Sit tight and think before you comment. But have fun. The challenge here is for relativists to produce ANY hard evidence in the form of actual data, not merely rhetoric, that show this scenario is not a valid conclusion. Don't bother saying "But that isn't what SR claims" because that is not at issue here.

Anytime one attempts to rationalize SR they are met with a variety of objections to scenarios meant to casually show concerns. While perhaps such objections may be valid mathematically or at some technical level, they often merely confuse the issue and really have no bearing on the underlying concern.

So over the years I have developed scenarios which I believe simplifies the issue and avoids the confusion from interjecting velocity addition, simultaneity, or acceleration or GR issues, etc., and give the actual predictions we should make.

Given:

A group of researchers that have full faith in relativity set out to conclusively prove the theory. Because they have faith in their mathematical model and can use it to do many calculations (predictions) they pre-compute a space flyby experiment as to what is expected of each clock using relavistic mathematics.

The experiment uses a deep space monitoring station and a space shuttle craft such that there are no near by gravitational enfluences and the test will only be conducted during inertial flight so GR is not a consideration.

A light beam trigger circuit is established for the shuttle to cross starting all clocks in the experiment and the shuttle will be first sent off into space where it makes a turn around and accelerates back becoming inertial just before crossing the light trigger at 0.8c such that all testing is done during inertial conditions.

At that velocity gamma = 1 2/3 or the shuttle dilated clock will only tick 6 ticks for every 10 ticks of the station monitoring clock.

All clocks are identical and functioning properly. The craft is equipped with some unusual control equipment based on understood relativity affects.

Since relativity predicts that the shuttle clock will only tick at 60% the rate of the station clock, a computer program is used onboard the shuttle to produce a corrected count of ticks of the shuttle clock such that the control shuts down the shuttle clock when the station clock has reached 20,000 ticks and shuts down the test. If relativity is to be believed this causes both observers to time the trip over a universally equal period such that tick rate times duration will display proper accumulated time of both clocks.

This of course will occur when the onboard shuttle clock reaches a count of only 12,000 ticks and the station 20,000 ticks - IF RELATIVITY IS A VALID THEORY and this proceedure for comparing motion affect on clocks avoids concerns of simultanety since we only care about tick rate not physical tick count.

So when the shuttle crosses the light trigger all clocks are set to zero and the computer program begins tracking the trip. Both observers are equipped with the latest in long range vision equipment. Both the station and the shuttle have a light that flashes with each tick so each can count the flashes of the other clock and compare them to his own clock tick rate.

The station observer notes that according to his observation of his clock and the shuttle tick rate that the shuttle clock is only ticking at 36% the rate of his clock. Not the anticipated 60%. Something is going wrong with the experiment. OMG! No! It can't be relativity is such a proven concept. There must be something wrong with the equipment. But we must finish this test and look at the data because this is really interesting.

The shuttle pilot observes the station clock and notes that the station clock is not ticking at 60% of his rate as expected but seems to be synchronized with his clock. What is going on. This can't be, the test is falling apart..

This is unexpected and really concerns the pilot because it isn't conforming with the predictions of Special Relativity but he lets the test continue.

When the station clock reaches 20,000 counts it stops and sends a coded light or radio signal to the shuttle stipulating that the test terminated and that based on the observed tick rate of the shuttle clock it should have stopped at 6,000 counts, not the 12,000 they expected according to SR..

The shuttle pilot notes that while his clock did stop just as it should using the computer conversion control at 12,000 counts and if SR is valid then the duration of the test was equal and tick rates should be different than what we observed.

The shuttle pilot signals the station and tells them that against his expectation he now predicts that the station clock must have stopped at 12,000 counts instead of the scheduled 20,000 counts and fears something has gone wrong with the test because surely SR can't be that wrong.

The boss orders the shuttle pilot to leave his clocks turned off and to return to base so they can compare them directly in a common frame and to review notes and try to figure out where they have gone wrong.

Back at base in the conference room the astute pilot realizes had he actually observed the station tick rate to be 60% of his own as predicted by SR then the station clock could only read 7,200 ticks, not 20,000 ticks as it was supposed to nor the 12,000 ticks his observation suggested it would.

But since the "Reality" on inspection is that his clock reads 12,000 ticks and the station clock reads 20,000 ticks, then it appears his clock indeed was ticking slower at 60% just as SR predicted it would.

Wait a minute SR prediction is right but observation is wrong says the boss and it doesn't consider how simultaneity might affect the test.

Certainly says the pilot. "You see there are two things at work here. Observational perception or an illusion of motion and physical responses of clocks to motion. But while it would seem that the clocks must stop simultaneously in a real-time universally, IF SR is valid then it is a moot point because the computer insures equal duration of the test.

Since my clock was actually running slower at 60% of the rate of your clock you percieved it as running 60% of its proper tick rate which was the unexpected 36% you observed and since my clock had actually physically slowed down to 60% of yours and yours hadn't slowed at all, the fact that I observered your clock slow to 60% made my observation seem they remained synchronized.

"But all this isn't according to SR theory" says the boss.

"Then we must change the theory to match the physical reality of our test, keep in mind we have never before actually observed clocks in relative motion, we have only compared clocks after they have had relative velocity.

What counts is that observations matche mathematically with the physical reality and the reality is only my clock ran slow and both our clocks only appeared to run slower than the actual proper tick rate that they were running at."

SR perception predictions are wrong because they are based on symmetry of relative motion and not actual velocity induced by frame changing and physical data observation.

So you did all that with a very thin wire and a time machine? "Mac's special relativity", very catchy.

The challenge here is for relativists to produce ANY hard evidence in the form of actual data, not merely rhetoric, that show this scenario is not a valid conclusion. Don't bother saying "But that isn't what SR claims" because that is not at issue here.

So its a strawman and an argument ad ignorantiam? Brilliant...

-Andrew

Hi Mac,
Interesting though experiment.
It's nice to know what Mac's relativity predicts for that experiment, even if you can't figure out what Einstein's relativity predicts.

Sorry Mac, "Special Relativity" has been trademarked. You need to change your title.

BTW, have you found your flaw yet?

I'll merely note that none of the above is rebuttal data. :D

Rebuttal data? No, one does not need data; since your argument is fellaciouse, as I mentioned above, which you have not denied.


-Andrew

I'll merely note that none of the above is rebuttal data.

Why bother rebutting an incorrect theory of yours when we already have a working theory with no problems at all?

Why bother rebutting an incorrect theory of yours when we already have a working theory with no problems at all?

Interesting. I noted that I wasn't claiming this but challenged relatvists to post data disproving it. As I suspected there seems to be no such data. Hmmmm.

You know someone is gonna say "guess what, you guessed the right ticks! You have won a huge chocolate cake!"

Since my clock was actually running slower at 60% of the rate of your clock you percieved it as running 60% of its proper tick rate which was the unexpected 36% you observed and since my clock had actually physically slowed down to 60% of yours and yours hadn't slowed at all, the fact that I observered your clock slow to 60% made my observation seem they remained synchronized.
This doesn't make any sense. If you claim that (in the station's rest frame):


The shuttle clock ticks at 60% of the rate of the station clock, due to the shuttle's velocity of 0.8c.
Every time the shuttle clock ticks, the shuttle sends a signal back to the station.
The signals travel at the speed of light.

The only observation consistent with this scenario is for the station to receive the signals at a frequency of 33.3 % the station clock's tick rate, which is what STR predicts once you account for the Doppler effect. Any other observation implies that either (1) or (3) is wrong.

Interesting. I noted that I wasn't claiming this but challenged relatvists to post data disproving it.

The experiment is disproved because it wouldn't happen in real life, where Einstein's relativity holds. In the MacM fantasy world, though, anything can happen, I suppose.

This doesn't make any sense. If you claim that (in the station's rest frame):


The shuttle clock ticks at 60% of the rate of the station clock, due to the shuttle's velocity of 0.8c.
Every time the shuttle clock ticks, the shuttle sends a signal back to the station.
The signals travel at the speed of light.

The only observation consistent with this scenario is for the station to receive the signals at a frequency of 33.3 % the station clock's tick rate, which is what STR predicts once you account for the Doppler effect. Any other observation implies that either (1) or (3) is wrong.

You have missed the point. The statement that the clock is ticking at 60% is based on the fact that it will display a loss in time based on that figure once it has terminated the test. It is the permanent loss of time that is driving the clocks not the perception of tick rate by other observers. Yes I did npt include doppler because it only complicate the scenario and doesn't alter the conundrum.

Remember this isn't about claiming this is what happens but that you (if you support relativity) are supposed to post data which demonstrates this is not what happens.

The experiment is disproved because it wouldn't happen in real life, where Einstein's relativity holds. In the MacM fantasy world, though, anything can happen, I suppose.

Sorry James R thetoric is not accepted as data. Where is your data showing this is not what happens?


Remember the scenario is based on the same ultimate time dilation emperically found.

MacM:

I don't have data on the MacM fantasy universe. And since apparently you don't want a relativistic analysis, that leaves me nothing to do.

You have missed the point. The statement that the clock is ticking at 60% is based on the fact that it will display a loss in time based on that figure once it has terminated the test.
So you're claiming a tick rate of 36% during the inertial portion of the shuttle's trip and an average rate of 60% for the entire trip? Where's this 36% figure coming from, anyway? Why are you squaring the STR prediction?
It is the permanent loss of time that is driving the clocks not the perception of tick rate by other observers.
Well is this 36% tick rate supposed to be real or perceived?

Let's say the shuttle's trajectory in the station's frame is x = 0.8 c t, (t as measured by the station clock, with the station located at x = 0).

Can you tell me the shuttle's x coordinate on its clock's first, tenth, and generally, nth tick?

If we assume that an observer on the station is instantly notified of each tick (no Doppler effect),

Can you tell me at what time he measures the shuttle clock's nth tick, and what he measures the shuttle's position to be at this time?

Remember this isn't about claiming this is what happens but that you (if you support relativity) are supposed to post data which demonstrates this is not what happens.
No. It's your job to explain why I should adopt your complicated, untested, specific claim over the simpler, more generally applicable, and much better established theory of relativity.

So you're claiming a tick rate of 36% during the inertial portion of the shuttle's trip and an average rate of 60% for the entire trip? Where's this 36% figure coming from, anyway? Why are you squaring the STR prediction?

You have two affects:

1 - Actual physical dilation of tick rate which is recorded emperically by ONLY the clock that has accelerated (or accelerated the most) = 60%.

2 - The SR illusion of relative velocity where EACH observer sees the others clock tick at 60% but is perception and contibutes no permanent time loss.

Well is this 36% tick rate supposed to be real or perceived?

