Jason, No, in your example when James (why do you keep confusing things by changing the names?) whizzes by us at 80%c that is not a 'meeting'. A meeting is when there is NO relative motion. In your example for that to happen James would have to experience a massive decelleration which would change everything and end the relative equal opposte time dilations.

What you neglect to mention and account for is that in your example is that James thinks 5 of his years have passed but that we are only 3 years older, we think 5 years have passed and that he is only 3 years old. That effect is equal and opposite. This is a temporary illusion of measurement, a basic inconsistency of clock time frames (it's consistent for spacetime frames of course). Nevertheless this clock time inconsistency always occurs only in the same Present moment P-time. We simply both do exist when it occurs, we must for the occurrence to even happen. We just can't assign a consistent clock time to that occurrence while relative motion persists. Thus your example is explained away clearly by my post of yesterday and does not falsify Present moment P-time. Please clearly note that even in your example for the comparison to take place we and James MUST be in the same present moment for the comparison to even take place. It could not take place if we weren't. The clock times are different, but they are different in the exact same present moment P-time. That is the only way we could possibly know they were different. You almost had that concept a couple of days ago, but seem to keep confusing yourself trying to inappropriately apply relative motion clock time effects to it and losing it. Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 11:51:53 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net<javascript:> > > wrote: > > Jason, > > Thanks for your several posts and charts. You really made me think and I > like that! > > > Thanks, I am glad to hear it. :-) > > > I'm combining my responses to your multiple recent posts here. > > First though there are two ways to analyze it, GR acceleration, as opposed > to SR world lines, is the most useful because it makes the following > argument re present time easier to understand. > > > In my example, acceleration effects can account for no more than 4 minutes > worth of age difference, since they spend no more than 4 minutes > accelerating. How do we explain the other 3 years, 355 days, 23 hours and > 56 minutes that are missing from Pam's memory? > > > > Imagine a new experiment in which Pam is completely still relative to Sam > but somewhere way off in the universe and in a gravitational field of > exactly the same strength. In this case both Pam's and Sam's clock times > run at exactly the same rates and both agree to this. Therefore it is clear > they inhabit the exact same present moment even by your arguments, and > their identical clock times correlate to this. > > Now assume Pam's gravitational field increases to the point where her > clock time runs half as fast as Sam's. Again there is no relative motion so > again both agree that Pam's clock time is running half as fast as Sam's. > And again both exist in the exact same present moment, it's just that Sam's > clock time is running twice as fast through that common present moment. > Again clock time correlates with present moment time... > > > I think we should resolve the apparent problems P-time has with SR before > trying to tackle GR... > > > This gravitational time slowing is a GR, not SR effect, and GR effects are > absolute in the sense that they are permanent real effects that all > observers agree upon. They must be distinguished from SR effects which make > the situation more difficult to understand in terms of a present moment. > > > You may be right that P-time has no difficulties with GR, but it seems to > have some with SR so let us focus on solving that. > > > An acceleration equivalent to the gravitational field would produce the > exact same GR effect, but also introduces an SR relative velocity effect. > > Now consider an pure SR effect in which Pam and Sam are traveling past > each other at relativistic speeds but there is no acceleration. Velocity is > relative, as opposed to acceleration which is absolute, therefore both > observers think the other is moving relative to them, and both views are > equally true. Now because of this relativity of velocity both observers see > the clock of the other observer slow and by equal amounts. But the > absolutely crucial thing to understand here is that this SR form of time > dilation is not permanent and absolute like GR time dilation is. It > vanishes as soon as the relative motion stops, > > > That is not true, the the effects of dilation in SR remain as well. Let's > say James was born on a space ship at Proxima Cenauri travelling at 80% c > toward Earth. It takes 5 years to get to Earth at this speed, but when we > see baby James on board as he whizzes by he is only 3 years old. If the > ship stops (or not), James is still 3 years old. GR never was a factor in > James's reduced age. > > > whereas GR time differences are absolute and persist even after the > acceleration stops. > > This is why the SR versus GR model is more useful in understanding what is > going on particularly with respect to the common present moment. > > > SR and GR are not two ways of looking at the same phenomenon, but two ways > of explaining two different phenomena. > > > > So during relative motion between Pam and Sam there most certainly is a > common present moment, but trying to figure out what clock times of Pam and > Sam correspond to that present moment leads to a contradiction (as you > quite rightly pointed out with your diagrams) because Pam and Sam see clock > time differently and do not agree on it. They did agree on their GR > relativistic time differences and thus knowing which of their clock times > corresponded to the same present moment was easy. With SR, equal and > opposite, time dilation it is impossible to correlate both observers' clock > times to the same present moment. Nevertheless that's just an artifact of > SR clock time