1. billy post 904;

I think this is totally false. If it were true, then inside a sealed room
with some simple chemistry you could determine your speed.
Part I made bold of your post especially false and silly, as it implies that
electrolysis of H2O would take less energy in faster moving frames so you
could define the "absolute rest frame" as the one requiring the most energy
to break the chemical bonds. - even MacM knows that is silly.
-Everyone agreed very early in these posts that the observer in his own
frame is not aware of the effects.
The effects are seen by external observers.
The clock moving at .999c is almost stopped, i.e. activity slows.

When the group of objects are moving at .999c, there is a limited range of
motion for each member without reaching the speed c.

2. Originally Posted by phyti
...It also explains why two events that are simultaneous to A are not simultaneous to U, or any frame that moves relative to A. ...
Still have not studied your drawing enough to fully comprehend, but at least you are correct in this conclusion drawn from it.

It is impossible for clocks in different frames to be synchronized. Your conclusion also follows from this: I.e. If all the clocks in frame A are synchronized, e.g. showing 12:00 at the same time in that frame, most in any other fame are not simultaneously showing 12:00 (only a few are by chance) even if all in the other frame IN THAT FRAME ARE SHOWING THE SAME TIME SIMULANEOUSLY (are synchronized in that frame).

I.e. it is cross-frames synchronization that is impossible.

PS thanks for more information on your drawing - I will try to get back to it soon.

3. Originally Posted by phyti
billy post 904;... When the group of objects are moving at .999c, there is a limited range of
motion for each member without reaching the speed c.
No, strange as it seems to our experience, common sense, that is not true. For eample, if B is traveling in the + X axis direction at 0.9C wrt to A, C can still travel at 0.9C also in the + X axis direction at 0.9C wrt to B, and D can still travel at 0.9C also in the + X axis direction at 0.9C wrt to C and E can still travel at 0.9C also in the + X axis direction at 0.9C wrt to D and F can still travel at 0.9C also in the + X axis direction at 0.9C wrt to E ...etc.

4. Originally Posted by James R

You may not recall what you wrote in your previous post, but I do:
posted by James R:“ 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?
1 - do you see the term Relativity of Simultaneity anywhere ? I do not. FYI: the word simultaneous has meaning outside the bounds of SR.

In the event you don't speak english or have low comprehension here is the definition of the word used.

WEBSTER:

Simultaneous - 1) Occurring, done, existing, etc, together or at the same time

2 - The following is and has been my repeated statement about relativity of simultaneity in this case vs just a general discussion about the non simultaneous detonation caused by mere velocity addition.

color=blue]Posted by MacM #884:First let me clarify. The relativity of simultaneity principle is not involved in this issue.[/color]
Your apology will be accepted. But if you cojtinue to call me a liar you should be pleased that you are hiding behind a computer monitor otherwise I would slap some common courtesy into you.

Originally Posted by James R
It is true that SR requires the events to occur at different times. That is if the detonation is simultaneous in the box at 12:00 Noon but could be 12:01 PM from the ground. But that is not the issue.

The issue is that the reality is the detonations will both occur simultaneously at 12:00 Noon and should be observed at 12:01 PM from the ground. But due to the velocity additon component in SR they become non-simultaneous i.e. at 12:01PM & 12:02PM.

Remember now?
See above. No relativity of simultaneity mentioned here either.

Originally Posted by James R
Oh but I did and you clearly merely computed velocity addition. Not a calculation of relativity of simultaneity based on distance for example.

Originally Posted by James R
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.
What a lot of crap. Where in the hell do you get 4.24 meters seperation? I clearly stated the TNT sticks were laying across each other at 90 degrees. The centers of the TNT therefore were at the. The fuses at the surface of the powder could in fact be at an identical X&Y ordinate point.

I stipulated 3 minute fuses. You cam along and ghanged my diagram increased fuse lengths,etc. Do not get on here and distort what I wrote and mix it with what you wrote and then lie about what I posted.

The distance traveled between explosions is what was caused by the velocity addition component, so what is your point. Relativity of simultaneity is the apparent shift in simultaneous i.e. lightening flashes at each end of a moving train for an observer in the middle of the train when the train is in motion. OR for an observer standing on the embankment but not equal distance from the flashes.