Percieved but 50% real which is recorded emperically as the actual 60% accumulated time by the accelerated clock.

Let's say the shuttle's trajectory in the station's frame is x = 0.8 c t, (t as measured by the station clock, with the station located at x = 0).


Can you tell me the shuttle's x coordinate on its clock's first, tenth, and generally, nth tick?

Location would follow normal to the 0.8c velocity where actual position according to the shuttle pilot on the i.e. - 10th tick will be different than the percieved location according to the station observer.

If we assume that an observer on the station is instantly notified of each tick (no Doppler effect),

Can you tell me at what time he measures the shuttle clock's nth tick, and what he measures the shuttle's position to be at this time?


If follows proportionately from the ultimate conclusion where the station observer would also predict an incorrect accumulated time of the shuttle clock based on his observation of tick rate vs his tick rate and time of flight according to his clock.

No. It's your job to explain why I should adopt your complicated, untested, specific claim over the simpler, more generally applicable, and much better established theory of relativity.

This is not meant to be some substitute theory with advantages for you to adopt but to merely show that different predicted observations still result in the same emperical data and what SR predicts may well be nothing more than perception and that there is some other underlying process causing the actualy physical time loss of ONE clock, since relative velocity is symmetrical and therefor should cause both clocks to dilate and accumulated less time equally such that no recorded differential would be emperically found.

This view resolves the reciprocity issue of SR by making relative velocity time dilation an illusion with no permanent physical affect, yet still predicts the emperical time loss due to an accelerated (v = at due to some actual F = ma and not merely due to relative velocity) clock.

You have two affects:

1 - Actual physical dilation of tick rate which is recorded emperically by ONLY the clock that has accelerated (or accelerated the most) = 60%.

2 - The SR illusion of relative velocity where EACH observer sees the others clock tick at 60% but is perception and contibutes no permanent time loss.
If the station observer sees the shuttle clock running at 36% of its rest rate during the inertial portion of its trip (accumulating a total of 7,200 ticks), but must have accumulated 12,000 ticks for the entire trip, the only way I can get a consistent result is by assuming that the station observer will see the shuttle clock tick extremely fast during the shuttle's deceleration at the end (bringing the "perceived" and "real" times back in sync as the shuttle's velocity drops to zero).

If this is the case, I'd describe the same scenario more literally: the shuttle's clock *really* runs at 36% of its rest rate, then *really* runs faster during the deceleration period such that the average dilation factor was 60%. I wouldn't talk about "real" dilation plus an illusion, unless you can explain how each contribution could be measured seperately.
This is not meant to be some substitute theory with advantages for you to adopt but to merely show that different predicted observations still result in the same emperical data
As far as direct measurements of objects before and after a trip are concerned, maybe. I don't know of any experiment where anyone tried to directly observe the ageing rate of a process moving at relativistic velocity. But you're forgetting that clocks can't just tick at any old rate, and not any old "illusion" can get between the process of interest and the observer. The behaviour of moving clocks and shuttles is completely determined by the physical laws that govern the behaviour of their constituent atoms and molecules, and those laws are well tested and relativistic. Electromagnetic signals always travel at c in a void, which restricts illusions to the Doppler effect.
This view resolves the reciprocity issue of SR by making relative velocity time dilation an illusion with no permanent physical affect, yet still predicts the emperical time loss due to an accelerated (v = at due to some actual F = ma and not merely due to relative velocity) clock.
Reciprocity, if you look at it more carefully, isn't as physically impossible as it seems, so there's no need to dismiss it as an illusion that "just happens".

If you want, you can assume the following "theory" (let's call it "Absolutivity") is true:

There exists a unique "absolute" reference frame, with respect to which we can define absolute quantities (in particular, we can define the absolute velocity).
The length of any physical object contracts in the direction of its absolute motion in accordance with STR's length contraction formula.
The rate of any physical process slows as a result of absolute motion in accordance with STR's time dilation formula.
Light always propagates at an absolute speed of c = 299,792,458 metres per second in empty space.

Believe it or not, this theory is experimentally indistinguishable from relativity. A while back I posted an example of its application (link) predicting reciprocity. Anyone familiar with the properties of the Lorentz transformation can easily see that you must get "relativity-compatible" predictions from any such scenario that uses only the four rules above, but the specific example I posted should make this seem more plausible than an abstract (if more elegant) demonstration involving the Lorentz group.

If the station observer sees the shuttle clock running at 36% of its rest rate during the inertial portion of its trip (accumulating a total of 7,200 ticks), but must have accumulated 12,000 ticks for the entire trip, the only way I can get a consistent result is by assuming that the station observer will see the shuttle clock tick extremely fast during the shuttle's deceleration at the end (bringing the "perceived" and "real" times back in sync as the shuttle's velocity drops to zero).

OK. I'm skipping the blance of your post because you have a false start. The shuttle remains inertial throughout the testing. It is merely returned to embelish the story version. I could just as well have transmitted a signal about the accumulated times on the clocks after the test that is digitally encoded such that neither doppler nor simultaineity have any affect.

The 0.36 is 1/2 half physical reality and the other half SR perception. What I have done is advance the notion that since ONLY the accelerated clock dilates it must be physically ticking slower and since SR predicts an "Observed" decrease of tick rate for both clocks due to relative velocity and the station clock doesn't experience any permanent physical loss of time then the relative velocity affect merely compounds the fact that the shutle is "Actually" ticking slower and the station then views 0.6 * 0.6 = 0.36 it's tick rate.

The station observer notes that according to his observation of his clock and the shuttle tick rate that the shuttle clock is only ticking at 36% the rate of his clock. Not the anticipated 60%.

Hi Mac,
The researchers haven't done their predictions correctly.
They should have anticipated that he station observer would see the shuttle clock ticking at 33.3% the rate of his clock.


Here's a question for you.
During the approach (ie before the shuttle crosses the light trigger, but after it has finished accelerating), at what rate would the station observer and shuttle pilot see each other's clocks tick? And what would they anticipate seeing, according to SR?

MacM:

As usual, you've been sloppy with your reference frames. Corrections appear below.

A light beam trigger circuit is established for the shuttle to cross starting all clocks in the experiment and the shuttle will be first sent off into space where it makes a turn around and accelerates back becoming inertial just before crossing the light trigger at 0.8c such that all testing is done during inertial conditions.

At that velocity gamma = 1 2/3 or the shuttle dilated clock will only tick 6 ticks for every 10 ticks of the station monitoring clock.

...As seen by the station clock.

According to a clock on the shuttle, the shuttle clock ticks 10 ticks for every 6 ticks of the station clock.

All clocks are identical and functioning properly. The craft is equipped with some unusual control equipment based on understood relativity affects.

Since relativity predicts that the shuttle clock will only tick at 60% the rate of the station clock...

as measured from the station...

, a computer program is used onboard the shuttle to produce a corrected count of ticks of the shuttle clock such that the control shuts down the shuttle clock when the station clock has reached 20,000 ticks and shuts down the test.

This is the crux of the experiment, and you make your usual mistake of failing to specify in which frame the shut down is simultaneous.

I will assume that the shutdown is simultaneous in the station frame. Therefore, it is not simultaneous in the shuttle frame, of course.

If relativity is to be believed this causes both observers to time the trip over a universally equal period such that tick rate times duration will display proper accumulated time of both clocks.

The word "universally" is totally out of place here. There is no universal time.

This of course will occur when the onboard shuttle clock reaches a count of only 12,000 ticks and the station 20,000 ticks - IF RELATIVITY IS A VALID THEORY and this proceedure for comparing motion affect on clocks avoids concerns of simultanety since we only care about tick rate not physical tick count.

Of course, it does not avoid such concerns, since you have chosen a preferred frame to do the stopping of the clocks in.

I am not clear what is supposed to stop your meddled-with shuttle clock. Is it programmed to stop at 12,000 ticks? Ok, then it stops at 12,000 ticks.

So when the shuttle crosses the light trigger all clocks are set to zero and the computer program begins tracking the trip. Both observers are equipped with the latest in long range vision equipment. Both the station and the shuttle have a light that flashes with each tick so each can count the flashes of the other clock and compare them to his own clock tick rate.

The station observer notes that according to his observation of his clock and the shuttle tick rate that the shuttle clock is only ticking at 36% the rate of his clock. Not the anticipated 60%.

Are you talking about an initially-sychronised shuttle clock here, or a shuttle clock you have meddled with to run slow? You didn't mention the shuttle clock running at a slow rate before.

If the shuttle clock is initially synchonised, and not meddled with, it will be seen to tick at 60% of the station rate, as seen by the station. Only if you've previously meddled with it to slow it by 60% before the experiment will it been seen by the station to tick at 60% of 60%, or 36% of the station clock's rate, as seen by the station.

Something is going wrong with the experiment. OMG! No! It can't be relativity is such a proven concept. There must be something wrong with the equipment.

Probably the person who set up the shuttle clock meddled with it to make it run slow before the test started. That's what it sounds like, anyway.

At this stage, there's no point continuing the analysis of the results, since the set-up has not been clearly specified.

Try again with a clear set-up and then we might be able to analyse your experiment properly.

In particular, please be specific about any prior meddling with the clocks.

Thankyou.

I could just as well have transmitted a signal about the accumulated times on the clocks after the test that is digitally encoded such that neither doppler nor simultaineity have any affect.
The light that flashes every time the shuttle clock ticks is already transmitting a signal giving the accumulated time (all the station observer has to do is count the ticks). Why is one transmission giving the "correct" time, and the other the "SR perception" time? How do you account for the difference?
The 0.36 is 1/2 half physical reality and the other half SR perception.
What's the mechanism behind this illusion? The way I see it, once you fix the physical dilation of the clock and the signal speed, what the station observer sees is already completely determined, so there isn't any room for another illusion.
What I have done is advance the notion that since ONLY the accelerated clock dilates it must be physically ticking slower
Did you even read the second half of my last post?

If the shuttle clock is initially synchonised, and not meddled with, it will be seen to tick at 60% of the station rate, as seen by the station. Only if you've previously meddled with it to slow it by 60% before the experiment will it been seen by the station to tick at 60% of 60%, or 36% of the station clock's rate, as seen by the station.

Careful, James... the shuttle clock will be seen by the station to tick at 1/3 normal rate. I'm not sure that Mac is distinguishing between doppler and time dilation. I might be wrong, of course.

Since relativity predicts that the shuttle clock will only tick at 60% the rate of the station clock, a computer program is used onboard the shuttle to produce a corrected count of ticks of the shuttle clock such that the control shuts down the shuttle clock when the station clock has reached 20,000 ticks and shuts down the test. If relativity is to be believed this causes both observers to time the trip over a universally equal period such that tick rate times duration will display proper accumulated time of both clocks.
Hi Mac,
This is the same misunderstanding of SR you've had since I've known you.

