1. Originally Posted by Billy T
-------------------
* “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.
You are wasting our time Billy T I am NOT going through this again with you. You post is misleading, false and simply put BS and is not a proper description of what has been said. End of converation.

I'll only note as to this last comment by you. Pathetic. I'll give my scenario just this one last time.

A, B & C are at common rest and have laid out a test course.

The course consists of miles markers equal distance and in opposite direction from the rest location.

A and B are launched to go out to the last mile marker and signal they are prepared for the test. When C gets both their ready signals he transmits a launch you craft light signal. When A & B receive that signal Which is simultaneous to C, then they accelerate according to plan with equal rate because their craft are identical and are equipped with precisoin accelerometer controls.

According to plan when trhe both cross mile marker number 1 lyr they throttle down and go inertial at 0.6c, setting their clocks to "0". They instantly transmit to C a Start your clock light signal which happens to also be simultaneous to C..

When C receives those signals since C knows the distance involved and the speed of light he knows to pre-set his clock for the delay in receipt of the signals such that he sets his clock to 1 year so his start "0" conforms with the amount of time by his clock that has passed since they set their clocks to "0".

Since they launched simultneously to C and have an equal velocity to C and were equal distance from C they will pass C simultaneously after (1.6666 years) 1 year and 8 months or 56,764,800 seconds by C's clock.

At the moment they pass they each transmit to the other a digital signal saying what their clock accumulated time is. They also transmit what they computed each others clocks should read according to relativity.

At the juncture the test is over and all clocks are stopped for comparison. The entire test has been conducted only during inertial relative veloicty, has been simultaneously synchronized at C.

They can delerate and return to C for comparison but that is not necessary. C has all the test data. and A & B have the same data.

What is found is that the physical accumulated times are:

C = 56,764,800 seconds
A = 45,411,840 seconds
B = 45,411,840 seconds

This is in complete agreement with the predictions of the common rest frame.

A & B according to SR believe their relative velocity to be 0.88235c not the logical 1.2 based on .6c in opposite directions to C.

Based on that A predicted:

C = 45,411,840 seconds (this assumes SR's ludricrus assumption that A will see 0.6c to C and not have a dilated clock, even though it is traversing 1 lyr in 1.44 years by his clock which would compute to be 0.6944c not 0.6c.?
B = 12,885,884 seconds.

B predicts the same results for A and C.

But the ONLY valid prediction is the one that is made reference to the initial common rest frame and NOT any made while in motion.

Further it remains to be proven that A & B would compute 0.6c when they are seeing mile markers pass in 0.8 times as fast as they should or they would think they are going 0.75c regardless if the lesser accumulated time is due to TD or LC.

I do hope you got itv now because I WILL NOT repeat it again.

DO NOT come back with but A & B don't thik the other started simultaneously because what they think is irrelevant to the issue. The defacto simultaneous starting time of clocks is.

In contrast to your assertions that my view is silly consider this folks.

If A or B use any legitimate thoughtvprocess (assuming they actually see 0.6c not o,75c that I argue) then they mightvwell conclude that since I see C approaching at 0.6c and B approaching at 0.88235c then B must be moving 0.28235 relative to C hence B will have accumulated 54,455,123 seconds.

Hmmmm. Silly concept indeed.

2. Originally Posted by MacM
So says one apparently on the funding take.
Yes, I'm swimming in money because I'm 'on the funding take' As everyone knows, physicists become physicists because of the rock and roll life style.

It's harder (much, MUCH) harder for me to get a job in academia, particularly as I'm doing physics, and the pay compared to working in the private sector, with good number and analytic skills, is terrible. People go into academia to do something they love, if money were the driving factor we'd all be bankers.

3. Originally Posted by MacM
Originally Posted by phyti
Posted in Post #623--You have the 'fixed background of distant stars' and the 'cosmic background radiation' as the closest thing to a universal frame. Why these forms of radiation, because light emission at c is independent of its source, i.e. events don't move. This uniqueness also means light is not part of any inertial frame, and therefore can be used as a universal measuring tool. The downside is, using current knowledge, the event does not leave a marker that would enable you to return to the point of emission. ”

I agree that we can arbitrarily create a universal rest frame by simply assuming a 3D grid from the edges of the observable universe. It works part time but then there is time that requires you be at the ordinate of the grid and the grid moves with you.
Greetings Phyti and MacM.

Methinks phyti has made one correct statement and one incorrect statement. Light motion is independent of source motion and will be a 'law' cast in the reinforced stainless steel on the level of the 11th Commandment, at least for the purposes of this discussuon -- we will use this commandment to illuminate the error of the not so deep and abject dismay of the supposed 'downside'.

