1. Originally Posted by James R
No. If the traveller measures the distance between the kilometre markers with his own metre stick, he will find that the markers are only 0.8 km apart. It doesn't matter whether he knows relativity of not. The laws of physics apply whether you know or believe in them or not. If you think differently, try believing really hard that gravity doesn't exist while you jump off a building and see how you go with that.
I have to give you this one on what SR actually claims I believe. This has been primarily directed at Billy T that asserted that only length contraction was real.

IF length contraction is real then the meter stick on board the craft must shrink as well and distance could not be measured to change. If it is an "Illusion of Motion" then things appear as predicted by SR.

However, Billy T must have been unsure as to how to reso;nd since hec has avoided answering now for several days with numerous posts calling for a response.

Further however, I point out that SR mandates reciprocity and from the resting observers perspective the meter stick has the same relative velocity to him as the marked course has to the pilot. Hence pragmaticly the meter stick must contract as well IF the affect is real in either frame.

Originally Posted by James R
Half right. Neither observer can detect any change to the tick rate of his own clock. If he observes the other's clock, he will definitely notice a discrepancy. As for distance, if he measures moving distances with his stationary rulers then he will measure a different distance than if he measures a stationary distance.
This cenario doesn't allow correspondance between observrs until after they compute the veloicty based on physics available to them.

Originally Posted by James R
Me too. Only my physical facts are right and yours are MacM fantasynonsenserubbishPhysics.
You need to find a better definition you are wearing this one out.

2. Originally Posted by MacM
...Billy T that asserted that only length contraction was real. ...
Try to document this lie!

I accept all of standard SR and that includes time dilation as well as contraction of space / lengths.

3. Originally Posted by MacM
...IF length contraction is real then the meter stick on board the craft must shrink as well and distance could not be measured to change. ...
Not true. As the contraction is only in the direction of the velocity.

For example, place some meter sticks on the floor of your rocket ship (aligned with the velocity). Stand vertically above them (not contracted as not aligned with the velocity). Now in front of you place a large mirror at 45 degree angle to self and the meter sticks.

If in truth your are two meters tall, and the sticks are contracted by 50%, then your image, reflected via the mirror, will fall on / overlap / four meter sticks.

(Showing that they are contracted as you are not four meters tall.)

4. Originally Posted by Billy T
Try to document this lie!

I accept all of standard SR and that includes time dilation as well as contraction of space / lengths.
I certainly do not aim to waste my time going back looking for where you flip flop. You have said several different things. Your generally say neither is phyusically real (which I say fails to account for the ultimate dialted conditoon of the accelerated frame clock once relative veloicty vanishes. If nothing rezl occured the dilation would vanish also.

However. Not long ago in several posts you made the statements that All clocks tick at the same rate at all times and the only thing that actually changes was distance.

Anybodyelse recall that post???

5. Originally Posted by Billy T
Not true. As the contraction is only in the direction of the velocity.

For example, place some meter sticks on the floor of your rocket ship (aligned with the velocity). Stand vertically above them (not contracted as not aligned with the velocity). Now in front of you place a large mirror at 45 degree angle to self and the meter sticks.

If in truth your are two meters tall, and the sticks are contracted by 50%, then your image, reflected via the mirror, will fall on / overlap / four meter sticks.

(Showing that they are contracted as you are not four meters tall.)
So now that reciprocity is inconvienent you just ignore it. If distance for the pilot contracts because the earth is moving to him, then the meter stick contract because it is in motion to the earth observer.

Therefore if you want to assert distance for the pilot contracted to 0.8 normal then you must also assert that distance expanded by 1.25 for the resting obsserver if he uses the pilots ruler.

That is the entire basis of relativity. Stipulate something and then ignore it when it is inconvienient.

6. Originally Posted by MacM
The fact is you don't know what I've done in my life and I had better physical things to achieve rather than play with developing physics. None of which addresses the issues raised.
Oh, so you've known one of the corner stones of modern physics to be wrong, with proof, for half a century but you've had better things to do than advance the realm of human understanding by a giant leap?

Originally Posted by MacM
Now that I'm semi-retired and ill with time on my hands I intend to push the truth.
And now you're just throwing us scraps from your intellectual table. How kind of you.

Originally Posted by MacM
Perhaps you would care to answer the following unless you fear the truth because it might be embarassing to your pet theory:
It isn't a 'pet theory'. A pet theory is one which few people support and which is the work of an even smaller number of people, their 'pet project', one which hasn't taken off yet and needs time and effort put into it. Special relativity is probably the most pervasive theory in physics, touching everything from quantum theory through to cosmology. It isn't some vague, unexamined idea scribbled on the back of a napkin, it's the most tested theory in history. That doesn't mean it's perfect, but that does mean it's a damn good model of Nature if you're not looking at the 9th or 10th decimal place.