The clocks are identical, the station clock stops after 20,000 ticks, and the shuttle clock stops after 12,000 ticks, right?

If relativity is to be believed, this means that the clocks stop simultaneously in the station's frame - but not in the shuttle's frame.
According to SR, the shuttle pilot should expect the station clock to read only 7200 ticks when the shuttle clock stops, and keep on ticking until it stops and 20,000 ticks. Ie the shuttle pilot whould expect the station clock to run 2.8 times longer than the shuttle clock.

As far as the flashes from the station clock that the shuttle pilot actually sees, he'll only be seeing flash number 4000 when his clock ticks over to 12000 and stops. He'll have to wait four times longer again before he the last flash from the station arrives.

Careful, James... the shuttle clock will be seen by the station to tick at 1/3 normal rate. I'm not sure that Mac is distinguishing between doppler and time dilation. I might be wrong, of course.

I don't think MacM realises there is a difference, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Having bothered to read through his tortuous scenario in detail now (from lack of anything better to do at the time), I find that MacM is still stuck on the same issues I attempted to explain to him 5 years ago.

I now actually doubt he has the capacity to learn special relativity.

Careful, James... the shuttle clock will be seen by the station to tick at 1/3 normal rate. I'm not sure that Mac is distinguishing between doppler and time dilation. I might be wrong, of course.

Pete you are partially correct. But it is not amatter of distinguishing. I merely prefer to keep the point in clear focus and not confuse things by interjecting other issues which don'talter the conclusion.

Hi Mac,
This is the same misunderstanding of SR you've had since I've known you.

The clocks are identical, the station clock stops after 20,000 ticks, and the shuttle clock stops after 12,000 ticks, right?

If relativity is to be believed, this means that the clocks stop simultaneously in the station's frame - but not in the shuttle's frame.
According to SR, the shuttle pilot should expect the station clock to read only 7200 ticks when the shuttle clock stops, and keep on ticking until it stops and 20,000 ticks. Ie the shuttle pilot whould expect the station clock to run 2.8 times longer than the shuttle clock.

As far as the flashes from the station clock that the shuttle pilot actually sees, he'll only be seeing flash number 4000 when his clock ticks over to 12000 and stops. He'll have to wait four times longer again before he the last flash from the station arrives.

Actually what nobodyelse seems to grasp is that "What others SEE" is not at issue. And hence the simultaneity shift is not a consideration. That is why I prefer dealing with tick rates rather than accumulated times.

A0.....1.....2.....3.....4.....5.....6.....7.....8 .....9.....10

B0............1............2...........3.......... ..4............5



B0.....1.....2.....3.....4.....5.....6.....7.....8 .....9.....10

A0............1............2...........3.......... ..4............5


The above can be the perception during relative motion but what really counts is that only ONE of these predictions about accumulated time based on the observed tick rate will ultimately be confirmed by emperical data.

Further the issue becomes the fact that the ONE prediction that does cometrue is ALWAYS the one that accelerated (or accelerated the most) and NEVER the stationary clock.

Therefore it is rudimentary to understand that mere "Relative Velocity" had no affect on the clocks and that it is the consequence of frame changing (F=ma and v=at) that affects clocks.

I don't think.....



Finally something you and I can both agree upon.

Pete you are partially correct. But it is not amatter of distinguishing. I merely prefer to keep the point in clear focus and not confuse things by interjecting other issues which don't alter the conclusion.

But you haven't made it clear at all.
You mention flashes of light so that each observer can count the other's ticks, which implies that what they see is relevant. You haven't made it clear whether they are allowing for the time for the flash to arrive when figuring the other clocks tick rates.

So, make it clear.
In your scenario, does the station observer see the flashes from the shuttle arrive at 36% of his clock's tick rate? Or does he calculate the timing of when the flashes left the shuttle?

Actually what nobodyelse seems to grasp is that "What others SEE" is not at issue.
Then why mention the flashes?
And hence the simultaneity shift is not a consideration.
Why do you say that? It doesn't follow.

But you haven't made it clear at all.
You mention flashes of light so that each observer can count the other's ticks, which implies that what they see is relevant.

What they see is only relevant as to the difference in the empirical reality. What you see is NOT what you get.

You haven't made it clear whether they are allowing for the time for the flash to arrive when figuring the other clocks tick rates.

When the flash arrives is not at issue. That is the reason for using tick rates and not accumulated time. It is ONLY the time intervals measured between flashes once they have started to arrrive that counts.

So, make it clear.
In your scenario, does the station observer see the flashes from the shuttle arrive at 36% of his clock's tick rate? Or does he calculate the timing of when the flashes left the shuttle?

He sees 36%, then calculates (predictes) what the accumulated time is on the other clock but one will predict correctly and the other won't. Only the resting (or least accelerated ) clock will predict correctly.

The above can be the perception during relative motion but what really counts is that only ONE of these predictions about accumulated time based on the observed tick rate will ultimately be confirmed by emperical data.

Further the issue becomes the fact that the ONE prediction that does cometrue is ALWAYS the one that accelerated (or accelerated the most) and NEVER the stationary clock.

Therefore it is rudimentary to understand that mere "Relative Velocity" had no affect on the clocks and that it is the consequence of frame changing (F=ma and v=at) that affects clocks.

Correct me if I am wrong about any of this but:
MacM stated that the acceleration is not part of the test. It is therefore irrelevant, otherwise we would have to use GTR (avoiding GTR was the whole point of this experiment.) Neither reference frame is more correct than the other if the acceleration is not part of the test, and thus one clock does not 'actualy' dialate more than the other.
The fact is, one clock dialates more (and the twin 'paradox' occurs) only if they were running during the accleration (thus acceleration was part of the test.)

-Andrew

Oh yah, and wasn't there an experiment similar in nature to this which involved the halflives of muons created in our atmosphear?

Oh yah, and wasn't there an experiment similar in nature to this which involved the halflives of muons created in our atmosphear?

Yup. And based on their decay and velocity, should never reach the Earth's surface once produced in the upper atmosphere, unless they have experienced time dilation.

Correct me if I am wrong about any of this but:
MacM stated that the acceleration is not part of the test. It is therefore irrelevant, otherwise we would have to use GTR (avoiding GTR was the whole point of this experiment.) Neither reference frame is more correct than the other if the acceleration is not part of the test, and thus one clock does not 'actualy' dialate more than the other.

Finally an on point discussion. You are only partially correct however. GR was deliberately avoided by restricting the test to the time dilation formula based soley on relative velocity.

But while relative velocity IS symmetrical in this theory (but not mine) it therefore cannot produce an accumulated time loss between the clocks. They would dilate equally due to relative veloicty under those conditions.

However, claiming the difference is based on the acceleration just doesn't add up. I can change the period of acceleration to be 1 % of the total trip time or I can make the acceleration period 0.0000001% the total trip time by changing how long I continue to coast inertially at the higher "absolute" velocity.

The amount of time loss turns out to be a function of the duration of the inertial period and it's absolute relative velocity.


The fact is, one clock dialates more (and the twin 'paradox' occurs) only if they were running during the accleration (thus acceleration was part of the test.)

-Andrew

Yes there are those that claim it is only acceleration that causes the twin to arriave back younger but as pointed out above that really doesn't fly because the age differeance depends on the duration of the inertial flight and not just the period of acceleration.

Oh yah, and wasn't there an experiment similar in nature to this which involved the halflives of muons created in our atmosphear?


Yep and in contrast to the standard claim that it proves SR (which it doesn't since there is no data as to what the muon sees regarding the lab clock) there is also more recent studies that used ansitropy of cosmic muons to calculate (correctly) the earth's absolute motion in space relative to the CMB. i.e - something on the order of 356kmps I believe.

The conclusion of the study point blank states that the correct "v" to use in the time dilation formula is an absolute velocity relative to the CMB - NOT relative vleocity to the earth. - Hmmmmm. Don't see much discussion about that finding here.

Yup. And based on their decay and velocity, should never reach the Earth's surface once produced in the upper atmosphere, unless they have experienced time dilation.

Correct and the latest study of that shows an ansitropy and using the ansitropy of muon decay they correctly computed the earth's absolute motion relative to the CMB. The conclusion being that the "Correct" "V" to use in the time dilation formula is an absolute velocity relative to the CMB and not relative velocity to the earth. Totally inconsistant with the SR view.


http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V03NO2PDF/V03N2MON.PDF

However, claiming the difference is based on the acceleration just doesn't add up. I can change the period of acceleration to be 1 % of the total trip time or I can make the acceleration period 0.0000001% the total trip time by changing how long I continue to coast inertially at the higher "absolute" velocity.
Then, if consistent results are to be obtained, you find that the ageing rate of the Earthbound twin must be increased in the travelling twin's frame during his acceleration, and that this "acceleration due to time dilation" effect must be more pronounced as the acceleration rate and distance are increased. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

Now, what a genius did do a long time ago was to assume that accelerating frames were equivalent to gravitational fields. So if clocks tick faster when you accelerate toward them (at a rate that increases with acceleration and distance), then a clock at a higher gravitational potential must also tick faster (at a rate that increases with gravitational potential difference). It is called "gravitational time dilation", and the effect has been experimentally confirmed.

If you don't want to bother with GTR, you can always just use STR's time dilation and the fact that light travels at c to predict what both twins will actually see throughout the travelling twin's entire trip. Even if you make all the predictions from the Earthbound twin's frame only (by calculating exactly what time each twin's clock shows when he receives signals sent by the other at c at given times), you'll find that the results are perfectly compatible with reciprocity in particular and STR in general.

Then, if consistent results are to be obtained, you find that the ageing rate of the Earthbound twin must be increased in the travelling twin's frame during his acceleration, and that this "acceleration due to time dilation" effect must be more pronounced as the acceleration rate and distance are increased. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

Ha. I would be careful about declaring ones self a genius. You must be pragmatic in your assumptions and to assume the entire universe shifts gears just because you expend energy and change veloicty simply fails the laugh test. You must remeber the balance of the universe IS (are) nothing but other clocks in the relative veloicty equation so to suggest the station does anything as a consequence of your induced motion is to suggest the entire univers e responds .

Now, what a genius did do a long time ago was to assume that accelerating frames were equivalent to gravitational fields. So if clocks tick faster when you accelerate toward them (at a rate that increases with acceleration and distance), then a clock at a higher gravitational potential must also tick faster (at a rate that increases with gravitational potential difference). It is called "gravitational time dilation", and the effect has been experimentally confirmed.

