1. Originally Posted by MacM
WOW. James R has just said that in one frame the TNT detonates simultaneously bout in another frme it does not. Now considering tht the TNT was rigged to not detonate if the fuses were burning simultasneously it blows up in one frame and doesn't in the other. Seems a bit more than "Counter Intuitive" doesn't it.
It is impossible that the TNT detonates in one frame and not in all other frames, since all events that happen in spacetime happen in all frames. If you believe that detonation happens in one frame but not in another then it is because you haven't specified the setup sufficiently, or you've made a mistake.

2. MacM:

You can continue to argue that physical reality is subject to observer perception but that doesn't alter the fact on the ground which is that emperical data disagrees with you..
No. Empirical data agrees with me. We actually observe those muons hitting the ground, when if time dilation was an "illusion of motion" they couldn't possibly do so. I've measured them myself.

When you claim one twin has switched frames (accelerated) you are eliminating the reciproticy inherent in a mere relative velocity view.
Do you deny that one twin accelerates and the other does not?

You are putting the traveling twin in a preferred frame where the traveling twin can no longer claim he is at rest while trveling inertial and tht it is his stay at home brother that has the veloicty.
There are no preferred frames for me to put anyone in. Besides, your use of language gives away your misunderstanding over and over again. You think that one object only exists in one frame. In fact, every object exists in every frame at the same time, because a reference frame is just the point of view of a particular set of observers.

An accelerating observer can claim he is at rest if he wants to. That's just another frame - a particularly difficult one to work in, admittedly, since it is non-inertial.

Your logic has "Frame Switching" to resolve the issue by saying he was temporarily non-inertial, without recognizing that what you really mean is he accelerated and hence changed absolute velocity...
Yes, he was temporarily non-inertial.
Yes, he accelerated.
Yes, he changed velocity.
No, there is no such thing as absolute velocity.

So you say acceleration (A) causes velocity change (B), and that velocity change (B) causes physical change (C), but you deny that acceleration (A) causes physical change (C).
Correct because ... [snip]
Correct, because you don't use the same logic that everybody else in the world uses. We've just found that you have your own special MacM logic as well as fantasyland MacM physics.

Bullshi_. When you accelerate what is your velocity relative to? Alpha Centrui, the Sun, Pluto or an inertial rest frame (v = 0) before acceleration?
It's relative to whatever you want to specify it being relative to. That's what choosing a frame of reference means.

If you haven't noticed yet having one TNT fuse foreshorten and not the other in one frame but both be the same length in another frame creates a bit of problem for physics is the same in all frames. Having time dilate s a physical reality does not.
No. There's no problem with length contraction or time dilation, except that by accepting either you must also accept the relativity of simultaneity - something I think you're incapable of understanding.

3. Originally Posted by James R
It is impossible that the TNT detonates in one frame and not in all other frames, since all events that happen in spacetime happen in all frames. If you believe that detonation happens in one frame but not in another then it is because you haven't specified the setup sufficiently, or you've made a mistake.

No No. I specified it precisely the way I intended. You are the one that has a problem. You cannot blow this off with some casual remark about simultaneity because the TNT sticks are side by side in all frames of reference.

The TNT sticks are aboard a craft that has accelerated and they are oriented crossed with one three minute fuse aligned with the vector of motion and the other orthogonal to the vector of motion.

Your theory causes one fuse to become shorter than the other. So it is incumbent upon you to show that with one long fuse and one short fuse that they will still detonate simultaneously in all frames. The moving frame time dilation applies to both fuses but not length contraction.

Have fun.

BTW: I noticed you haven't responded to the challenge to actually post bonafide rebuttals.

4. Originally Posted by James R
MacM:No. Empirical data agrees with me. We actually observe those muons hitting the ground, when if time dilation was an "illusion of motion" they couldn't possibly do so. I've measured them myself.
Nice dodge but insufficient. The "Illusion of Motion" is the SR assertion that your lab clock is dilated from the muon's frame of reference. Actual time dilation belongs ONLY to the moving muon frame.

It is real and I have said so. You should take some courses in reading chomprehension or better yet actually attempt to respond to the issues raised and not continue to make up your own strawman texas two step diversions.

Originally Posted by James R
Do you deny that one twin accelerates and the other does not?
Nope. I insist on it.

Do you deny that the accelerated twin changed velocity?

Do you deny that the time diation we see is a function of the duration of that veloicty?

Do you deny that you have no emperical data showing that the stay at home twin (or clocks) have lost time once the reltive veloicty vanishes? (This is a negative presentation of saying you don't have emperical data to support the arguement that relative velocity causes any physical change.)

Originally Posted by James R
There are no preferred frames for me to put anyone in.
Correction. You put the trveling twin in a preferred frame the instant you consider "He accelerted" and hence has actual velocity. You can no longer have him claim to be at rest and the stay at home twin has the velocity and hence is aging slower.

Read your own theory please. Unless you put your accelerated twin into a preferred frame both age slower than the other. That reciprocity was the whole basis of the paradox.

