1. Originally Posted by James R

You might be interested in the speed that the fuse burns.

In the box's frame of reference, which is also the rest frame of the fuses, fuses A and B both burn at a rate of 1 metre per second.

In the ground frame, the speed of fuse B is:

$u = \frac{u' + v}{1+u'v/c^2} = \frac{1 + 0.6c}{1+(1)(0.6c)/c^2} = 0.6000000021333334c$

or (0.6c + 0.64) metres per second.

The speed of fuse A is more complicated because in the ground frame it travels partly in the x direction and partly in the y direction. Suffice it for the moment to say that the speed of A turns out to be slightly faster than B in the ground frame.
For the record let me correct your math.

1/c = 0.000000003333564095198152c

$u = \frac{u' + v}{1+u'v/c^2} = \frac{0.00000000333564095198152c + 0.6c}{1+(0.00000000333564095198152c)(0.6c)/c^2} = ???$

2. There's no mistake in my math. I just used c=300000000 m/s instead of c=299792458 m/s. It makes no essential difference to the correctness of my analysis. Your "correction" is just nit-picking because you have nothing pertinent to post.

3. Originally Posted by James R
There's no mistake in my math. I just used c=300000000 m/s instead of c=299792458 m/s. It makes no essential difference to the correctness of my analysis. Your "correction" is just nit-picking because you have nothing pertinent to post.
Just keeping you honest (at least trying, it's a full time job). You actually missed the point. Your velocity addition uses v+u when the orientation of the buring fuse velocity would be v-u. The fuse is pointed in the vector of motion and the flame would therefore be less than the forward velocity.

Actually your analysis shows that if a control mechanism monitors the physics of a burning fuse is coupled to identical equipment to assess physics in another frames you get different results.

What happened to physics are the same in all frames?.

More importantly how do you suppose I would have surmised that? After all I'm ignorant and stupid according to you.

4. Originally Posted by James R
MacM:Then the ground controls pull the trigger and the controls in the TNT box do not. The person dies in both frames, and the observers agree that the ground controls were triggered and the box controls were not.
Correct and you have just confirmed that physics are NOT the same in all frames. That is the issue not that he lives in one and dies in the other but that he is killed in one and not the other based on pure physics.

Originally Posted by James R
Ditto. Physics in one frame kills a person and physics in the other does not. Physics of one frame are not the same as the physics in another. What happened to physics are the same in all frames.?

Originally Posted by James R
What's your problem? I have explained exactly why you are wrong over and over. Do you have learning difficulties? (Don't bother answering - I know you do.)
Apparently you do. You admit different results but choose to ignore the implication regarding physics are not equal between frames.

Originally Posted by James R
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. It's the number one postulate of special relativity. The fuse contracting is an effect of viewing it from different reference frames. It doesn't change the physics.
Hypothetically or should I say superficially. As you have helped prove the BS of SR results in physics not being the same between frames. It is not just a matter of view point it becoems a matter of reality that the physics of the two frames do not remain the same.

To make this more clear and less easy to just claim it is viewed the same each frame lights a green light if detonation is simultaneous and a red light if not.

One frame lights a green light and the other lights a red light. Now lets see you argue that the physics of the frames are identical.

Originally Posted by James R
It's the foundation for ALL theories in physics. Every single one of them, without exception, rests on unprovable postulates. That you don't understand this only serves to further highlight your complete ignorance of science.
What happened to if a theory is unprovable it is falsified? Have you proven or can you prove reciprocity causes actual time dilation?

Originally Posted by James R
They understand what they are talking about. You do not.
That is your personal unqualified opinion. Considering that I have been discussing alternatives (which are "Realistic Theories" where SR should be abandoned or seriously modified) and have clearly suggested the CMB as a potential frame (which you had a great hee-haw) that is consistant with the suggestions of these folks I think it shows I know a hell of a lot more that you would like to admit.

No I don't know QM and I'm no expert in SR but I do know physics and I know SR is totally screwed as a physical theory. You don't and that doesn't boad well for your intelligence.

Originally Posted by James R
This paper in no way disproves the theory of relativity. If you claim that it does, you're operating on a delusion based on your inability to understand the paper.
Funny I don't recall saying that. The paper clearly said "according to the gedanken.....". A gendanken is hardly proof. But neither is it something to be blown off and phoo-phooed.

