1. 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.

To summarise MacM's nutty ideas briefly:

1. MacM makes a meaningless distinction between what he called "reality" and "illusion of motion". Where you and I say "A's clock ticks off x amount of time in frame B", MacM complains that observing A's clock from frame B gives measurements that are only an "illusion of motion", unless frame B happens to be a special kind of frame that only MacM can identify.
2. MacM thinks that the "zero" of time (kindof a "rest time" standard) occurs in a special frame that is the "common local rest frame" of two objects. If the objects are never stationary relative to one another, no such frame can be found and nothing can be said about relative time dilation.
3. Due to (2), MacM believes that two objects must always at some time in their history be stationary relative to one another. After that time, in order to work out time dilation "reality", you need to keep track of all the details of the accelerations of the two objects, since the total history is supposed to determine the "reality" of time dilation.
4. On the other hand, MacM wants to have a bet each way by saying that special relativity accurately predicts the time intervals that observers "see", bearing in mind of course that this "seeing" is always an "illusion of motion" and quite different from "reality".
5. MacM does not believe in length contraction.
6. MacM believes instead in "velocity dilation", where if A is moving at velocity v relative to B, B is not moving at velocity -v relative to A, but at some other velocity determined by some kind of Lorentz-like factor. MacM is forced to this position due to (5).
7. MacM does not believe in the relativity of simultaneity (or even understand it).
8. MacM does not understand what a reference frame is.
9. MacM does not believe that if A sees B's clock as running slow, B also sees A's clock as running slow in special relativity. (Alternatively, he will assert that the use of the word "sees" here means that this is correct but it is only an "illusion of motion" and not "reality".) He calls this symmetry "reciprocity" and asserts that no experiment has ever shown that it occurs. He believes that in "reality" time dilation only works "one way", from his special "common local rest frame", and that length contraction doesn't exist.
10. MacM initially believed that there was a preferred standard of rest. Over time he has backed away from the preferred frame view to his current view that preferred frames still exist but are not absolute (see "common local rest frame" - a "preferred" but nevertheless "local" frame - a contradiction in terms). At this point in time, a preferred frame is just one that MacM designates as such. There is no procedure for finding his preferred frames from which to judge "reality" as opposed to "illusions of motion".
11. MacM cannot give a formula for how the speed of light supposedly varies between frames.
12. In fact, MacM's magnificent theory has no mathematics at all, except the maths "borrowed" from special relativity - i.e. the bits he approves of. Interestingly, he is happy to talk of Lorentz factors and so on, even though the only established basis for such a thing is relativity. His own crazy ideas don't derive the Lorentz factor at all, and yet he uses it.
13. MacM doesn't understand how consequences such as length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity are logically derived from the postulates of SR. Therefore, he asserts that features of SR such as these can be wrong, even if the postulates of SR are correct.
14. MacM will assert that all of the points here are "negative innuendo" that do not represent his actual views.
15. MacM will assert that all "believers" in special relativity lack his capacity to analyse the theory. Instead, we are all indoctrinated and just believe everything we read in our physics textbooks. MacM, of course, is a unique visionary who has seen what nobody has seen in 100 years - the obvious (to MacM) many and varied flaws in Einstein's theories.
16. MacM likes to divert the discussion to general relativity even though he wouldn't know a tensor from a penguin.
17. MacM claims to know all about the Global Positioning System, even though its operation requires an understanding of GR. He claims the GPS system uses "preferred frames", and that this proves all his wacky ideas to be correct.

And that's just for starters.

Anyway, if you want to engage with him, good luck.

2. Originally Posted by MacM
It would seem that we are now in 100% agreement; except I'm not keen on the comment about effecting the universe. I rather believe the only effect is upon the accelearated clock.
granted....
time dilation obviously must relate somehow to the entire universe which is why I included it in the list. And as you know I tend very strongly to believe that time dilation is an effect gereated by inertia, which is generated by universal entanglements of all massive objects.

3. Originally Posted by Billy T
That is interesting. Do you have a link about it? As I guessed earlier before reaching this point in my progress forward we have no disagreement except what all is included in SR. For me acceleration is not as not any such term in the SR equations.

Perhaps an analogy will make our difference clear:

I say:
"RPT (regular polygon theory) cannot be applied to circles. And offer as support that there is not even any radius of curvature in RPT.