Originally Posted by James R
Besides, your use of language gives away your misunderstanding over and over again. You think that one object only exists in one frame. In fact, every object exists in every frame at the same time, because a reference frame is just the point of view of a particular set of observers.
Your assumption about what I think are just flat wrong and likely deliberately so. I know and understand all objects exist in all frames and that frames extend throughout the universe.

Originally Posted by James R
An accelerating observer can claim he is at rest if he wants to. That's just another frame - a particularly difficult one to work in, admittedly, since it is non-inertial.
Yes he can and I have not said he can't. I have merely pointed out that when he does so his predictions about the resting clock are not supported emperically that inspite of his declaration of being at rest the reality is he will ultimately accumulate less time than the resting clock.

Only the accelerated frame ever dilates.

Originally Posted by James R
Yes, he was temporarily non-inertial.
Yes, he accelerated.
Yes, he changed velocity.
No, there is no such thing as absolute velocity.
So says James R. I happen to believe you are full of SR crap. When you accelerate you change absolute veloicty. It is a real physical change. You do not of course know the absolute value but you do know the absolute value to a prior inertial rest velocity.

So an "Absolute Velocity" change is sound physics, declaring an absolute velocity universally is not.

Originally Posted by James R
Correct, because you don't use the same logic that everybody else in the world uses. We've just found that you have your own special MacM logic as well as fantasyland MacM physics.
Correction "Fantasyland Physics" is to believe even for a second that an observers perspective causes real physical change.

Originally Posted by James R
It's relative to whatever you want to specify it being relative to. That's what choosing a frame of reference means.
Ah. Thank you. Now tell us which frame is supported by emperical data and what frames are SR rhetoric and dogma.

The only frame that will be supportted emperically is the initial inertial rest frame not any other frame with relative motion. If you say I'm wrong then post actual data please. Your word just doesn't carry much weight I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by James R
No. There's no problem with length contraction or time dilation, except that by accepting either you must also accept the relativity of simultaneity - something I think you're incapable of understanding.
Correction. You do not think. You merely recite wht you have red or been told by others.

Please show how you think simultaneity resolves the TNT scenario I have posted. It does not.

BTW: I do know about simultaneity and it is a rather obvious affect "Illusion of Motion or Distance". But locally with no relative velocity there is no relativity of simultaneity.

Try again James R. You failed this class.

5. Documentation illustrating MacM’s “duck and weave” distortions of other's posts (my NEW comments in blue):

----------------- (On cause of “time dilation”):
In post 753, James R: “Viewing things from a different frame of reference "causes" time dilation, if you want to say things that way.” AND “Relativistic effects arise from viewing things in different frames of reference.”

In post 755, MacM’s Reply to above: “Don't buy this crap folks. Real physical change does NOT occur because you are watching. While you are watching you may see things differently than they are but they are what they are in spite of your delusions.”

In post 758, James R’s reply to above: “Correct. It occurs when you change the reference frame you're watching from.”

In earlier post 743 Billy T:
“The seconds of the moving frame are longer ONLY because the fixed frames seconds (and meter sticks when speaking of contraction in the moving frame) are used to DESCRIBE the event, such as clock ticks, in the moving frame.

I gave MacM, several times, the following analogy to help him understand that using your standards TO DESCRIBE something of another realm or frame can lead to an SR like effect:

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.

Because I know MacM will cease on the use of “see”, “watch”, “view” or similar words to imply an SR supporter like James R is crazy as he thinks that someone’s watching is the cause of Time Dilation, etc. I avoid these terms and use “describe” instead. With “describe” it is un-distortablely clear that cause of SR effects is due to using the seconds and meter sticks of the stationary frame to describe events in the moving frame without need to postulate, as MacM does, the creditably foolish “physical effects” of even atoms permanently changing their energy levels! For more on MacM’s needed energy level changes, see 2nd paragraph in the “***NOTE” text in blue comments below and the final section on the consistency of physics.

----------------- (On “reciprocity”):
In post 725, MacM: “Relative velocity as a cause breaks down the moment you realize that reciprocity does not happen and cannot happen as a physical reality.

In post 730, Billy T: “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.”

MacM, of course, ignores this and other empirical evidence that “reciprocity” is real (or claims the evidence is false or ill relevant, not properly understood etc. if not ignored) For the latest of many examples:

Posted by MacM in 764: “The "Illusion of Motion" is the SR assertion that your lab clock is dilated from the muon's frame of reference. Actual time dilation belongs ONLY to the moving muon frame.”

***NOTE: "Illusion of Motion" is a “MacM invented” term ONLY used MacM. There is no experimental means for distinguishing it from “real motion.” MacM bases the distinction on prior history, which ever moving atom must somehow “remember” to shift it energy levels etc. from those than can be calculated from Quantum THEORY – I.e. even theory must remember and change by some ancient, long over, prior acceleration.

For example, it is the energy level spacing in cesium atoms that determines the rate a cesium atomic clock “ticks.” MacM accepts time dilation and insist it is caused by a real “physical change” in the moving frame, not “merely” a consequence of describing moving frame events, such as clock ticking, in terms of the not moving frame’s seconds etc. Thus MacM is asserting that every cesium atom used in the moving cesium clock remembers the ancient acceleration and has energy levels different from the values published in Physics Hand books. (Physics is definitely not the same in all inertial frames for MacM. Thus, there is a preferred or “absolute rest frame” – i.e. the one with the original, not reduced, energy levels and all other frames have Time Dilation wrt this frame. This logically follows from MacM's SR, but when "necessary," MacM ignores logic and math, etc. as MacM does not advocate ONE absolute rest frame; he has the CRF instead.)