Originally Posted by James R
This paper has nothing to do with your crazy views of physics.
False on several levels:

1 - My views are not crazy just because they oppose yours. You have never made foraml falsification of any view you merely recit SR (which happens to be being challenged in the first palce) Such that your rebuttals are not actually rebuttals but are infomercials for relativity.

2 - It is very much in line with the fact that while I speak of preferred frames and you pretend to know everything and say they do not exist as a matter of fact when you do not know that. And when you say no mainstream physicist would even consider it, you are wrong.

3 - The fact that realistic theories require a preferred frame and the fact that my views are very much in that class of views being anti-relavistic or should I say more Lorentz Relativity, although I still accept TD, and I proposed the CMB as a frame, makes it very much to my favor over your view of me.

Frankly I really don't care much what your view of me is because it can't be much lower than mine of you at this juncture.

Originally Posted by James R
For the record, this is a lie, and so is the rest of the paragraph it comes from.
Thank you for making it worth my while to dig back and bury your lying ass.

5. MacM, are you sure you aren't confusing "physics', with "time"?
The latter is definitely not the same in all frames (actually, by definition all times are different for different observers, aren't they?).

The first is fundamentally assumed to be the same everywhere, so you need to show the assumption is wrong - physics is different in different frames for inertial observers.

This is obviously impossible on the surface of a planet because all observers are in the same physical frame. However in different locations on the planet, times are not the same - are they?

6. Originally Posted by noodler
MacM, are you sure you aren't confusing "physics', with "time"?
Not at all.

I've structured a case where event occur and the physics results of those events are not the same in all frames.

Originally Posted by noodler
The latter is definitely not the same in all frames (actually, by definition all times are different for different observers, aren't they?).
Correct. But you are referring to "Apparent" time dilation due to reciprocity during relative velocity. That vanishes with relative velocity ending with no permanent physical affect on both clocks.

However, there is another aspect to time dilation and that is when you consider "Frame Switching" then reciprocity is prohibited and the acelerated frame becomes the only one with velocity and in that case emperical data demonstrates a real physical affect on clocks in that the accelerated frame accumulates less time than the resting frame. It is a permanent shift in that it is recorded even when compared in a common rest frame subseqeunt to having had relative velocity.

Originally Posted by noodler
The first is fundamentally assumed to be the same everywhere, so you need to show the assumption is wrong - physics is different in different frames for inertial observers.
Prcisley my challenge. That is in one frame the observer gets killed in the other hecwould not be. Those are totally different physics results between frames.

Originally Posted by noodler
This is obviously impossible on the surface of a planet because all observers are in the same physical frame. However in different locations on the planet, times are not the same - are they?
Actually if you are unaware all sea level clocks on earth tick at the same rate, be they at the N or S pole or equator or any latitude inbetween. This has to do with the fact that the planet is shaped as an oblate spheroid by centrifugal force and gravity. It is not perfectly round.

The gravitation affects have an equal and opposite relavistic affect vs surface velocity at sea level everywhere on earth. But elevation does cause change.

7. MacM:

Once again I am forced to try to teach you basic physics. I know it will go in one ear and out the other, but...

Postulate #1 of the theory of relativity is that "The laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames".

This means that if in one inertial frame you write an equation of physics, like F=ma or a Lorentz transformation or one of Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism, or an equation from quantum physics, you will not need to alter that equation for it to be true in any other inertial frame.

Take, for example, F=ma. In any inertial frame, if you add up all the forces acting on an object and divide by the mass of the object, you'll find the acceleration of the object in that frame. For comparison, consider a non-inertial reference frame, such as one that is accelerating. In that case, when you add up all the forces on an object and divide by the mass you DO NOT get the object's acceleration. In fact, in a non-inertial frame the object may have no forces on it at all and yet still be observed to accelerate. One way to "fix" the problem in a non-inertial frame is to modify the F=ma law. In a non-inertial frame we might write F + F' = ma, where F are the forces on the object and F' is an extra "imaginary" or "inertial" force that makes the equation work.

The important point here is that it is the laws of physics that do not change between inertial frames.

Your silly claim that all physical quantities remain the same in all frames is not covered by any theory of physics, and certainly not special relativity. In fact, if you look at post #778, you will see that spacetime coordinates of events are different in different frames. That doesn't mean the laws of physics are different. Moreover, all observers agree on all events that occur, regardless of their frame of reference. They DO NOT agree on when and where in spacetime those events occurred, which is what relativity is all about.

