1. Originally Posted by Billy T
Some things are not so simple as yes or no replies but I will try:

In their own frame, yes. Compared to clocks of another frame, no.
Great then as the diagram I'm posting prove that indeed clocks do dilate and hence MUST shift frequency and all your BS trying to qualify ticking "in their own frame" and then attacking MacM's views as being silly is nothing more than double talk.

All posts I have ever made discusses ticking compared to clocks in other frames. Further How many times have I posted that an observer cannot detect nor measure any change in his frame. So I have said precisely what you just said and you call me silly. Guess what that makes you.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Yes I have heard of it. You tried to put words in my mouth here: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.
You seem confused here. I said nothing about Lorentz Relativity. You apparently don't understand that lorentz contraction IS length contraction in SR.

Originally Posted by Billy T
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.
More "in their frame double talk. Frame to frame the traveling frame MUST undergo physical change otherwise they would contrinue to have their clocks tick in synch. Nobody cares about the physics are the same issue because we are not violating it by pointing out the fact that conditions between frames have changed.

In each frame justv as I had posted before if a clock tick dilates so does the clock measuringit in tht frame and hence no change accordingvto the observer in that frame but that does not alter the fact that it changed.

Originally Posted by Billy T
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.
More selfserving BS. I apparently know things better than yourself since you have tried to divert others from the truth. Clocks tick differently between frames.

Originally Posted by Billy T
I answered them both in prior post. You must have read at least (2) as you commented on it.:

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.
See above FYI: Lorentz Contraction IS SR Length Contraction. Thought you knew this stuff.

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.
Correct at least in an absolute sense if not as the locally calculated value.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Let me review for you one of your most easily refuted silly 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 does that THEORY 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.
ALL DOUBLE TALK HIDING BEHIND THE FACT THAT IN THE FRAME THE CLOCK BEING USED TO CALCULATE FREQUENCY IS THE ONE DILATED SUCH THAT FREQUENCY BETWEEN FRAMES MUST ALSO BE DILATED FOR PHYSICS TO REMAIN THE SAME.

#7 is an unfortunate play on words. The duration is based on the frequency of the atom. What you are attempting to hide here is that the duration in the moving frame is dilated compared to the resting frame and hence duration between frames is NOT the same. Only the definition of duration is the same betrween frames.

Originally Posted by Billy T
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.)
Only for you the poster of diatribes and over qualificatons to avoid direct clear answers.

Originally Posted by Billy T
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.

I have comment. The points you post are true in their frame but that is and has never been at issue. The issue is the comparative values and SR only works if there is real physical change between frames.

This is made abundantly clear in the following diagrams:

************************************************** **
Here are several possibilities done graphically. I will discuss each below the traveling twin cases.

************************************************** *
CASE 1:
Round trip according to resting Twin. Relative velocity is assumed symmetrical. .Times
are in hours.

.................................................. ...........Resting Twin..............................................
Distance A................................................. ....B............................................. .......A
Time...... 0............1............2............3.......... ..4............5............6............7........ ....8

Clock dilates 50%. Distance remains fixed.

.................................................. .........Traveling Twin.............................................. .
Distance A................................................. ....B............................................. ........A
Time...... 0..........................1...................... ....2..........................3.................. ........4
A dilated clock matches emperical data.

************************************************** ******

CASE 2:
.................................................. ...........Resting Twin..............................................
Distance A................................................. ....B............................................. .......A
Time...... 0............1............2............3.......... ..4............5............6............7........ ....8

Clocks ticking in synch. Distance traveled 50%.

...............................Traveling Twin..................
Distance A........................B........................ ..A
Time...... 0............1...........2............3........... ..4

Bogus results in that it is alleged that while clocks ticked the same the twin arrives back in half
the time. If clocks were in synch the resting twin could never get to 8 hours.

************************************************** *****

CASE 3:
This is more clear if you view real world examples with both clocks ticking in synch.
Speed = 60 Mph. Time is in hours.

..........................................Resting Twin.............................................. ...................
Distance.A ..........................480 Miles...........B................................. ...................A
Time...... 0............1............2............3.......... ..4............5............6............7........ ....8
.................................................. ....................!
...................................Traveling Twin...............!
Distance.A.........................B.............. ...........A
Time...... 0............1............2............3.......... ..4
Distance ......................240 Miles....................!

If the speed and clock tick rates are the same then all clocks must agree when I return and
stop my clock at 4 hours. Therefore the assertion that the resting observer has you travel
480 miles and take 8 hours is not possible since I return in 4 hours. Further if clocks do not
stay in synch and the traveling clock has dilated such that the resting observer accumulates
8 hours when you return then you have case #1 and distance cannot change.

************************************************** *****

SUMMARY:
The only case that fits emperical data and is physically possible is #1 for clocks to dilate and
distance to remain the same. Seems MacM has heard this view before.

2. To MacM:

As I expected you would make: Post 961 is only a duck and weave post. Why not tell which statment (1 thru 7) in the logical chain is wrong?

When you do, I will look at your complex diagrams at end of post 961 and try to understand what your point is.

3. Originally Posted by Billy T
To MacM:

As I expected you would make: Post 961 is only a duck and weave post. Why not tell which statment (1 thru 7) in the logical chain is wrong?

When you do, I will look at your complex diagrams at end of post 961 and try to understand what your point is.

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).
No conflict with my view what is your point?

Originally Posted by Billy T
(2) Quantum mechanics is ONLY math. Thus that predictive math THEORY does not change with speed.
Again irrelevant since math doesn't change in my view either.

Originally Posted by Billy T
(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.
Energy is power or work/time. If time dilates then work must dilate equally such that the calculation remains unchanged.

Originally Posted by Billy T
(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.)
Here you make simular assumptions to that of light invariance. You assume your vision of light is complete. It likely is not. Ever here of doppler shift,etc?