You say:
Yes it can. You simply take RPs with ever greater number of sides and in the limit you have the circumference of a circle calculated.

That is correct but you have used a limiting approach which is NOT part of RPT. Again I tell you there is no radius of curvature in any equation of RPT (or acceleration in the SRT equations).

SUMMARY: We agree on the RPT math (or physic of SRT) but have a semantic dispute as to what is RPT (or SRT). I am the purist stating that SR is only what is in the SR equations. You are the pragmatist saying RPT (or SRT) includes everything thing that can be described by RPT (or SRT) such as the circumference of a circle (or accelerating frames) via standard math techniques.
Yeah, that sounds entirely reasonable. Just wanted to clarify to see what you were getting at.

Originally Posted by Billy T
But again I would like to know how E =mc^2 falls out of SRT (even extended via some limiting process )
I was going to type out a whole bunch of equations and integrals, but then I chanced upon this page which has pretty much all the derivations you'll need, including the derivation for the relativistic mass equation which comes as a precursor. The other method I know of deriving $E=mc^2$ is by considering a box whose walls are exchanging bursts of radiation, but it's good to see two different approaches leading to the same conclusion.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Also as you are probably more 35 years up to date than I am, is my memory false on following?

I seem to recall back in my graduate school that James R's two postulates as foundation of SR can be reduced to just his (1) Physics is same in all inertial frames if one applies this to make two observers in frames A & C who at t=0 are collocated notice their also collocated flash of light at t = 0 expands in a spherical shape for both.
I think so far no one has been able to deduce relativity without either postulating the constancy of c, or else postulating Maxwell's laws as well as the equal validity of all inertial frames, from which the constancy of c follows as an immediate corollary anyhow. There's some discussion of it on Wikipedia. In particular, here's an interesting snippet I found while looking up further background info on the twins paradox.

Originally Posted by Billy T
I'll take your word for this but thought that locally one can not tell gravity from an acceleration, so find this strange.
Not gravity so much, but rather resistance to the pull of gravity. Here's what GR would say: when you're falling towards the Earth, you're travelling along a geodesic- you're in an inertial frame, nothing's accelerating you, you feel that sickening weightless feeling in your gut, and you have no local means of determining that you're in a gravitational field. However, when you're standing on the ground, you know there's gravity, you can feel it in your feet as they bear your weight. You're being accelerated out of an inertial frame that would have you falling towards the center of the Earth, and this acceleration and the force you feel is equivalent to acceleration away from any other reference frame even if it's done on a rocket ship in deep space. Using this logic, you can quickly derive a very accurate approximation to the gravitational redshift formula, treating the Earth's gravity as a constant value of $g$.

4. Originally Posted by Billy T
That is interesting. Do you have a link about it? As I guessed earlier before reaching this point in my progress forward we have no disagreement except what all is included in SR. For me acceleration is not as not any such term in the SR equations.

Perhaps an analogy will make our difference clear:

I say:
"RPT (regular polygon theory) cannot be applied to circles. And offer as support that there is not even any radius of curvature in RPT.

You say:
Yes it can. You simply take RPs with ever greater number of sides and in the limit you have the circumference of a circle calculated.

That is correct but you have used a limiting approach which is NOT part of RPT. Again I tell you there is no radius of curvature in any equation of RPT (or acceleration in the SRT equations).

SUMMARY: We agree on the RPT math (or physic of SRT) but have a semantic dispute as to what is RPT (or SRT). I am the purist stating that SR is only what is in the SR equations. You are the pragmatist saying RPT (or SRT) includes everything thing that can be described by RPT (or SRT) such as the circumference of a circle (or accelerating frames) via standard math techniques.
Yeah, that sounds entirely reasonable. Just wanted to clarify to see what you were getting at.

Originally Posted by Billy T
But again I would like to know how E =mc^2 falls out of SRT (even extended via some limiting process )
I was going to type out a whole bunch of equations and integrals, but then I chanced upon this page which has pretty much all the derivations you'll need, including the derivation for the relativistic mass equation which comes as a precursor.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Also as you are probably more 35 years up to date than I am, is my memory false on following?