Special relativity is self consistent because it's entirely the result of the geometry of Minkowski space-time. It's a mathematically 'simple' framework which holds together consistently. The issue of its validity is not whether it is internally consistent, it is, but whether the postulates from which it follows (ie equivalent inertial frames and frame independent speed of light) are actually valid statements to make. You can't find inconsistencies in what those postulates imply, you can only find how Nature deviates from those postulates. The implications are sound, given the postulates. The issue is how sound are the postulates.

7. Originally Posted by Billy T
Not true. As the contraction is only in the direction of the velocity.

For example, place some meter sticks on the floor of your rocket ship (aligned with the velocity). Stand vertically above them (not contracted as not aligned with the velocity). Now in front of you place a large mirror at 45 degree angle to self and the meter sticks.

If in truth your are two meters tall, and the sticks are contracted by 50%, then your image, reflected via the mirror, will fall on / overlap / four meter sticks.

(Showing that they are contracted as you are not four meters tall.)
So now that reciprocity is inconvienent you just ignore it. If distance for the pilot contracts because the earth is moving to him, then the meter stick contract because it is in motion to the earth observer.

Therefore if you want to assert distance for the pilot contracted to 0.8 normal then you must also assert that distance expanded by 1.25 for the resting obsserver if he uses the pilots ruler.

That is the entire basis of relativity. Stipulate something and then ignore it when it is inconvienient.

In any case I have posted my view that mass contracts and space does not dozens if not hundreds of times in this forum over the past few years. You participated in many of those threads. I do not find it crediable that you were not aware of my actual views.

But in any case when you began to distort my views and lie about the consequences of my views I posted a 55 year old document from my original manuscript showing contraction of mass by my theory. I also posted a 3 year old formal debate which is available to the public and long ago closed so that it has not been altered that states I believe in mass contraction.

You continued to lie and insist you had proven me wrong when it was based on your claim that in my view mass did not contract. In my #721 I outlined specifically once again what my views are.

But here we are in #920 still talking your BS lies. My 768 and 893 are NOT inconflict nor flip flop just as I have stated I clarified for you the meaning of the language in those posts based on the subject being discussed.

We were discussing SPATIAL contraction called "Length Contraction" by SR. So I was using SR terminology and did not (as I have numerous other times qualified it as spatial contraction and got chastized for inventing terminology).

In 908 I further clarified my view so as NOT to have you come back claiming I had made another change since I have not changed in 55 years on this issue. The fact is I do also believe space contracts but to a far lesser degree than stated by SR. In fact virtually imeasurebly so. Perhaps as little as only 1E-17th as much. But that is based on the idea that space is formed by energy moving at v = c and that mass is nothing more than compacted space or energy such that the ratio of energy to mass of E = mc^2 is indicative of the compaction ratio. That ratio however would be for the smallest mass component and every atom would have a slightly different energy compaction.

Now surely you can see that to qualify every statement regarding length contraction vs spatial contraction or the UniKEF view of contraction is not a feasiable goal.

But you have been told my view and shown that they have not flip flopped as you claim, it is time you stop the bullshi_.

I think it is time you apologise and move on. I think it is time you address the fact that SR causes a simultaneous detonation of TNT in the moving frame to become NOT simultaneous from the ground frame.

8. Originally Posted by MacM
... Not long ago in several posts you made the statements that All clocks tick at the same rate at all times and the only thing that actually changes was distance. ...
Another undocumented lie (and a distortion all in one sentence as I ALWAYS say the clocks tick at the same rate IN THEIR OWN FRAME. For example, cesium clocks count cycles of cesium radiation and that frequency is fixed by the energy levels spacing which does not change as physic is the same in all inertial frames.)

I have documented (given dozens of your flip-flops and lies by quoting your posts with the post number) But you have NEVER even documented even one of your claims that I lie, flip-flop, or insult you.

9. Originally Posted by Billy T
Another undocumented lie (and a distortion all in one sentence as I ALWAYS say the clocks tick at the same rate IN THEIR OWN FRAME. For example, cesium clocks count cycles of cesium radiation and that frequency is fixed by the energy levels spacing which does not change as physic is the same in all inertial frames.)