Originally Posted by Billy T
(5) Thus the time period required for # cycles of this identical frequency, in all frames, is the same.
"Time Period" another term for duration which is based on the clock measuring it.

Originally Posted by Billy T
(6) Atomic clocks advance one second with each block of # cycles of that frequency they count.
And those blocks are not of equal duration in direct comparison frame to frame. But only calculate as the same based on the physics being the same in all frames.

You are equating definition with physical realiety. You have no concept of physical reality but only verbal theory. That appears to go to your very weak understanding of physics.

i.e you are a book nerd with little or no real experience or understanding of physical reality.

Originally Posted by Billy T
(7) Thus the duration of a second is the same in all inertial frames, independent of their speed.*
Again only the defintion of cycles/sec or frequency are equal the physical frequency dilates otherwise you would have no SR.

This is made abundantly clear in the following diagrams:

************************************************** **
Here are several possibilities done graphically. I will discuss each below the traveling twin cases.

************************************************** *
CASE 1:
Round trip according to resting Twin. Relative velocity is assumed symmetrical. .Times
are in hours.

.................................................. ...........Resting Twin..............................................
Distance A................................................. ....B............................................. .......A
Time...... 0............1............2............3.......... ..4............5............6............7........ ....8

Clock dilates 50%. Distance remains fixed.

.................................................. .........Traveling Twin.............................................. .
Distance A................................................. ....B............................................. ........A
Time...... 0..........................1...................... ....2..........................3.................. ........4
A dilated clock matches emperical data.

************************************************** ******

CASE 2:
.................................................. ...........Resting Twin..............................................
Distance A................................................. ....B............................................. .......A
Time...... 0............1............2............3.......... ..4............5............6............7........ ....8

Clocks ticking in synch. Distance traveled 50%.

...............................Traveling Twin..................
Distance A........................B........................ ..A
Time...... 0............1...........2............3........... ..4

Bogus results in that it is alleged that while clocks ticked the same the twin arrives back in half
the time. If clocks were in synch the resting twin could never get to 8 hours.

************************************************** *****

CASE 3:
This is more clear if you view real world examples with both clocks ticking in synch.
Speed = 60 Mph. Time is in hours.

..........................................Resting Twin.............................................. ...................
Distance.A ..........................480 Miles...........B................................. ...................A
Time...... 0............1............2............3.......... ..4............5............6............7........ ....8
.................................................. ....................!
...................................Traveling Twin...............!
Distance.A.........................B.............. ...........A
Time...... 0............1............2............3.......... ..4
Distance ......................240 Miles....................!

If the speed and clock tick rates are the same then all clocks must agree when I return and
stop my clock at 4 hours. Therefore the assertion that the resting observer has you travel
480 miles and take 8 hours is not possible since I return in 4 hours. Further if clocks do not
stay in synch and the traveling clock has dilated such that the resting observer accumulates
8 hours when you return then you have case #1 and distance cannot change.

************************************************** *****

SUMMARY:
The only case that fits emperical data and is physically possible is #1 for clocks to dilate and
distance to remain the same. Seems MacM has heard this view before.

NOW RESPOND TO MY QUESTIONS AND DIAGRAMS. SHOW JUST HOW YOU PROPOSE THAT SR EXISTS WITHOUT PHYSICAL CLOCK TIME DILATION.

SHOW JUST HOW THE ROUND TRIP GETS COMPLETED IF AS YOU TRY TO IMPLY HERE THAT ALL CLOCKS TICK IN SYNCH ONCE SYNCHRONIZED REGARDLESS OF SUBSEQUENT RELATIVE VELOCITY.

YOU AND ONLY YOU ARE DUCKING AND WEAVING - ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTIONS DIRECTLY NO MORE DOUBLE TALK AND DIATRIBE EXPLANATIONS.

4. Thanks for accepting the validity of logical steps (1) & (2).
Originally Posted by MacM
Energy is power or work/time. If time dilates then work must dilate equally such that the calculation remains unchanged.
As an answer to logic step (3) this is pure duck and weave. (3) concludes from (1) and (2) that the quantized atomic energy levels do not change with speed. What has power and work done have to do with that? -Nothing* Not even a good duck and weave as totally about other topics than the quantized energy levels of atoms.

BTW you again error. Energy is NOT power.

I'll stop here you until you either:
(a) accept that the energy LEVELS in atoms are as calculated by quantum mechanics math in all inertial frames;
OR
(b) tell why quantum mechanic calculations of the atomic energy levels are wrong in all frames except for one. Which we could call the "absolute rest frame" and identify it as only in it would the QM predicted energy levels agree with experimental measurements - If there were any truth in your POSTULATED "physical change" in all moving frames that sometime in the past accelerated away for that absolute rest frame.

-------------
*For example, lifting an atom in Earth's gravity field is doing work on it, but the energy levels are QUANTIZED and cannot change by this work - What changes is the potential energy of the atom's mass. I thought you knew some physic, but this nonsense and your calling energy "power" is forcing me to revises my opinion on this.

5. Originally Posted by Billy T
Thanks for accepting the validity of logical steps (1) & (2).As an answer to logic step (3) this is pure duck and weave. (3) concludes from (1) and (2) that the quantized atomic energy levels do not change with speed. What has power and work done have to do with that? -Nothing* Not even a good duck and weave as totally about other topics than the quantized energy levels of atoms.

BTW you again error. Energy is NOT power.

I'll stop here you until you either:
(a) accept that the energy LEVELS in atoms are as calculated by quantum mechanics math in all inertial frames;
OR
(b) tell why quantum mechanic calculations of the atomic energy levels are wrong in all frames except for one. Which we could call the "absolute rest frame" and identify it as only in it would the QM predicted energy levels agree with experimental measurements - If there were any truth in your POSTULATED "physical change" in all moving frames that sometime in the past accelerated away for that absolute rest frame.

