"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
. net...
G. L. Bradford wrote:
The physicist, in particular Tom Roberts among many others around, will
tell you there is no difference whatsoever between a physicist's
observation made at a distance -- or rather brought to the physicist by
light per the speed of light -- and a telepathic onsite -- thus
instantaneously onsite -- observation where there is no distance --
and/or no spacetime velocity curve -- whatsoever between the physicist
and anything he or she observes.

You are hallucinating. I have never said or implied anything at all like
that. Please do not attempt to state what I think or have said -- you are
woefully incompetent to do that.

regarding an all history universe, not in the least. It's my fifty-three
year speciality.



He, and/or she, DOES NOT observe time delayed PHOTO-images of twin and
clock, they observe, instantaneously, the object twin and the object
clock. They are here in space and time, and they are there in space and
time, at exactly the same time, which a physicist can be but no normal
human can ever be.

You clearly have no understanding at all what we mean when we construct a
coordinate system.

You clearly have no understanding of an all history universe and its
light-time coordinate system ((-) (-) (-) (0)).


When using an inertial coordinate system in SR, one always arranges to
have a coordinate clock [#] located wherever any measurement is to be
made, and one posts an assistant there to read the clock and make the
measurement. The measurements from all such assistants are collected and
compared after the experiment is concluded. In real experiments, of
course, the assistants are usually electronic....

[#] all coordinate clocks of a given inertial coordinate system
are of course mutually synchronized in that system.

This is, of course, PRECISELY what one does in analytic geometry using a
Cartesian coordinate system, generalized to include time.

That is, when measuring the position of point A, one
measures its coordinates RIGHT THERE AT POINT A. Similarly,
for point B one measures its coordinates RIGHT THERE AT
POINT B. So the analyst has an overall "omniscient" view
without being restricted to any specific location or
viewpoint.


As I said, you clearly have no understanding of an all history universe
and its light-time coordinate system ((-) (-) (-) (0)).


Seriously, most physicists will never explain the difference between
subjective and objective reality (between NON-LOCAL phenomena and LOCAL
phenomena) because according to most physicists -- and again specifically
Tom Roberts -- there is no difference between the two.

Again you fail COMPLETELY to understand what I have said -- I have never
said anything like this, either. Please do not attempt to state what I
think or have said -- you are woefully incompetent to do that.


You don't have to say it verbatum, you say it in every other way, such as
in what you say concerning the "twin paradox."


[... further nonsense illustrating B.L.Bradford's ignorance]


As I just recently pointed out elsewhere, I'm the one who's just beginning
to prove -- among your kind no less -- around here. I don't deal in Special
Relativity concerning the fixed surface of the Earth or any other spatially
fixed planetary surface. I'm the one who has been dealing for years in the
prevasive histories (-), a.k.a. the pervasive light-times (-), of an "all
history" universe and the objectively real travelers who would travel it [up
through histories FROM THE RELATIVE PAST] to arrive at objectively real
destinations. I don't start travelers out from zero (0). I start them out,
relatively speaking, from how the universe only too obviously looks
according to light and the speed of light, from the past (-), to the deep
past (-), of the [object] destination (0). I don't start them out relative
to this object Earth, I start them out from a subjective Earth that is quite
obviously [already (to begin with)] negatively relative to their object
destination in time. It's just not at all obvious to you, and never has been
("twin paradox" / "violation of causality").

And please don't tell me the idea of "travel backward in time" is no
longer anything physicists have anything to do with. Hawking talks about its
probability in his latest books I have from him. Michio Kaku was talking
about its probability, and what a "revelation" it was to him, just the other
day on a program on my science channel I was watching. I'm running across an
increasing number of you guys who actually believe in its probability
(rather than just its possibility). The idea is just as prevalent now as it
has ever been among you physicists, IF NOT EVEN MORE PREVALENT NOW THAN IN
THE PAST! The difference between them and me is....the past (-) is where I
start every traveler out from (relative to the [object] destination (0))
rather than end them at (-)! They will end up negative in [apparent time] to
their point of origin rather than their destination, which is exactly the
way the "all history" universe looks (-) per light and the speed of light
from each and every locality (0) of it.


Tom Roberts

GLB