On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:
> Jesse, > > First I would appreciate it if you didn't snip my proximate post that you > are replying to... > > Anyway we MUST choose a frame that preserves the symmetry because remember > we are trying to establish a 1:1 proper time correlation BETWEEN THE TWINS > THEMSELVES (not them and anyone else), and it is only a symmetric frame > that preserves the facts as EXPERIENCED BY THE TWINS THEMSELVES. ALL we > need to do in my p-time theory is demonstrate that each twin can correlate > his OWN proper time with that of the other twin. > But you agreed earlier (in your post at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/PYrVLII1ClYJ ) that the idea of calling the comoving inertial frame of an observer "their own frame" is purely a matter of CONVENTION, not anything imposed on them by "reality". So, we could easily choose a different convention--one in which each twin defines "their own frame", or "what they experience themselves", as the inertial frame in which they have a velocity of 0.99c along the x-axis. If they both agreed to define "the facts as experienced by the twins themselves" in this way, by convention, they could also agree on a 1:1 correlation between their proper times, one that would be different from the 1:1 correlation they'd get if they used the comoving frame. Do you wish to take back your earlier agreement that phrases like "their own frame", "their view", "what they observe/experience" are only by CONVENTION understood to refer to the comoving inertial frame, that this isn't something forced on us by reality? If you still agree this is a matter of convention, then it seems to me that trying to use something that's merely a matter of human linguistic convention to prove something absolute about "reality" is obviously silly, like trying to prove something about the essential nature of God by noting that according to the spelling conventions of English, "God" is "dog" spelled backwards. > > All the other frames are the views of OTHER observers, not the views of > the twins themselves which is all that we need to consider to establish > whether the TWINS THEMSELVES can establish a 1:1. > > Obviously if all observers agreed on an invariant 1:1 correlation we never > would have to establish the 1:1 on a successive observer pair basis and > then try to prove it transitive as I've consistently worked on doing. > > MY theory establishes this 1:1 correlation BETWEEN THE ACTUAL TWINS > THEMSELVES on a pairwise basis, not on the basis of any invariance. > Therefore it obviously uses a symmetric frame that is consistent with how > those two twins experience their own and each other's realities and doesn't > require input from any other frames to do that. > That isn't obvious at all--I don't see how the symmetric frame reflects their "experience" in any way that isn't purely a matter of convention, they certainly don't "experience" their proper times and velocities being equal at each coordinate time if they don't CHOOSE to use a particular coordinate system. All that they directly "experience" in a way that doesn't depend on coordinate systems is the way that their proper acceleration varied as a function of their proper time. > > MY theory then attempts to prove these correlations are transitive on a > pair by pair basis, not by considering all irrelevant frames and trying to > establish some invariance that I agree is impossible. > > Does this make it clear what my theory is trying to do? The theory is > based on pair wise correlations, not invariance.... > My proof of a contradiction in your ideas about p-time doesn't consider the other frames you consider "irrelevant" either, it is based SOLELY on the following premises: 1. If a pair of inertial observers are at rest relative to one another, then events (like clock readings) that are simultaneous in their comoving frame are also simultaneous in p-time 2. Any two events that happen at precisely the same position and time coordinate in a particular inertial frame must be simultaneous in p-time 3. p-time simultaneity is transitive Your only response was to dispute premise #2, but subsequent discussion suggested you were originally misunderstanding what I meant by "same position and time coordinate" and that properly understood, you would most like agree with premise #2 after all. That's why I want you to address my last few questions about the "same position and time coordinate" issue at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/dM2tcGYspfMJwhich you promised to address earlier, but have subsequently ignored all my requests to get back to. Once again, if you continue to just ignore the requests, that indicates a lack of respect for me and for the two-way nature of discussions. Here, I'll even repost those questions to save you the time of going back through your inbox to find the original post to reply to: On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net>wrote: > Jesse, > > Well, I thought I was expressing your own model, but apparently not. > > However IF, and a big if, I understand you correctly then I do agree that "if > two events have the same space and time coordinates in a single inertial > frame, they must also satisfy the operational definition of "same point in > spacetime" I gave earlier? And I would agree this means that the two events > happened at the same p-time?" > > I'm assuming this means we agree that the meeting twins do meet in the > same space and time coordinates of the inertial frame in which they meet, > though obviously NOT in the same time coordinates of their own proper > comoving frames? > Depends what you mean by that. Say that in the original inertial frame we first use to analyze the problem (which may not be the rest frame of either Alice or Bob), the event of Alice turning 30 has the same space and time coordinates as the event of Bob turning 40, i.e. these two events happen at the same point in spacetime. Then the event of Alice turning 30 could be at a time coordinate of t=30 in her own comoving rest frame, but in her comoving frame the event of Bob turning 40 would ALSO be at t=30 (and both events would have identical space coordinates in this frame). And the event of Bob turning 40 could be at a time coordinate of t'=40 in his own comoving rest frame, but in his comoving frame the event of Alice turning 30 would ALSO be at t'=40 (and again the space coordinates would be the identical). So no matter what frame we use, these two events--Alice turning 30, and Bob turning 40--are assigned the same time-coordinates AS ONE ANOTHER in that specific frame, but the actual time coordinate common to both events can differ from one frame to another (in Alice's frame they had a common time coordinate of t=30, while in Bob's frame they had a common time coordinate of t'=40). Is the latter all you meant by "NOT in the same time coordinates of their own proper comoving frames", or would you actually disagree with my claim that if these two events have the same space and time coordinates as one another in some frame, they must still have the same space and time coordinates as one another in any other frame as well? Also, would you agree that crossing through identical space and time coordinates implies satisfying the operational definitions I gave even if they don't actually stop and come to rest relative to each other, but just cross paths briefly while moving at a large relative velocity? That they would still satisfy the operational definition of crossing through the "same point in spacetime" in the sense that if they were sending continuous signals to one another, the time for the signal to be reflected and return would approach zero as they approached the space and time coordinate that both their paths cross through? I can give an example if this scenario isn't clear. -- 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 email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.