1. 3rd reply from a physicist:

************************************************** *****
On Aug 1, 2009, at 9:08 AM,

Dear Mr McCoin,

The L.C. is ancient history based on mistaken measurements. Forget it! Both Einstein and Schroedinger have rejected it. Fools still follow it.

Dr wolff

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

2. Originally Posted by Billy T
You are correct here. As while A was traveling it was time dilated. For example when C ticked a 1 million times, A only ticked 900,000 times so when back together the accumulator of A will have recorded 100,000 fewer ticks. - No mystery here.
Interesting - See below:

Originally Posted by Billy T
Post #603:

Well made clocks NEVER CHANGE their intrinsic “tick rates.” For example, a cesium atomic clock counts a fixed number of cycles of some radiation from a cesium atom and when that specific count is achieved, a second has passed. The frequency of that radiation is determined by the energy difference between two cesium atom energy levels. For one cesium clock to change it “tick rate” the energy difference between these two energy levels would need to be changed; but cesium in one inertial frame has exactly the same energy levels as any cesium atom in any other inertial frame. Thus ALL cesium clock in ALL inertial frame ALL define the exactly the same second or “tick" at the same intrinsic rate, regardless of the past history such as in what other frame they once accelerated away from.*
Flip - Flop, Flip - Flop. Shsssh. I refuse to play you stuid gottcha games any more.

Originally Posted by Billy T
I agree it is not a question of "seeing," "measuring," etc. It is reality.No, not by it co-traveling cesium clock. - Only wrt the tick rate of other clocks. It accumulated less time as by its clock as the round trip did not take as long by its clock, not as many ticks as clock C ticked while A was away.
Flip - Flop. Back to the clock s all ticked the same the difference is it trvel less distance. Make up your mind you are beginning to really look pathetically stupid.

Originally Posted by Billy T
I will however, continue to try to warn new comers, who seem intelligent that you are a crackpot holding a POV not supported by more than million better qualified people.

I.e. my post was for phyti - and effort to make it less likely you will mislead him. If it will make you feel any better, I will admit I don't recall much of Laurence Transforms etc. or go into the math of even SR much now days.
Ahhh so another Fukstar emerges. Making a lot of noise but admits they don't really know what they imply they know. But that seems obvious from the "ALL clocks tick the same regrdless of motion" vs a couple hours later "For example when C ticked a 1 million times, A only ticked 900,000 times so when back together the accumulator of A will have recorded 100,000 fewer ticks. - No mystery here".

I wonder who he might wonder about now.

Originally Posted by Billy T
I just believe that Physic is the same in all frames, .................................................
I also believe vacuum is vacuum, everywhere permeability and dielectric constant, if memory serves me.) So speed of light in vacuum is the same everywhere. – Really, IMHO, this is just “Physics is the Same in all frames” again.
So just because you believe something you feel the right to come on here and not address posted scenarios directly but badger posters and call names casting negative innuendos?

This is not a physics discussion as it should be. You should be considering the possiblity (or likely hood if not necessity) that light is not propagated how we currently think. That in fact light may be a bifurcated process where photons are being "Generated" at v = c to each observer and not that "A" photon is generated with an invariant quality.

Like I have pointed out. A different medium causes Cerenkopv Radioation photons to be generated when something goes FTL for that medium. That is different materials (mediums) have different values for v = c. IF your space is NOT mere vacuum but has some form of fabric or subtasnce qualities (which makes sense since it has physically measureable qualities and you claim it can be contracted and expanded. It is hard to do that with "NOTHINGNESS".
Then it follows that standard light may well be photons being generated at v = c to observers with veloicty v = c to their inertial universal fabric.

Now I would like to see you comment on my "Square Test" above.

3. Originally Posted by MacM
3rd reply from a physicist: ...
Usually argument in physics by "appeal to authority" requires you get an authority who at least accepts basic physic facts, like matter is made up of atoms, Maxwell's equations describe all electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic waves, including light. As I understand it your guy does not do the second. Is he also a member of the Flat Earth society?

What about the more than a million better qualified than you (or him, probably) that have been thru college level physics course in the last 100 years and do accept SR? (In part because it has never been found to be false and in part because it follows from constant speed of light and physic laws in all inertial frames.)

------------
PS There is no "flip flop" in quotes you gave in post 642. Accumulated less because trip was shorter, not because the intrinsic tick rate was slower - You just don't understand at all do you? All good clocks have same second* - For example a specific # of cycles of the cesium radiation used defines the second. (I don't remember what the specific number # is but you can search for it)

The very next sentence,(of first quote in 642), which you omitted to distort, after "No mystery here." was "C and A will also disagree on how long A was gone." Just one more sample of your dishonesty. I told you in that next sentence that it was the shorter duration, not a different tick rate that made the accumulated totals differ.

Again cesium and hydrogen atom energy level do not change from one frame to another, nor does quantum theory which can calculate these levels for hydrogen. It too would need to change if the levels did to preserve the ~10 significant figure agreement between theory and experiment.
--------
*Not the same when compared to the second defined in another frame. E.g. A's second is not the same as B's second and conversly. Both A & B use / accept their own second as the standard.

4. Originally Posted by phyti
To MacM;

--One of the most useful tools for space travel scenarios is the space-time diagram.
Unfortunately I can't upload a pic for unknown reason and can't link to a pic because of a silly rule about requiring 20 posts.
Not a problem I'm familiar with the space-time diagrams and how they are used.

Originally Posted by phyti
So will use text.
Velocity changes are instantaneous.

Bob leaves Bill at time 0 with speed .2c.
Bill sends signal (for one to change direction) at 8 days to Bob.
Upon receiving signal , Bob time is 9.8 and Bill time is 10.

If Bob changes speed to near c and rejoins Bill, Bill time is 12 and Bob time is 9.8+.

If Bill changes speed to near c and rejoins Bob, Bill time is 10+ and Bob time is 12.3.

The one that returns is the youngest. It's not just who accelerates, but who travels the farthest at high speeds
I have stated the same thing but in a slightly different way.

I have said the dilated clock is the "Most accelerated times Duration of inertial velocity".

That translates mathematically into the greatest distance of traveled. But the non-linearity of the process causes a problem with that.

However, I have to point out that doesn't hold in the final analysis. Because I can stop Bob and have Bill launch and join Bob. I can have Bill accelerate more and take less time to reach Bob than Bob spent getting there.

