On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jesse, > > OK, this is some progress. > > Now you've gone from saying there is NO correlation at all, to the ages > ARE CORRELATED WITHIN SOME LIMIT. In other words we DO know that for any > set of twins we can always say that their ages ARE the same within some > limits. Correct? > > This is a VERY BIG CHANGE in your stated position, from NO correlation at > all to SOME correlation... > Once again your argument turns on vague use of language. You were consistently talking about a "1:1 correlation", so naturally I was using "correlation" in this sense too. If we say "all inertial frames agree that my age T' is simultaneous with my twin's age having some value between T1 and T2, but they disagree on the precise value" that is NOT a 1:1 correlation, period. So there's been no change in my position, it's you whose changing the meaning of "correlation" in mid-argument in an attempt to prove me wrong. > > You though continue to claim that all frames are equally valid, even if > they DO NOT preserve the actual age changing acceleration effects between > the twins, > What do you mean by "actual age changing acceleration effect"? If you're talking about things that are directly measurable without use of a particular frame--like each twin's proper age at any specific event on his worldline (including their identical proper ages at the point in spacetime where they reunite), or each twin's proper acceleration as a function of proper age, then all frames DO preserve these effects. If instead you mean the idea that identical ages of separated symmetrically-accelerating twins are simultaneous in absolute, non-frame-dependent terms, then YOUR ARGUMENT IS TOTALLY CIRCULAR--you are simply assuming from the start that symmetrical acceleration implies that identical ages are simultaneous in "actual", absolute terms, WITHOUT DERIVING THIS IDEA FROM ANY MORE BASIC PREMISES. > while I claim that IF we properly choose a frame that DOES preserve the > actual age changing acceleration effects that we narrow that limit to zero > resulting in an EXACT 1:1 age correlation. > Yep, that sounds pretty circular all right. As near as I can tell, the structure of your argument is this: 1. Assume without any prior argument that for symmetrically-accelerating twins, the "actual" truth about simultaneity is that identical ages are simultaneous. 2. Observe that there is only one frame that "preserves" this "actual" truth. 3. Therefore, only this frame is "valid", other frames are not. 4. If we use this "valid" frame we can find a unique 1:1 correlation in their ages--and that is supposed to demonstrate the validity of premise #1 above! Hopefully you can see that this argument would be completely circular. If you think this isn't a fair representation of your own argument, then perhaps you can lay your argument out in a step-by-step manner as above, with each successive step being obviously derivable from only the previous steps. > > You, in fact, have previously agreed that IF we choose the frame in which > the symmetric accelerations were preserved > All frames agree the proper accelerations as a function of each twin's proper time are "symmetric". By "the frame in which symmetric accelerations were preserved" do you mean that each twin's acceleration as a function of COORDINATE time in that frame is symmetric? > that we DO get an exact 1:1 correlation, you just disagree that that frame > is privileged because it preserves the actual age changing symmetric > accelerations like I claim. > Do you have any argument to DERIVE the conclusion that one frame's acceleration and aging as a function of COORDINATE time is "actual", or is this just something you assume from the start and have no way to derive from any more basic premises? > > So I suggest that for the moment we ASSUME we should choose that frame, > and then see if it can be consistently applied in a transitive manner to > achieve a common age correlation between ALL observers. > > If it can't my theory is falsified. If it can then we can still agree to > disagree about how frames should be applied to analyze specific physical > relationships. > Would you consider it a "falsification" of your theory to show that your assumption about simultaneity for symmetrically-moving observers (combined with transitivity and the idea that events at the same space and time coordinates in some inertial frame are automatically simultaneous in p-time) can lead in certain scenarios to a situation where we are forced to conclude that two different proper times of the SAME observer (Bob's proper time clock reading 0 and Bob's proper time clock reading 20, say) are simultaneous in p-time? If so, this sort of falsification is exactly what I have derived in my Alice/Bob/Arlene/Bart scenario from Feb. 9 at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/pxg0VAAHJRQJwhich you have CONSISTENTLY FAILED TO ADDRESS on all the myriad occasions I have reminded you of it since. 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.