Take two perfectly parallel planes separated by a known distance. Along each length of the planes are absorber-light-emitters (ale) that were deposited in arrays allong the both lengths of the 1000 meter long planes arranged so the ale in the upperarray, ale-up-n is stationed exactly over a paired ale, the ale-down-n. The up-down separation of the ale planes is 100 meters and along each array the ale separations are 10 wavelength (or whatever works best) of the pulse.
.
The planes are rigidly attached to a structure that includes a data gathering computer-processor connected to each ale-n pair. The inertial frame system (IFS) begin moving in a direction parallel to the length of the1000 meter long planes. When the IFS is moving inertially and ale-up-1 emits a pulse, that pulse cannot reach ale-down-1 as the IFS moves ale-down-1 out from under the on coming pulse and is then absorbed by, say, ale-down-5. The process is repeated when the ale-down-5 emits a pulse aimed at ale-up-5, which has also moved by the time of the pulse arrival. Thre computer calculates the various emission and arrival times of the pulse as the observers see the pulse apparently moving along the array opposite to the IFS motion and just before the end of the array is reached when the pulse would seem to crash in to the wall the process repeats the cycle where the pulse starts over at ale-up-1. The system keeps a running measure of the IFS absolute velocity measured wrt to the trajectory of the emitted pulse moving pi/2 radians wrt the plane array motion -- this is guaranteed by the 11th Commandment, is it not? Of course there are three orthogonal planar arrays that maintain an input of data to the simple addition and division calculation.
Do any of your bottom lines insist on an actual physical stream of 'ghost pebbles' as an acceptable substitution for your downsided and nonextant markers? Said another way, would being able to calculate the exact position of your past origin and being able to navigate your way back home, would this blow your skirts up?
Now pomder the visual of all the diagrams of Michelkson-Morley experimental set up and projected light trajectories. Do you notice that pulse directed transverse to the frame motion is carried along by the moving MM structure? MM made a mistake. They should not have looked for wave shifts they should look back up the down trajectory. The triangular path of the MM experiment effectively must add a velocity component parallel to the frame direction of motion which would result, if true, a total speed of c' where c' > c. There are only two things you must always remember, and MacM can readily verify the first: Remember the Alamo, and of course, remember the 11th Comandment.

4. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Yes, I'm swimming in money because I'm 'on the funding take' As everyone knows, physicists become physicists because of the rock and roll life style.

It's harder (much, MUCH) harder for me to get a job in academia, particularly as I'm doing physics, and the pay compared to working in the private sector, with good number and analytic skills, is terrible. People go into academia to do something they love, if money were the driving factor we'd all be bankers.
Or politicians -

5. Well I've received several more replies but won't continue to post every one.

All total so far I've received 12 replies. (2) believe in Lorentz Contraction as a real physical process. One of those was not a physicist however.

The Dr that does surprised me in that he sent a rather lengthy message and he has been reading my material for a while and states he agrees with many of my views but that it is LC and not TD that causes relativity. (Billy T's view).

We are having a continuing discussion via e-mail.

As much as I'm sure it irks some here I do occassionaly get contacted by physicist, and other scientifc people that have read my material and generally like it. I can't think of anyone that has been a 100% convert but even if I am only 10% right SR is in trouble.

Here is the last one from a Dr Whitney:

************************************************** *******
Dan,

I think you are right. I did my PhD thesis in special relativity, and I have been thinking about it ever since.

More than 40 years later, I am sure SRT was founded on a postulate that in fact conflicts with Maxwell, and I trust Maxwell.

I believe experimenters who claim to confirm SRT are delusional.

CKW
************************************************** *******

6. I have tried several times to follow even your first paragraph below (only the first sentence do I understand, but from rest think you really mean "plates" not planes as planes do not have length - They extend to infinity in all 2D directions. So assuming you mean plates, are these plates 1000 by 1000 rectangles? (you say "along BOTH lengths") Perhaps you really meant two Line segments 1000m long and parallel? Which way is "up" if that is the case? (one end is up or one line is above the other? If two closely spaced line segments does it matter which way is "up"?) Please try to more exacting in your discription. Even MacM is more exact, but leaves one to guess at some things in his latest scenario, such as is mile marker 0 at C? or elsewhere? and other questions, like where did his numbers come from? (What values were put into what formulae.)
Originally Posted by geistkiesel
...Take two perfectly parallel planes separated by a known distance. Along each length of the planes are absorber-light-emitters (ale) that were deposited in arrays allong the both lengths of the 1000 meter long planes arranged so the ale in the upperarray, ale-up-n is stationed exactly over a paired ale, the ale-down-n. The up-down separation of the ale planes is 100 meters and along each array the ale separations are 10 wavelength (or whatever works best) of the pulse....

7. To MacM (on your post 661):

I am nearly sure that A & B went out from C in opposite directions* initially and that the 0 lyr marker is at C so will assume that and take A’s POV for the following disussion:

C is rushing at A at 0.6C and B is rushing at A (assuming you are correct with you numbers) at 0.88235C

I doubt that for A, B started his accumulator running at the same time as A did (that is C’s POV of what happened).
But if we just focus on time dilation it does not matter much. Quoting from my post 658: 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.

Using your numbers from C’s POV, the time dilation for C of A (or B) was (45,411,840/56,764,800) = 0.8 or in words C’s clock ticked 5 times while A ticked only 4.

I know you don’t believe in reciprocity, but you have to at least state what SR states when saying what SR states and not:

“A predicted: C = 45,411,840 seconds (this assumes SR's ludricrus assumption …”
You had just said above that that A’s clock was showing: A = 45,411,840 seconds in this text of yours:

“… What is found is that the physical accumulated times are:
C = 56,764,800 seconds
A = 45,411,840 seconds
B = 45,411,840 seconds …”

So correctly stating what SR states (That for A, C’s clock ticks only 4 time for each 5 ticks of A’s own clocks –Reciprocal time dilation is the SR position.), SR predicts A’s predictions should be 80% of A’s own, 45,411,840 seconds, or 36,329,472 seconds, not what you falsely state would be "SR approved" predictions. You cannot give MacM’s SR prediction that there is no reciprocal time dilation as if it were the accepted SR prediction.