For example Bob leaves Bill and accelerates fast enough that we need not compute intermitent velocities during acceleration. He then goes at 0.2c for 10days = 2 ldys , according to Bill, and quickly decelerates to a common rest frame with Bill . Bob is now 9.7979 days old. Bill is 10 days old.

Bill now launches to join Bob and quickly reaches 0.999999999c, decellerates quickly to join Bob. At that velocity. It takes Bill 0.000089days to reach Bob accordding to Jill who was left behind at Bob and Bill's resting home, so Bob is now 9.797989 days old and Bill is 10.000089 days old. They have traveled the same distance.

5. Originally Posted by Billy T
Usually argument in physics by "appeal to authority" requires you get an authority who at least accepts basic physic facts, like matter is made up of atoms, Maxwell's equations describe all electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic waves, including light. As I understand it your guy does not do the second. Is he also a member of the Flat Earth society?

What about the more than a million better qualified than you (or him, probably) that have been thru college level physics course in the last 100 years and do accept SR? (In part because it has never been found to be false and in part because it follows from constant speed of light and physic laws in all inertial frames.)
Speaking of "appealing to authority" - why is it a one way street?

I'm not arguing from their authority I am simply showing funkstar and others that he was wrong to post implying that my views are the only ones like this in the world. The facts are there are numerous other ideas about and many are advocated by persons much better qualified they either you , I James R and others that piss around fighting about who is right.

My grip and rguement is that we need to address each others views directly (which I attempt to do) but you and others only want to recite some BS from the theory beign challenged. That does not rebutt the claim.

Originally Posted by Billy T
PS There is no "flip flop" in quotes you gave in post 642. Accumulated less because trip was shorter, not because the intrinsic tick rate was slower - You just don't understand at all do you? All good clocks have same second* - For example a specific # of cycles of the cesium radiation used defines the second. (I don't remember what the specific number # is but you can search for it)
Oh I understand perfectly fine. I understand that in one post you claim all clocks always tick in synch regardless of motion and in the other post you clearly state it ticked slower and accumulated less time.

Now I understand (and have understood) the issue of LC causing clocks to accumulated less time for the trip and I have made numerous comments about that possibility. So it clearly IS NOT a matter of not understanding.

Recently in fact for which you failed to comment since even that causes the moving observer to compute a higher velocity. I even pointed out a scenario where a moving observer accumulated less time due to LC. Why haven't you addressed this issue.

If a moving observer can't sense or measure time dilation of his clock or distance change by his contracted meter stick he has to compute he went faster to get where he went in less accumulated time regradless if you choose TD or LC and the physical cause of clocks falling out of synch.

NOW ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. I don't care if you want to claim TD or LC. Address the asymetrical relative velocity point I have been raising.
Which you and others have make very negative comments about and called it silly.

Justify your comments mathematically. I have just gone 100 miles in 1 hour by my clock and by your clock it took 2 hours. These are the results of SR regardless of your preference for TD or LC. The point is v = ds / dt.

"What are the respective computed velocities by the two observers?

Don't say but he only went 50 miles because he went from "A" to "B" and he counted mile markers along the way and he even checked his o-dometer by using repeated (fast moving) meter sticks to check his progress. HE will compute a faster veloicty - PERIOD.

Originally Posted by Billy T
The very next sentence,(of first quote in 642), which you omitted to distort, after "No mystery here." was "C and A will also disagree on how long A was gone." Just one more sample of your dishonesty.
And one more example of you never ending attempt to dodge the bullet with BS,

Originally Posted by Billy T
I told you in that next sentence that it was the shorter duration, not a different tick rate that made the accumulated totals differ.
And I have told you I don't care. That does not solve the issue of symmetrical or asymmetrical relative velocity.

Any time you are pushed on one point you switch to another view and attempt to sway others that you are correct and the other poster is wrong.

Fortunately we now have perfect examples of you doing this and failing to respond to the fact that either view produces the same conflict.

Which I introduced here long ago and that is the moving observer computes a different velocity and SR's assertion that velocity is common is based on the absolute universal view and not the view of respective observers with relative motion.

I choose to believe clocks dilate vs LC because it is difficult to envision that "A" and "B" launching in opposite directions from "C" reduce distance between themselves and "C" by certain amounts but at the same time the distance between themselves do not equal the collective distances to C.

Where TD or LC might be accepted as an "Illusion of Motion" the reality MUST be somethingelse becaue I can set up a scenario where "Y & "Z" are known distances apart and are at rest. I can launch "A" and "B" from "C" to land on "Y" and "Z".

Being there they must have traveled collectively the same distances. Even asuming some form of worm hole shortcut your view requires two different short cuts to get there.

.

6. Another reply and this one sent me a copy of the actual paper. I have scanned it but not read it slowly yet but in casual reading I see numersous comments aboutvhow this and tht was adjusted for irreadtion temperture etc, to make me suspicious of any result.

However, here is his view of the claim. I might point out he has equally impressive papers published which he has also provided me.

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

Dear Mr. McCoin,

Thank you for the message. I found the article linked above. I will try to answer your questions the way I understand the matter.

The link did not work for me neither, but I was able to guess which is the journal, the volume and the page number. I know very well the website of Physical reviews. I am attaching a copy of the paper for your perusal.

The paper is a typical misleading product of the modern physics. The authors did not measure the Lorentz contraction for some of the building blocks of the matter, such as the electron and/or proton, etc. They measured the contraction of fluxons in Josephson junctions. Let me tell you that any process that is described by a hyperbolic (wave) equation (and the Klein-Gordon equation considered in the mentioned work sports a hyperbolic main part) has a Lorentz contraction. You can see what we have done with my son on solitons (quasi-particles) of Sine-Gordon equation. I am attaching a paper form PhysLetters A.

The Lorentz contraction was discovered exactly because of the primitive believe that Maxwell equations are linear and that they can be reduced to the wave equation. And wave equatin is not invariant to translation of the frame. Voight (and later on Lorentz) discovered that the wave equation can be made invariant, if one allows also a change of the time in the moving frame. You can find a detailed critique of this issue of my paper in Nonlinear Analysis which I am attaching also with the present message.

Professor Christov

7. Originally Posted by MacM
Dr wolff
He's a crank as well. I don't deny he's done a bit of valid stuff but he now spends most of his time out on the fringes.

And as someone else has said, appealing to authority or the masses is often a danger. If biologists appealed to the masses in America noone would research evolution, cos it's "the devil's idea!!". And you're simply trying to do what creationists once did, compile a list of 'scientists' who don't believe the mainstream viewpoint. So you've managed, after considerable time and waiting, to find 3 physics (and I use the word in a very loose sense) who believe as you do. I can find 50 in under an hour, simply by wandering through the corridors of my work (a physics department).