I have documented (given dozens of your flip-flops and lies by quoting your posts with the post number) But you have NEVER even documented even one of your claims that I lie, flip-flop, or insult you.
I'm not going to waste my time chasing your BS. I know what you said. I believe a couple of others know what you said and so be it. I also know you have said what you just said above. Therefore it is a moot point as far as I am concerned. You may not remember or even realise you didn't qualify your statement a time or two but that is fact.

Now I accept that what you may have meant is what you have said at other times and that is "In their own frames". I only point out that means they may tick differently between frames as a function of velocity to a rest frame.

If so that is a physical difference. If not then it is mere perception and could not result in a permanent shift in accumulated time by the clock. So it is a physical reality. Be it time dilation or apparent time dilation due to length contracton (Spatial contraction).

But the current issue is why are you continuiong to post your assertion that you have proven my view falsified claiming that I don'
t believe in length contraction. When I have proven that I believe in mass dimensional contraction which is all that is required to maintain temperature constant.

Why sould you continue to post false claims against me when it is clear that you either did not know the truth or are deliberately lying. Your choice you were confused, ill-informed or are jsut a deliberate liar.

Pick one.

10. Billy T,

OK I wasted some time. I've highlighted key elements in red and blue.

BillyT684:All cesium clocks tick at the same intrinsic tick rate.
No mention of "in their own frame" here. We'll get back to the meaning of "intrinsic " in a bit since other posts affect that meaning.

BillyT648:Nor did I "clearly state it ticked slower" In fact I have several times stated exactly the opposite: Namely, ALL GOOD CLOCKS HAVE THE SAME INTRINSIC TICK RATE." I even went into some detail telling that for example, a cesium clock counts cycles of a cesium radiation line until # cycles have occurred and that is a second. If one in some other frame also counts # cycles to define a different second, the frequency of cesium radiation must change as one chance frames - that violates the concept that physics is the same in all inertial frames as only way the frequency could be different is if the cesium atom energy levels change.
Still no "in their own frame" here either and you go further saying they cannot tick differently in othercframes.!!!!!! So intrinsic cannot mean just in their frame.

BillyT643:All good clocks have same second* - For example a specific # of cycles of the cesium radiation used defines the second.
Still no "in their own frame" here either, nor even "intrinsic" and you have just said in #648 that frequency must be the same in all frames.

BillyT630:Well made clocks NEVER CHANGE their intrinsic “tick rates.”[ For example, a cesium atomic clock counts a fixed number of cycles of some radiation from a cesium atom and when that specific count is achieved, a second has passed. The frequency of that radiation is determined by the energy difference between two cesium atom energy levels. For one cesium clock to change it “tick rate” the energy difference between these two energy levels would need to be changed; but cesium in one inertial frame has exactly the same energy levels as any cesium atom in any other inertial frame. Thus ALL cesium clock in ALL inertial frame ALL define the exactly the same second or “tick" at the same intrinsic rate, regardless of the past history such as in what other frame they once accelerated away from.*
WOW thanks you. That was a gold mine. You calimed "intrinsic" but clarified that it meant all atoms in any frame retain the same internal energy, hence ALL tick at the same exact rate.

BillyT532:[color=red]All agree that all cesium clocks tick at the same rate in their own reference frame.
WEBSTER:

intrinsic 1)belonging to the real nature of a thing; not dependant on external circumstances; essential; inherent

If you are using this definition then you are implying "ALL CLOCKS TICK in SYNCH IN ALL FRAMES." not just their frame since absolute motion would be an external circumstance..

FLIP FLOP, FLIP FLOP and Yes you do numerous time repeat this contridictory claim. You claim they all must and do tick in sink, yet you claim they tick differently from one frme to another and mostly claim they tick the same in their own frame; which by the way says absolutely nothing about thier true tick rate and what it means to be dilated and accumulate less time.

Now it really does not matter mathematically which you choose as being a physical consequence of relativity but the only way a clock can physically accumulate less time compared to another clock is if either length contraction (actually spatial contraction) is physically real OR clock tick rate is physically dilated.

There is just simply no basis or possibility that a clock can accumulate less time physically because it was watched by some other observer. It can appear to be ticking more slowly which is what I'm calling the "Illusion of Motion" but that illusion has reciprocity vanishes. Relative velocity that causes reciprocity did not and cannot be a cause.

The only difference in the two clocks is that one accelerated (Switched Frames) and achieved actual velocity to the rest frame and it is the one affected.

Now as to your assertion that atoms in different frames contain the same energy that is framkly a biased outloook based only on the SR view. If in fact internal energy is relative to the universe at large and not just some inertial rest condition in SR then your view is incorrect and different frames means different energy for atoms and different frequency hence tick rate.

