Jesse, I'm interested in finding the truth, not in assigning blame.
The important thing is we both now agree that there IS ALWAYS A CORRELATION OF ACTUAL AGES between any two observers. The difference is I think it's an EXACT correlation, and you think that it's ALMOST EXACT except for cases of extreme separation or motion. I think we have to analyze the age correlation from a POV that preserves the actual relationship of the accelerations that are the ONLY cause of age rate differences. Whereas you think we have to consider all possible views irrespective of whether they properly preserve the relationship of causes of age rate differences. My method provides an EXACT correlation. Your method provides an ALMOST EXACT correlation in all but extreme cases. Also now that I have pointed out the error in your Alice, Bob, Arlene, Bart example do you agree my method does produce consistent, unambiguous and transitive 1:1 correlations of proper ages among all observers? To address your new questions: Do you deny acceleration and gravitation produce real actual slowings of clock rates and thus of real actual aging rates? Of course we can VIEW these slowings differently from different frames, but the ACTUAL effects they produce on the observer who experiences them are exact. It is these exact actual effects that my method explains, and yours doesn't. We know these effects are real and actual when twins meet up with different ages. Thus we know they were ALSO REAL AND ACTUAL BEFORE the twins met. That is pure simple logic. How many times do I have to explain. The twins exchange flight plans for EXACT SAME ACCLERATIONS AT THE EXACT SAME TIMES before they part. This ABSOLUTELY ENSURES that their age rates will slow EXACTLY THE SAME during their trip. There is no way around that. Another observer can VIEW that differently but from the POV of the twins themselves it IS EXACT AND ABSOLUTE. Thus it is clear to anyone that to properly analyze the REAL ACTUAL CORRELATION OF THE TWINS' AGES WE MUST PRESERVE THE REAL ACTUAL RELATIONSHIP OF THE ACCELERATIONS THAT ARE THE ONLY CAUSE OF AGE RATE CHANGES. Jeez, how difficult is that to understand? And your different frame to exchange flight plans in is an oxymoron because it would make their actual symmetric flight plans appear to be NON symmetric. Only a pair of idiots would do that.... You are just endlessly repeating what you read in some relativity textbook without using simple logic to determine its proper application.... Edgar On Monday, March 3, 2014 5:51:25 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > > Jesse, > > No, it was you that said there was NO correlation. > > > Jeez Edgar, you really need to work on your reading comprehension. I just > got through AGREEING that I had said that there wasn't a correlation, but I > explained that this was because I was using "correlation" in the way YOU > had consistently been using it up until now, to refer to a 1:1 correlation > in which each proper age of a twin is matched up to one unique proper age > of the other twin. The archive at > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ has a > better search function than google's archive (returning individual posts > rather than threads), so I searched for posts from Edgar L. Owen with > "correlate" or "correlation" in them, results here: > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/search?a=1&l=everything-list%40googlegroups.com&haswords=correlate&from=Edgar+L.+Owen¬words=&subject=&datewithin=1d&date=&order=datenewest&search=Search > > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/search?a=1&l=everything-list%40googlegroups.com&haswords=correlation&from=Edgar+L.+Owen¬words=&subject=&datewithin=1d&date=&order=datenewest&search=Search > > Earliest posts on the "block time" thread I could find in these searches > (that were directed at me, and not some other poster) were these from Feb. > 12 and 13 (shown in order below), where you can see from the quotes that > you were talking specifically about 1:1 correlations that map clock times > of one to specific clock times of the other: > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list%40googlegroups.com/msg48613.html > > "So all observers are always in the same p-time moment. Now it's just a > matter of correlating their clock times to see which clock times occurred > in any particular current moment of p-time." > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list%40googlegroups.com/msg48716.html > > "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'?" > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list%40googlegroups.com/msg48750.html > > "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?" > > And in subsequent posts I'm pretty sure you always used correlation in the > same manner, repeating the phrase "1:1 correlation" many times (you may > have gotten this phrase from ghibbsa, who used it in a Feb. 6 post at > http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list%40googlegroups.com/msg48264.htmlthat > you quoted in one of your posts that came up in the search results). A > similar search for posts by me that use "correlate" or "correlation" > doesn't show any posts of mine using these words on the thread prior to > your three posts to me above, and subsequently I always used "correlation" > in the same sense that YOU had been consistently using it, to refer to a > precise 1:1 correlation in ages/proper times. > > > > In any case that's irrelevant if we know you now accept that there is a > very LARGE correlation in most situations, and a definable correlation in > ALL situations. That there is always SOME correlation. > > By actual age changing effect I mean proper accelerations and gravitations > measurable by a comoving scale at specific clock tick events on his proper > clock. There is no doubt these are real actual CAUSES with specific > measurable values that thus must have real actual EFFECTS with specific > actual values. So you are now saying "that all frames DO preserve these > effects"? > > > What "EFFECTS" do you think they cause? Can you name a SPECIFIC effect on > a SPECIFIC variable used in relativity? As I've told you before, if you are > talking about some notion of a "change in clock rate", then in relativity > there is no frame-independent way to assign a "specific actual value" to > the concept of a "clock rate", the clock rate can only be defined relative > to a particular coordinate system, so the "clock rate" at a particular > event on the clock's worldline can have DIFFERENT values depending on what > coordinate system you use. So, if this is in fact what you mean by > "effects", then I would DENY that proper accelerations "have real actual > EFFECTS with specific actual values". If you mean something else by "real > actual EFFECTS", you'll have to name the specific effect or your argument > will be hopelessly vague. > > > > > > > Your 4 point representation of my method MAY BE circular, but my actual > method is NOT circular. > > Your statement 1. is an incorrect statement of my theory. What I assume > FIRST in the symmetric case is NOT simultaneity of ages but simultaneity of > the AGE CHANGING EFFECTS that relativity itself identifies, namely > acceleration and gravitation. > > > Not clear what you mean by that. Do you mean you ASSUME FROM THE START > that if two twins have the same proper acceleration as a function of proper > time, then identical values of the proper acceleration are "simultaneous" > in some absolute sense? (so for example, if the twins initially accelerate > to build up speed in opposite directions, then coast for a while, then > accelerate to turn around and eventually reunite, you'd be assuming that > the moments that each one began to accelerate to turn around after the > coasting phase would be simultaneous in absolute terms) If so this is > certainly not assumed in relativity, this would just be a different case of > you STARTING with an assumption about absolute simultaneity that you have > no rational justification for in terms of any more basic premises, so even > another presentist could reasonably disagree with you. > > > > > And in the general case the ages are NOT simultaneous nor are the age > changing effects, yet my method still works. Would you claim that in the > NON-symmetric case I start by assuming that NON-identical ages are NOT > simultaneous. No, of course not, so your statement 1. does NOT represent an > assumption my theory makes. > > I've defined this before but here it is again. The frame in which the > accelerations are symmetric is a frame in which the same proper > accelerations of BOTH twins occur at the same proper ages of both twins > > > "the same proper accelerations of BOTH twins occur at the same proper ages > of both twins" is something that is true in ALL frames, so this statement > is completely irrelevant to your definition of the frame you are using. > > > > AND in which the proper ages of both twins have the same t value in that > symmetry preserving frame. > > > There is indeed only one frame where this is true, but you give no > rational justification for the idea that this frame's judgments about > simultaneity are more valid in absolute or "actual" terms than any other > frame's. > > > > > They have the same t value because the twins exchanged flight plans and > agreed they would > > > The fact that they "exchanged flight plans" is also irrelevant, since when > they made plans they could just as easily have agreed to use a different > frame where identical proper accelerations would NOT have the same t value. > So this sentence should be reduced to "They have the same t value because > the twins agreed they would", which makes it more obvious that their > agreement is merely a matter of settling on the same CONVENTION, not > evidence that same proper accelerations having the same t-value is some > inviolable absolute truth about reality. > > > > > , and we know that their proper clocks MUST run at the same rates under > the same accelerations at the same proper times. > > > > Again, clock "rates" are inherently frame-dependent in relativity, so this > is true only if we CHOOSE to use the frame where identical proper > accelerations happen at the same t value; according to relativity it would > be just as valid physically to choose a different frame where identical > proper accelerations do not happen at the same t value, and in this frame > their proper clocks would NOT run at the same rates at the same proper > times (since clock rates depend only on speed, and they wouldn't have > identical speeds at the same proper time in this frame). > > > > > Therefore we must choose a frame that reflects that agreed upon symmetry. > > > "Therefore" is another non sequitur. Nothing is forcing you to choose that > frame in relativity, or selecting it out as a more valid representation of > "reality" than any other frame; you just find this frame more aesthetically > pleasing, that's all. > > > > > > > To address your two pair moving relative to each other example if A's > proper time comes out both 0 and 20 at the same point in spacetime that > sounds like a falsification. > > Let me paraphrase it for clarity in terms of a pair of observers A and B, > and another pair C and D. > > > > If you wish. I will translate Alice and Bob to A and B, and Arlene and > Bart to B and C. > > > > If I understand it correctly A and B have the same proper ages, are at > rest with respect to each other but separated in space. > > > Yes, with the qualification that they have "the same proper ages" > according to the definition of simultaneity in their own rest frame, in C > and D's rest frame their ages would be different at any given moment. > > > > > > And C and D have the same proper ages, are at rest with respect to each > other but also separated in space. > > > Yes, with the same qualification that they have the "same proper ages" > only in their own rest frame, not in A and B's frame. In my numerical > example I described all the frame-dependent values using A and B's frame, > and in this frame C and D's clock are out-of-sync by 12 years at any given > moment (I can show that this follows from the fact that they are > synchronized in the C/D rest frame using the Lorentz transformation, if you > wish). > > > > > However B and C are initially at the SAME position in space a > > ... -- 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.
