1. Originally Posted by MacM
You are 100% correct. The simple fact is that the way they apply SR is a form of LR and that is to consider who has actual velocity by imploying frame switching, not merely relative velocity.

The only reason I can see for calling it frame switching is to NOT acknolwdge that to switch frames you must experience F = ma by acceleration for some period or duration thereby causing a change in actual velocity in an absolute sense to your rest frame. That is to have actual velocity and not merely relative velocity.

They never actually use the SR assertion that either can be considered at rest where the resting clock is viewed by the traveling clock as having the velocity and being the dilated clock . That is just rhetoric and BS propagation.

There is no emperical data to support the argument that the resting clock dilates. It is totally irrational and physically impossible. It is possible to have an illusion of motion where one might percieve that each is ticking slower but the emperical data only supports that the one with actual motion does.

They (James R) claims the SR assertion and illusion is physically real but has not and cannot be tested. That is an interseting postion since:

1 - If it is untestable then SR is falsified as a valid theory. A theory must be testable to be valid but;

2 - he asserts the affect is there and that time dilation in both frames is real and is frame dependant because SR says so.

The problem here is I believe that the scenario I posted using radioactive particle decay rates as atomic clocks and then using identical delayed accelerations of negligable duration compared to inertial relative velocity period of test, shows that comparison of the accumulated % decomposition of each clock is the same if both are read in either frame subsequent to having had relative velocity between them during the test period. That is "A" & "B" can be read in the "B" frame and shows that "A" has decomposed less having had actual velocity. Likewise "B" can be moved into the "A" frame and the comparison of % decomposition results are precisely the same.

It completely blows the frame dependant result arguement because reading the % decomposition in either frame is the same.

Dilation is NOT frame dependant as claimed (but untested and hince physical reality is therefore relative velocity is NOT symmetrical at relavistic speeds because each observer is using a different time tick rate standard to measure the trip time and the trip time is only valid if distance does NOT forshorten as claimed by SR.
ARE YOU SURE that my post is correct 100% as no doubt I and others will hold you too it...

This issue of pseudo preferred frames by using a preferred observer as a disguise is really IMO the knub of the issue.

SRT immediately removes symmetry by using a single observer and allowing him to "miraculously" deem himself at rest with out any supporting scinetific evidence to do so, when for all he knows he could be at significant velocity. IMUEO [ in my uneducated opinion ]
Logically this poses a huge problem when computing dilations and contractions right across the board leading to the convoluted self justifcation that SRT inevitably leads to using current interpretations.

So run two versions of relativity side by side one that uses a symetry based observer system [ treating both observers equally] and one that uses the asymetrical system [where by one observer deems his frame as a preferred.]
Then compare results and then we shall have a solid position to argue from either way.

pick a gedanken apply both along side each other and watch the outcome...

say call it pure relativity vs special relativity... and have a go ....and note that it is not simply just lorentz relativity vs SRT [ a bit more clever maybe]
I can almost guarrantee you you will end up with absolute time with dilations all fitting beautifully with existing data.
The need for a relative simultaneity of events will no longer be necessary.

2. MacM:

I note you have not responded to post #170.

The only reason I can see for calling it frame switching is to NOT acknolwdge that to switch frames you must experience F = ma by acceleration for some period or duration thereby causing a change in actual velocity in an absolute sense to your rest frame.
No. The same object can be viewed by many different observers, all of whom are travelling at different speeds relative to the object of interest. The object need not accelerate at all for its clocks to be ticking at different rates in all of the different observers' frames.

There is no emperical data to support the argument that the resting clock dilates. It is totally irrational and physically impossible.
Clearly it is not totally irrational, since it is a derived consequence of the simple postulates of special relativity, which experiment after experiment has proven to be an accurate theory.

The following two situations are experimentally indistinguishable:

Situation 1:

Clocks A and B are at rest relative to one another. Clock A accelerates to the East of clock B until its speed relative to B is 0.6c.

Situation 2:

Clocks A and B are at rest relative to one another. Clock B accelerates to the West of clock A until its speed relative to A is 0.6c.

Question: Once the final speeds are reached, which clock is running slow and which is running fast?

You (MacM) have no way of knowing. Your fantasyphysics theory has no answers.

Special relativity, on the other hand, says that the situations are symmetrical, and so each clock runs slow in the other's reference frame.

It is possible to have an illusion of motion where one might percieve that each is ticking slower but the emperical data only supports that the one with actual motion does.
Yet your fantasyphysics cannot deal with the example above.

2 - he asserts the affect is there and that time dilation in both frames is real and is frame dependant because SR says so.
No. I assert that the effect is there and real because in 100 years all the predictions of relativity that have been tested have turned out to be correct.

3. Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
SRT immediately removes symmetry by using a single observer and allowing him to "miraculously" deem himself at rest with out any supporting scinetific evidence to do so, when for all he knows he could be at significant velocity...
This is wrong.

