On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 February 2014 23:25, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 00:29, LizR wrote:
On 4 February 2014 12:23, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote
saying neither set of boundary
conditions alone is sufficient, that you need to take into account both at
once.
Jesse
On 5 February 2014 09:54, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 February 2014 23:25, Bruno Marchal
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 4:39 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/4/2014 1:11 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:59 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
There is nothing exotic about the state of a photon being determined by
future boundary conditions.
You *could
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
I didn't answer these 3 because you are once again describing well known
aspect of CLOCK time simultaneity with which I probably agree.
Uh, no they weren't, each of them concerned questions about YOUR
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
A couple of points in response:
1. Even WITHOUT my present moment, the well established fact of a 4-d
universe does NOT imply block time nor require it. Clock time still flows
just fine in SR and GR.
I would
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Correct. Relativity theory does NOT require block time. We agree on that.
Your assertion that clock time only flows in the sense that it value is
different at different points along a worldline ASSUMES a view
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Let me ask you this simple question. You agree that there is a same point
in spacetime that both twin meet at and in which their clock times are
different.
How does your theory, or relativity, account for or
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
No, what the equations of relativity say, and the only thing they compute,
is that WHEN the twins meet up again at the same point in space, that they
will have different clock times.
But what is that 'WHEN'? It
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:21 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 February 2014 08:49, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
You have it exactly backwards, Edgar. I am the one arguing that there is
no definitive way to decide whether block time or presentism is correct,
you are the one
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 07:53:16AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
In fact relativity itself conclusively falsifies block time as it
requires
everything to be at one and only one point in clock time due to the fact
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:21:47PM -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 07:53:16AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
This is just outrageously wrong. Block time implies the most magical
mystical miraculous creation event of all times, of the entire universe
from beginning to end, a creation event that makes the Biblical creation
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Yes, that is what I'm saying.
But how you don't understand that actively traveling through spacetime at
c doesn't imply everything is at one and only one point in time is beyond
me. It's a trivial inference.
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
velocity vector means movement through time as I'm sure you recall from
elementary physics.
If by movement through time you mean something inherently incompatible
with block time, then no. Velocity just means that
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Again, if I understand you, this is just a way to define 'same points in
spacetime'.
No, it's a way to physically define coordinate position and coordinate time
in terms of actual physical clocks and rulers. The
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:38 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/5/2014 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
--question 1 dealt with the question of how YOU would define p-time
simultaneity in a cosmological model where there's no way to slice the 4D
spacetime into a series of 3D surfaces
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:45 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/5/2014 9:47 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:38 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/5/2014 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
--question 1 dealt with the question of how YOU would define p-time
AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:38 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/5/2014 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
--question 1 dealt with the question of how YOU would define p-time
simultaneity in a cosmological model where there's no way to slice the 4D
spacetime
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Frankly the utility of this approach seems opaque to me. I don't see how
it differs from just being able to calculate the actual clock time
differences the twins will have when they meet in 'a same present
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
No, I've mentioned that on a number of occasions. And yes, Omega should
give us a p-time radius if we can actually figure out how to use it to
calculate the radius of a simply hypersphere (if it is actually the
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Quentin,
Please refer to my extensive posts to Jesse for that...
Edgar
I would guess that, like me, Quentin is asking how you would retroactively
determine whether two events in the past happened at the same p-time
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Once again, for the nth time, you are making statements about CLOCK time
simultaneity with which I agree. That has nothing to do with the same
present moment of p-time.
Because you were *asking* about whether
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
You are misunderstanding most of my points here!
By standard I just mean any usual analysis that computes the correct
answer of the twins' clock time differences when they meet. It seems to me,
correct me if I'm
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
So we can only discuss your ideas and not mine?
No, but it's pretty irritating when you ask me questions specifically about
*my* (relativistic model), and then when I give you answers you suddenly
change the
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
OK, here's another question to get to the crux.
You claim the twins meet in the same point of spacetime.
