1. NOTICE: MEMBERS AND VISITORS

Billy T has spent many days and pages here making statements about what MacM "Thinks", Believes", "Says", etc. NONE of which are actually based on anything I have said, think or believe.

His posts are full of shear nonsense so I will state here what is and has always been my views.

1 - Special Relativity advocates that an observer moving inertially can rightfully declare himself as being at rest and hence that two observers moving inertially with a relative velocity to each other means either can assume to be at rest and it is the other that has all motion.

Further Special Relativity provides a mathematical tool called Gamma that proclaims to predict time dilation and/or Lorentz Contraction based on relative velocity. This fact leads to what is known to be a symmetrical situation and causes reciprocity of affect.

That is where "A" sees "B" as time dilated at the same time as "B" sees "A" time dilated.

There are some here that want to claim that this situation is real and is a physical reality.

MACM's Actual View: This aspect of Special Relativity exists but is only an abberation, perception, or illusion of motion since it vanishes once relative velocity terminates. There is no permanent physical changes associated with the mere relative velocity between observers (clocks) affect.

To suggest this is in any way a physical reality it utter nonsense since it requires two clocks to both tick slower than each other at the same time. Nothing wrong with that being a perception or illusion caused by motion or distance between observers.

Just as watching a carpenter from a distance and seeing the hammer rise as you hear it hit the nail. It is the illusion not the reality at the hammer and nail's physical location.

2 - Modern physics however employ what they call "Frame Switching" when putting Special Relativity's mathematics to actual practice and predicting real time dilation.

MACM's Actual View:"Frame Switching" is another term to describe who has "Actual Velocity" vs "Mere Relative Velocity". You can only switch frames if you change inertial velocity and you can only do that if you accelerate/decelerate.

To accelerate or decelerate means a change in inertial velocity which is an absolute affect. That is while you accelerate and have actual velocity via basic physical affects of F = ma, a = F/m, v = at, Work = F * d, Power = Wk/t, etc. Such that at some universal level you have changed energy state.

Not only have you changed energy state but you are no longer considering "Relative Velocity" between observers or clocks. You are considering your velocity to a former inertial rest reference, a calculation based on an absolute value and not merely a relative value.

If and ONLY if another clock was at common rest with you and has remained at rest will Special Relativity's mathematics generate a correct time dilation prediction between you and this other clock. That is only possible because the clock is at your initial inertial rest reference frame.

If the other clock has also moved then you must compute your dilation to the common rest frame, compute the other clocks time dilation to the comon rest frame and then take the difference between dilations as the dilation between you.

This is the only thing that emperical data has ever supported in over 100 years of relativity.

3 - Special Relativity stipulates that a moving frame is time dilated but when computing in the moving frame ignores the stipulated dilated condition so as to argue that the moving observer must have gone less distance since relative velocity is symmetrical and he accumulated less time for the trip.

Relativists argue both time dilation and lorentz contraction are real physical affects but are observer frame dependant.

MACM's Actual View:"You can select either Lorentz Contraction or clock time dilation as the physical cause for a moving observer accumulating less time for a trip than a resting observer measures.

However, it is ludricrus to suggest that anything physical is subject to an observer view point. An observer may mistake a physical condition by encumbered observation but he cannot cause a physical event by observation.

Retaining common sense physics and that either time dilation or length contraction must physically account for the observed affect, and it is emperically confirmed, I choose time dilation over length contraction for logical reasons.

That does not mean I'm correct it could be either but that doesn't alter the situation in the final analysis.

If an accelerated clock is subjected to an energy change that affects it's tick rate then that dilated condition to the resting clock is physical and real in all frames. That is if I have accelerated and my clock now ticks only 8 times to your resting clock's 10 times then I MUST use the 0.8 dilated tick rate when computing in my moving frame.

That is what is NOT done in Special Relativity. When computing in Special Relativity they ignore the dilated condition of the clock timing the trip and then argue since it accumulated less time and relative velocity is symmetrical it must have traveled less distance.

By doing that they have switched time standards when they switched frames.
If you retain the dilated condition stipulated based on the accelerated motion
then the accumulated time on the moving clock for the trip is ONLY correct if distance remained fixed and there was no spatial contraction.

This means the Einstein concept of merged time-space is flawed and time and space are in fact seperate enities or properties. Time dilation based on universal energy seems to be a logical process.

If you choose Lorentz Contraction as the physical cause then there are some rather bizzar consequences.

a - At sufficient relavistic velocity when you accelerate you get closer to whatever you are flying away from!

b - A particle being accelerated to 0.9999c in 10 usec has the universe dimensions in the +/- direction of motion to 0.01414 (Gamma = 70.7) contract.

Or 18 Billion light years becomes 254,552,077 light years as change of 1.77E10 light years/10usec = 1.77E15 light years per second!!!!

That computes to be a distance rate change of 55,818,700,000,000,000,000,000c!!

FINALLY The very fact that Special Relativity suggests that relative velocity IS symmetrical is in fact an absolute view. That is they apply relative velocity in a universal sense and not the local physics sense.

A moving observer who's clock has become time dilated or his meter stick foreshortened, has no method of sensing or measuring any change in his frame. This "Absence of Evidence" however is NOT the same as "Evidence of Absence".

The fact of time dilation be it caused by Lorentz Contraction or clock tick dilation means the moving observer accumulates less time for a trip and hence MUST compute that he was traveling faster than a resting clock will measure him as have been traveling.

The reality is at relavistic speeds two observers with relative velocity will not agree on the velocity they compute.

For example the distance between point "Y" and "Z" at rest is 60 miles. You travel between those points and your stop watch accumulates 45 minutes you will compute v = ds / dt = 60 miles / 0.75 hours = 80 Mph.

But a resting observer timing your trip accumulates an hour and will compute you were traveling v = ds/dt = 60 miles / 1 hour = 60 Mph.

This situation is the equivelent of traveling 60 lmin at 0.6614c where Gamma = 1.33 according to Special Relativity.

3 - Frames: A frame is an inertial condition of motion. Billy T has recently attempted to assert that I believe multiple clocks at common rest create multiple common rest frames.

MACM's Actual View:"That is ludricrus. There is and can only be ONE common rest frame.

i.e. - Three clocks spaced 1 lyr apart in any orientation (straight line, triangle, etc) that are at common rest (have no relative velocity to each other) are in a common rest frame.

When ONE clock accelerates and moves in any direction the relavistic affects are linked to the rest frame and not the other clocks in that frame.

That is the moving clock will now have differing relative motion to each clock but only one motion to the frame itself. It is motion to the frame and not other clocks that is physical reality as to relavistic affect.

Motion to the other clocks is the illusion of motion affects and are not physically real or have permanent impact on any clock.

SUMMARY While there are other issues and things in my view that may need clarification if Billy T continues to distort, lie, etc., I think this covers most of what he has recently been guilty of trying to slander me by making it appear I believe completely irrational things.

Saying I din't mention any clocks is a dodge by Billy T. Every atom, every observer is a clock in terms of tis discusion.

2. Originally Posted by MacM
...There is and can only be ONE rest frame. ... You are NOT discussing my views for sure.
OK you want to use the velocity wrt the last Commom Rest Frame, CRF to calculate contraction and Time Dilation. Is that not your position?

Yet you seem ignorant of the fact that if there is any meaning at all to the concept of "velocity wrt CRF," that velocity would be a constantly changingeven when applied to rulers or clocks without any acceleartion ONLY for points that happen to be on the backward extention of the CURRENT velocity trajectory. So if during the prior acceleration period there was any curving of the trajectory, the speed wrt the launch pad IS NOT EVEN A CONSTANT, but steadily increasing as the object coast further away.

SUMMARY: your basic concept, V wrt CRF, is either ill defined or a constantly changing velocity in most cases! NOT some constant velocity as you falsely assume. see post 715's graph and footnote to understand that the velocity wrt to both A & B origins is constantly changing. In fact the velocity wrt ALL points not on the line 3X=4Y is constantly changing.

3. Originally Posted by Billy T
OK you want to use the velocity wrt the last Commom Rest Frame, CRF to calculate contraction and Time Dilation. Is that not your position?

Yet you seem ignorant of the fact that if there is any meaning at all to the concept of "velocity wrt CRF," that velocity would be a constantly changingeven when applied to rulers or clocks without any acceleartion ONLY for points that happen to be on the backward extention of the CURRENT velocity trajectory. So if during the prior acceleration period there was any curving of the trajectory, the speed wrt the launch pad IS NOT EVEN A CONSTANT, but steadily increasing as the object coast further away.
Sorry Billy T you are talking nonsense. You apparently have no idea what or where the common rest frame is. The rest frame covers the entire universe in all directions. It is an inertial speed - period. Nothing more nothing less.