SRT maintains symmetry by saying there are no preferred frames, so any observer can be considered to be at rest.

When you say "he could be at significant velocity", you have completely failed to specify a reference frame. If you do specify one, then that's just another frame and is no problem for special relativity. If you assume that there is some kind of "absolute" frame when all the evidence says such a thing doesn't exist, then you're an idiot.

4. Originally Posted by James R
This is wrong.

SRT maintains symmetry by saying there are no preferred frames, so any observer can be considered to be at rest.

When you say "he could be at significant velocity", you have completely failed to specify a reference frame. If you do specify one, then that's just another frame and is no problem for special relativity. If you assume that there is some kind of "absolute" frame when all the evidence says such a thing doesn't exist, then you're an idiot.
James, when an observer considers himself at rest then he has just made a preferred frame statement or at the very least a preferred observer statement. Thus he bcomes the "anchor" point of zero v....and by doing so he is removing sysmmetry from both observers velocity [ in this case of two observer scenario.

He, the observer, is saying virtually: "I know SRT says that there is no preferred reference frame allowed but I am going to make mine preferred any way."

so initially SR provides for symmetry but as soon a s an observeeris chosen it breaks that symmetry by the observer claiming priority and deeming himself at rest which I might add he for some reason doesn't have to justify with scientific process. [ "Just am at rest"]

any way no doubt I have a wrong view point but thought I'd explain why I have stated what I did....and with that I'll leave you guys to it....

5. QQ:

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
James, when an observer considers
himself at rest then he has just made a preferred frame statement or at the very least a preferred observer statement. Thus he bcomes the "anchor" point of zero v....and by doing so he is removing sysmmetry from both observers velocity [ in this case of two observer scenario.
You're overcomplicating things. Relativity simply answers questions like:

"If time x elapsed according to A's clock, how much time elapses according to B's clock, where B is moving relative to A?"

There's no preferred reference frame implicit in that question, and none required to answer it.

so initially SR provides for symmetry but as soon a s an observeeris chosen it breaks that symmetry by the observer claiming priority and deeming himself at rest which I might add he for some reason doesn't have to justify with scientific process. [ "Just am at rest"]
He could just as easily say "I am moving at half the speed of light" and it would make no difference to any physical answers, since those only ever depend on relative velocities.

6. Originally Posted by MacM
Your verbal pronouncements are inadequate. Please show that given only relative velocity between planes and no other information you can show that the plane is not going to stall or plumet. Go ahead you made the assinine claim show it.
Actually the original asinine claim was yours.
You can't, quite simply.
If all the pilot has is closing/ opening rates then he can't know his own airspeed. Simple.
Which does NOT alter the fact that even when a pilot has full information (eg ASI etc) he can still regard himself at rest.

Oh really then I best call channel 30 weather and let them know. There are a variety of radars technologies FLIR is on of them and I have had the priveledge of knowing and be friending Dr Edward Allard that invented FLIR for the military.
FLIR happens to stand for Forward-Looking Infra-Red. It's not a radar technology. And if I were you I'd not mention Prof. R. V. Jones to Allard. He was just some British guy that worked similar system prior to WWII... Allard may have developed it, but "invent"? Nah.
Yes there ARE radars that can detect large cloud formations etc. but as as I said, simply "picking up particles in the air" would give far too much clutter.

7. Originally Posted by James R
QQ:

You're overcomplicating things. Relativity simply answers questions like:

"If time x elapsed according to A's clock, how much time elapses according to B's clock, where B is moving relative to A?"

There's no preferred reference frame implicit in that question, and none required to answer it.

He could just as easily say "I am moving at half the speed of light" and it would make no difference to any physical answers, since those only ever depend on relative velocities.
James I don't wish to overly disrupt the thread so I wont labor the point.
Compare these two questions
"How much time elapses for B's clock relative to A's." [ asymmetrical relativity]
"how much time elapses for B and A's clocks relative to each other" [ symmetrical relativity]

By taking the first question it immediately implies that A is a preferred observer and that B is somehow moving relative to A but A is not moving relative to B and obviously this means that the scenario is asymmetric as it is only B that has movement relative to A.
This is relative velocity true but it is asymmetrical. They are in fact moving relative to each other given that A and B could be moving at equal velocity if no preferred observer position is taken thus no dilation is experienced and time is absolute.
By using a gendanken that only uses doppler effects for information it may prove that both A and B are actually at the same symmetrical velocity because both observers theoretically should experience the exact same doppler results.
Say light source A and light source B traveling at an unknown closing velocity both do doppler effect read outs and are able to determine their closing velocity and also note that both light source observers experience identical doppler readouts. How would that effect the SRT outcome? Quite dramatically I think...

