On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:
> Jesse, > > I agree that Individual relativistic equations from a particular > coordinate system don't support p-time simultaneity but comparing both > equations of the two coordinate systems in the system, e.g. twin A and twin > B, relativity clearly DOES imply a notion of p-time simultaneity because it > does allow a 1:1 relationship between the comoving clock times in their own > frames of A and B. > You mean even if twins A and B are in relative notion you think "comparing both equations of the two coordinate systems ... does allow a 1:1 relationship between the comoving clock times in their own frame of A and B"? If so, I have no idea what you mean. Say twin B and twin A start moving away from each other with a relative speed of 0.6c at birth, so in each one's rest frame the other one's clock is running slow by a factor of 0.8. Then in twin A's inertial rest frame, the event of A turning 50 is simultaneous with twin B turning 40, but in B's inertial rest frame, the event of B turning 40 is simultaneous with A turning 32. So what is the "1:1 relationship" here, and what event on A's worldline does it pair with the event of B turning 40? Jesse On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:27:38 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote: > > Jesse, > > Both, but you completely ignored my broad conceptual argument I gave first > thing this morning of why relativity itself assumes an unstated present > moment background to all relativistic relationships. > > > You mean the post at https://groups.google.com/ > d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/mHoddIqTX7kJ ? But I didn't ignore it > at all, I responded to it at https://groups.google.com/ > d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/yDwctm892xMJ by pointing out some > crucial parts early on I disagreed with, on which the entire argument after > that seemed to rest. In particular, "relativistic calculations" do not > support the idea of a unique 1:1 relationship between clock times, since > different frames give *different* relationships between clock times and > clock rates, and all frames are considered equally valid. Of course I > realize that p-time *postulates* such a unique 1:1 relationship, but you > seemed to say relativistic calculations themselves provided one, which just > isn't true. > > > Sorry, but I disagree on your second point. P-time simultaneity does NOT > have purely spatial analogues. > > > I never asserted p-time simultaneity had spatial analogues. My point was > that for any argument you made to try to *establish* the need for p-time > using quantitative observations about the twin paradox (as opposed to just > assuming p-time as a given), I could point to a spatial analogue. > > If you weren't interested in trying to provide a demonstration to convince > others that block time is flawed and that p-time is needed, but were merely > talking about what would be true *if* p-time existed, then I wouldn't > bother bringing up spatial analogues. But it seems to me you are indeed > trying to make an argument for it, not just assume it, so they are quite > relevant to that. > > So, the question remains: do you think there are any quantitative aspects > of the twin paradox scenario (involving clock times, coordinate times, > relativistic equations, etc.) which DO NOT have direct spatial analogues in > the measuring tape scenario? If so what are they? > > Jesse > > > > > Clock time does, at least in your weak sense..... I did explain that at > length more than once... > > Edgar > > > > On Sunday, February 9, 2014 3:29:39 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote: > > Jesse, > > The crux of my answer to the crossed tapes question was that yes that > would be true of clock time but not for p-time. Again you are using the > question to argue against clock time simultaneity. And I agree with that > 100%. It's just not p-time... > > > But weren't you trying to use the twin paradox scenario to make an > *argument* in favor of p-time, rather than just assuming it from the start? > If so, then I'm wondering if the argument just involves pointing to some > broad conceptual understanding of what happens in the twin paradox > scenario, or if you think there are specific numerical facts that don't > have any good interpretation under a purely "geometric" understanding of > spacetime (like the fact that they can be at the "same point in spacetime" > but have elapsed different ages since their previous meeting). If it's the > latter, then it's reasonable to point out that these numerical facts have > exact analogues in purely geometric facts about the measuring tapes (like > the fact that the tapes can cross at the "same point in space" but have > elapsed different tape-measure distances since their previous crossing). > > Jesse > > > > > > Edgar > > > > On Sunday, February 9, 2014 2:22:20 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote: > > Jesse, > > It's not clear to me what you mean by, "in every coordinate system the > time-coordinate of A = the time-coordinate of B. Are you actually > disagreeing with that (please answer clearly yes or no)". > > The way I understand that the answer is clearly NO. The whole idea of > relativity is that the time coordinates (clock times) of A and B are NOT in > general the same in either A nor B's coordinate systems, or any other > coordinate system. > > > I think I see where you are confused--the term "time coordinate" does NOT > in general mean the same thing as "clock times" in relativity, it only does > if the clock in question is a coordinate clock (part of a ruler/clock > system as I described), or happens to agree exactly with a coordinate clock > at the same point in spacetime. The time on a clock which isn't a > coordinate clock is referred to as a "proper time" for that clock, not a > "time coordinate". So with that clarification on the terminology used by > physicists, would you agree with my quoted statement above? > > > > And I did answer your crossing tapes example in detail showing how it is > not relevant for p-time. I'm beginning to wonder if you actual read my > posts... > > > I asked for an answer to the specific question of whether there is any > quantitative feature of the twin paradox scenario that doesn't have a > quantitative analogue in the measuring tape scenario. Before the most > recent post of yours that I was responding to when I asked this question, > the only earlier posts of yours I can remember directly responding to the > issue of spatial analogies are the ones http://www.mail-archive.com/ev > erything-l...@googlegroups.com/msg48047.html and > http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/msg48049.html, > but both of them featured variation on the broad conceptual objection > that any spatial situation like cars on a road or wires in ice must > themselves exist in time, but I addressed this issue in my own post at > http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/msg48058.htmlpointing > out that we could restr > > ... -- 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. -- 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.