I seem to recall back in my graduate school that James R's two postulates as foundation of SR can be reduced to just his (1) Physics is same in all inertial frames if one applies this to make two observers in frames A & C who at t=0 are collocated notice their also collocated flash of light at t = 0 expands in a spherical shape for both.
I think so far no one has been able to deduce relativity without either postulating the constancy of c, or else postulating Maxwell's laws as well as the equal validity of all inertial frames, from which the constancy of c follows as an immediate corollary anyhow. There's some discussion of it on Wikipedia. In particular, here's an interesting snippet I found while looking up further background info on the twins paradox.

Originally Posted by Billy T
I'll take your word for this but thought that locally one can not tell gravity from an acceleration, so find this strange.
Not gravity so much, but rather resistance to the pull of gravity. Here's what GR would say: when you're falling towards the Earth, you're travelling along a geodesic- you're in an inertial frame, nothing's accelerating you, you feel that sickening weightless feeling in your gut, and you have no local means of determining that you're in a gravitational field. However, when you're standing on the ground, you know there's gravity, you can feel it in your feet as they bear your weight. You're being accelerated out of an inertial frame that would have you falling towards the center of the Earth, and this acceleration and the force you feel is equivalent to acceleration away from any other reference frame even if it's done on a rocket ship in deep space. Using this logic, you can quickly derive a very accurate approximation to the gravitational redshift formula, treating the Earth's gravity as a constant value of $g$.

5. Originally Posted by CptBork
Not gravity so much, but rather resistance to the pull of gravity. Here's what GR would say: when you're falling towards the Earth, you're travelling along a geodesic- you're in an inertial frame ...
Just to pile on:

Einstein's elevator thought experiment indicates that something is seriously awry with the Newtonian concept of an inertial frame. Think of a small elevator car in four different situations:
1. At rest on the surface of a large, non-rotating planet far from any stars
2. Freefalling in orbit around this planet
3. In empty space, firing thrusters to make the car accelerate
4. Quiescent in empty space.

In Newtonian mechanics, the elevator car in cases (1) and (4) form the basis for an inertial frame. A reference frame based on the car in cases (2) and (3) is not inertial in Newtonian mechanics. These cars are accelerating, one due to gravity and the other due to the rockets in the car. The problem is that no experiment conducted solely inside the cars can distinguish between cases (1) and (3), nor between cases (2) and (4). In particular, accelerometers attached to the cars will measure zero acceleration in cases (2) and (4) and but will show a non-zero acceleration in the other two cases.

Newtonian mechanics explains this discrepancy by claiming that accelerometers measure all real forces acting on a body except for gravity. Newtonian mechanics has to invoke the concept of a gravity shield (or lack thereof) to explain why accelerometers cannot sense the gravitational force. In general relativity the explanation is quite simple: Accelerometers measure all real forces acting on a body, period. Just as the centrifugal and coriolis forces are inertial forces in Newtonian mechanics, gravitation is an inertial force in general relativity.

Both Newtonian mechanics and general relativity agree on the general definition of an inertial frame: It is one in which all inertial forces vanish. In Newtonian mechanics, an inertial frame is one that is not rotating or accelerating with respect to another inertial frame. In general relativity, an inertial frame is one in which an accelerometer measures zero acceleration. Both Newtonian mechanics and general relativity agree that case (4) is an inertial frame and that case (3) is non-inertial. They differ on the status of cases (1) and (2).

Besides differing on the status of cases (1) and (2), Newtonian mechanics and general relativity disagree on the extent of an inertial frame. A Newtonian inertial frame has infinite extent. Inertial frames have only local extent in general relativity. With perfect accelerometers (one sensitive to even the tiniest of accelerations with no noise and no bias), inertial frames in general relativity have zero extent.

6. Damn, you put it very well D H, great job!

7. Thanks!

8. Originally Posted by CptBork
Damn, you put it very well D H, great job!
I completely agree. I read your answer and sort of understood, but it was not as crystal clear as DH's

I have long accepted the modern POV that gravity was really not a force, but as I express it a "distortion of space (time)." Explicitly calling it an "inertial force" very much like centrifugal and coriolis "forces," greatly deepen my understanding of the modern view of gravity. So I add my "thanks" too.

9. 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.
I really despise having to respond to these lengthy selfserving diatribes but what follows is just to distorted to let stand.

