Jesse, First this doesn't have anything to do with present moment theory, only with standard physics.
2nd, hopefully it's just a matter of you using different semantics than me as to what is meant by absolute and relative. I'll explain once more. In the case of time dilation effects caused by gravitation or acceleration the effects are absolute in the sense that both observers agree on them. Take 2 observers A in a gravitational well and B not. In this case B observes A's clock SLOW, and A observes B's clock rate SPEED up. They AGREE as to this effect. AND the clock time difference PERSISTS after A and B meet up afterwards when their clocks are again running at the same rate. Therefore in my terminology it is an absolute effect. It is a real and actual effect, that both observers agree upon. This is well understood and confirmed because it's used in GPS calculation corrections all the time. Now take the case of A and B moving past each other with a constant relative velocity (no acceleration or gravitation). In this case both A and B each see each other's clock slow by the same amount. Thus in this case A and B do NOT agree. This effect is relative in my terminology. AND assuming the relative motion could sudden stop (without any acceleration) that effect would not and could not persist. Both clocks would be running at the same rate and showing the same clock time t value again. Thus the time dilation from relative motion is not an absolute effect in my terminology because A and B don't agree on it and because it is not an effect that persists after the relative motion ceases. Hopefully that makes my use of absolute and relative clear? Of course it is always possible to come up with all sorts of convoluted frames, and all those frames are valid in the local context of that frame, but this doesn't invalidate my points above. Edgar On Monday, January 27, 2014 8:36:53 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Brent, >> >> I don't think my statement is confused. Your response is ambiguous >> because it doesn't specify frames of reference correctly. >> >> The object's clock DOES tick slower according to the external observer's >> clock, but obviously not by the object's OWN comoving clock. It is of >> course ACTUALLY objectively ticking slower because it is falling into a >> gravity well which is an absolute, not a relative phenomenon. >> > > No it isn't, not in the theory of relativity! Maybe you believe it's > absolute since you believe in an absolute "present moment", i.e. an > absolute truth about which pairs of events are simultaneous. But in > relativity one can use many different coordinate systems with different > simultaneity conventions, and they are all considered equally valid (you > can use the same laws of physics in each of them to get predictions about > which events locally coincide, and they will all make the same predictions > about such local events). > > Say the falling observer sets his clock to read 0 seconds at the moment he > passes the hovering observer, who also sets his clock to read 0 at that > moment. Then according to one definition of simultaneity, it might be true > that the event of the falling clock reading 50 seconds is simultaneous with > the event of the hovering clock reading 100 seconds--in this coordinate > system the falling clock is ticking slower as it travels deeper into the > gravity well. But one could certainly design a different coordinate system > with a different definition of simultaneity, where the event of the > hovering clock reading 100 seconds is simultaneous with the event of the > falling clock reading 150 seconds (assuming the falling clock makes it to > 150 seconds before hitting the singularity)--in this coordinate system it > would be the distant hovering clock that's ticking slower, not the falling > clock. > > To emphasize: IN RELATIVITY THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH ABOUT WHICH OF TWO > DISTANT CLOCKS IS TICKING SLOWER. If you disagree with this, you are > getting confused between how things work in your own personal theory of a > "universal present" (which seems to be entirely faith-based, since you > never explain how to define "true" simultaneity experimentally) and how > things work in mainstream relativity. > > 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 [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.