In this case those relativity of simultaneity conditions do not exist. The blasts are adjacent to each other in a common moving frame to the ground observer.

Originally Posted by James R
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.
You really are not respondig to the issue but think you can divert the discussion. The discussion is about the affect of velocity addition on physics in a frame.

The TNT detonates simultaneously in the moving frame but not in the ground frame but relativity of simultaneity due to distance or velocity of the TNT is not involved.

The issue is the change in physics i.e. - altering the burn rate of a fuse in one orientation vs another in the same frame.

Originally Posted by James R
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.
Funny I have the same experience with your posts which usually are completely off topic and irrelevant to the issue raised.

Originally Posted by James R
You ought to read my posts and try to remember what I said. A little earlier, I answered this very question:
Remember now?
778 is not a proper rebuttal. Not only because you only calculated the shift in flame velocity according to SR; which I clearly knew which is why I posted the scenario but you give no discussion about the affect it produced.

Originally Posted by James R
If you need specific details, READ POST #778, where they are all worked out for you.
Don't be silly. You can post your BS and then pretend thevissue has been properly addressed but it clearly has not.

5. MacM:

I read your post, but it doesn't seem to have any point to it. You're driving yourself round and round in circles. There's no need for me to reply. Go and argue with Billy T or something, instead. I'll wait until you produce something of interest.

6. Originally Posted by James R
MacM:

I read your post, but it doesn't seem to have any point to it. You're driving yourself round and round in circles. There's no need for me to reply. Go and argue with Billy T or something, instead. I'll wait until you produce something of interest.
Good. Since I'm really not surprised you refuse to answer the question. It has been your habit all along. interject off topic or irrelevnt stuff. Lie about what others have said or think, make double talk like SR only says what others see but then deny that means SR is dealing with perception and not physical reality.

You are a complete waste of time.

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.)
Hopefully you have a sense of humor, cause I''ll reply in the manner of Bill T.

But Billy, that's silly. The mirror would contract 50% in the x direction and only overlap 2 meter sticks. If that were not true, you could calculate your absolute speed.

8. Originally Posted by phyti
Hopefully you have a sense of humor, cause I''ll reply in the manner of Bill T.

But Billy, that's silly. The mirror would contract 50% in the x direction and only overlap 2 meter sticks. If that were not true, you could calculate your absolute speed.
I said it is "large." Yes, if described in terms of our meter sticks it will contract in the velocity direction (assume that is x axis) but being large, it can still covers more than 4 meter sticks as they also are contracted compared to our meter sticks.

Likewise, it would be more nearly horizontal if not for the contraction. But to continue (falsely so you can understand with your false POV) Perhaps, for example, the angle between the mirror and the meter sticks glued to the floor of the rocket ship as only ~25 degress* when the launch crew was installing the mirror. Contraction in x direction only (none in the y direction) converted that angle into 45 degrees when ship was fast and inertial IF DESCRIBED BY OUR ANGLE MEASURING INSTRUMENTS.

Still think it is silly? (Actually this last paragraph is silly, but I wrote it to match your silly/ false ideas so you could understand. See footnote.)

-----------
*Whatever the angle with tangent = 0.5 is. I.e. at launch the top of the mirror was 2 meters above the floor and the edge of mirror was 4meters nearer the front but at speed (in your false POV) that 4 meter x component of length had contracted to 2 meters. (AND ACTUALLY DOES, If you want to describe it with meter sticks in our frame.)

Actually, without your false POV, but the correct one, the ground crew should install mirror at 45 degrees as there is no real contraction IN THE FRAME OF THE ROCKET SHIP. Rather than continue trying to teach you "RIGHT FROM WRONG" I had the ground crew install two mirrors, one correctly at 45 degrees and one incorrectly with ~25 degree elevation from the mirror sticks.

PS: I replied as if you were NOT just kidding. Perhaps you were kidding? Just trying to show how silly some of the posters here, who think there is a physical change in the moving frame, are.

BTW if there were a physical contraction in the moving frame, then cameras, telescopes etc. would not work as their optical element would contract, but only in the x direction and not the y direction so the lenses etc would be highly distorting.