When you have to ignore using actual logic to go down the "Oh but one physicist agrees with me, read this email!" then you've failed.

8. I have ceased trying to persuade you for reasons already stated, but will correct your false statements about what I have asserted or have been doing.
Originally Posted by MacM
...you and others only want to recite some BS from the theory being challenged. That does not rebut the claim.
Only claims I am rebutting are yours, made in post 93 that tell one must go back in time to discover the "last Common Rest Frame" CRF to calculate the relative time dilation between two clocks, a & b, both now without any accelerations but with a relative velocity, Vab. Standard SR does not need this historical information but simply inserts Vab in the time dilation formula, TD = SR( ) or in this case, TD = SR(Vab).

But yes it is true I do recite some BS of a theory that is being challenged. Namely I quote or "recite" you instructions for how that TDab should be calculated. I will recite it (the BS theory) again now:

If C was the last CRF, then compute separately the TDs using the velocities of each clock wrt C. I.e. TDac = SR(Vac) and TDbc = SR (Vbc). Then subtract to find the MacM SR version of TDba. I.e. TDba = [TDbc - TDac] which is not equal to the standard SR's computed TDba as the formula SR( ) is highly non-linear.

Furthermore as pointed out in post 612, with two cases, a very trivial change (Only a 1 meter move that was so slow it took 100 years in case 2 instead of both a & b being at mutual rest in frame P as in case 1.) dramatically changes the value that MacM's SR computes (in case 1 vs. case 2) for the TDba later when both a & b have been inertially coasting for a million years in frames A & B.

This dramatic change is due to the fact than in case 1 the last CRF is P, but in case 2 the last CRF is an earlier one, C. And the fact that the relative velocity between frames P & C is large, say 0.6C. Recall that in case 2 clock b moved CONTINUIOUSLY on a table one meter and so slowly it took 100 years to complete the 1 meter move, but this movement disallows frame P from being the CRF in case 2 as b was never at rest in frame P with clock a which remained fixed exactly where it landed for the 100 years until both accelerated up to their final inertial frames, A & B. (Actually clock b was never at rest in any frame during that 100 years as when it "landed" on the table, it was still moving at 1.5cm/yr but with steady continuous deceleration, b came to be going at 0.5cm/yr just before it blast off to end up in frame B.)

So to continue illustrating numerically with Vpc =0.6C, let’s assume the final coasting velocities wrt frame P are: Vap = 0.05C and Vbp = 0.15C making their relative velocity, Vbc = 0.1C and standard SR used 0.1C for both cases 1 & 2. I.e. TDba = SR(0.1) =TDab. (The relative Vba may not be exactly 0.1C but I am only illustrating and if is O.0997C instead that is not important.)

However MacM's SR gets vastly different TDs for the two cases as P is the last CRF for case 1 and C is the last CRF for case 2, so I'll add either 1 or 2 after these different MacM TDs. I.e. I will now calculate TDba1 and TDba2 but first I need to compute for case 2, Vbc and Vac. (I'm too lazy to do it exactly but know Vac < 0.6C + 0.05C as simple velocity addition is not correct with such high speeds. I also know that Vac > 0.6C, so just to illustrate I take Vac =0.63C. Likewise, for same reasons, including I am lazy and this is only an illustration, I will guess that Vbc is about 0.7C. (Anyone who wants can grind thru the correct SR formula for adding to co-linear speeds, but they will end up with long, inconvenient, multi-digit values)

Thus MacM's SR computation procedure, TDba = [TDbc - TD ac], gives for:

Case 1: TDba1 = {SR(Vbp) -SR(Vap)} = SR(0.15C) - SR(0.05C)
And
Case 2: TDba2 = {SR(Vbc) -SR(Vac)} = SR(0.7C) - SR(0.63C)

These are dramatically different* due mainly to MacM SR needing to change from Case 1's CRF = P to CRF = C for case 2 and fact Vpc = 0.6C, or any large fraction of C.

Standard SR has none of MacM's "1 meter move in 100 years" a million years ago makes a huge difference nonsense.

Standard SR computes TDba = SR(0.1) for both cases.
Made blue for future reference to the results.

SUMMARY:
Yes, I did "recite" BS - your post 93 BS to show I followed YOUR procedure EXACTLY.

Originally Posted by MacM
... you claim all clocks always tick in synch regardless of motion and in the other post you clearly state it ticked slower and accumulated less time.
I have NEVER even mentioned "synch" (nor “simultaneity,” nor “space contraction”, “LC” etc., nor “reciprocity, ” nor “symmetry,” nor "see," nor "observes" for that matter. All your assertions that I did are YOUR fabrications.)*

Nor did I "clearly state it ticked slower" In fact I have several times stated exactly the opposite: Namely, ALL GOOD CLOCKS HAVE THE SAME INTRINSIC TICK RATE." I even went into some detail telling that for example, a cesium clock counts cycles of a cesium radiation line until # cycles have occurred and that is a second. If one in some other frame also counts # cycles to define a different second, the frequency of cesium radiation must change as one chance frames - that violates the concept that physics is the same in all inertial frames as only way the frequency could be different is if the cesium atom energy levels change. This is particularly silly in the case of hydrogen energy levels as they can be calculated with Quantum Theory and agree with measurement to about 10 significant figures, as I recall. To keep this fantastic agreement one would thus need to postulate that even a theory must change as you change frames!
How silly can you get?

You can stop putting words in my mouth as I will not be diverted to discuss any of the things like "synch", “space contraction” etc. but stick to the discussion of time dilation in a scenario that exposes your silly BS theory of post 93 that thinks TD depends on long past history and CRF. I.e.

Since showing mathematically in my post 198 that your post 93 methodology leads self contraction, I have concentrated on the above scenario where clock b, ALMOST comes to rest with clock a in "case 2" and does exactly come to rest with clock a in "case 1" as this clearly exposes the silliness of your post 93 "compute separately using V wrt the last CRF and then subtract" procedure. (Movement so slow that humans cannot even see it moving by watching all day long can change what is the last CRF and dramatically alter time dilations at a later time if calculated by the MacM version of SR.)

This scenarios exposes the silliness of your whole basic concept that history (V wrt last CRF) is more important than current conditions (relative V) to calculate the current time dilation. I can understand why your refuse to respond to it or even comment with a denial stating that I have misunderstood your post 93 procedure.

------------------
*If I did mention any of these, it was like here, only to deny having mentioned them.

9. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
He's a crank as well. I don't deny he's done a bit of valid stuff but he now spends most of his time out on the fringes.
I would say a couple of things here.

1 - As I have previously said it does not matter what the education level is, the experience is, the achievements are, as in this case he is recognized for some very good work but the minute he concludes (as I have and others) that SR is not what it is advocated to be, then he becomes labled a crank.

That suggests extreme egotistical bias on part of relativists thinking they and only they know anything.

2 - I note that his position is virtually identical to mine in that my reaction to just the abstract was that claiming a compressed collision zone represents Lorentz contraction by SR was misleading if not out right fraud.

EM waves and magnetic fields are very compliant and you can hardly claim that the distance shrinking as you push harder on two permanent magnets in the repulsion mode represents Lorentz Contraction. That would effectively be the same as collisdion of two magnetic vortices.

My point then is to try and educated funkstar that his knee jerk reaction to both the article (which he admits he doesn't understand) and against me are simply unjustified opinions. That is not me saying I'm right and they are wrong. It is sayiing extra ordinary claims need extra ordinary proof and I do not see that in the article (which I now have) any such proof.

They are merely labeling compression in a collision zone as Lorentz Contraction and claiming to have photographed it when Terell-Penrose (which is very much main stream accepted science) has shown that if Lorentz Contraction were to occur it could NEVER be observed much less photographed.

So my position on this paper based on just reading the abstract was NOT as described by funkstar nor was I guilty of what he accused me of. That is my whole point of posting these replies.

Now the professor uses the term Lorentz Contraction describing features of EM waves amd magnetic fields but he seems to be describing is the red and blue shift (Expansion and Contraction) of waves due to doppler shift and that is NOT actually Lorentz Contraction in the same sense as used in SR.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
And as someone else has said, appealing to authority or the masses is often a danger. If biologists appealed to the masses in America noone would research evolution, cos it's "the devil's idea!!". And you're simply trying to do what creationists once did, compile a list of 'scientists' who don't believe the mainstream viewpoint. So you've managed, after considerable time and waiting, to find 3 physics (and I use the word in a very loose sense) who believe as you do. I can find 50 in under an hour, simply by wandering through the corridors of my work (a physics department).
I have no quams with this statement. Clearly there are more on your side than mine BUT that does not make us all Cranks or Crack Pots. Only detailed analysis of one's view properly rebutted can put a person in such a labled catagory.

And I do not see you or others here actually directly addressing the issues I have raised.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
When you have to ignore using actual logic to go down the "Oh but one physicist agrees with me, read this email!" then you've failed.
False. I am not basing my view on one physicist or even 1,000,000 physicist. I'm basing my view ON logic which seems lost in SR and by relativists. They prefer to blow off issues with glib "That is just Counter Intuitive" responses.

Do not forget that "Counter Intuitive" is just another term for "Illogical."

So how can you then try to reverse the situation and accuse anti-relativists of not using logic?

I have received another reply I'll post seperately. I think it is educational for members here to see some opinions by physicsts not holding hands or holding hands out for government research funding.

10. Originally Posted by Billy T
I have ceased trying to persuade you for reasons already stated, but will correct your false statements about what I have asserted or have been doing. Only claims I am rebutting are yours,
Sorry Billy T I am not playing your circle jrk games. Been there and done that with you before.

You like to post these lengthy overly complex scenarios and then make false self congratulatory claims and continue to repeat those false claims burnign up valuable thread time.

Your scenario had two observers at common rest launch side by side and arrive at Pluto where one actually came to a complete stop and the other continued to move ever so slowly. That is they never actually achieved a new common rest frame.

You asked me where the proper rest frame would be and I gave you a "Qualified" technical answer. It was the original common rest frame. The qualification I made was that the ultimate emperical data difference would be immeasureable.

But you then started making statements about how silly it was to do that since it caused huge differences in data. That is a flase claim and you have failed to mathematically show otherwise. You continue to ignore my qualifier about that being the proper common rest frame from wichvto comput.

I even went the extra mile and posted a simular situation but had one stop and the other merely slow down but retaining sufficient velocity that the failure of that to constitute a common rest frame were made abundantly obvious.

You ignored that and continue to ignore that not stopping regardless of however small the magnitude of motion is still not common rest.

Can minor relative velocity be generally ignored. Yes and no. It would depend on how long the test was before computing accumulated time. If the one observer continue to creep along for 1 billion years while the other maintained high velocity then the magnitude of the error could get rather large even though the % change would still be small.

Now go bother somebodyelse.

11. Originally Posted by MacM
1 - As I have previously said it does not matter what the education level is, the experience is, the achievements are, as in this case he is recognized for some very good work but the minute he concludes (as I have and others) that SR is not what it is advocated to be, then he becomes labled a crank..
Actually Wolf is considered a crank for many more reasons. The whole "What The bleep do we know?" film, for instance, is evidence of that.

Originally Posted by MacM
Do not forget that "Counter Intuitive" is just another term for "Illogical."
No it isn't. That would imply intuition is logical, which it often is not. 'Going with ones gut instinct' is often used as a reason to be illogical.

Originally Posted by MacM
I think it is educational for members here to see some opinions by physicsts not holding hands or holding hands out for government research funding.
Do you think if relativity were falsified tomorrow it would mean physicists losing their jobs, hence a conspiracy of silence? Because that's nonsense. Funding goes UP when paradigms are destroyed. Do you think the government hands out funding with the stipulation "If you're wrong, you're fired!"? University physics departments are basically think tanks, they are paid to come up with new ideas, develop old ones and be innovative. If that means saying "Hey, turns out that isn't quite right" then so be it.

The implication you're making displays your bias. And your ignorance of how science, scientists and universities work.

12. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Actually Wolf is considered a crank for many more reasons. The whole "What The bleep do we know?" film, for instance, is evidence of that.
I'm not familiar with this film and can't say what bearing it might have but will only say that my comments stand as a general rule if they apply in this case or not.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
No it isn't. That would imply intuition is logical, which it often is not. 'Going with ones gut instinct' is often used as a reason to be illogical.
You need to take a cruise through Webster.

Intuition - 10 the direct knowing or learning of something without conscious use of reason,

If reason is not used I suggest that is a trait of being illogical.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Do you think if relativity were falsified tomorrow it would mean physicists losing their jobs, hence a conspiracy of silence? Because that's nonsense.
Actually if SR were overturned tomorrow there would be ahuge opening for new research seeking real answers.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Funding goes UP when paradigms are destroyed. Do you think the government hands out funding with the stipulation "If you're wrong, you're fired!"? University physics departments are basically think tanks, they are paid to come up with new ideas, develop old ones and be innovative. If that means saying "Hey, turns out that isn't quite right" then so be it.