----------------- (On physicists using “frame switching” term)
In post 753, James R: “I've never heard any physicist call this "frame switching" - only you {MacM}.”

The next three posts are the earlier Billy T / MacM "Frame Switching"”exchange:

Posted by MacM in 721: “Modern physics however employ what they call "Frame Switching" when putting Special Relativity's mathematics to actual practice and predicting real time dilation.”

Posted by Billy T in 724: “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.”

Posted by MacM in 725: “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. ”

Posted by Billy T in 730:
“Your 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.”

----------------(On consistency in physics and in discussion of its models / theories):
In post 638, condensed, Billy T: “everyone who accepts that physics is the same in all inertial frames says all atoms have the same energy levels and thus the same difference and the same radiation wave lengths emitted. In the case of hydrogen these levels can and have been calculated - with amazing (to ~10 significant figures, I think,) agreement to experiment via quantum mechanics. For your POV to be correct even that theory must change as the frame changes to keep this fantastic agreement between theory and experiment! …”

“I am thru trying to convince you. You ignore math proof of inconsistency (post 198) by staying it is too long and complex. You falsify the scenario of post 612 and try to replace it with one which leaves the critical slow one meter move on a table top out …. I.e. you throw the baby out with the bath water to avoid the embarrassment that a 1 meter move on a table top so slow it took 100 years drastically changes (by your version of SR and its CRFs) the resulting time dilation between two clock coasting in different frames for all eternity!”

CRF is another “MacM invented term, not used by any physicists. It is the “Common Rest Frame” from which in MacM’s version of SR all “real velocities” must be measure wrt. Post612 had a not humanly noticeable movement of clock “b” on a table top fixed in frame P in case 2, but none in case 1. Thus in case 2, P was not the CRF, which became the earlier frame C. As P was moving at 0.6C wrt frame C, this undetectable movement in case 2, forced MacM’s SR to used the much higher velocities in case 2 when calculating the final time dilation of b wrt clock a. I.e. TDba1 <<< TDba2 resulted from a not humanly detectible movement of clock b on a table top . Likewise earlier post 112, made before MacM had limited the use of CRF to the last CRF, had frames C & P with large relative motion and proved mathematically that MacM’s SR was not even self consistent when there was more than one prior CRF.

“And try other ways you try to “duck and weave” or just resort to name calling. You have done this for 5 years. It is not worth trying to change your POV – it is too rigid and wrong or at least in conflict with more than 1,000,000 much better educated people who have considered SR theory during the nearly 100 years it has been a standard part of most college level physics courses.”

“I just believe {1} that Physic is the same in all frames, in part because astronomy looking at radiated spectral lines from distant stars tells us so. I.e. the hydrogen red or blue shift observed can be compared to the computed values to get the relative velocity wrt to Earth of the distant star and then ALL the other lines are shifted by this same Doppler shift formula as they had unchanged / standard / same energy levels when radiated. Not one star is “remembering” that many million years ago it had acceleration by near miss with another star and thus a earlier “common rest frame” Etc.”

“I also believe {2} vacuum is vacuum, everywhere and that Maxwell's equations tell the speed of light (inverse root of product of vacuum magnetic permeability and dielectric constant, if memory serves me.) So speed of light in vacuum is the same everywhere. – Really, IMHO, this is just “Physics is the same in all frames” again.”

All of SR follows from these two {1 & 2} facts.
Which are you disputing? Or do you think math is not a reliable means to derive results? }

6. Originally Posted by Billy T
Documentation illustrating MacM’s “duck and weave” distortions of other's posts (my NEW comments in blue):

----------------- (On cause of “time dilation”):
In post 753, James R: “Viewing things from a different frame of reference "causes" time dilation, if you want to say things that way.” AND “Relativistic effects arise from viewing things in different frames of reference.”

In post 755, MacM’s Reply to above: “Don't buy this crap folks. Real physical change does NOT occur because you are watching. While you are watching you may see things differently than they are but they are what they are in spite of your delusions.”

In post 758, James R’s reply to above: “Correct. It occurs when you change the reference frame you're watching from.”

In earlier post 743 Billy T:
“The seconds of the moving frame are longer ONLY because the fixed frames seconds (and meter sticks when speaking of contraction in the moving frame) are used to DESCRIBE the event, such as clock ticks, in the moving frame.

I gave MacM, several times, the following analogy to help him understand that using your standards TO DESCRIBE something of another realm or frame can lead to an SR like effect:

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.

