Jesse, 4 questions:
1. Do you agree that for every relativistic scenario involving 2 relativistic observers A and B, that relativity provides a description of how each observes the other's clock time vary relative to their own clock? That it provides 2 descriptions, both consistent with relativity theory? Yes or no? 2. Do you agree that A can always know what B's view of him is, and that B can always know what A's view of him is? Both A and B understand relativity theory so they can, right? Yes or no? 3: Do you agree that this means that the two views taken together are something both A and B agree on? That both A and B always have an agreed on frame independent OVERview of their whole relativistic relationship that consists of knowledge of both frames? Yes or no? 4. 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'? Yes or no? Edgar On Thursday, February 13, 2014 3:24:02 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> 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.... >> > > Sure, it gives equations for both frames, but you haven't given any sort > of mathematical derivation to show how this leads to the conclusion that > there must be a unique "true" definition of simultaneity, or what that > definition would be. In Cartesian geometry we can have different coordinate > systems which have different equations for which markings on different > measuring tapes have the same y-coordinate, but you DON'T conclude that > this implies there must be a unique "true" way of defining something like > "y-equality". > > > >> >> 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. >> > > See my other recent post where I explained that "instantaneous > acceleration" can be understood either in terms of the limit as a finite > acceleration period gets briefer and briefer, or just an approximation for > an acceleration that's very brief compared to the timescales that we are > considering in the problem. > > Jesse > > >> >> >> >> >> >> 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> 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-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > -- 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.