9. Phyti interpretation of Mac's #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.
Phyti Post: "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."
Yes absolutely. What James, Billy T and others seem to want to ignore is that this situation has a component not of standard relativity of simultaneity.

Relativity of Simultaneity affects:

1 - Distance causes a shift in apparent timing with or without velocity. It affects things in two ways. Ground and craft clocks have been synchronized:

a - If a blast occured at 12 noon in the local TNT frame it might appear to have occured at 12:01PM at 1 light minute distance but will appear to have occured 40 years, 309 days, 2 hours, 10 minutes, 9 seconds later according to sound if at common rest. Motion however would affect the sound aspect of relativity of simultaneity in this case.

b - If the blast occured at 1 PM in the local TNT frame but that frame had achieved an inertial velocity relative to the ground frame then the craft clock has been ticking more lowly than the ground clock and in addition to the relativity of simultaneity caused by distance you have time dilated clocks reading different accumulated times and the additional shift depends on the duration of the relative velocity to the ground rest frame.

So the fuse length does generate some relativity of simultaneity affects but this scenario is to show an additional affect which is NOT relativity of simultaneity in spite of James R or Billy T's trying to ignore it and just talk about relativity of simultaneity as though that is the answer.

Originally Posted by phyti
-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.

2 - I have to disagree. James R is correct to compute the flame speed but not to arguing about it and still invoke the affect I sought it expose, consider the TNT's don't have fuses but primer charges and you use two bullets fired simultaneously in the TNT frame to cause detonation.

Those bullets are mass and clearly fall within the velocity addition claim.

Now you have not only the distance between the gun to the TNT (equivelent of a fuse length) but you have the rate of detonation changed. This shifts detonation locally by more than just the distanceof the fuse.

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.
Only partially correct. It has good utility at predicting results but only when you stipulate who has motion based on actual physics. That is the SR claim that James makes about reciprocity of time dilation and length contraction being physically real is not supported by emperical data.

Both observers see each other as dilated and that is what SR claims but for those that add words to Einstein's mouth and claim that is physical reality have done him no favor because it is not true and is not supported and is totally assinine physics.

The only thing actually emperically supported and logically possible is the dilation of a clock that switched frames (i.e. - accelerated and achieved actual velocity to an inertial rest frame.). The clock in the common rest frame NEVER becomes dilated physicallym even though it may appear dilated during relative veloicty.

Billy T's arguement that neither length contraction nor time dilation are physically real is equally flawed in that an accelerated clock will display less accumulated time subsequent to having had relative veloicty to the resting clock when compared in tthe common rest frame.

To produce a real physical change there must be a real physical cause.

That being the case one must now decide is it length contraction according to SR or is it time dilation of clocks.

A change in velocity is a change in energy and hence makes some sense that that might affect atomic vibrations or ticks of a clock.

A changing of distance by length contraction however produces several unacceptable consequences such as getting closer to something the faster you receed.

Therefore whicle either can cause the observed dilation of the clock it seems time dilation is the more logical choice for physics to consider.

That being the case one can then see that when timing a trip the physically dilated conditon of the traveling clock fully accounts for the accumulated time of the trip and NO length contraction can exist.

That is OK since it conforms with observation since length contraction has never been recorded and certainly does not exist as a physical change subsequent to having had relative veloicty and compared in a common rest frame.

Hope this clarifies my views.

10. Originally Posted by MacM
...Billy T's arguement that neither length contraction nor time dilation are physically real is equally flawed ... A change in velocity is a change in energy and hence makes some sense that that might affect atomic vibrations or ticks of a clock. ...
Atomic clocks count cycles of a frequency due to energy transitions between QUANTIZED energy levels of the atoms.
Quantum theory can CALCULATE these energy levels. If they change, Quantum Theory must change with speed too!

MacM's news flash:

Speed changes Quantum Theory!!! How silly can you get? Let's all roll on the floor laughing at his SR ideas. Or should we cry? for them?

11. Originally Posted by Billy T
Atomic clocks count cycles of a frequency due to energy transitions between QUANTIZED energy levels of the atoms.
Quantum theory can CALCULATE these energy levels. If they change, Quantum Theory must change with speed too!