The laws of relativity, along with the rest of the laws of physics, are the same in all inertial frames.

Now that I have educated you, re-read my statement from a previous post:

Originally Posted by James R
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. It's the number one postulate of special relativity. The fuse contracting is an effect of viewing it from different reference frames. It doesn't change the physics.
Hopefully, now that you have been educated, you will apologise for claiming that I was being inconsistent, and thank me for spending my valuable time attempting yet again to teach you basic physics.

8. Originally Posted by James R
MacM:... you will apologise for claiming that I was being inconsistent, and thank me for spending my valuable time attempting yet again to teach you basic physics.
Don't hold you breath.

9. Originally Posted by MacM
You are simply nuts and talking BS. You have proven nothing.
As you are not bothered by self contradictory theory, it is true that I have not proved anything to you.

To show that DZion was incorrect to assert that any mass traveling at the speed of light would be at absolute zero temperature I imagined a mass of lead at the melting temperature T and that it is half solid and half liquid. I also assumed that it was traveling at 0.99999999999999999999999999999999C and used two different approaches in post 804 which were:

(1) Note that all frames, even this very rapid one, know the mass is half solid / half liquid and thus is at the melting point temperature, T which is certainly not absolute zero.

(2) The using the atomic definition of temperature, related to square of atomic speeds, (ds/dt), I pointed out that “dt” was reduced in our frame’s seconds by “time dilation” and “ds” was reduced by “space contraction” by the same factors, so the speed of each molecule was unchanged. Hence again, consistent with (1) temperature does not change with speed of mass being consider in some other frame.

Now you, MacM deny “space contraction” exist, so if that were true, then approach (2) would contradict method (1).

For me, but not you, a theory which leads to self contradiction is not valid. I already knew that self contradiction did not disturb you as I showed long ago in both posts 118 and later in post 198 that your version of SR produces self contradictory results. So I did not expect this this new demonstration, via the constancy of temperature in all frames, to disturb you (unless you follow the base ball rule: Three strikes and you are out.)

I posted to correct DZion and others who you might misslead, not you. I have no expectation that you will change now, after five years of your rejecting standard SR, which has been confirmed during the last 100 years and supported by many experiments, like the cosmic ray muons reaching the Earth’s surface as in their frame the Earth’s atmosphere is “contracted” to only about 10 meters deep /thick so easily crossed before many decay and in our frame their fast moving clocks are “time dilation” to let the muons live much longer in our seconds and transit our frame’s 100,000 meter deep atmosphere. I.e. standard SR's “reciprocity” or "effects in BOTH frames" if described by the other frame's meter sticks and seconds has been confirmed. (We describe cosmic ray muons as living much too long and they describe the atmosphere as only 10 meters thick.)

10. Originally Posted by James R
MacM:Once again I am forced to try to teach you basic physics. I know it will go in one ear and out the other, but...

Postulate #1 of the theory of relativity is that "The laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames".

The important point here is that it is the laws of physics that do not change between inertial frames......................................

Your silly claim that all physical quantities remain the same in all frames is not covered by any theory of physics,
Yes it is easy to call requiring each frame to produce the same result silly but then that is what is wrong with SR isn't it. You go by as bunch of assumptions (postulates) and disregard common sense, logic and actual emperical implications.

Originally Posted by James R
and certainly not special relativity. In fact, if you look at post #778, you will see that spacetime coordinates of events are different in different frames. That doesn't mean the laws of physics are different. Moreover, all observers agree on all events that occur, regardless of their frame of reference. They DO NOT agree on when and where in spacetime those events occurred, which is what relativity is all about.
Right which in this case has nothing to do with simultaenity since the events are adjacent in the same frame. So forget that dodge and lets deal with the fact that your pet physics view causes a Red light to go on in one frame and the same physics causes a green light to go on in another frame. THAT FOR YOU EDUCATION IS NOT THE SAME PHYSICS.

Originally Posted by James R
The laws of relativity, along with the rest of the laws of physics, are the same in all inertial frames.
Another falicy. There are no laws, only current rules or guides.

Originally Posted by James R
Now that I have educated you, re-read my statement from a previous post:
Re-read with no benefit in that it misses the point. You have cleverly avoided the fact that the fuses don't burn the same.

You have also cleverly avoided the fact that you (the genius here) used v+u format when you should have used v-u format in your calculations.