The implication you're making displays your bias. And your ignorance of how science, scientists and universities work.
So says one apparently on the funding take. I've seen numerous cases where projects are propelled by purported "almost there all we need is more money to continue the work" claims.

Fusion energy comes to mind. There is virtually NO funding by the government of Muon Catalyzed Fusion while billions have been dumpted into conventional fusion projects.

What you don't see are university think tanks trying to come up with or duplicate tests that have claimed to falsify SR. There have been many. I'm not saying here they were valid. I'm saying here we will never know because nobody (including you) will give them a second look.

Proving Einstein right gets you noticed and funding. Claiming Einstein wrong gets you labled and black balled as a crank and yes fired.

Claiming that fact is a conspiracy is a strawman charge. Conspiracy requires collective, deliberate coordinated efforts. This is NOT a conspiracy but just a fact of life and fear of being labled or fired.

Finally while I don't suggest it has been dozens there have been several physicist contact me by e-mail or PM that have told me that they agree with me but that they cannot speak out for fear of ridicule or career loss. So don't tell me I'm promoting some conspiracy theory, I am not. I'm reporting what appears to be the case supported by a number of personal verifications of the situation.

13. I thought I had already posted this but I don't see it here so I'll post again.

Others have commented on the paper but not my view. He comments about my view but not about the paper.

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

Dear Dan,

Yes, you might say that the ‘effective velocity’ is v/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) rather than v. It is difficult to understand motion unless the dynamic scale also is taken into account.

Johan
************************************************** ********

That is precisely my arguement and keep in mind that it matters not if you claim TD is physically real and LC doesn't exist (my view) or that all clocks always tick in unison regardless of motion never dilating and LC is the real physical cause of less accumulated time for a trip (Billy T's view).

The fact is an observer in in inertial motion cannot sense or measure either TD or LC in his frame and hence if he accululates only 1 hours time for a 100 mile trip he will compute he traveled 100 Mph; while resting observer accumulates 2 hours for his trip and computes he was traveling 50 Mph.

There is NO escape from this consequence no matter how hard relativists try to ignore it. On the one hand v>c is prohibited and v is a symmetrical quantity inSR, yet SR creates conditions where v is not symmetrical and an observer in motion MUST under high velocity compute v>c.

i.e. If I go from "A" to "B" that is 1 lyr apart at rest from you, at 0.866c according to you at rest. You as a resting observer would see me take 1.1539 years but by my clock I will accumulate only 0.5769 years which requires that I compute I was going 1.73c!.

Now all of you hot shot relativits respond to this situation.

14. Originally Posted by MacM
... Your scenario had two observers at common rest launch side by side and arrive at Pluto where one actually came to a complete stop and the other continued to move ever so slowly.
That is true of my original version of the scenario, but it was quickly generalized to have clocks a & b land on a table in "Frame P," which unlike Pluto was a true inertial frame. I also made it more explicit that I was considering two cases: One, Case 1, in which clock b rest in frame P the 100 years and one in which it very slowly moves a total of 1m in the 100years, Case 2. (Clock a is motionless in Frame P in both cases for the 100 years.)

Likewise the second edition had a & b initially launch from inertial frame C, instead of Earth. Not only did this change make the frames of the scenario all inertial, but it allowed me not to be restricted to the actual speeds of Earth and Pluto. (You were demanding that I give numeral values.) I have done so now in post 648 and set the relative velocity of these two frames, Vpc , to be 0.6C in my last post (648) and given numerical values for all the other co-linear velocities. For your convenience I have made the "results section" blue in post 648. (As I am lazy and do not want to make any calculation error, the final reduction of the formulae is left undone.)
Originally Posted by MacM
...But you then started making statements about how silly it was to do that {go back into ancient history to find a CRF to measure velocities with respect to it} since it caused huge differences in data. That is a false claim and you have failed to mathematically show otherwise.
Not true. The difference between the two cases are large with Vpc =0.6C. I admit the difference between case 1 and case 2* results was not large when Pluto was frame P and Earth was Frame C as they do not have relative speed significant wrt speed of light.

The mathematical difference is stated using these assumed velocities in the blue section of my last post (648). If there is ANY place I did not follow YOUR post 93 procedure exactly, just tell where or better yet correct it.

------------------
*Only difference between the two cases is that in Case 2, clock b does not remain motionless beside clock a for 100 years on a table fixed to the ground in frame P, but moves 1 meter on that table very slowly. (Initially at 1.5cm/yr but linearly decreasing to 0.5cm/yr in the 100 years.) Thus, not only is clock b not with the Frame P as the CRF, as it was in Case 1 but clock b is not even in ANY inertial frame during the 100 years as it has a small constant deceleration for the entire 100 years.) This tiny movement** forces MacM’s SR in Case 2 to use velocities wrt Frame C, which is moving at 0.6C wrt to the CRF of case 1 and to compute very different results for the time dilation a million years later for the two cases**

To be perfectly clear:
Frame P is the CRF for Case 1.
Frame C is the CRF for Case 2.
Velocities used in the calculation of Case 2 are approximately 0.6C greater than those used in Case 1 calculation as that is the speed, Vpc, these two frames are moving wrt each other. This does make a huge difference in the computed Time Dilation even a million years after leaving the table when both clock a & b are just coasting in their final inertial frames, A & B. (Both “went inertial,” in less than a year after leaving the table.) MacM never explains how they “remember” what happen a million years earlier.

**No human steadily looking at the table for an 8 hour day could even detect the motion as it would move only about 10 microns in that period. Yet this not humanly detectable motion forces MacM’s SR to compute Case 2’s time dilation with velocities approximately 0.6C greater than used in Case 1.

15. Originally Posted by Billy T
That is true of my original version of the scenario, but it was quickly generalized to have clocks a & b land on a table in "Frame P," which unlike Pluto was a true inertial frame. I also made it more explicit tht I was considering two cases: One, Case 1, in which clock b rest in frame P the 100 years and one in which it very slowly moves a total of 1m in the 100years, Case 2.
And for which I have only responded to Case 2 saying only the original rest fame was valid.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Likewise the second edition had a & b initially launch from inertial frame C, instead of Earth. Not only did this change make the frames of the scenario all inertial, but it allowed me not to be restricted to the actual speeds of Earth and Pluto. (You were then demanding that I give numeral values.) I have done so now in post 648 and set the relative velocity of these two frames, Vpc , to be 0.6C in my last post (648) and given numerical values for all the other co-linear velocities. For your convenience I have made the "results section" blue in post 648. (As I am lazy and do not want to make any calculation error, the final reduction of the formulae is left undone.)Not true. The difference between the two cases are large with Vpc =0.6C.
Show your work. I challenge you that there is any large difference if proper common rest frames are used. If proper common rest frames are used there can be ONLY one result hence no small much less large difference in data.