which doesn't falsify a common present moment. A common > present moment exists, it just isn't correlated with clock times the same > way by both observers. > > > Gabriel offered a clear example that I think falsifies the notion of a > single consistent present moment, and his point has not yet been adequately > addressed. > > > > All the nice chart examples you took the time to produce demonstrate this. > They are trying to assign an agreed upon clock time to the common present > moment time during SR relative velocities and thus they correctly lead to > the contradiction you pointed out. > > However once you understand how this works > > > Do you currently understand how this works or are you also still trying to > figure it out? > > > you understand that fact doesn't falsify a common present moment as you > implied. > > > Why doesn't it? I am not seeing it or you haven't explained it clearly > enough for me to get it. > > > Now consider the twins from the original example. In this case there is > both lots of relative velocity SR effects between both twins, and there is > the absolute GR acceleration effect on Pam only. > > Now the SR effects persist only during relative motion and when the twins > meet up again that leaves ONLY the GR acceleration effect which is the only > cause of the twins' clock time difference. > > > If Pam were under acceleration for just a few minutes it could not explain > an age difference of years. If you put Pam under the gravity of a black > hole for 4 minutes, she would not age much during those 4 minutes, and so > when you took the black hole away you would find her 4 minutes younger. In > the experiment I described, the acceleration, which you compare to gravity, > only lasts a few minutes. It is the time dilation of special relativity > that accumulates over the years, and remains to explain the bulk of their > age difference. > > > All SR relative velocity effects must vanish when the relative velocities > cease. Otherwise we would have Pam and Sam meeting up again with each > claiming the other's clock time was going slower than theirs. That is > impossible. > > > It is possible when you consider the geometry of the situation, as Brent's > nice charts further clarify. (What software did you use to make them Brent?) > > > At rest in the same present moment all observers must be able to agree on > their clock time differences. Both agree Pam's clock time passed more > slowly than Sam's and both agree as to the amount, based ONLY on GR > (acceleration) effects. > > > Not true. > > > Assume again the twins passing each other at a constant (no acceleration) > velocity. Both see the other's time passing slower than theirs and thus > both see each other at an earlier clock time date than themselves. This is > contradictory > > > It is not contradictory, it is because their paths are at an angle to each > other through space time. If both of our paths are at 22.5 degrees toward > each other, either of us can consistently say "the other is at a 45 degree > angle toward me." This is not inconsistency, only relativity. > > > and cannot last when they meet. It is the acceleration that brings the > relative velocities to zero that produces the only absolute persistent time > effect and when, and only when, that happens will the twins agree as to > their time differences, as always in a shared universal present moment. > > > In my "James example", there is no acceleration on James but he ages only > 3 years in his 5 year journey. > > > This is why is is possible to correlated clock times to present moment > time for GR acceleration time dilation, but NOT for SR relative velocity > time dilation. > > Hope this is clear. It may be a little difficult... > > > > I don't think we've yet addressed the core issues between SR and P-time. > Also, you have not said what use P-time has beyond SR. What can it explain > that SR cannot? In other words, when would it make a prediction that > differs from SR? > > Jason > > > > > On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:52:54 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Jason, > > You may be missing the fact that the acceleration of the space traveller > is what causes the twin paradox. > > > I would say it is not so much the acceleration that explains the paradox, > but the fact that no matter how you rotate the paths, you always see a kink > in the path Pam takes. So even if we start in Pam's reference frame where > she is still, she has to stop (putting her back in the reference frame > where Sam is 5 (not 1.8), then accelerate to 0.8 c back toward Earth, which > she will see as length contracted to 2.4 ly again, and she will experience > as taking 3 years, but in this frame, of heading back toward Earth at 0.8 > c, Sam is not 5, but 7, so when she gets there after 3 years, Sam is (as > she expects) 10 years old. > > It isn't the acceleration which causes her age to suddenly change, but > rather, her changing frames of reference (present moments), that causes her > perspective of Sam to radically change, depending on her velocity. > > > As Edgar pointed out, time dilation is mutual, but only while velocities > are constant. > > > Their relative velocity in relation to each other, and therefore their > relative time dilations and length contractions, are always the same. > > > Your diagram demonstrated that the straight line parts of Pam's movement > could be mapped either way onto Sam's (just tilt the diagram. But you can't > may the entire trajectory onto Earth time by tilting the diagram. > > > I'm not sure what you mean by this.. > > > > Apologies if I'm teaching my gradnmother to suck eggs. > > > No worries. Let me know if my example or explanation still does not make > sense. :-) > > Jason > > > > > On 3 January 2014 15:25, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote: > > Jason, > > An excellent question. First of all let's stick with the actual example of > only Sam and Pam. Now how do you know all this stuff about who is doing > what when? > > > I calculate it from the parameters of the experiment as I described it. > The different answers depend on