Direction (vector) has no meaning. Your stupid "He is going at an angle away from two clocks therefore his velocity to them is constantly changing" is NOT at issue.

The other clocks are NOT his rest frame(s) they are IN his rest frame. That is they have his initial inertial motion.

Originally Posted by Billy T
SUMMARY: your basic concept, V wrt CRF, is either ill defined or a constantly changing velocity in most cases! NOT some constant velocity as you falsely assume. see post 715's graph and footnote to understand that the velocity wrt to both A & B origins is constantly changing. In fact the velocity wrt ALL points not on the line 3X=4Y is constantly changing.

Does anybodyelse out there have any idea what Billy's problem is? He can't seem to understand english, he can't seem to realize that to have a physical affect one MUST have a physical cause and that observing is NOT a physical cause.

He can't understand that "Rest" is "Rest" and doesn't mean some minor continued creep speed. He doesn't understand that the only emperical data anybody has after 100 years ONLY supports an observer that has "Actual Motion" induced by acceleration vs mere "Relative Motion" generated to a resting observer by it. Nor does emperical data support SR's inherent reciprocity or the observer illusion that clocks are dilated to each other at the same time.

He doesn't seem to remember from one post to the next that I have said I have no interest in the illusion of motion mathematical rhetoric but only the fact that given acceleration a clock does lose time compared to a resting clock as demonstrated by emperical data, not merely mathematics.

He doesn't seem to understand that relative motion between clocks, millions upon millions in the universe, has NO physical affect but only an observational or perceptioin affect.

4. NOTICE: MEMBERS AND VISITORS
MacM is mis representing both Standard SRT and my POV. For example neither assert that there is any “physical change” in the moving frame. ALL of the strange SR effect are due to making statement about that moving frame using our meter sticks and seconds defined by our clocks. If there were a real physical change in the moving (or any other frame) Then that would violate the basic concept That “Physics is the same in all frames” I.e. the is no unique or special frame – All inertial frames have the same physics, the same atoms with the same energy levels and chemistry, etc. Here form MacN’s last post in his words are some of his false statements:

Originally Posted by MacM
… There are some {SR supporters} here that want to claim that this {mutual or recipical time dilation, TD.}… is a physical reality. … This aspect of Special Relativity exists but is only an abberation, perception, or illusion of motion since it vanishes once relative velocity terminates. There is no permanent physical changes associated with the mere relative velocity between observers (clocks) affect.
SRT states TD is a function of the relative velocity, so of course TD vanishes when that speed is zero. SRT does not recognize the existence of different “real” and “illusionary” velocities as there is no observable difference between them. (MacM’s distinction is historically based. Somehow even a clock made in the moving frame AFTER ALL ACCELEARTION IS OVER knows that history – How is never explained. Atomic clocks count # cycles of spectral line radiation to define a second. The frequency of this radiation is directly related to the energy levels of the atom, MacM’s SRT requires that the energy levels must become closer together to slow the clock’s second in the moving frame - Changing the very energy levels of atoms in the moving frame is in drastic violation of the constancy of physic in all frames. Further more. Quantum mechanics can CALCULATE some of these energy levels and achieves ~10 significant figure agreement with experiment. To preserve this agreement in all frames MacM’s SR requires that EVEN a THEORY must change with the physics change his “real” velocities make. (For obvious reasons MacM has never said that a THEORY is changed – that just follows logically from what he has stated – Thus, I am not “putting words in his mouth” – only pointing out one of silly consequences that follows from his words.)

Originally Posted by MacM
… To suggest this is in any way a physical reality it utter nonsense since it requires two clocks to both tick slower than each other at the same time. …
Yes, by my frame’s clocks and meter sticks the clocks and meter sticks in moving frame N are really slow and contracted. Likewise, by frame M’s clocks and meter sticks, the clocks and meter sticks in my frame are really slow and contracted. Neither frame has different SR theory or experiments from the other. I have used muons to illustrate this as they have very short half-lifes and if are production by cosmic rays collision with atmosphere atoms more than 100,000 feet above sea level, they travel at almost the speed of light down to earth’s surface with few decaying. Slow lab produced muons decay so rapidly that even light can not travel 100 feet before almost all would have decayed. The reality in the cosmic ray muon frame is that the Earth’s atmosphere is less than 10 feet thick as it is “SR contracted” The reality for us Earthlings is that the muon clock is greatly slowed down (decay rate is a clock). I.e. this is a “natural experiments” showing that in fact SR does have symmetric effects, (reciprocity), and is not only acting on the frame that was accelerated as MacM insists.

Originally Posted by MacM
… Modern physics however employ what they call "Frame Switching" when putting Special Relativity's mathematics to actual practice and predicting real time dilation.
If they do it is rare. I have never heard that term used and have Ph.D and 45 years of profession experience in physics. Even if it is used so what? I also say that the “sun rises.” The exact terms used are not important – concepts and equations are. At least 99% of physics Ph.D. disagree with MacM’s SR, but that too is not important, only informative, as physics is by experiments, like the above mentioned cosmic ray muon observations, not by voting.

Must leave house not before swimming pool closes. More later, perhaps.

5. Originally Posted by Billy T
NOTICE: MEMBERS AND VISITORS
MacM is mis representing both Standard SRT and my POV. For example neither assert that there is any “physical change” in the moving frame. ALL of the strange SR effect are due to making statement about that moving frame using our meter sticks and seconds defined by our clocks. If there were a real physical change in the moving (or any other frame) Then that would violate the basic concept That “Physics is the same in all frames” I.e. the is no unique or special frame – All inertial frames have the same physics, the same atoms with the same energy levels and chemistry, etc. Here form MacN’s last post in his words are some of his false statements:
OMG. Don't tell me that to be pragmatic and accept emperical physical data showing that someting physical MUST change in a moving frame can't be just because Einstein said so.

What a joke. This discussion is about the very fact that there MUST be a physical change in the moving frame and that you (SR) forfeit relative velocity as a cause the moment you apply frame switching.

Relative velocity as a cause breaks down the moment you realize that reciprocity does not happen and cannot happen as a physical reality.

I have not said what your POV is. I have only said you have been distorting my POV and I've stated clearly here what my POV is.

Originally Posted by Billy T
SRT states TD is a function of the relative velocity,
Yes and it is rather clear that is not true.

Originally Posted by Billy T
so of course TD vanishes when that speed is zero.
AH, but now you are talking just about the "Illusion of Motion" TD. You are not addressing the physical TD which does not vanish and which emperically demonstrates that an accelerated frame accumulates less time than the resting clock when measuring a moving frames trip time. That is the ONLY TD I have ever advocated and all my posts point to the fact that what you call TD isn't physically real and is of no interest.

Originally Posted by Billy T
SRT does not recognize the existence of different “real” and “illusionary” velocities as there is no observable difference between them.
And somehow that makes you (and SRT) correct? Perhaps it makes you and SRT incorrect. Actually I think you owe an explanation of frame switching at this point because frame switching is to declare "Who has ACTUAL motion" vs mere relative motion.

Originally Posted by Billy T
MacM’s distinction is historically based. Somehow even a clock made in the moving frame AFTER ALL ACCELEARTION IS OVER knows that history – How is never explained. Atomic clocks count # cycles of spectral line radiation to define a second. The frequency of this radiation is directly related to the energy levels of the atom, MacM’s SRT requires that the energy levels must become closer together to slow the clock’s second in the moving frame - Changing the very energy levels of atoms in the moving frame is in drastic violation of the constancy of physic in all frames.
How is it that you can't seem to understand that if an atom slows down due to energy of motion and all time based functions slow down that in that frame nothing will appear to have changed. The observer in that frame still measures 1 second as one second. Chemistry would also slow down and the affect is physics is the same. WAKE UP.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Further more. Quantum mechanics can CALCULATE some of these energy levels and achieves ~10 significant figure agreement with experiment.
I wasn't aware that QM could count. However understanding your assinine assertions the same logic applies here.

When time standards change so does the physics and everthing remains synchronized. That is you the observer in the moving frame will still measure chemical and nuclear reactions as taking the same amount of time. Physics has not changed in your frame but between frames there is a physical difference.

Originally Posted by Billy T
To preserve this agreement in all frames MacM’s SR requires that EVEN a THEORY must change with the physics change his “real” velocities make. (For obvious reasons MacM has never said that a THEORY is changed – that just follows logically from what he has stated – Thus, I am not “putting words in his mouth” – only pointing out one of silly consequences that follows from his words.)
Have no idea what you are babbeling about here. But all your huff & puff about this and you never explain how a moving frame accumulates less time during a trip unless something physical happens in that frame.