***************************************
CptBork,

I hope you understand my clarifications. If you have questions I will be glad to address them but I could not allow James R to once again post such garbage.

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

Originally Posted by James R
To summarise MacM's nutty ideas briefly:

1. MacM makes a meaningless distinction between what he called "reality" and "illusion of motion".
Yes we should all realize that making a distinction between "Reality & Illusion" is nutty and meaningless. Shsssh -

Originally Posted by James R
Where you and I say "A's clock ticks off x amount of time in frame B", MacM complains that observing A's clock from frame B gives measurements that are only an "illusion of motion", unless frame B happens to be a special kind of frame that only MacM can identify.
BS. Pure and simple BS. The frame in question is the inertial rest frame prior to acceleration. The very same one SR uses when actually computing a measuremable time dilation.

SR properly (actually LR) considers who switched frames and gives that person the status of actually having motion and the relative velocity generated to a resting clock is subsequently ignored because it's clock never actually changes.

The view from "B" that "A" "Appears" dilated is in fact just an illusion of motion. This view is supported by emperical data. To suggest that "A" actually changed tick rate and accumulated a different time as a physical reality is simply nutty. It would require that every clock in the universe have an infinite number of tick rates so as to be physically correct to all observers over all relative velocities..

Originally Posted by James R
2. MacM thinks that the "zero" of time (kindof a "rest time" standard) occurs in a special frame that is the "common local rest frame" of two objects.
That is correct and conforms to emperical data. Only it is not a special frame it is just the common inertial rest frame. Given a prearranged course where there are launch bouy(s) and a clock start bouy(s) equal distance from a central reference point "C" but in opposite directions called "A" & "B".

Spacecraft are launched by a light signal sent from "C" and "A" & "B" accelerate equally and both go inertial at the start bouy and set their clocks to "0" and send a confirmation signal to "C".

"C" knowing the distance to the start bouy and velocity of c computes the time delay in receipt of the confirmation and sets it's clock to that value.

When "A" & "B" pass each other as they cross point "C" they all transmit digital signals about what their clock readings are.

The results are obvious. Both "A" and "B" will have recorded equal but less accumulated time than "C".

The perception that "A" had of "B" and vice-versa being dilated turns out to not be true and is not supported by emperical data. This data is not subject to frame or observer perception it is digital confirmation of clock readings as they pass each other in a common location.

It is the true physical condition of the clocks, not what each thinks the other should have read based on the "Illusion of Motion" perception while having relative velocity.

It is further confirmable by having each stop their clocks as they passed and then all return to a common rest frame at "C" and compare readings.

It does not matter what frame one takes the data from the results are the same. Hardly a nutty idea. In fact I dare you to post any factual information that disputes this physical result.

Originally Posted by James R
If the objects are never stationary relative to one another, no such frame can be found and nothing can be said about relative time dilation.
True. And any assertion to the contrary is unsupportable by emperical data.

If you spot two objects having relative velocity to each other their velocity relative to you shifts with any change in your velocity. You have no way of knowing what the actual tick rates are of these objects.

Just as it makes no difference in the above case if "A" & "B" were launched in a co-moving direction from the same start grid with no relative velocity or having relative velocity does not cause them to dilate to each other. They have the same change in velocity universally.

Assume each reached a 0.3122499c velocity to "C" in the first case. They will be be ticking only 95 ticks to "C's" 100ticks.

But according to "A", "B" has a velocity of 0.56902c (if you assume velocity addition which I don't) and vice-versa "B" to "A", they should therefore be dilated to 822 ticks to 1,000 ticks of each other and be recipocally dilated which is a physical impossibility.

Originally Posted by James R
3. Due to (2), MacM believes that two objects must always at some time in their history be stationary relative to one another. After that time, in order to work out time dilation "reality", you need to keep track of all the details of the accelerations of the two objects, since the total history is supposed to determine the "reality" of time dilation.
Only partially true. I hold an absolute view that is one that accelerates has changed velocity in an absolute way but the resting clock having mere relative velocity does not have actual velocity and does not dilate physically.

Such that to be able to predict time dilation and have it confrimed emperically one must know the last common rest frame of the two objects.

