On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jason, > > Apparently we are not talking about the same scenario here somehow. > > Only acceleration/gravitation effects produce permanent clock time > differences that both observers agree to when they meet up again. > This contradicts established physics and therefore is falsified Richard > > The same amount of acceleration, no matter where or when (or an equivalent > gravitational field), produces the same amount of permanent time dilation. > This contradicts physical data that is repeatable and therefore the hypothesis is falsified. Richard > > You claim that this is an SR effect and a geometric effect. As I said you > can analyze it that way, but the fact is that the geometry is CAUSED by GR > gravitational and acceleration effects. As I'm sure you know gravitation > expresses itself via spacetime geometry. In any world line diagram, changes > in direction of the lines are CAUSED by accelerations. The geometry is an > effect of gravitation/acceleration. That is GR at work... > > Or maybe you are confusing the picture by confusing GR and SR effects. It > is true that accelerations also cause relative motions which add SR effects > to the GR effects, but all relative motion effects are NON-permanent and > cease as soon as the relative motion ceases and the twins meet up again. > > So you CANNOT properly analyze this with respect to Present moment P-time, > as I pointed out in great detail in yesterday's post, WHILE there is still > relative motion. That leads to a contradiction, and I clearly explained > that contradiction and why it does not falsify the notion of a common > present moment in my post yesterday. > > There is always a common Present moment P-time, but (only) during relative > motion it is impossible to assign a consistent mapping that ALL observers > agree upon of clock time to P-time. But that doesn't mean P-time doesn't > exist. It just says that SR clock time effects can't be mapped consistently > to it because they are different for different relative motion observers in > the SAME present moment. But that is a temporary illusion of measurement. > > Relative motion equal and opposite clock time dilation is an ILLUSION of > measurement that disappears as soon as the relative motion stops. On the > other hand acceleration/gravitation clock time dilation is an absolute > permanent clock time effect that all observers agree upon WHEN there is no > relative motion. > > That should clarify everything but I fear it won't.... > > Edgar > > On Friday, January 3, 2014 11:23:42 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Jason, >>> >>> Come on Jason. Of course not. You have to have EQUAL amounts of >>> acceleration to produce the same effect. But doesn't matter where in space >>> it is. >>> >> >> There are equal amounts of acceleration in both cases: 4 minutes worth. >> >> What there is not equal amounts of is relativistic time dilation, which >> is what explains the bulk of the age difference in the Sam-Pam case. The >> time dilation and slowed ageing of Pam is due to her high speed. She does >> not regain those lost years when she comes to a stop. So your statement >> that all the effects of SR vanish once they are back in the same frame is >> false. >> >> True, they are no longer time dilated or length contracted relative to >> each other, but they are still different in age because of it. >> >> Jason >> >> >>> >>> Edgar >>> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:24:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jason, >>>>> >>>>> If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the >>>>> same... Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of >>>>> equivalence) it could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational field. >>>>> >>>>> Edgar >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Okay but this is certainly not what happens. If you spent 4 minutes >>>> accelerating and came back, there would not be a 4 year age difference when >>>> Pam returned. >>>> >>>> Jason >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:06:08 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Lliz, Brent and Jason, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually Liz is correct here, by GR it is the acceleration. That is >>>>>>> the physical cause of the clock time differences of the twins. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In my experiment, lets say the acceleration lats for a total of 4 >>>>>> minutes: one minute to accelerate up to 0.8 c, one minute to slow down at >>>>>> Proxima Centauri, one minute to accelerate back up to 0.8 c toward Earth, >>>>>> and a final minute to accelerate down to back at Earth. >>>>>> >>>>>> If the accelerations alone account for the clock discrepancies, then >>>>>> there would be no need to go to Proxima Centauri at all. Pam could >>>>>> spend 4 >>>>>> minutes whizzing around the solar system and get in all the same >>>>>> accelerations. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is this what you are saying? >>>>>> >>>>>> Jason >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> It is true the effects can also be analyzed just by spacetime paths >>>>>>> as others have suggested, but it is actually the acceleration (or >>>>>>> equivalent gravitational field which is in effect an acceleration) which >>>>>>> actually physically produces the clock time differences when the twins >>>>>>> meet >>>>>>> up again. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Edgar >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:27:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 3 January 2014 17:30, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR <[email protected]> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> May I venture to suggest this is the same thing :-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's not exactly wrong - but it tends to make it confusing. >>>>>>>>> It's like saying a road from A to B is longer than as-the-crow-flies >>>>>>>>> because of its curves. Yeah, that's true; but if you want to >>>>>>>>> calculate how >>>>>>>>> much longer you see that the rate of excess distance is proportional >>>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>>> first integral of the curvature and so the total excess is the second >>>>>>>>> integral of the curvature - which is just the distance. So it boils >>>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>>> to unstraight lines are longer than straight lines. All the specific >>>>>>>>> details of acceleration get integrated out so it's easy to see that a >>>>>>>>> broken line (infinite accelerations) is just longer. Or in spacetime, >>>>>>>>> unstraight worldlines are shorter than straight ones. To phrase it in >>>>>>>>> terms of acceleration misleads people into thinking about the >>>>>>>>> stressful >>>>>>>>> effects of acceleration and how that could affect a clock,... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I bow to your superior knowledge. I wasn't thinking about the >>>>>>>> aging effects of acceleration (as in the Heinlein story where they >>>>>>>> have to >>>>>>>> fly to Pluto at 3G) but just the fact that the course changes are the >>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>> way the twin paradox can be enacted - that is to say, it's what breaks >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> symmetry that otherwise exists between one ref frame's measurements and >>>>>>>> another's. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>>> 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 [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