Go ahead it is your turn. You explain how that happens. Either distance traveled changed or his clock tick rate slowed down. These are PHYSICAL requirements and not observational differences just during motion. The observational difference would have both slow down and hence no measureable dilation could be detected. Since only one physically dilates then it is NOT due to relative velocity since both share relative velocity.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Yes, by my frame’s clocks and meter sticks the clocks and meter sticks in moving frame N are really slow and contracted.
Yes and by your theory both frames see the same thing and predict the same thing however, the emperical data when the motion is over only supports that the accelerated frame suffered permanent physical change and it matters not which frame you compare data in.

That is you can collect data from the moving frame, stop the moving frame briging it back to common initial rest or you can accelerate the clock from the initial common rest to the new inertial velocity making it the new common rest and the emperical data between the clocks does not change.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Likewise, by frame M’s clocks and meter sticks, the clocks and meter sticks in my frame are really slow and contracted. Neither frame has different SR theory or experiments from the other. I have used muons to illustrate this as they have very short half-lifes and if are production by cosmic rays collision with atmosphere atoms more than 100,000 feet above sea level, they travel at almost the speed of light down to earth’s surface with few decaying. Slow lab produced muons decay so rapidly that even light can not travel 100 feet before almost all would have decayed. The reality in the cosmic ray muon frame is that the Earth’s atmosphere is less than 10 feet thick as it is “SR contracted” The reality for us Earthlings is that the muon clock is greatly slowed down (decay rate is a clock). I.e. this is a “natural experiments” showing that in fact SR does have symmetric effects, (reciprocity), and is not only acting on the frame that was accelerated as MacM insists.
And you have ignored my challenges:

1 - To provide any emperical data showing that from the muon's frame the earth lab clock is dilated.

2 - That a recent study of muon ansitrophy showed that muon life time is better computed on it's motion to the CMB than to earth itself. That they were able to compute the solar systems motion in the universe in agreement with other methods (300Km/s or so) using the absolute velocity of muons to the CMB and the ansitrophy to earth, not just relative velocity to earth.

Mouns are produce in the atmosphere as cosmic radiation strikes it. The radiation has velocity and hence at some time was accelerated. This is no more unusual than a comet ice particle that collides with the atmosphere and becomes a gas. The particle had the initial velocity due to some historical acceleration and the gas inherits that velocity, the affect on the gas (or muon) has to due with that universal velocity not it's velocity to earth itself.

Originally Posted by Billy T
If they do it is rare. I have never heard that term used and have Ph.D and 45 years of profession experience in physics. Even if it is used so what? I also say that the “sun rises.” The exact terms used are not important – concepts and equations are. At least 99% of physics Ph.D. disagree with MacM’s SR, but that too is not important, only informative, as physics is by experiments, like the above mentioned cosmic ray muon observations, not by voting.
The fact that you claim to have never heard of the term "Reciprocity" raises real question about your claims of education and 45 years of professinal experience since it is a universally known and used term when discussing relativity.

But it really is a moot issue. The issue is the impossibility that reciprocity is a physical reality thereby making your SR nothing but descriptions of an illusion and you fail to address the actual relativity which IS physical and IS demonstrated by emperical data without continued relative motion.

99% of scientist once thought the earth was at the center of the universe and later thought the earth was flat.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Must leave house not before swimming pool closes. More later, perhaps.
I really hope your more does change direction because you are attempting to feed people a lot of BS.

You have repeatedly made the assinine comment about an atom not being able to remember 1 million years ago.

1 - Memory requires awarness. Atoms don't possess that.

2 - Atoms will vibrate so many time in their life before they decay. if they decay.

3 - If you have a counter or are a clock then the accumulated count or accumulated time IS a memory of ticks or events. Such that if a clock is synchronized and set to t = 0 then 1 million years later it damn well remembers how many ticks it has recorded since being reset. It's velocity may have changed numerous times over those years and the accumulated time may include ticks at different rates such that you have no way of knowing it's history but the history is there and the number of atomic vibrations, heart beats, seconds, etc are still there.

Even if you reset the clock at a later time you may lose the memory but the total number of seconds recorded by the clock still happened.

6. 723mac

He doesn't seem to remember from one post to the next that I have said I have no interest in the illusion of motion mathematical rhetoric but only the fact that given acceleration a clock does lose time compared to a resting clock as demonstrated by emperical data, not merely mathematics.
-
This would be true only if the 'rest' clock was truly at 'rest', and that cannot be determined yet. SR only determines the relative dilation of two clocks, which is why there is none when the relative motion is zero.
While clocks have relative velocity, you can't determine which clock is the slowest. They have to be rejoined for that purpose.

Assume an observer G at rest in the universal fixed ref.frame.
Clocks A & B move together in +x direction at .5c.
case 1.
B clock accelerates in +x direction to .7c.
Td of clock B is > A per G.
A and B see apparent slowing of each others clock.
case 2.
B clock accelerates in -x direction to .3c.
Td of clock B is < A per G.
A and B see apparent slowing of each others clock.
In both cases they appear to run slower to the other, but that's all SR predicts.
The appearances can be reciprocal and that's what SR is all about. SR is all about the observer and what he sees and the conclusions based on those observations.
The most important advance in SR was defining time as observer dependent, instead of an absolute for all.

If you are still undecided between time dilation and length contraction, why not go with td, it's been experimentally verified.

7. 724 billy

MacM is mis representing both Standard SRT and my POV. For example neither assert that there is any “physical change” in the moving frame. ALL of the strange SR effect are due to making statement about that moving frame using our meter sticks and seconds defined by our clocks. If there were a real physical change in the moving (or any other frame) Then that would violate the basic concept That “Physics is the same in all frames” I.e. the is no unique or special frame – All inertial frames have the same physics, the same atoms with the same energy levels and chemistry, etc. Here form MacN’s last post in his words are some of his false statements:

“ Originally Posted by MacM
… There are some {SR supporters} here that want to claim that this {mutual or recipical time dilation, TD.}… is a physical reality. … This aspect of Special Relativity exists but is only an abberation, perception, or illusion of motion since it vanishes once relative velocity terminates. There is no permanent physical changes associated with the mere relative velocity between observers (clocks) affect. ”

SRT states TD is a function of the relative velocity, so of course TD vanishes when that speed is zero. SRT does not recognize the existence of different “real” and “illusionary” velocities as there is no observable difference between them.
-From the posts by MacM I've read and the one cited here, in the 1st part he is dismissing the reciprocal td as an 'apparent' or visual effect. I would have to agree since if A is slower than B per B, and B is slower than A per A, then B is slower than B, which is totally illogical!
A distinction should be made that SR is calculating the relative td and not the absolute td.

“ Originally Posted by MacM
… To suggest this is in any way a physical reality it utter nonsense since it requires two clocks to both tick slower than each other at the same time. … ”

Yes, by my frame’s clocks and meter sticks the clocks and meter sticks in moving frame N are really slow and contracted. Likewise, by frame M’s clocks and meter sticks, the clocks and meter sticks in my frame are really slow and contracted. Neither frame has different SR theory or experiments from the other. I have used muons to illustrate this as they have very short half-lifes and if are production by cosmic rays collision with atmosphere atoms more than 100,000 feet above sea level, they travel at almost the speed of light down to earth’s surface with few decaying. Slow lab produced muons decay so rapidly that even light can not travel 100 feet before almost all would have decayed. The reality in the cosmic ray muon frame is that the Earth’s atmosphere is less than 10 feet thick as it is “SR contracted” The reality for us Earthlings is that the muon clock is greatly slowed down (decay rate is a clock). I.e. this is a “natural experiments” showing that in fact SR does have symmetric effects, (reciprocity), and is not only acting on the frame that was accelerated as MacM insists.
-The reality is: td physically/actually occurs, and SR theory has transformations that convert a moving frame into a pseudo rest frame, thereby preserving a constant 'c', and the consequent rules of physics.

“ Originally Posted by MacM
… Modern physics however employ what they call "Frame Switching" when putting Special Relativity's mathematics to actual practice and predicting real time dilation. ”

If they do it is rare. I have never heard that term used and have Ph.D and 45 years of profession experience in physics. Even if it is used so what? I also say that the “sun rises.” The exact terms used are not important – concepts and equations are. At least 99% of physics Ph.D. disagree with MacM’s SR, but that too is not important, only informative, as physics is by experiments, like the above mentioned cosmic ray muon observations, not by voting.
-It's a common term in discussing the 'twin paradox'. The twin leaves in one outbound ref frame and returns in a different inbound frame, like switching trains. This implies he accelerated and thus had a longer trip with more td. You can ignore the reversal acceleration, his 2-leg trip still results in more td than the 1-leg trip.

post 702
They think there is a physcal change but it is not observable to people in the moving frame as all their instruments that could detect the change have been change also.
-I agree with them. Td affects all objects that move as a group, i.e. a ref. frame.

8. For those not familiar I have resurected James R's old UniKEF Analysis thread. I have no intent or ambition to start posting there. It was resurected for one purpose.