Now you deviate from SR to GR and try to claim time dilation is a GR function related to relative veloicty. I wholly disagree but that wouldn't be the issue. You are efectively conceeding that SR's relative veloicty didn't cause the empirically demonstrated time loss. On that note we would agree. But asserting GR (Acceleration) was the casue hardly fits the observation.

If you don't want to bother with GTR, you can always just use STR's time dilation and the fact that light travels at c to predict what both twins will actually see throughout the travelling twin's entire trip. Even if you make all the predictions from the Earthbound twin's frame only (by calculating exactly what time each twin's clock shows when he receives signals sent by the other at c at given times), you'll find that the results are perfectly compatible with reciprocity in particular and STR in general.

WOW. How many times must it be said that the issue is the accumulated time differential upon return of the twin, not what they see during relative motion.

The bottom line issue is that ONLY the accelerated clock shows a loss of time and bothclocks experienced the same relative velocities (even during the acceleration period). But the acceleration magnitude and period do not correspond to changes in accumulated time. Only the period of differential velocity does so.

MacM:

I see you have no response to my post.

Are we done, then?

However, claiming the difference is based on the acceleration just doesn't add up. I can change the period of acceleration to be 1 % of the total trip time or I can make the acceleration period 0.0000001% the total trip time by changing how long I continue to coast inertially at the higher "absolute" velocity.

The amount of time loss turns out to be a function of the duration of the inertial period and it's absolute relative velocity.
Aha, so here is the basis of your argument then no?
Perhaps you could show the math for this, because I do not beleive you.

-Andrew

MacM:

I see you have no response to my post.

Are we done, then?

Considering I responded, I'm not sure what your game is here.

You must be pragmatic in your assumptions and to assume the entire universe shifts gears just because you expend energy and change veloicty simply fails the laugh test. You must remeber the balance of the universe IS (are) nothing but other clocks in the relative veloicty equation so to suggest the station does anything as a consequence of your induced motion is to suggest the entire univers e responds .
Only as seen by the accelerating twin/shuttle/whatever, and it's simply a result of one inertial coordinate system "morphing" into another. Since the use of these coordinate systems in which the laws of physics take the same form is simply a matter of convenience, your real issue with STR is "the laws of physics just can't be Lorentz covariant".
Now you deviate from SR to GR and try to claim time dilation is a GR function related to relative veloicty.
It's an effect with more than one contributing factor. STR deals with situations in which only one of these - relative velocity - is significant.
The bottom line issue is that ONLY the accelerated clock shows a loss of time and bothclocks experienced the same relative velocities
Be careful with this assumption, especially in your own home-made versions of relativity. How velocities transform is dependent on how space and time coordinates transform from one reference frame to another, and I've never seen you postulate your own coordinate transformation to replace the one used in STR.
(even during the acceleration period).
I'm not so sure about this. I plan on taking my own look at accelerating frames in the near future, but I don't have time for it now.
But the acceleration magnitude and period do not correspond to changes in accumulated time. Only the period of differential velocity does so.
There will be an inverse relationship between the magnitude and period of acceleration for fixed initial and final velocities, so the magnitudes of the effect is approximately the same. This is why it doesn't matter if you arrange for the acceleration period to occupy 1% or 0.001% of the trip. What does have an important effect (as seen by the accelerating twin) is the distance between the two twins at the time of the acceleration, which is directly dependent on the "period of differential velocity".

Aha, so here is the basis of your argument then no?
Perhaps you could show the math for this, because I do not beleive you.

-Andrew

That shouldn't be to difficult.

Case 1:

Step 1 - Two clocks are mounted aboard rockets and a flight course is laid out. The start is at a common location and all at relative rest with a schedule having equal acceleration and comoving causing both rockets to accelerate and coast inertially side by side throughout the test.

Step 2 - Some distance away there is a stationary space bouy (Clock "A") to mark where rockets carrying clocks "B" & "C" will stop accelerating and go inertial at 0.8c and where all clocks set to "zero" and are started.

Step 3 - A second bouy 6,000 light seconds from station "A" marks where the rocket "B" stops his clock.

Step 4 - A third bouy 60,000 light seconds away marks where rocket "C" stops his clock.

It is obvious that in steps 1 and 2 the clocks are subjected to the same period and magnitude of acceleration and achieve identical higher inertial velocity.

At 0.8c t "B & C" = 0.6t "A" for both rockets, such that when the rockets cross the 2nd bouy it took 7,500 seconds according to "A" but "B" stops his clock at 0.6 * 7,500 = 4,500 seconds.

When "C" crosses the 3rd bouy A now reads 75,000 seconds and "C" stops his clock at 45,000 seconds.

The difference in accumulated time is a direct function of inertial velocity and duration in an absolute universal sense.



Case 2:

Step 1 - Two clocks are mounted aboard rockets and a flight course is laid out. The start point is shifted but is at a common relative rest with a schedule having accelerations to cause the rockets to cross a start bouy simultaneously and comoving causing both rockets to accelerate and coast inertially throughout the test but at different higher inertial velocities.

Step 2 - Some distance away there is a stationary space bouy (Clock "A") to mark where rockets carrying clocks "B" & "C" will stop accelerating and go inertial at 0.6c and 0.8c respectively and where all clocks set to "zero" and are started.

Step 3 - A second bouy 6,000 light seconds from station "A" marks where both rockets stops their clocks.

It is obvious that in steps 1 and 2 the clocks are subjected to different magnitude of acceleration but for a common period in a universal sense and achieve different higher inertial velocities.

At 0.6c "B" crosses the 2nd bouy after 10,000 seconds according to "A" but his clock reads 8,000 seconds.

At 0.8c when C crosses the 2nd bouy after 7,500 seconds according to "A" but his clock stops at 4,500 seconds.

The difference in accumulated time is a direct function of inertial velocity and distance in an absolute universal sense. t = d/v.

Acceleration affects the terminal velocity but the terminal velocity dictates tick rate and time loss is a function of tick rate and universal duration of the test.

Correct and the latest study of that shows an ansitropy and using the ansitropy of muon decay they correctly computed the earth's absolute motion relative to the CMB. The conclusion being that the "Correct" "V" to use in the time dilation formula is an absolute velocity relative to the CMB and not relative velocity to the earth. Totally inconsistant with the SR view.


http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V03NO2PDF/V03N2MON.PDF

"Significance of this research
It is of interest to know the absolute velocity of the
solar system for a number of reasons: The fact that a
solar system velocity can be observationally determined
is further evidence for the existence of absolute space, a
stationary ether, or a preferred zero velocity frame of
reference, and it provides evidence against relativity
theories. The measured value of the absolute velocity of
the solar system, after subtracting off the velocity due to
the general Milky-Way galactic rotation and
translation, might provide an indication of dark
neighbors to the solar system."

Mac, the linked article makes assumptions of absolute velocities and then immediately confirms the assumptions without explaining anything. Nonsense.

"Significance of this research
It is of interest to know the absolute velocity of the
solar system for a number of reasons: The fact that a
solar system velocity can be observationally determined
is further evidence for the existence of absolute space, a
stationary ether, or a preferred zero velocity frame of
reference, and it provides evidence against relativity
theories. The measured value of the absolute velocity of
the solar system, after subtracting off the velocity due to
the general Milky-Way galactic rotation and
translation, might provide an indication of dark
neighbors to the solar system."

Mac, the linked article makes assumptions of absolute velocities and then immediately confirms the assumptions without explaining anything. Nonsense.

You can choose to ignore the ansitropy measured and utilized to compute the absolute motion of our planet but that doesn't alter the fact it is there.

Go ahead it's OK to cry.

You can choose to ignore the ansitropy mesured and utilized but that doesn't alter the fact it is there and the signifigance that it can be used to compute absolute velocity of motion.

Go ahead it's OK to cry.

No one is ignoring anything, Mac. The fact of the matter is that the article takes an assumption and makes it a fact, without any explanation and regardless of measurements.

That shouldn't be to difficult.
Alas it was: that was not mathematics, that was some measured values and assertions of a thought experiment. Look I can do that to:
Relativity is wrong because if I have a cookie traveling at 0.8c then its mass will increase 40 times and thus if I eat it, I will violate the laws of conservation of mass because I ate 40 cookies because 40*1=40. Go ahead, show some empirical observational data that if I ate a cookie travelling at 0.8c I would not have gained 40 cookies of mass.
You need to prove your assertions.

How did you derive the reasult of those thought experiments mathematicly? Use agreed upon axioms, for instance Lorentz equations, not MacM assertions.

-Andrew

Alas it was: that was not mathematics, that was some measured values and assertions of a thought experiment. Look I can do that to:
Relativity is wrong because if I have a cookie traveling at 0.8c then its mass will increase 40 times and thus if I eat it, I will violate the laws of conservation of mass because I ate 40 cookies because 40*1=40. Go ahead, show some empirical observational data that if I ate a cookie travelling at 0.8c I would not have gained 40 cookies of mass.
You need to prove your assertions.

How did you derive the reasult of those thought experiments mathematicly? Use agreed upon axioms, for instance Lorentz equations, not MacM assertions.

-Andrew

My error I assumed you knew how to compute time dilation and do basic mathematics (using SR not Mac's relativity).

BTW: 0.8c doesn't equate to 40 cookies only 1.6 cookies. Of course that isn't a problem either since you are traveling with the cookie and it has "0" relative velocity to you. - Shessh.

Obviously, if your computations utilize relativistic mathematics, they will be dead on with relativities predictions. So either your predicting that which the theory you are trying to discredit will predict (thus making your argument meaningless), or your doing something wrong with the mathematics. If it's the first, then theres no point in disscussion, if it's the second, than showing your work will point out the problem, either way showing you work will tell us which of the two it is.

My error I assumed you knew how to compute time dilation and do basic mathematics (using SR not Mac's relativity).
I do, it is actualy you who appears not to.
Looking at case 1:
Since each clock is in an inertial reference frame while they are on, according to Relativity, the Lorentz factor is all the time dialation we have during the test. And thus, while the buoy will observe one rocket ship to be dialating, and a few thousand ticks behind, the rocket will observe the buoy to be equally behind, and will stop it's clock at 7,500 ticks, just like the buoy, and upon comparison they will see the dialation was only observed.
This is what STR predicts.

Case 2: same as case 1.
Acceleration affects the terminal velocity but the terminal velocity dictates tick rate and time loss is a function of tick rate and universal duration of the test.
Observed time loss that is. Actual time loss only happens during acceleration. If you think I am wrong, this is why I asked you to show your work. Tell me what equations you are using to derive that resault.
Clearly, your thought experiments are not going anywhere.

BTW: 0.8c doesn't equate to 40 cookies only 1.6 cookies. Of course that isn't a problem either since you are traveling with the cookie and it has "0" relative velocity to you. - Shessh.
I'll merely note that none of the above is rebuttal data.
And I'm not travelling with the cookie, it would be very hard to eat if our distances remained relativly fixed...

