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

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
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 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.

Reply via email to