So we now see you lied when you said "I ALWAYS say "in their own frame" .

You did not, you do not; plus you flip flop as to clocks all ticking at the same rate in every frame or varying between frames. It is all here for others to see, read and remember.

Now as I have pointed out in my case it is not a matter of FLIP FLOP. I have always said I believe in mass dimensional contraction but not contraction of space according to SR. The fact that SR uses one term Length Contraction makes it BS. I am not contridicting myself when I susequently qualify I don't believe in length contraction but believe in spatial contraction at 1E-17th the magnitude of SR' length contraction.

Your accusation aginst me are based on either your lack of knowledge about my views or deliberate lies since you have been clearly reminded of what my views are.

11. Originally Posted by MacM
...WEBSTER: intrinsic 1)belonging to the real nature of a thing; not dependant on external circumstances; essential; inherent

If you are using this definition then you are implying "ALL CLOCKS TICK in SYNCH IN ALL FRAMES." not just their frame since absolute motion would be an external circumstance. ...You claim they all must and do tick in sink, yet you claim they tick differently from one frame to another and mostly claim they tick the same in their own frame...
NONSENSE. "Intrinsic" means NOT dependent or related to other things. I used "intrinsic" as a shorter form of "in their own frame" and never said that the clocks of one frame were in "sink" (synchronization) with those of another as this is impossible and I said so here:
Originally Posted by Billy T
{post 793, replying to phyti who had stated that the clocks in two different frames had been sychronized together before one accelerated into another frame.} I think you mean both at set to zero accumulated time at the start (on any equal value, such as 100,000 seconds) They cannot be "synchronized" in any other sense if time dilation does exist, so in future, please avoid speaking of the false concept of clocks in different frames as "synchronized" ...
BTW “absolute motion would be an external circumstance.” is your nonsensical POV.
Like saying “Unicorns would be an external circumstance.” Because neither unicorns nor absolute motion exist. Your belief that either or both do, does not make it so.

As far as my claiming: “you claim they tick differently from one frame to another.” That is true provided you state as I usually do that SR’s time dilation is caused by describing the tick rate of clocks in one frame with the units (seconds / hours etc) of another frame.

I have many times refuted your false claim that the clock, and only the clock, in the frame which accelerated away from your Common Rest Frame, CRF, is actually physically ticking slower intrinsically by pointing out that a cesium clock only counts the radiation frequency cycles and it is the same frequency in all frames as the cesium energy levels are the same in all frames.

The levels are computable from quantum theory, at least in principle but computers may not yet be able to make the calculations for atoms as complex as cesium. Theory does not change with frames and so the energy levels do not. You belief that they do is shear NONSENSE. – There is NO PHYSICAL CHANGE WITH SPEED OR PRIOR ACCELERATION of tick rates or lengths. Again, as you seem to be a slow learner, here is more help on my POV:
Originally Posted by Billy T
{post 853} That is because there is no physical change in either frame - SR's strange, counter-intuitive effects, are caused by describing things / events etc. in ANOTHER frame with OUR frame's units (meter stick and seconds). ...
It is much like the short armed King of France describing the length of rope the English King sent him as 115 yards when he is only being charged for 100 yards, back in the era when a yard was the distance from the kings nose to his finger tip of outstretched arm. There was no physical change in the length of the rope either - No "physical reason to provide" - The rope was just DESCRIBED in a new frame's units. ...
Originally Posted by MacM
...Now as to your assertion that atoms in different frames contain the same energy that is frankly a biased outloook based only on the SR view.
No. it is much more than that as I just told you. It is based on quantum theory too. Yes it is from one of the two postulates of SR – namely that physics is the same in all inertial frames also.
Originally Posted by MacM
...If in fact internal energy is relative to the universe at large and not just some inertial rest condition in SR then your view is incorrect and different frames means different energy for atoms and different frequency hence tick rate.
Yes and If the moon is made of green cheese, then many mice will want to be astronauts. But neither of these “if clauses” is a fact or has ANY supporting evidence.

-----------------

PS I am glad you took the bait (ALWAYS) – I figured you could find at least one post where I was in a hurry and slipped up by failing to include either “intrinsic “ or “in their own frame” when saying “all good clocks tick at the same rate.” I often fail to include the word “good” too, but that not mean I am including broken or mal–adjusted clocks. Dozens of times have been careful to be accurate.

You in contrast, do not even recognize that it is important to specify tick rates wrt which frames clocks (their own or some other frame) as you falsely believe clocks in different frames can all be synchronized.

