[MikeFontenot]

[...]
If anyone else knows of a good YT video that would be of interest [...]
   

Brian Greene, on his Nova show, explains it very well.  Scan forward to the 22:30 point, and watch until the 25:40 point:

  https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/the-fabric-of-the-cosmos-the-illusion-of-time/

[MikeFontenot]

Brian Greene, on his Nova show, explains it very well.  Scan forward to the 22:30 point, and watch until the 25:40 point:

  https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/the-fabric-of-the-cosmos-the-illusion-of-time/

In that video, Brian Greene explains how the "NOW" moment for an accelerating observer is determined, extending throughout all space.  But some physicists are vague about whether the rapid variations in the current age of the distant person (according to the accelerating person) should be considered to be MEANINGFUL or not.  It is possible to show that those rapid age variations (including negative ageing) MUST be considered to be fully real and meaningful.

<Mod edit: Remainder of post is a copy of prior post.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=85286.msg684408#msg684408 Evangelising a personal theory is against site rules>

[Halc]

But some physicists are vague about whether the rapid variations in the current age of the distant person (according to the accelerating person) should be considered to be MEANINGFUL or not.  It is possible to show that those rapid age variations (including negative ageing) MUST be considered to be fully real and meaningful.

But you're the one being vague about it since you're not giving any definition of 'meaningful' here, except to put it in caps, which signifies it being shouted.
For instance, I can face Andromeda and say it is 2.5 MLY in front of me. Now I turn my back and it suddenly is 2.5 MLY behind me, 5 MLY from where it was a moment ago. Is that a MEANINGFUL change in location? I don't know your definition, so I can't answer, but that's all that's going on in the Andromeda scenario.

And while I have you on the horn, please stop copying your personal theories into the main sections of the forum. You have your own thread for that, and your own paper (full of mistakes) to which I left your link intact there.

[paul cotter (OP)]

Quick question, halc. How can you falsify the concept of an afterlife?

[Halc]

Quick question, halc. How can you falsify the concept of an afterlife?

You die. If you find yourself in hell or whatever, you can't send the test results back to Earth, but you've proved it at least to yourself and anyone you took with you.
Admittedly if there isn't one, there's no you to whom the lack of afterlife has been demonstrated.

Ditto with a non-block absolute time interpretation of physics. Jump into a large black hole. If you find yourself in there, you can look at Earth but you can't send the message "Einstein was right!" to them, but you've proved it at least to yourself and anyone you took with you. If the preferred frame interpretation is true, time ends at the event horizon and there's no you to whom the lack of block universe has been demonstrated.

[MikeFontenot]

But some physicists are vague about whether the rapid variations in the current age of the distant person (according to the accelerating person) should be considered to be MEANINGFUL or not.  It is possible to show that those rapid age variations (including negative ageing) MUST be considered to be fully real and meaningful.

But you're the one being vague about it since you're not giving any definition of 'meaningful' here ...

It can be shown to be meaningful to a given observer by showing how to construct an array of clocks which are mutually stationary wrt that observer. 

[Halc]

But some physicists are vague about whether the rapid variations in the current age of the distant person (according to the accelerating person) should be considered to be MEANINGFUL or not.  It is possible to show that those rapid age variations (including negative ageing) MUST be considered to be fully real and meaningful.

It can be shown to be meaningful to a given observer by showing how to construct an array of clocks which are mutually stationary wrt that observer.

It is
1) Impossible to keep an array of clocks mutually stationary wrt some accelerating reference worldline. Some of them can be kept stationary if the acceleration schedule is known, but not all of them.
2) For the clocks that do remain stationary wrt to this reference, they will not stay in sync with a clock following that worldline.

Surely you must know this. The array of clocks concept only works with intertial worldlines, and even then you seem not to be able to leverage such a tool without invoking these needless HFs that are all over the place. The distant person is quite capable of reading one of the nearby clocks in the array. No HF is needed for him to do that.

[MikeFontenot]

It is impossible to keep an array of clocks mutually stationary wrt [a given accelerating observer].  Some of them can be kept stationary if the acceleration schedule is known, but not all of them.

Why do you say that?

[ArthurArts]

That's an interesting observation. Could you elaborate on why keeping all the clocks in the array stationary for an accelerating observer, even with knowledge of the acceleration schedule, is impossible? It seems counterintuitive that some watches could be fixed, but not all. Overall, to fully grasp the paradox, exploring the philosophy of education and how it can shape our understanding of complex ideas may be helpful. A unique philosophy of education essay samples [nofollow] delves into the nuances of learning and understanding. By studying these free argumentative essays on philosophy of education, you may gain insight into the different methods and approaches that can be used to teach and comprehend complex concepts.

[Halc]

Could you elaborate on why it is impossible to keep all the clocks in the array stationary for an accelerating observer, even with knowledge of the acceleration schedule?

Given a pattern of acceleration (especially one that isn't constant), the lines of simultaneity at time 0 and at time 1 will not be parallel, and thus will cross at some location in space. Anything beyond that point (the Rindler horizon  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates) would require the object to be at different locations at a given time or to have to move at greater than light speed to remain at the same location relative to the reference thing accelerating.
So for instance, one observer might accelerate at 1g for 10 seconds and then 'coast'. The lines of simultaneity in the inertial frames before and after the acceleration cross about a light year away in the direction away from the acceleration vector. This means that if I have a light-year long pre-stressed rocket, no amount of thrust applied at the rear can cause the front of the rocket to accelerate at 1g or more.  I say pre-stressed so one doesn't have to wait a year for the thrust at the rear to be felt at the front. A building for instance is pre-stressed since it isn't built in free fall and then suddenly placed on the ground.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

Sorry, I've been away and/or missed some comments that are now quite old.

Post #20  @MikeFontenot  did recommend a video as I requested some time ago.  Thank you.   Unfortunately it looks like a paid-for subscription service, so I haven't seen it but I'm sure it was suitable.  Thanks.  The remainder of this thread looks old and completed.

Best Wishes.

[MikeFontenot]

Post #20  @MikeFontenot  did recommend a video as I requested some time ago.  Thank you.   Unfortunately it looks like a paid-for subscription service, so I haven't seen it but I'm sure it was suitable.

I just clicked on that link, and it came up and ran fine, without any fee.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

I'm sorry but maybe you do have a subscription to PBS or NOVA or whatever it is.   I get asked to type in my log-in details, skipping or closing that and you get this:


pbs-service.jpg (43.98 kB . 1011x568 - viewed 983 times)

Best Wishes.

[Halc]

I'm sorry but maybe you do have a subscription to PBS or NOVA or whatever it is.   I get asked to type in my log-in details, skipping or closing that and you get  ...

Funny, I had no trouble, even back when the link was first posted. It asked for my email, but I dismissed that and the video was there.
It's a good visual aid, but nothing above and beyond so to speak.
They use a loaf of bread to represent spacetime and then slice it a different arbitrary 'angles of simultaneity'.
Then it illustrates the implications of that using something like the Andromeda paradox, except from the point of view of the distant alien (on a bicycle) rather than using our PoV. I like that variation since I think it drives the point home better.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.


Thanks for checking the video and describing it, @Halc
It sounds like the one previously mentioned in post #13.

Best Wishes.