Why do you say A predicts C has accumulated the same time A has? SR states C is time dilated for A.

I am not sure what you are trying to show with your newest scenario, but you should not say SR predicts A will see the same accumulation as A when SR states that time dilation is a reciprocal effect of their (A & C) equal 0.6 relative velocity just because YOU don’t think this SR is correct or believe in this reciprocity.

PS it would be nice in exchange for my comments if you would make some critical comment on my post 612 instead of just calling it BS. That does not give you even credit for understanding that a tiny 1m movement that took 100 years forces MacM’s SR to switch in case 2 to C as the CRF instead of P as the CRF when clock b did not move at all on the table top during that 100 years (case 1). Because the relative velocity of frames C & P is 0.6C, this tiny motion on the table top in case 2 (so slow a human cannot even see any movement in 8 hours) causes MacM SR to calculate the time dilation of the two cases with very different speeds inserted into the formula. (One speed is ~0.6C greater than for the other case.) yet the time dilation is for the final inertial states, a million years after both clocks left the table top.

--------
*You stating : "A and B are launched to go out to the last mile marker and signal they are prepared for the test." is confusing as they really, I think, went out to two different markerS 2 Lyr separated.

8. Billy T post 630

I meant to answer sooner but got behind.

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.*
--It's not the frequency of the light emitted, it's the frequency of
emission of light! The clock rate appears the same to each owner because
they have slowed by the same factor. It's similar to the idea of length
contracted to half, you would still measure the same length. Viewers
outside not moving with you will observe the dilation.

The amount of this time dilation of ALL clocks resting in frame C
depends ONLY on the relative velocity of frame C & B, for example the
speed at which their two XY coordinate system origins are separating.
--Any clock rate slows as a function of its speed relative to light.
When relative velocity is used, one observer is usually assumed at rest,
when in fact that cannot be determined. The example in 656 shows using
the same relative difference in speed, is inconsistent.

MacM, I think, and QQ I am sure, and many other erroneously think that the existence of time dilation means the clock has had some physical
change to make it tick at a different rate.
--The light clock demonstrates the physical effect of motion on
timekeeping. The muon experiments and gps correction procedures verify
it occurs.

9. Originally Posted by Billy T
To MacM (on your post 661):

I am nearly sure that A & B went out from C in opposite directions* initially and that the 0 lyr marker is at C so will assume that and take A’s POV for the following disussion:

C is rushing at A at 0.6C and B is rushing at A (assuming you are correct with you numbers) at 0.88235C

I doubt that for A, B started his accumulator running at the same time as A did (that is C’s POV of what happened).
God damnit, stop right here. We don't give a damn what "A" thinks "B" did.

10. Originally Posted by phyti
...It's not the frequency of the light emitted, it's the frequency of emission of light!

The clock rate appears the same to each owner because they have slowed by the same factor. It's similar to the idea of length contraction, if your ship and its contents (including your ruler) contracted to half, you would still measure the same length. Viewers outside not moving with you will observe the dilation.
The frequency of emission of a photon by an atom will depend upon the rate at which the atom is excited. For example the rate at which it is making collisons with other atoms (or electrons). Thus, if it is in a chamber with N like atoms /cubic centimeter, and the temperate is increased (greater average atomic speed) the rate of emission will increase as the collision rate will increase. This has NOTHING to do with changing its energy levels. If it emitted blue light when colder, it still emits blue light when hotter. (There is a slight increase in the spread of the wavelengths, called the line width, due to the Doppler effect. -more atoms going faster both away and toward any given direction.)

I guess one could take the point of view that your rocket ship has contracted and you do not know it because your meter stick has contracted the same amount, but it is very strange, abnormal way to think, and requires infinite flexibility as the 50% contraction (wrt frame A) and the 50.0001% contraction (wrt to frame B) and the 50.0002% contraction (wrt Frame C) .... Etc. for a zillion other frames are all happing at the same time.) This seems to me to be a very silly and self contradictory POV - How can my rocket ship actually contract by a zillion different factors at the same time?

I much prefer the POV that it does not contract at all in my reality. It only contracts (by one factor) in A's reality and (by another factor in B's reality)... Etc.

Originally Posted by phyti
...Any clock rate slows as a function of its speed relative to light.
When relative velocity is used, one observer is usually assumed at rest,
when in fact that cannot be determined. The example in 656 shows using
the same relative difference in speed, is inconsistent.
this make no sense at all to me, as I accept as true that the speed of light wrt to the clock is ALWAYS the same C. As far as post 656 is concerned I re-skimmed it and it seems to be an attempt at analogy with water waves which do not travel at the same speed for all observers. For example, a boats go thru the water them make what is called the bow wave. (Quite interestingly the angle between the right and left side parts of this bow wave does NOT depend upon the speed of the boat.) For an observer on the boat the bow wave is not even moving remains fixed to the point of the boat and does not even change its angular shape as the boat changes speed. But for the boat sitting at anchor, that bow wave comes to him, rocks his boat and then passes on.

