1. I have to apologize in advance MacM, but these back and forth postings and responses are getting bigger and bigger each time, and there have been several other interesting threads opening up lately, so I'm only going to be able to respond to a selection of your questions and answers. If there's a particularly important point you feel I haven't adequately addressed, feel free to let me know.

Originally Posted by MacM
You're saying that there's a reciprocity in the twins paradox that only GR is able to deal with unambiguously (without invoking your concept of "absolute motion"), and that's just not true in the slightest.

Originally Posted by MacM
It does simplify calculation but the final time dilation is inertial velocity differential * duration + integration of velocity differentail * duration of the acceleration period.
I'm sorry, but I can't make any sense of your equation. It looks like you're adding something finite to something infinitesimal. You should write it out in TEX format so you can display it as an actual equation, it's not that difficult. Here's a nice, concise cheat sheet that should have pretty much all the commands you need. Then when you want to write math statements, you just enclose it between tex statements in square brackets like this:

[this is where you'd write "tex"] (Math code as demonstrated on the cheat sheet) [this is where you'd write "/tex"]

Originally Posted by MacM
I would need to see a bonafide example of his having done that. To my knowledge he was stimmied by the paradox until he developed GR. Perhaps he may have made some comment just before publishing GR but as my link states he used GR to resolve the issue.
I looked into it, here's a link discussing what Einstein did. I'll quote the relevant section.

In his famous work on special relativity in 1905, Albert Einstein predicted that when two clocks were brought together and synchronized, and then one was moved away and brought back, the clock which had undergone the traveling would be found to be lagging behind the clock which had stayed put. Einstein considered this to be a natural consequence of special relativity, not a paradox as some suggested, and in 1911, he restated and elaborated on this result in the following form:

If we placed a living organism in a box ... one could arrange that the organism, after any arbitrary lengthy flight, could be returned to its original spot in a scarcely altered condition, while corresponding organisms which had remained in their original positions had already long since given way to new generations. For the moving organism the lengthy time of the journey was a mere instant, provided the motion took place with approximately the speed of light. (in Resnick and Halliday, 1992)
Smart man, that one.

Originally Posted by MacM
Sorry but you missed the boat on this one. t' = t(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5

The shift in velocity is "v" the velocity you use to compute the affect. It is a shift because it is different than the inertial rest velocity which becomes "0".
I use the same velocity "v" in both the trip to the navigational beacon and back for simplicity's sake. If I had chosen that the astronaut heads to the beacon with velocity "v", and returned with velocity "w", you would see "v" appear in the time dilation equation for the trip to the beacon, and "w" would appear in this equation for the return trip home. At no point in the dilation equations is there any reference whatsoever to what velocity the astronaut held in the past. The amount an object's time gets dilated at any instant, as measured by an observer, depends exclusively on their position and velocity with respect to this observer at that same instant.

Also I could go ahead and shift the problem so that the Earth and both twins start off moving at near light-speed as seen from another reference frame, frame "C". Then one of the twins takes off from Earth, navigates towards a beacon which has been placed at rest relative to Earth some distance away, and returns. Observer "C" will agree, and can prove through the monitoring of radio transmissions from known locations in space, that when the twins compare their clocks, they will have the exact same time discrepancy as they would have in the case where the Earth is considered to be at rest. There's no reference to who has to be considered moving at any given time. It could be that the Earth is flying backwards, and the astronaut decides to decelerate into a "stationary" frame for a bit, before accelerating to catch back up with their twin on Earth.

Originally Posted by MacM
1 - Given "A" and "B" are at common inertial rest and "A" accelerates ways I think you would agree that "A" is accumulating less time than "B".

Yes/No?
Suppose you let them drift apart for a bit. Furthermore, each astronaut carries a couple of powerful lasers that emit periodic pulses at a slight angle to each other, so that the other astronaut can triangulate on the distance from which each pulse was sent. That way, each astronaut can tell, from their own reference frame, how far away the other astronaut was when they sent their light pulse. Knowing how far away each pulse was, how many pulses there were and that they all travelled at the speed of light, each astronaut can measure how much time passed on the other astronaut's clock with every pulse, and compare it to what their own clocks read when each pulse was sent.

The answer to your question is neither "Yes" nor "No". The relativity of simultaneity comes into play here. Suppose "A" has set up a beacon at rest relative to them, and "B" is scheduled to pass this beacon at some point. Likewise, "B" has also set up a beacon in a symmetric situation. From A's perspective, B's clock will be ticking slow but the clock on B's beacon will be ticking fast, they won't be synchronized. Similarly, from B's perspective, A's clock will be ticking slow but A's beacon will be ticking fast. This seems to be your biggest problem with handling SR, you're only thinking about time dilation and not the fact that simultaneity is also a relative concept.

Originally Posted by MacM
The same is true of the affects of relative velocity. It may cause you to see, measure or bvelieve the remote resting clock is dilated but once you stop the motion the emperical data doesn't support that conclusion.
Like I say, the particle lifetimes measured in accelerators obey the laws of relativity, they do exactly what Einstein predicted they would do. Even before relativity was published there were strange effects being noticed, such as the nonlinearity of velocity addition. Here's a relativistic velocity addition effect Fizeau first noticed all the way back in 1851!

Originally Posted by MacM
My point exactly. If you do not define the probe as having absolute motion you are in fact creating the sitution where the sun is moving to you.
There's nothing wrong with the concept that the sun is flying towards me. If I'm on Earth one moment and then a few months later I see the sun rapidly coming up on me, I know it didn't just suddenly pick up a zillion terajoules of kinetic energy. In that case I know I must be in a rocket zooming towards the sun, at which point I look around and remember I'm an astronaut and recall that a few months ago it had felt like something was smashing me into my seat for a whole week.

On the other hand, if I'm a meteor floating through space for a couple of billion years, and one day I notice an entire solar system rushing up on me at hundreds of thousands of kilometres an hour, there's nothing wrong with that scenario and there's no reason the meteor should think it somehow got propelled up to massive speeds.

Originally Posted by MacM
I must add again the fact that a recent study found that there is a muon ansitrophy to earth and it was used to compute the solar system motion in the universe replicating the 350km/s motion found by CMB and other measurements.