MacM's news flash:

Speed changes Quantum Theory!!! How silly can you get? Let's all roll on the floor laughing at his SR ideas. Or should we cry? for them?
Pathetic. You clearly have a learning disability. The frequency computes the same when it decreases comensurate with dilation of it's own clock measuring it.

It (as a clock ) is dilated to a resting clock because it is dilated and ticking slower.

To put it in simpler term such that hopefully even you can grasp it. Consider 1 horsepower = 550 ft-#/sec = work/t = power = energy.

Now in an accelerated frame it is dilated by 50% then 225 ft-#/.5 sec = 550 ft-#/sec = 1 horsepower or no apparent change in energy.

Take your head out of the smelly dark spot before you sufficate.

12. Originally Posted by MacM
... The frequency computes the same when it decreases comensurate with dilation of it's own clock measuring it....
No. How dense can you be?

Quantum Theory computes. Not "frequency computes." Quantum Theory does not measure anything. It is only mathematics.

Quantum Theory computes the energy levels of the atom. The energy level difference determines the frequency*, which you falsely state must change with speed.

The atomic clock just counts # of cycles to advance its display by one second. That second will be the same in all inertial frames - does not physically change as the atomic energy level difference remains as computed by Quantum Theory. In some cases the agreement between quantum calculations and measured energy levels differences is accurate to 10 significant figures!

YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT THEORY MUST CHANGE WITH SPEED If you state there is a physical change in the energy level differences / frequency/ second. (Or else you are denying the accuracy of quantum mechanics is real. It is hard to tell what you will deny as you state motion is “only illusion” unless wrt the “Common Reference Frame,” which only you think is important.)

The strange SR effects are caused by describing events in another frame by our units (meter sticks and seconds)

-----------
*As atom goes from excited state to ground state, the photon produced has exactly that atomic loss of energy. (Conservation of energy) The energy of a photon is directly proportional to it frequency. Thus, for there to be change you falsely assert with no evidence, the energy levels must change and would no longer be as quantum theory computed. Also energy would not be conserved. How silly can you get?

The energy levels do NOT change with speed. (They remain as computed by Quantum Theory.)
Thus, the radiation frequency does not change with speed.
Thus, the time corresponding to # cycles of that radiation does not change with speed.
Thus, the duration of the second does not change with speed.
Thus, all good clocks tick at the same rate in their own frames.

Time dilation occurs ONLY when another frame describes the duration of that second by comparing to its seconds. It is like the following:

The short armed King of France (back in the days when a yard was the distance from the King's nose to his finger tips) ordered 100 yards of English rope and paid for it. When it arrived he was please to see he received 115 yards for the price of 100 yards. He applied his French yard to the rope made in England. The rope was 100 of English yards long when shipped.

Note that there is ALWAYS reciprocity inherent ALL problems cause by using your units to describe items / events in another realm or frame. For example:

If the king of France pays for the rope by 50 well made arrows, each 1 meter long, the King of England will complain about the arrows only being 85 centimeters long.

13. Originally Posted by Billy T
No. How dense can you be?

It is hard to tell what you will deny as you state motion is “only illusion”
Herein lies the problem.

I have NEVER made any such statement. You typically take what I say and distort it or exptrapolate it into somethingelse.

What I have actually said is that the time dilation percieved during motion is an illusion - not the motion itself. That is just plain silly. But then you routinely are silly.

14. billy post 943;
No, strange as it seems to our experience, common sense, that is not true. For eample, if B is traveling in the + X axis direction at 0.9C wrt to A, C can still travel at 0.9C also in the + X axis direction at 0.9C wrt to B, and D can still travel at 0.9C also in the + X axis direction at 0.9C wrt to C and E can still travel at 0.9C also in the + X axis direction at 0.9C wrt to D and F can still travel at 0.9C also in the + X axis direction at 0.9C wrt to E ...etc.
-You are considering things from within the moving frame, and in this example
you are switching to each successive frame. When the composite object is moving at .9c, then I am an external observer, watching it fly past.
The limit of c is still from my pov, but you keep referring to the moving
(internal) observer. If you keep the same pov of A, then speeds using addition equation are: B, .9, C, .994, D, .9995, ...etc, i.e. none ever reach c.