-------------
*For example, lifting an atom in Earth's gravity field is doing work on it, but the energy levels are QUANTIZED and cannot change by this work - What changes is the potential energy of the atom's mass. I thought you knew some physic, but this nonsense and your calling energy "power" is forcing me to revises my opinion on this.
And I'll stop here until you answer my diagrams. For it really makes no difference what you claim the physical facts are clear from the diagrams.

SR either exists as a real physical affect or it doesn't. It does appear to do so therefore it has a physical cause. As the dagrams show there is only ONE physical cause that matches emperical data and that is that clocks physically dilate, which means what you think you know is wrong.

http://www.exploratorium.edu/cmp/exh...rgy_power.html

Physicists have specific definitions for “energy” and “power” even though these words are often used interchangeably in common speech. Energy is the ability to do work, while power is the rate at which work is done. In this exhibit, a hand generator is used to create a charge which is stored in large capacitors; the capacitors hold a given amount of energy. The capacitors can then be discharged through one of several different light bulbs that vary in resistance. The energy is consumed at different rates and hence the bulbs have different power ratings (wattage).

BTW: Energy vs Power: More nit picking and double talk on your part. BTU is an energy term. while 0.707 BTU/sec is a horsepower a power term. I am trying to have casual conversation here using common language. The fact is you don't measure energy but measure what it is doing.

6. Originally Posted by MacM
SR either exists as a real physical affect or it doesn't.
It doesn't. I.e. there is no physical change in the moving frame.

My post 923 mirror at 45 degrees so 2 meter tall man standing perpendicular to the velocity direction in a rocket ship would would have image reflected onto the floor of rocket ship where meter sticks are mounted would, according to your "contraction is real, just not detectible" nonsense would see his image overlap four meter sticks. I.e. if contracion were physically real it could easily be detected in the moving frame via a large 45 degree mirror

I.e. He would see his image as 4 meters tall if there were a physically real 50% contraction only in the direction of rocket ship speed.
Originally Posted by MacM
It does appear to do so therefore it has a physical cause. ...
No it does not "appear to be real" or he could detect it via the 45 degree mirror.

The contraction is due as I have explaind dozens of times to describing the length of his rocket ship in terms of the meter stick in another frame.

Just the fact that there are many "other frames," some of which describe the contraction as 39%, some of which describe it as 78% etc. shows that the meter sticks can not be contracted to 39%, 50% and 78% all at the sane time.

7. Originally Posted by Billy T
It doesn't. I.e. there is no physical change in the moving frame.
You have just denied any physical cause for relativity. Congratulations on the magic act but that is not responsible physics.

Originally Posted by Billy T
My post 923 mirror at 45 degrees so 2 meter tall man standing perpendicular to the velocity direction in a rocket ship would would have image reflected onto the floor of rocket ship where meter sticks are mounted would, according to your "contraction is real, just not detectible" nonsense would see his image overlap four meter sticks. I.e. if contracion were physically real it could easily be detected in the moving frame via a large 45 degree mirror

I.e. He would see his image as 4 meters tall if there were a physically real 50% contraction only in the direction of rocket ship speed.No it does not "appear to be real" or he could detect it via the 45 degree mirror.

The contraction is due as I have explaind dozens of times to describing the length of his rocket ship in terms of the meter stick in another frame.

Just the fact that there are many "other frames," some of which describe the contraction as 39%, some of which describe it as 78% etc. shows that the meter sticks can not be contracted to 39%, 50% and 78% all at the sane time.
ENOUGH WAFFELING AND DOUBLE TALK. ADDRESS THE DIAGRAMS. THEY PROVE YOUR POV IMPOSSIBLE.

Your above BS involves the affect during relative motion. I am and have only been discussing the physical loss of time by a clock that had relative velocity that is now back in a common rest frame with no relative velocity affecting the observation. All of your efforts have been to divert attention to the relative motion affects which as I have explained numerous times are not physical.

The affect I have posted about IS physically real. Address it and ONLY it..

************************************************** *****
Here are several possibilities done graphically. I will discuss each below the traveling twin cases.

************************************************** *
CASE 1:
Round trip according to resting Twin. Relative velocity is assumed symmetrical. .Times
are in hours.

.................................................. ...........Resting Twin..............................................
Distance A................................................. ....B............................................. .......A
Time...... 0............1............2............3.......... ..4............5............6............7........ ....8

Clock dilates 50%. Distance remains fixed.

.................................................. .........Traveling Twin.............................................. .
Distance A................................................. ....B............................................. ........A
Time...... 0..........................1...................... ....2..........................3.................. ........4
A dilated clock matches emperical data.

************************************************** ******

Here is what happens when you attempt to deny physical clock time dilation. Read and weep.

CASE 2:
.................................................. ...........Resting Twin..............................................
Distance A................................................. ....B............................................. .......A
Time...... 0............1............2............3.......... ..4............5............6............7........ ....8

Clocks ticking in synch. Distance traveled 50%.

...............................Traveling Twin..................
Distance A........................B........................ ..A
Time...... 0............1...........2............3........... ..4

Bogus results in that it is alleged that while clocks ticked the same the twin arrives back in half
the time. If clocks were in synch the resting twin could never get to 8 hours.

************************************************** *****

CASE 3:
This is more clear if you view real world examples with both clocks ticking in synch.
Speed = 60 Mph. Time is in hours.

..........................................Resting Twin.............................................. ...................
Distance.A ..........................480 Miles...........B................................. ...................A
Time...... 0............1............2............3.......... ..4............5............6............7........ ....8
.................................................. ....................!
...................................Traveling Twin...............!
Distance.A.........................B.............. ...........A
Time...... 0............1............2............3.......... ..4
Distance ......................240 Miles....................!