That is the conclusion of the study was that it was more accurate to compute muon life time via it's absolute motion than relative motion just to earth!!!!!.
If I understand what you're saying correctly, they used muon anisotropy to measure the speed of the Earth relative to the CMB. In order to do this, I believe they would have had to know the average lifetime of a muon from watching their decays here on Earth. So your logic seems circular because you're then claiming the experiment was then able to measure muon lifetimes, whereas this seems as if it would have been a necessary input at the very start.

Originally Posted by James R
CptBork:

I'm not sure whether you have read the whole thread. I have covered all the issues you're attempting to discuss with MacM already. He is repetitive and never learns anything, so you're wasting your time. To waste a little less of it, you might like to review some of my interactions with MacM in this thread.

...

...

And that's just for starters.

Anyway, if you want to engage with him, good luck.
I don't plan to get too heavily involved in this debate, and it's starting to get pretty cluttered so I don't know how much longer I'll stick around here. But I think I've narrowed down MacM's problem to misconceptions about the relative simultaneity of time and how systems of clocks are set up in different reference frames. I see that you mentioned this issue as one of your grievances, and it's something I'll probably try to focus on rather than getting sidetracked by all the choo choo trains, airplanes and rockets.

Originally Posted by CptBork

I looked into it, here's a link discussing what Einstein did. I'll quote the relevant section.

Smart man, that one.
Your AE quote does not address reciprocity i.e. that each observer sees the other's clock as dilated relative to his own. Each may think the other's clock is slower but 'thinking' here isn't physics.

Originally Posted by CptBork
Also I could go ahead and shift the problem so that the Earth and both twins start off moving at near light-speed as seen from another reference frame, frame "C". Then one of the twins takes off from Earth, navigates towards a beacon which has been placed at rest relative to Earth some distance away, and returns. Observer "C" will agree, and can prove through the monitoring of radio transmissions from known locations in space, that when the twins compare their clocks, they will have the exact same time discrepancy as they would have in the case where the Earth is considered to be at rest. There's no reference to who has to be considered moving at any given time. It could be that the Earth is flying backwards, and the astronaut decides to decelerate into a "stationary" frame for a bit, before accelerating to catch back up with their twin on Earth.
If the twin leaving earth (moving at near light speed) accelerates in the reverse direction from earth and this twin stops at C say, where the beacon is located, and then returns to earth where it must decelerate to reach the earth velocity (near light speed), how could the clocks possibly have the same tick rate? The twin clock on earth will dilate relative to C at some rate. Now when the decelerating twin slows to zero for a spell then acclerates to catch the earth both twin's clock have lost synchronization.

Originally Posted by CptBork
Suppose you let them drift apart for a bit. Furthermore, each astronaut carries a couple of powerful lasers that emit periodic pulses at a sligh
t angle to each other, so that the other astronaut can triangulate on the distance from which each pulse was sent. That way, each astronaut can tell, from their own reference frame, how far away the other astronaut was when they sent their light pulse. Knowing how far away each pulse was, how many pulses there were and that they all travelled at the speed of light, each astronaut can measure how much time passed on the other astronaut's clock with every pulse, and compare it to what their own clocks read when each pulse was sent.
You are saying here that each can determine the absolute speed of the other by comparison of tick rates? Doesn't this run directly contradictory to SRT that no such experiment is possible?

Originally Posted by CptBork
Like I say, the particle lifetimes measured in accelerators obey the laws of relativity, they do exactly what Einstein predicted they would do. Even before relativity was published there were strange effects being noticed, such as the nonlinearity of velocity addition. Here's a relativistic velocity addition effect Fizeau first noticed all the way back in 1851!
Do not some critics point out that Fizeau did not actually measure relativity?

IN AE's "Relativity" AE states regarding the Fizeay experiment, ," . . . The light plays the part of the man walking on the carriage . . ." In the man walking scenario the velocity of the man relative to the embankment was the velocity of the man relative to the carriage plus the velocity of the carriage relative to the embankment. Substituting light for the man without subtracting the velocity of the train assumes that light and the man are identical,seen from the carriage or the embankment both observers are aware of the 'speed of light independence' postulate. Earlier in the chapter (CH V) AE recognized light speed as independent of the speed of the source of the light hence the substitution,'light for man' was a gross error.

Originally Posted by CptBork
There's nothing wrong with the concept that the sun is flying towards me. If I'm on Earth one moment and then a few months later I see the sun rapidly coming up on me, I know it didn't just suddenly pick up a zillion terajoules of kinetic energy. In that case I know I must be in a rocket zooming towards the sun, at which point I look around and remember I'm an astronaut and recall that a few months ago it had felt like something was smashing me into my seat for a whole week.

On the other hand, if I'm a meteor floating through space for a couple of billion years, and one day I notice an entire solar system rushing up on me at hundreds of thousands of kilometres an hour, there's nothing wrong with that scenario and there's no reason the meteor should think it somehow got propelled up to massive speeds.
So, the thinking of astronauts and meteors somehow determine the laws of physics?

3. Originally Posted by geistkiesel
I'll nip this in the bud real quick, and then I have to go to bed.

Originally Posted by geistkiesel
Your AE quote does not address reciprocity i.e. that each observer sees the other's clock as dilated relative to his own. Each may think the other's clock is slower but 'thinking' here isn't physics.
Read the part where I answer MacM's question #1. The seeming paradox that both clocks should be dilated is solved by including relative simultaneity in the considerations, which is automatically done in the calculations.

Originally Posted by geistkiesel
If the twin leaving earth (moving at near light speed) accelerates in the reverse direction from earth and this twin stops at C say, where the beacon is located, and then returns to earth where it must decelerate to reach the earth velocity (near light speed), how could the clocks possibly have the same tick rate? The twin clock on earth will dilate relative to C at some rate. Now when the decelerating twin slows to zero for a spell then acclerates to catch the earth both twin's clock have lost synchronization.
I don't think you understood my argument. I'm saying that suppose you do the twins experiment with the Earth considered stationary, and you get that one twin has aged 10 years, the other 20 when they meet up again. If it actually were to turn out that the Earth had been moving relative to some absolute standard, and giant rockets were used to bring the Earth to a halt in this frame, and the experiment was repeated, you'd get the exact same result. There's no absolute reference frame to consider here.

