1. Originally Posted by James R
MacM:

You're hopelessly confused, obviously. I have added directions "east" and "west" to the two versions, just to be clear.

A and B both end up moving away from C at speed 0.6c. They never go past C. So I don't know what you're saying here.
No you are confused the frames you specify exist over the entire universe so I can place the clocks anywhere in the universe in that frame. I placed them to cross past C simultaneously as stated just to simplify the result. I have not altered your scenario or the actual results that will be supported by emperical data.

Originally Posted by James R
So, to summarise, you believe that in version 3, A and B end up ticking at the same rates "physically".
Yes.

Originally Posted by James R
B and D can never cross paths at C. B ends up moving away from C at 0.6c, as does D.
]

Again you are confusing yourself. You can and I did locate each clock such that the respective velocities you stipulate cross C as stated.

Originally Posted by James R
You say "D cries foul"? What on earth does that mean? It's a simple question: do clocks A and B tick at the same rate in the frame of D, or don't they? How can D yell out "Not a fair question!" ? I guess you just want to have a bet each way and not give a definite answer.
I was making the point that your concern about what D "Thinks" is the tick rate isn't and when he sees the data he cried foul. What is so tough about that?

Originally Posted by James R
If you think the "illusion of motion" answer is different from the "reality" here, then just give me the reality. You can tell me the illusion, too, if you think that helps, but primarily I'm asking about real tick rates, not any illusional fantasies you want to introduce as a distraction.
I gave you the reality it is the data transmitted as they all cross C.

Originally Posted by James R
Anyway, you say B and D are "not dilated to each other due to relative velocity", even though B is moving at 0.88c relative to D. I'm guessing this is supposed to be the "reality". Does D have an illusion that B's clock is dilated?
Yes in case #3. During motion he may see the other ticking more slowly but the reality is it is ticking differently and the accumulated times when they all pass the common point is the physical reality. They all have the same velocity to C which was their common inertial rest frame and that dictates they all are ticking at a common rate

Originally Posted by James R
Does B have an illusion that D's clock is dilated?
Still #3 Yes.

Originally Posted by James R
Does B have the illusion of D ticking faster or slower? Does D have the illusion of B ticking faster or slower?
#3. Each has the illusion the other is ticking slower but they are ticking the same.

Originally Posted by James R
But after all this you haven't even answered the question I asked, which was whether A and B tick at the same rate in frame D.
I believe I did. What D thinks is respective tick rates is not the actual tick rates. So in D's frame A & B should have different tick rates they don't.

Originally Posted by James R
You haven't even mentioned A. Why not? If "in reality" B is not dilated relative to D, then is A dilated relative to D "in reality", even though A is not moving relative to D?
Are you confused or just trying to confuse others. I have made no such assertions. In your case #3 A, B & D all have a common dilation to C. What each thinks of the other is irrelevant. In the case of A & D the perception is correct because they are at relative rest. Shsssh.

Originally Posted by James R
You seem to have no time dilation between B and D even though they are moving relative to each other, and you don't seem to know whether A and D have time dilation between them even though they are not moving relative to each other. In other words, you're hopelessly muddled and confused.
Sorry but you have been corrected to many time to let this go unchallenged.

In case #3 yu have what is called symmetry that is equal acceleration and velocity to a common reference frame. Under those condition the actual physical time dilaton is equal and hence they all remain synchronized.

What you are attempting to do is re-interject the "Illusion of Motion" and assert thatvthat is physical reality. IT IS NOT and you have not one case of emperical data to support any such nonsense.

Originally Posted by James R
So, you're saying you can't answer the question for version 4, even though all of the final speeds are the same as in version 3.

What extra information would you require in order to be able to answer the question for version 4?
No. I'm saying I'm not wasting my time restructuring your scenarios to show what has already been shown. You can generate 100,000,000 different scenarios and they all come down to the only physical time dilation is relative to motion to a common rest frame. Relative eloicty between clocks each having motion then only produce the illyion of dilation to the observers because that is not what accumulated time emperically supports.

Originally Posted by James R
Such a simple question, and such a complicated answer.
Such a simple solution and such lengthy overly complicated scenarios.

Originally Posted by James R
You say that in frame C, A and B "appear" to tick in synch, but they don't tick in synch in that frame "in reality". Is that correct? In other words, even though A and B are both moving at 0.6c relative to C, they have different tick rates according to you "in reality", though maybe not in "illusion of motion".
Recall that while all left from D and all had D's tick rate the fact that A turned around and returned to D's frame it now ticks at D's rate. which is faster than C's. But from C's frame both A & B have the same relative velocity and each appears to be ticking slower than C from C's frame.

