On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > By "observes" do you just mean what they see visually--how much time passes on their own clock between receiving light signals from successive ticks of the other one's clock? If that's what you mean, then what you say above would be true, but this wouldn't help in making sense of your claim in http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg47215.htmlthat "Thus in the infalling observer's experience as his clock slows he will never actually reach the event horizon because his clock comes to a complete ACTUAL PHYSICAL stop at that point"--was that statement meant to refer to what happens in relativity, or in your own theory of absolute time? Likewise, if you're just talking about visual observations, this doesn't help make sense of your claim in http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg47217.htmlthat "it takes them [the photons] longer and longer to climb out of the increasing gravity well. Contrary to what you seem to say that's an absolute phenomenon, not just a matter of frames." How would one define the time to "climb out the increasing gravity well", which is a time interval between two events at different points in spacetime (the event of the photons being emitted by the falling clock deep in the gravity well, and the event of the photons being received by the hovering clock higher in the gravity well), purely in terms of local visual observations? I can't see any way to define this amount of time in relativity, except by using a coordinate system which assigns time-coordinates to each event. > 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. > If you are talking about visual observations, then they would each see the othe's clock running slower if they were moving apart, but they would see the other's clock running faster if they were moving towards each other, due to the Doppler effect. On the other hand, if you're talking about how fast the other's clock is ticking in an observer's own inertial rest frame--a coordinate-based judgment, not a purely visual one--then each one judges the other's clock to be running slower regardless of the direction of movement. > 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. > Only if they suddenly stopped simultaneously in the frame where they were both moving in opposite directions at the same speed. If they suddenly stopped simultaneously in some other frame, their t value would not be the same at subsequent times in their mutual rest frame. 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.