Because I know MacM will cease on the use of “see”, “watch”, “view” or similar words to imply an SR supporter like James R is crazy as he thinks that someone’s watching is the cause of Time Dilation, etc. I avoid these terms and use “describe” instead. With “describe” it is un-distortablely clear that cause of SR effects is due to using the seconds and meter sticks of the stationary frame to describe events in the moving frame without need to postulate, as MacM does, the creditably foolish “physical effects” of even atoms permanently changing their energy levels! For more on MacM’s needed energy level changes, see 2nd paragraph in the “***NOTE” text in blue comments below and the final section on the consistency of physics.

----------------- (On “reciprocity”):
In post 725, MacM: “Relative velocity as a cause breaks down the moment you realize that reciprocity does not happen and cannot happen as a physical reality.

In post 730, Billy T: “Standard SR and I both assert that there is exact and identical reciprocity. I have illustrated that many times with cosmic muons:
1 - YOU CALL THIS SELFSERVING CRAP Documentation??

2 - Please post for us your emperical data showing that from the muon frame the lab clock actually lost time once the relative velocity ended.

Originally Posted by Billy T
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.

Where? Show us this reciproicity./ You apparently don't know wht reciprocity is. Reciprocity is when relative velocity ends the lab clock will display less accumulated time that the muon. vs actual emperical data which ONLT shows that the muon was time dilated.

Further you have absolutely NO basis to suggest distance changed rather than the life of the muon was affected by internal energy based on some universal scale.

I believe it was Quantum wave that suggeted it could be energy density since the atom would be physically contracted. Go ahead post some proof that this is not a viable alternative.

Originally Posted by Billy T
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.”
Correct and I would not want to alter the facts because the facts are thatthere is NO evidence that reciprocity exists further there IS evidence that the muon life is extended as a functon of it's absolute motion to the CMB and not to earth's atmosphere.

Why do you continue to try and spak about "Illusions of Motion" affects during relative velocity? I have never challenged that issue. So NONE of your posts actually address the issue and NONE actually falsify any of my altervative suggestions.

Originally Posted by Billy T
MacM, of course, ignores this and other empirical evidence that “reciprocity” is real (or claims the evidence is false or ill relevant, not properly understood etc. if not ignored) For the latest of many examples:
Another bold face lie just as you keep distorting and lying. I guess you have no other basis to offer as a defense otherwise we would have seen it by now.

Posted by MacM in 764: “The "Illusion of Motion" is the SR assertion that your lab clock is dilated from the muon's frame of reference. Actual time dilation belongs ONLY to the moving muon frame.”

***NOTE: "Illusion of Motion" is a “MacM invented” term ONLY used MacM. There is no experimental means for distinguishing it from “real motion.”[/quote]

False. Another lie. When computing time dilation for real, i.e. - the Twin Paradox, SR considers who acceleratedand hence has Actual Velocity vs mere relative velocity it produces to the resting observer. Otherwise you have no solution to the paradox as reciprocity would mandate each twin were younger than the other.

You cnnot get by with this bait and switch. You cannot have it both ways.

Originally Posted by Billy T
MacM bases the distinction on prior history, which ever moving atom must somehow “remember” to shift it energy levels etc. from those than can be calculated from Quantum THEORY – I.e. even theory must remember and change by some ancient, long over, prior acceleration.
False again and another deliberate lie since I have addressed this many times when you have posted it. Ptrior history will have altered the total numbser of accumulated atomic vibratons but has noting to do with the current vibration rate. It is ONLY the current velocity that dictates vibrations hencev tick rate.

When you accelerate you alter that unknown velocity and itvresults in a change in atomic vibrations. A burning fuse or other chemical or nuclear process doesn't care about distance traveled and if the atomic internal clock did not match the emperical data showing less accumulated time (a dilated tick rate) then the 3 minute fuse would not burn in three minutes in the moving frame. Chemical and nuclear processes must therefore vary so that physics remain the same in every frame.

Originally Posted by Billy T
For example, it is the energy level spacing in cesium atoms that determines the rate a cesium atomic clock “ticks.” MacM accepts time dilation and insist it is caused by a real “physical change” in the moving frame, not “merely” a consequence of describing moving frame events, such as clock ticking, in terms of the not moving frame’s seconds etc. Thus MacM is asserting that every cesium atom used in the moving cesium clock remembers the ancient acceleration and has energy levels different from the values published in Physics Hand books.
False and another deliberate lie. MacM :

1 - Does not care nor has commented about "illusion of Motion " affects of a moving frame. MacM is only interested in the physical differential of accumulated time by two clocks once there is no longer relative motion but one has had relative veloicty to a rest frame (not just to another clock).

2 - Claiming atom must have memory is a gross distortion. If you had a vibration counter on an atom then you could claim it has memory and the accumulated count would give a collective affect of all historical changes but without such counters or attached clocks the current tick rate is strictly a function of current unknown absolute velocity (or energy), which can be predicted for changes in that inertial velocity based on acceleration nd duration of motion to the rest frame.

Originally Posted by Billy T
(Physics is definitely not the same in all inertial frames for MacM. Thus, there is a preferred or “absolute rest frame” – i.e. the one with the original, not reduced, energy levels and all other frames have Time Dilation wrt this frame. This logically follows from MacM's SR, but when "necessary," MacM ignores logic and math, etc. as MacM does not advocate ONE absolute rest frame; he has the CRF instead.)
Another falsehood, deliberate lie or gross ignorance. You either either do not understand my view or you deliberately attempt to distort it to others in a vain effort to mitigate my very valid points based on emperical data.