-Andrew

It's an effect with more than one contributing factor. STR deals with situations in which only one of these - relative velocity - is significant.

I would agree as to the result but not the theory. SR does not qualify that only ONE relative velocity is significant, it specifies that both views are equally valid.

Be careful with this assumption, especially in your own home-made versions of relativity. How velocities transform is dependent on how space and time coordinates transform from one reference frame to another, and I've never seen you postulate your own coordinate transformation to replace the one used in STR.

That is because there are none. In my view Lorentz Spatial Contraction does not occur. I maintain an absolute view of clock tick rate. That is the accelerated clock (which ultimately emperically demonstrates a loss of time) IS physically ticking slower than the resting clock.

Time and distance are physical enities and velocity is just a calculated ratio v = d/t. Such that when t1 = 10 and t2 = t1/gamma = i.e: 0.5t1 = 5 and d = 200.

v1 = d/t1 = 200/10 = 20 ; d1 = v1t1 = 10*20 = 200

v2 = d/t2 = 200/5 = 40; d2 = v2t2 = 5 * 40 = 200

d1 = d2

That is relative velocity in an absolute sense is a function of the tick rate of the clock used to measure the trip and retaining that measurement standard distance cannot change.

So velocity is frame dependant, not distance. SR is invalid (my opinion) because they claim a reduced tick rate for a clock (i.e. - t2 = 0.5t1) but then turn around and claim because the trip took less time at the same veloicty distance was shorter. But velocity is nothing more than the calculated d/t and disregarding that t2 is universally different produces the requirement for contraction. If t2 were not physically different then it would not physically lose time.

For example if point A to point B which are in the same inertial rest frame is 60 miles and I drive two cars over the course.

Car "A" has a good speed-o-meter, odometer and clock but car "B" speed-o-meter is broken and his watch batteries are low such that his watch ticks only once for each tick of car "A" clock and we drive side by side at 60 Mph according to "A"; upon arrival when they discuss the trip "B" would say look we were driving 120 Mph because we went 60 miles in 30 minutes!

He would not say you went 60 miles but I only went 30 miles. It is really just that simple.

I'm not so sure about this. I plan on taking my own look at accelerating frames in the near future, but I don't have time for it now.

Just keep in mind that every instantaneous moment in time is an inertial velocity because there is no change in velocity in an instant. The affect is an integration of velocity affects over the acceleration schedule.

There will be an inverse relationship between the magnitude and period of acceleration for fixed initial and final velocities, so the magnitudes of the effect is approximately the same. This is why it doesn't matter if you arrange for the acceleration period to occupy 1% or 0.001% of the trip. What does have an important effect (as seen by the accelerating twin) is the distance between the two twins at the time of the acceleration, which is directly dependent on the "period of differential velocity".

I think we are getting into symantics here and I would not argue over it.

I have claimed time loss is a function of tick rate at the elevated velocity times the period at that velocity.

You seem to be claim the acceleration magnitude and duration set the tick rate and times period determines time loss.

I would agree with that because the tick rate and the induced velocity are directly and inversely linked by the time dilation formula.

What they see is only relevant as to the difference in the empirical reality. What you see is NOT what you get.
Good.

When the flash arrives is not at issue. That is the reason for using tick rates and not accumulated time. It is ONLY the time intervals measured between flashes once they have started to arrrive that counts.
Good again.

He sees 36%, then calculates (predictes) what the accumulated time is on the other clock...

That's what I thought. Like I said, you still have the same misunderstanding of SR that you've had since I've known you.

From the OP:
The station observer notes that according to his observation of his clock and the shuttle tick rate that the shuttle clock is only ticking at 36% the rate of his clock. Not the anticipated 60%
The researchers haven't done their predictions correctly.
They should have anticipated that he station observer would see the shuttle clock ticking at 33.3% the rate of his clock.

The prediction of SR is that each observer will see the flashes from the other's clock arrive at 1/3 of their own clock's tick rate - not 60%.



Here's a question for you.
During the approach (ie before the shuttle crosses the light trigger, but after it has finished accelerating), at what rate would the station observer and shuttle pilot see the flashes from each other's clocks arive? And what would they anticipate seeing, according to SR?

MacM:

I can only assume you missed my long post where I took apart your thought experiment. Either that, or you're willfully ignoring it. The only response I've had from you was for you to dishonestly misquote me, in relation to a tangential post I made concerning you ability to understand special relativity.

Go back to that post and read my post two or three posts above it. Then respond, if you have a response.

Good.


Good again.



That's what I thought. Like I said, you still have the same misunderstanding of SR that you've had since I've known you.

From the OP:

The researchers haven't done their predictions correctly.
They should have anticipated that he station observer would see the shuttle clock ticking at 33.3% the rate of his clock.

The prediction of SR is that each observer will see the flashes from the other's clock arrive at 1/3 of their own clock's tick rate - not 60%.



Here's a question for you.
During the approach (ie before the shuttle crosses the light trigger, but after it has finished accelerating), at what rate would the station observer and shuttle pilot see the flashes from each other's clocks arive? And what would they anticipate seeing, according to SR?

You are correct. I screwed this one up because I was not applying doppler and therefore should not have used the light signal. I'll re-formulate and re-post to acheive what I was really wanting to do.

To answer your question SR = 300%

MacM:

I can only assume you missed my long post where I took apart your thought experiment. Either that, or you're willfully ignoring it. The only response I've had from you was for you to dishonestly misquote me, in relation to a tangential post I made concerning you ability to understand special relativity.

Go back to that post and read my post two or three posts above it. Then respond, if you have a response.


I'll pass on your post because I screwed up my presentation and it doesn't do what I wanted. I'll re-think the presentation and re-post.

That is because there are none. In my view Lorentz Spatial Contraction does not occur. I maintain an absolute view of clock tick rate. That is the accelerated clock (which ultimately emperically demonstrates a loss of time) IS physically ticking slower than the resting clock.
Then you do have a coordinate transformation with respect to your "absolute" frame and it is (for motion along the x axis):
t' = \frac{1}{\gamma(v)} t

x' = x - v t

If you define u = \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}t} and u' = \frac{\mathrm{d}x'}{\mathrm{d}t'}, then your MacM velocity transformation formula is:

u' = \gamma(v) ( u - v )

You can use this to directly calculate your v1 and v2. Incidentally, this transform has a variant c.
So velocity is frame dependant, not distance. SR is invalid (my opinion) because they claim a reduced tick rate for a clock (i.e. - t2 = 0.5t1) but then turn around and claim because the trip took less time at the same veloicty distance was shorter.
No, STR assumes that measuring instruments contract in the direction of their motion and that clocks which appear to be synchronized in one frame will not be synchonized in another. And it's got good reasons for drawing both these conclusions.
You seem to be claim the acceleration magnitude and duration set the tick rate and times period determines time loss.
As I said before, the "acceleration due to time dilation" is simply a result of the gradual transition from one inertial frame to another. It's completely analagous to a spatial rotation. A stationary or slow moving object will appear to move a great distance at a great speed if we rotate the coordinate system. The faster we rotate and the farther the object is from the centre of rotation, the more pronounced the effect is. It's basically the same story with STR: inertial frames are related by (hyperbolic) "rotations" of the space and time coordinates, so as you switch from one inertial frame to another, you expect a change in the time coordinate of any event that increases with distance and the rate of transition between the two inertial frames. The universe doesn't "change gears" as a result of the observer's acceleration.

Can anyone explain the last three pages in english?

Then you do have a coordinate transformation with respect to your "absolute" frame and it is (for motion along the x axis):
t' = \frac{1}{\gamma(v)} t

x' = x - v t

If you define u = \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}t} and u' = \frac{\mathrm{d}x'}{\mathrm{d}t'}, then your MacM velocity transformation formula is:

u' = \gamma(v) ( u - v )

You can use this to directly calculate your v1 and v2. Incidentally, this transform has a variant c.


Thanks. When I said "no" I meant that I don't transform time into space and vice-versa. I don't have time-space as in SR.

Having reconsidered what it was I was trying to show is masked by doppler. So I'll merely ask the following:

v = 0.8c; t = 100

Time dilation is 60%. It is argued that observers with relative velocity will "See" the others clock ticking at it's time dilated rate (60%)

t' = t * (1 - v^2/c^2)^0.5

t' = 100 * ( 1 - (0.8^2)/1^2)^0.5

t' = 100 * (1 - 0.64)^0.5

t' = 100 * (0.36)^0.5

t' = 100 * 0.6 = 60 = 3/5

Yet doppler for the same velocity indicates that what you will see is only 1/3 the true tick (pulse) rate. That appears in conflict with the arguement about what observers "See" of others clocks.

Further the question then becomes, since we know empirically that the accelerated clock t' IS only actually ticking at 0.6t, the pulses viewed by doppler would suggest what you actually see would only be 1/5 or 20%.

The only way around that would seem to be to do what they do in the first instance "which is ignore the absolute differential in clock tick rate" when computing travel time and then suggest that distance changed.

Here you can only get 1/3 if you ignore the fact that the clock IS losing time by ticking at 60% when you compute doppler because you still use 100% in the formula..

Time dilation is 60%. It is argued that observers with relative velocity will "See" the others clock ticking at it's time dilated rate (60%)
What do you mean by "See"?
Do you mean "Measure after accounting for any signal delays"?

Further the question then becomes, since we know empirically that the accelerated clock t' IS only actually ticking at 0.6t, the pulses viewed by doppler would suggest what you actually see would only be 1/5 or 20%.
How do you figure that? My calculations suggest that you'd actually see 1/3.

What do you mean by "See"?
Do you mean "Measure after accounting for any signal delays"?


How do you figure that? My calculations suggest that you'd actually see 1/3.

OK. I guess I need to clarify this. The 1/3 doppler figure is the relavistic doppler shift which is actually non-relavistic doppler / time dilation.

f' = f * (1- v/c) / (1 - v^2/c^2)^.0.5

f' - f * 1 - .8) / (1 - .8^2)^.5

f' = f * .2 / (.36)^.5

f' = f * (.2 / .6) = 0.333333

OK. I guess I need to clarify this. The 1/3 doppler figure is the relavistic doppler shift which is actually non-relavistic doppler / time dilation.

f' = f * (1- v/c) / (1 - v^2/c^2)^.0.5

f' - f * 1 - .8) / (1 - .8^2)^.5

f' = f * .2 / (.36)^.5

f' = f * (.2 / .6) = 0.333333

I agree... like I said, the calculation indicates that you'd actually see a 1/3 tick rate from a clock actually ticking at at rate of 0.6 (ie time dilated from a rate of 1.0) and moving away at 0.8c.