If the speed and clock tick rates are the same then all clocks must agree when I return and
stop my clock at 4 hours. Therefore the assertion that the resting observer has you travel
480 miles and take 8 hours is not possible since I return in 4 hours. Further if clocks do not
stay in synch and the traveling clock has dilated such that the resting observer accumulates
8 hours when you return then you have case #1 and distance cannot change. But that at least matches emperical data. Your POV does not.

************************************************** *****

SUMMARY:
The only case that fits emperical data and is physically possible is #1 for clocks to dilate and
distance to remain the same. Seems MacM has heard this view before.

NOW RESPOND TO MY QUESTIONS AND DIAGRAMS. SHOW JUST HOW YOU PROPOSE THAT SR EXISTS WITHOUT PHYSICAL CLOCK TIME DILATION.

SHOW JUST HOW THE ROUND TRIP GETS COMPLETED IF AS YOU TRY TO IMPLY HERE THAT ALL CLOCKS TICK IN SYNCH ONCE SYNCHRONIZED REGARDLESS OF SUBSEQUENT RELATIVE VELOCITY.

YOU AND ONLY YOU ARE DUCKING AND WEAVING - ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTIONS DIRECTLY NO MORE DOUBLE TALK AND DIATRIBE EXPLANATIONS.

Now even if you decline to acknowledge what these diagrams show others can see and you are finished here.

8. Originally Posted by MacM
You have just denied any physical cause for relativity. ...
That is correct. There is no physical change in Moving Fame M.
When its lengths are described with the meter sticks of frame A the contraction is 39%
When its lengths are described with the meter sticks of frame B the contraction is 50%
When its lengths are described with the meter sticks of frame C the contraction is 82%. Etc. for humdreds of other frames.

There are two possibilities: Yours and SR's

Yours: You are insisting that there is a real physical contraction in moving frame M of 39%, 50% and 82 % (plus 100s of other percentages, all at the same time.)

SR's: States there is no contraction, no change in atomic energy levels, no physical change in moving frame M.
The strange SR effects are due to using the meters and seconds of your frame to DESCRIBE events and conditions in another frame.

E.g. M's meter is 39% contracted when described by A's meter sticks.
E.g. M's meter is 50% contracted when described by B's meter sticks.
E.g. M's meter is 82% contracted when described by C's meter sticks.

Etc. for 100s of other frames with still different values for meter stick comparisons.

Only your POV requires 100s of different contractions for the same meter stick at the same time.
SR’s POV has no such silliness.

I will look at your complex drawings after you comment (tell where the logic goes wrong, not more duck and weave) on logical steps (3) thru (7) in the logical chain of post 960 that shows that all clocks tick at the same rate in their own frame.

If you are going to duck and weave on (3) again, at least mention the quantized atomic energy levels which point (3) logically concluded were the same in all inertial frames from logic steps (1) and (2). - Don't talk about work, power, and falsely assert "energy is power" again.
That is not even a clever duck and weave as too far off subject.

9. Originally Posted by Billy T
That is correct. There is no physical change in Moving Fame M.
Here is your POV done graphically.

CASE 1:
Round trip according to resting Twin. Relative velocity is assumed symmetrical. .Times
are in hours.

.................................................. ...........Resting Twin..............................................
Distance A................................................. ....B............................................. . .......A
Time...... 0............1............2............3.......... ..4............5............6............7........ ....8

With no physical changes in the moving frame.

.................................................. ........ Traveling Twin.............................................. .
Distance A................................................. ....B............................................. . .......A
Time...... 0............1............2............3.......... ..4............5............6............7........ ....8

NO SPECIAL RELATIVITY AFFECTS.

Originally Posted by Billy T
When its lengths are described with the meter sticks of frame A the contraction is 39%
When its lengths are described with the meter sticks of frame B the contraction is 50%
When its lengths are described with the meter sticks of frame C the contraction is 82%. Etc. for humdreds of other frames.
You just don't get it do you. For the last damn time I don't give a rats ass about measurement of each others frames while in motion.

You are still trying to avoid the issue being raised and that is the loss of accumulated tiem by the accelerated clock once it has returned to a common rest frame for direc t comparison with no relative velocity existing.

That FACT supported by emperical data mandates physical change. Your POV is worthless and prouces no physical results. If SR produced no physical results it would have been scrapped 100+ years ago and Einstein would have been labled a Crackpot.

Originally Posted by Billy T
There are two possibilities: Yours and SR's

Yours: You are insisting that there is a real physical contraction in moving frame M of 39%, 50% and 82 % (plus 100s of other percentages, all at the same time.)
You patheticv fool. I have said no such thing and have spent a goodly amount of time rguging agaisnt any such claims. Have you even scanned my diagrams. I clearly show that length contraction does not match emperical data and say it cannot be real.

Wake up you are making a fool out of yourself. You are arguing with yourself not me because I have not said the things you are arguing about.

Originally Posted by Billy T
SR's: States there is no contraction, no change in atomic energy levels, no physical change in moving frame M.

The strange SR effects are due to using the meters and seconds of your frame to DESCRIBE events and conditions in another frame.

E.g. M's meter is 39% contracted when described by A's meter sticks.
E.g. M's meter is 50% contracted when described by B's meter sticks.
E.g. M's meter is 82% contracted when described by C's meter sticks.

Etc. for 100s of other frames with still different values for meter stick comparisons.

Only your POV requires 100s of different contractions for the same meter stick at the same time.

SR’s POV has no such silliness.
WAKE UP BILLY T. I REPEAT I DON'T GIVE A RATS ASS ABOUT MEASUREMENTS MADE WITH METER STICKS BETWEEN MOVING FRAMES.

Originally Posted by Billy T
I will look at your complex drawings after you comment (tell where the logic goes wrong, not more duck and weave) on logical steps (3) thru (7) in the logical chain of post 960 that shows that all clocks tick at the same rate in their own frame.