Originally Posted by James R
And you say that there's no way to calculate "actual accumulated times" here without more information. What information, exactly?
You can't predict accumulated time unles you have a rest reference accumulated time. Tick rates zare not the same as accumulated time. Comparative tickrates or a dilated rate requires a reference duration from which to calculate accumulated times.

I would think you knew that.

Originally Posted by James R
How can you give a definite "no" here, when you couldn't answer the same question at all for version 3?
Considering that in #4 A & B do not have a common velocity relative to D makes that rather easy. With respect to #3 I think you have confused yourself with regard to answers given.

Originally Posted by James R
But you can't know that, really, can you?
What? Of course you stipulated it by having them all at common rest but the in #3 didn't move C and in #4 didn't move D. Are you having a breakdown over this?

Originally Posted by James R
For example, suppose that prior to the start of version 3 or 4 all of the clocks A,B,C and D were actually accelerated from another clock E, to a speed of 0.5c relative to E, for example. Nothing then changes about the scenarios as written. Do you agree? And yet this completely mucks up your calculations of "reality", because now the "common local rest frame" of all the clocks must be clock E.
And what if clocks A,B,C,D and E were all accelerated from another clock F?[/quote]

Not going here. I've let you go on and on adding more and more tiers of motion in an effort to confuse people or chew up thread time ansering a bunch of questions which all have the same answer. Only the accelerted frame is ever dilated and dilation between frames is directly linked to a common rest frame not just between two moving frames.

Originally Posted by James R
In short, your idea of a "common local rest frame" is useless. It can be changed simply by introducing an extra, arbitrary clock. That's exactly what the difference between versions 3 and 4 is, and you agree that it changes the "reality" there, so you must also agree that introducing E and/or F would equally change the "reality". This means that you can never work out what the "reality" is for any situation at all. Which means you have no workable theory for predicting time dilations. As we already knew.
False. I have shown that the only emperically supported prediction is the one based on the stipulated rest frame and not between moving frames. That is why SR introduced the"Frame Switching" requirement to compute dilation, a resting frame is never dilated.

Symmetrical accelerations of particles are known emperically to produce the same dilation regardless of vector. Co-moving (no relative veocity) or opposite directions (maximum relative velocity) to the accelerator (a common rest frame) and the results are the same. In both cases the dilation is the same. The relative velocity of the beams to each other had no affect, only the beams velocity to the accelerator has dilation.

Originally Posted by James R
So what you're saying is that no test has ever shown "reality", or ever could. Therefore, "illusion of motion" is all we can ever see. No experiment will ever be able to determine "reality", and therefore your "reality" is a useless concept.
What are you smoking? Every test ever done involves a rest frame (i.e. - the lab) and something in motion. Emperically the motion is always dilated. You have no test or data to support your claim that given two moving objects that they are dilated to each other. And to extend that arguement tyo symmetrical accelerations is just plain foolish since that has been shown to produce equal dilation of both (they remain synchronized) and the only dilation is between them equally to the common rest frame.

Originally Posted by James R
Since your "reality" depends on locating a "common local rest frame", and you admit that it is impossible ever to do that, your "reality" is a useless concept. Agreed?
PLEASE get real. Locating an absolute rest frame universally will likely never be located but every inertial frame is a local absolute rest reference.

Stop trying to make it as though I have said things I have not said.

2. Originally Posted by MacM
...every inertial frame is a local absolute rest reference.
Umwhat?

3. Originally Posted by Pete
Umwhat?
Are you in disagreement?

4. MacM:

If every inertial frame is a "local absolute rest reference", then the word "absolute" loses all meaning. Something absolute cannot be local. And any absolute rest reference cannot apply to different frames, or else it isn't absolute.

Besides, in versions 3 and 4, all the frames of A, B, C and D are inertial, and therefore by your own argument all of them are local absolute rest frames. And yet, you couldn't work out which clocks ticked at the same rate and which did not, and you gave different answers in the two version for whether A and B ticked at the same rate according to C or D, even though either C or D could be taken as a "local absolute rest frame".

In short, you're hopelessly confused.