Originally Posted by James R
Hopefully, now that you have been educated, you will apologise for claiming that I was being inconsistent, and thank me for spending my valuable time attempting yet again to teach you basic physics.
No apology due:

1 - as you screwed it up and continue to ignore the implications and only want to recite theory - not discuss physics.

2 - Because you still think you can re-direct the conversation away from the issues and never respond to points raised.

SO RESPOND TO MY CLAIM THAT YOUR THEORY AND ASSUMPTION THAT AN EDUCATED, INTELLIGENT HUMAN WOULD CONCLUDE DISTANCE FORESHORTENED WHEN IN FACT BASED ON REAL WORLD PHYSICS AND NOT YOUR FANTASYLAND PHYSICS:

1 - The accelerated frame purportedly time dilated and suffering lorentz contraction, hence is accumulating less time for a trip compared to a resting observer.

But the traveling observer ONLY has known and verified distance by his instruments that will agree with distance measured and stipulated by the resting observer;

and the fact that his clock accumulated less time than the resting clock.

But he is unable to detect, sense or measure any change in his clock or meter stick,

:Where va is the velocity of the accelerated frame and vr is the velocity of the resting frame.

2 - WILL BE LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION BVASED ON PHYSICS DATA AT HAND BUT TO CONCLUDE va = ds/dt >vr.

That is he MUST conclude based on real world emperical data that he was traveling faster, not that he went less distance.

Your theory is based on BS assumptions and complete disregard of physics dta and common sense.

11. Originally Posted by Billy T
As you are not bothered by self contradictory theory, it is true that I have not proved anything to you.
Let us not forget you advocatre self contridictory theory. In your posts you repeatedly flip-flop from "ALL CLOCKS TICK AT THE SAME RATE" to "CLOCK "A 'IS TICKING SLOWER THAN CLOCK B".

Originally Posted by Billy T
Now you, MacM deny “space contraction” exist, so if that were true, then approach (2) would contradict method (1).

I posted to correct DZion and others who you might misslead, not you. I have no expectation that you will change now, after five years of your rejecting standard SR, which has been confirmed during the last 100 years and supported by many experiments,
Others should remember:

1 - 1,000,000 test might be impressive but 1 failure falsifies the theory.

2 - In 100 years the inherent reciprocity mandated by a relative velocity view has never been tested and appears untestable.

3 - A theory that is untestable is falsified by scientifc standards.

Billy T and James R are compelled to either post data supporting the reciprocity of SR as real physics or at least describe a doable test before claiming SR is a valid theory.

Originally Posted by Billy T
like the cosmic ray muons reaching the Earth’s surface as in their frame the Earth’s atmosphere is “contracted” to only about 10 meters deep /thick so easily crossed before many decay and in our frame their fast moving clocks are “time dilation” to let the muons live much longer in our seconds and transit our frame’s 100,000 meter deep atmosphere.
Billy, Billy, Billy. When are you going to learn? Muon life is based on muon velocity and your pet theory asserts that your lab clock is losing time compared to the muon. PLEASE POST THAT DATA.

Also you continue to ignore the study showing muon ansitrophy favors computing muon life based on motion against the CMB not relative to earth.

Originally Posted by Billy T
I.e. standard SR's “reciprocity” or "effects in BOTH frames" if described by the other frame's meter sticks and seconds has been confirmed. (We describe cosmic ray muons as living much too long and they describe the atmosphere as only 10 meters thick.)
Your assumptions are in accurate. You are not confirming reciprocity. Reciproicty requires that your lab clock will run slow and life time of the muon should be shorter viewed from the muon frame.

You have not tested nor proven reciprocity. You have merely shown that from our frame of reference muons live longer than expected. But even that does not confirm SR since it was found to be more accurate to compute muon life based on muon velocity to the CMB not earth.

So as usual you are either deliberately lying or are to ignorant to understand your own emperical data or SR theory's requirements regarding reciprocity.

12. Originally Posted by MacM
Let us not forget you advocatre self contridictory theory. In your posts you repeatedly flip-flop from "ALL CLOCKS TICK AT THE SAME RATE" to "CLOCK "A 'IS TICKING SLOWER THAN CLOCK B"....
No you just don't (or can't?) read well: I said, still do:

All well functioning clocks are ticking at the same rate, IN THEIR OWN FRAME.*
AND
All well functioning clocks are ticking at a slower rate when described by the seconds of ANY other frame.