12. MacM, post 905;

I think you and I agree that the detonations are physically simultaneous.
-If the charges are approx. adjacent at the origin, as I thought your
original proposal, then they would be simultaneous (as if one explosion) in
their frame and all other frames.
When James included fuses 3m in length, then the spatial separation allows
for simultaneity differences between frames. There will be a drawing
relating to simultaneity in a separate post.
-
But I believe the point you are missing is that SR by invoking the velocity
addition formula has the flame move at a greater velocity than the fuse in
the direction of motion; hence causes one detonation to occur before the
other from the grond observers view.
-The moving flame is an illusion. Each molecule in the fuse moves at v,
the speed of the frame, until it disappears in a cloud of combustion
by-products. The 'burn line' is just a sequence of events, and events
don't move. The 'addition' formula determines the relative speed of a
moving mass based on the speed as calculated by a 2nd frame. There is no
inertially moving mass except the charges and fuses, and the by-products
are dispersed at random. SR didn't invoke it, James did.
-

It is my position that that shows critical error in SR as a physical theory
and relagates it in part at least to being predictiions of "Illusions of
Motion" and not physical reality.
James sees no problem with that because that is what is predicted by the
theory and asserts that is the reality.
So according to James R it is OK to have two different realities.
I do not. I have ONE reality and ONE "Perception" based on an illusion of
moton OR artifically created artifact of a poorely constructed mathematical
description of reality called Special Relativity.
-I agree some of it is illusory but object more to the interpretation in
magical terms, which is in contradiction to the 'rules of physics' postulate.
The procedures, i.e. transformations are taken too literally. In its defense,
it does agree with observations, despite its lack of explaining itself.

13. Originally Posted by phyti
MacM, post 905;

-If the charges are approx. adjacent at the origin, as I thought your
original proposal, then they would be simultaneous (as if one explosion) in
their frame and all other frames.
When James included fuses 3m in length, then the spatial separation allows
for simultaneity differences between frames. There will be a drawing
relating to simultaneity in a separate post.
-

-The moving flame is an illusion. Each molecule in the fuse moves at v,
the speed of the frame, until it disappears in a cloud of combustion
by-products. The 'burn line' is just a sequence of events, and events
don't move. The 'addition' formula determines the relative speed of a
moving mass based on the speed as calculated by a 2nd frame. There is no
inertially moving mass except the charges and fuses, and the by-products
are dispersed at random. SR didn't invoke it, James did.
I'm in general agreement with you prqgmatically but not in terms of what SR requires.

FOr example it is not the length of the fuses that generates the problem. It is in fact the velocity of the flame as viewed from the ground.

You can see that by adding a thermo-mechanical monitor that follows the flames.

Clearly that moving object comes within the velocity addition requirement when computing veloicty from the ground frame. Since it is co-moving with the flame then the flaime must also require velocity addition.

Originally Posted by phyti
-I agree some of it is illusory but object more to the interpretation in magical terms, which is in contradiction to the 'rules of physics' postulate.

The procedures, i.e. transformations are taken too literally. In its defense,
it does agree with observations, despite its lack of explaining itself.
Yes. It a great tool and correctly predicts events related to an accelerated frame but does not correctly predict the results of reciprocity which is inherent in a relative velocity view.

Now this complaint is the wrongfully asserted idea that the reciprocity predictions are physically real and not merely illusions of motion. James loves to use terms like SR predicts what each frame "sees" but then wants to claim tht is physical reality. It is not and cnnot be because reciproicty requires two clocks to both be running slower than each other.

That is thevery issue that generated the twins paradox which needs frame switching (acceleration causing velocity change) to dictate which twin actually ages slower.

So my issue and point is SR abandons relative velocity as a cause when it comes to actual time dilation and coniders who has actual veloicty based on acceleration from a rest resference and that is the equivelent of LR.

.

14. Originally Posted by Billy T
NONSENSE. "Intrinsic" means NOT dependent or related to other things.
So I post the WEBSTER definition of "Intrinsic" and you rresonse is "NONSENSE". I guess that tells us where the problem lies here doesn't it.

Originally Posted by Billy T
I used "intrinsic" as a shorter form of "in their own frame"
That doesn't cut it. You stated without qualification "I ALWAYS SAY " In their own frames". My post shows that to be an outright lie.

Now you can argue "but that is what I meant". I would say perhaps but we'll come baqck to that in a bit. First you seem unwilling to let me qualify my words so you can't qualify yours.

C and never said that the clocks of one frame were in "sink" (synchronization) with those of another as this is impossible and I said so here: [/quote]

I'll let phyti speak for himself since I don't know what post you are referring to but my guess is another of your mis-interprentations of others posts.