5. Originally Posted by MacM
BTW: Just wanted to let others know. I received an e-mail today from the author. There is a new theory coming out dealing with relativity, gravity, nucleonics, etc., and UniKEF Gravity is being cited in it. Imagine that James R.
Oh goody! Which physics journal will it be published in? Or is this a nutty nutball internet publication?

No you are confused the frames you specify exist over the entire universe so I can place the clocks anywhere in the universe in that frame. I placed them to cross past C simultaneously as stated just to simplify the result.
Would the results change if they all started at the same location (as I imagined)?

So, let me get this right - you have a theory whose answers vary depending on your choice of "local absolute rest frame", whose answers depend on acceleration histories that may never be known, whose answers depend on position as well as relative velocity...

It just gets more and more convoluted and silly. As compared to the beautifully elegant and predictive theory of relativity.

Hell, you don't even know how to apply your own theory.

Version 3 discussion:

You say "D cries foul"? What on earth does that mean? It's a simple question: do clocks A and B tick at the same rate in the frame of D, or don't they? How can D yell out "Not a fair question!" ? I guess you just want to have a bet each way and not give a definite answer.
I was making the point that your concern about what D "Thinks" is the tick rate isn't and when he sees the data he cried foul. What is so tough about that?
I thought I told you I don't give a damn about what D "thinks" is the tick rate. I asked you what the tick rate actually is. You're the one who wants to distinguish reality from "illusion of motion", but for some reason you keep wanted to talk about illusions instead of reality all the time. Why?

Anyway, you say B and D are "not dilated to each other due to relative velocity", even though B is moving at 0.88c relative to D. I'm guessing this is supposed to be the "reality". Does D have an illusion that B's clock is dilated?
Yes in case #3. During motion he may see the other ticking more slowly but the reality is it is ticking differently and the accumulated times when they all pass the common point is the physical reality. They all have the same velocity to C which was their common inertial rest frame and that dictates they all are ticking at a common rate
So, to summarise, in version 3 you say that clocks A, B and D all tick at the same (real) rate in frame C, but that D has an illusion that B's rate is slower than A's and slower than D's.

Does B have the illusion of D ticking faster or slower? Does D have the illusion of B ticking faster or slower?
#3. Each has the illusion the other is ticking slower but they are ticking the same.
But that's impossible according to you! It sounds like you suddenly believe in reciprocity - at least in the "illusion of motion" world. Is that correct? Do you believe that if D sees B's clock ticking slower, then B will see D's clock ticking slower (even if this is "illusion of motion")?

Are you saying that relativity is correct then, in terms of "illusion of motion", even if not in "reality"?

What D thinks is respective tick rates is not the actual tick rates. So in D's frame A & B should have different tick rates they don't.
So you're saying that A and B are ticking at the same rate in D's frame "in reality", even though A is not moving relative to D, and B is moving at 0.88c relative to D. This is a clear case where your "illusion of motion" is very different to your "reality", isn't it?

On to version 4:

But from C's frame both A & B have the same relative velocity and each appears to be ticking slower than C from C's frame.
But that's "illusion of motion" only. Right? Because D is the real common local rest frame in #4. Really A and B are ticking at different rates. Right?

You can't predict accumulated time unles you have a rest reference accumulated time.
Is that the same as a common local absolute rest frame?

Tick rates zare not the same as accumulated time. Comparative tickrates or a dilated rate requires a reference duration from which to calculate accumulated times.
So we now have to add yet another factor before we can think about working out time dilations - accumulated times. So, we need to know acceleration histories, the common local absolute rest frame, starting positions of all clocks and all accumulated times. Correct?

How is this theory simpler than relativity again? Remind me. Recall that in relativity we ONLY need to know relative velocity between 2 clocks, whereas in your theory we need to know about the motions and acceleration histories of a potentially infinite number of clocks before we can even start to calculate anything real.

What? Of course you stipulated it by having them all at common rest but the in #3 didn't move C and in #4 didn't move D. Are you having a breakdown over this?
How do you know that C wasn't moving all the time relative to E in scenario #3, while D was moving all the time relative to E in scenario #4. Because in your theory that would totally stuff up the "reality" of time dilation.

Let me say it a different way: in both #3 and #4 the relative motions of A and B with respect to C are identical. And C is, by your definition, a "common local rest frame" for A and B because A and B start at rest from C and accelerate away from it. It is only the motions relative to D that change between the two scenarios.