--------------
* For example: as the physics is the same in all inertial frames, the cesium atoms in all frames have the same energy levels and thus cesium radiation used by cesium clocks is the same frequency in all frames. Hence clock counting until # of cycles has occurred defines the same duration second in all frames. Yes the clocks in the moving frame are physically unchanged by some long finished ancient acceleration that now has them moving with respect to me, but when I describe their tick rate compared to my clock’s tick rate it really is slower than my clock's tick rate.

I this guess counter-intuitive fact is just too difficult for you even though it follows mathematically from the constancy of light speed and physics in all frames.

PS, I am not trying to convert you into an “SR accepter,” only responding as I do not appreciate being misquoted, of selectively quoted out of context, to make it appear that I am not consistent.

13. Originally Posted by James R

You might be interested in the speed that the fuse burns.

In the box's frame of reference, which is also the rest frame of the fuses, fuses A and B both burn at a rate of 1 metre per second.

In the ground frame, the speed of fuse B is:

$u = \frac{u' + v}{1+u'v/c^2} = \frac{1 + 0.6c}{1+(1)(0.6c)/c^2} = 0.6000000021333334c$

or (0.6c + 0.64) metres per second.

The speed of fuse A is more complicated because in the ground frame it travels partly in the x direction and partly in the y direction. Suffice it for the moment to say that the speed of A turns out to be slightly faster than B in the ground frame.
Why would this be used, the fuses are not moving in the box frame. The lengths are changing, but only the combustion material is dispersing.
Considering the burning as a chemical process involving em radiation, it will happen more slowly, but that is relative to external time.

14. billy post 832

All well functioning clocks are ticking at the same rate, IN THEIR OWN FRAME.*
AND
All well functioning clocks are ticking at a slower rate when described by the seconds of ANY other frame.
-Most agree with you on this.

Yes the clocks in the moving frame are physically unchanged by some long finished ancient acceleration that now has them moving with respect to me, but when I describe their tick rate compared to my clock’s tick rate it really is slower than my clock's tick rate.
-Now when they are side by side, you are not comparing them in relative motion, and they tick at the same rate, but the one that left and returned reads less time. If it did not physically change, how did it get behind?

15. Originally Posted by phyti
billy post 832

-Most agree with you on this.

-Now when they are side by side, you are not comparing them in relative motion, and they tick at the same rate, but the one that left and returned reads less time. If it did not physically change, how did it get behind?
He doesn't measure or even claim that side by side the tick in synch. He merely tries to capitilize on the fact that in the moving frame the observer can't detect the difference because it is his time standard that changed.

That is the cesium atom frequency must shift in synch with the clock timing frequency. But that ignores the fact that atomic clocks have been emperically demonstrated to tick slower in the moving frame.

He is completely and totally lost and hung up on dogma and rhetoric.

So he declares 1 second = 1 second and ignores the dilated condition between frames.

16. Originally Posted by Billy T
No you just don't (or can't?) read well: I said, still do:

All well functioning clocks are ticking at the same rate, IN THEIR OWN FRAME.*
AND
All well functioning clocks are ticking at a slower rate when described by the seconds of ANY other frame.

Go back and re-read your own stuff. I know what you have said. Your qualification here in this post would pass inspection for truth but unfortunately it ignores the true physics and that is the moving frame clock is ticking slower. Which is all we have said in the first place.

Your efforts are to obscure the truth and argue rhetoric not physics. If you insist I will go back and post links to your posts that have said what I accuse you of saying or you can save embarrassment and just admit you had mis-spoken and here admit that a moving clock ticks slower than the resting clock. Your choice.

Originally Posted by Billy T
* For example: as the physics is the same in all inertial frames, the cesium atoms in all frames have the same energy levels and thus cesium radiation used by cesium clocks is the same frequency in all frames.
Correct but only because the atoms frequence dilated along with the clock being used to measure it.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Hence clock counting until # of cycles has occurred defines the same duration second in all frames.
Correct again but you still are ignoring the comparative second between frames. That is what dilation is.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Yes the clocks in the moving frame are physically unchanged by some long finished ancient acceleration that now has them moving with respect to me,
Not entirely correct. The acceleration history has affected the number of cycles of frequency the atom has endured. If it came equipped with a counter you would find that it has counted fewer cycles due to historical accelertions and celocity changes.

