Jesse, No, it was you that said there was NO correlation. 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"? 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. 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 AND in which the proper ages of both twins have the same t value in that symmetry preserving frame. They have the same t value because the twins exchanged flight plans and agreed they would, and we know that their proper clocks MUST run at the same rates under the same accelerations at the same proper times. Therefore we must choose a frame that reflects that agreed upon symmetry. 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 I understand it correctly A and B have the same proper ages, are at rest with respect to each other but separated in space. And C and D have the same proper ages, are at rest with respect to each other but also separated in space. However B and C are initially at the SAME position in space as the pairs move past each other. A's and B's proper ages are simultaneous in p-time because they are simultaneous in the A/B rest frame. C's and D's proper ages are simultaneous in p-time because they are simultaneous in the C/D rest frame. B's and C's proper ages are simultaneous in p-time because they are at the same place in spacetime. NO. for that to be true we have to assume that B's and C's proper ages were INITIALLY THE SAME AND THERE WAS NO SUBSEQUENT PROPER ACCELERATION OR GRAVITATIONAL DIFFERENCES. The simple fact that B and C are at the same point in spacetime DOES NOT require their proper ages to be the same. Obviously not since the twins in general are at DIFFERENT proper ages when they meet at the same point in spacetime. How could you believe differently? So this is the ERROR in your example. Therefore it does NOT generate a result in which A's proper age is both 0 and 20 at the same point in spacetime. Edgar On Monday, March 3, 2014 1:50:40 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net<javascript:> > > wrote: > > Jesse, > > OK, this is some progress. > > Now you've gone from saying there is NO correlation at all, to the ages > ARE CORRELATED WITHIN SOME LIMIT. In other words we DO know that for any > set of twins we can always say that their ages ARE the same within some > limits. Correct? > > This is a VERY BIG CHANGE in your stated position, from NO correlation at > all to SOME correlation... > > > Once again your argument turns on vague use of language. You were > consistently talking about a "1:1 correlation", so naturally I was using > "correlation" in this sense too. If we say "all inertial frames agree that > my age T' is simultaneous with my twin's age having some value between T1 > and T2, but they disagree on the precise value" that is NOT a 1:1 > correlation, period. So there's been no change in my position, it's you > whose changing the meaning of "correlation" in mid-argument in an attempt > to prove me wrong. > > > > > You though continue to claim that all frames are equally valid, even if > they DO NOT preserve the actual age changing acceleration effects between > the twins, > > > What do you mean by "actual age changing acceleration effect"? If you're > talking about things that are directly measurable without use of a > particular frame--like each twin's proper age at any specific event on his > worldline (including their identical proper ages at the point in spacetime > where they reunite), or each twin's proper acceleration as a function of > proper age, then all frames DO preserve these effects. If instead you mean > the idea that identical ages of separated symmetrically-accelerating twins > are simultaneous in absolute, non-frame-dependent terms, then YOUR ARGUMENT > IS TOTALLY CIRCULAR--you are simply assuming from the start that > symmetrical acceleration implies that identical ages are simultaneous in > "actual", absolute terms, WITHOUT DERIVING THIS IDEA FROM ANY MORE BASIC > PREMISES. > > > > > while I claim that IF we properly choose a frame that DOES preserve the > actual age changing acceleration effects that we narrow that limit to zero > resulting in an EXACT 1:1 age correlation. > > > Yep, that sounds pretty circular all right. As near as I can tell, the > structure of your argument is this: > > 1. Assume without any prior argument that for symmetrically-accelerating > twins, the "actual" truth about simultaneity is that identical ages are > simultaneous. > > 2. Observe that there is only one frame that "preserves" this "actual" > truth. > > 3. Therefore, only this frame is "valid", other frames are not. > > 4. If we use this "valid" frame we can find a unique 1:1 correlation in > their ages--and that is supposed to demonstrate the validity of premise #1 > above! > > Hopefully you can see that this argument would be completely circular. If > you think this isn't a fair representation of your own argument, then > perhaps you can lay your argument out in a step-by-step manner as above, > with each successive step being obviously derivable from only the previous > steps. > > > > <blockquote cla > ... -- 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.
