Hey. Check this out first:
it's important not to let these discussions degenerate into fights.. we don't even know each other! in the absence of physical threat/communic., it really is the substance of these discussions which is important. With this intent, i want to raise a question about the reciprocity of special relativistic time dilations. this has seemingly been discussed ad nauseum, but with possible overemphasis on the (flashy) specifics of gps timing and other sophisticated analytical avenues. All this is valued for its own sake, and has been highly informative, to be sure, but for the purposes of elucidating what i perceive to be a substantive underlying considerations inhering to this discussion, the simplified form of the thought experiment i'd like to raise here is as follows:

satellite/earth clocksynch scenario:
~satclock is corrected for gravitational redshift -i.e. its speed is artificially slowed to compensate for it's emergence from earth's gravitywell. (this part is general relativity, wherein the sat's acceleration 'out' has to overcome both its own inertial resistance and Egrav..)
~satclock corrected for sr blueshift -its speed is artificially augmented to compensate for its slowdown (by earthclock standard) due to increased orbital velocity...? i guess i'm assuming continued local station of the satorbit relative to earthsurface... and lets raise in sidebar here the issue of whether these contradictory effects might 'cancel' via equivalence...
-and please everyone feel free to dig in here, above or below-
~one issue that captures my interest has to do with the question of whether, when satvelocity increases relative to earth (demanding clocksynch correction), does earthvelocity increase relative to satellite? the suggestion being that, assuming the attendance of an equivalency of referenceframes to the relativity of motion, earthclocks from the pov of the satellite would blueshift, requiring a corresponding correctional speed augmentation of satclock, which would seem to introduce a kind of feedback indeterminism... some SIMPLE mathematics would really help clarify this issue, if anyone capable could oblige...
~the answer i would propose, however, is that, due to the precessional orbits entered by gravitationally-located, scale-differential relative masses, earthvelocity does not actually increase from satperspective, and that E-rotation allows for across-scale velocity-synchrony. The interesting point here is that this v-synch occurs in supercession of the special theory of relativity, which implies, in absence of differentiation, that relative motion is attended by a scale-independent (i.e. imaginary) equivalency of relative referenceframes.
=b

qb3,
As I understand it when SRT says "the observers moving relative to each other "see" the other's clock as slower than his own" is not meant in a physical sense. The statement only reflects SRT that grants justification to obsevers to make the mentall statement that the other's clock is slower. The Seeing and viewing is never intended in a physical sense. The statement that each sees the other's clock as moving slower( or faster) is merely a mental gymnastic exercise for budding SRTists who thrive on "contradiction", "irrationality" and "counter intuititivity"..
Geistkiesel

excuse this glib respone but:
How else would you accomodate the invariance factor associated with lights speed in a vacuum?

excuse this glib respone but:
How else would you accomodate the invariance factor associated with lights speed in a vacuum?
I certainly wouldn't account for it by saying that the observers seeing the other observer's clocks as slower was provable physically where at the same instant the two clocks each read slower than the other.
Geistkiesel

excuse this glib respone but:
How else would you accomodate the invariance factor associated with lights speed in a vacuum?
I certainly wouldn't account for it by saying that the observers seeing the other observer's clocks as slower than his own was provable physically, where at the same instant the two clocks each read slower than the other.
Geistkiesel

excuse this glib respone but:
How else would you accomodate the invariance factor associated with lights speed in a vacuum?

I'll chime in on this one.

Suppose that the empirical fact is this...

Whenever whatever emits a photon, that photon must travel away from the emitter (actually system CM of emitter+emitted photon) at speed 299792458 m/s.

Thus, the special numerical constant 299792458 m/s, which comes out of Maxwellian Electrodynamics, is about the speed of a photon with respect to the source, not about the speed of an arbitrary photon, in an arbitrary inertial reference frame, as the Einstein Postulate would have you believe.

Now, as for why an arbitrary atom, must emit a photon at that speed, and no other, in the atom's CM frame, the only reason I can offer, as to why there is a universal emission speed for any photon, relative to that which emits it, would be that it has something to do with the initial conditions of the universe.

And just so you can follow the logic...

If the Einstein postulate is true, then the speed of a photon emitted into vacuum by an atom in the atom's CM (inertial) frame must be 299792458 m/s.

The converse of the statement above isn't true.

I certainly wouldn't account for it by saying that the observers seeing the other observer's clocks as slower than his own was provable physically, where at the same instant the two clocks each read slower than the other.
Geistkiesel

There is good evidence to support time dilation. The life of a muon is very short. But that of one which travels as near light speeds is significantly much longer than ones at rest. A web seach would probably give detailed acconts of this experiment.

i feel that this thread has wandered, so i re-raise the issue of 'rleativity of simultaneity,' as i believe i've heard james r refer to. this topic seems to come up alot regarding the 'stickingpoints' between relativity-familiars and critics. I guess i just want to clarify.
the relativity of simultaneity is just a fancy way of saying that reference frames can be extended indefinitely, right? in the case of the example i've somewhat confusingly iterated at this thread's outset, the satellite, from the earth's point of view, is contained in the earth's frame of reference, and therefore the 'negative feedback' effect postulated (by mac m, i believe, among others; myself included in this case) does not 'occur.'
tricky thing to reason with, this idea of the absolute relativity of reference frames.... for example, as in this case, what happens when one frame exists within another?
=b

Firstly, simultaneity has time dilation at its base. so you need to agree upon that.
Secondly, no frame exists within another frame. Or, every frame exists within another frame. A frame does not have any boundaries. And it's not tied up to other frames or anything.

the relativity of simultaneity is just a fancy way of saying that reference frames can be extended indefinitely, right?

No. The relativity of simultaneity is the deduction from the theory of relativity that events which occur simultaneously according to one observer might not occur simultaneously for another observer. This is only possible because time is not absolute.