Thus such a false analogy, which changes the essential constant speed for all observers of a light wave into a water wave does not show anything about light waves.

Originally Posted by phyti
...The light clock demonstrates the physical effect of motion on timekeeping. The muon experiments and gps correction procedures verify it occurs.
I do NOT think so. The observer traveling with the muons, finds that the decay at the SAME rate as the observer who measured them in an Earth lab. (Physics is same in all inertial frames shows this.)

People on the Earth surface are amazed to find that most of them make it down from 100,000 feet to the surface whereas in the lab, if traveling tiny fraction of C, speed of light, most have decayed before they can travel 10 feet. This FACT can be understood by two different POVs when Standard SR is applied:
From Earth's POV, time is passing more slowly for the high speed cosmic ray produced muons.
From the muon's frame POV, Earth has a very thin atmosphere to pass thru, less than 10 feet thick.

What do you think of post 612? Does it not show that standard SR computes exactly the same time dilation, TD, for clocks a & b at the end of the scenario, when they have both been inertial for a million years for cases 1 & 2, which have IDENTICAL conditions for the last million years? Does it not show that MacM's SR computes two different TDs (one for case 1 and the other for case 2)? Recall that the ONLY difference between cases 1 & 2. is that slightly more than a million years before the time this TD is calculated for, clock b moved so slowly on a table that human watching for an 8 hour day could not even detect the movement just by looking (Probably a physicist could if a mirror were mounted on clock b to make it part of an interferometer.)

The scenario of post 612 (modified to be more general than an earlier verson which had the table mounted on Pluto so that new frame is still called "frame P") is designed to show how an insignificant motion forces MacM's SR to use the earlier initial launch frame C as the last CRF in case 2 (the slow move of b on the table top case.) Instead of have frame P as the last CRF (in case 1 where b does not move at all on the table top) I.e. MacM's SR uses the velocities wrt the last CRF and gets very different TDs for the same current conditions (which have not changed in a million years) because frame P is moving wrt Frame C at 0.6C. (this makes the velocities inserted into the TD equation very different in the two cases. (They are ~0.6C higher in case 2 than in case 1)

MacM never even tries to tell how the clocks remember what happen a million years earlier. I.e. in the present era the two cases have the identical condition, unchanged for a million years, yet somehow the clocks know / remember whether these identical condition are final state of case 1 or the final state of case 2.

Perhaps you have an idea how the clocks could remember what happened on that table top a million years earlier? So that the TD of clock b wrt to tick rate of clock a in case 1,TDba1 and be different from TDba2 even though the conditions are the same now (and for the last million years) for both cases.

What do you think? Does this not show that MacM's SR is nonsense?

11. [QUOTE=Billy T;2331251] 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.

Bullsh__. tick rate time duration is displayed time and when clocks that were synchronized come together subsequent to having had relative velocity and only one is displaying less time then relative velocity clearly was not the cause of dilation.

12. Originally Posted by Billy T
MacM never even tries to tell how the clocks remember what happen a million years earlier. I.e. in the present era the two cases have the identical condition, unchanged for a million years, yet somehow the clocks know / remember whether these identical condition are final state of case 1 or the final state of case 2.

Perhaps you have an idea how the clocks could remember what happened on that table top a million years earlier? So that the TD of clock b wrt to tick rate of clock a in case 1,TDba1 and be different from TDba2 even though the conditions are the same now (and for the last million years) for both cases.

What do you think? Does this not show that MacM's SR is nonsense?
Pardon my French but you are acting like a real dumbass.

If clocks were synchronized a million years ago then their collective accumulated time is their memory.

If they were never synchronized a million years ago or one hour ago then their displayed times tells you nothing.

13. Originally Posted by phyti
--The light clock demonstrates the physical effect of motion on timekeeping. The muon experiments and gps correction procedures verify it occurs.
Correct. However:

1 - A recent study found ansitrophy in the muon dilation data and used that to compute the solar system motion among gallasies and came up with the same general 300km/sec figure that has been done using other methods.

The conclusion of that was that muon time dilation was better described by considering it's motion to the CMB than to the earth. i.e. - some absolute motion.

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

2 - GPS uses what is called the ECI (Earth Center Inertial) frame of reference to compute velocity affects of orbit. It is not a relative velocity between surface and orbit. The ECI forms what is effectively an absolute rest frame. That is you cannot claim the orbiting clock is at rest and the ECI has motion. It precludes the reciprocity of SR's mere relative velocity view.

In other words SR is not used in GPS. Further there are arguements both ways thatv SR is and is not used in GPS. "The NOT's are correct".

Some argue that SR can't be used because orbit is a rotating frame and is under constant acceleration, hence is non-inertial.

But others point out that orbit is a form of free-fall acceleration and normal gravitational free-fall is inertial.

I personally see orbit as inertial but SR is not used because taking orbit velocity vs surface velocity as being realtive velocity of the clocks only yields -5.8us/day and the correct value is -7.2us/day; which is the result of taking the difference in gamma of orbit to the ECI and gamma of surface to the ECI.

That is you must use a common rest frame and compute respective dilation of each's absolute motion to that frame.

You cannot use SR or relative velocity between clocks.