I have repeatedly demanded you and James R to post ONE case of emperical data supporting your view. Why is it you have not done so?

Originally Posted by Billy T
----------------- (On physicists using “frame switching” term)

In post 753, James R: “I've never heard any physicist call this "frame switching" - only you {MacM}.”

The next three posts are the earlier Billy T / MacM "Frame Switching"”exchange:

Posted by MacM in 721: “Modern physics however employ what they call "Frame Switching" when putting Special Relativity's mathematics to actual practice and predicting real time dilation.”

Posted by Billy T in 724: “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.”

Posted by MacM in 725: “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. ”

Posted by Billy T in 730:
“Your 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.”
This somehow has ANY signifigance to the issue? I see none.

Originally Posted by Billy T
----------------(On consistency in physics and in discussion of its models / theories):

In post 638, condensed, Billy T: “everyone who accepts that physics is the same in all inertial frames says all atoms have the same energy levels and thus the same difference and the same radiation wave lengths emitted. In the case of hydrogen these levels can and have been calculated - with amazing (to ~10 significant figures, I think,) agreement to experiment via quantum mechanics. For your POV to be correct even that theory must change as the frame changes to keep this fantastic agreement between theory and experiment! …”
Not sure what you are claiming has been mesured, when and how. Please post specific test information and I'll then be able to rebutt your assertion.

Originally Posted by Billy T
“I am thru trying to convince you. You ignore math proof of inconsistency (post 198) by staying it is too long and complex. You falsify the scenario of post 612 and try to replace it with one which leaves the critical slow one meter move on a table top out …. I.e. you throw the baby out with the bath water to avoid the embarrassment that a 1 meter move on a table top so slow it took 100 years drastically changes (by your version of SR and its CRFs) the resulting time dilation between two clock coasting in different frames for all eternity!”
No I've dealt with you far to many time over the yers and know you never respond directly to my points but attempt to confuse with overly complex new scenarios which do not support your own views emperically nor refute my views physically. All you ever do is recite SR and distort my views and attempt to refute your own versions of my views.

I no longer play your silly games. Either directly address my points of continue to have your scenarios get ignored.

Originally Posted by Billy T
CRF is another “MacM invented term, not used by any physicists. It is the “Common Rest Frame” from which in MacM’s version of SR all “real velocities” must be measure wrt. Post612 had a not humanly noticeable movement of clock “b” on a table top fixed in frame P in case 2, but none in case 1. Thus in case 2, P was not the CRF, which became the earlier frame C. As P was moving at 0.6C wrt frame C, this undetectable movement in case 2, forced MacM’s SR to used the much higher velocities in case 2 when calculating the final time dilation of b wrt clock a. I.e. TDba1 <<< TDba2 resulted from a not humanly detectible movement of clock b on a table top . Likewise earlier post 112, made before MacM had limited the use of CRF to the last CRF, had frames C & P with large relative motion and proved mathematically that MacM’s SR was not even self consistent when there was more than one prior CRF.
ABSOLUTELY FALSE FOR THE 4TH TIME. I clearly pointed out that technically since you stipulated that the two clocks never came to a full common rest stop but one continued to creep then the earlier common rest frame was the correct one to use BUT that such a minor movement would have IMMEASUREABLE affect on the results.

YOU are the one saying it makes a mojor difference and there is NO such major difference. More deliberate lies and distortions.

Originally Posted by Billy T
“And try other ways you try to “duck and weave” or just resort to name calling. You have done this for 5 years. It is not worth trying to change your POV – it is too rigid and wrong or at least in conflict with more than 1,000,000 much better educated people who have considered SR theory during the nearly 100 years it has been a standard part of most college level physics courses.”
One thing we can be sure of here is that you are NOT one of the 100,000.

Originally Posted by Billy T
“I just believe {1} that Physic is the same in all frames, in part because astronomy looking at radiated spectral lines from distant stars tells us so. I.e. the hydrogen red or blue shift observed can be compared to the computed values to get the relative velocity wrt to Earth of the distant star and then ALL the other lines are shifted by this same Doppler shift formula as they had unchanged / standard / same energy levels when radiated. Not one star is “remembering” that many million years ago it had acceleration by near miss with another star and thus a earlier “common rest frame” Etc.”
More deliberate lies and distortion. I have never suggested an atom must remember it's history. It's history only affects the ACCUMULATED number of vibratons, NOT it's current energy state.

All observed 1H1 atoms in the universe having a common frequence tht dopler shifted measures velicty to earth is perfectly OK butr proves absolutely noting you claim it does.

Originally Posted by Billy T
“I also believe {2} vacuum is vacuum, everywhere and that Maxwell's equations tell the speed of light (inverse root of product of vacuum magnetic permeability and dielectric constant, if memory serves me.) So speed of light in vacuum is the same everywhere. – Really, IMHO, this is just “Physics is the same in all frames” again.”
Yes and if the three minute fuse doesn't match the dilated clock. i.e. 0.6c = Gamma = 1.25 or take 3.75 minutes according to the resting observer then it is no longer a three minute fuse in the moving frame.

