Jesse, He's another way to understand it which might be clearer. It's from the perspective of an arbitrary observer A.
1. A (me) is always in the current moment of P-time as P-time progresses, because that is the only locus of actual reality because it's only in this current moment of p-time that the current re-computation of the information state of the universe is occurring. 2. All other observers in the universe are also ALWAYS at/in this same current moment of P-time, no matter what their clock times read. This includes all observers in the examples below. 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. 3. Given initially synchronized clocks, all observers in the universe, either in the same inertial frame, or only in NON-accelerated relative motion will have clocks that read exactly the same to THEMSELVES as my (A's) clock reads to me. All these clocks will have the same reading to their owners. So we can know that whenever these clocks read the same in the past those observers were then in the same instant of P-time. 4. For all other observers with clocks with different accelerations or gravitations than mine, their own clock times are ACTUALLY running at different rates so we must determine the conversion factor to determine which of their own clock times occurred at any of my clock times. 5. The easy way is just to pause the experiment at any point and compare clocks (that is in effect what the twins do when they meet) because this immediately re-synchronizes clock rates enabling the real actual age differences up till then to be compared. 6. This can also be calculated by the method I explained earlier. Edgar On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 8:36:01 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Jesse, > > But I just pointed out in my previous reply that your example is NOT even > correct relativity. Non-accelerated relative motion does NOT cause any > actual age differences because it's symmetric. A and B are in the exact > same relative motion with respect to each other so the effect has to be > completely symmetric, it is equal and opposite. Both A and B observe each > other's clock running slower by the same amount but their own clocks are > running at the exact same rate. > > And, in this case, there two clocks are in synch with p-time as well. > Whenever t = t' (their times on their OWN clocks) which is ALWAYS they are > in the same p-time current moment. > > Edgar > > On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:27:11 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Jesse Mazer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> "Instantaneously pause" has no frame-independent meaning in relativity, >>> do you disagree? If A and B are in relative motion, and unlike my example >>> above, B is *not* at the same point in spacetime as A when A turns some age >>> (say 60), then different frames disagree on what age B is "at the same >>> instant" that B turns 60. So if one frame said B was 48 at the same instant >>> A turned 50, and another frame said B was 75 at the same instant A turned >>> 50, then at what age should B's motion relative to A be "paused"? We don't >>> have an "objective instantaneous pause machine" that can settle the >>> question empirically, it has to be *our choice* when to subject B to a >>> sudden acceleration to instantaneously bring him to rest relative to A. >>> Again, do you disagree? >>> >> >> >> Sorry, I got the numbers and letters a little mixed up here, the >> paragraph should read: >> >> >> "Instantaneously pause" has no frame-independent meaning in relativity, >> do you disagree? If A and B are in relative motion, and unlike my example >> above, B is *not* at the same point in spacetime as A when A turns some age >> (say 60), then different frames disagree on what age B is "at the same >> instant" that A turns 60. So if one frame said B was 48 at the same instant >> A turned 60, and another frame said B was 75 at the same instant A turned >> 60, then at what age should B's motion relative to A be "paused"? We don't >> have an "objective instantaneous pause machine" that can settle the >> question empirically, it has to be *our choice* when to subject B to a >> sudden acceleration to instantaneously bring him to rest relative to A. >> Again, do you disagree? >> > -- 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.