And yet, you get different answers for the tick rates of A and B in the two scenarios. You think that by introducing clock D I have changed the "reality". If that is the case, then introducing another clock E would further change the reality. Then we introduce F and G and H and so on, until you're hopelessly muddled and no longer can calculate anything.

Not going here. I've let you go on and on adding more and more tiers of motion in an effort to confuse people or chew up thread time ansering a bunch of questions which all have the same answer. Only the accelerted frame is ever dilated and dilation between frames is directly linked to a common rest frame not just between two moving frames.
But all inertial frames are common local absolute rest frames, you said. So by your own argument C is a common local absolute rest frame for A and B in BOTH versions #3 and #4. And yet, the answers you give for tick rates are different in the two versions.

PLEASE get real. Locating an absolute rest frame universally will likely never be located but every inertial frame is a local absolute rest reference.
This is nonsense. If you believed it, then your theory would reduce to relativity, since all "local rest references" are relative, not absolute. You can't have two absolute frames, or they aren't absolute any more.

Take three clocks, A, B and C. Clocks A and B are travelling at some constant speed relative to each other. Let's assume they were never previously at rest relative to one another. Now, both A and B are inertial frames so they are both "local absolute rest references" according to you. Now, clock C is travelling at some speed relative to A, and a different speed relative to B. I tell you that C was once at rest relative to one of the two clocks A or B, but I don't tell you which one.

According to your theory, you have no way of working out C's tick rate "in reality". You can only give one of two possible answers for the tick rate. Can you do any better giving its "illusion of motion" tick rate? I'm not sure. If you believe relativity gives correct answers for "illusion of motion", then you can do better. But what good is "illusion of motion"? Physicists want to know about reality, not illusion.

6. Originally Posted by MacM
Hello Quantum Quack,

Been a while. The reason it is here is they (likely James R ) thinks my ideas do stink - LOL.

Shame he dodged the grid scenario I posted.
Yes it has been a while and a lot of water has passed under the bridge since the good old days of the UniKEF thread way back then.
I see you are still attempting to acheive a fair hearing regarding the SR issues you raise.
Considering that there isn't any evidence to support the traveling of a photon from A to B in the first instance I am surprised you even bother.
I have pledged \$100 USD prize to any one who can provide evidence that a photon actually travels and isn't some form of "action at distance" phenonema [ re: particle entanglement phenonema] that allows you your absolute rest frame [ that being absolute space/time [ zero*infinty dimensional and no, not an ether either]] and the light effects observed right across the board are mass inertia events instead.

the flying pig called photon is still flying unfortunately and probably will for a while yet....
if you want to know the thread in question I will post it here but wont until you ask for it...

7. Originally Posted by MacM
Are you in disagreement?
Only in the same way that I disagree that black is white, up is down, and true is false: They are different by definition.

The definition of an absolute rest frame is that there is only one.
If there were two, then something that was at rest in one would be moving in the other... which would mean that it was not absolute at all.

8. Originally Posted by James R
MacM:

If every inertial frame is a "local absolute rest reference", then the word "absolute" loses all meaning. Something absolute cannot be local. And any absolute rest reference cannot apply to different frames, or else it isn't absolute.
Now your problem becomes apparent.

You have brain freeze.

Each such frame is absolute to the respective clocks. That is it defines who has real motion vs who may be experiencing mere relative velocity. You are restricted from understanding reality because you can't look beyond "Relative" and that leaves you with that nasty impossible reciprocity doesn't it.

Lorentz saw through that many moons ago. GPS designers saw though that more recently. You should pull your head out of the sand. The GPS ECI frame is a "local absolute rest frame".

1 - Local as used in this context does not mean the nearby 7-11 store. It means "to these specific frames".

2 - Preferred in this context means you cannot screw things up as you like to do in SR and assert that either clock with relative velocity is at rest and the other has motion. One has actual motion and the other experiences relative motion. Only the actual motion is affected relavistically. This is achievved by selecting a preferred frame such as the ECI. Orbit has velocity around the ECI but the orbiting clock cannot assert that it is at rest and the ECI has motion.

3 - Absolute means the actual motion is to only this frame.

That is a local absolute preferred rest frame. Understand yet.--

Originally Posted by James R
Besides, in versions 3 and 4, all the frames of A, B, C and D are inertial, and therefore by your own argument all of them are local absolute rest frames. And yet, you couldn't work out which clocks ticked at the same rate and which did not, and you gave different answers in the two version for whether A and B ticked at the same rate according to C or D, even though either C or D could be taken as a "local absolute rest frame".
Pathetic. You ignore the key point about the reality. You did not move C in #3 and you did not move D in #4. It is their inertial frame that becomes the common absolute rest frame since they all once shared that frame.