The fuse cares less about distance travel. BUT OH does it care about length contraction. You bet. LC only affects the fuse aligned in the direction of motion and not the orthogonal fuse such that in one frame they detonate at different times but in the moving frame the fuses are still equal and detonate simultaneously.

Before you try and pull a James R BS comment about simultaneity it doesn't apply since both TNT sticks are physically at the same location in all frames.

But now time dilation of a clock woudl affect both fuses equally. Hmmmmmmm = Wonder what tht might mean?

Originally Posted by Billy T
All of SR follows from these two {1 & 2} facts. Which are you disputing? Or do you think math is not a reliable means to derive results? }
I dispute the invariance of lightv as a physical reality and suggest it is in fact an illusion of as yet unknown physics.

That is just as in Cerenkov Radiation charged particles traveling FTL (Faster than Light) for a material such as water, produces photons moving at v = c for that material; that space vacuum is in fact an unknown material but with a measureable permeability permanance and dielectric constant where in SOMETHING moving FTL in that material would generate photons.

Now just as Fizeau showed the affect of a moving liquid on the velocity of light, motion of an observer in the vaccum of space would also affect the production or generation of photons.

It is rather a simple idea that observers moving with different velocities to a light source are seeing different photons generated at v = c for the vacuum of space material, rather than as you would try to have us believe that somehow "A" photon has magical powers to exist invariantly at v = c to any and all observers simultaneously regardless of their differential velocities to the source.

If you want to debate me you need to do much, much better at staying on point and osting things that actually address the issue, not merely recite theory and appeal to authority.

So address these VERY simple facts:

1 - You claim all clocks tick the same and apparent TD is caused by LC. Resolve the TNT scenario where one fuse is foreshortened and the other is not in one frame but in the other frame both fuses remain equal.

2 - You claim there is no physical changes in a moving frame. Then explain the fact that once relative velocity has ceased to exists an accelerated clock has less accumulated time than a resting cock.

3 - Assuming you were correct justify your assertoin that intelligent , educated people would conclude that distance has changed because a moving observer accumulates less time.

Remember the moving observer cannot sense or measure any change in his clock or meter stick.

Therefor the ONLY data he has to work with is the FACT that he traveled a known distance (which he verifies with his meter stick and o-dometer), in less time than you recorded. i.e. he records that he went 60 miles in 48 minutes and you record he went 60 miles in one hours.

With those fact and only those fats available (which is REAL physics, notSR fantasyland physics) an intelligent, educated person will compute he traveled 80 Mph while you compute he traveled 60 Mph.

That is real world physics, not that he would conclude he traveled less distance. That is simply an absurd and unsupportable assumption to fit the preconcieved idea advocated by merging time-space, while ignoring emperical data as meaning real physical chagnes have occured that cannot be a matter of observer perception since it exists without any relative veloicty being present.

Now answer just these three questions with no bullshi_.. Failure to do that puts you in the same catagory as James R for not pointing out any real mathematical flaws in the paper I linked by Dr Engelhardt. You and he are nothing but indoctrinated blow hearts with no real substative rebuttal. You like to try and mitigate my posts with personal attacks and negative innuendo.

Now try actually responding to the issues. I'll knock your socks off anything you think you can say that applies. You can't.

7. ## explosion

The two explosives are coincident, together in one frame with no relative motion. In that frame they explode as one event. Therefore they explode as one event in all frames!

8. Originally Posted by phyti
The two explosives are coincident, together in one frame with no relative motion. In that frame they explode as one event. Therefore they explode as one event in all frames!
Correct. I fully agree and that should educate people that the arguement about physical length contraction is BS.

9. billy post 752;

Not if one travel a shorter distance. It is very much like your post
733 photon time clock, where the frame with the NOT 90 degree mirror
reflection photon path is longer than the frame with the 90 degree
mirror reflection angle.
Not if the duration of the trip was different for the two frame (the
traveling twin aged less etc.)
Also, I am not sure what you mean to assert by "If the A (astronaut)
and E (earth) clocks are synchronized."
(1)Certainly, at launch of A, A & E's clocks can both be showing
12:00 noon. Certainly later all E's clocks can be showing 12:53 PM.
(2)Certainly at that later SAME time for E all of A's clocks (assume
his rocket is 1Lyr long if you like with many clock spread over that
1 Lyr) can be showing 12:37 (as they are running slower when
compared to E's clocks. (3)Certainly when all of A's clocks are
showing 12:53 at that later SAME time for A all of E's clocks can be
showing 12:37.
There are only two (2) clocks.
They are synchronized to eliminate that factor as a cause for any
difference seen when they are reunited.
The only reading of concern is when reunited.
SR states that the A-clock will read less time than the E-clock.

The argument here is:
If the clocks always run at the same rate, regardless of how far they
travel, when reunited they should read the same.

The question is still:
if the A-clock physically shows a reading less than the E-clock,
what is the reason?

10. For all;

In SR length contraction is a required transformation of the moving observers CALCULATED distance, not the actual distance.
I can only remind you to read the fine print. The equations are transformations of COORDINATES, not objects.