Billy T has accused me several times here of changing my views. That thread was started by James R after almost a year of my posting my views about relativity.

The thread was posted 5 1/2 years ago, so it shows that my views have not changed in 6 1/2 years. Actually they have not changed in 45 years but I was not posting here then.

9. Originally Posted by phyti
723mac
-
This would be true only if the 'rest' clock was truly at 'rest', and that cannot be determined yet.
Rest in SR is not considered a universal rest it is any inertial velocity.

Originally Posted by phyti
SR only determines the relative dilation of two clocks,
Not precisely true. SR advocate mutual dilation is "Seen" by two observers with relative motion. But that is an illusion of motion and has no permanent affect on clocks.

The dilation I am interested in is that computed by SR when they correctly consider who has "Actual Motion" by virtue of stipulating who switched frames (accelerated) from the common rest frame.

That dilation is between the accelerated observer and his initial inertial rest frame and not to any other clock. Another clock may have been at common rest and has not accelerted hence is AT common rest with his initial inertial trest frame, in which case the mat is correct for the two clocks but only because the resting clock has remained at the rest frame.

If that clock moves at any time during the terst then you must compute dilation of thev accelerted frame to the initial inertial rest frame and also compute the other clock that left the rest frames dilatin to that common rest frame and the difference in dilations is the dilation between clocks but you NEVER get a correct answer computing dilation between clock; except in those rare special cases where motion or lack thereof of a second clock is effectively the same as having not moved from the rest frame.

Originally Posted by phyti
which is why there is none when the relative motion is zero. While clocks have relative velocity, you can't determine which clock is the slowest. They have to be rejoined for that purpose.
Here we generally agree, although it is possible to arrange where clocks pass each other or some prearranged spot on a test course and digital data can be transmitted and compared without actually briging clocks together.

However, if you do bring them together it matters not which frame they rejoin in.

Given two clocks observed with relative motion you are correct you cannot tell what their respective time dilation is. IF you can catch them passing each other or come common point such that you can synchronize the two clock, once they are then brought together you will learn which was more dilated. But not by relative velocity SR mathematics otherwise.

Originally Posted by phyti
Assume an observer G at rest in the universal fixed ref.frame.
A universal fixed reference frame is not recognized by SR.

Originally Posted by phyti
Clocks A & B move together in +x direction at .5c.
case 1.

B clock accelerates in +x direction to .7c.
Td of clock B is > A per G.

A and B see apparent slowing of each others clock.
case 2.

B clock accelerates in -x direction to .3c.
Td of clock B is < A per G.

A and B see apparent slowing of each others clock.

In both cases they appear to run slower to the other, but that's all SR predicts.
Except when modern science actually uses the Lorentz formulas (they wrongfully call it SR) they stipulate who switched frames (accelerated) and hence break the symmetry inherent in the relative velocity concept. That is as applied they are not using SR but a form ofLorentz Relativity or an absolute system not a relative system.

Originally Posted by phyti
The appearances can be reciprocal and that's what SR is all about. SR is all about the observer and what he sees and the conclusions based on those observations.
Agreed SR is only about"Perception" and not physical reality. But they try to take credit for SR when actually using LR. It is LR that produces emperical data. There is NO emperical data to support the relative velocity reciprocity view of SR.

Originally Posted by phyti
The most important advance in SR was defining time as observer dependent, instead of an absolute for all.
I wouldn't call that an advance. I call it a scientific train wreck.

Originally Posted by phyti
If you are still undecided between time dilation and length contraction, why not go with td, it's been experimentally verified.
I do because logically it might make sense that TD is an energy function based on acceleration; where as length contracton has no cause and generates ludricrus consequences.

But the point is either would cause a moving observer to accumulate less time for a trip compared to time measured by a resting clock. Such that length contraction would appear as time dilation also.

That is since the moving observer cannot sense or measure changes in his clock or meter stick the only thing he has is the fact that he went a known distance in less time. Which means he MUST compute that he traveled faster than the resting observer measures.

10. Here are more of your distortions (or outright lying?). For example:
Originally Posted by MacM
...something physical MUST change in a moving frame can't be just because Einstein said so.
AFAIK, Einstein never said there was a physical change in the moving frame. He definitely believed the just opposite, as I do. – He believed that physic is the same (Not changed) in ALL inertial frames.

Only a fool could believe that there is a real contraction and time dilation in the moving frame, even if all clocks and meter sticks are equally effected so it is not DIRECTLY detectable IN THAT FRAME. Einstein was no fool. Time slowing in the frame would require that the atomic energy levels used in atomic clocks change. (Basics physics and chemistry would not be the same if that were true.) Also even an old grandfather clock refutes the idea that there is a physical change: If the pendulum contracts, the clock speeds up, instead of slows down. All physic would be drastically different if your acceleration produced "real velocity" did produce physical changes.
Originally Posted by MacM
... This discussion is about the very fact that there MUST be a physical change in the moving frame and that you (SR) forfeit relative velocity as a cause the moment you apply frame switching.
As I said, but here you distorted or lie about my statements, (see purple text below.) I don't use the term "frame switching" – I never heard of it prior to your use and not sure what it means. I certainly do not "forfeit relative velocity as a cause." Relative velocity IS the REASON for the strange SR effects, but NOT the cause of the non-existent "physical changes" you and very few others like QQ believe in. Again, as stated in an old post, "relative", "real", "illusionary" or "green" velocity if you want to invent that too, does NOT CAUSE any physical change as there is none!
Originally Posted by MacM
... Relative velocity as a cause breaks down the moment you realize that reciprocity does not happen and cannot happen as a physical reality.
So you assert; but 99% of better educated physicists assert just the opposite. I.e. that SR effects are caused by using my second and my meter to describe events in a frame moving wrt me. Physicists in that frame assert exactly the same about my frame when describing events in my frame in terms of their seconds and meter sticks. In some sense, this is just the old "Physics is the same in ALL inertial frames" restated again. (What is true physics for me; is true physics for him.) I.e. Standard SR and I both assert that there is exact and identical reciprocity.

I have illustrated that many times with cosmic muons: The earth's atmosphere, as described by all the experiment done in the muon frame, has contracted to be only about 10 meters thick. Thus, almost all of the muons, traveling at near speed of light, get thru that 10m to the surface despite their very short half lives. The half life is a clock. (We use it with C14 to tell how old fossil bones are, etc.) For us Earthlings, the atmosphere is about 100,000 meters thick. (It is in our frame and not contracted in our reality.) However,the fast moving muon clocks are living much too long if described by our seconds. Thus, SR effects DO HAVE RECIPROCITY as this natural experiment shows. You can deny it all you like, but will not change EXPERIMENTAL FACTS - I.e. Earth based observations that most of the high altitude flux (measure by balloon experiments) do reach the surface even thought even light takes many of Earth measured muon half-lives to do so.
(Perhaps calling these facts BS twice and stating that Einstein did not think the muon reached the surface is your counter argument to facts again? )
Originally Posted by MacM
... AH, but now you are talking just about the "Illusion of Motion" TD. You are not addressing the physical TD which does not vanish and which emperically demonstrates that an accelerated frame accumulates less time than the resting clock when measuring a moving frames trip time. ...
No, I never talked about your invented term "Illusion of Motion" as that is nonsense you invented. (Except for something in psychology called the phi effect. – You often see simple versions of this in movie entrance lights, where sequential activations of stationary lights does cause an illusion of motion. It is an interesting subject, especially when the group vs. jump motion aspects is explored.) See simple phi example at end of post and read more at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phi_phenomenon but Wiki appears to be ignorant of the more intersting "group moves" vs. "one object jumps" aspects as they are not hard to illustrate (or perhaps they are now called the beta effect?) AND also of the retained or detatchment of color and shape from the moving object. etc.

Yes TD does exist just as predicted by Standard SR and it is a real reciprocal effect of relative speed, caused by using my seconds and meters to describe events in another moving frame. That does NOT imply anything physically changed in either frame.

Back in the days when the yard was the distance from the king's nose to his finger tip, if the French king was short and describing his buying of English made rope, He very likely would say: "The English are fools. They sold me 115 yards of rope for the price of only 100 yards!" Point is there does not need to be ANY physical change when your time or length standards are use to describe time or length in another realm or frame.

Originally Posted by MacM
... "Who has ACTUAL motion" vs. mere relative motion.
When you can tell me what experiment I can do NOW (no history for even single cesium atoms to remember) to tell one from the other (or either from "green motion") etc. I will comment on it, but for me if a car is now going 60 mph wrt the road, that is all there is to it. Motion does not exist in various “validities,” colors or flavors - that is ice cream. Are you confused between the two?
Originally Posted by MacM
... How is it that you can't seem to understand that if an atom slows down due to energy of motion and all time based functions slow down that in that frame nothing will appear to have changed. The observer in that frame still measures 1 second as one second. Chemistry would also slow down and the affect is physics is the same...
Chemistry is much more than the rate of reactions, much of it has to do with the electronic structure and energy levels. I spoke of atomic energy levels, specifically those of cesium and hydrogen, which qunatum theory can precisely calculate, but you ignored that - (Your old "duck and weave" skills are still in good shape I see.)

