Jesse, I haven't seen any book on relativity point this out even though it is quite obviously what relativity actually does. Do you deny relativity gives equations for BOTH frames for each single relativistic scenario? That, my friend, is frame independence....
Answer to second paragraph. Depends on what you mean by "instantaneous acceleration". There is no such thing yet you are claiming it has an actual physical effect. Edgar On Thursday, February 13, 2014 2:09:29 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Jesse, >> >> The same reading in the exact same sense that relativity tells us they do >> which I've already explained for the nth time. It's in the same frame >> independent sense that relativity is able to meaningfully define 2 frames >> for any 1 relativistic scenario. That gives us the frame independent method >> to get the answer. That answer is given by relativity theory, not by p-time >> theory. >> > > > But do you agree that this is your own original conclusion about the > implications of SR that somehow all mainstream physicists have missed, that > no relativity textbook will discuss any "frame independent method" to > determine simultaneity? > > Also, do you agree that your statement "when the relative motion magically > stops, their clocks will still read the same as each other's" would NOT be > true if we were comparing readings in their common rest frame after one > observer magically undergoes an instantaneous acceleration to come to rest > relative to the other? If you disagree, please tell me if you disagree with > the specific numbers I gave (for example, if Bob instantaneously > accelerates at age 20 to come to rest relative to Alice, then in their > mutual rest frame immediately after the acceleration, Alice's clock reads > 25 simultaneously with Bob's reading 20). And if you agree with that, does > this mean that the answer for frame-independent simultaneity that is "given > by relativity theory" according to you is actually DIFFERENT than the > answer given by p-time simultaneity, since you said before that for two > clocks at rest relative to each other, readings which are simultaneous in > their common rest frame should be simultaneous in p-time? > > 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 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.
