

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-05 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, PS: It is well known that accelerations and gravitation are the ONLY causes that produce real actual age rate changes. These real actual age rate changes are real and actual because 1. ALL OBSERVERS AGREE on them

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-05 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:47 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: If you have a continuum of inertial frames with velocities ranging from +c to -c in all possible directions, how are you going to integrate over them? Isn't there a measure problem over an uncountably infinite set? There's no

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-04 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: So you are just going to COMPLETELY IGNORE my response, which pointed out that your supposed error relied on using the ambiguous phrase B's and C's proper ages are simultaneous in p-time because they are at the same

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-04 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, BTW, in spite of your claim it can't be done, here is another simple way for any two observers at rest with respect to each other but separated by any arbitrary distance in space to determine their 1:1 age

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-04 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Good, we agree it's a valid method for determining 1:1 age correlations in a common inertial frame in which they are both at rest. I claim that frame is the correct one to determine the actual age correlation

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-04 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: I promise you the example has nothing to do with any frames other than the ones in which each pair is at rest. Again, the only assumptions about p-time that I make in deriving the contradiction are: ASSUMPTION 1

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-03 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Your position becomes more and more absurd. My position is simply that for any question on which different frames give different answers, there is no physical basis for judging one frame's judgments to be reality

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-03 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, OK, this is some progress. Now you've gone from saying there is NO correlation at all, to the ages ARE CORRELATED WITHIN SOME LIMIT. In other words we DO know that for any set of twins we can always say that

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-03 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, No, it was you that said there was NO correlation. Jeez Edgar, you really need to work on your reading comprehension. I just got through AGREEING that I had said that there wasn't a correlation, but I explained

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-02 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, To address your points in order: 1. Yes, you said that proper ages are invariant. But note the important point that the proper age of A to himself is a direct observation (he looks at his age clock), but to

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-02 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, To answer your final question. If I understand your 3 points correctly then I agree with all 3. Though I suspect we understand them differently. When you spring your 'proof' we will find that out. Thanks for

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-02 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, I'll address your points in a later post, but first let me run this simple new case by you. Imagine the symmetric trips of the twins continually criss cross each other at 1 second intervals (of their own proper

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-02 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Just checking but I'm sure you would agree that twins AT REST with respect to each other are the same actual age (have a 1:1 proper age correlation) even if they are SEPARATED by distance? You just don't agree that

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-02 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Glad we agree on the first point but, even if there is some minimum time limit to the criss crosses, you miss the real point of my example. Let me restate it: Since a criss cross symmetric trip is NO DIFFERENT IN

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-02 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: No, of course I wouldn't agree that there is any unique actual truth about their ages in this case, nor would any mainstream physicist. Sorry, I wrote too quickly here--what I meant is that I don't agree there is any

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-02 Thread Jesse Mazer
moment in their rest frame)' Jesse On Sunday, March 2, 2014 7:13:31 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Jesse Mazer laser...@gmail.com wrote: No, of course I wouldn't agree that there is any unique actual truth about their ages in this case, nor would any mainstream

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-01 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, 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

Re: Block Universes

2014-03-01 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Let me ask you one simple question. In the symmetric case where the twins part and then meet up again with the exact same real actual ages isn't it completely logical to conclude they must also have been the

Re: Block Universes

2014-02-28 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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

Re: Block Universes

2014-02-28 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, 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

Re: Block Universes

2014-02-27 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, I haven't answered those questions out of any disrespect or rudeness but because I was working on a new explanation which I think does specifically address and answer all of them which I present in this post. I

Re: Block Universes

2014-02-27 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, First the answer to your question at the end of your post. Yes, of course I agree. Again that's just standard relativity theory. However as you point out by CONVENTION it means the observer's comoving inertial

Re: Block Universes

2014-02-27 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Remember we are talking ONLY about PROPER TIMES, or actual ages. These DO NOT HAVE any MEANING IN OTHER FRAMES than that of the actual frame of the observer in question. No, you couldn't be more wrong about that

Re: Block Universes

2014-02-27 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: A simple example: say in Alice's rest frame, there are two markers at rest in this frame 20 light-years apart, and Bob moves inertially from one marker to the other a velocity of 0.8c in this frame. What is the proper

Re: Block Universes

2014-02-27 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, My understanding of the first part of your reply is though proper time is ONLY one's reading of one's own clock (as I stated) it IS possible for any other observer to calculate that proper time and always come up

Re: Block Universes

2014-02-26 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, You continue to quibble over terminology to avoid engaging the real issues. Of course by 'view' I DO mean the actual equations in terms of a coordinate system with origin at a particular observer. There is OF

Re: Block Universes

2014-02-26 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, A symmetric trip is defined in terms of the symmetric view of two observers A and B OF EACH OTHER IN TERMS OF THEIR OWN COMOVING COORDINATE SYSTEMS. If they aren't inertial observers in flat spacetime--and they

Re: Block Universes

2014-02-26 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, O, for God's sakes. Just take a SINGLE INERTIAL coordinate system centered at some point in deep space from which they both depart, travel symmetrically away from RELATIVE TO THAT SINGLE COORDINATE SYSTEM and then

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >