Jason, How do you know "From Pam's point of view the event of her reaching Proxima Centauri happens *before *Sam's 4th birthday. But from Sam's point of view, Pam reaching Proxima Centauri happens *after *his 4th birthday!"? How do you measure that?

You have to be careful to eliminate SR time dilation effects which are MUTUAL illusions of measurement that disappear when relative motion ceases, and stick with only the actual time dilation (clock slowing) of GR effects of accelerations which are real and actual and are all that is left when the twins meet up again. It is only these GR acceleration effects which account for the different clock time t values when Pam and Sam meet up again. The SR time dilation effects vanish at that point since they are due only to relative linear velocities which then cease. What we do know is that both Pam's and Sam's clock time proceeds in an orderly sequential fashion through their own experience of the present moment, and that present moment is shared before and after the journey. Thus the same present moment was inhabited DURING the trip as well, but what each is doing at any particular present time moment is not necessarily knowable by the other. Edgar Edgar On Thursday, January 2, 2014 6:19:52 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > Edgar, > > I realized there is another problem. It is not just that we don't what > Sam is doing, but it seems the present moment P-time does not proceed in an > orderly or logical manner. > > From Pam's point of view the event of her reaching Proxima Centauri > happens *before *Sam's 4th birthday. But from Sam's point of view, Pam > reaching Proxima Centauri happens *after *his 4th birthday! > > If there is a single, orderly proceeding, present moment, then I see no > what whatever to reconcile the incompatibility of these views... > > Jason > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net<javascript:> >> > wrote: >> >>> Jason, >>> >>> I said I don't know because SR doesn't know. What's wrong with that? >>> It's consistent with SR. >>> >> >> Nothing is wrong with that position, I just thought P-time might offer an >> answer to this problem which exists in SR. >> >> >>> >>> I don't know WHAT Sam is doing at any particular moment in the shared >>> present moment, but I know he exists and is doing something. What's wrong >>> with that? If I had a mathematical way to determine that I'd certainly let >>> you know but as far as I know there isn't any. We just have to accept the >>> fact that everything isn't mathematical. Consciousness and the present >>> moment are examples. Clocks don't measure P-time. There is no P-time clock >>> that reads P-time. We know we are in the same present moment P-time not but >>> having synchronized clocks but by shaking hands and comparing clocks, and >>> by just living our lives and communicating like we always did whether our >>> clocks are the same or not. >>> >>> There is no clock that displays P-time. However everything is logical, >>> and I've given the logical reasoning... >>> >> >> What does P-time predict or allow us to explain that special relativity >> does not or cannot? >> >> Thanks for your answers. >> >> Jason >> >> >> >>> On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:30:37 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Liz, >>>>> >>>>> We'll let Jason judge whether I answered him or not. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> You did answer, but your answer is that you did not know (you said it >>>> what was whatever relativity predicts, but relativity also has no answer >>>> without a defined reference frame). >>>> >>>> However according to P-time, Sam must be doing *something *at the >>>> exact moment Pam arrives at her destination. Is that something celebrating >>>> his fifth birthday or not? >>>> >>>> If there is some certain thing he is doing at that instant (which I >>>> think follows from P-time), your P-time theory ought to have some >>>> mathematical way of providing an answer that question, should it not? If >>>> it >>>> does not, then what is the advantage of P-time over special relativity? >>>> >>>> Jason >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:14:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 3 January 2014 10:00, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Liz, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I answered Jason directly. See that post. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> By not answering, yes. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is no preferred CLOCK time frame. There is a shared common >>>>>>> present moment they both share which is 'preferred' in that sense. >>>>>>> Again >>>>>>> you are confusing clock time and Present moment time. See my response >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> Jason for one more approach that might make it understandable. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It is preferred in the sense that it defines an inertial frame. From >>>>>> what you have said so far that frame is the Earth's rest frame (or let's >>>>>> say the rest frame of the CMB, which seems more physically plausible - >>>>>> they >>>>>> are fairly close from the point of view of relativistic travel). Saying >>>>>> that a frame of reference is special - e.g. that it computes reality - >>>>>> should have observable consequences, probably for dispersion in high >>>>>> energy >>>>>> cosmic rays. Have you worked out what those are, so they can be tested >>>>>> experimentally? So far your theory appears to be just words, and from >>>>>> the >>>>>> response you've had so far, not very convincing ones. It needs a >>>>>> mathematical underpinning, as I requested way back but haven't yet seen, >>>>>> before it can really be called a theory. >>>>>> >>>>>> Or if you prefer to stick with just words, please try to show some >>>>>> reason, any reason, for anyone to think that P-time actually exists and >>>>>> does some useful work in explaining reality. Just saying it's "obvious", >>>>>> and "no one understands you" isn't enough (well, not unless you're a >>>>>> teenager, at least.) >>>>>> >>>>>> See everyone's responses to your posts, but especially Jason's, for >>>>>> any number of approaches that might make this understandable. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> >>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >>> To post to this group, send email to >>> everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >>> . >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >> >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.