If you are going to duck and weave on (3) again, at least mention the quantized atomic energy levels which point (3) logically concluded were the same in all inertial frames from logic steps (1) and (2). - Don't talk about work, power, and falsely assert "energy is power" again.
SORRY BILLY T I'M DONE WITH YOU UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE RAISED AND STOP YOUR DELIBERATE DISTORTIONS, LYING AND BAIT AND SWITCH BS. "DO NOT", I REPEAT "DO NOT" ONCE AGAIN GIVE SOME BS DIATRIBE ABOUT MEASURING EACH OTHERS FRAMES WITH METER STICKS.

THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE RAISED. IT IS RELAVISTIC AFFECTS ONLY DURING MOTION. YOU ARE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE ABOUT AN ACCELERATED CLOCK HAVING ACCUMULATED LESS TIME THAN THE RESTING CLOCK ONCE THE TRAVELING CLOCK RETURNS TO THE COMMON REST FRAME. I.E. - THE TRAVELING TWIN HAS RETURNED HOME AND IS NOW """""""""PHYSICALLY"""" YOUNGER.

DO NOT CLAIM HE IS YOUNGER BECAUSE HE WAS MEASURED BY OTHERS IN A MOVING FRAME. THAT GIVES YOU YOUR MULTIPLE RESULTS AND RECIPROCITY. I DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THOSE. ANSWER MY QUESTION AND STOP PRODUCING YOUR OWN AND ARGUING WITH YOURSELF AND STOP LYING ABOUT MY POV.

10. MacM:

I REPEAT I DON'T GIVE A RATS ASS ABOUT MEASUREMENTS MADE WITH METER STICKS BETWEEN MOVING FRAMES.

Relativity is all about comparing measurements made with rulers and clocks between frames that are moving relative to one another.

If you don't give a rat's arse about that, then you might as well stop the discussion right here, because that's what relativity is all about.

11. Originally Posted by James R
MacM:

Perhaps you and Billy T can share the same tutor. Learn to read. I have only mentioned in vertually every post what ths is about. You and Billy T both seem to deliberately choose to ignore that and continue to discuss precisely what I say is NOT at issue.

Originally Posted by James R
Relativity is all about comparing measurements made with rulers and clocks between frames that are moving relative to one another.
Right and I suppose you don't care about any permanent affects of the apparent changes between frames once relative velocity is terminated. i.e. - How the Twin became physically younger.

Originally Posted by James R
If you don't give a rat's arse about that, then you might as well stop the discussion right here, because that's what relativity is all about.
REALLY. What a piece of work you two are. You think you can just ignore the obvious. Claim NOTHING changes, yet claim traveling therough space makes you younger.

YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

The simple truth is emperical data dictates that something changes physically in the accelerated frame and only in the accelerated frame.

Further as my diagrams make clear it has to be clock time dilation and not lorentz length contraction because it is the only scenario that properly completes the trip and matches emperical data we have.

Your denial doesn't change the facts.

Lastly it is you that shold stop discussing relativity if you can't understand that physical affects require physical causes. Do NOT continue to promote the ludricrus assertion that relative velocity causes physica change since it is proven that relative velocity does NOT cause any affect to the resting clock (Twin).

THe affect is ONLY between the accelerated frame and the initial inertial rest frame.

12. Originally Posted by MacM
Perhaps you and Billy T can share the same tutor.
Yes along with 99+% of all physics Ph.D.s
Originally Posted by MacM
...{you} Claim NOTHING changes,{in the moving frame} yet claim traveling through space makes you younger.{Not in your frame}
Yes. See { } to make it correct / clear. You do not yet understand that it is necessary to specify which frame is describing the second and meter of another frame.
Originally Posted by MacM
The simple truth is emperical data dictates that something changes physically in the accelerated frame and only in the accelerated frame....
No evidence exists supporting "physical change" in the moving frame. You falsely claim this. That does not make it factual. Footnote shows your POV is ludicrous.
Originally Posted by MacM
...
Correct there is no physical change in EITHER frame. You without any evidence POSTULATE the twin returning younger than his stay at home brother is due to physical change while he was traveling at high speed. For correct explaination, see blue text from my earlier post below.

Originally Posted by MacM
...Do NOT continue to promote the ludricrus* assertion that relative velocity causes physical change since it is proven that relative velocity does NOT cause any affect to the resting clock (Twin).
We never even started to postulate the false "fact" that there is any physical change. That false postulate is entirely yours.

Originally Posted by MacM
The affect is ONLY between the accelerated frame and the initial inertial rest frame.
False again. If frame A finds that frame B's clocks are ticking slower than his (that is he DESCRIBES the tick rate of B's clocks in terms of his clock tick rate) Then Frame B finds that when he DESCRIBES the tick rate of A's clocks in terms of his frame B clock's tick rate, that all of A's clocks are ticking too slowly.

The twin paradox is two applications of SR, one for the out bound leg and one for the return leg of the journey. It has the advantage over the one-way only travel in that the accumulators can be started and stopped simultaneously as when this is done, they are at mutual rest in the same frame. However, this return of the traveling twin does not cancell out the fact that during his high speed travel the traveling twin was having fewer heart beats (aging more slowly) than his stay at home brother IN TERMS OF HIS BROTHER'S "heart beat clock."

I have already explained the “twin paradox” – See text now blue below. (Also in first paragraph below I explained the simpler case where the traveler does not return to re-join his stay at home brother.)
Originally Posted by Billy T
{post 837}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 Centauri are equally distant so that the total trip is the distance to Alpha Centauri 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.e. His trip at 0.8C was shorter, so it took less time and the traveling twin returned home younger than his stay at home brother. NO PHYSICAL CHANGE in either frame.