Since I had brains enough to not play you games I have not responded to all these various changes you wanted to implement. Because as I have said there can only be one true common inertial frame for any case.

Originally Posted by Billy T
I admit the difference between case 1 and case 2* results was not large when Pluto was frame P and Earth was Frame C as they do not have relative speed significant wrt speed of light.
The Earth and Pluto respective velocities are irrelevant - Shsssh Inertial is rest and if they are inertial it (meaning earth's orbit aroud the sun for example of 18.5 mi/sec = "0".

Like wise Pluto's motion is irrelevant if they both land and became interial with Pluto. But you had one not do so. That minor movement does not alter the computed dilation between the clocks by any measurable amount.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Not true. The difference between the two cases are large with Vpc =0.6C.The mathematical difference is stated using these assumed velocities in my last post. I will go back and make that section blue for you. If there is ANY place I did not follow YOUR post 93 procedure exactly, just tell where or better yet correct it.
I'm not going to waste time going back looking at your posts to see where you screwed up but you have clearly screwed up because there can only be ONE common rest frame and hence to compute using a position that was non-inertial common rest violates the mathematics. But even doing so the 1 cm/100 years motion cited was purely a technical issue and snce up to Pluto the two had flown side by side and were not dilated to each other calling Pluto a common rest frame woudl have been acceptable pragmatically but not technically and to insist on technical correctness does not shift the data by an measureable amount.

So I have no idea what your claim is really based on. The unit that re-launched could go 0.9999999999c it makes no measureable difference in the magnitude of data if you used Earth or pluto as a common rest frame. The difference is purely technical.

Originally Posted by Billy T
------------------
*Only difference between the two cases is that in Case 2, clock b does not remain motionless beside clock a for 100 years on a table fixed to the ground in frame P, but moves 1 meter on that table very slowly. (Initially at 1.5cm/yr but linearly decreasing to 0.5cm/yr in the 100 years.) Thus, not only is clock b not with the Frame P as the CRF, as it was in Case 1 but clock b is not even in ANY inertial frame during the 100 years as it has a small constant deceleration for the entire 100 years.) This tiny movement** force sMacM’s SR in Case 2 to use velocities wrt Frame C, which is moving at 0.6C wrt to the CRF of case 1 and to compute very different results for the time dilation a million years later for the two cases**
As it would SR since you have no inertial frame to compute agains. My god man think. You are talking BS and gibberish. You are making up crap and throwing at me that isn't even SR. You try to claim my view is different than SR in that regard and it is not.

Originally Posted by Billy T
To be perfectly clear:
Frame P is the CRF for Case 1.
Frame C is the CRF for Case 2.
Velocities used in the calculation of Case 2 are approximately 0.6C greater than those used in Case 1 calculation as that is the speed, Vpc, these two frames are moving wrt each other. This does make a huge difference in the computed Time Dilation even a million years after leaving the table when both clock a & b are just coasting in their final inertial frames, A & B. (Both “went inertial,” in less than a year after leaving the table.) MacM never explains how they “remember” what happen a million years earlier.
MacM doesn't have to.

1 - If they were inertial (and synchronized) on the table then their flight determines dilation. If they were not synchronized at the common rest then any accumulated time differential at launch is their memory of past flights.

If they never come to full common rest then they do not have a common rest frame reference.

What is your problem with that?

Originally Posted by Billy T
**No human steadily looking at the table for an 8 hour day could even detect the motion as it would move only about 10 microns in that period. Yet this not humanly detectable motion forces MacM’s SR to compute Case 2’s time dilation with velocities approximately 0.6C greater than used in Case 1.

BS pure BS. What ever their dilation was upon arriving is retained until they are synchronized once again. What ever cummulative TD there is remains precisely the same as it would for conditions given when properly computed.

You are mixing scenarios and frames. Get real. Either synchronize clocks and start over or continue to compute at whatever velocity the observers go to. My view is identical with SR as applied.

16. There seems to be some confusion with terminology.

Time dilation is the physical slowing of processes involving light transmission (energy transfer) resulting from motion. One example being a longer period for a moving clock.
A little clarification might help.
A stone is dropped from a boat moving on the water. The waves move outward from where the stone entered. The boat moves away from the center of the waves. The point is, the waves do not acquire the speed of the boat. The speed of the waves is determined by the water.
In a similar manner the speed of light is constant and independent of its source. If a system of particles is moving then light requires more time to interact. In the direction of motion the closing speed of particle and photon is c-v, which means slower transfer.
In the opposite direction closing speed is c+v or faster transfer. For a given speed, the increase in time is always greater than the decrease, thus slower in total. A good example is the lifetime of high speed muons vs. those in the earth rest frame.

Apparent frequency:
Given two observers with clocks that have the same rate when together. When in relative motion on diverging paths, the distant clock will appear to run slower than the local clock. When in relative motion on converging paths, the distant clock will appear to run faster than the local clock. This is just doppler shift, because the clocks are frequencies, and there is relative motion of emitter and receiver.

Absolute rest:
If a flash of light (multiple photons) moves radially from C in all directions at speed c, i.e. formed a sphere with C at the center, then by definition C would be static. Even though a clock at C would experience no time dilation, it would still appear to run at a different rates by an observer moving relative to it. The problem is measuring to verify C as static (per definition), which currently cannot be done.

scenario in post 624:

1 - A & B are side by side at inertial rest. B launches from A and becomes inertial in another frame. It is emperically supported to believe that B is now dilated to A (Clocks ticking slower than B).
--B's dilation is different from A's, but you can't determine if it's more or less by the apparent rate.

However, given the very same acceleration and motion vectors where:

2 - A, B & C are side by side at common rest and A luanches to some new inertial frame. A is now dilated to B & C (A is ticking slower than both other clocks).
--B and C also appear to tick slower to A.

Now B launches and catches up with A and becomes inertial side by side with A. You now have A & B in configuration 1 above where they are both ticking slower than C.
--appear to be ticking slower than C.