So simple I would think an educated man could understand that.

Originally Posted by James R
In short, you're hopelessly confused.
You have written your own etitaph

9. Originally Posted by James R
Oh goody! Which physics journal will it be published in? Or is this a nutty nutball internet publication?
I knew you'd be impressed.

Actually I have inquired about that and awaiting an answer.

Originally Posted by James R
Would the results change if they all started at the same location (as I imagined)?
No. But it is much easier to demonstrate the reality if you have their motion result in passing the common rest frame simultaneously so as to eliminate all the simultaneity BS, etc.

For the rest of your post I don't plan on beating dead horses. I have shown you in error and that your relative velocity view is not reality.

Thanks for the chat.

10. Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
Yes it has been a while and a lot of water has passed under the bridge since the good old days of the UniKEF thread way back then.
I see you are still attempting to acheive a fair hearing regarding the SR issues you raise.
Considering that there isn't any evidence to support the traveling of a photon from A to B in the first instance I am surprised you even bother.
I have pledged \$100 USD prize to any one who can provide evidence that a photon actually travels and isn't some form of "action at distance" phenonema [ re: particle entanglement phenonema] that allows you your absolute rest frame [ that being absolute space/time [ zero*infinty dimensional and no, not an ether either]] and the light effects observed right across the board are mass inertia events instead.

the flying pig called photon is still flying unfortunately and probably will for a while yet....
if you want to know the thread in question I will post it here but wont until you ask for it...
He He. Good for you. I too have proposed the idea that photons don't move. In my view photons are being sequentially generated as a relative energy function between the observer and dynamic universal carrier waves covering a virtual infinite range of velocities from the source.

In this case observers moving at different velocities to the source are not seeing "an invariant" photon but each observer is seeing a diffent series of photons.

It is this carrier medium that also accounts for particle entanglement as well.

Just as we know Cerenkov Radiation produces photons and is caused by charged particles moving FTL through a a medium normal light may well be being generated by something going FTL in the medium of space vacuum.

Maybe one day folks will pull their heads out of the sand and think.

11. Originally Posted by Pete
Only in the same way that I disagree that black is white, up is down, and true is false:
So then you only moderately disagree.

Originally Posted by Pete
The definition of an absolute rest frame is that there is only one.
If there were two, then something that was at rest in one would be moving in the other... which would mean that it was not absolute at all.
Unfortunately you have a much to narrow view of the meaning of "Absolute".

Here are a few other meanings.

WEBSTER:

Absolute: 1) perfect, complete , whole.
2) not mixed pure.
4) positive, definite.
5) not doubted, actual, real.

n - something that is absolute.
Philos - ultimate reality regarded as uncaused , unmodified,, unified and complete. timeless, etc.

You should learn to be a bit more flexable in how you view definitions otherwise they will tie your hands and make it virtually impossible to disagree with them.

12. MacM, post 80: “Did the above clarify?” Reply: Yes, somewhat. Thanks. I will attempt a summary of my understanding of your POV (and suggest some terminology changes to you):

(1) You say that one “absolute rest frame” must logically exist but admit we cannot be sure which inertial frame it is, but it is probably not traveling with much speed, if at all, wrt the frame in which the CMB has the least asymmetry; however it is not needed for SR calculations.

(2) Correct SR calculations of the time dilations are non-the-less possible if: (a) The clock was once at rest in the frame it now has constant speed wrt to. OR (b) When there are two clocks, A & B, with constant relative velocity, both of which were once at rest in a frame, and they have no acceleration now wrt to that frame, then the time dilation of each is calculated ignoring the other as in (2a). This results in their respective “physical time dilations” PTDa & PTDb. If either were to have its the time dilation correctly measured by observers, which are at rest wrt to the other, they would also measure the same PTDs. For example if observers stationary wrt to clock A measure correctly the TDb they find DTb = PTDb.

Note this has a very strong conflict with standard SR. For example: If now inertially traveling clocks A & B have equal and opposite speeds wrt to point P, where they once were both at rest, then their PTDs are equal (PTDa =PTDb). So when stationary observers wrt to A correctly measures TDb (wrt to their clock A’s tick rate of course) they find TDb = 0 despite their huge mutual relative velocity.