Maybe I'm off the planet with this but it certainly seems that the doppler effect never lies...
a quick diagram:

Now I am not saying it's right or wrong but I think this is iin part what Macm is trying to show somehow, the problem of actual velocity and the illusion of velocity or motion...created by using a preferred observer [asymmetrical relativity]

if you set up a gedanken that relies only on doppler information in a vacuum of interstella space you will see what I mean I think.

8. Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
ARE YOU SURE that my post is correct 100% as no doubt I and others will hold you too it...
I re-read your post and as I understand your meaning I fully agree. However, I will interject one clarification:

In looking back I spotted another post by you to which I had not participated which says something which I would not agree with.
************************************************** ***
Posted by QuantumQuack:

As the case of NO preferred frame postulate shows, yet using one observer to have all the velocity is certainly a preferred frame as you have suggested [ loosing the meaning of relative velocity in the process and making it frame dependent and absolute. no matter which frame you wish to use as your observer is always thinking in absolute velocity terms and not relative.
************************************************** ******
I do not agree this constitues a preferred frame. A preferred frame is one where you CANNOT switch views. i.e. - using the ECI frame in GPS. You cannot then claim the orbiting clock is at rest and the ECI has motion. THAT is a preferred frame. ECI is Earth Centered Inertial frame.

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
SRT immediately removes symmetry by using a single observer and allowing him to "miraculously" deem himself at rest with out any supporting scinetific evidence to do so, when for all he knows he could be at significant velocity. IMUEO [ in my uneducated opinion ]
Logically this poses a huge problem when computing dilations and contractions right across the board leading to the convoluted self justifcation that SRT inevitably leads to using current interpretations.
See above comment. Symmetry is removed in the actual application of SR by applying the "Frame Switching" (who accelerated and has actual velocity) standard.

But symmetry is not removed from SR rehetorically because that would destroy Einstien's claim over Lorentz by showing that relavistic affects are not merely based relative velocity between frames but on actual motion of a frame which is more correctly an absolute motion view of Lorentz Relativity.

Relativist attempt ro deny this by asserting Lorentz believed in an aether and Einsteins proved there is no aether:

1 - Einstein himself actually believed in a form of aether (see his Liden speach) but claimed mathematically it could be ignored and use the relative velocity view.

2 - Lorentz did believe in an absolute aether frame universally; however, that does not alter the fact that to base an affect on velocity induced by F=ma is still an absolute form of process.

You need not know the absolute velocity universally but any change in absolute velocity produces the change between the observer and the initial inertial rest frame.

3 - Relativists (including James R) like to play the "but you have no proof reciprocity is NOT real" and ignore the absurdity it creates and the fact that they never employ it, it has never been tested and basically is acknowledged that it is untestable.

Being untestable in fact falsifies Special Relativity as a valid theory from the outset by scientific standards of any other theory. It is truly bizzar how they flock around Einstien and don't acknowledge Lorentz is what they are using.

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
So run two versions of relativity side by side one that uses a symetry based observer system [ treating both observers equally] and one that uses the asymetrical system [where by one observer deems his frame as a preferred.]
Then compare results and then we shall have a solid position to argue from either way.
They actually use the Lorentz absolute view and not the full relative velocity view advocated by SR. They simply ignore that using only the the accelerated (observer with actual motion) portion of relative velocity is still SR it isn't. It is apply a preferred frame whichSR prohibits and that is why they callit framev switching and not "Who has actual motion frame".

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
pick a gedanken apply both along side each other and watch the outcome...

say call it pure relativity vs special relativity... and have a go ....and note that it is not simply just lorentz relativity vs SRT [ a bit more clever maybe]
I can almost guarrantee you you will end up with absolute time with dilations all fitting beautifully with existing data.
The need for a relative simultaneity of events will no longer be necessary.
On this you sound correct.

9. Originally Posted by James R
MacM:

I note you have not responded to post #170.
I'll have a look. I was back in the hospital for (5) days.

Originally Posted by James R
No. The same object can be viewed by many different observers, all of whom are travelling at different speeds relative to the object of interest. The object need not accelerate at all for its clocks to be ticking at different rates in all of the different observers' frames.
Absolutely false. Your comments purports to make other observers frames view while in morion or the "Illusion of Motion" a physical reality by leaving something at rest and having the relative motion induced by other observers actually accelerating and having velocity cause the resting clock to change. It only appears to change.

You have absolutely no data to support your claim.

You always apply the Lorentz view of a preferred frame when you consider frame switching as a condition of or basis for relavistic change.

Originally Posted by James R
Clearly it is not totally irrational, since it is a derived consequence of the simple postulates of special relativity, which experiment after experiment has proven to be an accurate theory.
1 - WEBSTER:

Postulate - 2) to assume without proof to be true or real, or necessary, esp as a basis for arguement.