Such that if A now launches back toward C it mus increase tick rate to return to C's time standard at the same time we have already determined that when A leaves B it must dilate or slow it's tick rate. You have a situation where you are demanding that a clock both tick slower and faster at the same time.
--A and C are converging, A and B are diverging. Per the rules of physics, the motion of an object does not alter distant physical processes! The A clock ticks at one rate, B and C receive signals at different rates, thus the appearance of A is different for each.
If ten people surround a house, each will have a different picture of the same house.

Here is an interesting example:
A calculates (apparent) speed of B using v = (b-a)/(1-ab), where a and b are the speed of A and B respectively relative to a fixed rest frame.
case 1
a = 0 and b = .5c
A calculates the speed of B as .5c, which gives gamma = 1.15
The relative speed in the fixed frame is .5c.
case 2
a = .4c, and b = .75c
A calculates the speed of B as .5c, which gives gamma = 1.15
The relative speed in the fixed frame is .35c

B's dilation is not a function of relative speed in the fixed frame or in the relative frame measurements. In case 2 the 'addition of velocities formula' would be used to correct b to its fixed frame value of .75c * by an observer in the fixed frame, giving a gamma of 1.51,
clearly not in agreement with A's calculation.

* A curious procedure for a theory that denies a fixed frame, until you know why it's needed!

17. post 625
the Lorentz contraction will not be visible
--I can't agree with Penrose.
The observer sees a portion of a sphere of light composed of photons
arriving from various locations in space, just as a camera does.
If a rod is moving toward the viewer and offset to one side(so both ends
are visible), the photon from the far end would have to be emitted
before the photon from the near end, so both arrive simultaneously. The
path of each photon when projected onto the path of the rod will produce
an extended image of the rod. As the rod gets closer, the time
difference between the ends decreases, i.e. the rod will appear
stretched approaching from the horizon and continuosly contract as it
recedes to the opposite horizon. The physical length of the rod is seen
when it passes the observer, and both ends are equally distant.
This should be visible to the eye (with difficulty) and a (high tech ) camera.

18. Originally Posted by MacM
And for which I have only responded to Case 2 saying only the original rest fame was valid. So what is your problem?
No problem here as we agree in case 2 Frame C is the CRF.
Originally Posted by MacM
... If proper common rest frames are used there can be ONLY one result hence no small much less large difference in data.
That is Frame P for case 1. Recall in Case 1 both clocks sit exactly where they landed on the table which is fixed in Frame P - So there is no relative motion between the clocks for 100 years. That sure sounds like the CRF for Case 1 to me. Yes each case has only one result. The final states are the same for both cases so standard SR get the same Time Dilation for both case but MacM SR gets differ results for the two case as they have different last CRFs.

Originally Posted by MacM
...I have said there can only be one true common inertial frame for any case.
Again we agree! So I post again, from post 654:
To be perfectly clear:
Frame P is the CRF for Case 1.
Frame C is the CRF for Case 2.
Velocities used in the calculation of Case 2 are approximately 0.6C greater than those used in Case 1 calculation as that is the speed, Vpc, these two frames are moving wrt each other. This does make a huge difference (between the two cases) in the {MacM SR} computed Time Dilation even a million years after leaving the table when both clock a & b are just coasting in their final inertial frames, A & B. (Both “went inertial,” in less than a year after leaving the table.) MacM never explains how they “remember” what happen a million years earlier.

To which you replied:
Originally Posted by MacM
MacM doesn't have to.
1 - If they were inertial (and synchronized) on the table then their flight determines dilation. If they were not synchronized at the common rest then any accumulated time differential at launch is their memory of past flights.
{2} - If they never come to full common rest then they do not have a common rest frame reference.
(I inserted the {2} assuming you forgot to as there is no point to your “1 –” without some “2 –”.) I made next sentences purple as they answer your last somewhat confused* comments as well.
I never discussed the question of synchronized or not as Time Dilation is not concerned with what the clock is telling as the time. For Time Dilation it does not matter if one said it was 16:43 when the other said it was 3:15. Time Dilation is only concerned with how many ticks it makes compared to the how many ticks one in another frame makes. Lets avoid synchronization problems and assume they were not even telling the same time in the original frame C.

I think you are saying: “MacM doesn’t have to” in answer to my questioning comment: “MacM never explains how they “remember” what happen a million years earlier.” (Final blue sentence above.) I.e. How do they still know what happened on a table top a million years ago? For the last million years Case 1 and Cas2 have had identical in their motions. I.e. Clock a speed wrt coordinate origin point Frame P , P(0,0), is 0.05C and clock b speed wrt coordinate origin point, P(0,0), is 0.15C. How does clock b remember for a million years if it was at rest for 100 years in frame P or if its prior rest frame was C? (Cases 1 and 2 respectively.) Standard SR is not concerned with this ancient history, but MacM’s SR is as the time dilation NOW, a million years later, is different for the two cases. From post 648’s blue text:

Thus MacM's SR computation procedure, TDba = [TDbc - TD ac], gives for:

Case 1: TDba1 = {SR(Vbp) -SR(Vap)} = SR(0.15C) - SR(0.05C)
And
Case 2: TDba2 = {SR(Vbc) -SR(Vac)} = SR(0.7C) - SR(0.63C)

All the two clocks know NOW is there relative speed which is the SAME for both cases. So how do they know which case lead to the SAME current conditions? I will agree with MacM that TDba NOW must be one or the other, but which? Standard SR does not suffer this dilemma . That time dilation is computed by it:
TDba = SR(Vba) for either case. Only MacM’s SR needs to know which of the two case results applies NOW to the identical conditions which follow from either case a million years later.

Originally Posted by MacM
What ever their dilation was upon arriving is retained until they are synchronized once again. What ever cummulative TD there is remains precisely the same as it would for conditions given when properly computed.
You are mixing scenarios and frames. Get real. Either synchronize clocks and start over or continue to compute at whatever velocity the observers go to. My view is identical with SR as applied.
NO. There are two cases and each has almost, but not exactly, the same scenario. There is no “mixing” of frames and scenarios. There never was any effort at “synchronization” because as sated early in purple text:
I never discussed the question of synchronized or not as Time Dilation is not concerned with what the clock is telling as the time. For Time Dilation it does not matter if one said it was 16:43 when the other said it was 3:15. Time Dilation is only concerned with how many ticks it makes compared to the how many ticks one in another frame makes. Lets avoid synchronization problems and assume they were not even telling the same time in the original frame C.