My point being a THEORY can compute the energy levels and surely not even you think a THEORY is changed even by your acceleration produced "real velocity." You never (and probably never will) explain how the energy levels of cesium, in a cesium clock, “physically change" to make the atomic cesium radiation have a lower frequency so that counting # cycles defines a longer second. (Makes real physical time dilation in the moving frame.)

I have agreed dozens of times that TD would not be directly detectable in that frame as all clock would be equally dilated if only time comparisons were made. But when SR’s contraction and TD are mixed, as in the case of the grandfather clock (shorter pendulum makes it tick faster) and its fast ticks are compared to the time dilated / or slower / seconds of the cesium clock counting the slower frequency your postulated as real physical change should be noticed. But again it is NOT a real physical effect, only an effect of me using my seconds and meters top describe events IN THE MOVING FRAME. (Like the French King using his yard to measure the English rope.)
Originally Posted by MacM
...I wasn't aware that QM could count.
That is more pathetic than funny. More duck and weave but, I will reply seriously:

No, Quantum Mechanics Theory, IMHO is only a calculation tool. Some physicists are more generous and think it helps understand "REALITY." To them, I admit it does help cancel some of our false "intuitive truths" like that a photon cannot possibly go thru two different slits OR that frames A & B cannot possibly both have a “reciprocal reality” in which the other frames clocks are running slow compared to their own. If you could get the false idea that there is a physical change out of your head, you might be able to understand standard SR is correct. No Nobel Prize awaits you for proving ~100 years and > 100,000 physics Ph.Ds. have all been wrong.
Originally Posted by MacM
... Physics has not changed in your frame {or in the moving frame} but between frames there is a physical difference.
With help of my added { or in the moving frame } you are almost correct here, although it is a little strange to call it a "physical change between frames" when the effect is entirely due using one frames standards to describe thing of the other frame(Again like the French King got 115 yards of rope but the English King only sent him 100 yards.)

Your following post 725 text is distortion (or lies?). Not what I claimed. I said I had not heard of "Frame Switching" except from you. I have heard of, and frequently use, "Reciprocity" as it is a valid part of standard SR. Here again is our earlier exchange:
Originally Posted by MacM
......The fact that you claim to have never heard of the term "Reciprocity" raises real question about your claims of education and 45 years of professinal experience since it is a universally known and used term when discussing relativity.
MacM’s posts 721, in his point 2:
Originally Posted by MacM
... 2 - Modern physics however employ what they call "Frame Switching" when putting Special Relativity's mathematics to actual practice and predicting real time dilation.
Originally Posted by Billy T
If they do it is rare. I have never heard that term {clearly referring to “Frame Switching” not “Reciprocity”} used and have Ph.D and 45 years of profession experience in physics. Even if it is used so what? I also say that the “sun rises.” The exact terms used are not important – concepts and equations are.

Final Note (You will be glad to hear. I.e. if I post again in this thread it will mainly be links to old posts like this one, when some new comer is in danger of being mislead by you nonsensical POV on SR.):
MacM Rather than asserting I post BS, or demanding I provide more* experimental evidence of reciprocity* etc.; please give some logical arguments (Not your intuitive “That is not possible” or your offensive “That is BS.”). Or give widely accepted evidence that standard SR is as wrong as you state it to be. (last time you tried that was a link of some guy’s Email to another guy!) When there is something wrong in standard physics’ current understanding of nature the problem is widely recognized and physics ultimately is revised. For Example:

Einstein’s revision of Newton laws is well known so I mention a couple other less known historic cases:

(1) Prior to QM, dozens of physicists tried to solve what was called the UV catastrophe” See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe Finally Planck did, and that lead directly to quantum mechanics, with some help for Einstein. At least 20,000 physicists (A large faction of all back then as everyone connected to any good university, knew thermodynamics’ “Equal partition of energy” law was in error. – A widely known and accepted fact.

(2) Earlier, (1753) the widely used in calorimetric experiments and always confirmed, Phlogiston_theory See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory was shown to be false. Wiki article does not say, but it is my understanding that Lord Kelvin contributed greatly to it being abandoned. He was placed in charge of a cannon factory. The workers routinely poured water into the bore as it progressed to keep the drill bit cool. He was educated enough to recognize this was a violation of the conservation of Phlogiston law. Phlogiston was obviously being made by the expenditure of energy. – The water would boil away. My memory is a little confused as Joule may have been the one, not Kelvin.

(3 & 4) Well known: The sun does not go around the Earth. And earlier in pre Christian era, not only that the Earth was known to be round, not flat, but a very accurate (<10% error) measurement of its size was made by measuring the noon sun elevation angle a known distance north of a deep Egyptian well on the day it was known sunlight would briefly fully illuminate the full water surface far below. (Sun at the well was straight up then. They were clever: At the northern site they had a tall vertical pole and stuck short stick in the sand to mark the tip of the shadow periodically. – The shortest shadow and pole length gave the noon angle accurately.)
--------------
*Even though I already have at least 5 times noted that SR’s contraction makes the Earth’s atmosphere really only about 10 meters thick for the muons, AND in Reciprocity, SR’s Timed Dilation makes for us Earthlings the cosmic ray muons really live much longer than the half-lives, as measured in the Lab with our clocks.

[img][http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Lilac-Chaser.gif[/img] Follow the bluish/green dot - it seems to move around the circle.

11. Originally Posted by Billy T
Here are more of your distortions (or outright lying?). For example: AFAIK, Einstein never said there was a physical change in the moving frame. He definitely believed the just opposite, as I do. – He believed that physic is the same (Not changed) in ALL inertial frames.
1 - Show where I ever said Einstein said there was such a change. I HAVE NOT. The fact is Einstein only talks about the illusions of motion (my terms) of relative velocity and wallows in the "Counter Intuitive" nature of such reciprocity. He doesn't address the real issue and that is the fact of an accelerated frame actually accumulating less time.

2 - In your ignorance you seem to not realise that the very fact that an accelerated frame actually records less accumulated time than a resting clock MANDATES that chemical and nuclear processes also slow down otherwise the physics would not remain the same in the moving frame.

i.e. -If it takes 1 minute for a TNT fuse to burn. Since the accelerated frame time is accumulating slower means the fuse burn must slow down so as to match the dilated clock accumulating 1 minute.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand this but you do have to have common sense. Something you apparently are in short supply of.

3 - Is claiming you agree with Einstien suposed to protect you from ridicule of your view. It doesn't, Einstien should be ridiculed also.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Only a fool could believe that there is a real contraction and time dilation in the moving frame, even if all clocks and meter sticks are equally effected so it is not DIRECTLY detectable IN THAT FRAME.
Only fools would suggest that there is a physical affect without a physical cause. Or to argue that accumulating less time physically isn't a physical affect.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Einstein was no fool.
Actually very much in question.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Time slowing in the frame would require that the atomic energy levels used in atomic clocks change. (Basics physics and chemistry would not be the same if that were true.)
As they must to keep physics the same in all frames. Perhaps that is why the muons penetrate deeper into our atmosphere than we think they should. Perhaps time PHYSICALLY slowed down in their frame.

You don't seem to grasp the fact that your own examples MANDATE such physical change. To suggest that all this is a result of other obervers watching is simply insane. Down right stupid. A show of ignorance.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Also even an old grandfather clock refutes the idea that there is a physical change: If the pendulum contracts, the clock speeds up, instead of slows down.
1 - I don't accept length contraction but time dilation. But assuming length contraction accounts for the apparent loss in time your clock would have to be accelerated along the length of the pendulum.

2 - I have used GF Clocks to refute relativity myself. Take an atomic clock and GF clock at sea level, calibrated and synchronized in L.A. Now fly them to Denver 1 mile up.

The atomic clock speeds up but the GF clock slows down.

Try again.

Originally Posted by Billy T
All physic would be drastically different if your acceleration produced "real velocity" did produce physical changes.
Physics change in the moving frame to KEEP the processes constant. A slower clock means a slower process.

Originally Posted by Billy T
As I said, but here you distorted or lie about my statements, (see purple text below.) I don't use the term "frame switching" – I never heard of it prior to your use and not sure what it means.
Holly SHI_. You haven't ever heard the term "Reciprocity" as applied to SR. Now you have never heard of "Frame Switching"? How on earth can you expect for anyone to take you serious when you say you have a formal education and 45 years professional experience?

What as an auto mechanic, a carpenter? Certainly not as a physicist or even a scientific position.