I'm rather sure he was likely discussing two synchronized clocks that subsequently developed relative motion or perhaps was discussing some method of synchronizing clocks with relative motion.

That is setting them to t=0 simultaneously, not that they remained synchronized.

But unforunately for you some of the posts by you that I listed stated clearly that atomic clocks are based on frequency or energy and that energy is the same in all inertial frames and it would violate physics is the same in all frames if frequency differed and hence all clocks have the same intrinsic tick rate.

You can go back and lets see what qualifications you come up with to correct that phoo-pa.

Originally Posted by Billy T
BTW “absolute motion would be an external circumstance.” is your nonsensical POV.

Like saying “Unicorns would be an external circumstance.” Because neither unicorns nor absolute motion exist. Your belief that either or both do, does not make it so.
I simply pointed out that your POV was based on the assumption that atomic internal energy was based on it's inertial condition of being at rest and as such all rest (inertial velocities) are the same since you reject the idea that progressive relative velocites represent progressive energies to some possible absolute rest frame universally.

The point is we need not detect it for it to exist. Your assumption that "Absence of Evidence" is "Evidence of Absence" is a most unscientific position.

The fact is your energy claim for atoms is based on your preconcieved idea that SR is correct. You are attempting to used assumptions of the theory to prove the theory. A clear case of circular reasoning.

Originally Posted by Billy T
As far as my claiming: “you claim they tick differently from one frame to another.” That is true provided you state as I usually do that SR’s time dilation is caused by describing the tick rate of clocks in one frame with the units (seconds / hours etc) of another frame.
Oh. So you didn't say what you usually say. You mean like when I (talking with other using SR terms) say "I reject length contraction" but don't then enter a lengthy qualification saying "but I believe in contraction of mass by the same amount as SR's length contraction and spatial contraction but to a very minor degree compared to SR."

So you think I should divet every discussion with those qualifiers which would clearly wreck any topic because it spins off into numerous issues and explanations.

Originally Posted by Billy T
I have many times refuted your false claim that the clock, and only the clock, in the frame which accelerated away from your Common Rest Frame, CRF, is actually physically ticking slower intrinsically by pointing out that a cesium clock only counts the radiation frequency cycles and it is the same frequency in all frames as the cesium energy levels are the same in all frames.
I'm afraid you are somehow demented. Above you swore you never say all clocks tick at the same frequency in all frames. You just did and if you think inserting the term "Intrinsically" in there alters what you just said you are wrong. What you have stipulated "marked in red" is that all clocks tick the same in all frames.

You try to have it both ways by claiming intrinsically means in it's frame. But what you are saying then means absolutely nothing. You talk out of both sides of your mouth and simply attempt to confuse people. Well I don't confuse that easy.

Originally Posted by Billy T
The levels are computable from quantum theory, at least in principle but computers may not yet be able to make the calculations for atoms as complex as cesium. Theory does not change with frames and so the energy levels do not. You belief that they do is shear NONSENSE. – There is NO PHYSICAL CHANGE WITH SPEED OR PRIOR ACCELERATION of tick rates or lengths.
Contridiction. Further if there is no physical changes it would be impossible for one clock to become permanently dilated and display less accumulated time. You are just tallking in circles to hear yourself talk but are saying nothing regardng real physics..

Originally Posted by Billy T
Again, as you seem to be a slow learner, here is more help on my POV:
Restating the obvious flaw doesn't alter it. If nothing physically changes then an accelerated clock cannot permanently display a dilated accumulation of time once directly compared with the resting clock in a common rest frame.

Originally Posted by Billy T
No. it is much more than that as I just told you. It is based on quantum theory too. Yes it is from one of the two postulates of SR – namely that physics is the same in all inertial frames also.
Addressed above. You cannot have it both ways. You want to declare dilation but thenn claim is is not physical. That franmkly is just plain nuts. If it is not physical then it is mere illusion of motion.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Yes and If the moon is made of green cheese, then many mice will want to be astronauts. But neither of these “if clauses” is a fact or has ANY supporting evidence.
Addressed above with regrd to circular reasoning and preconcieved ideas.

Originally Posted by Billy T
PS I am glad you took the bait (ALWAYS)
I'm sure you are.

Originally Posted by Billy T
– I figured you could find at least one post where I was in a hurry and slipped up by failing to include either “intrinsic “
Now we are going to need to work on teaching you to count.