Originally Posted by James R
4. On the other hand, MacM wants to have a bet each way by saying that special relativity accurately predicts the time intervals that observers "see", bearing in mind of course that this "seeing" is always an "illusion of motion" and quite different from "reality".
Except for cases where a resting observer predicts the time dilation of the accelerated clock his perception is valid as physical reality.

Originally Posted by James R
5. MacM does not believe in length contraction.
That is true. If you hold time dilation to be physical, and emperical data tends to confirm that, then it must be physical in all frames. You could choose length contraction as the physical reality and not time dilation but it produces to many absurd consequences.

i.e - Getting closer to someting the faster you accelerated away from it. Collapsing the entire dimension of the universe as a particle goes from 0 - v = 0.999c in an accelerator.

Length contraction is asserted in SR by ignoring the dilated condition of the accelerated clock and claiming that the time loss must mean he traveled less distance because SURELY relative velocity is symmetrical is it not?

Well yes and no and this is where Einstein screwed up SR. i.e. - When in the example above "A" launched toward "C" the relative velocity is symmetrical at a universal level.

It is what our common sense tells us it must be. However, you have to remember that velocity is a computed value of v = ds / dt and if time dilation is physically real then the "t" in the accelerated frame is dilated and ticking more slowly.

Such that trip time is only properly accounted for if distance remained the same and the accelerated observer calculates a higher velocity.

I have given this example many times and you choose to ignore ir or phoo-phoo the significgance but I repeat it here so others can contemplate it's meaning.

Two cities "A" and "B" are precisely 60 Miles apart. Two cars prepare to drive from "A" to "B". There are radar traps at every mile marker along the way.

Bob's car has a good speed-o-meter, a good o-dometer and his watch is running perfectly.

Bill however, drives a clunker and his speed-o-meter is broken, his o-dometer works fine but he is unaware that his watch batteries are low such that his watch only ticks 8 times to Bob's watch ticking 10 times.

Since Bill's speed-o-meter is broken he agrees to follow along side by side with Bob so as not to speed and get a ticket.

Bob drives precisely 60 Mph and Bill drives side by side. When they arrive Bill looks at his watch and yells at Bob "What on earth were you trying to do get me a ticket?" "We went 60 miles in 48 minutes that is 75 Mph, 15 Mph over the speed limit.!!!"

Bob replies "No that can't be we were going 60 Mph and driving side by side means you must have only gone 48 Miles".

WOW how stupid is that but that is exactly what SR does when it switches frames and asserts relative velocity was the same. It doesn't matter that Bob in this case is moving because the road side radar confirms his data.

What actually happens is Bill will compute a different veloicty based on his dilated time standard.

Originally Posted by James R
6. MacM believes instead in "velocity dilation", where if A is moving at velocity v relative to B, B is not moving at velocity -v relative to A, but at some other velocity determined by some kind of Lorentz-like factor. MacM is forced to this position due to (5).
Not forced but choose over length contraction which only occurs by ignoring the physically dilated condition of the accelerated clock observer.

In one frame you assert a physical change but in the other frame you ignore that physical dilated condition. Simply sloppy physics and stupid.

Originally Posted by James R
7. MacM does not believe in the relativity of simultaneity (or even understand it).
More negative innuendo. I understand all aspects of SR and have discussed them at length. This is nothing more than poor sportsmanship on your part. I understand the only thing you have is to attempt to mitigate my posts by slander because you have no real physical rebuttal.

Originally Posted by James R
8. MacM does not understand what a reference frame is.
Ditto See 7 above. I discuss frames at length and give perfect examples where time dilation is calculated properly.

Originally Posted by James R
9. MacM does not believe that if A sees B's clock as running slow, B also sees A's clock as running slow in special relativity.
Absolutely false. I have said numerous times they will see such dilation but that it is not physically real it is an illusion of motion. My view is upheld by emperical data yours is not. If you think otherwise then I still await your posting emperical data showing just ONE case where reciprocity has been demonstrated by direct comparison of clocks at common rest after having had relative velocity.

Originally Posted by James R
(Alternatively, he will assert that the use of the word "sees" here means that this is correct but it is only an "illusion of motion" and not "reality".)
Correct.

Originally Posted by James R
He calls this symmetry "reciprocity"
And so does all of modern physics except apparently you.

Originally Posted by James R
and asserts that no experiment has ever shown that it occurs.
Again correct. If you disagree then post the data.