14. Originally Posted by MacM
God damnit, stop right here. We don't give a damn what "A" thinks "B" did.
Yes, I agree what A "thinks" is not important. A can think the moon is made of green cheese. It is reality that is important. The reality is that events which are simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous in another. (This is explained in greater detail in my post 676.)

Although A cannot deny that C's counter is displaying more ticks than A's own accumulator is, A understands this part of reality (for All in A’s frame) that C both added the number of seconds that light requires to travel one Lyr to his counter (God only knows why from A’s reality.) AND started counting clock ticks before A did. This is why C recorded 56,764,800 seconds when A recorded 45,411,840 seconds. C’s clock was running slower than A’s clock was, so if C had actually accumulated during the same interval as A accumulated 45,411,840 seconds, and did not ad an arbitrary number of seconds to the total, then A’s accumulator would be displaying 36,329,472 seconds.

You keep refusing to consider the scenario of post 612 which does not need any simultaneous events in different frames nor does it need to synchronize any clocks. It only COMPUTES the time dilation, TD of clock b wrt the tick rate of clock a, or in my compact symbolic notation: TDba for two almost identical cases, 1 & 2. These cases ONLY differ by a small move of clock b on a table top in case 2 and zero movement on that table top by clock b in case 1. (Movement is so slow it is not even detectable by human watching for 8 hours!)

None the less that tiny movement forces MacM's version of SR to use velocities wrt the original CRF, called C, in case 2 and wrt to a CRF, called P, in case 1 in the equation used to compute TDba but as the relative velocity of the frame P wrt C is 0.6C, the velocities inserted into the TD formula are very different and two different TDs are computed, called TDba1 and TDba2, to distinguish them as they are not the same when MacM’s post 93 version of SR is used for the calculation.

The real conditions when these TDs are calculated for, are identical (and have been for last million years). I.e. clock a has been in inertial frame A and Clock b in inertial Frame B for a million years; but despite these identical conditions NOW, a million+ years after both clocks left the table top, which is still fixed in frame P, and both clocks "went inertial," MacM's SR computes TDba1 for case 1 and the different TDba2 for case 2.

Standard SR never has different results for identical current condition as it only used the current relative velocity in the calculation formula for TD. That velocity (and everything else) is the same for the IDENTICAL conditions that have existed for a million years for case 1 and case 2. Somehow, which you refuse to describe, in MacM's SR the clocks "remember" whether these long identical condition are the result of zero or very slow motion on a table top a million+ years ago.

15. MacM, calling my "recital" of your post 93 "bull shit" or saying: "you are acting like a real dumbass." is NOT a replying argument with facts. It is only “name calling." Can you not do better in your replies to the arguments presented in post 612?

It is especially foolish of you to call my recital of your post 93 methodology BS, unless you can point to some place in post 612 where I did not follow your procedures of post 93 exactly to conclude that two different time dilations result for the identical final conditions of case 1 & case 2.

I.e. for these identical conditions, case 1 computes TDba1 which differs greatly from case 2's TDba2 because a million+ years earlier, in case 2 clock b moved so slowly on a table top that humans could not even see it move if watching it for an 8 hours day.

That tiny, undetectable by humans in a day of watching, movement does however force MacM's SR to use different CRFs for the two cases and corresponding very different velocities are inserted in the formula for Time Dilation, yielding the different calculation results TDba1 and TDba2.

16. Originally Posted by MacM
... If they were never synchronized a million years ago or one hour ago then their displayed times tells you nothing.
This is the case that applies as clocks a & b were never telling/ displaying the same time even in the original frame C of scenario in post 612. I also agree that even if they were, what they are displaying at any one instant tells you nothing about their relative time dilations. For that clock a must accumulate for a period, say 1000 ticks, and for that same period of A, notice the change in displays of clocks in Frame B.

For example, perhaps there are two observers in Frame A, at different stations along the line of clock b's motion thru the coordinated grid fixed in A, which are one of A's miles apart. Call these to stationary in A observers A1 and A2.

When clock b passes by A1, that observer notes both what his local clock is displaying and what clock b is displaying on a piece of paper. (The people in frame B are known to be very careful about their clocks. They, like the people in A make tests every day to be sure that all the clocks in their own frame are properly synchronized.)

Likewise observer A2 writes down what his own clock and what passing clock B are displaying as clock b passes on a piece of paper. These papers are mailed to SR's TC (Time Center) for examination. Here is what that exam revels:

The difference between displays (A2 - A1) for A frame clocks is 1000 seconds.
The difference between displays (A2 - A1) for B frame clocks is 800 seconds.

So the A frame's SR time center report 746, states that for the 746th time SR preditions of time dilation in the frame moving wrt to us in Frame A have been confirmed.

Now exactly the same thing was being done in frame B. When those frame B papers arrived at Frame B's SR's TTC (Time Test Center - they have a slightly different name in frame B.) and were and studied the TTC issues the TTC report TTC 746 and it too concludes that SR has been confirmed again. – I.e. that frame A, which is moving wrt the TTC, has clocks that are running at only 80% the rate of the cesium clock in Frame B.

The TTC unkindly adds a footnote to its report telling that the "Jerks in Frame A" at the TC did not know how to properly synchronize their own clocks and cites the fact that at the same instant when properly synchronized frame B clocks were all showing 12 Noon, only one clock in all of frame A was showing 12:00:00 for day 8563. (Far from it, another clock of A was also showing 12:00:00 but telling it was day 8564, etc.) "Those Jerks at the TC don't even know what day it is! One clock telling a different day from another at the same time!" The first draft of Report TTC 746 stated.