Originally Posted by Billy T
or “in their own frame” when saying “all good clocks tick at the same rate.” I often fail to include the word “good” too, but that not mean I am including broken or mal–adjusted clocks. Dozens of times have been careful to be accurate.
Nor does it mean when I reject length contraction when discussing SR and distance traveled or between objects with relative velocity mean I reject contraction of mass or some other form of "Spatial Contraction" other than SR.

Originally Posted by Billy T
You in contrast, do not even recognize that it is important to specify tick rates wrt which frames clocks (their own or some other frame) as you falsely believe clocks in different frames can all be synchronized.
Where in the hell do you get this new BS. I believe in fact that it is more likely that clocks in different frames physically tick at different rates than it is that distance traveled causes less accumulated time.

However, I have also frequently qualified that either could cause such dilation. But there are several good reasons to choose time dilation over length contraction as a cause and certainly never choose relative velocity as a cause.

Now when are we going to see you address the issue raised and that is:

Velocity addition causes what are physically simultaneous TNT blasts in the moving frame to become not simultaneous from the ground frame even though the TNT sticks are physically in the same location and distance away with a common velocity.

15. Velocity addition causes what are physically simultaneous TNT blasts in the moving frame to become not simultaneous from the ground frame even though the TNT sticks are physically in the same location and distance away with a common velocity.
This is half wrong and half unclear.

Velocity addition isn't responsible for the relativity of simultaneity. Velocity addition is a completely separate matter. If you review post #778 you will see that the relativity of simultaneity follows directly from the Lorentz transformations. These, in turn, are derived directly from the postulates of special relativity. Thus, the relativity of simultaneity is a fundamental feature of spacetime and not a secondary feature due to velocity addition.

As for what you mean by the TNT sticks being in the "same location", I have no idea. And as for "distance away", that is a relative thing. Distance away from what? Without a reference, this is an empty and useless statement.

16. Originally Posted by Billy T
Try to document this lie!

I accept all of standard SR and that includes time dilation as well as contraction of space / lengths.
Certainly, I could waste more time going around pointing out how you say time dialtion is not physically real but a comparison between frame (What ever the hell that means if not perce;ption only).

Forget it your reputation is trash now.

17. Originally Posted by James R
This is half wrong and half unclear.

Velocity addition isn't responsible for the relativity of simultaneity. Velocity addition is a completely separate matter.
Funny I have clearly stated velocity addition was a seperate issue from relativity of simultaneity. I also pointed out the the relativity of simultaneity is not the cause of the simultaneity shift in this case.

Where v is the craft forward veloicty and u = the common burn rate of fuses in the moving frame.

The only shift in timing is due to the increased burn rate mandated by the fuse going 0.6c forward while the flames goes (v +u)/(1+vu/c^2).

If you still want to imply otherwise show your work. Show the detonation based on fuse burn rates and relativity of simultaneity.

Originally Posted by James R
If you review post #778 you will see that the relativity of simultaneity follows directly from the Lorentz transformations. These, in turn, are derived directly from the postulates of special relativity. Thus, the relativity of simultaneity is a fundamental feature of spacetime and not a secondary feature due to velocity addition.
Never said otherwise but velocity addition is what causes the burn rate of the two fuses to become different. The total difference is in those burn rates.

Originally Posted by James R
As for what you mean by the TNT sticks being in the "same location", I have no idea.
WOW. It must be tough to understand that two TNT stick laying physically across one another at 90 degrees in the same box are in a common location and not miles or light years apart where distance would cause a measureable shift in simultaneity due to relativity of simultaneity.

Originally Posted by James R
And as for "distance away", that is a relative thing. Distance away from what? Without a reference, this is an empty and useless statement.
Anybody reading this not trying to be obtuse understands in the context of what I wrote it is distance from the ground observer. Don't be silly.

Now resond to the actual issue of a change in simultaneity in this case. Give specific details of the cause otherwise you are merely procrastinating and trying to divert attention so as to not have to answer.

