Brent, But see my response to John. How can that work since the accelerations are both = 1g throughout the entire trip? By the Principle of Equivalence shouldn't they have the same effect on time then?
But if you say it's not the acceleration, but the distance through spacetime, then the distance through spacetime as measured by whom? A sees B move the exact SAME distance at the exact SAME rate through spacetime as B sees A move. So why then has only A's clock ACTUALLY slowed when he reaches the galactic center? That seems to imply that there is some real absolute background space that A traveled through but not B. It seems to imply that spatial motion relative to the galaxy is somehow real and absolute. Is that what you are saying? Isn't that notion inconsistent with relativity? Another point: A couple days ago you said "geometry doesn't slow time" Yesterday you said "Everything is geometry" Yet time does slow... So aren't those 2 statements contradictory? Edgar On Friday, January 31, 2014 8:25:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 1/31/2014 10:59 AM, John Clark wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net<javascript:> > > wrote: > > > A is traveling at near light speed most of the trip. That's why B sees >> A's clock slow >> > > Yes. And from A's point of view he's standing still and B is traveling > at near light speed, so A sees B's clock running slow. Both would see the > others clock as running slow. However if A decided to join B so they could > shake hands and directly compare the times their clocks show then A is > going to have to accelerate, and then things would no longer be > symmetrical, then A would see B's clock running FAST but B would still see > A's clock run SLOW. So when they joined up again and compared clocks they > would not match, B's clock would be ahead and B would have aged more than A. > > > So my question is this: Why does A's clock slowing turn out to be >> ACTUAL (agreed by both A and B) when he stops at the center of the galaxy, >> and B's slow clock slowing doesn't? >> > > Because A stopped, and that means A must have accelerated but B did not. > > > That's right, but don't be misled into thinking it's the "stress" or > "force" of acceleration that "slows" the clock. The acceleration just > changes the distance through spacetime. It's not some effect that's making > the clock keep "the wrong time". > > Brent > -- 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.