OK, if that's a real point in spacetime it MUST have a t-coordinate. What
is the value of that
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
OK, what I don't understand in this clearer example near the end of your
post is you say The coordinate time of an event *is* just clock time on
the local coordinate clock that was at the same point in spacetime as
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
What's wrong with conscious experience? Every observation of science is
ultimately a conscious experience.
Yes, ultimately, but the observations used in physical science used are
always of quantitative values that
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
OK, here's the detailed analysis of how I see the current state of this
issue that I promised:
A few points:
1. Since you asked let me repeat my 'operational definition' of the
present moment that I used
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Well you just avoid most of my points and logic.
Can you itemize the specific points you think I'm avoiding?
But yes, I agree with your operational definition analysis. That is
EXACTLY my point. That what our
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
BTW, your own operational definition proves that time flows. Because your
reflected light will always arrive back to you later on your clock than
when it was sent.
And how does that prove that time flows in a
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Re your question of simultaneous past p-times its a good question and I
did answer it but will give a more complete answer now.
I said first that everything happens at the same p-time (the same present
moment of
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
If as you say, the same point in time in relativity just MEANS that
two events are assigned the same time coordinate then the twins are NOT at
the same point in time because the two events of their meeting have
Edgar, it's very frustrating trying to have a discussion with you when I
repeatedly ask you questions that are meant to clarify things that seem
unclear to me in your arguments, and you just completely ignore these
questions and just give me a broad restatement of your overall views, which
for me
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Yes, I think there is always a way to determine if any two events happen
at the same point in p-time or not, provided you know everything about
their relativistic conditions.
You do this by essentially computing
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
No, they do NOT have the same time coordinates in their respective frames
because their clocks read different t-values.
In the post you're responding to here I had another request for
clarification which you
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
I gave you a clear easy to follow and understand procedure that I believe
works in every case to determine if any two clock time labeled events
occurred in the same p-time moment or not.
No you didn't, because
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Consider another simple example:
A and B in deep space. No gravity. Their clocks, t and t', are
synchronized. They are in the same current p-time moment and whenever t =
t', which is always their clock times
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse, et al,
A Propros of our discussion of determining same past moments of P-time let
me now try to present a much deeper insight into P-time, that illustrates
and explains that, and see if it makes sense. I will show
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
The ages are the only 'real' clocks here because they are not arbitrary
but real and actual and cannot be reset. They show different clock times in
the same present moment. All other clocks are arbitrary.
I don't
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Same thing as I'm saying. My other clock time is just a clock centered in
your coordinate system. It's the same idea. If you look at the equations of
relativistic clock time they are always of the general form
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
It's not clear to me what you mean by, in every coordinate system the
time-coordinate of A = the time-coordinate of B. Are you actually
disagreeing with that (please answer clearly yes or no).
The way I
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
No, the definition of p-time simultaneity itself depends on the
arbitrary choice of coordinate system is NOT true. I clearly stated
otherwise and explained why. Please reread if it isn't clear.
Rereading doesn't
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
1. is correct. There is an objective truth that past events are
simultaneous in p-time. Recall I also gave the exact same answer yesterday
or the day before.
Thanks. So how about the issue of transitivity? If
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
The crux of my answer to the crossed tapes question was that yes that
would be true of clock time but not for p-time. Again you are using the
question to argue against clock time simultaneity. And I agree with that
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
My answer to your last paragraph is yes, as I understand it...
For transitivity ignore my first post on that, and just read the second
that concludes there IS transitivity..
Edgar
OK, then in the scenario I
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Both, but you completely ignored my broad conceptual argument I gave first
thing this morning of why relativity itself assumes an unstated present
moment background to all relativistic relationships.
You mean the
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Before I go the trouble of answering your 4 questions on your example
could you please tell me if you agree with the 3 examples I provided, and
the p-time simultaneities I stated there?
What do you mean agree
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
If you don't agree with anything I've said, with any of the answers I've
provided to your numerous questions, then I have to assume your motive is
asking all these questions is not to learn anything about the
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
I agree that Individual relativistic equations from a particular
coordinate system don't support p-time simultaneity but comparing both
equations of the two coordinate systems in the system, e.g. twin A and twin
Edgar, you wanted me to address your examples so I will, although I thought
it better to hold off on this until we settled the question of whether the
basic assumption you seem to be making in case #1 leads to contradictions.