Originally Posted by James R
He believes that in "reality" time dilation only works "one way", from his special "common local rest frame", and that length contraction doesn't exist.
Correct but it isn''t my special rest frame it is just what it is to all physicist except perhaps yourself. (Oh sorry I forgot your are just a teacher).

Originally Posted by James R
10. MacM initially believed that there was a preferred standard of rest. Over time he has backed away from the preferred frame view to his current view that preferred frames still exist but are not absolute (see "common local rest frame" - a "preferred" but nevertheless "local" frame -
False I have never changed my view. Perhaps you finally actually read my posts or after enough cycles you are starting to comprehend.

Originally Posted by James R
What contridiction? There is none.

Originally Posted by James R
At this point in time, a preferred frame is just one that MacM designates as such. There is no procedure for finding his preferred frames from which to judge "reality" as opposed to "illusions of motion".
False. What is so difficult about understanding that when two objects are inertial in a common frame they are in their "Common inertial rest frame". Seems obvious to even to a 1st grader. What grades do you teach?

Originally Posted by James R
11. MacM cannot give a formula for how the speed of light supposedly varies between frames.
No but I give plausable alternatives to light appearing invariant vs actually being invariant. I have not once said or claimed that light does not appear invariant. So I just don't know where you get this. Fabricated is most likely but in any case flat misrepresentation.

Originally Posted by James R
12. In fact, MacM's magnificent theory has no mathematics at all, except the maths "borrowed" from special relativity - i.e. the bits he approves of. Interestingly, he is happy to talk of Lorentz factors and so on, even though the only established basis for such a thing is relativity. His own crazy ideas don't derive the Lorentz factor at all, and yet he uses it.
And use it well in contrast to your diatribes. I have repeatedly stated that Lorentz Relativity is more correct than Einstein. That is why Einstein adapted his math. But neither fully describes physical reality as we have measured it.

Originally Posted by James R
13. MacM doesn't understand how consequences such as length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity are logically derived from the postulates of SR.
I understand perfectly but reject them for logical and physical reasons.

Originally Posted by James R
Therefore, he asserts that features of SR such as these can be wrong, even if the postulates of SR are correct.
False I have said that the invariance of light is an illusion and have given some examples of how that might be.

Originally Posted by James R
14. MacM will assert that all of the points here are "negative innuendo" that do not represent his actual views.
Correct. I have posted my views (once again) and they are not what you attempt to make others believe.

Originally Posted by James R
15. MacM will assert that all "believers" in special relativity lack his capacity to analyse the theory.
Not a lack of capacity but a lack of initiative, forsight, interest or COURAGE.

Originally Posted by James R
Instead, we are all indoctrinated and just believe everything we read in our physics textbooks.
Pretty much correct. Virtually all your attempts at rebuttal are based on "But that isn't what SR says". I really give a damn about what SR says I am saying SR has it wrong.

Originally Posted by James R
MacM, of course, is a unique visionary who has seen what nobody has seen in 100 years - the obvious (to MacM) many and varied flaws in Einstein's theories.
Actually I am a member of NPA and it consists of about 1,500 members including physicists, astronomers, various scientist and has even included Nobel prize winners. They all believe as I believe and that is Einstien screwed it up.

Originally Posted by James R
16. MacM likes to divert the discussion to general relativity even though he wouldn't know a tensor from a penguin.
More BS and negative innuendo. I do not claim to be an expert in either SR or GR but what I do know is what I have posted and they are sound physics questions for which you have had no viable resolutions.

You have historically resorted to slander and negative innuendo, etc.

Originally Posted by James R
17. MacM claims to know all about the Global Positioning System, even though its operation requires an understanding of GR. He claims the GPS system uses "preferred frames", and that this proves all his wacky ideas to be correct.
Number 1 lets not forget when I first posted information about GPS. You were made look absolutely stupid and a fool. You flip flopped from SR is and must be used to you can't use SR because it is a non-inertial rotating frame.

I have never debated any aspect of GPS with regard to the application of GR. I know the affects and the approximate 45+us/day gain in orbit tick rate. I know that all sufrace clocks at sea level tick at the same rate regardless of latitude (which you didn't know), even though they have differing surface rotation speeds just as the orbit has a rotational speed which they compute via the ECI frame not surface clocks.