The objective is to determine the limitations on the moving
frame considering the known rules of physics.

o
o___________| u
........v

Add a diagonal labeled 'c' to the drawing which then represents vector addition c=v+u.
In the drawing, v is the speed of the composite object, u is the transverse or radial speed of a photon relative to the object. The two circles are particles of the object moving parallel along the x axis. If c is constant, then u depends on v, i.e.

u=c*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
Some value pairs for (v,u) are (.9, .44), (.99, .14), (.999, .045).

As v approaches c, u gets smaller, and the rate of photon exchange between the particles slows. The photons that interact with the particles are only the ones that move on the surface of a cone with the angle subtended by u.
The particles being restricted to <c, can only move radially at <u, thus random thermal activity is reduced.
At speed c the object would be in a frozen state, just as the clock, if moving at c would stop.

15. Billy,

I'm working on some credible support for my arguement.

In the mean time lets explore your assertions.

1 - If I understand your POV it is that all clocks actually tick at the same rate in all frames because you assert the atom functions on the hyperfine descrete quantum energy differentials?

2 - Further that time dilation is therefore strictly a function of lorentz contraction of distance.

3 - Also you agree that relative velocity must be symmetrical or equal?

Is that correct? Just yes or no to each please.

16. Originally Posted by MacM
Herein lies the problem.

I have NEVER made any such statement. {speak of "illusion of motion"} ...
What I have actually said is that the time dilation percieved during motion is an illusion - not the motion itself. That is just plain silly....
I agree it is silly to speak of "iluions of motion" but you have many times. The most recent example is:
Originally Posted by MacM
{post 905}...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. ...
But there are many earlier ones. I earilier ones you indicated that only the motion from the CRF is able to produce time dilation etc. that, like here SR is wrong to suggest relative velocity can. It is only operating on the "illusion of motion" etc. I note that SR NEVER speakS of "ILLUSION OF MOTION" - all motionis real and only the relative motion between frames is important. Both frames are always separating from each other at the same speed.

17. Originally Posted by MacM
1 - If I understand your POV it is that all clocks actually tick at the same rate in all frames because you assert the atom functions on the hyperfine descrete quantum energy differentials?

2 - Further that time dilation is therefore strictly a function of lorentz contraction of distance.

3 - Also you agree that relative velocity must be symmetrical or equal?
Is that correct?...
To (1): All energy levels of all atoms are quantized. (Remove part of your text I made red.) Yes I assert that in their own frame physics is the same in all frames and these levels are as Quantum Theory calculates. Thus in their own frame all colcks tick at the same rate. (Atomic clocks are based on these energy levels.) For the clock to toick at different rate the quantum theory would need to change with speed. Theory as a function of speed is about as silly as you can get but that is what your idea of a "real physical change" requires.

For atomic hydrogen the levels can be predicted from quantum theory to about 10 palce agreement with measurements. The gorund state of H has principle qunatum nuber 1, first exceted state, 2 etc. and here are the first three energy levels (all negative as the electron is bound)
n Energy in eV
1 13.6
2 3.40
3 1.51

Note that for any n they are: 13.6/(n^2) With only on electron the complexity of electron-electron interaction does not enter the theory so it is simple.

The radiation from any exceited state to the n=1 state is a UV photon - not visible (Called the lyman series of lines)

Radiation that is from n=3 or higher to n=2 is called the Balmer Series. Here are their wavelengths (in Anstroms):
3 -> 2 is 6563 - a red line with energy = 3.40 - 1.51 = 1.89eV in all inertial frames
4 -> 2 is 4861 - a pretty blue line as I recall
5 -> 2 is 4341
6 -> 2 is 4102
7 -> 2 is 3971

These lines (and many others) can be measured with high resoultion spectragraphs to about 8 significant figures. Then one can be assumed to be as quantum Mechanics calculates and interferometers can be used to greatly extend the precision of the measurements. All the others then are measured wavelenths and agree to at least 10 significant figures with the values calculated by quantum mechanics theory. (The one assume after checking out in agreement via large spectragraph to ~8 places is used backwards to determine the exact spacing betwee the interferometer plates. (Only optically can you measure distance to more that 10 significant figures accuracy.)

BTW in a recent post you spoke of atoms as "vibrating." This is an error as only molecules can vibrate (or rotate), but these vibrational and rotational energy level are also quantized; however, they are not independant of each other. For example the vibrational states are changed if the molecule is in an exceited rotational state.