(3) If there are two clocks traveling inertially with different speeds wrt some inertial point P, but they never were at mutual rest wrt to P or any other point in the universe, then one must try to find their “common preferred absolute frame” also I think called “common absolute rest frame.” Or to avoid typing: CPAF & CARF.

Please confirm that these are just two names for the same frame. I.e. confirm that CPAF = CARF as I now assume. I think Pete & James are quite correct to object to the inclusion of “absolute” in this name, but is only a name, so not too important and I do not like that either so will use CPF, but CPF = your CPAF and I think, have assumed, CPF = your CARF also.

Now I will try to describe your selection of the CPF, but I am mainly guessing:

The CPF is the inertial frame in which point P is stationary and wrt P both clocks have the same speed, but opposite directions of travel.

However, if they are not traveling in opposite directions (for example Va xVb >0 which is just math cross product stating that each has a component of its velocity perpendicular to the others velocity direction.) then one resolves the velocities of both into two orthogonal components oriented such that the their like directed components are exactly equal and the maximum possible , if more than one “ exactly equal” direction exists (I think not, but am too lazy to try to prove that.). Then the other two components are (of course) oppositely directed. One ignores the equal like directed components and then computes with the opposite directed components the PTD of each as explained in (2b) above using the speeds of these opposite direction components wrt to P which is any point between the two clocks and on the line of their opposite direction speeds.

Here is a “typed drawing” of this case:
| /
where both are moving upwards but not parallel and not with same speeds (the / is longer reflecting this.) In this “nearly parallel” example most of the speed of each will be ignored as producing no relative PTD as the point P is also moving upward (and slightly to the right) with their common equal component speeds.

MacM: Please correct me wherever I have misunderstood you POV. Thanks.

13. Originally Posted by Billy T
MacM, post 80: “Did the above clarify?” Reply: Yes, somewhat. Thanks. I will attempt a summary of my understanding of your POV (and suggest some terminology changes to you):

(1) You say that one “absolute rest frame” must logically exist but admit we cannot be sure which inertial frame it is, but it is probably not traveling with much speed, if at all, wrt the frame in which the CMB has the least asymmetry; however it is not needed for SR calculations.
This appears to be a fair summary except I would not describe an absolute universal rest as being inertial. Absolute rest in that case may or may not be motionless. That is why I hesitate to describe the frame. If it is dynamic then it is not motionless but would be the frame where maximum tick rate in the universe occurs.

Originally Posted by Billy T
(2) Correct SR calculations of the time dilations are non-the-less possible if: (a) The clock was once at rest in the frame it now has constant speed wrt to. OR (b) When there are two clocks, A & B, with constant relative velocity, both of which were once at rest in a frame, and they have no acceleration now wrt to that frame, then the time dilation of each is calculated ignoring the other as in (2a). This results in their respective “physical time dilations” PTDa & PTDb. If either were to have its the time dilation correctly measured by observers, which are at rest wrt to the other, they would also measure the same PTDs. For example if observers stationary wrt to clock A measure correctly the TDb they find DTb = PTDb.
]
Correct.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Note this has a very strong conflict with standard SR. For example: If now inertially traveling clocks A & B have equal and opposite speeds wrt to point P, where they once were both at rest, then their PTDs are equal (PTDa =PTDb). So when stationary observers wrt to A correctly measures TDb (wrt to their clock A’s tick rate of course) they find TDb = 0 despite their huge mutual relative velocity.
Again as I believe you have said symmetrical relative motion produces no respective dilation between clocks in spite of the relative motion. If so that is correct.

Originally Posted by Billy T
(3) If there are two clocks traveling inertially with different speeds wrt some inertial point P, but they never were at mutual rest wrt to P or any other point in the universe, then one must try to find their “common preferred absolute frame” also I think called “common absolute rest frame.” Or to avoid typing: CPAF & CARF.
Sounds correct so far.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Please confirm that these are just two names for the same frame. I.e. confirm that CPAF = CARF as I now assume. I think Pete & James are quite correct to object to the inclusion of “absolute” in this name, but is only a name, so not too important and I do not like that either so will use CPF, but CPF = your CPAF and I think, have assumed, CPF = your CARF also.
Yes in some cases I have not used all descriptive adjectives. However, currently science has no terminology which it uses to distinguish which clock has "Actual Motion" vs "Mere" relative velocity. It is necessary therefore to expand our vocabulary to properly describe motion.