Given your recent post at
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Your condition C. was not example dependent. You just need to rephrase
your condition C. as two observers with no relative motion AND in identical
gravitational fields. Then it does hold and is consistent with
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
The point to understand here is the very fact that relativity describes
different frames that are BOTH simultaneously true from different
relativistic perspectives requires that there actually is a background
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Your example does NOT establish any inconsistency. I NEVER said I'm
pretty sure you've said before that you agree that if SR predicts two
clocks meet at a single point in spacetime, their two readings at that
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
Instantaneously pause has no frame-independent meaning in relativity, do
you disagree? If A and B are in relative motion, and unlike my example
above, B is *not* at the same point in spacetime as A when A turns some age
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Let me clarify my response since I see it's slightly ambiguous.
First every observer in the universe is ALWAYS at the same point in p-time
ALL the time with all other observers. No exceptions.
The question is
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Not at all. I pointed out maybe a week ago with examples why your notion
of a same point in SPACEtime is not the same as a same point in p-TIME.
They are the same is true only when A and B are at the same point in
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
'Any point' for observers in different frames is well defined by
relativity theory itself. The very fact that relativity theory can provide
2 equations, one for each separate frame, for any SINGLE relativistic
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
See my proximate response to Liz who asked the same question. Basically
relativity theory gives you the equations for both frames for any
relativistic situation. So all you have to do is do the calculations like
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
All,
By the Principle of Equivalence acceleration is equivalent to gravitation.
Too vague. A more precise statement is that in an observer in free-fall in
a gravitational field can define a local inertial frame in an
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
The same reading in the exact same sense that relativity tells us they do
which I've already explained for the nth time. It's in the same frame
independent sense that relativity is able to meaningfully define 2
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Depends on what you REALLY mean by the same point in spacetime.
If you mean the same point in spaceCLOCKtime, then no, because the twins
are NOT at the same point in clock time, though they are at the same point
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
You still don't get it.
There is no frame dependent notion of clock time simultaneity in
relativity, but when one compares the 2 frames that relativity uses to
describe a single scenario from both observer
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
I haven't seen any book on relativity point this out even though it is
quite obviously what relativity actually does. Do you deny relativity gives
equations for BOTH frames for each single relativistic scenario?
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Let me think about this, but it is NOT the observer in free fall in a
gravitational field that is equivalent to acceleration. It is an observer
RESISTING free fall (e.g. standing on the surface of the earth) that
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 February 2014 06:55, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
See my proximate response to Liz who asked the same question. Basically
relativity theory gives you the equations for both frames for any
relativistic
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
4 questions:
1. Do you agree that for every relativistic scenario involving 2
relativistic observers A and B, that relativity provides a description of
how each observes the other's clock time vary relative to
In this case the horizon is basically just the edge of a light cone, and a
continuously-accelerating observer can indefinitely avoid crossing into
this light cone (see the top diagram at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates -- x=0 is the edge of the
light cone, while the curve labeled
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse, Brent, Liz, et al,
Free fall in a gravitational field is NOT acceleration. Standing on the
surface of the earth IS acceleration because only then is the acceleration
of gravity felt as such.
Yes, that's why I
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
You agree It is true that they both agree on an overview which says
things along the lines of In frame 1, X is true, in frame 2, Y is true
Presumably what you mean by that is that both A and B agree on (1) A's
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
The accelerating floor of an elevator the size of a planet is not an
infinitesimal neighborhood of a point in spacetime. So that comment of
yours does not apply.
It seems to me it should apply, since you asked
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com 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
agree
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:28 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
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 Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:42 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com 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
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 6:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 3:22 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
But from the links you yourself provide:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985AmJPh..53..661O
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:31 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 3:43 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 6:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 3:22 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
To address your question. I'll start with your terminology. Your ABC
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
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
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
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
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
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
101 - 200 of 676 matches
Mail list logo
