OF THE EXPERIENCE OF TWINS

.

OF THE EXPERIENCE OF TWINS:

.

No mortal can measure any matter, or, more generally, quantifiable substance, except in its relational aspects. For mortals, there is no measurable experience of matter-in-itself. Even so, the relationally-shared quantifiability of mass must relate to some kind of mathematically-related and conserved world, which has been adopted for purposes of messaging among perspectives of consciousness that share a common, originating binding.

.

It must be that matter is aged only in reference to a point of origin and transport --- either in relation to point of view of a perspective of consciousness or in relation to a frame of originating reference that is shared in common by all relating perspectives of consciousness. Thus, our shared universe seems to have an age, even though no two perspectives will experience NOWNESS in exactly the same way.

.

What avails the space-time relational aging of substance that is measurable by mortals is not mere acceleration from an arbitrary and material point, but acceleration of a point of view of imagination. Relative to each point of view, there is a favored point of perspective, i.e., a point of such perspective's origin. However, that point no longer exists in measurable, quantifiable space-time. Rather, it remains only as a point of Imagination, for imaging conceptualization of space-time. Thus, a point of view can be accelerated forward in a vector of space-time, but not backward. Each point of view has no choice but to expand outward in space-time from the point of original binding to existentially measurable experience.

.

Light (EMR) is defined so it cannot vector back to its originator's origin. The origin point that is common to all vectors is not amenable of illumination by any single vector of light. The Origin Point may be conceptualized as a dark, inner sphere, back to which the geometry of space-time allows no light to vector. It is more like an anti-black hole than a black hole. Were it a black hole, light could not escape from it. As an anti-black-hole, no light can go into it. Against the Origin Point, perhaps there abides a perpetual NOWNESS, "outside of our time," to which no mortal can access. Thus, there seems to abide an inferred, intuited dimension that is the originating reconciler of measurable experiences of vectoring, which no particular perspective or measurer can vector back to.

.

How can it be that no two mortals experience nowness as unfolding at exactly the same rate? After all, they seem to be able to clock and measure differences in their relative experiences of time and distance. How can it be that twins would ever experience differential rates in aging, merely because they happened to engage in different rates of acceleration against a common base of reference? Suppose they are in parallel rocket ships. One of the ships passes too close to a gravitational sink and is wildly accelerated. A substantial time later, it depletes the last of its fuel to escape and return to its twin ship. One ship will have aged differently from the other. But how does either ship determine which one was captured by a local gravity sink to be either accelerated or decelerated? When I see myself pulling rapidly away from a twin, how do I know whether I am accelerating or the twin is accelerating? Rate of fuel burn would not answer for a gravity sink, at least, not until the sink is resisted. So, is the answer determined in respect of relative mass travel, relative gravitational frame, something else, or some combination? Could the determination have something to do with the speed of each twin in respect of the twins' common point of origin? So, even if the common point of origin may not be able to be returned to (no river flows past the same point twice?), may it be conceptually inferred by, among other things, measuring the rate of variation in aging?

.

TWINS: When one twin perceives himself as being traveled along an inertial frame, away from the other, what determines which one will "really" be seen to have aged more at such time and place that they come back together?

.

Were a person in a space suit to be turning in space, with no detectable bodies around, mass would still be detectable. Pulling arms in would cause spinning to proceed faster or slower, as for a spinning ice skater. Thus, angular momentum and mass remain measurable. Notice, however, that relative angular momentum is also conceptually measurable and comparable among twins who shared a common origin. So: Is the "cause" of differential aging to be attributed to different experiences of mass of substance? Or is the cause to be attributed to different experiences in respect of a commonly inferred origin of perceptual experience? In other words, is the cause objective or subjective? Or does the answer to that query depend on one's purpose as well as one's point of view and context of reference?

.