different reference frames, which you can > consider as straight lines dividing the past and future (but at different > angles depending on one's velocity through space). > > [image: Inline image 1] > > If you consider the gold and purple stars as two different events, the > person moving to the right sees the present as all events on the blue line, > and so they see the purple star happen before the yellow star, and vice > versa for the observer moving to the left, whose present is represented by > the red line. They see the yellow star come before the purple star. > > > How are you measuring it to know it's true? > > > 4 light years away, at 80% the speed of light. It is no different than > figuring out how long it takes to travel 4 miles at 0.8 miles per year. > However, when travelling at these speeds, you have to contend with length > contraction and time dilation (which are two aspects of the same phenomenon > seen from two different perspectives). > > See: http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/ > SpecRel/Flash/LengthContract.html for a good explanation. > > > And again the important point to understand is that you MUST disregard SR > relative velocity effects which are illusory and non-permanent and vanish > when the relative velocities cease when they meet again. > > > You cannot disregard them. Otherwise you cannot explain why Pam is 6 when > she meets with Sam at 10. > > > SR effects are not 'real' in the sense of being absolute. They are > transient and relative and equal and opposite for both observers. Both see > the other's time slow but that is just measurements, their time is not > actually slowing in any absolute permanent sense. By that I mean they are > illusions of measurement that exist only during relative motion. So they > are not relevant when trying to analyze what is happening in the present > moment. > > > They aren't illusions, from each one's own reference frame, the other is > going more slowly through time. > > > > GR acceleration affects on the other hand are real and absolute and > experienced the same by both observers as the slowing of only the > accelerating twin's clock relative to the non-accelerating twin's clock. > > > Relativity explains clock desynchronization. GR only comes into play when > gravity is concerned. Pam would still be 6 and Sam 10, even if they > accelerated instantly, or if Pam was already in motion when they were both > born. > > > > I think when temporary SR effects are eliminated this problem is resolved > and your question is answered... > > > It's the SR effects that explain the age differences, and Pam doesn't age > 4 years when she decelerates. > > Jason > > > > On Thursday, January 2, 2014 8:39:08 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote: > > Jason, > > That's very simple P-time allows us to explain how there is a present > moment in which we experience our mutual existence, are able to converse > together, shake hands, and compare our (different) clock times. > > If there weren't such a common present moment distinct from our different > clock times we could do none of those things because we would be in > different moments of existence. We wouldn't even inhabit the same reality. > > Obviously that's not a function of being in the same clock time, because > it happens when we are in different clock times as well.... > > > I think it does lead to a problem. Pam and Sam start at the same time, > they are both zero and at Earth. They kiss each other good bye and Pam goes > off into space. The present moment advances and both Pam and Sam experience > something, they are now slightly older and both doing and experiencing > something at this time. > > A little time later, they are both slightly older, and they are both > experiencing something. and so on, and this keeps happening, each of them > experiences one moment after the other. Now, eventually, the event happens > where Pam gets to her destination, Pam is now 3. > > You agreed in an earlier e-mail that Sam is definitely doing something in > this common present P-time when Pam arrives. > > Then a little time later, both are slightly older, and both are > experiencing something. Then Sam turns 2 years old. A little time later, > they are both slightly older, and they are both experiencing something. and > so on, and this keeps happening, each of them experiences one moment after > the other. > > Finally, Pam arrives back on Earth, Sam is 10 and Pam is 6. They shake > hands and hug. > > Notice though that from one P-time to the next, and so on, continuously, > in one P-time Pam was at her destination, and Sam was definitely doing > something, and he was definitely less than 2 years old, because in a later > P-time Sam had his 2nd birthday at the same time Pam was already on her way > back to Earth. > > Yet, in an equally valid perspective (according to relativity) Sam's 2nd > birthday happens before Pam reaches her destination. So if there is a > single P-time, how can the event, Sam's 2nd birthday, happen when Pam is on > her way back AND happen before Pam reaches her destination. If every > P-time is ordered and sequential, this simply isn't possible. You have to > accept that there is more than one consistent way to order the succession > of present moments, which means there is no common present moment everyone > shares. > > You are right that without "some principle X" we wouldn't inhabit the same > reality, but relativity shows that "some principle X" is not, and cannot be > a global, shared, agreed upon succession of present moments. The "some > principle X" is instead, a four-dimensional existence, space-time, and > consistent presents are just "slices" through this space time. If you > envision it in this way, you can perfectly account for all the consistent > views and orderings either Sam, Pam, or Bob might have about which events > happen when, and where, and in what order. > > Jason > > > > On Thursday, January 2, 2014 6:05:36 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> 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 > > ... -- 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.