Originally Posted by Billy T
I certainly do not "forfeit relative velocity as a cause." Relative velocity IS the REASON for the strange SR effects, but NOT the cause of the non-existent "physical changes" you and very few others like QQ believe in.
Pathetic. You support perception by others as a cause. You ignore physical reality of an accelerated frame not accumulating the same amount of time. You ignore the signifigance of your own muon example and pretend that muons live longer because they are being watched. Pathetic.

Modern science applies frame switching to their solutions to eliminate your view. That is they preclude relative velocity as a cause. You are really behind the times here.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Again, as stated in an old post, "relative", "real", "illusionary" or "green" velocity if you want to invent that too, does NOT CAUSE any physical change as there is none!
So you assert; but 99% of better educated physicists assert just the opposite. I.e. that SR effects are caused by using my second and my meter to describe events in a frame moving wrt me.
Since you apparently don't know physicists actually consider who moved and hence who has "Actual" velocity. They do not go chasing Einstein ghosts where both clocks run slow to each other. They compute the accelerated frame's ACTUAL dilation not the resting clock's "APPARENT" dilation.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Physicists in that frame assert exactly the same about my frame when describing events in my frame in terms of their seconds and meter sticks. In some sense, this is just the old "Physics is the same in ALL inertial frames" restated again.
You don't seem to understand that the accelerated frame emperically accumulating less time means processes in that frame MUST take comparatively longer for physics to remain the same in all frames.

Power - Work / time and when time accumulates slower for Power to remain constant Work must slow by an equal amount. That is chemical, nuclear and manual labor all must slow to keep physics constant.

Originally Posted by Billy T
(What is true physics for me; is true physics for him.) I.e. Standard SR and I both assert that there is exact and identical reciprocity.
SR advocates reciprocity (Thought you never heard of that term) but it is limited to perceptions and not the physical realities. That is why they apply the "Frame Switching" standard when computing physical results is to eliminate the inherent reciprocity of a relative velocity view.

Originally Posted by Billy T
I have illustrated that many times with cosmic muons: The earth's atmosphere, as described by all the experiment done in the muon frame, has contracted to be only about 10 meters thick. Thus, almost all of the muons, traveling at near speed of light, get thru that 10m to the surface despite their very short half lives. The half life is a clock. (We use it with C14 to tell how old fossil bones are, etc.) For us Earthlings, the atmosphere is about 100,000 meters thick. (It is in our frame and not contracted in our reality.) However,the fast moving muon clocks are living much too long if described by our seconds. Thus, SR effects DO HAVE RECIPROCITY as this natural experiment shows. You can deny it all you like, but will not change EXPERIMENTAL FACTS - I.e. Earth based observations that most of the high altitude flux (measure by balloon experiments) do reach the surface even thought even light takes many of Earth measured muon half-lives to do so.
Been there done that. Properly addressed many times and your point doesn't support your view. Muon's live longer because their clocks are running slower not because you are watching. Further more I repeat the fact that recent studies show muon life related to it's absolute motion to the CMB rather than relative velocity to earth.

Originally Posted by Billy T
(Perhaps calling these facts BS twice and stating that Einstein did not think the muon reached the surface is your counter argument to facts again? )
I have never commented about Einstien's view about muons. The BS is yours not his.

Originally Posted by Billy T
No, I never talked about your invented term "Illusion of Motion" as that is nonsense you invented. (Except for something in psychology called the phi effect. – You often see simple versions of this in movie entrance lights, where sequential activations of stationary lights does cause an illusion of motion. It is an interesting subject, especially when the group vs. jump motion aspects is explored.) See simple phi example at end of post and read more at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phi_phenomenon but Wiki appears to be ignorant of the more intersting "group moves" vs. "one object jumps" aspects as they are not hard to illustrate (or perhaps they are now called the beta effect?) AND also of the retained or detatchment of color and shape from the moving object. etc.]
Wiki isn't ignorant, you are.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Yes TD does exist just as predicted by Standard SR and it is a real reciprocal effect of relative speed, caused by using my seconds and meters to describe events in another moving frame. That does NOT imply anything physically changed in either frame.
OMG!!!! You have just confirmed your stupidity. You have just claimed that reciprocity of SR is physically real. You actually believe two clocks can physically run slower than each other at the same time. OMG!!!!

What a basket case. Modern science doesn't believe that and they do not practice that. They apply the Frame Switching standard to determine who moved and hence has actual velocity when predicting emperical data. They never predict that their lab clock lost time compared to the muon or particle being accelerated. That is just plain nonsense.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Back in the days when the yard was the distance from the king's nose to his finger tip, if the French king was short and describing his buying of English made rope, He very likely would say: "The English are fools. They sold me 115 yards of rope for the price of only 100 yards!" Point is there does not need to be ANY physical change when your time or length standards are use to describe time or length in another realm or frame.

When you can tell me what experiment I can do NOW (no history for even single cesium atoms to remember) to tell one from the other (or either from "green motion") etc. I will comment on it, but for me if a car is now going 60 mph wrt the road, that is all there is to it. Motion does not exist in various “validities,” colors or flavors - that is ice cream. Are you confused between the two?
I won't waste time even reading this malarky.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Chemistry is much more than the rate of reactions, much of it has to do with the electronic structure and energy levels. I spoke of atomic energy levels, specifically those of cesium and hydrogen, which qunatum theory can precisely calculate, but you ignored that - (Your old "duck and weave" skills are still in good shape I see.)
Not that it alters much I'll just remind others that I have had formal mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering; plus post graduate electronics design and have considerable experience with patents, owned and operated my own R&D Corp having done \$1,000,000.00 contracts and have authored NASA publications.

You hardly need to tell me about electronic structures, etc. You could do better going out and reading a bit yourself and learn what you are trying to discuss because you clearly are stuck in a theoretical rut, promoting layman rhetoric and SR dogma and not real physics.

Originally Posted by Billy T
My point being a THEORY can compute the energy levels and surely not even you think a THEORY is changed even by your acceleration produced "real velocity." You never (and probably never will) explain how the energy levels of cesium, in a cesium clock, “physically change" to make the atomic cesium radiation have a lower frequency so that counting # cycles defines a longer second. (Makes real physical time dilation in the moving frame.)
I suppose you now know all there is about internal energy and how mass relates to the universe at large.?

Suppose instead you tell us just how meter sticks shrink because you are watching from another frame. I'm not takling about the optical illusion due to a finite speed of light but I'm talking about how in my frame I PHYSICALLY accumulate less time for a trip because according to you distance shrank.

My accumulated time is physically real and that requires the length contracton (if that is the cause) to be physically real - END OF ARGUMENT.

Originally Posted by Billy T
I have agreed dozens of times that TD would not be directly detectable in that frame as all clock would be equally dilated if only time comparisons were made. But when SR’s contraction and TD are mixed, as in the case of the grandfather clock (shorter pendulum makes it tick faster) and its fast ticks are compared to the time dilated / or slower / seconds of the cesium clock counting the slower frequency your postulated as real physical change should be noticed. But again it is NOT a real physical effect, only an effect of me using my seconds and meters top describe events IN THE MOVING FRAME. (Like the French King using his yard to measure the English rope.)
See above GF clock example where relativity fails.

Originally Posted by Billy T
That is more pathetic than funny. More duck and weave but, I will reply seriously:
You don't know the term "seriously" all you know is to recite SR as though it is the ultimate bible. It is NOT.

Originally Posted by Billy T
No, Quantum Mechanics Theory, IMHO is only a calculation tool. Some physicists are more generous and think it helps understand "REALITY." To them, I admit it does help cancel some of our false "intuitive truths" like that a photon cannot possibly go thru two different slits OR that frames A & B cannot possibly both have a “reciprocal reality” in which the other frames clocks are running slow compared to their own. If you could get the false idea that there is a physical change out of your head, you might be able to understand standard SR is correct. No Nobel Prize awaits you for proving ~100 years and > 100,000 physics Ph.Ds. have all been wrong.
More worthless diatribe.

Originally Posted by Billy T
With help of my added { or in the moving frame } you are almost correct here, although it is a little strange to call it a "physical change between frames" when the effect is entirely due using one frames standards to describe thing of the other frame(Again like the French King got 115 yards of rope but the English King only sent him 100 yards.)
Pathetic. You still don't get it. Either it is physically changed or it isn't. It can appear changed just as you say but that doesn't account for the physical loss of accumulated time when relative velocity is no longer present. That requires a physical change actually took place.