Originally Posted by geistkiesel
You are saying here that each can determine the absolute speed of the other by comparison of tick rates? Doesn't this run directly contradictory to SRT that no such experiment is possible?
No, each astronaut is measuring where the other one is at the time when each pulse was sent. Astronaut A reports he has detected 10 pulses since the experiment began, meaning 10 seconds had elapsed on B's clock when the most recent pulse was originally sent. Astronaut A, who considers himself to be at rest, then triangulates how far away in space that last pulse originated, and can tell how long ago it was sent. Thus astronaut A knows at what time the pulse was sent. Astronaut A may then conclude that his clock read 20 seconds at the same time that astronaut B's clock read 10 seconds. Likewise, astronaut B will conclude that astronaut A's clock read 10 seconds at the same time that his own clock read 20. Because communications can't be sent faster than light, there's no way to take advantage of this discrepancy to create a paradox. By the time A communicates to B what he thinks the time should actually be, B's clock has already passed that time, and vice-versa.

Originally Posted by geistkiesel
Do not some critics point out that Fizeau did not actually measure relativity?

IN AE's "Relativity" AE states regarding the Fizeay experiment, ," . . . The light plays the part of the man walking on the carriage . . ." In the man walking scenario the velocity of the man relative to the embankment was the velocity of the man relative to the carriage plus the velocity of the carriage relative to the embankment. Substituting light for the man without subtracting the velocity of the train assumes that light and the man are identical,seen from the carriage or the embankment both observers are aware of the 'speed of light independence' postulate. Earlier in the chapter (CH V) AE recognized light speed as independent of the speed of the source of the light hence the substitution,'light for man' was a gross error.
Not true at all. In relativity, velocities don't add the way you describe. If two spacecraft are each going at near lightspeed relative to Earth, in opposite directions, the spacecraft will still see each other travelling at less than lightspeed. So whether you use a man or a beam of light, it wouldn't matter. In the Fizeau experiment the light is travelling at somewhat less than c because it's carried in a refractory medium like water, so you can treat it like a fast-moving spaceship.

Originally Posted by geistkiesel
So, the thinking of astronauts and meteors somehow determine the laws of physics?
Har har har. It's pretty obvious what I was implying there.

4. Originally Posted by CptBork
I'll nip this in the bud real quick, and then I have to go to bed.

Read the part where I answer MacM's question #1. The seeming paradox that both clocks should be dilated is solved by including relative simultaneity in the considerations, which is automatically done in the calculations.
which considerations? Both twins conbsiderations or what?

Originally Posted by CptBork
I don't think you understood my argument. I'm saying that suppose you do the twins experiment with the Earth considered stationary, and you get that one twin has aged 10 years, the other 20 when they meet up again. If it actually were to turn out that the Earth had been moving relative to some absolute standard, and giant rockets were used to bring the Earth to a halt in this frame, and the experiment was repeated, you'd get the exact same result. There's no absolute reference frame to consider here.
I read your setup as saying the earth and the twins were both accelerated and from this near sol platform one of the twins accelerated and returned.

Originally Posted by CptBork
No, each astronaut is measuring where the other one is at the time when each pulse was sent. Astronaut A reports he has detected 10 pulses since the experiment began, meaning 10 seconds had elapsed on B's clock when the most recent pulse was originally sent. But A, who considers himself to be at rest, then triangulates how far away in space that last pulse originated, and can tell how long ago it was sent. Thus astronaut A knows at what time the pulse was sent. Astronaut A may then conclude that his clock read 20 seconds at the same time that astronaut B's clock read 10 seconds. Likewise, astronaut B will conclude that astronaut A's clock read 10 seconds at the same time that his own clock read 20. Because communications can't be sent faster than light, there's no way to take advantage of this discrepancy to create a paradox. By the time A communicates to B what he thinks the time should actually be, B's clock has already passed that time, and vice-versa.
When the first pulse reaches A, A begins to look at his own clock and when ten pulses from B are counted A looks at his own pulse total, say its twenty.

Then A sends 10 pulses to B who also records his own pulse total after ten of A's pulses are received. B looks at his clock and counts twenty pulses.

Only if one of the observers was really at absolute rest would one of the measurements above be possible. Keeping the discussion limited to pulse count we arrive at different conclusions.

Each observer then sends the same message I counted ten of your pulses for twenty of my pulses.

Originally Posted by CptBork
Not true at all. In relativity, velocities don't add the way you describe. If two spacecraft are each going at near lightspeed relative to Earth, in opposite directions, the spacecraft will still see each other travelling at less than lightspeed. So whether you use a man or a beam of light, it wouldn't matter. In the Fizeau experiment the light is travelling at somewhat less than c because it's carried in a refractory medium like water, so you can treat it like a fast-moving spaceship.
Einstein in "Relativity" Chptr VII, substituted light for the man on the train. However, the light does not move like the man as seen from the embankment the man's total velocity was the man's velocity wrt the carriage plus the train velocity wrt the embankment. Then AE substituted light for the man and comes to the conclusion that the speed of light relative to the train was less than c, but here he arbitrarily assumed the light was measured wrt the train. The equations AE used were as follows.

W = V + w

where W is the velocity of the man wrt the embankment.

c replaces W as the sol wrt the embankment (CHptr. VII) and w the required velocity of light wrt the carriage. So c = v + w as seen from the embankment, but this cannot be done properly without subtracting the velocity of the train from w.

Inj any event AE rearranges the expression to w = c - v and says this is in conflict with the the principles of relativity discused in Chpr V. However light motion does not act like the man motion.

In the first expression W is seen from the embankment. In one jerk of the eye he now says w is measured wrt the carriage, just like the man, when light motion does not act like the man. Seen from the ermbankment c = v + w - v, or c = w, which it should.

AE wrote w = c - v, the velocty of light relative to the carriage is correct as seen from the embankment where the argument started but was corrupted later on with the illegal substitution. w= c - v merely states the relative verlocity of light and the train.
Har har har. The old inertial frame switcherooooo.

Originally Posted by CptBork
It is pretty obvious what I was implying there.
Sure it was obvious, so what?