So how do you figure that "what you actually see would only be 1/5 or 20%"?

And you didn't answer the first question: What do you mean by "See", when you put it in quotes?
I think you mean "Measure after accounting for any signal delays." Is that right?

I agree... like I said, the calculation indicates that you'd actually see a 1/3 tick rate from a clock actually ticking at at rate of 0.6 (ie time dilated from a rate of 1.0) and moving away at 0.8c.

So how do you figure that "what you actually see would only be 1/5 or 20%"?

Here is where you and I likely part. You are content to apply this logic to both observers. I contend that only the accelerated clcok is dilated to 0.6 and that the denomintor therefore becomes "1" because "v" is the actual "v" induced by acceleration and not merely relative velocity. "v" for the station = "0" hence f' = f * (1 - v/c) / (1 - v^2/c^2)^0.5 = f * (1 - 0.8) / (1 - (0.0)^2)^0.5 = 0.2 / 1.0 = 0.2.

That is there has been no cause to change physics (tick rate) of the station clock. That is indeed what empirical data shows.

However, one can then argue that since the shuttle clock IS indeed ticking physically slower, it appears to the shuttle observer that the station clock is ticking at(0.2/the shuttle dilated rate) or .2 / .6 = 0.3333.

However, IF you also wish to insist that the "v" IS relative then you would get 0.333 / .6 = 0.5555.

My point is that there is no data, has never been a test nor observation made from the accelerated frame to verify what is "Seen" from that frame. It is wrongfully assumed that both frames are equal and the formulas apply and describe physical reality. That isn't supported by data. The resting clock nevers loses time. If it did then both clocks would dilate equally and no differentail could ever have been measured.

And you didn't answer the first question: What do you mean by "See", when you put it in quotes?

I think you mean "Measure after accounting for any signal delays." Is that right?

If you are measuring (Seeing) frequency, once the signal has arrived delay has no bearing. So not sure what you are getting at. "See" means "See" and assumes some super new technology to peer at the other clock and "See" it's tick rate (receipt of flashes of light per tick) while moving at relavistic speeds.

Here is where you and I likely part. You are content to apply this logic to both observers. I contend that only the accelerated clcok is dilated to 0.6 and that the denomintor therefore becomes "1" because "v" is the actual "v" induced by acceleration and not merely relative velocity. "v" for the station = "0" hence f' = f * (1 - v/c) / (1 - v^2/c^2)^0.5 = f * (1 - 0.8) / (1 - (0.0)^2)^0.5 = 0.2 / 1.0 = 0.2.
Wait... go back. I can't tell which observer you were talking about in your previous posts. I'm also not that comfortable with fiddling around with the doppler formula - I don't like to rely on formulas, and would rather work from the basics. Let's clarify:

The shuttle is moving away from the station at 0.8c, and the shuttle clock is ticking at 60% of the station clock's rate, right?

So it is expected that the station observer will see flashes from the shuttle arrive at a rate of 1/3 the station clock's tick rate, right?

However, one can then argue that since the shuttle clock IS indeed ticking physically slower, it appears to the shuttle observer that the station clock is ticking at(0.2/the shuttle dilated rate) or .2 / .6 = 0.3333.
OK... so we agree that flashes from the station will arrive at the shuttle at 1/3 the shuttle clock's tick rate.
If the shuttle observer considers his clock is ticking slowly (0.6 ticks per second), that means that he calculates that the flashes are really arriving at 0.2 per second.

I don't have a problem with that... There's nothing to stop the shuttle pilot doing that conversion as a matter of convention.

However, IF you also wish to insist that the "v" IS relative then you would get 0.333 / .6 = 0.5555.
I don't know what those numbers mean. 0.5555 what?

My point is that there is no data, has never been a test nor observation made from the accelerated frame to verify what is "Seen" from that frame. It is wrongfully assumed that both frames are equal and the formulas apply and describe physical reality. That isn't supported by data.
Are you going back to an absolute reference frame? That there is a rest frame against which all others can be measured?

If you are measuring (Seeing) frequency, once the signal has arrived delay has no bearing.
If two flashes were emitted 1.7 seconds apart, but the first one had 0.8s less travel time, then they will be received 2.5s apart.

"See" means "See" and assumes some super new technology to peer at the other clock and "See" it's tick rate (receipt of flashes of light per tick) while moving at relavistic speeds.
So you mean "See" when the flashes were emitted, rather than "See" when they arrive?
"See" taken literally would mean see the flashes as they arrive, but that's not what you mean, is it?

The shuttle is moving away from the station at 0.8c, and the shuttle clock is ticking at 60% of the station clock's rate, right?

Correct. That is what empirical data supports.

So it is expected that the station observer will see flashes from the shuttle arrive at a rate of 1/3 the station clock's tick rate, right?

Correct.

OK... so we agree that flashes from the station will arrive at the shuttle at 1/3 the shuttle clock's tick rate.

If the shuttle observer considers his clock is ticking slowly (0.6 ticks per second), that means that he calculates that the flashes are really arriving at 0.2 per second.

I don't have a problem with that... There's nothing to stop the shuttle pilot doing that conversion as a matter of convention.

Not exactly the purpose of the post. It was to point out that the shuttle MUST physically be ticking at 60% the station clock to have him see 33.33% otherwise he would see 20%. (i.e. - this runs against the arguement in SR for reciprocity of the affect of relative motion).

I don't know what those numbers mean. 0.5555 what?

If you claim 33.33% because the shuttle is physically ticking slower then if you insist on reciprocity where the station is dilated to 60% the observation would go to55.55%. 33.33% / 0.6.

Are you going back to an absolute reference frame? That there is a rest frame against which all others can be measured?

I'm merely holding prior arguements to be physically real.

If two flashes were emitted 1.7 seconds apart, but the first one had 0.8s less travel time, then they will be received 2.5s apart.

?

So you mean "See" when the flashes were emitted, rather than "See" when they arrive?

See the arrival.

"See" taken literally would mean see the flashes as they arrive, but that's not what you mean, is it?

Yes it is.

My point is that there is no data, has never been a test nor observation made from the accelerated frame to verify what is "Seen" from that frame.
Given the current state of affairs, such a test is less than urgent. All the most precise fundamental laws are known to be Lorentz invariant. What this means (taking a transformation along the x axis as an example) is that if we take some set of initial conditions at time t_0 (eg. the initial positions and velocities of particles that constitute a clock):

\{ x_1 \. , \; x_2 \. , \; x_3 \. , \; \ldots \}_{\mathrm{init}} and \{ u_1 \. , \; u_2 \. , \; u_3 \. , \; \ldots \}_{\mathrm{init}}

and the evolution of the system is governed by laws (eg relativistic mechanics, electromagnetism, relativistic quantum mechanics) giving some set of solutions:

\{ x_1(t) \. , \; x_2(t) \. , \; x_3(t) \, , \; \ldots \}

Then if those laws are Lorentz invariant, it means I can naively replace every x_n, u_n, and t_0 in the initial conditions with, respectively:

x_{n}' = \gamma \left( x_{n} - v t_0 \right)

u_{n}' = \frac{u_n - v}{1 - \frac{u v}{c^2}

t_{0}' = \gamma \left( t _0- \frac{v}{c^2} x_n \right)

and the exact same laws that determined the original evolution of the system will now yield as a solution:

\{ x_{1}'(t') \. , \; x_{2}'(t') \. , \; x_{3}'(t') \. , \; \ldots \}

Where the new x' and t' coordinates are related to the original x and t coordinates by the same transformation used on the initial conditions.

This property of symmetry in fundamental physical laws implies that any moving object will experience the same time dilation and length contraction effects, which are independent of the details of its physical properties and composition. It also follows that any two observers who apply an agreed upon procedure to assign space and time coordinates to any event they observe will find those coordinates to be related by the same Lorentz transformation, regardless of whether that procedure involves tape measures, triangulation, etc. The beauty of Lorentz invariance is that you can see all of this without doing a single calculation.

All of this should explain why you can't just innocently propose whatever time dilation and length contraction formulae you want and expect your proposed empirical laws to automagically fit with the rest of physics. There are serious constraints on what transformations physical laws can exhibit invariance to. As a specific example, the "MacM transform" from my last post fails because it doesn't form a group.

If you throw invariance out altogether, you no longer have any reason to assume all clocks will dilate by the same factor, that all objects will either contract by the same factor or not contract at all, or even that your shuttle will still be physically intact at 0.8c. You would have to propose your own versions of fundamental laws that determine the physical properties of matter (like MacM Quantum Mechanics) and do case by case calculations predicting the various effects "absolute velocity" has on the evolution rates, equilibrium lengths, and stability of whatever clocks, rods, shuttles, or human beings you happen to be considering.

If you stick with unjustified empirical laws about moving clocks, you'll be missing the big picture, missing what STR is really about, and you'll never propose anything that can compete with the complete theory we already have.

Not exactly the purpose of the post. It was to point out that the shuttle MUST physically be ticking at 60% the station clock to have him see 33.33% otherwise he would see 20%.
Sorry, I really don't see how you reached that conclusion.
Maybe you're making some other assumption that you haven't spelled out?

If you claim 33.33% because the shuttle is physically ticking slower then if you insist on reciprocity where the station is dilated to 60% the observation would go to55.55%. 33.33% / 0.6.
Again, I can't follow your reasoning.

I'm merely holding prior arguements to be physically real.
I don't know what you mean.
You said "It is wrongfully assumed that both frames are equal..."
So it seems to me that you're arguing that some frame or frames are preferred?

?
I said "If two flashes were emitted 1.7 seconds apart, but the first one had 0.8s less travel time, then they will be received 2.5s apart."
What's not to understand? Try this:
You throw two rocks at a target, with 1.7 seconds between throws.
You pitch the first rock in a hard, flat trajectory. It takes t seconds to go from you to the target.
You lob the second rock in a high, looping arc. It takes t+0.8 seconds to go from you to the target.
Both rocks hit the target - how much time passes between the two hits?
2.5 seconds, right?

See the arrival.
OK. So, going back a few posts (here):
v = 0.8c; t = 100

Time dilation is 60%. It is argued that observers with relative velocity will "See" the others clock ticking at it's time dilated rate (60%)
This is not correct. It is argued that observers with relative velocity will "See" the others clock ticking at it's doppler shifted rate (33.3%).

The time dilated rate is the rate at which the flashes leave the time dilated clock, not the rate at which they arrive at the observer.

There are serious constraints on what transformations physical laws can exhibit invariance to. As a specific example, the "MacM transform" from my last post fails because it doesn't form a group.

You should be more careful dictating to nature how the universe functions.