Your assertion that it is due to "....when the effect is entirely due using one frames standards to describe thing of the other frame......" is shear lunacy.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Your following post 725 text is distortion (or lies?). Not what I claimed. I said I had not heard of "Frame Switching" except from you. I have heard of, and frequently use, "Reciprocity" as it is a valid part of standard SR. Here again is our earlier exchange:
MacM’s posts 721, in his point 2:
Sorry go back and look you have said "I have never heard of "Reciproicty" before you, and you have just said "I have never heard of "Frame Switching" before you and I don't know what it means...". If you have never heard of frame switching and don't know what it means then you have absolutely no justification to be pretending to understand relativity.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Final Note (You will be glad to hear. I.e. if I post again in this thread it will mainly be links to old posts like this one, when some new comer is in danger of being mislead by you nonsensical POV on SR.):
Well I can assure you as long as you keep posting lies and false arguements they will be met with facts.

Originally Posted by Billy T
MacM Rather than asserting I post BS, or demanding I provide more* experimental evidence of reciprocity* etc.; please give some logical arguments (Not your intuitive “That is not possible” or your offensive “That is BS.”). Or give widely accepted evidence that standard SR is as wrong as you state it to be. (last time you tried that was a link of some guy’s Email to another guy!) When there is something wrong in standard physics’ current understanding of nature the problem is widely recognized and physics ultimately is revised. For Example:
You are the one claiming SR is correct all I have asked is that you provide emperical data to support your arguement. I have correctly pointed out there is none and appears that there can never be any.

Meaning reciprocity advocated by SR (and you) is untestable; hence by scientific standards falsifies SR as a theory.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Einstein’s revision of Newton laws is well known so I mention a couple other less known historic cases:

(1) Prior to QM, dozens of physicists tried to solve what was called the UV catastrophe” See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe Finally Planck did, and that lead directly to quantum mechanics, with some help for Einstein. At least 20,000 physicists (A large faction of all back then as everyone connected to any good university, knew thermodynamics’ “Equal partition of energy” law was in error. – A widely known and accepted fact.

(2) Earlier, (1753) the widely used in calorimetric experiments and always confirmed, Phlogiston_theory See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory was shown to be false. Wiki article does not say, but it is my understanding that Lord Kelvin contributed greatly to it being abandoned. He was placed in charge of a cannon factory. The workers routinely poured water into the bore as it progressed to keep the drill bit cool. He was educated enough to recognize this was a violation of the conservation of Phlogiston law. Phlogiston was obviously being made by the expenditure of energy. – The water would boil away. My memory is a little confused as Joule may have been the one, not Kelvin.

(3 & 4) Well known: The sun does not go around the Earth. And earlier in pre Christian era, not only that the Earth was known to be round, not flat, but a very accurate (<10% error) measurement of its size was made by measuring the noon sun elevation angle a known distance north of a deep Egyptian well on the day it was known sunlight would briefly fully illuminate the full water surface far below. (Sun at the well was straight up then. They were clever: At the northern site they had a tall vertical pole and stuck short stick in the sand to mark the tip of the shadow periodically. – The shortest shadow and pole length gave the noon angle accurately.)
Nothing but lengthy distraction from the real issue. The real issue is the REAL loss of accumulated time by an accelerted frame and it's cause.

Originally Posted by Billy T
--------------
*Even though I already have at least 5 times noted that SR’s contraction makes the Earth’s atmosphere really only about 10 meters thick for the muons, AND in Reciprocity, SR’s Timed Dilation makes for us Earthlings the cosmic ray muons really live much longer than the half-lives, as measured in the Lab with our clocks.
So says SR which also requires that the earth lab clock lost time and under went contraction as well from the muon's perspective. But since that is a physical impossibiity and MUST be relinquished to being mere illusion then something causes the muon to age slower or travel less distance as an actual physical fact.

Originally Posted by Billy T
[img][http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Lilac-Chaser.gif[/img] Follow the bluish/green dot - it seems to move around the circle.
Get back to the issue at hand.

***********************************************8

[PDF]
1 Monday, October 24: Special Relativity Re- view
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View
....is changed by the switching inertial frames, we need to place ourselves in a frame of reference K that is moving perpendicular to B and parallel to ±u ...

********************** Extract **************************
Just as E is unchanged by the the switch of inertial frames, B is also
unchanged.

To see how B is changed by the =switching inertial frames, we need to place ourselves in a frame of reference K that is moving perpendicular to B and parallel to ±ue . The complete calculation in this case requires computing .........
************************************************** *****

12. Billy T;

The light clock: photon emitted from source reflects from mirror back to detector adjacent to source, which is defined as 1 tick (unit of time). Distance s to m = d.
Observer always moves with the clock.

case 1. A is static

m

S

Tick = 2d/c = tA

case 2. B is moving to the right.

-------m--------m

S----------S----------S

A photon travels greater distance to complete a cycle.

Tick = k(2d/c) = tB = k(tA), with k>1

Assume there is no time dilation.
Why doesn't B see a slowing of his clock?

13. Originally Posted by phyti
Billy T;

The light clock: photon emitted from source reflects from mirror back to detector adjacent to source, which is defined as 1 tick (unit of time). Distance s to m = d.
Observer always moves with the clock.

case 1. A is static
m
S
Tick = 2d/c = tA
case 2. B is moving to the right.

-------m--------m

S----------S----------S

A photon travels greater distance to complete a cycle.

Tick = k(2d/c) = tB = k(tA), with k>1

Assume there is no time dilation.
Why doesn't B see a slowing of his clock?
Ha. Ironic. I never really thought of this before but SR argues that the photon travels further so that we can then claim distance foreshortened. Since light has a finite speed the assumption that the photon goes further means ticks are slower.

But keep in mind that this is from the resting observers perspective and that in the moving frame the photon would be traveling linearly back and forth not diagonally between mirrors.

14. Originally Posted by phyti
...case 2. B is moving to the right.

-------m--------m

S----------S----------S

A photon travels greater distance to complete a cycle.

Tick = k(2d/c) = tB = k(tA), with k>1

Assume there is no time dilation.
Why doesn't B see a slowing of his clock?
Not sure I entirely understand, but your "typed drawing" above I think shows two "ticks." I.e. from the "S" at left a photon goes to the left most "m" and in the POV of the drawing's observer (his reality, nothing to do with his watching or not.) That photon is not normally incident upon the mirror so relfects with angle not 90 degrees to arrive back to "S" at the middle location completing "one tick."

If that is what you are stating with your “typed drawing,” I again agree with you. If B is the frame in which the mirror and source are stationary, then the reflection off the mirror is at a 90 degree angle and the trip is shorter. For B the light clock is NOT time dilated, However,

For the frame in which "S" is moving* the ticks do actually, really, take longer than in the moving frame. - This is exactly what I and standard SR are stating. By the clocks (their seconds) of the stationary frame where "S" and "m" are moving, not static, there is time dilation in the moving frame. This does not require ANY physical change of "S" (Still has the same value of energy levels printed in any frame's Handbook of Physics, etc.) or any physical change in the mirror, m.

SUMMARY: Your "time clock" is a good demonstration of reason why describing the duration of the S-m-S transit event, using the seconds of the frame not moving to describe the moving frame, causes time dilation with ZERO PHYSICAL CHANGE. - Thank you for it.

It is better than my analogy with the short armed King of France being happy that the English King sold him 115yards of rope for the price of 100 yards. I.e.

Back in the days when the yard was the distance from the king's nose to his finger tip, if the French king was short and describing his buying of English made rope, He very likely would say: "The English are fools. They sold me 115 yards of rope for the price of only 100 yards!" Point is there does not need to be ANY physical change when your time or length standards are use to describe time or length in another realm or frame.

-----------------
*BTW, it does not make any difference in standard SR if instead of S & m having been accelerated in the distant past to the right wrt to the frame of the typed drawing OR the typed drawing was long ago accelertated to the left to achiever the current RELATIVE VELOCITY.

Which was accelerated is only important in MacM's strange version of SR.

15. Originally Posted by Billy T
*BTW, it does not make any difference in standard SR if instead of S & m having been accelerated in the distant past to the right wrt to the frame of the typed drawing OR the typed drawing was long ago accelertated to the left to achiever the current RELATIVE VELOCITY.

Which was accelerated is only important in MacM's strange version of SR.
Nothing strange about "Accumulated ticks" by clocks depending on when they became dilated. It is only in your fantasyland dream that it doesn't matter when something slowed down.

i.e.: I am at common rest with another clock I accelerated to 0.6c to our common rest frame 1 year ago. While the resting clock accumulates 31,557,600 seconds (includes 0.25 leap years days), the accelerated clock only accumulates 25,246,080 seconds.

Now if I accelerated to 0.6c yesterday at this precise time then the restng clock will have accumulated 86,400 seconds and the accelerated clock will only accumulate 69,120 seconds.

Seems to me that the clock has a definite capacity to remember when it changed velocity.

Failure to re-synchronize clocks with acceleration changes mixes data and makes it impossible to decipher the history but the memory is collectively still there in the lesser accumulated time on the clock.