But it's curent tick rate is strickly a function of it's curernt velocity.

[QUOTE=Billy T;2343904]but when I describe their tick rate compared to my clock’s tick rate it really is slower than my clock's tick rate. [/qyuorrect]

Finally you have said the only thing we have said but you have wasted 100 pages of BS arguing about it.

Originally Posted by Billy T
I this guess counter-intuitive fact is just too difficult for you even though it follows mathematically from the constancy of light speed and physics in all frames.
Wrong again. As just stated we agree that the moivng clock is ticking slower than the resting clock on direct comparison. Not because you have said so but because that is all we have ever said.

You have been arguing with yourself over your own screwed up definitions about what is a second in each frame and have ignored the discussion which has been about time dilation or the comparative tick rates of clocks in different frames.

Originally Posted by Billy T
PS, I am not trying to convert you into an “SR accepter,” only responding as I do not appreciate being misquoted, of selectively quoted out of context, to make it appear that I am not consistent.

You were not mis-quoted. Go back and look.

17. Originally Posted by phyti
... -Now when they are side by side, you are not comparing them in relative motion, and they tick at the same rate, but the one that left and returned reads less time. If it did not physically change, how did it get behind?
Time dilation is an instant by instant thing, like two cars one going 50mph and other going 75mph. One does not need a "start accumulator" and "stop accumulator" events in two different frames to speak about time dilation. I.e. tick RATE is like speed.

Comparison of how far the 50mph car went in one of its hours vs. how far the 75mph car went in one of its hours is like comparing the total number of ticks of the clocks or the “accumulated time"

Making statements about one (apples) is not the same at making statement about the other (oranges)

The two clocks ticks counted by their accumulators can disagree either because, as is almost always the case in these gedankins, (thought experiments) because BOTH their start and stop accumulation events were not (actually only one can be) simultaneous if they are just in two ALWAYS inertial frames.

One can make the start and stop events simultaneous but then at least one of the two clocks must be accelerated. Then the fact that that accelerated one's accumulator is showing fewer seconds when back in the original frame is usually (always?) because when it was not, but on the "turn around" trip it traveled less distance than the stay-at-home clock measures that distance to the turn-around point in the stay at home frame.

For example, if the turn-around point is where the sun and Alpha Centaris are equally distant so that the total trip is the distance to Alpha Centaris and the moving clocks is moving wrt sun (or earth) at 0.8C on the trip and D Km is the Earth based clock distance to Alpha C. then for Earth based clock ran long enough to accumulate D/0.8C (where C is in Km/sec) but for the moving clock D is contracted to d < D so of course that trip took only d/0.8C seconds and as both clocks were ticking at the same rate in their own frame, the shorter round trip traveling clock accumulated fewer seconds.

I am getting tired of explaining what ANY well written book on this subject will explain to you, especially as I am beginning to sense, contrary to my original opinion, that you really do not want to learn but to argue, based on ignorance you do not want to correct.

18. Originally Posted by Billy T
Time dilation is an instant by instant thing, like two cars one going 50mph and other going 75mph. One does not need a "start accumulator" and "stop accumulator" events in two different frames to speak about time dilation. I.e. tick RATE is like speed.

Comparison of how far the 50mph car went in one of its hours vs. how far the 75mph car went in one of its hours is like comparing the total number of ticks of the clocks or the “accumulated time"

Making statements about one (apples) is not the same at making statement about the other (oranges)

The two clocks ticks counted by their accumulators can disagree either because, as is almost always the case in these gedankins, (thought experiments) because BOTH their start and stop accumulation events were not (actually only one can be) simultaneous if they are just in two ALWAYS inertial frames.

One can make the start and stop events simultaneous but then at least one of the two clocks must be accelerated. Then the fact that that accelerated one's accumulator is showing fewer seconds when back in the original frame is usually (always?) because when it was not, but on the "turn around" trip it traveled less distance than the stay-at-home clock measures that distance to the turn-around point in the stay at home frame.

For example, if the turn-around point is where the sun and Alpha Centaris are equally distant so that the total trip is the distance to Alpha Centaris and the moving clocks is moving wrt sun (or earth) at 0.8C on the trip and D Km is the Earth based clock distance to Alpha C. then for Earth based clock ran long enough to accumulate D/0.8C (where C is in Km/sec) but for the moving clock D is contracted to d < D so of course that trip took only d/0.8C seconds and as both clocks were ticking at the same rate in their own frame, the shorter round trip traveling clock accumulated fewer seconds.