NO. Your view is NOT identical with standard SR. Your view does not use the current relative velocity as standard SR does. Your view uses the velocity wrt the last CRF and those velocities differ by about 0.6C for the two cases. So of course you get a different result for each case even though both cases have been identical for the last million years.
-------------------
* “Confused” where you speak of “cumulative Time Dilation.” I have no idea what you mean as Time Dilation is of the form “3 ticks of the moving clock per 5 ticks of stationary clock I am holding” or more simply : The time dilation is “3 to 5” or “3/5”. I have no idea how you “accumulate” 3/5 time dilation. AFAIK, to “accumulate” you need well defined “Start accumulation” and Stop accumulation” events, but that is hard to do (or impossible) “simultaneously” two different frames and drags in the “simultaneity problems,” which I avoid by COMPUTING the time dilation. You told how to compute that in post 93 for “MacM SR” and I know how to do that computation for standard SR.

19. Originally Posted by phyti
There seems to be some confusion with terminology.

Time dilation is the physical slowing of processes involving light transmission (energy transfer) resulting from motion. One example being a longer period for a moving clock.
A little clarification might help.
A stone is dropped from a boat moving on the water. The waves move outward from where the stone entered. The boat moves away from the center of the waves. The point is, the waves do not acquire the speed of the boat. The speed of the waves is determined by the water.
In a similar manner the speed of light is constant and independent of its source. If a system of particles is moving then light requires more time to interact. In the direction of motion the closing speed of particle and photon is c-v, which means slower transfer.
In the opposite direction closing speed is c+v or faster transfer. For a given speed, the increase in time is always greater than the decrease, thus slower in total. A good example is the lifetime of high speed muons vs. those in the earth rest frame.
Either I'm miss reading your post or you are ignoring the measured invariance of light.

Originally Posted by phyti
Apparent frequency:
Given two observers with clocks that have the same rate when together. When in relative motion on diverging paths, the distant clock will appear to run slower than the local clock. When in relative motion on converging paths, the distant clock will appear to run faster than the local clock. This is just doppler shift, because the clocks are frequencies, and there is relative motion of emitter and receiver.
Agreed but not at issue.

Originally Posted by phyti
Absolute rest:
If a flash of light (multiple photons) moves radially from C in all directions at speed c, i.e. formed a sphere with C at the center, then by definition C would be static. Even though a clock at C would experience no time dilation, it would still appear to run at a different rates by an observer moving relative to it. The problem is measuring to verify C as static (per definition), which currently cannot be done.
I don't believe they will buy your absolute rest. They have light carry forward momentum such that an observer at rest viewing a light pulse project orthogonally to a frame moving laterally to the observers sees the light travel between mirrors on the moving frame in a zig zag diagonal line.

Pilot sees light move with him straight across.
........../\
...........!
..........\/
Spacecraft--------------------->
----------------------------
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
---------------------------
Observer at rest sees zif zag reflection off mirrors

..........X
Resting Observer

Hence there is no way to determine if the center of the sphere has inertail velocity when light is projected. However I happen to believe that done in deep space light will be found to not carry forward momentum and if it does that suggest some minimal photon mass.

Originally Posted by phyti
scenario in post 624:

--B's dilation is different from A's, but you can't determine if it's more or less by the apparent rate.

Originally Posted by phyti
--B and C also appear to tick slower to A.
Agreed but appearances are and have never bveen at issue. The issue is strictly what emperical data has shown when two clocks have been compared subsequent ot having had relative veloicty, not during relative velociy. The reciprocity you mention is not permanent. Thatv is when relative velocity vanishes so does the apparentvdilation. But the accelerated frame (notv the frame remaining at rest) is always the frame that is emperically dilated. Why is it nobody ever honors the "I don't care about what each observer "Sees" during relative velocity"?

Originally Posted by phyti
--appear to be ticking slower than C.
And emperically can be shown to be actually dilated.

Originally Posted by phyti
--A and C are converging, A and B are diverging. Per the rules of physics, the motion of an object does not alter distant physical processes! The A clock ticks at one rate, B and C receive signals at different rates, thus the appearance of A is different for each.
If ten people surround a house, each will have a different picture of the same house.
I have no objections to claims that each appears dialed to the other. The issue is strictly about who will be permananetly dilated physically when there is no longer relative veloicty. And I happen to agree that what I do here has no physical affect on any other observer. However, James R and others here have argued that "What you see IS the physical reality" and that is why I'm here beating the bushes. They are screwed up and somebody needs to jput a stop to their nonsensebexcause they are screwing up perfectly good fresh young minds with their BS.

Originally Posted by phyti
Here is an interesting example:
A calculates (apparent) speed of B using v = (b-a)/(1-ab), where a and b are the speed of A and B respectively relative to a fixed rest frame.
case 1
a = 0 and b = .5c
A calculates the speed of B as .5c, which gives gamma = 1.15
The relative speed in the fixed frame is .5c.
case 2
a = .4c, and b = .75c
A calculates the speed of B as .5c, which gives gamma = 1.15
The relative speed in the fixed frame is .35c
Uou have not stipulated vector but it appears a and b are comoving. and you are applying a form of Velocity Addition. I have to ask what is the point relative to the issues raised?

Originally Posted by phyti
B's dilation is not a function of relative speed in the fixed frame or in the relative frame measurements. In case 2 the 'addition of velocities formula' would be used to correct b to its fixed frame value of .75c * by an observer in the fixed frame, giving a gamma of 1.51,
clearly not in agreement with A's calculation.

* A curious procedure for a theory that denies a fixed frame, until you know why it's needed!
I contend the idea of Velocity Addition is Ad HOc in the fisrt place. It's sole purpose is to insure veloicty never exceeds c because that is part of the theory. It is merely theory that nothing can go v>c.

20. Originally Posted by phyti
post 625
the Lorentz contraction will not be visible
--I can't agree with Penrose.
The observer sees a portion of a sphere of light composed of photons
arriving from various locations in space, just as a camera does.
If a rod is moving toward the viewer and offset to one side(so both ends
are visible), the photon from the far end would have to be emitted
before the photon from the near end, so both arrive simultaneously. The
path of each photon when projected onto the path of the rod will produce
an extended image of the rod. As the rod gets closer, the time
difference between the ends decreases, i.e. the rod will appear
stretched approaching from the horizon and continuosly contract as it
recedes to the opposite horizon. The physical length of the rod is seen
when it passes the observer, and both ends are equally distant.
This should be visible to the eye (with difficulty) and a (high tech ) camera.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I'll only say that TPR is currently fairly well accepted by mainstream scientist.