I knew that GPS used the ECI frame (Earth Center Inertial) to compute orbit time dilation due to velocity and I knew that the ECI is a preferred rest frame in the form of LR but which is prohibited by SR. That is you cannot take the SR relative velocity view and claim the orbiting clock to be at rest and velocity is in the ECI frame.

The ECI is a "Local preferred rest frame".

Originally Posted by James R
And that's just for starters.
Actually it is for enders. You have run the gammot here and shown your ass once again. You lie, fabricate, distort, slander and never actually address the issues.

Not a good showing I'm afraid.

10. I know this sounds rather silly and I am almost embarrassed having to bring it up again as it should be pretty obvious what the complaint against SRT is.
Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
Billy T;

A change in tick rates must be due to some causation yes?

The only change that has occurred between the two observers is acceleration of one observer?
Is it it not logical to conclude that the change in tick rates is Dependant on the only change in causation available?
After all the the only change to the situation is in fact acceleration leading to a change in relative v.
That relative v of value is only possible by what? well...the answer can only be a phase of acceleration. [ other wise relative v is impossible from a position of zero relative v.]
As the only aspect that works against inertia is acceleration, as velocity itself is "inertia neutral" IMO one can conclude that it is acceleration and the shift in velocity effecting the universe at large that is primarily the causation of time dilation.

Is this not a sound logical use of the information given?
simply put the complaint is:

only a clock that has endured acceleration can record physical dilation when compared to a clock that hasn't endured accelleration.

Any suggestion that a non accellerated clock can have physical dilation is merely a mathematical construct and convenience of abstraction to simply accommodate light speed invariance as postulated.

that to me seems really easy to understand as a complaint against SRT....
now either SRT treats acceleration as it does all other aspects [ relatively ] or SRT is seriously flawed....thats the result as I far as I can determine it to be at this stage...

It needs not be confused as it seems to be really easy to see what the problem MacM is attempting to resolve.

Given that SRT has been under fire for over 100 years this issue should be so easy to resolve in fact there shoud be links specifically just about this particular issue.....
so why hasn't it been resolved?

So what say you?

11. Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
I know this sounds rather silly and I am almost embarrassed having to bring it up again as it should be pretty obvious what the complaint against SRT is.

simply put the complaint is:

only a clock that has endured acceleration can record physical dilation when compared to a clock that hasn't endured accelleration.

Any suggestion that a non accellerated clock can have physical dilation is merely a mathematical construct and convenience of abstraction to simply accommodate light speed invariance as postulated.

that to me seems really easy to understand as a complaint against SRT....
now either SRT treats acceleration as it does all other aspects [ relatively ] or SRT is seriously flawed....thats the result as I far as I can determine it to be at this stage...

It needs not be confused as it seems to be really easy to see what the problem MacM is attempting to resolve.

Given that SRT has been under fire for over 100 years this issue should be so easy to resolve in fact there shoud be links specifically just about this particular issue.....
so why hasn't it been resolved?

So what say you?
I'd say you are right on. I haven't claimed to resolved the issue but I do thinkI point out it's falicy and offer some suggestion along the way of possible solutions.

But they simply refuse to acknowledge the problem. A clock reamianing at rest has absolutely no cause factor to change. A mere relative veloicty cause is ludricrus and physically impossible.

12. Originally Posted by MacM
I'd say you are right on. I haven't claimed to resolved the issue but I do thinkI point out it's falicy and offer some suggestion along the way of possible solutions.

But they simply refuse to acknowledge the problem. A clock reamianing at rest has absolutely no cause factor to change. A mere relative veloicty cause is ludricrus and physically impossible.
Ok ..so if we focus only on this complaint without any further compexity being added we should see a result yes?

Only a clock that has endured acceleration can record physical dilation when compared to a clock that hasn't endured accelleration.

13. Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
now either SRT treats acceleration as it does all other aspects [ relatively ] or SRT is seriously flawed
Why?
Do you understand that Newtonian mechanics also treats acceleration differently to velocity?
Do you understand that velocity and acceleration are not the same thing?
Only a clock that has endured acceleration can record physical dilation when compared to a clock that hasn't endured acceleration.
QQ, the problem with that complaint is that it is not what SR says.
Try this:
You record two clocks moving at 0.8c (with respect to you). One of them fires its rockets and comes to rest (with respect to you).
SR says that the tick rate of the clock that is still moving is dilated with respect to the clock that accelerated.