Fortunately for inter frame relations, the editor cut out the harshest part of that footnote out before the report was published and replaced “Jerks” everywhere in the report with “the people”.

Much of MacM's problem with standard SR comes from his belief that if the start and stop accumulation time events were simultaneous for observers in fame C, then they MUST be simultaneous for observers in all other frames too as his common sense tells him that must be the case. What follows from only the fact that the speed of light is same for all inertial frames and that physic is the same for them also (namely standard SR) violates MacM's common sense so he rejects what mathematically follows from these two facts.

17. Originally Posted by Billy T
Much of MacM's problem with standard SR comes from his belief that if the start and stop accumulation time events were simultaneous for observers in fame C, then they MUST be simultaneous for observers in all other frames too as his common sense tells him that must be the case. What follows from only the fact that the speed of light is same for all inertial frames and that physic is the same for them also (namely standard SR) violates MacM's common sense so he rejects what mathematically follows from these two facts.
Damn it Billy. I really wish you would knock it off. MacM does not have a problem with simultaneity. I full well understand A & B see things differently that C, while in motion., ect.

However, it is irrelevant. The relevant issue is that when they pass by C "Simualtaneously" the digital transmitted data shows that all those different perspectives A to B, B to A, A to C, B to C, are not supported by emperical data. What they saw was an illusion of motion. The reality is what their accumulated times demonstrated.

Now I had them transmit data as they passed. I could just as well stopped their clocks, and had them turn around and come back go into a common conference room and set their clocks side by side on the table. The data would be the same and it shows that compared in a common rest frame "Subsequent to having had relative velocity" what the reality of the clocks were and it is NOT what moving observers see.

End of discussion. The rest is not at issue. As to simultaneity of the test it is done properly according to SR by using a light signal to A & B transmitted from C simualtaneously to launch and by equal acceleration, hence inertial velocity and equi-distance of A & B from C the tranmission of simultaneous light confirmation signals from A & B back to C. The fact that they are receive simultaneously by C verifies they were transmitted simultaneous.

The only thing you haven't commented on is the fact that I based A & B prediction on receeding velocities not approaching velocities. I realized that after posting but since it doesn't alter the conclusion or outcome I hadn't bothered re-doing the calculations. That is their view be it + / - relative velocity do not match the emperical data.

Now as to pissing around with your scenarios I have no intention of doing so since you have repeatedly ignored and declined to properly respond to the issues raised.

ISSUE:

Regardless if you support time dilation or Lorentz Contraction as being the physical reality there is one inescapable consequence behind apparent time dilation.

A moving observer will be unable to sense or measure either his clock being dilated or his meter stick being foreshortened. Therefor having made a trip:

Given rest distance is 1lyr between Y & Z locations. A launches from Y toward Z at t=0 for both A & B where B is located on Z.

A flies by Y at 0.9c and a start test light signal is transmitted to B at location Z. Upon receipt of the singal B knows A has been in route 1 year. That means he will fly by B after another 0.1111n years according to B. That is B will record his trip time as 1.11111 years.

But according to A he will have taken only 0.484 years to make the trip. Having gone 1 lyr in 0.484 years he has no option but to conclude he was going FTL at 2.06c! v = ds / dt = 1 lyr / 0.484 yr = 2.06c.

18. Originally Posted by MacM
...A moving observer will be unable to sense or measure either his clock being dilated or his meter stick being foreshortened.
That is true, Phyti said the same and I agree. I even allowed that one could take the POV that his rocket and meter sticks did contract the same in his reality, rather than in the reality of others in other frames, but it is a strange POV as the very same meter stick must be contracting a zillion different ways at the same time. If the reality of A in normal SR is that the sticks contract 50% is to be replace with them really contracting for rocket frame by 50% and rocket guy not noticing as everything has contracted 50%, then there is a slight different frame from A, called B, for which the 50.0001% contraction must be replaced by the rocket ship and its meters contracting 50.0001% etc. for a zillion other frames.

I cannot accept that POV. I state, as I understand SR to state that the rocket does not contract in the reality of the rocket guy by all these different amounts (nor BTW does his cesium clock tick at different rates in his reality). Instead the reality for A is where the rocket contracts 50% and the reality of B is that it contracts 50.0001% etc. I do not accept multi-contractions for one frame as reality. You can if you wish.
Originally Posted by MacM

Given rest distance is 1lyr between Y & Z locations. A launches from Y toward Z at t=0 for both A & B where B is located on Z.

A flies by Y at 0.9c and a start test light signal is transmitted to B at location Z. Upon receipt of the singal B knows A has been in route 1 year. That means he will fly by B after another 0.1111n years according to B. That is B will record his trip time as 1.11111 years.

But according to A he will have taken only 0.484 years to make the trip. Having gone 1 lyr in 0.484 years he has no option but to conclude he was going FTL at 2.06c! v = ds / dt = 1 lyr / 0.484 yr = 2.06c.