Put into plain language a postulate simply sets a theoretical basis for a particular view it does not validate the view. The view is only validated by emperical data. You have no data to support the full range of consequences of the postulates. That is you have not demonstrated the inherent reciprocity of a mere relative veloicty view and you always avoid that reciprocity by applying the LOrentz standard of who has actual motion.

It is time be be honest and stop all the double talk defending an undefenseable Einstien concept.

Originally Posted by James R
The following two situations are experimentally indistinguishable:

Situation 1:

Clocks A and B are at rest relative to one another. Clock A accelerates to the East of clock B until its speed relative to B is 0.6c.

Situation 2:

Clocks A and B are at rest relative to one another. Clock B accelerates to the West of clock A until its speed relative to A is 0.6c.

Question: Once the final speeds are reached, which clock is running slow and which is running fast?
Both are running equally slow compared to their common initial inertial rest frame. But they are ticking synshrously with each other. They may appear to be ticking slower to each other as viewed by the moving observers but that is not the reality.

Originally Posted by James R
You (MacM) have no way of knowing. Your fantasyphysics theory has no answers.
Perhaps you would do better to respond to my scenario using radioactive particles where % decompositoin is a clock and "A" is accelerated away at high relative velocity for an immeasureable period of time and left travel at high relative velocity to the lab for an extend period; then control signal are used to get "A" and "B" to compared % decomposition simultaneously.

"A" will have suffwerd less decomoostion. But you scream that is a frame dependant view from "A's" view "B" is less decomposed. So since acceleration of particles can be done almost instantly the acceleration period are insignifigant and also equal. "B" is now accelerated and another controll;ed comparison made.

Guess what you "Frame Dependant" claim is falsified because "A" is still less decomposed than "B" viewed in either frame.

Originally Posted by James R
Special relativity, on the other hand, says that the situations are symmetrical, and so each clock runs slow in the other's reference frame.
I have said that as many times as you have. The difference is you refuse to acknolwdge that both observer views while in motion are not supported by emperical data. Only the observer with "Actual" motion is supported. The observer remaining at rest but having relative veloicty is NOT supported emperically.

Perhaps you need to explain to the people why you apply frame switching and what thatREALLY means physically when you use SR (or should I more correctly say LR).

Originally Posted by James R
Yet your fantasyphysics cannot deal with the example above.
I would hope not because I would not want to deal with it in the fashion you attempt to. I have said "Perception" while in motion is NOT at issue but "Actual" physical change is.

It is your fantasy SR that fails to deal with reality and chooses to continue to promote dogma and rhetoric while behind the scene actually apply a Loretnz condition to your exercises.

Originally Posted by James R
No. I assert that the effect is there and real because in 100 years all the predictions of relativity that have been tested have turned out to be correct.
Wow. And you think because one half of the claim works and the other half is nonsense and has never been tested and cannot be test means it too is real - GET REAL.

Being untestable falisifies the theory from the outset. You have NO emperical support for your claim and it is absolutely hollow for any physical claim of reality.

You even reject it when doing your calculations by considering frame switching to break that symmetry (reciprocity) casued by the theory.

10. Originally Posted by Oli
Actually the original asinine claim was yours.
You can't, quite simply.
If all the pilot has is closing/ opening rates then he can't know his own airspeed. Simple.
Which does NOT alter the fact that even when a pilot has full information (eg ASI etc) he can still regard himself at rest.
\

And if he does QQ's point would be he might find mathematically he was falling out oft the sky. LEt me say here and now I'm not overly fond of this sceanario but I also think you try to hard to defend the status quo.

Originally Posted by Oli
FLIR happens to stand for Forward-Looking Infra-Red. It's not a radar technology. And if I were you I'd not mention Prof. R. V. Jones to Allard. He was just some British guy that worked similar system prior to WWII... Allard may have developed it, but "invent"? Nah.
1 - I suggest you really didn't need to tell me what FLIR stands for,

2 - With respect to patents and inventing or developing you of course include in that that MANY such as Lorentz and others beat Einstein to relativity and E=mc^2, etc.

Originally Posted by Oli
Yes there ARE radars that can detect large cloud formations etc. but as as I said, simply "picking up particles in the air" would give far too much clutter.
Good then you acknowledge as a general principle in a not so eloquent scenaro my qualification was not entirely out of line.

11. [QUOTE=Quantum Quack;2311620][Now I am not saying it's right or wrong but I think this is iin part what Macm is trying to show somehow, the problem of actual velocity and the illusion of velocity or motion...created by using a preferred observer [asymmetrical relativity]

Again I reiterate "using a preferred frame" - i.e. a frame switching standard ; eliminates the symmetry. The symmetry is inherent in a mere relative velocity view.

Your misgudied claim that each declaring himself as being at rest is a preffered frame must recognize that is an arbitrary conclusion which is in physical error. It is a self imposed view but is not the reality. The reality is that a preferred frame can not be switched between observers.