I am getting tired of explaining what ANY well written book on this subject will explain to you, especially as I am beginning to sense, contrary to my original opinion, that you really do not want to learn but to argue, based on ignorance you do not want to correct.
Billy T, you are NOT explaining your are reciting. And what you say is inconsistant with emperical data. Assuing in your exmple the cars are co-moving.

The two cars one going 50Mph and the other going 75 Mph must compute their respective dilations to the roadway which is a common rest frame upon which their velocity is absolute.

The differential in those dilations will properly compute the time dilation between them but computing time dilation using their relative velocity as 25 Mph will yield an incorrect result.

Indeed if you now have them going 50 Mph each but approaching each other you will find that they tick at equal rates and accumulate time the amount of of time even though they have relative velocity (excluding any velocity addition for simplicity which doesn't alter the result).

That proves relative velocity does not cause time dilation between clocks because the result is precisely the saem as though they were co-moving at 50 Mph each where there is no relative velocity.

The only measureable and correct dilation of the clocks in these cars is to the roadway.

That is why SR is screwed up. You MUST find an absolute velocity and not mere relative velocity before it computes correctly.

What is actually very ironic is the passion with which you guys insist there is no preferred frame and no absolutes, yet you use absolutes at every turn where you have gathered data.

You apply the Frame Switching standard so as to preclude reciprocity inherent in a relative velocity view and that becomes a preferred frame where only the accelerted frame has motion or velocity and you ignore SR's reciprocity where it claims that the moving frame can assume to be at rest and the restiing clock has the velocity and will be dilated (acculumate less time than the moving frame).

You have NO data to support that assertion and it appears you have no way of testing that assertion which falsifies SR as a scientific theory in any case.

19. More errors from MacM. He obviously either didn't read my careful and clear explanation, or didn't understand it.

So forget that dodge and lets deal with the fact that your pet physics view causes a Red light to go on in one frame and the same physics causes a green light to go on in another frame.
If a light goes on, it goes on in ALL frames. If it doesn't, it doesn't. No problem. Review my previous posts until you understand this point. (Probably that will never happen.)

The laws of relativity, along with the rest of the laws of physics, are the same in all inertial frames.
Another falicy. There are no laws, only current rules or guides.
News Flash! MacM denies that there are laws of physics.

Re-read with no benefit in that it misses the point. You have cleverly avoided the fact that the fuses don't burn the same.
Don't burn the same what? My analysis was perfectly correct. You previously agreed that it had no errors. Now you're changing your tune. Inconsistent.

You have also cleverly avoided the fact that you (the genius here) used v+u format when you should have used v-u format in your calculations.
I used the correct expression. Review my previous post until you understand it. (Probably, that will never happen.)

1 - as you screwed it up and continue to ignore the implications and only want to recite theory - not discuss physics.
What complete bullshit.

1 - The accelerated frame purportedly time dilated and suffering lorentz contraction, hence is accumulating less time for a trip compared to a resting observer.
This idea of "accumulating time" is nonsense. So is the notion that acceleration is at all relevant to this scenario. In fact, no acceleration was ever mentioned.

But the traveling observer ONLY has known and verified distance by his instruments that will agree with distance measured and stipulated by the resting observer
You forgot length contraction. Duh!

2 - WILL BE LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION BVASED ON PHYSICS DATA AT HAND BUT TO CONCLUDE va = ds/dt >vr.
Your nutty "velocity dilation" idea has nothing to do with special relativity. It is nonsense supported by nothing but more nonsense.

20. Originally Posted by MacM to James R
1 - as you screwed it up and continue to ignore the implications and only want to recite theory - not discuss physics.
Originally Posted by MacM to Billy T
Billy T, you are NOT explaining your are reciting.
It's not hard to find hundreds of examples of MacM accusing physicists of "reciting theory" rather than "explaining".

The truth is that since MacM is incapable of understanding any explanation put to him, all explanations fly over his head and he imagines he is sitting in church listening to a preacher droning on about something he doesn't understand.

This accusation of "reciting" got old long ago. Moreover, it is extremely insulting to the qualified people who have devoted time and effort towards attempting to educate the idiot MacM.

Since MacM has no interest in genuine conversation, I suggest that he go off and "recite" his own nuttiness to himself from now on.