Jesse, You agree "It is true that they both agree on an overview which says things along the lines of "In frame 1, X is true, in frame 2, Y is true""
Presumably what you mean by that is that both A and B agree on (1) A's calculation of B's t' in A's frame AND (2) B's calculation of A's t in B's frame. Is that correct? They both can know each other's relativistic calculations of their own clock times. Correct? Yes or no? Question 1: Do you agree those 2 frames are mathematically correlated? Yes, or no? 2. Do you agree that each frame contains the variable t (A's reading of his own clock) and t' (B's reading of his own clock), that each frame gives a relationship between those two variables? Yes or no? 3. Do you agree that A's frame gives a value of t' in terms of t? And B's frame gives a value for t in term's of t'? Yes or no? 4. Do you understand that if we have equations for t' in terms of t in A's frame, and t in terms of t' in B's frame, that we can always establish a 1: 1 correlation between t in A's frame and t' in B's frame? Yes or no? To your last question I provided nearly a DOZEN numerical examples, and procedures of how the above works in specific examples, apparently none of which seems to have registered with you. Lastly, once more, for the nth time, your spatial coordinates point is just equivalent to saying you can use an arbitrary clock time coordinate system which is trivially true. But the fact you can get arbitrarily different clock times or location on a measuring tape that way does NOT change the fact that we are talking about REAL actual, exact and fixed age differences. You seem obsessed with this tape analogy which has NOTHING to do with the discussion. You are continually harping on a point to which I agree (assuming you won't try switching the goal posts again). That it's possible in relativity to assign arbitrary coordinate systems for either space OR CLOCK TIME. However that has nothing to do with the fact of real age differences which is the only REAL clock here, the biological clocks. Doesn't matter in the least if you measure those age differences with clocks running at whatever speed or start time you like, the real age differences do NOT change. Doesn't matter where the origin of your tapes are or whether they are reading inches or meters. The actual location they measure does NOT change. So wind your tapes back into their housings for goodness sakes! Edgar but since those frames are mathematically related by the rules of relativity that always allows Edgar On Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:55:13 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > > Jesse, > > 4 questions: > > 1. Do you agree that for every relativistic scenario involving 2 > relativistic observers A and B, that relativity provides a description of > how each observes the other's clock time vary relative to their own clock? > That it provides 2 descriptions, both consistent with relativity theory? > > Yes or no? > > > Yes. > > > > 2. Do you agree that A can always know what B's view of him is, and that B > can always know what A's view of him is? Both A and B understand relativity > theory so they can, right? > > Yes or no? > > > Yes. > > > > 3: Do you agree that this means that the two views taken together are > something both A and B agree on? That both A and B always have an agreed on > frame independent OVERview of their whole relativistic relationship that > consists of knowledge of both frames? > > Yes or no? > > > No, although this is just a matter of terminology--that's not what > physicists mean by "frame independent", they mean a particular physical > variable whose value is the same regardless of what frame you use to > calculate it, like the proper time between two events on a specific > worldline. It is true that they both agree on an overview which says things > along the lines of "In frame 1, X is true, in frame 2, Y is true". > > > > 4. Do you see how this mutual agreed on understanding of how each's clock > time varies in the other's frame always allows each to correlate their own > comoving clock time with the comoving (own) clock time of the other? In > other words for A to always know what B's clock time was reading when A's > clock time was reading t, and for B to always know what A's clock time was > reading when B's clock time was reading t'? > > Yes or no? > > > No. Nowhere have you provided a mathematical explanation or even a > numerical example where you show how the fact that they agree on each > frame's description allows them to derive a unique truth about > simultaneity. Moreover, there is a spatial analogy to each of the > statements 1-3 involving a pair of different Cartesian coordinate systems > and how they each say different things about which markings on two > measuring tapes are at the "same y", yet you would NOT similarly conclude > there must be some coordinate-independent truth about which markings are at > the "same y" (and before you object that spatial examples are irrelevant, > please respond to my questions in the post at > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/xtjSyxxi4awJ, > specifically the one that asks which of two statements A or B better > matches your view about the logic behind your conclusion of absolute > simultaneity). > > Jesse > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > On Thursday, February 13, 2014 3:24:02 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jesse, > > I haven't seen any book on relativity point this out even though it is > quite obviously what relativity actually does. Do you deny relativity gives > equations for BOTH frames for each single relativistic scenario? That, my > friend, is frame independence.... > > > Sure, it gives equations for both frames, but you haven't given any sort > of mathematical derivation to show how this leads to the conclusion that > there must be a unique "true" definition of simultaneity, or what that > definition would be. In Cartesian geometry we can have different coordinate > systems which have different equations for which markings on different > measuring tapes have the same y-coordinate, but you DON'T conclude that > this implies there must be a unique "true" way of defining something like > "y-equality". > > > > > Answer to second paragraph. Depends on what you mean by "instantaneous > acceleration". There is no such thing yet you are claiming it has an actual > physical effect. > > > See my other recent post where I explained that "instantaneous > acceleration" can be understood either in terms of the limit as a finite > acceleration period gets briefer and briefer, or just an approximation for > an acceleration that's very brief compared to the timescales that we are > considering in the problem. > > Jesse > > > > > > > > On Thursday, February 13, 2014 2:09:29 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jesse, > > The same reading in the exact same sense that relativity tells us they do > which I've already explained for the nth time. It's in the same frame > independent sense that relativity is able to meaningfully define 2 frames > for any 1 relativistic scenario. That gives us the frame independent method > to get the answer. That answer is given by relativity theory, not by p-time > theory. > > > > But do you agree that this is your own original conclusion about the > implications of SR that somehow all mainstream physicists have missed, that > no relativity textbook will discuss any "frame independent method" to > determine simultaneity? > > Also, do you agree that your statement "when the relative motion magically > stops, their clocks will still read the same as each other's" would NOT be > true if we were comparing readings in their common rest > > ... -- 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.