My point has been (and remains) that there is no data supporting the relative velocity view of Einstien. What is supported is the Lorentz view where you have a preferred frame. Frame switching standard is a preferred frame by breaking the symmetry which depicts which observer has motion, not mere relative motion.

They use a preferred frame which SR prohibits, they never have (and cannot) test the relative velocity view, yet they promote it as though it is absolute truth.

They don't even used it - IT IS ABSURD.

Being untestable falsifies their theory. THEY ARE ABSURD.

12. James R,

Historically I have many times tried to suggested why the invariant light postulate might be just an illusion. In attempting to decribe how that can be I seem to lose people in the dfeinitions.

I have thought of a slightly different explanation. Not a precise one to the issue but simular one know to science.

UnRuh shows that virtual particles can become real pariticles to an accelerating observer and the energy required to do that comes from the observers motion.

Likewise I have been suggesting that just as there are virtual particles unseen coming into existance from the universal background, that there is a dynmaic energy substrate moving in the background at every convievable velocity effuding from every planck ordinate point and moving multidirectionally which uses observer velocity (not acceleration) to convert that energy into photons at v = c to the observer. A form of quantum energy affect or perhaps a Lorentz dimensional collapse affect.

Do you have any evidence that would falsify that view? If not I suggest it is in play and must be considered. You see if relative velocity being untestable in all views doesn't eliminate that theory then not being able to emperically support the multiple photon alternative view to invariance is not falsified either.

Further Oscam's Razor would favor my view since it eliminates the paradox's of a mere relative velocity view where Lorentz Contraction of Space is generated.

Plus the concept provides a system tovexpain both particle entanglement and gravity being virtually instaneous.

13. Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
... removing the need for a preferred observer and use only closing and separating velocity only which I think is what is being put forward by MacM to solve the two clocks slower than each other connundrum.
I am working my way forward so MacM may have replied to this part of post 164, but I will for him:

No, that is exactly the opposite of MacM's POV - see post 93 (or my summary of it in post 92).

MacM has a "preferred frame," but does not claim it is at absolute rest. That is how he can agree that the clock which was accelerated is seen to be (actually is) dilated wrt to the clock that was not and remains at rest in his preferred frame. MacM thinks it is "SR nonsense" that each clock is running slower than the other according to the time passing on each local clock.

IMHO, there are enough self contradictions in "MacM SR" (See my post 118) without putting more contradictions into his mouth.

BTW, on the constancy of light speed:

I think that follows from fact physics is that same in all frames. Imagine stationary observers in frames A & B which are in relative motion. Also in each frame and on a collision path are two tiny capsules of Nitro Glycerin. When they collide a flash of light is produced and begins to expand in all directions. Fact that both measure the expanding light front as a sphere tells each at motion of his frame wrt to the other is not important. Also at rest in each frame D meters from where the nitro was, is a photo cell that detects the arrival of the expanding light flash. If each tries to describe what the other reports in terms of his distances and clock the equations of ER follow. This does not establish the value of the speed of light. That each can either measure or calculate from measurements of the vacuum permeability and dielectric constant.
SUMMARY: Either constant speed of light or constant laws of physic in all inertial frames can be used to show / derive SR's equations. (In non- inertial frames the laws of physics appear to differ - for example, a "Corelois force" may exist or bodies without any force acting on them do accelerate.

14. Originally Posted by Billy T
IIMHO, there are enough self contradictions in "MacM SR" (See my post 118) without putting more contradictions into his mouth.
I would ask you to "Briefly" state any such contridictions in my view vs emperical data. To my knowledge you have not demonstrated them . You and James have only pointed out were I disagree with what SR "Claims" not what test ta=data supports.

Further you avoid acknowledging that test data has not supprted the SR view but favors the LR view.

15. Originally Posted by MacM
I would ask you to "Briefly" state any such contradictions in my view vs emperical data. ...
There may be no empirical evidence against your POV, but I do recall an atomic clock was carried for a few hours in a supersonic jet years ago to measure the time between two events. The interval was also measured by synchronized ground clocks. I forget the details but perhaps at each event location there were high resolution pulse coded time patterns transmitted to the plane flying over head at constant altitude. I.e. the instant of arrival at the plane of a particular pattern was known to a tiny fraction of a micro second and these served as the start and stop pulses for the accumulator on the plane, as well as on the ground. (Trasit time to the plane drops out as it was the same altitiude delay for both start and stop pulses.)