You seem to introduce a new scenario with every other post. I have no idea what this new one is about or trying to prove. I did understand your one with A & B flying inertially into C from opposite directions, C getting simultaneously their "I have started to accumulate" signals with both A & B terminating accumulation when simultaneously (for all three) arriving at C, etc. and commented on it.

Basically my comments were that the reason why in A's reality C recorded more ticks, even though in A's reality C's clocks were running slower or Time Dilated, was due to two things:
(1) C added extra ticks, or started his accumulator with the counter not at zero.
And
(2) C in A's reality, C stated accumulation before A did. They all three only terminated accumulation simultaneously. You set the scenario up so that in C's reality A & B did start simultaneously but in the reality of both A & B, C committed the two "sins" (1) and (2) just mentioned.

I do not like to get into these simultaneity arguments (or discuss the fact that only one clock in each frame can be synchronized with one in another but not All the clocks in two different frames can be synchronized together) so I focused on computation of Time Dilation, TD, not measurement of it. There is the standard method of SR theory and there is the MacM method of post 93, which inserts the velocity wrt the last CRF in to the computation formulae.

I have only the scenario of post 612, not your dozens even with cars and airplanes. I have responded to all I could understand. You have not responded to post 612 except to call me names and say it is BS. I know it is embarrassing that the extremely slow move on a table top fixed in frame P of clock b in case 2 forces you to drop frame P as the last CRF and used Frame C as the last CRF and insert velocities that are greater by ~0.6C into the formula for case 2. (That was the intent of the scenario.) The only difference of case 2 from case 1 was that in case 1 clock b did not move on the table top so slowly that humans could not detect any motion even watching all day long, yet that tiny undetectable speed of b while on the table top, in case 2, forced use of very different velocities in the calculation of TD a million years later when both clocks a & b had been inertial for a million years. I.e. for case 1 your post 93 procedure computed TDba1 and for Case 2 it computes a very different TDba2. Standard SR only uses current relative velocity, not ancient history and gets TDba1 = TDba2 as for the last million years the actual current conditions of the two clocks have not only been identical, they have been unchanged.

You never tell how the clocks in the identical final state conditions (resulting from either or both case 1 and case 2) remember which case lead to these same, for both cases, identical conditions so that in MacM SR, TDba1 is not the same as TDba2.

You never present any arguments of any kind - only state it is BS and / or call me names. I know you hope this scenario 612 will "just go away." Trust me - it won't, not until you comment on it, try to point out the error, etc. as I have on several of yours.

19. Originally Posted by Billy T
That is true, Phyti said the same and I agree. I even allowed that one could take the POV that his rocket and meter sticks did contract the same in his reality, rather than in the reality of others in other frames but it is a strange POV as the very same meter stick must be contracting a zillion different ways at the same time.

If the reality of A in normal SR is that the sticks contract 50% is to be replace with them really contracting for rocket frame by 50% and rocket guy not noticing as everything has contracted 50%, then there is a slight different frame from A, called B, for which the 50.0001% contraction must be replaced by the rocket ship and its meters contracting 50.0001% etc. for a zillion other frames.
You would of course be comparing that to SR's zillion different simultaneous time tick rates for a clock. Why do you have a problem with that and not with time dilation?

Just like I have said you cannot claim relative velocity causes physical change otherwise you will get a zillion different [hysical tick rates for a clock or now if you assume the physical affect is contractions a zillion different lengths.

Maybe you are starting to realize that relative velocity doesn't really cause physical change.

Originally Posted by Billy T
I cannot accept that POV.
Why not you did for time dilation. I have told you repeatedly that to assume relative veloicty produces a real physical change led to multiple tick rates, now multiple lengths. You want to object to lengths but were perfectly happy with mjltyiple time dilations. - Hmmmm.

Originally Posted by Billy T
I state, as I understand SR to state that the rocket does not contract in the reality of the rocket guy by all these different amounts (nor BTW does his cesium clock tick at different rates in his reality). Instead the reality for A is where the rocket contracts 50% and the reality of B is that it contracts 50.0001% etc. I do not accept multi-contractions for one frame as reality.
Then stop supporting multiple tick rates for clocks as a physical reality and when you have finished rejecting these physical realities welcome to MacM's physics. It means relative velocity isn't the cause of these affects.

Originally Posted by Billy T
You can if you wish.You seem to introduce a new scenario with every other post. I have no idea what this new one is about or trying to prove. I did understand your one with A & B flying inertially into C from opposite directions, C getting simultaneously their "I have started to accumulate" signals with both A & B terminating accumulation when simultaneously (for all three) arriving at C, etc. and commented on it.
If you are talking about the ISSUE in my post then you need to slow down and think. If either time dilation or length contraction are real then the traveling observer traverses a 100 mile course in one hour if tick dilation or length is 50% such that he MUST compute his velocity (speed) was 100 Mph

Yet a resting observer sees him require 2 hours or computes was going 50 Mph. SORRY trhere is no alternative to this conclusion. I've been screaming about this now for several years and you seem to be starting to see the point.

This has NOTHING to do with MacM's fantasylnd physics as James R likes to say in an effort to mitigate my posts, it is a simple unavoidable fact using standard SR physics.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Basically my comments were that the reason why in A's reality C recorded more ticks, even though in A's reality C's clocks were running slower or Time Dilated, was due to two things:
(1) C added extra ticks, or started his accumulator with the counter not at zero.
What. C set his clock to 1 year the instant he received a confirmation signal transmitted 1 lyr away. His clock was properly synchronized since 1 yer prior A & B had set their clocks to "0". The diffenernce is EITHER clock tick rates due to different absolute energy levels or A & B traverse less distance than seen by C due to contracted space according to SR.