5. QQ: For the third time (Question was first posed in post 423 and quantities are well defined there) :

I still wish to know what you think. Which is it:
(t2 -t1)* IS NOT THE SAME AS (T2-T1)' OR (t2 -t1)* IS THE SAME AS (T2-T1)'
There are only these two alternatives – Please chose one.

I do not expect you to answer simple direct questions above any more than I expected you to pay off on your offer for proof that the photon does exist and does travel between the source and the ultimate detector, where it is annihilated, even though I have given the three following example of experiments which clearly have the photon interact non-destructively (not annihilated) with matter which is placed between the source and the ultimate detector:

(1) In Laue scattering a crystal is placed between source and detector.
That very important invention gained Laue the Noble Prize in 1914 as it has been the primary way mankind has learned about the structure of crystals, all inorganic and many complex organic crystals including proteins which can be crystallized and DNA. That crystallization was not easy, but after years of work, Rosalind Franklin imperfectly crystallized DNA, then made the X-ray Laue Diagram (the “fuzzy” photograph below), showed it to Watson & Clark and soon thereafter died of cancer. (They got the Nobel Prize she disserved as Nobel Prizes cannot be awarded posthumously.) Also illustrated below is the geometry of Laue scattering showing a crystal placed between the source and the photographic film detector. http://www4.nau.edu/microanalysis/Mi...lauemethod.jpg .. http://www4.nau.edu/microanalysis/Mi...s/Von_Laue.jpg
Rosalind surely knew the above type pattern came from a crystal made of large helical spiral molecules (but may not have guessed it was a double spiral). In about week after getting access to Rosalind’s years of work (this fuzzy photograph), W & C worked out the probable structure of DNA and published it in a one-page Nature article. As I recall they did not even mention Rosalind in that article, and only after she was dead (could not get the Nobel Prize) did they give her any credit!

Wiki’s diagram below discusses how the approaching light waves interact non-destructively with the atoms of a crystal and then
the outgoing waves continue on to produce the latent image in the film detector where they are annihilated.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...iffraction.png Also in the Wiki article is a Laue Diagram with sharp spots as the enzime crystal used was more perfect than Rosalind's DNA crystal. See for this and much more at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laue_diffraction

(2) In Compton Scattering, a charged particle (typically and electron) is placed between the source and detector.
Like (1) above and (3) below, the non-destructive interaction of the photon traveling from source to detector changes the position on the film detector where the photon will expose the film. Wiki discusses Compton Scattering so I will not, except to note that by measuring the recoil electron’s speed and direction one can predict (Equations in Wiki) where the film will be exposed.

(3) In post 374, an interferometer is placed between the source and detector.
It too has a non-destructive interaction with the photons traveling between source and detector which like (1) & (2) changes the location of the light falling on the film. Example (1) allows one to learn about the crystal, but not the light. This third example allows, as discussed in detail in post 374, to learn both the wave length of the photons and the length of the photons traveling from source to detector. Again one can predict (Equations in Wiki) where the film will be exposed.

Note in all three examples, the non-destructive interaction between the source and detector determines exactly where the photographic film will be exposed (the image pattern) and one can even predict where that will be, based on the fact that photon has "wave like" properties as it travels between source and film. Thus, even only one of these examples is sufficient to win your prize. Here is your original statement of these requirements (in your post 321 of this thread).

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
...$100usd is up for grabs [and has been for nearly a month] if any one can show effect evidence that clearly demonstrates a photon in transit and note the key words are "in transit" from any point A to B. What part of these requirements did I fail to show?* Note my THREE demonstrations are with both the theory and EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATIONS! --------------- *Although (1) & (2) are normally done with so many photons that they can best be treated as waves, they can be done one photon at a time. In (3) I discuss in some detail how the interference pattern can AND HAS BEEN demonstrated with only one photon at a time passing thru the interferometer. - Details like why the film must be keep very cold in dry nitrogen to avoid "Reciprocity Failure" and in footnote of post 374 I gave a Wikí link to further discussion of what that is (As is common, Wiki’s discussion failed to discuss all it should like cooling the film to restore reciprocity or "pre fogging" that can be used when the light is just weak but stronger than one photon at a time.) 6. Here is the Laue diagram (photograph) made by the enzime crystal I could not include in just made prior post: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ern_3clpro.jpg Note the multitude of well defined spots that contain the information (from their exact locations) about the structure of the enzime. It is difficult to over estimate the importance of the "Laue Method" has had for the benefit of man. 7. Cpt Bork may be you can offer a clear solutions to this complaint that MacM and now I are attempting to put forward. IMO The complaint is simply summurised by the following: We have with SRT: • relativity of velocity. • relativity of time dilation [ tick rates] • No relativity of Acceleration, therefore • No relativity of causation. thus we have effect with out cause and that effect is the relativity of time dilation [ tick rates ]. SRT is essentially "damned is it does and damned if it doesn't " [ re: inclusion of relativity of acceleration ] [ as there can not be relativity of acceleration due to laws governing such] Please explain if you can in a way that Macm and I can understand. 8. Originally Posted by Billy T QQ: I do not expect you to answer simple direct questions above any more than I expected you to pay off on your offer for proof that the photon does exist and does travel between the source and the ultimate detector, and what sort of response do you expect from this sort of crap Billy T. The$100usd is still up and on the table waiting to be taken...and I can assure you it wont be taken until the evidence offered is assessed correctly and stands as valid according to criteria.
That being the evidence must show a photon in transit from A to B whilst crossing a vacuum of empty space. [ thus evidencing and proving the 2nd postulate - in part]

I am still trying to decide whether to start another thread devoted to your evidence....because as far as I can tell it does not provide the evidence required. [ if anything simply because it does not include a vacuum of vacant space - BUT I STRESS this is not the main reason for failure or success].

You appear to be attempting to defend those Nobel prize winners work. I can assure you there is no need to, as any alternative theory must be able to accomoodate all experiemental results by all experiments that involve empirical data for the existance of a photon and not just that it may travel either. [ In the end it is just a matter of reinterpreting certain aspects of that data which will prove rather surprising I tend to think.]

In all the cases presented you have utilises a massive obejct to act as interference of the supposed path of a travleing photon.