Nothing wrong with current data. Claiming it must be recipocal is fool hardy.

Remember. If you don't discard the physical fact that an accelerated clock IS ticking slower, its accumulated time over a trip is only correct IF there was no length contraction.

Only by ignoring the dilated tick rate can you assert the foolishness of spatial contraction. The real solution is that relative velocity is not symmetrical because the moving observer is timing the trip (over the same distance) with a slow clock and hence concludes he has higher velocity.

Two guys on a plane going from LA to NY look at their watches on takeoff. They know it is 2,800 miles.

One watch keeps perfect time and records 7 hours and rightfully concludes v = d/t = 2,800miles / 7 hours = 400Mph.

The other man's watch batteries are low and it ticked more slowly only recording 3.5 hours. He claims they were flying 800 Mph because v = d/t = 2,800 miles / 3.5 hours = 800 Mph.

ONLY fools would say you must use the 400Mph velocity and using the bad watch claim due to your fliying the distance changed to 1,400 miles. d = v * t = 400 Mph * 3.5 hours = 1,400 miles!

Stupid, uterly stupid. And to base all our physics on that principle is absolutely unbelieveable. That is precisely what SR does. It ignores the dilated tick rate when computing distance.

I agree in the case of seperate motions the local proper tick rate IS the correct time but that tick rate MUST continue to be compared directly to other tick rates when computing distance because time and distance are physical enities. Velocity is a computed ratio and not an independant enity. You don't change the physical enity you change the computed ratio of physical enities. Keeping the same computed ratio from one frame and applying it to another frame is the fatal error.

If you throw invariance out altogether, you no longer have any reason to assume all clocks will dilate by the same factor, that all objects will either contract by the same factor or not contract at all, or even that your shuttle will still be physically intact at 0.8c. You would have to propose your own versions of fundamental laws that determine the physical properties of matter (like MacM Quantum Mechanics) and do case by case calculations predicting the various effects "absolute velocity" has on the evolution rates, equilibrium lengths, and stability of whatever clocks, rods, shuttles, or human beings you happen to be considering.

If that is how the universe works then it needs to be done and data (plus common sense) says that is the case. There is simply no justification to claim reciprocity simply because you can't sense absolute motion.

The two frames ARE NOT the same. One frame experienced forces and an energy change compared to the balance of the universe. The balance of the universe did not and does not change.

Hard fact is relative velocity does not dilate clocks or cause distance to change.

You can disagree and you can cite current theory but you CANNOT produce any data to support that arguement.

If you stick with unjustified empirical laws about moving clocks, you'll be missing the big picture, missing what STR is really about, and you'll never propose anything that can compete with the complete theory we already have.

I most likely will not but others certainly could and SHOULD because there is simply no question as to what is right here and it is NOT SR.

You should be more careful dictating to nature how the universe functions.
I'm not dictating anything. All the fundamental laws of physics are Lorentz invariant, and they work. All the more well known relativistic effects such as time dilation, length contraction, and invariance of c are consequences of this, so it's you who is barging in suggesting that most of modern physics is wrong without good evidence. Saying we should just abandon relativity is like saying we should abandon the law of conservation of energy despite knowing that all the fundamental forces of nature are conservative. If either law turns out to be incorrect, you'd expect it to become apparent only under highly unusual or energetic conditions.
Claiming it must be recipocal is fool hardy.
No. The laws of physics are Lorentz invariant. If you invert a Lorentz transformation, you get another Lorentz transformation. Call it an illusion if you want, but the relationship between two frames is reciprocal.
Remember. If you don't discard the physical fact that an accelerated clock IS ticking slower, its accumulated time over a trip is only correct IF there was no length contraction.
Why should the length of a moving clock have anything to do with the time it accumulates?
ONLY fools would say you must use the 400Mph velocity and using the bad watch claim due to your fliying the distance changed to 1,400 miles. d = v * t = 400 Mph * 3.5 hours = 1,400 miles!
Er, you get the 400mph velocity knowing the distance, and then use that to calculate the distance? :bugeye:

The point of STR is this: pick any method for measuring distances and times, and our aeroplane passenger, applying this method, will measure the distance between LA and NY to be 1,400 miles. If you don't believe me, you could imagine one of the passengers on the plane measuring the distance to NY just as the plane is leaving LA by, say, triangulation. If you predicted what distance the passenger would measure, painstakingly accounting for time dilation, physical length contraction of the apparatus, and the relativity of simultaneity effect, you'd get the 1,400 mile figure. This approach is unnecessary since, again, this follows from Lorentz invariance.
If that is how the universe works then it needs to be done and data (plus common sense) says that is the case.
What data? And common sense tells you that matter falls apart at 0.8c and that velocity alone can kill? The irony is that most people I see questioning the principle of relativity have a tendency to take its consequences for granted. And as far as I'm aware, no data as ever shown the laws of physics to vary as a result of a reference frame's motion. You don't have to apply corrections to the laws of physics and chemistry depending on which way the Earth is going around the Sun, do you?
There is simply no justification to claim reciprocity simply because you can't sense absolute motion.
Yes there is: if there was no reciprocity, then you'd have some physical law that didn't take the same form between two frames, and you'd be able to sense absolute motion from this.
One frame experienced forces and an energy change compared to the balance of the universe. The balance of the universe did not and does not change.
What's the "balance" of the universe?

I'm not dictating anything. All the fundamental laws of physics are Lorentz invariant, and they work. All the more well known relativistic effects such as time dilation, length contraction, and invariance of c are consequences of this, so it's you who is barging in suggesting that most of modern physics is wrong without good evidence.

Unfortunately for you your evidence is contridictary or missing. Your claim is both frames are identical, yet only one clock loses time. You claim length conttraction but there is no observation or data to support that claim and as I have correctly pointed out maintaining a tick rate ratio which has been empirically demonstrated makes accumulated time by clocks ONLY correct if disatance DOES NOT contract.

So yes modern physics is wrong.

Saying we should just abandon relativity is like saying we should abandon the law of conservation of energy despite knowing that all the fundamental forces of nature are conservative. If either law turns out to be incorrect, you'd expect it to become apparent only under highly unusual or energetic conditions.

Strawman arguement. Understanding the correct application of SR and modifying it is not the same as abandoning it. In my view the empirical data remains unchanged what changes is there is "NO" reciprocity, which is not supported by data in the first place.

No. The laws of physics are Lorentz invariant. If you invert a Lorentz transformation, you get another Lorentz transformation. Call it an illusion if you want, but the relationship between two frames is reciprocal.

Bull crap. Pull your head out of the sand and look at the data and simple logic. More importantly look at the consequences of doing so.

Why should the length of a moving clock have anything to do with the time it accumulates?

WHAT? I never said anything about the length of the clock. It is the distance the clock travels that is being discussed.

Er, you get the 400mph velocity knowing the distance, and then use that to calculate the distance? :bugeye:

WHAT? You can't follow a simple illustrated example of the correct view vs using the calculated 400 Mph figure from one frame and transplanting the conclusion to another frame then claiming distance changed?????

Yours is the flawed concept.

The point of STR is this: pick any method for measuring distances and times, and our aeroplane passenger, applying this method, will measure the distance between LA and NY to be 1,400 miles. If you don't believe me, you could imagine one of the passengers on the plane measuring the distance to NY just as the plane is leaving LA by, say, triangulation. If you predicted what distance the passenger would measure, painstakingly accounting for time dilation, physical length contraction of the apparatus, and the relativity of simultaneity effect, you'd get the 1,400 mile figure. This approach is unnecessary since, again, this follows from Lorentz invariance.

Bull crap. You apply your assumptions to prove your assumptions. Get real. Better yet stop forcing a calculated value into another frame to foce a change in physical properties.

No. Computed velocity will change not the distance traveled.

What data? And common sense tells you that matter falls apart at 0.8c and that velocity alone can kill? The irony is that most people I see questioning the principle of relativity have a tendency to take its consequences for granted. And as far as I'm aware, no data as ever shown the laws of physics to vary as a result of a reference frame's motion. You don't have to apply corrections to the laws of physics and chemistry depending on which way the Earth is going around the Sun, do you?

Speaking of thaking things for granted. Don't take for granted that I am just anybody. I full well know pragmatic limitations. But then you have a real problem since according to "Relative" veloicty you are already trveling in excess of 0.8c. Look at remote galaxies. Further more in an ineertial condition what you call 0.8c is "0". Are you suggesting that 0.8c is some absolute veloicty - LOL.

Yes there is: if there was no reciprocity, then you'd have some physical law that didn't take the same form between two frames, and you'd be able to sense absolute motion from this.

More speculation. You are applying current rules to a new view. New rules must be developed for the correct view.

What's the "balance" of the universe?

You surely understand that the universe consists of "You" and then everythingelse. Anytime you move your velocity changes relative to everythingelse. But everything else didn't undergo F = ma or expend energy. So they ARE NOT the same and DO NOT respond the same.

Reciprocity is a flawed concept.

Hello? What am I, chopped liver?

Hello? What am I, chopped liver?


?????????????????

:) You seem to have missed my last on topic post.

Sorry, I really don't see how you reached that conclusion.
Maybe you're making some other assumption that you haven't spelled out?

Relavistic doppler: non-relavistic doppler / time dilation

Doppler = (1 - v/c) / (1- v^2/c^2)^0.5

= (1 - .8) / (1 - .64)^.5 = .2 / (.36)^.5 = .2/.6 = .3333

If there is no time dilation: .2 / 1.0 = .2

“ I'm merely holding prior arguements to be physically real. ”

I don't know what you mean.

You can't delcare a clock is ticking slower in one breath and in the next calculation pretend it is ticking 100%. That is what SR does by ignoring the relative tick rate when vewing different frames.

Local frame proper time is set = 1.000 in complete disregard that the 0.8c velocity (accelerated frame - not merely relative vleocity) IS ticking slower and hence the total trip time is accounted for ONLYif there is no change in distance between frames.

You said "It is wrongfully assumed that both frames are equal..."
So it seems to me that you're arguing that some frame or frames are preferred?

Yes SR claims both inertial frames are equal and emperical data as well as simple logic mandate they are not. That is why the accelerated frame clock dilates and the statinary one does not. Clock dilation (permanent loss of time) DOES NOT function according to relative velocity but according to v = at induced by F = ma.

One frame has experienced forces and changed veloicty in an absolute way the other hasn't.

I said "If two flashes were emitted 1.7 seconds apart, but the first one had 0.8s less travel time, then they will be received 2.5s apart."
What's not to understand? Try this:
You throw two rocks at a target, with 1.7 seconds between throws.
You pitch the first rock in a hard, flat trajectory. It takes t seconds to go from you to the target.
You lob the second rock in a high, looping arc. It takes t+0.8 seconds to go from you to the target.
Both rocks hit the target - how much time passes between the two hits?
2.5 seconds, right?