I am getting tired of explaining what ANY well written book on this subject will explain to you ...
----------------------
* What is ludicrous is to postulate that one moving frame, M, can at the same time can be physically contracted by:
39% when compared to frame A's meter sticks.
50% when compared to frame B's meter sticks.
82% when compared to frame C's meter sticks. …
Etc. for 100s of other frames. – Many different, simultaneous, physical contractions, all in the one frame M.
MacM's "physical change" POSTULATE is truely ludicrous.

13. Originally Posted by billy t
yes along with 99+% of all physics ph.d.s yes. See { } to make it correct / clear. You do not yet understand that it is necessary to specify which frame is describing the second and meter of another frame.
No evidence exists supporting "physical change" in the moving frame. You falsely claim this. That does not make it factual. Footnote shows your pov is ludicrous.correct there is no physical change in either frame. you without any evidence postulate the twin returning younger than his stay at home brother is due to physical change while he was traveling at high speed.

We never even started to postulate the false fact that there is any physical change. That false postulate is entirely yours.

False again. If frame a finds that frame b's clocks are ticking slower than his (that is he describes the tick rate of b's clocks in terms of his clock tick rate) then farme b finds that when he describes the tick rate of a's clocks in terms of his frame b clock tick rate, that in comparsion to clocks in b all of a's clocks are ticking too slowly.

The twin paradox is two applications of sr, one for the out bound leg and one for the return leg of the journey. It has the advantage over the one-way only travel in that the accumulators can be started and stopped simultaneously as when thiws is done they are at mutual rest in the same frame. However this return does not cancell out the fact that during his high speed travel the traveling was having fewer heatr beats (aging more slowly) than his stay at home brother in terms of his brother's "heart beat clock."

i have already explained the “twin paradox” – see text now blue below. (also in first paragraph below i explained the simpler case where the traveler does not return to re-join his stay at home brother.)

----------------------
* what is ludicrous is to postulate that one moving frame, m, can at the same time can be physically contracted by:
39% when compared to frame a's meter sticks.
50% when compared to frame b's meter sticks.
82% when compared to frame c's meter sticks. …
etc. For 100s of other frames. – many different, simultaneous, physical contractions, all in the one frame m.
Sorry Billy T. I'm not interested in even spending time going back over your deliberate lies. I have covered your false accusations many times and will not do so again.

If you cannot address the issue I have raised just say so and stop pretending to respond when you have been told this is not the issue and is not what I have discussed.

Go play with yourself.

for the others here please note that Billy T has declined after several pages and several days to actually acknowlege what the diagrams show.

Irrefutable logic proves that empercial data supports a physical change in an accelerated frame causing permanent physical change to the observer (clock).

That the apparent changes during relative velocity are not the cause since both the resting and accelerated frame have the same relative velocity and the resting frame has no physical change once relative velocity terminates but the accelerted frame does.

Take note that Billy T (and pretty much James R) deliberately attempt to divert the discussion back to perceptions of observers during relative velocity and don't address the ultimate result when there is no longer relative velocity.

Why do you suppose that is?

Why do you suppose Billy T loves to speak double talk saying there is no change in their own frame but then decline to comment when asked "do resting synchronized clocks continue to stay synchronized when they are no longer in the same frame"?

my diagrams clearly show that if they did SR does not work. My diagrams also show that the only thing that does work is physically dilated clock tick rates in the moving frame and that lorentz length contraction does not work.

Why do you suppose they choose to ignore these diagrams?

I think you can get the picture here. Billy T is babbeling about stuff that is irrelevant and saying I have said or believe things that I have never said and certainly do not believe.

If any one of you have any question about what I have said or believe please ask and do not, I repeat "DO NOT" assume them to be as Billy T falsely asserts.

14. MacM:

Originally Posted by MacM
Perhaps you and Billy T can share the same tutor. Learn to read.
I did. I quoted you. Remember?

Originally Posted by MacM
I REPEAT I DON'T GIVE A RATS ASS ABOUT MEASUREMENTS MADE WITH METER STICKS BETWEEN MOVING FRAMES.
You SHOUTED this point out, so it must have been important to you. Have you forgotten already?

Right and I suppose you don't care about any permanent affects of the apparent changes between frames once relative velocity is terminated. i.e. - How the Twin became physically younger.
It stands to reason that if people using different clocks measure different rates of the passing of time in different frames, then there may well be discrepancies in their elapsed proper times when those people return to rest relative to one another.

Claim NOTHING changes, yet claim traveling therough space makes you younger.
Travelling through space never makes you younger. What ever gave you that silly idea?

Lastly it is you that shold stop discussing relativity if you can't understand that physical affects require physical causes. Do NOT continue to promote the ludricrus assertion that relative velocity causes physica change since it is proven that relative velocity does NOT cause any affect to the resting clock (Twin).
Sure it does. A "resting" clock runs slow according to a moving observer. If that moving observer accelerates, the resting clock changes its "tick rate" relative to the moving observer. There are no preferred frames.

15. Originally Posted by James R
MacM:

You SHOUTED this point out, so it must have been important to you. Have you forgotten already?
Apparently Billy T has.

Originally Posted by James R
It stands to reason that if people using different clocks measure different rates of the passing of time in different frames, then there may well be discrepancies in their elapsed proper times when those people return to rest relative to one another.
I certainly agree IN PART.

You seem to forget that the moving observer sees the same differentials of the resting frame but nothing physical changes in the resting frame when they do the final comparison.

But yes the accelerated frame does have a physical consequences comensurate with the observation.

And finally this has been directed at Billy T's ludricrus assertion that nothing ever happens physical in complete disregard to emperical data.

Originally Posted by James R
Travelling through space never makes you younger. What ever gave you that silly idea?
Don't be silly yourself. You know damn well what I'm saying. I'm paraphrasing the Twin Paradox part of your beloved pet theory.

