On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jesse, > > I haven't answered those questions out of any disrespect or rudeness but > because I was working on a new explanation which I think does specifically > address and answer all of them which I present in this post. I will be > happy to answer any of your questions if you think they are still relevant > after reading this post which I think solves the 1:1 age correlation to > your satisfaction. > That's the problem, you continually come up with new arguments and explanations that you think resolve the questions I asked and therefore mean you don't need to address them, but inevitably I disagree. Please just respect my judgment about what's relevant TO ME, and answer the questions that I ask ALONGSIDE any new arguments or explanations you might want to supply. You say above "I will be happy to answer any of your questions if you think they are still relevant after reading this post", so I will hold you to that by repeating a question I'd like you to answer at the end of this post. > > > If you find any of the terminology confusing please let me know what you > think it SHOULD be rather than just saying it's wrong. > > Twins A and B start at the same location in deep space. No acceleration, > no gravitation. Their ages are obviously the same, and their age clocks are > running at the same rate. > > They exchange flight plans and embark on their separate trips according to > those flight plans. > > Now the only effects that will alter the rates of their age clocks are > acceleration or gravitation. But each twin can continually measure the > amount of acceleration or gravitation he experiences with a scale. > Let's consider just the issue of accelerations in flat SR spacetime for now, since it's simpler. The problem with this statement is that although it's true each twin can measure their proper acceleration, there is no FRAME-INDEPENDENT equation in relativity for how a given acceleration affects the "rates of their age clocks", the only equations dealing with clock rates and acceleration in SR deal with how changes in coordinate velocity (determined by acceleration) affect the rate a clock is ticking relative to coordinate time in some specific coordinate system. > > So each twin can always calculate how much his age has slowed relative to > what his age WOULD HAVE BEEN had he NOT experienced any gravitation or > acceleration. Let's call that his 'inertial age', the age he WOULD have > been had he NOT experienced any acceleration or gravitation. > I see no way to define this in any frame-independent way. The only version of this that relativity would allow you to calculate is what your age would have been at a PARTICULAR COORDINATE TIME if you had remained inertial, and you can compare that to what your age is at that SAME COORDINATE TIME given your acceleration history. But this comparison obviously gives different results in different coordinate systems. So, I don't agree with your subsequent conclusion that this allows two twins to define a 1:1 correlation in their ages in a frame-independent way. There are a number of questions I asked in the last few posts that none of your answers have addressed, but I'll restrict myself to repeating one for now: 'Also, do you understand that even for inertial observers, the idea that an observer's own rest frame can be labeled "his view" or taken to describe "his observations" is PURELY A MATTER OF CONVENTION, not something that is forced on us by the laws of nature? Physicists just don't want to have to write out "in the observer's comoving inertial frame" all the time, so they just adopt a linguistic convention that lets them write simpler things like "from this observer's perspective" or "in his frame" as a shorthand for the observer's comoving inertial frame. Physically there is no reason an observer can't assign coordinates to events using rulers and clocks that are moving relative to himself though, lots of real-world experiments involve measuring-instruments that move relative to the people carrying out the experiment.' Do you agree with the above paragraph? Jesse > > On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 10:45:51 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Can you agree to this at least? >>> >> >> To repeat what I said in my second-to-last post: >> >> 'If you continue to ask me "Do you agree?" type questions while ignoring >> the similar questions I ask you, I guess I'll have to take that as a sign >> of contempt, in which case as I said I won't be responding to further posts >> of yours. Any response is better than just completely ignoring questions, >> even if it's something like "I find your questions ambiguous" or "you've >> asked too many questions and I don't have time for them all right now, >> please narrow it down to one per post".' >> >> If you decide to treat me with the same basic level of respect I have >> treated you, rather than making a show of asking me questions while you >> contemptuously ignore my requests that you address mine, then I will keep >> going with this. If not, I have better things to do. >> >> Jesse >> > -- > 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.
