Jesse, But I just pointed out in my previous reply that your example is NOT even correct relativity. Non-accelerated relative motion does NOT cause any actual age differences because it's symmetric. A and B are in the exact same relative motion with respect to each other so the effect has to be completely symmetric, it is equal and opposite. Both A and B observe each other's clock running slower by the same amount but their own clocks are running at the exact same rate.
And, in this case, there two clocks are in synch with p-time as well. Whenever t = t' (their times on their OWN clocks) which is ALWAYS they are in the same p-time current moment. Edgar On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:27:11 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Jesse Mazer <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: >> >> "Instantaneously pause" has no frame-independent meaning in relativity, >> do you disagree? If A and B are in relative motion, and unlike my example >> above, B is *not* at the same point in spacetime as A when A turns some age >> (say 60), then different frames disagree on what age B is "at the same >> instant" that B turns 60. So if one frame said B was 48 at the same instant >> A turned 50, and another frame said B was 75 at the same instant A turned >> 50, then at what age should B's motion relative to A be "paused"? We don't >> have an "objective instantaneous pause machine" that can settle the >> question empirically, it has to be *our choice* when to subject B to a >> sudden acceleration to instantaneously bring him to rest relative to A. >> Again, do you disagree? >> > > > Sorry, I got the numbers and letters a little mixed up here, the paragraph > should read: > > > "Instantaneously pause" has no frame-independent meaning in relativity, do > you disagree? If A and B are in relative motion, and unlike my example > above, B is *not* at the same point in spacetime as A when A turns some age > (say 60), then different frames disagree on what age B is "at the same > instant" that A turns 60. So if one frame said B was 48 at the same instant > A turned 60, and another frame said B was 75 at the same instant A turned > 60, then at what age should B's motion relative to A be "paused"? We don't > have an "objective instantaneous pause machine" that can settle the > question empirically, it has to be *our choice* when to subject B to a > sudden acceleration to instantaneously bring him to rest relative to A. > Again, do you disagree? > -- 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.