But, (just because I'm procrastinating) I'll consider that you're thinking of consider clocks that meet, depart, and meet again later?
SR says that proper time between two events (the two meetings) is related to the length of the worldline between those events. There are two simple rules for beginners:
• the longer the worldline in a spacetime diagram, the shorter the proper time.
• A straight line on a spacetime diagram represents constant velocity

Putting those two together, and remembering that in a Euclidian space-time diagram the shortest distance between two point is a straight line, it follows that:
• SR says that the longest proper time between two events is on a straight (inertial) worldline.

Or, in simpler language:
• SR says that the longest time that a clock can record between two events at which the clock is present will be recorded when the clock doesn't accelerate.

Or equivalently:
• SR says that the longest time between two events is in the inertial reference frame in which the two events happen in the same place

Or, for a geometrical twist:
• In Minkowski geometry, the longest distance between two points is a straight line.

But whatever way you say it, it means that SR treats acceleration differently to velocity for the same reason that a curved line is treated differently to a straight line - they're not the same thing.

Originally Posted by Mac
A clock remaining at rest has absolutely no cause factor to change.
And SR agrees - no inherent property of the clock (such as its proper tick rate) changes when considered from a different frame of reference.

SR says that measured tick rate of the clock is a relative property. It is a property of the relationship between the clock being measured and the clocks doing the measuring.

So, if the relationship changes, the measured tick rate will change.

Mac, I really wish you'd just take the time to understand what SR does and doesn't say. You too, QQ.

14. But Pete it is not what SRT says that we are questioning. It is the reality of dilating a clock with out causation in the real world that is at issue.
How does SRT suggest that a clock can dilate in the real world with out something to cause that dilation?

15. Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
But Pete it is not what SRT says that we are questioning. It is the reality of dilating a clock with out causation in the real world that is at issue.
You should be questioning what SRT says, because you're getting it wrong.

How does SRT suggest that a clock can dilate in the real world with out something to cause that dilation?
It doesn't. SR says that the tick rate of a clock is a relative property, a property of not just the clock but of the frame of reference in which the tick rate is considered.

Just like Newton and Galileo say that:
• Velocity is a relative property.
The velocity of the thing depends on the frame of reference in which it is considered. Using a different frame of reference means that the thing will have a different velocity, even though the thing has not changed in any way.
• Distance is a relative property.
The distance between two events depends on the frame of reference in which they are considered. Using a different frame of reference means that the events will have a different distance between them, even though they are the same two events.

16. Pete,with all due respect,

Only a clock that has endured acceleration can record physical dilation when compared to a clock that hasn't endured accelleration.

17. It doesn't. SR says that the tick rate of a clock is a relative property, a property of not just the clock but of the frame of reference in which the tick rate is considered.
correct and that is where the complaint is.

SRT does not reflect reality when it allows a clock to be dilated with out causation.... and thats the whole point of the complaint. Not what Newton or what ever have stated but what reality is stating...
"Mr Reality is saying that a clock can not be dilated unless it has cause to be so....you can't have an effect with out a cause."
I think just about all scientific theory will agree with that fundamental of "cause and effect" yes?

SRT is claiming an effect without causation is what is being alledged.

and quoting SRT is only showing the allegation as being valid without addressing the complaint.

18. To be honest I am puzzled as to why something so simple and obvious can not be understood or dealt with. The complaint is very simple and should be very easy to deal with...as a trivial lack of understanding somewhere in the chain of causes and effects

19. Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
To be honest I am puzzled as to why something so simple and obvious can not be understood or dealt with. The complaint is very simple and should be very easy to deal with...as a trivial lack of understanding somewhere in the chain of causes and effects
I don't understand why you think it is a complaint.
Do you think it is a problem that Newton treats velocity as relative but not acceleration?

20. Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
correct and that is where the complaint is.

SRT does not reflect reality when it allows a clock to be dilated with out causation.... and thats the whole point of the complaint.
What? You just said "correct", indicating that you agreed that SRT doesn't allow a clock to be dilated without cause, but then you just repeat that exact complaint?

Let me say it again:
SRT does not allow a clock to be dilated without cause.