In post 118, I followed your agreed (in post 93) procedures to show they are self contradictory. I can’t summarize it in words without math symbols, but here is a condensed version of post 118:
Originally Posted by Billy T
... There are two clocks, A & B and two inertial frames C & E, which have respective motion at speed Vce along a common “X-axis” line. The origin of E, designated as E(0,0), is already far to the right of the origin of C and the separation between these origins is increasing. All motions I will use are along this same X-axis line. ...
Here is the current and never to change situation. (Also called “first situation” but only to refer back to it later in this post):
Clock A is at rest at frame C’s origin, C(0,0), but B has steady speed along C’s negative X-axis equal to VBc ... Thus, we all agree that it would seem correct to calculate the Time Dilations of clock B, TDB, compared to clock A’s tick rate via the standard SR equation using the speed VBc.

Here is what had happened a little earlier:
Both A & B were stationary at the origin of frame E, E(0,0), but were co-moving away from C(0,0) at speed Vce. Then both accelerated (in separate rockets, a & b) in the negative X direction (towards C’s origin) exactly the same until their C coordinates was very large and positive, for example to the point C(100000, 0). At this point they are co-moving towards every more negative X locations with speeds wrt to C(0,0) of VAc = VBc or since identical, just Vc, which happens to be VBc given at end of prior paragraph. And of course, their common speed wrt to E(0,0) or Ve = Vc + Vce = VBc + Vce. At this point clock B stops accelerating and just forever coasts, but clock C begins to de-accelerate so that its speed is zero just as it reaches C(0,0), where it remains “forever.” I.e. this is how the “first situation” came to exist.

Now since both A & B started from rest together in frame E, we realize that we must compute their time dilations separately and then take the difference to find TDB, the Time Dilation of B wrt to the tick rate of clock A which is now stationary in frame C at C(0,0). I.e. we use the standard SR equation to calculate B’s actual “physical tick rate” with respect to the place where it was stationary with clock A, namely E(0,0) or their “common rest frame.”

To do this calculation for clock B, we use B’s speed wrt to that common rest frame. I.e. we use speed of VBe = Ve = VBc + Vce, from bold of 2nd prior paragraph. I will designate the results of this calculation, with VBe = Vce + Vce as PTDBe, the Physical Time Dilation of clock B wrt any of frame E’s stationary and synchronized clocks where clock B & A were once mutually at rest at E(0,0).

Likewise I use the std SR equation to calculate PTDAe with the speed of clock A wrt to E(0,0) which is simply Vce as C is at C(0,0) forever now. Now in accordance with MacM’s agreed procedure, the Time Dilation of clock B wrt to the tick rate of Clock A, which is stationary at C(0,0) or “TDB” is just the difference in their Physical Time Dilations evaluated by std SR equations when their speeds wrt their “common rest frame” or in this case wrt E(0,0) is the speeds used in the calculations. I.e. TDB = PTDBe – PTDAe. (This is a positive time dilation as PTDBe > PTDAe since in either frame and certainly in frame E clock B is moving faster than clock A so has greater dilation.)

SUMMARY: Now two “MacM approved” but different methods have been used to calculate TDB. To distinguish them I will rename the one of the “first situation,” which used speed VBc, TDB1 and call the other TDB2. TDB2 used two different speeds wrt to E(0,0), THEIR COMMON REST FRAME, to separately calculate the Physics Time Dilations of clocks, A & B and then subtracted these two PTDs to get TDB2.

The standard SR equations for PTDs are non-liner so it is highly unlikely that TDB1 = TDB2, but I suspect that for some particular choice of Vce, this may be possible. I am too lazy to do all this numerically so I will just note that if by rare chance and the first Vce I selected did result in TDB1 =TDB2, then I would just select a different value for Vce. I.e. replace frame E in my story with frame F.

I note that I have not yet told the entire history of clocks A & B. They were both once at mutual rest in frame F, side-by-side at F(0,0), before equally accelerating and then mutually coming to rest in frame E at E(0,0). ....Thus frame E is not their only “common rest frame.” It just happens to be their last one.

As clocks A & B were NEVER at mutual rest in frame C, it is not a “common rest frame,” yet the calculation of TDB1 was done in accord with MacM’s agreed procedure (also in accord with JamesR’s & Pete’s too.) In fact, as MacM likes to point out, TDB1 is the one case for which there are many “empirical validations” of the procedure in Earth based experiments. Also, there could have been a “common mutual rest” frame G before F, etc. for an infinite set of “MacM approved” and mutually conflicting TDBs, all of which use their speed wrt to a “common rest frame.”

16. Originally Posted by Billy T
There may be no empirical evidence against your POV,
OK so why then would you claim the untested and unsupported emperically claim of reciprocity in SR is valid but my view is invalid? Simple preference or predjudice is the only answer not some physical inconsistancey of my view. The fact that what I say is real doesn't match what SR claims is of no signifigance unless you have factual basis for it's rejection over SR since SR is untested in that area.