If I recall correctly the hyper fine structure is the slight energy shift of the energy levels (which have non zero angular momentum) due to the fact that there may be (always is if number of nucleons in the nucleus is odd) a nuclear magnetic moment. - Sort like two very tiny magnets that have different energy when aligned vs anti-alined. As the name suggest, you need high resolution techniques to even see it, but as you can measure these energy levels so precisely, it can be seen. As I recall it is in agreement with quantum theory out to at least 13 significant figures! (and then they error is in the fact that charge on the electron is not known well enough for higher accuracy in the theory (or something like that)

On (2): I do not think I have ever even (prior to this post) typed "lorentz contraction of distance." If I ever knew anything about lorentz contraction of distance I have completely forgotten it. I believe SR is correct in all cases where there is disagrement with the lorentz model. Point (2) is thus entirely your fabrication and NOTHING to do with me or my POV.

On (3) Yes, except for one Velocity being negative of the other. It is, as I usually say, the speeds of separation that are equal. I.e. if frame A is speeding away from frame B at speed S, then frame B is speeding away from frame A at S - no exceptions.

18. Originally Posted by Billy T
I agree it is silly to speak of "iluions of motion" but you have many times. The most recent example is:
“ Originally Posted by MacM: {post 905}...critical error in SR as a physical theory and relagates it in part at least to being predictions of "Illusions of Motion" and not physical reality. ... ”
Please read more carefully. The predictions are due to illusions of motion. Motion is NOT an illusion.

Originally Posted by Billy T
But there are many earlier ones. I earilier ones you indicated that only the motion from the CRF is able to produce time dilation etc. that, like here SR is wrong to suggest relative velocity can.
That is correct. Relative veloicty is not a physical cause for anything. You have NO emperical data to support relative veloicty caused the resting clock to change.

You can only predict that others percienve it to change but there is NO physical evidence of it having changed compared to the moving clock. Indeed ALL emperical data ONLY supports the fact that the moving clock (the one that accelerated) loses time.

Originally Posted by Billy T
It is only operating on the "illusion of motion" etc. I note that SR NEVER speakS of "ILLUSION OF MOTION" - all motionis real and only the relative motion between frames is important. Both frames are always separating from each other at the same speed.
Unfortunately for you it has been shown that relative velocity does not cause dilation between clocks. Only motion induced by acceleration causes dilation to the moving frame to it's original rest frame.

19. Originally Posted by Billy T
To (1): All energy levels of all atoms are quantized. (Remove part of your text I made red.) Yes I assert that in their own frame physics is the same in all frames and these levels are as Quantum Theory calculates. Thus in their own frame all colcks tick at the same rate. (Atomic clocks are based on these energy levels.) For the clock to toick at different rate the quantum theory would need to change with speed. Theory as a function of speed is about as silly as you can get but that is what your idea of a "real physical change" requires.
Not good enough. This is not a yes or No answer.

Now without your double talk about they all tick the csame in their own frame BS.

Do atomic clocks once synchronized theorticall all tick in synch regrdless of subsequent relative velocity.?

Yes or No.

Originally Posted by Billy T
On (2): I do not think I have ever even (prior to this post) typed "lorentz contraction of distance." If I ever knew anything about lorentz contraction of distance I have completely forgotten it. I believe SR is correct in all cases where there is disagrement with the lorentz model. Point (2) is thus entirely your fabrication and NOTHING to do with me or my POV.
So you are claiming you have never heard of or do not accept lorentz contraction of distance? Just how were you talking about the traveling twin went less distance? You seem to be getting wishy-washy here.

Does time dilation according to you (as I believe you have stated heretofore)exist as a consequence of length contraction or of clock tick rate dilation?

Clock Tick Rate: Yes/No?

Distance: Yes/No?

Originally Posted by Billy T
On (3) Yes, except for one Velocity being negative of the other. It is, as I usually say, the speeds of separation that are equal. I.e. if frame A is speeding away from frame B at speed S, then frame B is speeding away from frame A at S - no exceptions.
OK. A bit more than a yes or no but yu at leqst answered.

I'll await your further reply to (1) & (2) before I slam the lid on your POV.

