On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> On 18/04/2016 5:00 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
>> On 18/04/2016 2:53 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Bruce Kellett <
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> On 18/04/2016 2:53 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
>> On 18/04/2016 10:11 am, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Bruce Kelle
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> On 18/04/2016 10:11 am, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> 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
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 otherwise. Imagining a central
"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
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 what
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, August 17, 2014, meekerdb wrote:
>
>> On 8/16/2014 10:16 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 16 August 2014 10:16, meekerdb wrote:
>> > On 8/15/2014 4:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>
>> > > I think the
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Pierz 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 lookup table i
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Pierz wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, August 16, 2014 2:28:32 PM UTC+10, jessem wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 11:09 PM, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/15/2014 5:30 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>>>
>
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 11:09 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 8/15/2014 5:30 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Russell Standish
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 09:41:00PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
>> > On 8/14/2014 8:32 PM, Russell
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Russell Standish
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 strikes me a
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:04 PM, David Nyman wrote:
> On 27 July 2014 18:46, Jesse Mazer 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 sh
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:13 PM, David Nyman wrote:
> On 27 July 2014 17:27, Jesse Mazer 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 be mi
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:46 AM, David Nyman wrote:
> On 23 July 2014 17:49, Jesse Mazer 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
> &g
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Bruno Marchal 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
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
http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-li
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/
http://pro
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 10:24 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> 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/art
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 3:02 PM, John Mikes 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 never affect me,
>
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 7:08 AM, LizR wrote:
> On 23 April 2014 22:29, Telmo Menezes 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 time".
>>
>
> Sure, but I
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 21 Mar 2014, at 20:17, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:00 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
>> On 18 Mar 2014, at 22:33, LizR wrote:
>>
>> > Am I right in assuming that in a qua
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:00 PM, John Clark 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 into the ex
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark :
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>> The thing I most want to know
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:19 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>>
>>
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
quite right. It
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Edgar L. Owen 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 precisely the
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:55 AM, 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 that will take dec
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 meas
in recent years, and that if it continues at this rate
for another century (or a few centuries depending on the estimate of the
current rate) then we will have a true mass extinction.
Jesse
> When the discussion turns from technology to government control, and the
> necessity for i
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 7:36 PM, 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 you about
it.
>
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 2:52 PM, 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 probably recogni
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:29 AM, John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Chris de Morsella > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> *On Behalf Of *LizR
>>
>>
>>
>>> >> I must admit I've heard the extinction rate is way higher than usual
>>> - asteroid / methane burp high. (Although if it's us or them
when they see one. Or, as Henry Kissinger once noted, power is the greatest
> aphrodisiac.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jesse Mazer
> To: everything-list
> Sent: 11-Mar-2014 14:03:15 +
> Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
>
&g
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 1:50 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>>
>> >> because before you initiate a policy that will impoverish the world
>>> for many generations and kill lots and lots and lots of people
ponses to Chris clearly show you
haven't made any attempt to understand the science on its own terms,
independent of politics and crude us vs. them tribalistic thinking
(liberals are worried about global warming while U.S. conservatives and
libertarians typically aren't, liberals=bad, theref
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:52 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Jesse Mazer 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
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:31 PM, 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 Royal Climate Gr
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 1:34 PM, John Clark 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 black. Toba
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 correct?
>
No, it
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 will
> be great
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 1:56 AM, John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Chris de Morsella
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
> > 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 free
>> market?
>>
>
> There
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer 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):
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 meeting?
> Corre
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 world line,
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 LENGTH due to
mes by their velocity relative to this frame:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> I don't know what you mean by "the frame view of all frame views". I agree
> that for a given pair of clocks A and B that are at rest relative to each
> other and s
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> I don't think this is correct. It is meaningless to try to TAKE THE FRAME
> VIEW OF ALL FRAME VIEWS. That's not the correct way to look at it.
>
> What we do is to take all frame views of any ONE proper time correlation.
> Every f
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen 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
> know their
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Edgar L. Owen 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 included
> th
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:47 PM, LizR 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 inherent problem
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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
> when they me
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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
relative to one fra
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 moving at the
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 distance and m
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Edgar L. Owen 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 depend on
p
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen 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
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Jesse Mazer 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:
>
> ASSUMPTIO
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 because it
> expre
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 correlation.