Originally Posted by Billy T
but I do recall an atomic clock was carried for a few hours in a supersonic jet years ago to measure the time between two events. The interval was also measured by synchronized ground clocks. I forget the details but perhaps at each event location there were high resolution pulse coded time patterns transmitted to the plane flying over head at constant altitude. I.e. the instant of arrival at the plane of a particular pattern was known to a tiny fraction of a micro second and these served as the start and stop pulses for the accumulator on the plane, as well as on the ground. (Trasit time to the plane drops out as it was the same altitiude delay for both start and stop pulses.)
The test you refer to is the H&K Atomic Clock Tests. What I say next in no way should be interpreted to mean such clocks were not time dilated by their motion but only that the test was shown to have been strongly rigged and in fact became part of a fraud. It is not a sound reference supporting SR.

**************************************************

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/16133.htm

Keating. In their famous 1972 paper; they published figures that were
radically different from the actual test results which are here published
for the first time. An analysis of the real data shows that no credence
can be given to the conclusions of Hafele & Keating.

"******** Essen is the inventor and designer of the atomic clocks used comments about the H& K Test *******

The authors then proceed to make a statistical analysis of the frequency
comparisons made between the clocks, to obtain their final results. No
details of these comparisons are given, but the analysis is based on the
assumption that the frequency variations are random in nature, which
appears to be unlikely and is not in accord with my own experience.... the
experimental results given in their paper do not support these
predictons." - Louis Essen, "Atomic Clocks Coming and Going", Creation Research Society
Quarterly, 14, 46 (1977)

************************************************** **
Under the Freedom of Information Act, Dr. A G Kelly obtained the raw data from the experiments, which showed that the wrong conclusion had been published. Further, he obtained an internal memo by one of the authors a year earlier, when the author had written that the experiment could not lead to any valid conclusions.

************ Secret Memo obtained via FOIA *****************

"Most people (myself included) would be reluctant to agree that the time
gained by any one of these clocks is indicative of anything .... the
difference between theory and experiment is disturbing."

- Hafele, Secret United States Naval Observatory internal report, 1971.

Obtained by A G Kelly two decades later under the Freedom of Information
Act.
************************************************** ****

Originally Posted by Billy T
In post 118, I followed your agreed (in post 93) procedures to show they are self contradictory. I can’t summarize it in words without math symbols, but here is a condensed version of post 118:
I'm sorry but I simply cannot follow all your lengthy and overly complex scenarios. However, I believe you are commenting about things I already know and have openly stated.

If I start from a location where A,B & C are at commom rest and I accelerate "A" to some inertial velocity we would compute that "A" is now dilated and ticking slower than B & C.

If we now accelerate "B" to "A" and become interial we would again say that "B" & "A" both are dilated and are ticking slower relative to "C" and now tick in synchronization with each other.

Since it is held that "B" & "A" are now inertial and therefore form a new rest reference and I then accelerate "B" back to "C" it must be dilating relative to "A" and ticking slower than "A" which is already ticking slower than "C". But since it is returning to "C" it must upon arrival now have increased it's tick rate from "A" so as to once again tick in synch with "C".

So you have a situation where at a simple level of relative velocity the clock "B" must both increase and decrease it's tick rate simultaneously. That conumdrum exists if you use a simplified relative velocity mathematical view which I reject.

SR considers vector which resolves the issue but my question (unanswered as yet) is how does the clock know it's vector unless it is tracking things in an absolute manner? That is acceleration could have been away from both "A" and "C" and the results will be different. So returning to "C" must have an absolute foundation. Also increasing as it leave "A" and thier "A" & "B" common inertial rest it should be dilating. Thatgets ignored when returning to a former location.

Lastly I have said numerous times I do not claim to have solved the problem but do claim to point out the problem and also make some suggestions where open minded people might start to look for answers.

My points and suggestions are rejected simply on the basis that they disagree with the famous Einstein SR unsupported claims. That frankly is BS.

17. Originally Posted by MacM
And if he does QQ's point would be he might find mathematically he was falling out oft the sky. LEt me say here and now I'm not overly fond of this sceanario but I also think you try to hard to defend the status quo.
QQ was incorrect.
That simple.

1 - I suggest you really didn't need to tell me what FLIR stands for,
I suggest that you needed telling.
There are a variety of radars technologies FLIR is on of them
FLIR is not a radar technology.