18. ## simultaneity

Referring to the drawing, U is the universal 'rest' frame, A is moving relative to U in the
U-x direction at v, (.5c in the example). As A crosses the origin at t=0, a light signal is sent (event 1) toward a particle at a constant distance x from the origin. The signal reflects (event 2) from the particle and is detected by A (event 3). A in transforming his
moving frame into a pseudo rest frame, divides his clock time t' by 2 and assigns event 2
as clock event c2. He correctly assumes that if he is not moving, then the light trip out should equal the light trip back, and the distance should be c*t'. It's obvious that the horizontal line at 2' is > the horizontal line at event 2. To A, event 2 is simultaneous with
clock event c2, thus his spatial axis is inclined at the angle (2, c2, 2'). This is also equal to
the angle v/c between the time axes. This preserves the relation of x/t = c.
It also explains why two events that are simultaneous to A are not simultaneous to U, or any frame that moves relative to A.

drawing

19. MacM post 914;

Two observers at common rest. They have constructed a PHYSICS test course in their solar system. It is a measured distance with kilometer markers along the entire course.
They have never heard of Special Relativity.
The course is 1.08E12m ( 1 light hour long ), plus an acceleration zone
before the start of the marked course.
"A" will be the traveling observer and "B" is resting observer
"A" flies out to the end of the acceleration zone which has been computed to
give him a velocity of 0.6c when he reaches the start of the marked course.
"A" accelerates and goes inertial at the beginning of the course. He
instantly sets his clock to t=0 and sends a light signal to "B" that
he has started the test. That signal will take 1 hour to reach "B".
When "B" receives the start signal from "A", since he knows the distance and
velocity of light, he knows to preset his clock to1 hour since the test
started. That is the equivelent of "A" & "B" settng their clocks t=0 at the
same time.
When "A" flies past "B" both stop their clocks and compute velocity according
to their data.
"A" will have recorded he traversed 1.08E9Km in 0.53333 hours (32 minutes)
"B" will have recorded he took 1 hour to go the same distance.
Neither observer can detect a change in distance or time standards during the test. The only data they have is known distance (which remains the same in all frames as measured) and the accumulated time on their clocks.
That is the physcial reality.
A and B on meeting:
B: t = 1/.6 = 1.67 hr, x = 1 lhr
A: t' = .8(t) = 1.33 hr, x' = ?
(The effect is there whether A knows it or not. Eg. only in the last century
were we aware of the exposure to so many toxic substances.)

A expects his clock to read 1.67, but B arrived early.

A doesn't know SR, so he tests each factor in his calculation x = vt.
Possibility 1. A is moving faster than he thinks, i.e. v = 1/1.33 = .75,
then x' = 1 lhr.
Possibility 2. Space has contracted proportionally to his time,
i.e. x' = 1*(1.33)/1.67 = .8 lhr.
Possibility 3. his formula is wrong

Possibility 1: can be eliminated using radar methods to measure B's speed.
Possibility 2: creates a question with no answer using the known rules of
physics.
Possibility 3: the formula states distance is a linear function of v and t.
If the test was repeated at different values for v, the results would reveal
a non linear relation of x and v, and therfore the same for t.

If A knows SR, then t is the problem, and because he is moving
(the rest of the universe is moving in the opposite direction and did so
instantaneously, and there is no source of energy to accomplish that, he
initiated his launch into space, he recorded an acceleration, light is blue
shifted forward and redshifted backward),
he can adjust his time, and the anomaly disappears!

20. Originally Posted by MacM
Funny I have clearly stated velocity addition was a seperate issue from relativity of simultaneity.

You may not recall what you wrote in your previous post, but I do:

Originally Posted by MacM
Velocity addition causes what are physically simultaneous TNT blasts in the moving frame to become not simultaneous from the ground frame...
Remember now?

If you still want to imply otherwise show your work. Show the detonation based on fuse burn rates and relativity of simultaneity.

WOW. It must be tough to understand that two TNT stick laying physically across one another at 90 degrees in the same box are in a common location...
No. In the example given, they are separated by a distance of 4.24 metres in the box frame. And the explosions are separated by a lot more than that in the ground frame, since the box is travelling at 0.6c.

...and not miles or light years apart where distance would cause a measureable shift in simultaneity due to relativity of simultaneity.
Why don't you calculate how far apart the explosions take place in the ground frame? They are, indeed, miles and miles apart. Or, you could just READ POST #778, where I already worked it all out for you.

Anybody reading this not trying to be obtuse understands in the context of what I wrote it is distance from the ground observer. Don't be silly.
The vast majority of your posts are so unclear that it takes months of follow-up questioning to ever sort out what you're trying to say. You leave out vital information all the time. A messy mind makes for messy writing.

Now resond to the actual issue of a change in simultaneity in this case.
You ought to read my posts and try to remember what I said. A little earlier, I answered this very question:

Originally Posted by James R
If you review post #778 you will see that the relativity of simultaneity follows directly from the Lorentz transformations. These, in turn, are derived directly from the postulates of special relativity. Thus, the relativity of simultaneity is a fundamental feature of spacetime and not a secondary feature due to velocity addition.
Remember now?

If you need specific details, READ POST #778, where they are all worked out for you.