2014/1/4 Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> > Jason, > > If you don't agree with my theory of the Present moment, then what is your > theory of this present moment we all experience our existence and all our > actions within? > > It clearly is not a clock time simultaneity since Pam and Sam shake hands > and compare watches in the same present moment and their clock times are > not simultaneous. > > When they do they are in the same reference frame... that's all there is to it... the rest is crackpotery.
Quentin > This question is the key to the whole issue. Be interested to hear your > answer... > > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[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. 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 >> >> ... > > -- > 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. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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.