11. Originally Posted by phyti
The two explosives are coincident, together in one frame with no relative motion. In that frame they explode as one event. Therefore they explode as one event in all frames!
Ahh but the SRT'ist will state that they explode in a relative simultaneous state....hee hee...relative simultaneousness is a great way to demonstrate a paradoxical outcome if anything.

The outcome of SRT is Relative Zero, which means we have two zeros of different values [ 0 = 0' ]
relative simultaneity is the key to how SRT is self contradictory.

How can simultaneity be relative?

As the word simultaneity crosses across all Referenece frames in use and assumes an over view perspective which is in fact a universal reference frame.
To state that events occur relatively simultaneously or even simultaneously one MUST take an absolute reference frame perspective other wise there would be no way of determining simultaneity or relative simultaneity once the objects are not physically touching.

So SRT MUST use Absolute time to justify it's relative time position. Therefore falsifying itself. As it uses absolute time to justify relative time.

12. MacM:

Originally Posted by MacM
No No. I specified it precisely the way I intended.
Yes, vaguely, without relevant details.

You failed to specify at what times the fuses were lit, what the conditions are for the TNT to detonate, in which frame are the fuses lit simultaneously, and so on - pretty much everything that is important to the problem.

You are the one that has a problem. You cannot blow this off with some casual remark about simultaneity because the TNT sticks are side by side in all frames of reference.
You give me the details and I'll provide exact analysis. You provide casual remarks about an ill-specified problem and I'll make casual remarks about its solution.

Correction. You put the trveling twin in a preferred frame the instant you consider "He accelerted" and hence has actual velocity.
I don't even insist on the travelling twin having accelerated, depending on which frame you're doing the analysis. The important point is that the travelling twin was non-inertial, as I said earlier.

There are no preferred frames of reference.

So says James R. I happen to believe you are full of SR crap.
Meh. Who cares what you believe?

When you accelerate you change absolute veloicty.
No, you only change velocity. There is no absolute velocity. All velocities are relative. Hence "theory of relativity".

Ah. Thank you. Now tell us which frame is supported by emperical data and what frames are SR rhetoric and dogma.
All frames are supported by empirical data, since there are no preferred frames.

13. James R:
There are no preferred frames of reference.
If no preferred frames of reference exist then how is relative simultaneity determined?
In fact I would challenge any one to derive a relative simultaneous condition with out using an absolute reference or preferred reference frame to do it with.

"Afterall... you gotta use the truth to establish a lie"

14. Originally Posted by phyti
For all;

In SR length contraction is a required transformation of the moving observers CALCULATED distance, not the actual distance.
I can only remind you to read the fine print. The equations are transformations of COORDINATES, not objects.
Bravo. My "Perception " claims vs "Phyical Reality" win out. I hope James R and Billy T actually digest this.

15. So the BIG question is:

What frame of reference are you using to determine that a state of relative simultaneity exists or not?

16. Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
What frame of reference are you using to determine that a state of relative simultaneity exists or not?
the frame of reference from which you make your measurements (obv.) Relativity of simultaneity states that events that are simultaneous in one frame are not in general simultaneous in other frames. No absolute frame is required.

17. Originally Posted by prometheus
the frame of reference from which you make your measurements (obv.) Relativity of simultaneity states that events that are simultaneous in one frame are not in general simultaneous in other frames. No absolute frame is required.
but how is relative simultaneity derived if t=0 is not absolute?

[ 0 = 0,0' ] type condition seems to exist..
of in better context:
[ t=0 ] = [ t=0 ], [t=0' ]

18. Let's deal with MacM's TNT example properly. If I wait around for MacM to clarify the example, I'll wait forever.

So lets place two TNT sticks with equal fuse lengths in the following configuration:

*************************
*..........................................*
*...fuse A..............................*
*..!.......................................*
*..!.......................................*
*.T.......................................*----------------> Frame velocity
*.N.......................................*
*.T.......................................*
*.A.......................................*
*..........................................*
*..fuse B-----> TNT B..............*
*..........................................*
**************************
I have labelled the starts of the fuses A and B, and the corresponding explosives TNT A and TNT B. I will assume that the fuses are 3 metres long from the start points to the TNT, in the rest frame of the box delineated by the asterisks above. I assume that the x direction is to the right on the diagram and the y direction is towards the top of the page. The box containing the fuses and the TNT moves at 0.6c relative to the ground, corresponding to a gamma factor of 1.25.

To set up the problem, I take the primed frame to be the moving frame of the box and the unprimed frame to be the ground frame. In the primed frame, I assume that the fuses are lit simultaneously. The spacetime coordinates of the lighting of the fuses in that frame are:

Fuse A: (x',y',t') = (0,4,0) Fuse B: (x',y',t') = (0,0,0)

In the frame of the box, let's say the fuses burn at a rate of 1 metre per second, meaning that there is a 3 second gap between lighting the fuse and the TNT going off in this frame. The spacetime coordinates of the explosions are:

TNT A: (x',y',t') = (0,1,3) TNT B: (x',y',t') = (3,0,3)

Note that the two explosions happen at the same time (simultaneously) in the box frame (both at t'=3 seconds).

