"Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:95471494-cc92-4d8c-b988-2de404f0dda8@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 14, 4:11 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> "Spirit of Truth" <junehar...@prodigy.net> wrote in >> messagenews:HHV6m.15653$bq1.7920@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message >> >news:0077f42c$0$9680$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com... >> >> "Spirit of Truth" <junehar...@prodigy.net> wrote in message >> >>news:vlT6m.10982$Jb1.3792@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com... >> >> >>> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message >> >>>news:hJz6m.782029$yE1.228877@attbi_s21... >> >>>> Spirit of Truth wrote: >> >> >>>>> Stop being such an uncompromising idiot. Go read Brian Greene's >> >>>>> Best Sellers and when you understand a little about science come >> >>>>> back and then open your at the moment idiot mouth. >> >> >>>>> Spirit of Truth >> >> >>>> That's really interesting that you suggest reading Brian Greene. >> >> >>>> 1. Brian Green gets relativity right! You don't! >> >> >>>> 2. Greene's book are loaded with "ifs" and "what ifs" and most lay >> >>>> people cannot sort out the science from the speculation. I >> >>>> think >> >>>> you are one of those people, Spirit! >> >> >>> No, Sam. if you have Greene's books look up block universe >> >>> which appears in both of them. >> >> >>> I have made no error whatsoever in my statements to you. >> >> >> Can you supply an excerpt. I don't have access to the book you are >> >> referring to. >> >> >> BTW: You're still not said WHY the universe cannot be block, and how >> >> you >> >> could tell whether or not it is. Other than we have to take it on >> >> faith >> >> and your assurances. >> >> > I don't have time to do Greene for you, but have a read of the >> > following >> > conversation, I hope it posts OK: >> >> Thanks >> >> BTW: You do know that in SR if you and another observer are at the same >> place now, regardless of your relative motion, you will experience >> exactly >> the same universe at that 'now'. Things the you see as simultaneous, >> they >> will see as simultaneous. > > When I saw this I had to double check to make sure you had written the > above and that you were not quoting someone else. The above is not > correct. The obvious example is the train experiment. When M and M' > coincide they are at the same place. For M the strikes are happening > at A and B now. For M' the strike already happen at B before he met > M, while the strike at A has yet to happen.
But they EXPERIENCE the same things. What you experience is what you sense .. what you sense is what happens where you are .. not at some other location. Indeed, it is impossible for something happening now somewhere else to affect you. These are events in space-time at your location. And the speed of an observer does not change events at some location. That's why I used the word experience.
Perhaps it would be a little clearer if I worded it as "you will have the same experience of the universe at the 'now'".
An example is that if two observers meet, travelling at different speeds (maybe one is walking past), .. for each of them a remote point at that time in their mutual x-direction in (say) another galaxy will correspond to different points in time in that remote galaxy. However, they will both have identical experiences of that galaxy. So, if there was a telescope where they pass, they would each see the same image of the galaxy from a single time. Even though what they consider (but not experience) as 'now' in that galaxy is different times.