The double slit experiments also use mass to interfere with the path of a photon so why not include that as well... or a shadow being cast by a tree or a planet or a satelite [moon]and so on...as it appears that your evidences are just sophisticated versions of the same thing.

9. Originally Posted by geistkiesel
Einstein in "Relativity" Chptr VII, substituted light for the man on the train. However, the light does not move like the man as seen from the embankment the man's total velocity was the man's velocity wrt the carriage plus the train velocity wrt the embankment. Then AE substituted light for the man and comes to the conclusion that the speed of light relative to the train was less than c, but here he arbitrarily assumed the light was measured wrt the train. The equations AE used were as follows.

W = V + w

where W is the velocity of the man wrt the embankment.

c replaces W as the sol wrt the embankment (CHptr. VII) and w the required velocity of light wrt the carriage. So c = v + w as seen from the embankment, but this cannot be done properly without subtracting the velocity of the train from w.

Inj any event AE rearranges the expression to w = c - v and says this is in conflict with the the principles of relativity discused in Chpr V. However light motion does not act like the man motion.

In the first expression W is seen from the embankment. In one jerk of the eye he now says w is measured wrt the carriage, just like the man, when light motion does not act like the man. Seen from the ermbankment c = v + w - v, or c = w, which it should.

AE wrote w = c - v, the velocty of light relative to the carriage is correct as seen from the embankment where the argument started but was corrupted later on with the illegal substitution. w= c - v merely states the relative verlocity of light and the train.
Har har har. The old inertial frame switcherooooo.
I have explained this to you before and clearly you've put in no effort to actually process the information, nor have you bothered to try to understand what the book is telling you, instead you mindlessly bleat proof of your ignorance.

At low velocities you can APPROXIMATELY add velocities v and w as W = w+v. You're driving at 50mph, a car overtakes you at what you see as 50mph, so he's driving at 100 mph. This is how everyday mechanics seems to work and what is what Einstein is discussing. But this is only an approximation to the (as best as we can currently tell with experiments) true way velocities add, which is that if you're driving your car at speed w and a car overtakes you at what you see to be speed v then that car is moving at speed $\frac{w+v}{1+\frac{wv}{c^{2}}}}$ relative to the road. For speeds w,v << c this is approximately w+v but once you get above about 0.1c then you find the difference between it and w+v becomes more and more. As I once told you over in Pseudo, if you do a multivariable Taylor expansion you'll see that the first order correction to the usual W = w+v formula goes like $\frac{wv}{c^{2}}$ but obviously you didn't do that, given you don't know any calculus. But what happens when one speed is low and the other high? Well put in v=c, so one of the cars is actually a photon and you get $\frac{w+v}{1+\frac{wv}{c^{2}}} = \frac{w+c}{1+\frac{w}{c}}= c$. So if you're driving a car at any speed both you and the person standing on the side of the road will measure light to be moving at the same speed.

If you bother to actually try to understand that book you keep quoting you'll see all of that is in there. You have failed to understand what Einstein was saying, you've failed to grasp how he's explaining the difference between non-relativistic and relativistic mechanics and you've proven you simply aren't interested in listening to anyone who might actually grasp this topics a bit better than you. And yet you've got the hypocrisy to whine about truth and honesty in science.

The complaint is simply summurised by the following:

We have with SRT:

* relativity of velocity.
* relativity of time dilation [ tick rates]
* No relativity of Acceleration, therefore
* No relativity of causation.

thus we have effect with out cause and that effect is the relativity of time dilation [ tick rates ]. SRT is essentially "damned is it does and damned if it doesn't " [ re: inclusion of relativity of acceleration ] [ as there can not be relativity of acceleration due to laws governing such]
Yes, the explaination is easy. You've made a strawman by proclaiming that relativity lacks cause and effect when cause and effect are infact a central prediction/requirement/synonym of special relativity. The fact you have made no effect to grasp CptBork's explaination of simultaneity in relativity or made no attempt to open a book on special relativity and read up on how cause and effect works in a relativistic framework doesn't mean the explaination doesn't exist or your unjustified, uninformed magically become right, it just means you are intellectually dishonest.

Simply making an accusation about special relativity doesn't make the accusation true. You need to demonstrate rigorously that the contradiction exists in special relativity, but you're incapable of that (even if you were right about its existence) since you don't know any special relativity so you're utterly unable to formulate and describe any special relativistic system. All you can do is flail your arms and cry "Where's the photon!!", while keeping your eyes firmly shut, should anything which contradicts your uninformed proclamations cross your path.

10. Yes, the explaination is easy. You've made a strawman by proclaiming that relativity lacks cause and effect when cause and effect are infact a central prediction/requirement/synonym of special relativity. The fact you have made no effect to grasp CptBork's explaination of simultaneity in relativity or made no attempt to open a book on special relativity and read up on how cause and effect works in a relativistic framework doesn't mean the explaination doesn't exist or your unjustified, uninformed magically become right, it just means you are intellectually dishonest.

Simply making an accusation about special relativity doesn't make the accusation true. You need to demonstrate rigorously that the contradiction exists in special relativity, but you're incapable of that (even if you were right about its existence) since you don't know any special relativity so you're utterly unable to formulate and describe any special relativistic system. All you can do is flail your arms and cry "Where's the photon!!", while keeping your eyes firmly shut, should anything which contradicts your uninformed proclamations cross your path.
still waiting...now for two things..
You've just posted a whole heap of words and not once addressed the problem. Does that mean you don't know the answer or that you just simply refuse to discuss it due to your obvious animosity?
I am sure there will be some proper explanation for the "apparent" lack of causation. After all you guys have been working with it for over 100 years now, so maybe a simple link will suffice that deal with this all too obvious issue...[ this problem shoud be so easy to resolve ] even to a ten year old.

Do you know the difference between theoretical cause and actual physical cause?
Acceleration is a physical cause and SRT can not apply it relatively.
If you don't know the solution or can provide a link then simply avoiding the issue isn't going to be any good either.
and I might add I am not proclaiming anything and are merely throwing a test case at you....

I don't have any vested interests in the outcome.

11. Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
Cpt Bork may be you can offer a clear solutions to this complaint that MacM and now I are attempting to put forward.
IMO The complaint is simply summurised by the following:

We have with SRT:
• relativity of velocity.
• relativity of time dilation [ tick rates]
• No relativity of Acceleration, therefore
• No relativity of causation.

thus we have effect with out cause and that effect is the relativity of time dilation [ tick rates ]. SRT is essentially "damned is it does and damned if it doesn't " [ re: inclusion of relativity of acceleration ] [ as there can not be relativity of acceleration due to laws governing such]

Please explain if you can in a way that Macm and I can understand.
The biggest problem seems to be difficulty understanding how each astronaut can legitimately argue that their own clock is ticking faster than the other astronaut's clock. Either you have trouble accepting this result on philosophical grounds, or you feel this could somehow lead to a time paradox where one astronaut can affect the other astronaut's past, which could then in turn affect his own past. Am I correct on this? I want to know if I understand your questions before I start going into any details.

12. Originally Posted by CptBork
The biggest problem seems to be difficulty understanding how each astronaut can legitimately argue that their own clock is ticking faster than the other astronaut's clock. Either you have trouble accepting this result on philosophical grounds, or you feel this could somehow lead to a time paradox where one astronaut can affect the other astronaut's past, which could then in turn affect his own past. Am I correct on this? I want to know if I understand your questions before I start going into any details.
No the biggest problem is the apparent lack of physical causation for the "other" clock to be dilated when only one clock has been accellerated.
The issue is that it appears that SRT violates teh law of cause and effect as it may need to violate cause and effect to support the 2nd postulate.

We have with SRT:
relativity of velocity.
relativity of time dilation [ tick rates]
No relativity of Acceleration, therefore
No relativity of causation.
thus we have effect with out cause and that effect is the relativity of time dilation [ tick rates ]. SRT is essentially "damned is it does and damned if it doesn't " [ re: inclusion of relativity of acceleration ] [ as there can not be relativity of acceleration due to laws governing such]
No where is there any mention in the above about issues regarding relative simultaneity nor time paradoxes if one accepts SRT as it stands.

13. Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
and what sort of response do you expect from this sort of crap Billy T.
The $100usd is still up and on the table waiting to be taken...and I can assure you it wont be taken until the evidence offered is assessed correctly and stands as valid according to criteria. [I]That being the evidence must show a photon in transit from A to B whilst crossing a vacuum of empty space. ...The double slit experiments also use mass to interfere with the path of a photon so why not include that as well... or a shadow being cast by a tree or a planet or a satelite [moon]and so on...as it appears that your evidences are just sophisticated versions of the same thing. I will give up as you can always add new requirements (move the goal post). THERE WAS NO REQUIRMENT as originally stated THAT THE EVIDENCE BE DONE IN VACUUM.* I do however note that sun light comes to Earth thru a better vacuum (molecule free paths) longer than man can make. But there is little point in doing this you can add another requirement that the evidence must disprove the Either also. BTW I have already mentioned that that mirror folded interferometers were used in Michelson mile long steel vacuum tube. SUMMARY: There is no point in chasing moving goal posts. I noted that I would agree to the judgment of others - You even suggested James R and I said "Sure." Do you still agree to letting James R judge if I met the original requirements or not? ------------------- *The original challenge you stated in your post 321 was: "...$100usd is up for grabs [and has been for nearly a month] if anyone can show effect evidence that clearly demonstrates a photon in transit and note the key words are "in transit" from any point A to B.” {Vacuum is not even mentioned}

Thus, I kicked the ball thru that original goal post three times.

As far as shadows are concerned, they stop the photons at your "point B." Thus, while clearly the shadow making object does "observably interact with the photons", it does not do it as where your original problem statement (the no vacuum requirement one) demands -I.e. "demonstrably interact” while in transit from point A to B. (I did much more that just demonstrate the interaction – I predicted where the point B would be on the film detectors for the data of the interactions and in the interferometer non-destructive interaction even measured the length of the photons as ~30 cm! (while they were between your “points A & B.” – See post 374 again.)

The heart of the challenge, which James R suggested could not be done, was to interact with the photon in flight in a way that could be observed without annihilating the photon like the shadow maker does.

---------------
---------------
I know it is pointless to ask again for the fourth time which of the two possible answers is your position. The two well defined time intervals either ARE of ARE NOT equal. Which is it?

14. Originally Posted by Billy T
I will give up as you can always add new requirements (move the goal post). THERE WAS NO REQUIRMENT as originally stated THAT THE EVIDENCE BE DONE IN VACUUM.*

I do however note that sun light comes to Earth thru a better vacuum (molecule free paths) longer than man can make. But there is little point in doing this you can add another requirement that the evidence must disprove the Either also. BTW I have already mentioned that that mirror folded interferometers were used in Michelson mile long steel vacuum tube.

SUMMARY: There is no point in chasing moving goal posts. I noted that I would agree to the judgment of others - You even suggested James R and I said "Sure." Do you still agree to letting James R judge if I met the original requirements or not?
-------------------
*The original challenge you stated in your post 321 was:

"...$100usd is up for grabs [and has been for nearly a month] if anyone can show effect evidence that clearly demonstrates a photon in transit and note the key words are "in transit" from any point A to B.” {Vacuum is not even mentioned} Thus, I kicked the ball thru that original goal post three times. As far as shadows are concerned, they stop the photons at your "point B." Thus, while clearly the shadow making object does "observably interact with the photon, it does not do it as where your original problem statement (the no vacuum requirement one) demands -I.e. "demonstrably interact” while in transit from point A to B. (I did much more that just demonstrate the interaction – I predicted where the point B would be on the film detectors for the data of the interactions and in the interferometer non-destructive interaction even measured the length of the photons as ~30 cm! (while they were between your “points A & B.” – See post 374 again.) The heart of the challenge, which James R suggested could not be done, was to interact with the photon in flight in a way that could be observed without annihilating the photon like the shadow maker does. the challenge has been up for over a month and I did refer you to the appropriate thread did I not? You agreed to preview that thread and now you accuse me of moving the goal posts...sorry but it doesn't wash BillyT 15. Originally Posted by Quantum Quack the challenge has been up for over a month and I did refer you to the appropriate thread did I not? You agreed to preview that thread and now you accuse me of moving the goal posts...sorry but it doesn't wash BillyT I have not been to any other thread. I recall stating that I will have a look at your problem as I though I knew how to do it. I asked James R if he wanted to make a side bet too. Perhaps you missed this in post 543: --------------- --------------- I know it is pointless to ask again for the fourth time which of the two possible answers is your position. The two well defined {in post 423} time intervals either ARE of ARE NOT equal. Which is it? 16. Originally Posted by Billy T I have not been to any other thread. I recall stating that I will have a look at your problem as I though I knew how to do it. I asked James R is he wanted to make a side bet too. Perhaps you missed this in post 543: --------------- --------------- I know it is pointless to ask again for the fourth time which of the two possible answers is your position. The two well defined time intervals either ARE of ARE NOT equal. Which is it? yeah I gathered as much but because you first post regarding photon length was so close I thought I'd allow a bit of time to see what developed. You see I would love to see the evidence if at all possible as it would save me an awfull lot of stress and time regarding the alternative. The issue is a serious issue and the$100 usd challenge was merely a demonstration from my part just how serious it is. As I can't treat that sort of money too trivially.

The thread in question is now dormant due to certain attitudes of certain posters and can be found at:

It has over 5000 views so far and over 390 posts [ most of which are flame orientated [ as you can imagine - challenging the holy grail of science is no easy task.]
so take a coffee or a wine and have an explore...you will find the challenge get launched about half way through and refined as the thread progressed.

17. Originally Posted by CptBork
I have to apologize in advance MacM, but these back and forth postings and responses are getting bigger and bigger each time, and there have been several other interesting threads opening up lately, so I'm only going to be able to respond to a selection of your questions and answers. If there's a particularly important point you feel I haven't adequately addressed, feel free to let me know.
No apology necessary. I detest lengthy diatribes myself. Billy T and James R seem to like them or believe they tie you up answering a bunch of irrelevant comments.

Originally Posted by CptBork
You're saying that there's a reciprocity in the twins paradox that only GR is able to deal with unambiguously (without invoking your concept of "absolute motion"), and that's just not true in the slightest.
False. I have never made that statement. What I said was SR can handle acceleration but that acceleration is normally a GR function (non-inertial frame) and that Einstein referred to Frame Switching, which is as the result of acceleration or a GR function, when he spoke of the resolution to the Twin Paradox post 1911.

Originally Posted by CptBork
I'm sorry, but I can't make any sense of your equation. It looks like you're adding something finite to something infinitesimal. You should write it out in TEX format so you can display it as an actual equation, it's not that difficult.

Here's a nice, concise cheat sheet that should have pretty much all the commands you need. Then when you want to write math statements, you just enclose it between tex statements in square brackets like this:

[this is where you'd write "tex"] (Math code as demonstrated on the cheat sheet) [this is where you'd write "/tex"]
No formula necessary. I was just stating that to compute total accululated time loss due to time dilation one has to not only calculate velocity times duration but also include an integration of the instaneous velocity affects during all phases of acceleration.

Originally Posted by CptBork
I looked into it, here's a link discussing what Einstein did. I'll quote the relevant section.
Actually "NO" you haven't quoted the arelevant text. What you have quoted is what he said in 1905 and it was based on relative velocity. That is what led to the issue others dubbed "Twin Paradox". It was post 1911 that Einstien claimed that "Frame Switching" broke that symmetry and is why the traveling twin actually physically stayed younger.

Einstein adapting the "Switched Frame" view rejected relative velocity's inherent reciprocity as a physical reality 98 years ago. James R and others are just a tad behind the times and in disagreement with Einstein on that issue.

I posted the relevant text which showed that Einstein relied on a non-inertial frame (GR) to resolve the paradox.

Originally Posted by CptBork
Smart man, that one.
Smart to a degree but certainly not invincible. You do recall he fudged his formula to force the universe to be static until he was proven wrong. Just as I claim he is forcing v = c to be a velocity limit to fit his theory by introducing the velocity addition formula. It may be true but I really have my doubts and certainly believe it has been advanced merely as a mathematical construct to appease his preconvieved ideas.

Originally Posted by CptBork
I use the same velocity "v" in both the trip to the navigational beacon and back for simplicity's sake. If I had chosen that the astronaut heads to the beacon with velocity "v", and returned with velocity "w", you would see "v" appear in the time dilation equation for the trip to the beacon, and "w" would appear in this equation for the return trip home. At no point in the dilation equations is there any reference whatsoever to what velocity the astronaut held in the past. The amount an object's time gets dilated at any instant, as measured by an observer, depends exclusively on their position and velocity with respect to this observer at that same instant.
You have missed the point. The differential "v" wasn't in vectors of the traveling twin but the differential between the actual velocity of the traveling twin vs the inertial rest v = 0 of the stay at home twin.

Originally Posted by CptBork
Also I could go ahead and shift the problem so that the Earth and both twins start off moving at near light-speed as seen from another reference frame, frame "C". Then one of the twins takes off from Earth, navigates towards a beacon which has been placed at rest relative to Earth some distance away, and returns. Observer "C" will agree, and can prove through the monitoring of radio transmissions from known locations in space, that when the twins compare their clocks, they will have the exact same time discrepancy as they would have in the case where the Earth is considered to be at rest. There's no reference to who has to be considered moving at any given time. It could be that the Earth is flying backwards, and the astronaut decides to decelerate into a "stationary" frame for a bit, before accelerating to catch back up with their twin on Earth.
I have no problem with that. As long as you don't claim that the traveling twin's view of his stay at home brother being younger is physical reality. And if you would acknowledge that taking Switching frames into account hence considering who has actual velocity not mere relative velocity is a foprm of absolute motion eliminating reciprocity as a physical reality.

Originally Posted by CptBork
Suppose you let them drift apart for a bit. Furthermore, each astronaut carries a couple of powerful lasers that emit periodic pulses at a slight angle to each other, so that the other astronaut can triangulate on the distance from which each pulse was sent. That way, each astronaut can tell, from their own reference frame, how far away the other astronaut was when they sent their light pulse. Knowing how far away each pulse was, how many pulses there were and that they all travelled at the speed of light, each astronaut can measure how much time passed on the other astronaut's clock with every pulse, and compare it to what their own clocks read when each pulse was sent.
Not a clear statement. Are both astronauts moving apart from each other? Or did one accelerate away and leave the other behind?