"?" But this has nothing jto do with the issue.


OK. So, going back a few posts (here):

This is not correct. It is argued that observers with relative velocity will "See" the others clock ticking at it's doppler shifted rate (33.3%).

If you include doppler then you must also include vector because it will be 33.33% to 300% as a function of angle of motion.

The time dilated rate is the rate at which the flashes leave the time dilated clock, not the rate at which they arrive at the observer.

That would be the 60% BUT ONLY for the accelerated clock. The stationary clock is NOT dilated as predicted by SR. Empirical data confirms that assessment.

Your claim is both frames are identical, yet only one clock loses time.
I said the same physical laws were applicable in both frames, and this is supported by evidence. One of the best examples is classical mechanics: when it was modified to be Lorentz invariant, the new relativistic mechanics made better predictions at high velocities than its classical counterpart. The same is true of quantum mechanics. If you do not understand what Lorentz invariance is or how it implies all the relativistic effects we tell kids about, you should either learn, or find something better to do with your time if you're not interested.
You claim length conttraction but there is no observation or data to support that claim
I told you: Lorentz invariance implies that objects will contract, and all the most fundamental physical laws are Lorentz invariant. Unless you know of a variant law that has better experimental supportor you have evidence that objects do not contract, you don't have a case against relativity.
and as I have correctly pointed out maintaining a tick rate ratio which has been empirically demonstrated makes accumulated time by clocks ONLY correct if disatance DOES NOT contract.
The only thing I've ever gathered from any of your "proofs" about relativity is that you're hopelessly confused about STR and reference frames, often to the point I don't even know where to begin with you. I did try pointing you in the right direction, by encouraging you to use coordinate transformations. If you don't deal with relativity this way you're unlikely to make much sense of the theory, and reciprocity in particular is always going to appear physically nonsensical to you.
Understanding the correct application of SR and modifying it is not the same as abandoning it.
Unless you have evidence contradicting relativity, there is no need to replace or modify the theory.
WHAT? You can't follow a simple illustrated example of the correct view vs using the calculated 400 Mph figure from one frame and transplanting the conclusion to another frame then claiming distance changed?????
Yes, I can follow it. Unfortunately, in your attempt to show how ridiculous relativity is, you misrepresented it, and the only real problem is that you're working from assumptions that are incompatible with relativity to begin with.
But then you have a real problem since according to "Relative" veloicty you are already trveling in excess of 0.8c.
Please demonstrate this using the Lorentz transformation.
Further more in an ineertial condition what you call 0.8c is "0". Are you suggesting that 0.8c is some absolute veloicty - LOL.
Er, if its 0 in one frame and 0.8c in another, how is that absolute?
Reciprocity is a flawed concept.
No one here is claiming that the relationship between an accelerating and an inertial frame is reciprocal.

Relavistic doppler: non-relavistic doppler / time dilation

Doppler = (1 - v/c) / (1- v^2/c^2)^0.5

= (1 - .8) / (1 - .64)^.5 = .2 / (.36)^.5 = .2/.6 = .3333

If there is no time dilation: .2 / 1.0 = .2
You're plugging numbers into equations without trying to understand the physical meaning. As a result, you're getting nonsense. Don't be a slave to the equations!

You can't delcare a clock is ticking slower in one breath and in the next calculation pretend it is ticking 100%. That is what SR does by ignoring the relative tick rate when vewing different frames.

Local frame proper time is set = 1.000 in complete disregard that the 0.8c velocity (accelerated frame - not merely relative vleocity) IS ticking slower and hence the total trip time is accounted for ONLYif there is no change in distance between frames.
Mac, I don't know what you're thinking. I think that you still aren't following what SR does and doesn't say.

Yes SR claims both inertial frames are equal and emperical data as well as simple logic mandate they are not. That is why the accelerated frame clock dilates and the statinary one does not. Clock dilation (permanent loss of time) DOES NOT function according to relative velocity but according to v = at induced by F = ma.

One frame has experienced forces and changed velocity in an absolute way the other hasn't.
You do realise that this is precisely the question that brought in relativity in the first place? The question of whether the laws of physics are motion dependent or not? Are you aware of the arguments that Lorentz, Stokes, Fresnel, Fitzgerald, and others had over this issue?
What "empirical data" do you have that dictates an absolute frame?
Can the shuttle observer tell that his frame is not the preferred frame? How?
How can the station observer tell that his frame is preferred?

"?" But this has nothing jto do with the issue.
Certainly it does. The signal rate leaving the source is not the same as the signal rate arriving at the receiver.

If you include doppler then you must also include vector because it will be 33.33% to 300% as a function of angle of motion.
Yes, that is true.
In this case, the shuttle is moving directly away from the station, so the station observer sees flashes at 1/3 the station clock tick rate. Not (as you said) 60%.



That would be the 60% BUT ONLY for the accelerated clock. The stationary clock is NOT dilated as predicted by SR. Empirical data confirms that assessment.

So you keep saying... but where is this "empirical data"?

I think we're done here, Mac. You can hold your breath and say that the station frame is preferred until you're blue in the face... but unless you have something that hasn't already been said over 100 years ago, you're wasting my time.

It's been fun chatting.

I said the same physical laws were applicable in both frames, and this is supported by evidence. One of the best examples is classical mechanics: when it was modified to be Lorentz invariant, the new relativistic mechanics made better predictions at high velocities than its classical counterpart. The same is true of quantum mechanics. If you do not understand what Lorentz invariance is or how it implies all the relativistic effects we tell kids about, you should either learn, or find something better to do with your time if you're not interested.

I told you: Lorentz invariance implies that objects will contract, and all the most fundamental physical laws are Lorentz invariant. Unless you know of a variant law that has better experimental supportor you have evidence that objects do not contract, you don't have a case against relativity.

The only thing I've ever gathered from any of your "proofs" about relativity is that you're hopelessly confused about STR and reference frames, often to the point I don't even know where to begin with you. I did try pointing you in the right direction, by encouraging you to use coordinate transformations. If you don't deal with relativity this way you're unlikely to make much sense of the theory, and reciprocity in particular is always going to appear physically nonsensical to you.

Unless you have evidence contradicting relativity, there is no need to replace or modify the theory.

Yes, I can follow it. Unfortunately, in your attempt to show how ridiculous relativity is, you misrepresented it, and the only real problem is that you're working from assumptions that are incompatible with relativity to begin with.

Please demonstrate this using the Lorentz transformation.

Er, if its 0 in one frame and 0.8c in another, how is that absolute?

No one here is claiming that the relationship between an accelerating and an inertial frame is reciprocal.

Well I think our discussion is finished. You simply cannot do anything but recite current theory. Your facts are distorted in that data only supports one view not both. When you get done screwing up those kids you are telling this crap to then go learn basic physics. Frankly I care less what Lorentz Invariance says.

Either answer the question or move on.

How do you justify ignoring a dilated clocks tick rate when you compute distance in the accelerated observer frame?

You take a calculated value of ratio of physical enties distance (m) and time (sec) for v1 = d1/t1 = m/s.

Where t1 is the resting clock accumulated time at the 100% resting tick rate.

And d1 = 200, t1 = 10 and v1 = 200/10 = 20

Then impose that calculated ratio into another frame where the observer has been accelerated and where you already claim (and it is supported by empirical data) the clock is ticking slower. "t2".

If the velocity v=at induced by F=ma is 0.8c then t2/t1 = 0.6.

THAT MEANS t2 WILL ONLY TICK 6 TIMES PER 10 TICKS OF t1.

You then write d2 = v1 * t2 = 20 * 6 = 120

Absolutely stupid. You take a calculated value in one frame and and force a physical enity to change in another frame.

Correct physics is:

v1 = d1/t1 = 200 /10 = 20

v2 = d2 /t2 = 200 / 6 = 33.333n

If you do not violate basic physics and retain the tick rate ratio then the accumulated time by the accelerated clock is fully accounted for without spatial contraction. Reciprocity vanishes and data now is in complete agreement in that the faster calulated velocity is the clock that will lose time.

STUFF YOUR LORENTZ INVARIANCE BS. It is inappropriate and does not describe physical reality.

A man boards a plane going from LA to NY (2,800 miles). His watch batteries are weak and it only ticks 1/2 the rate of the tower clocks at LA and NY.

He arrives in NY and the tower advises passengers "That took 7 hours so you were flying 400 Mph".

Can you really without laughing claim that the passenger should respond "Oh, in that case it was only 1,400 miles because we were going 400 Mph and according to my watch it only took 3.5 hours".

Of course not. His watch ticked slower and if you retain that PHYSICAL fact d = v * t, where t is accumulated time/ proportional tick rate or d = 400 * 3.5 / .5 = 2,800 miles.

What happens is the observer with the slower clock sees the distance traveled in less time and calculates a higher velocity.

You're plugging numbers into equations without trying to understand the physical meaning. As a result, you're getting nonsense. Don't be a slave to the equations!

Funny Pete I'm not the one hung up on equations. You foldk believe anything math predicts regardless how assinine the origin, derivation or false assumption upon which the formula is based.

Mac, I don't know what you're thinking. I think that you still aren't following what SR does and doesn't say.

This has nothing to do with what SR says. "I say" real physics mandates that you retain the physical fact that a clock that has been accelerated IS ticking slower than a resting clock.

Hence when the resting observer claims you trip of 2,800 miles took 7 hours that you were going 400 Mph.

A clock in motion will traverse the same 2,800 miles in less accumulated time (i.e.3.5 hours) on his clock and conclude v = d/t that he was going 800 Mph; not that he only traveled half as far.

The 400 Mphvelocity figure is a calculated ratio of physical enties d/t m/s.

By imposing this calculated veloicty using the non-dilated clock, into the accelerated frame where the clock is ticking slow forces the distance change.

That is uterly stupid. d and t are the physical enities upon which v is calculated. You cannot impose result from one frame into another where the time satandard has changed and ignore that change then claim distance changed.


You do realise that this is precisely the question that brought in relativity in the first place? The question of whether the laws of physics are motion dependent or not? Are you aware of the arguments that Lorentz, Stokes, Fresnel, Fitzgerald, and others had over this issue?

I really would care less. The whole of the issue fails from a false assumption regarding the signifigance of the invariance of light.

What "empirical data" do you have that dictates an absolute frame?

What empirical data do you have that supports mere relative velocity causes clocks to dilate?

Can the shuttle observer tell that his frame is not the preferred frame? How?

How can the station observer tell that his frame is preferred?

All irrelevant questions to the basic