20. Originally Posted by MacM
Not good enough. This is not a yes or No answer.
Some things are not so simple as yes or no replies but I will try:
Originally Posted by MacM
Do atomic clocks once synchronized theorticall all tick in synch regardless of subsequent relative velocity.? Yes or No.
In their own frame, yes. Compared to clocks of another frame, No.
Originally Posted by MacM
So you are claiming you have never heard of or do not accept lorentz contraction of distance?
Yes I have heard of it. You tried to put words in my mouth here:
Originally Posted by MacM
...lets explore your assertions. ... 2 - Further that time dilation is therefore strictly a function of lorentz contraction of distance.
I.e. I never made such an assertion. If Lorenz theory contradicts SR theory, it is wrong so I have forgotten everything I may have once known about it.
Originally Posted by MacM
Does time dilation according to you (as I believe you have stated heretofore) exist as a consequence of length contraction or of clock tick rate dilation?

Clock Tick Rate: Yes/No?
Distance: Yes/No?
Neither. All of SR effects are due to making use of your frames units (seconds and meters) to DESCRIBE events / conditions in another frame. There is NO PHYSICAL CHANGE in that frame. Physics there is the same as in your frame. To measure lengths or time intervals (such at tick rates period from one tick until the next) in another frame you need TWO simultaneous observations. (For example where both end of a ruler are or when time period begins and when it ends.) Only one event can be simultaneous for both frames. For example, time dilation is due to (assuming the first tick of his and my clock is simultaneous) the fact that the other frame had his final or terminal tick after my clock's final tick. Or his clock took more than an hour by my clock to advance an hour.

I know you do neither believe nor understand how this can be, but that does not make it false. These SR results follow mathematically from: Speed of light is constant and physics is the same in all inertial frames. I trust math much more than your assertions, one of which the end of this post shows is illogical.

Originally Posted by MacM
I'll await your further reply to (1) & (2) before I slam the lid on your POV.
I answered them both in prior post 795. You must have read at least (2) as you commented on it.:

Originally Posted by Billy T
On (2): I do not think I have ever even (prior to this post) typed "lorentz contraction of distance." If I ever knew anything about lorentz contraction of distance I have completely forgotten it. I believe SR is correct in all cases where there is disagrement with the lorentz model. Point (2) is thus entirely your fabrication and NOTHING to do with me or my POV.

On (3) Yes, except for one Velocity being negative of the other. It is, as I usually say, the speeds of separation that are equal. I.e. if frame A is speeding away from frame B at speed S, then frame B is speeding away from frame A at S - no exceptions.
Let me logically review for you one of your most easily refuted silly / illogical assertions. (I.e. that there is a physical change in the clocks of the moving frame to make their seconds take longer or “time dilation”):

(1) Math in the moving frame is unchanged (2+4 = 6 still etc., including the matrix math of QM).

(2) Quantum mechanics is ONLY math. Thus that predictive math THEORY does not change with speed.

(3) Quantum mechanics can calculate the energy levels extremely precisely (in some case agreeing with experiment to 10 significant figures!) Thus the energy levels of atoms do not change with speed.

(4) Thus the frequency of radiation produced when atom emits A photon does not change with speed. (The photon has exactly the energy of the difference between two energy levels of the transition to conserve energy. The energy of a photon is Planck’s CONSTANT times the frequency so if energy level difference is unchanged, Then the photon frequency is unchanged with speed.)

(5) Thus the time period required for # cycles of this identical frequency, in all frames, is the same.

(6) Atomic clocks advance one second with each block of # cycles of that frequency they count.

(7) Thus the duration of a second is the same in all inertial frames, independent of their speed.*

You are frequently demanding I answer your question (even demanding I only respond with Yes or No when that would be too simple minded to be possible.)
Thus I demand (for first time, I think) that you tell which of the seven logical steps above is not true and why.

Don’t duck and weave. Just tell which statement number (1 thru 7) is wrong.

---------------
*And of their prior history of acceleration. Clocks based on atomic energy levels have no way to remember history. The clock could even be made long after the acceleration was over. For you to ASSERT that ONLY the clocks in the frame that had prior acceleration exhibit "time dilation" is another of your obviously silly statements.