>
> If A
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Jesse Mazer 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 be
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 that this was bec
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 their ages ARE
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Edgar L. Owen 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" while othe
me constant velocity, they do NOT have
identical ages at any given moment in this frame? (assuming they had
identical ages at any given 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 P
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Jesse Mazer 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 a
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 PRINCIPLE
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 if they
> ar
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 clocks) for
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 addressing the
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 anyone else is a
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 exact same real
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen 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 make someone
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 time correlat
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen 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 jus
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 with
> the
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Jesse Mazer 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 pr
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 last statem
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 frame" whic
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Edgar L. Owen 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 will be
> happy
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Can you agree to this at least?
>
To repeat what I said in my second-to-last post:
'If you continue to ask me "Do you agree?" type questions while ignoring
the similar questions I ask you, I guess I'll have to take that as a sign
of cont
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Forget about coordinate systems, that isn't really the issue.
>
> The point is that each twin has A REAL ACTUAL AGE at every point on its
> world line no matter what its relativistic circumstances.\
>
Yes.
>
> The point is that
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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
> meet back
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 can't be
ine
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 COURSE
> a single
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> So we agree on my first two points. And yes, I agree you can have as many
> arbitrary coordinate systems as you like but that adds nothing to the
> discussion.
>
> I accept your criticism of my third point which was not worded tig
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Here is a clearer, unambiguous and more general way to define p-time
> simultaneity in terms of proper times. Let me know what you think. I'll
> also address your latest questions in separate replies...
>
>
> Drop an arbitrary
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Well, I thought I was expressing your own model, but apparently not.
>
> However IF, and a big if, I understand you correctly then I do agree that "if
> two events have the same space and time coordinates in a single inertial
> fr
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Let me make sure I understand what you are saying.
>
> You say we can drop an arbitrary coordinate system onto spacetime, and
> then we can place an originally synchronized clock at every grid
> intersection. Is that correct?
>
I
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> To address your question. I'll start with your terminology. Your A>B>C
> doesn't follow and I'll show why it doesn't.
>
> "Same space and time coordinates"? In which coordinate system? In general
> these will be different in diff
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> 1. Do you agree you are actually a particular age right now today as you
> read this?
>
Yes.
>
> 2. Do you agree that I am actually a particular age right now today as I
> write this, whether or not you know what that is?
>
Ye
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:31 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 2/22/2014 3:43 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 6:34 PM, meekerdb wrote:
>
>> On 2/22/2014 3:22 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen wro
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Hi Jesse,
>
> First, my name is Edgar, not Edward
>
> OK, even though I've answered this question of yours on several occasions,
> I'm willing to finally put it to bed once and for all.
>
> So please state in a non-ambiguous manner exact
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> 1. Do you agree you are actually a particular age right now today as you
> read this?
>
Hey, more questions! But as usual, I see you demand that I answer your
questions while you pointedly ignore the question I have repeatedly as
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 6:34 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 2/22/2014 3:22 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> But from the links you yourself provide:
>> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> But from the links you yourself provide:
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985AmJPh..53..661O
>
> To quote from the abstract:
>
> If a heavy object with rest mass M moves past you with a velocity
> comparable to the speed of light,
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> I think the basic problem in our discussion, which seems intractable from
> you answers below, is your basic belief that time doesn't doesn't flow,
> that there is no such thing as a now in which you or the twins actually
> exist.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:42 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> > There is no sense in which an observer in an accelerating elevator in
>> the flat spacetime of special relativity could correctly conclude that
>> spacetime has any "curvature"
>>
>
> What you say is true but only according to Einste
The curvature of spacetime is understood in a coordinate-invariant way, in
terms of the proper time and proper length along paths through spacetime,
so it doesn't depend at all on what coordinate system you use to describe
things. Physicists do sometimes talk about the "curvature of space"
distinct
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> OK, I'm back...
>
> Let me back up a minute and ask you a couple of general questions with
> respect to establishing which past clock times of different observers were
> simultaneous in p-time
>
> The only clocks in this examp
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:28 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
>>
>> >> You say that "You can tell if spacetime is curved or not by observing
>>> if light moves in a straight line or not." and then you say that light does
>>> NOT travel in a straigh
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> Do t and t' refer to proper times for A and B (defined only along each
> one's worldline), or coordinate times in the rest frame of A and B
> (coordinate times have a well-defined value for arbitrary events, and will
&
101 - 200 of 781 matches
Mail list logo