Originally Posted by James R
Sure it does. A "resting" clock runs slow according to a moving observer. If that moving observer accelerates, the resting clock changes its "tick rate" relative to the moving observer.
Really sorry to see you have alzheimer's since you can't remeber not only the thousands of times I have restated this fact but you can't even remember from the first of your post to the last.

“ Originally Posted by MacM
I REPEAT I DON'T GIVE A RATS ASS ABOUT MEASUREMENTS MADE WITH METER STICKS BETWEEN MOVING FRAMES. ”
Originally Posted by James R
There are no preferred frames.
This is simply false rhetoric and dogma and based on your having been told numerous times of your false view, a LIE..

As I have many times pointed out a preferred frame is a frame wherein there are no alternative views such as is generted by the inherent reciprocity of a relative velocity view.

The ECI frame used in GPS is just such a preferred frame in that it prohibits SR's reciprocity. You cannot claim the orbiting clock is at rest and the ECI has velocity.

The orbiting clock and only the orbiting clock has veloicty in that view. Just as the space going Twin ONLY has veloicty in the paradox becsue you apply the frame switching standard (i.e. - who accelerted and hence achieved "Actual" velocity (an LR view) vs merely relative velocity of the SR view.

Now instead of continuing to post this unfounded dribble you might actually attempt to rebutt my diagrams which show SR can ONLY be correct if colcks physically dilate for the accelerted frame and lorentz length contraction cannot be physiclly real..

16. MacM says I lie about the following:

Assume a moving frame M exists which is contracted to 50% when compared to frame B, then there exists Frame A with greater speed of separation from M, which has contraction of B’s meter sticks to only 38% of the length of the meter sticks of frame A.

Also there exists a frame C, with slower rate of separation from M than B, which has contraction of B’s meter sticks to 78% of the length of the meter sticks of frame C. And of course many other frames with different contraction ratios also exist. MacM claims that the contraction is a PHYSICALY REAL effect in frame M.

How can frame M’s meter stick simultaneously physically contract to 38%, to 50%, to 78% and to thousands of other fractions?

MacM has no answer to this obvious problem with his postulate that the contraction must be “physically real.”
So MacM just says I lie when I point out what logically follows from his POV.
Ergo: MacM cannot tell the difference between logic and lying.

17. MacM:

You seem to forget that the moving observer sees the same differentials of the resting frame but nothing physical changes in the resting frame when they do the final comparison.
Yes it does. The clock in the rest frame has accumulated more time compared to the clock in the spaceship that was always running at the normal rate according to the observer who travelled with it.

I REPEAT I DON'T GIVE A RATS ASS ABOUT MEASUREMENTS MADE WITH METER STICKS BETWEEN MOVING FRAMES.
But that's the whole point of relativity, like I said. What is this thread about?

As I have many times pointed out a preferred frame is a frame wherein there are no alternative views such as is generted by the inherent reciprocity of a relative velocity view.
There are always alternative views. Any event can be viewed from an infinite number of reference frames.

The ECI frame used in GPS is just such a preferred frame in that it prohibits SR's reciprocity.
But you don't understand how the GPS system works, so there's no point attempting to address this point. Hell, you don't even understand Galilean relativity and the Doppler effect.

18. Originally Posted by Billy T
MacM says I lie about the following:

Assume a moving frame M exists which is contracted to 50% when compared to frame B, then there exists Frame A with greater speed of separation from M, which has contraction of B’s meter sticks to only 38% of the length of the meter sticks of frame A.

Also there exists a frame C, with slower rate of separation from M than B, which has contraction of B’s meter sticks to 78% of the length of the meter sticks of frame C. And of course many other frames with different contraction ratios also exist.[b] MacM claims that the contraction is a PHYSICALY REAL effect in frame M.

folks here is another deliberate out right lie by Billy T. How many times have you seen me explain to him and posted graphics demonstrating that lorentz length contraction CANNOT be physically real?

Originally Posted by Billy T
How can frame M’s meter stick simultaneously physically contract to 38%, to 50%, to 78% and to thousands of other fractions?

MacM has no answer to this obvious problem with his postulate that the contraction must be “physically real.”
So MacM just says I lie when I point out what logically follows from his POV.
Ergo: MacM cannot tell the difference between logic and lying.
Oh I have an answer but I dare not say it here. I'll bite my tongue and merely say what a lot of selfserving, lies and arguments being made against your own falsely fabricated issues.

Try actually addressing the graphics posted at least 3 times for you and you have decline to respond.

This post is outrageous, non-responsive and irrelevant. See you are making this easier. I don't have to call names even though you are deserving of them. Your conduct is letting you lable yourself. Thanks.

19. Originally Posted by James R
MacM:

Yes it does. The clock in the rest frame has accumulated more time compared to the clock in the spaceship that was always running at the normal rate according to the observer who travelled with it.
This is a riot. Finally after several years I get you to admit that the resting clock ticks faster not slower than the traveling clock. But you have just confirmed my allegation against SR in that the prediction it makes via reciprocity is that the resting clock is losing time according to the traveling clock observer. In the end that is not supported by emperical data.

The traveling clock dilates the resting clock did not accelerate accumulated time. You now think you can salvage SR by claiming if I accelerate I cause all clocks in the universe to gain time. That is a riot. Lots of luck with that one.

Originally Posted by James R
But that's the whole point of relativity, like I said. What is this thread about?
No it isn't. It is the only aspect of relativity you want to talk about. You just don't want to address the real physical change that occurs and explore the real when, where and how of it.

Do you deny that emperical data does not support "mere" relative velocity as the cause of time dilation in the Twins Paradox? Or must you consider "Frame Switching" so as to prohibit the reciprocity inherent in a relative velocity view?

Originally Posted by James R
There are always alternative views. Any event can be viewed from an infinite number of reference frames.
Not alternative views that will be supportd by emperical data. Go ahead find a set of frames that cause the ECI to have velociity and the orbiting clock is at rest. Make it prove that the clock at the ECI loses time due to velocity (we are disregarding GR affects here and are only addressing SR - Actually LR velocity affect).