Which by the way has been emperivally demonstrated to be physically real when compared in a common rest frame and not just the view point of some remote observer with relative velocity.

16. Well see they have moved this once again. Must be frustrating to them that these threads dominate the readership. Over 8,000 views in 5 weeks. UniKEF Analysis views 55% of all Physics and Math threads.

It would be interesting to see some of these viewers speak up.

1 - Is the subject matter of interest?

2 - Do you find the alternatives potentially viable.?

3 - Do you find standard SR rhetoric falls short of being totally correct?

4 - Do you feel this thread belongs here? Etc.

BTW: It would also be interesting if you could indicate your profession.

Lets hear some feedback.

Also let it be known that I recently did receive an e-mail from one physicist telling me he had read this thread and generally agrees with my views.

Point not meaning I'm right but being that he, nor any professional, will not likely come forward publically and say so. So what is expected is over whelming negative response from professionals but hopefully some counter interest from lay or self educated persons.

17. Originally Posted by MacM
Well see they have moved this once again. Must be frustrating to them that these threads dominate the readership.
When you spend all your time posting in these threads, they naturally drift to the top of the post list. You keep them alive by arguing with different people about the same old crap, over and over again.

Also let it be known that I recently did receive an e-mail from one physicist telling me he had read this thread and generally agrees with my views.
One wonders who all these mystery physicists are.

I suppose they must be fringe dwellers of one kind or another. I doubt if many of them are really physicists at all. Or, at least, not with degrees from any reputable university. Either that or the education system is failing badly.

18. Originally Posted by James R
When you spend all your time posting in these threads, they naturally drift to the top of the post list. You keep them alive by arguing with different people about the same old crap, over and over again.
Only becasue those who oppose the ideas NEVER post direct rebuttal. i.e. - You still have not stated how it is that considering "Frame Switching" isn't a rejection of the mere "Relative Velocity" view.

Originally Posted by James R
One wonders who all these mystery physicists are.
Typical exaggeration. I mentioned ONE physicst.

Originally Posted by James R
I suppose they must be fringe dwellers of one kind or another. I doubt if many of them are really physicists at all. Or, at least, not with degrees from any reputable university. Either that or the education system is failing badly.
Wrong. Your assumption that only fakes, etc could reject SR shows you are completely indoctrinated. NPA lists occupations of their 1,500 members and there are numerous notable physicsts listed there.

You have frequently suggested that the anti-relativity crowd believe in a conspiracy of modern science. I do not but I do support the arguement that there is extreme bias at all levels.

Here for example (and I mean no disrespect to the poster or value of his post) the idea that the subject "Anti-Gravity" can be posted with speculation that it is achievable via gluons, being in Physics & Math while this discussion gets shit canned is a perfect example.

I have shown repeatedly how to compute Gamma or TD and LC using SR formulas. I have based my arguements on emperical data. You nor any member here has posted bonafide rebuttal or falsification of the concepts I suggest.

19. MacM:

Originally Posted by MacM
Only becasue those who oppose the ideas NEVER post direct rebuttal. i.e. - You still have not stated how it is that considering "Frame Switching" isn't a rejection of the mere "Relative Velocity" view.
I don't know what you're talking about. I bowed out of this conversation pages ago. You have not directly asked me about your issues with "frame switching" and "relative velocity". I don't even know what you're talking about. If you explain what the issue is, then I might be able to make a statement about it.

Typical exaggeration. I mentioned ONE physicst.
You're constantly telling us about all the hundreds of supportive emails from supposed physicists that you receive, and how people are planning to publish your ideas in peer-reviewed journals (even though that never happens) and so on. To listen to you, you'd think that 90% of physicists support your crazy ideas, when in fact about 99.9999+% think you don't even understand relativity properly.

Wrong. Your assumption that only fakes, etc could reject SR shows you are completely indoctrinated.
Yeah, accepting relativity is a worldwide conspiracy to put down innovative people like you. It's a massive 100 year coverup of the obvious flaws in relativity. Ho hum.

You have frequently suggested that the anti-relativity crowd believe in a conspiracy of modern science. I do not but I do support the arguement that there is extreme bias at all levels.
Are you surprised that qualified physicists get frustrated that you can't grasp the simplest concepts of the theory of special relativity, even after years and years of supposed thinking about them?

Here for example (and I mean no disrespect to the poster or value of his post) the idea that the subject "Anti-Gravity" can be posted with speculation that it is achievable via gluons, being in Physics & Math while this discussion gets shit canned is a perfect example.
If that thread hasn't been moved yet it is an oversight that will soon be corrected.

I have shown repeatedly how to compute Gamma or TD and LC using SR formulas. I have based my arguements on emperical data. You nor any member here has posted bonafide rebuttal or falsification of the concepts I suggest.
So says you, ignoring a long history of careful explanations in a fruitless attempt to educate you.

20. Originally Posted by MacM
NOTICE: MEMBERS AND VISITORS

Billy T has spent many days and pages here making statements about what MacM "Thinks", Believes", "Says", etc. NONE of which are actually based on anything I have said, think or believe.

His posts are full of shear nonsense so I will state here what is and has always been my views.

1 - Special Relativity advocates that an observer moving inertially can rightfully declare himself as being at rest and hence that two observers moving inertially with a relative velocity to each other means either can assume to be at rest and it is the other that has all motion.

Further Special Relativity provides a mathematical tool called Gamma that proclaims to predict time dilation and/or Lorentz Contraction based on relative velocity. This fact leads to what is known to be a symmetrical situation and causes reciprocity of affect.

That is where "A" sees "B" as time dilated at the same time as "B" sees "A" time dilated.

There are some here that want to claim that this situation is real and is a physical reality.

MACM's Actual View: This aspect of Special Relativity exists but is only an abberation, perception, or illusion of motion since it vanishes once relative velocity terminates. There is no permanent physical changes associated with the mere relative velocity between observers (clocks) affect.

To suggest this is in any way a physical reality it utter nonsense since it requires two clocks to both tick slower than each other at the same time. Nothing wrong with that being a perception or illusion caused by motion or distance between observers.

Just as watching a carpenter from a distance and seeing the hammer rise as you hear it hit the nail. It is the illusion not the reality at the hammer and nail's physical location.

2 - Modern physics however employ what they call "Frame Switching" when putting Special Relativity's mathematics to actual practice and predicting real time dilation.

MACM's Actual View:"Frame Switching" is another term to describe who has "Actual Velocity" vs "Mere Relative Velocity". You can only switch frames if you change inertial velocity and you can only do that if you accelerate/decelerate.

To accelerate or decelerate means a change in inertial velocity which is an absolute affect. That is while you accelerate and have actual velocity via basic physical affects of F = ma, a = F/m, v = at, Work = F * d, Power = Wk/t, etc. Such that at some universal level you have changed energy state.

Not only have you changed energy state but you are no longer considering "Relative Velocity" between observers or clocks. You are considering your velocity to a former inertial rest reference, a calculation based on an absolute value and not merely a relative value.

If and ONLY if another clock was at common rest with you and has remained at rest will Special Relativity's mathematics generate a correct time dilation prediction between you and this other clock. That is only possible because the clock is at your initial inertial rest reference frame.

If the other clock has also moved then you must compute your dilation to the common rest frame, compute the other clocks time dilation to the comon rest frame and then take the difference between dilations as the dilation between you.

This is the only thing that emperical data has ever supported in over 100 years of relativity.

3 - Special Relativity stipulates that a moving frame is time dilated but when computing in the moving frame ignores the stipulated dilated condition so as to argue that the moving observer must have gone less distance since relative velocity is symmetrical and he accumulated less time for the trip.

Relativists argue both time dilation and lorentz contraction are real physical affects but are observer frame dependant.

MACM's Actual View:"You can select either Lorentz Contraction or clock time dilation as the physical cause for a moving observer accumulating less time for a trip than a resting observer measures.

However, it is ludricrus to suggest that anything physical is subject to an observer view point. An observer may mistake a physical condition by encumbered observation but he cannot cause a physical event by observation.

Retaining common sense physics and that either time dilation or length contraction must physically account for the observed affect, and it is emperically confirmed, I choose time dilation over length contraction for logical reasons.

That does not mean I'm correct it could be either but that doesn't alter the situation in the final analysis.

If an accelerated clock is subjected to an energy change that affects it's tick rate then that dilated condition to the resting clock is physical and real in all frames. That is if I have accelerated and my clock now ticks only 8 times to your resting clock's 10 times then I MUST use the 0.8 dilated tick rate when computing in my moving frame.
You are talking about when calculating distance traveled.

That is what is NOT done in Special Relativity. When computing in Special Relativity they ignore the dilated condition of the clock timing the trip and then argue since it accumulated less time and relative velocity is symmetrical it must have traveled less distance.

...
What evidence do you have that shows that SR ignores the time dilated rate?