One or the other MUST be physically real because emperical data has demonstrated time and again a desynchronization of a clock that accelerates away from a resting click that were synchronized at common rest.

Originally Posted by Billy T
And

(2) C in A's reality, C stated accumulation before A did. They all three only terminated accumulation simultaneously. You set the scenario up so that in C's reality A & B did start simultaneously but in the reality of both A & B, C committed the two "sins" (1) and (2) just mentioned.
Bull Dung. You are mixing moving observatons with real emperical data subsequent to having had relative velocity. What you are calling "sins" are nothing more than illusions of diastance and relative motion. The reality is A, B & C all have t=0 set to the same simultaneous time at C and it is at C that the data is transmitted shoiwng thecdifference in accumulated time. That difference has absolutely NOTHING to do with what A or B thought about C.

Originally Posted by Billy T
I do not like to get into these simultaneity arguments (or discuss the fact that only one clock in each frame can be synchronized with one in another but not All the clocks in two different frames can be synchronized together) so I focused on computation of Time Dilation, TD, not measurement of it. There is the standard method of SR theory and there is the MacM method of post 93, which inserts the velocity wrt the last CRF in to the computation formulae.
I'm sure you don't like to acknowledge that given equal light signals my three clocks became synchronized but that is the reality and the results are not what you want to hear.

Originally Posted by Billy T
I have only the scenario of post 612, not your dozens even with cars and airplanes. I have responded to all I could understand.
Then you need to learn to read because they have been straight forward, simly written and clear.

Originally Posted by Billy T
You never present any arguments of any kind - only state it is BS and / or call me names. I know you hope this scenario 612 will "just go away." Trust me - it won't, not until you comment on it, try to point out the error, etc. as I have on several of yours.
If you had answered my scenarios properly I might have considered trying to muddel through yours but you are the one that startied posting MacM's silly concept, etc. saying I said things I had not, that I beleived things that I do not, and declined to actually respond to the issues I raised.

Which you still have not done.

ISSUE:

Given that either time dilation (clock tick rate or distance via length contrction MUST provide a physical basis for emperical data indicating a moving clock accumulates less time how do you justify ignoring that the moving observer MUST compute a higher relative veloicty?

v = ds / dt and the observer cannot sense or detect either gamma condition above. All he knows is how far he went in time by his clock (tm). All the resting observer knows is it took him longer to make the trip (tr). When gamma = 2.0:

vm = ds / tm = ds/0.5 = 2.0

vr = ds / tr = ds / 1.0 = 1.0

20. post659

“ 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. ”

--Time dilation is a function of absolute velocity i.e. relative to light in a fixed frame. As mentioned, currently this cannot be determined. If A leaves B at .5c to the right (+x), it could be that A & B were moving to the left at .5c, therefore B is in fact moving at 0c. In SR there is no determination of how much dilation occurs until two clocks are rejoined. The twin case is simple because it's asymmetric with a one legged trip vs. a two legged trip (the least time). If you calculate the td for an object with speed v1 relative
to the earth, i.e. the earth is static, you get td1. If you include earth speed,
then it's v2 relative to the sun, and you get td2, and so on. In this progression of using larger ref. frames, eventually you end with the entire universe. If you considered the universe as static (since there would be nothing else to reference relative motion), then the cosmic background of light emissions would be the the closest thing to a fixed frame.

Follow along for a bit. Assume light emission does leave a marker
in the form of a radioactive particle that is not affected by anything else. Photons are emitted at random locations within a sphere 1 lyr in diameter. The markers can be detected and the distances from any one to all the others can be measured. The interesting property of the markers is they don't move, i.e. they represent a fixed frame. Now expand the sphere to include all events in the universe. If you could measure the speed of an object relative to a marker, it would be equivalent to measuring the speed relative to light speed. That object speed would yield the actual td. Until there is a method to do this, we only have relative td. For slow speeds and large mass ref frames, the relative td is probably close. Since I'm not convinced of 'expansion' of the universe as currently presented, it is not included here.

“ Originally Posted by phyti
--appear to be ticking slower than C. ”

And emperically can be shown to be actually dilated.
--They all have td, if A&B return to C they have the most, if C moves to A&B
C has the most. (one leg vs. two)

“ 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.
-- The accumulated loss of time will will be greatest for A because it makes the two-legged trip.

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.
--What you see is perception which SR shows is altered by the observers
motion. It's how things appear, but you need additional information to
conclude what's physically real. A coin held at an angle appears
elliptical, but we can explain it away using geometry.

“ 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?
--The formula is the result of A & B using radar methods to measure each other's speed. The point is, that A can measure the same relative speed for B using different speed combinations and yet B has different td values for each.
Thus td is not a function of relative speed.

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.
--It is a consequence of the formulation of the theory, and ultimately a result of a constant finite speed of light. If the theory is examined in terms of physical processes, it is necessary to correct the exaggerated relative speeds as calculated by moving observers.
In case 2 of the previous example, A calculated the relative speed of B as .5c, when in fact it was .35.