Talk is cheap back up your lie. Post data.

Originally Posted by James R
But you don't understand how the GPS system works, so there's no point attempting to address this point. Hell, you don't even understand Galilean relativity and the Doppler effect.
More selfserving lies. I had to teach you a few things about GPS initially. I suspect you have done some reading since but likely you only read Ashby another brain washed relativists view.

************************************************** *******
SUMMARY: Lets nip this Billy T and James R's Bs in the bud.

The fact is Special Relativity is NOT merely a sub set of General Relativity as you James R like to claim. It is true mathematically but not physically.

Einstein himself said Special Relativity is only hypothetical and NEVER a reality. A mere approximation based on false assumptions.

Quote by Einstein

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay

"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)."

- Albert Einstein
The General Theory of Relativity: Chapter 22
(A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity)

************************************************** ******
In consideration that gravity prevails throughout the universe there is no place where it doesn't exist and hence no place where the veloicty of light is invariant (Postulate 2) such that Special Relativity can be valid. Useful perhaps to some degree when properly applied but not in it's fantasyland relative velocity physics.

General Relativity voided the reciprocity of Special Relativity. General Relativity voided the invariance of light in postulate 2 of Special Relativity.

Your cosmic muon case, is based on an uncontrolled experiment made in presence of unknown affects of the earth's magnetic field and without light invariance because it is within earth's gravity. As are ALL particle accelerator test data.

No Special Relativity is only marginally, or approximately correct, somewhere out in deep space where gravity can be ignored and then must use a form of absolute motion to predict correctly any affect. The only affect suported by emperical data is time dilation, not lorentz length contraction.

Einstein saw the problem but rather than admit a mistake he just marginalized or mitigated SRT and let jerks like you sing it's praises and his genius.

20. MacM:

How many times have you seen me explain to him and posted graphics demonstrating that lorentz length contraction CANNOT be physically real?
You have graphics that demonstrate that you think show that Lorentz contraction cannot be physically real? Please post them and I'll take a look.

This is a riot. Finally after several years I get you to admit that the resting clock ticks faster not slower than the traveling clock.
The Earth clock ticks faster than the spaceship clock in the Earth frame. The spaceship clock ticks faster than the Earth clock in the spaceship frame. That's during the periods of inertial motion, of course.

You agree with this, do you? And you think it took me "several years" to reach this point? I thought you didn't agree with this.

But you have just confirmed my allegation against SR in that the prediction it makes via reciprocity is that the resting clock is losing time according to the traveling clock observer.
Yes. That's what SR says. Has it taken you several years to realise this simple point?

You now think you can salvage SR by claiming if I accelerate I cause all clocks in the universe to gain time.
Acceleration has nothing to do with time dilation in SR. What are you talking about?

You just don't want to address the real physical change that occurs and explore the real when, where and how of it.
Maybe it is about time you defined the term "real physical change" properly.

If you say that measured clock rates and distances of moving objects are all "illusions of motion", then you presumably define "real physical change" only as things that happen in the rest frame of an object. Is that correct? If so, then you'll never learn anything about relativity, which is about comparing measurements made in two different frames of reference.

Do you deny that emperical data does not support "mere" relative velocity as the cause of time dilation in the Twins Paradox?
Yes, I deny that.

Or must you consider "Frame Switching" so as to prohibit the reciprocity inherent in a relative velocity view?
I still don't know what your "frame switching" is, exactly. The term is not used in any relativity textbook I've ever read. I assume that the concept is not required when studying relativity.

Go ahead find a set of frames that cause the ECI to have velociity and the orbiting clock is at rest.
Find? I don't have to look far for that. Just sit on a satellite and you're in a frame where the satellite is at rest.

[quote]More selfserving lies. I had to teach you a few things about GPS initially.[quote]

You mean you pointed me to some links where I learned more about GPS for myself. I can't recall ever learning anything from you.

The fact is Special Relativity is NOT merely a sub set of General Relativity as you James R like to claim. It is true mathematically but not physically.
Nonsense. Special relativity is just general relativity in flat spacetime. If you're using general relativity with a Minkowski metric, all the results you get are the same as in special relativity.

Einstein himself said Special Relativity is only hypothetical and NEVER a reality.

In consideration that gravity prevails throughout the universe there is no place where it doesn't exist and hence no place where the veloicty of light is invariant (Postulate 2) such that Special Relativity can be valid.
The velocity of light is invariant in all inertial frames. Provided we do experiments in a volume of space where the variation in spacetime curvature is small, special relativity, the approximation of a flat spacetime is always valid, and hence so is special relativity. If that was not true, then Newton, Galileo and many others would have had a lot more trouble discovering the laws of physics.

General Relativity voided the reciprocity of Special Relativity. General Relativity voided the invariance of light in postulate 2 of Special Relativity.
No. On the contrary, general relativity expanded the scope of special relativity by extending the principle of equivalence.

Your cosmic muon case, is based on an uncontrolled experiment made in presence of unknown affects of the earth's magnetic field and without light invariance because it is within earth's gravity.
On the contrary, the half life of the muon is well known experimentally, as and the processes of production of muons in the upper atmosphere is well understood. Effects of the earth's magnetic field are irrelevant (or, at least, you have not made any attempt to establish relevance), and the variation of gravity over a distance of a few tens of kilometres of the Earth's surface is small enough that special relativity is a good approximation.

No Special Relativity is only marginally, or approximately correct, somewhere out in deep space where gravity can be ignored and then must use a form of absolute motion to predict correctly any affect.
There is no such thing as absolute motion.

Einstein saw the problem but rather than admit a mistake he just marginalized or mitigated SRT and let jerks like you sing it's praises and his genius.