----

Now we consider the ground frame. To find the spacetime coordinates of the various events we use the Lorentz tranformations:

$x = \gamma (x' + vt'), t = \gamma (t' + vx'/c^2)$

Note that since the box's motion is in the x direction, all y coordinates are unchanged.

We have:

Fuse A: (x',y',t') = (0,4,0) Fuse B: (x',y',t') = (0,0,0)
TNT A: (x',y',t') = (0,1,3) TNT B: (x',y',t') = (3,0,3)

Applying the transformations:

Fuse A: (x,y,t) = (0,4,0) Fuse B: (x,y,t) = (0,0,0)
TNT A: (x,y,t) = (675 000 000, 1, 3.75) TNT B: (675 000 003.8, 0, 3.750000008)

In the ground frame, therefore, the fuses are still lit simultaneously. But the explosions no longer occur simultaneously. TNT B explodes 0.000000008 seconds AFTER TNT A in the reference frame of the ground.

The large x coordinates for the explosions are mostly due to the motion of the box containing the TNT, which we recall is moving at 0.6c. In the ground frame, the x distance between the explosions is 3.8 metres, as compared to the 3 metres in the box frame. The "extra" 0.8 metres in the ground frame is partly due to the fact that TNT B expodes later than TNT A, so that TNT B moves a little further to the right before the lit fuse reaches it. Another contribution to the "extra" distance is the length contraction of fuse B in the direction of motion, which actually reduces that "extra" distance a bit. Both effects are accounted for in the Lorentz transformations.

The important point here is that although the fuses were lit simultaneously in both frames, the explosions are simultaneous in the reference frame of the box but they are not simultaneous in the reference frame of the ground (A occurs before B).

This is the complete analysis requested by MacM. It is now up to MacM to present his own alternative analysis, with the same mathematical detail I have presented.

19. Originally Posted by James R
MacM:Yes, vaguely, without relevant details.

You failed to specify at what times the fuses were lit, what the conditions are for the TNT to detonate, in which frame are the fuses lit simultaneously, and so on - pretty much everything that is important to the problem.
Unfortunately you overly complicate the issue. When they are lit isn't really the issue, although you are correct it would be better to not leave that to guess work or people just wanting to avoid thev real issue. The issue the burn times of the fuses.

For anyone not looking to pick bones the object of the exercise is abundantly clear.

Originally Posted by James R
You give me the details and I'll provide exact analysis. You provide casual remarks about an ill-specified problem and I'll make casual remarks about its solution.
Fine since we don't care about simultaneity between frames but only simultaneity of two sticks of TNT in each frame "A" lights his fuses simulltaneously what are the respective burn times of the fuses according to "A" & "B"?

Now "B" lights his fuses (forget that "A" just blew himself up) simultaneously. What are the respective fuse burn times according to "A" & "B".

Lastly what if any are the differences in emperical data versus these observations?

Originally Posted by James R
I don't even insist on the travelling twin having accelerated, depending on which frame you're doing the analysis. The important point is that the travelling twin was non-inertial, as I said earlier.
Shear double talk. non-inertial IS acceleration. Further BEING non-inertial doesn't dilate the clock. Only the velocity induced by being non-inertial (accelerating) times the duration of such "Actual Velocity" not mere "Relative Velocity" between twins are supported by emperical data as being the cause of accumulated time diffference.

Originally Posted by James R
There are no preferred frames of reference.
So says James R. A preferred frame is one which cannot be flip-flopped as in SR where either can claim to be at rest and the other has all moton. GPS uses just such a preferred frame and it is the only reason GPS works. The ECI (Earth Center Inertial) frame uses orbit velocity to the center of the earth and you cannot inturn declare the orbiting clock is at rest and the center of the earth has velocity.

THAT FOR YOUR INFORMATION IS A PREFERRED FRAME.

Originally Posted by James R
Meh. Who cares what you believe?
Ditto. The facts support my view and you still have not posted emperical data to support yours, in spite of your repeated claim that All data does. If that were the case it would seem a piece of cake to post proof of reciprocity of time dilation.

Originally Posted by James R
No, you only change velocity. There is no absolute velocity. All velocities are relative. Hence "theory of relativity".
You must differentiate between velocity induced by acceleration to an initial inertial rest frame vs mere "Relative Velocity" that such acceleration produces to any other frame.

There may be some absolute universal velocity. If it exists it is unknown and likely unknowable however one thing is for certain. If I accelerate from a given rest reference I obstain an "Absolute" velocity to that reference just as GPS orbit has an absolute velocity around the earth center.

Yes it is also relative but it is not relative without cause which relative velocity of the resting frame has no physical cause. It only exists because you accelerated and induced "Actual Velocity".

Originally Posted by James R
All frames are supported by empirical data, since there are no preferred frames.
So says James R. See above and learn.

20. EDIT: in response to quantum quack a couple of posts up.

t = 0 is a choice and one can make a clever choice of t = t' = 0 at an appropriate point in both frames. The length of an interval of time, a second, minute, whatever is what is relative and causes the relativity of simultaneity.