Originally Posted by CptBork
The answer to your question is neither "Yes" nor "No". The relativity of simultaneity comes into play here. Suppose "A" has set up a beacon at rest relative to them, and "B" is scheduled to pass this beacon at some point. Likewise, "B" has also set up a beacon in a symmetric situation. From A's perspective, B's clock will be ticking slow but the clock on B's beacon will be ticking fast, they won't be synchronized. Similarly, from B's perspective, A's clock will be ticking slow but A's beacon will be ticking fast. This seems to be your biggest problem with handling SR, you're only thinking about time dilation and not the fact that simultaneity is also a relative concept.
False. I have no interest and have made no comments regarding measurements while in motion. Those are "Illusions of Motion" and I am only concerned about what clocks read when compared in a common rest frame after having had relative velocity. As my radioactive decay clock scenario showed the result is NOT frame dependant. Regardless of what frame the data is taken the resut has the most accelerated clock being the one dilated.

Originally Posted by CptBork
Like I say, the particle lifetimes measured in accelerators obey the laws of relativity, they do exactly what Einstein predicted they would do. Even before relativity was published there were strange effects being noticed, such as the nonlinearity of velocity addition. Here's a relativistic velocity addition effect Fizeau first noticed all the way back in 1851!
You fall into the same trap others have. Because accelerators propell particles using EM waves; which propagate at v = c, it is inherent that nothing can be pushed past v = c. However in those cases you have v = c as a differential between the particles and the propelling source. If an object is propelled by a source traveling with it there is no relavistic affect between thrust, fuel and load..

What I see is a feature where energy put into accelerating particles shifts from thrust to orthogonal storage in space. Very simular to magnetisim in a coil, such that more and more energy yields less and less push making it appear mass has changed. When you attempt to decelerate the particle the field collapses from space adding push to retain velocity making it appear the particle has excess mass.

But the reality is that it is not a change in mass at all but a change in energy transfer efficiency.

Originally Posted by CptBork
There's nothing wrong with the concept that the sun is flying towards me. If I'm on Earth one moment and then a few months later I see the sun rapidly coming up on me, I know it didn't just suddenly pick up a zillion terajoules of kinetic energy. In that case I know I must be in a rocket zooming towards the sun, at which point I look around and remember I'm an astronaut and recall that a few months ago it had felt like something was smashing me into my seat for a whole week.

On the other hand, if I'm a meteor floating through space for a couple of billion years, and one day I notice an entire solar system rushing up on me at hundreds of thousands of kilometres an hour, there's nothing wrong with that scenario and there's no reason the meteor should think it somehow got propelled up to massive speeds.
There is everything wrong with assuming the sun is moving to you. It simply isn't the physical reality and time dilation is a function of physical causes, not as a function of observer perception.

Originally Posted by CptBork
If I understand what you're saying correctly, they used muon anisotropy to measure the speed of the Earth relative to the CMB. In order to do this, I believe they would have had to know the average lifetime of a muon from watching their decays here on Earth. So your logic seems circular because you're then claiming the experiment was then able to measure muon lifetimes, whereas this seems as if it would have been a necessary input at the very start.
Not sure you follow what was done:

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache...&ct=clnk&gl=us

Originally Posted by CptBork
I don't plan to get too heavily involved in this debate, and it's starting to get pretty cluttered so I don't know how much longer I'll stick around here. But I think I've narrowed down MacM's problem to misconceptions about the relative simultaneity of time and how systems of clocks are set up in different reference frames. I see that you mentioned this issue as one of your grievances, and it's something I'll probably try to focus on rather than getting sidetracked by all the choo choo trains, airplanes and rockets.
Correction. It is not Macm that has a problem. The problem is everybody wants to keep interjecting conditions that are not part of the issue.

Simultaneity is a fucntion of distance and/or relative velocity. Once again I care less about what observers "See", "Think" or "Percieve". I am only talking about what emperical data shows when two clocks are compared in a common rest frame sitting side by side, after having had relative velocity.

Emperical data does not support the relative velocity view but rather an LR view which considers actual motion not mere relative velocity.

18. Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
No the biggest problem is the apparent lack of physical causation for the "other" clock to be dilated when only one clock has been accellerated.
The physical cause is the structure of the underlying space and time.

19. Originally Posted by CptBork
The physical cause is the structure of the underlying space and time.
Just to be certain as I am going to say in future that CptBork says so...[ defer to your expertise and ability to apply critical judgement.]
and you believe that:

1. this is sufficient caustion to counter the effects of only one clock being accelerated?
2. That it is not a theoretical causation derived solely from theory and that it is a physical causation derived from physical changes to the structure of space time and the clock in question?

20. Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
...The thread in question is now dormant due to certain attitudes of certain posters and can be found at:

It has over 5000 views so far and over 390 posts [ most of which are flame orientated [ as you can imagine - challenging the holy grail of science is no easy task.]
so take a coffee or a wine and have an explore...you will find the challenge get launched about half way through and refined as the thread progressed.
Thanks for the link. I have just finished going all the way back to post 200 and looking to see if you ever mentioned vacuum in you challenge requirements (not that I could find) While doing so I notice that post 321, which I have been citing as your statement of the problem (and quoted several times) is actual a posts of James' in which he quotes your requirement. (I assume correctly.)

I don’t want to also wade thru 390 post in a thread I don't think I have ever read (including "still") - If James did not quote your requirements correct in his post 321, where is the posts that includes the requirement that the passage of the photon between "points A & B" must be in vacuum? Also what do you consider "vacuum"? is 10-7 Torr a vacuum? - That is about the best vacuum you can get with an oil diffusion pump as I recall. - Much lower than that requires liquid N2 wall cooling and or chemical "gethering" - I fear that unless you clearly defined "vacuum," the goal post will just keep moving by your stating:
"That was not a true vacuum - there were still molecules around."
as your response to any evidence offered. Specifically is the space more than 10 miles from the Earth surface a vacuum?