18. Originally Posted by MacM
...I'm sorry but I simply cannot follow all your overly complex scenarios.
That is a cop-out. My two clock scenario is simpler than yours below, which has three clocks. I initally* have only two references frames, C & E in relative motion along their common X-axis line with relative speed Vce. (All motions are along this x-axis, so I have no "vectors" only speeds.) Mine post is longer only because I use precisely defined symbols for your sometimes ambigious terms like “Physical Time Dilation.” ** I.e. I use: PTDe , where the subscript "e" tells that this PTD was wrt the clocks at rest in frame E.
Originally Posted by MacM
... If I start from a location where A,B & C are at common rest and I accelerate "A" to some inertial velocity we would compute that "A" is now dilated and ticking slower than B & C.
If we now accelerate "B" to "A" and become interial we would agin say that "B" & "A" both are dilated and are ticking slower relative to "C" and now tick in synchronization with each other.
{Billy T insert: Precisely stated in my symbols, this is: TDBc = TDAc.}
B" & "A" are now inertial and therefore form a new rest reference and I then accelerate "B" back to "C" it must bedilating relative to "A" and ticking slower than "A" which is already ticking slower than "C". But since ite is returning to "C" it must upon arrival now have increased it's tick rate from "A" so as to once again tick in synch with "C".
So you have a situation where at a simple level the clock "B" must both increase and decreas it's tick rate simultaneously. That conumdrum exists if you use a simplified relative velocity mathematical view which I reject.
SR considers vector which resolves the issue but my question (unanswered as yet) is how does the clock know it's vector unless it is tracking things in an absolute manner? That is acceleration could have been away from both "A" and "C" and the results will be different. So returning to "C" must have an absolute foundation.
I have trouble being sure exactly what your, more complex, only verbally described, scenario is stating. (You need symbols to use mathematical reasoning.)

My clocks A & B both start accelerating in the negative X direction exactly the same and away from their mutual rest position at origin of frame E, which I designate as E(0,0). While at rest in E, they have speed of Vce away from the distant point C(0,0) in frame C's positive X direction. After their common acceleration, when reaching C(100000,0), Clock B stops accelerating and coasts forever with speed VBc, but A begins to de-accelerate and comes to rest at C(0,0) where it remains.

That is it! An un-ambigious, three-line posted description (at least on my computer's screen). How much more simple can it get?

I calculate TDBc, which is also called TDBc1 for reasons clear later, by the standard way you, I, James R & Pete do for any clock moving wrt clock fixed on earth as all of us are confident that is correct as it has many times been experimentally checked. (I.e. use VBc in the SR equation.) Note clock B was NEVER at rest in Frame C. Thus frame C is not a "common rest frame."
Thus I also calculate TDBc = [TDBe - TDBe] as you say one should if a common rest frame is known. I call this result TDBc2.

Then I note that TDBc1 is not equal to TDBc2.
I.e. your accepted methods of calculating TDBc conflict with each other.
Note I never need any clock in frame E as I only calculate, as you suggest, not measure TDBs wrt the origin of that frame, E(0,0).

----------------
* I only mention that I could have another frame F at the very end as I think that it is remotely possible that there exists some particular choice of Vce for which it is possible that TDBc1 = TDBc2.

** You do not need to be so precise because you ASSUME there is only one PTD, but that is what we are discussing so you may not assume that. (Unless you prefer circular reasoning.)

19. Originally Posted by Oli
QQ was incorrect.
That simple.
Your self proclaimed superiority simply is not a bonfide basis for discussion. You have done nothing other than make unsupported statements.

Originally Posted by Oli
I suggest that you needed telling.
And I suggest you are acting like a complete ars and jerk. I have had mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering, hold numerous energy patents and have done NASA contracts and million dollar contracts for international companies.

So don't even pretencd to be my equal much less superior.

Originally Posted by Oli
FLIR is not a radar technology.
Perhaps a mere technicality but for the purpose I interjected it into the disucssion it was perfectly fine. When you folks are up against the wall you always look for some insignifigant issue or simply fabricate a strawman arguement, pick on typos or a misspelled word and cast negative innuedno.

You make me sick. Get real. Are you realy educated or just a coat tail hanger wannabe?

*************************** Test ************************
Only great minds can
weird, but interesting!

fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too
Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.

i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd
waht I was rdanieg.

The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid,
aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy,
it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a
wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit
and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae.

The rsetcan be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed
it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid
deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod
as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot
slpeling was ipmorantt!

************************************************** ****

How did you do?. I read every word with ease first time through.

20. Originally Posted by Billy T
My clocks A & B both start accelerating in the negative X direction exactly the same and away from mutual rest position at origin of frame E, which I designate as
E(0,0). While at rest in E, they have speed of Vce away from C(0,0) in frame C's positive X direction. After their common acceleration, when at C(100000,0), Clock B stops accelerating and coasts forever, but A begins to de-accelerate and comes to rest at C(0,0) where it remains forever. How much more simple can it get?
Sorry a lot. You create to many symbols, directions, etc to keep up with. My stated scenarios are very distinct and clear and far shorter than yours.

I will not try to wade through and plot all your terms to try and figure out what you are saying. The likelyhood is I would misunderstand your claims after spending an hour trying to figure it out.

Put your complaint in simple plain english please. Use MY scenario not some new mumbo jumbo scenario. What is wrong with my scenario.?