Therefor saying a clock has an absolute velocity relative to a rest reference distinguishes it from a resting clock in the rest frame that has mere relative velocity to the moving clock.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Now I will try to describe your selection of the CPF, but I am mainly guessing:

The CPF is the inertial frame in which point P is stationary and wrt P both clocks have the same speed, but opposite directions of travel.
Not necessarily. I have given an example where both clocks were initially at rest at the CPF but each accelerated to some different absolute velocity to it and have relative velocity to each other.

In this case there will be dilation between the clocks but to determine what it is you must calculate each clock relavistically to the CPF and then compute the differentil time dilation.

The differential then becomes the physical dilation that will be supported by emperical data and the SR computed time dilation due to thier mutual relative velocity to each other will not be emperically supported, it is what I refer to as the "Illusion of Motion".

Originally Posted by Billy T
However, if they are not traveling in opposite directions (for example Va xVb >0 which is just math cross product stating that each has a component of its velocity perpendicular to the others velocity direction.) then one resolves the velocities of both into two orthogonal components oriented such that the their like directed components are exactly equal and the maximum possible , if more than one “ exactly equal” direction exists (I think not, but am too lazy to try to prove that.). Then the other two components are (of course) oppositely directed. One ignores the equal like directed components and then computes with the opposite directed components the PTD of each as explained in (2b) above using the speeds of these opposite direction components wrt to P which is any point between the two clocks and on the line of their opposite direction speeds.

I have not tried to decipher all of this. It gets far to muddy. But you said in the beginning that they moved perpendicluar to each other. In such case thay have a relative velocity composed of (A^2 + B^2)^0.5. But time dialtion between them depends on their absolute velocities to the CPF not the realtive velocity.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Here is a “typed drawing” of this case:
| /
where both are moving upwards but not parallel and not with same speeds (the / is longer reflecting this.) In this “nearly parallel” example most of the speed of each will be ignored as producing no relative PTD as the point P is also moving upward (and slightly to the right) with their common equal component speeds.

MacM: Please correct me wherever I have misunderstood you POV. Thanks.
The relative velocity causing time dilation between them is still the differential of their absolute motion to the CPF not ds/dt between them. Let me know.

14. I said:
“Now I will try to describe your selection of the CPF, but I am mainly guessing:
The CPF is the inertial frame in which point P is stationary and wrt P both clocks have the same speed, but opposite directions of travel.”

And you replied:
“Not necessarily. I have given an example where both clocks were initially at rest at the CPF but each accelerated to some different absolute velocity to it and have relative velocity to each other.
In this case there will be dilation between the clocks but to determine what it is you must calculate each clock relavistically to the CPF and then compute the differentil time dilation.”

But this is just my case (2b) which you agreed with. I.e. you failed to appreciate that here when I was describing your CPF it was only for the non-(2b) case when the two clocks were never at rest in any common frame. I.e. I was guessing how you would find some CPF for that non-(2b) case.

Then you continue on to state:
"SR computed time dilation due to thier mutual relative velocity to each other will not be emperically supported, it is what I refer to as the "Illusion of Motion". …”

This again is the “strong conflict” with SR I noted earlier, but I do not think it helpful (or even understand) why you call this the “illusion of motion.” Clocks, A &B and P (any point resting in the frame they were both initially at rest in) each have real motions wrt to either of the other two. Thus I recommend you drop use of “illusion of motion” as it is confusing at best. I also recommend you also speak of “point P” (or your “C”) in the scenario you have advanced and reserve CPF for use ONLY when there never was any one frame that the two clocks were both at rest in.

Finally you say: “I have not tried to decipher all of this. It gets far to muddy. But you said in the beginning that they moved perpendicluar to each other….”

Unfortunately you are not very well versed in the cross product of two vectors (as I remember from years ago) so I could not just say:
“Now let’s consider the case where Va x Vb > 0. ”

So I had to try to describe it to you in words, even drawing a “typed drawing” for you. Here I am trying to get to the general case where the two clock are not traveling along the same line. You have not, as far as I know, considered this. So I tried to think like you and guess what would be your POV.

It seemed to me possible to define your CPF or a point P even in this case, so I did so. It also seemed reasonable from your POV (and even for SR POV) that the component of velocity they had directed along the same line and equal in magnitude should not make contribute to either’s determination that the others clock ticked differently than their own.

If you do not wish to consider any case but the most simple (parallel or anti-parallel motions only) that is OK with me. I was just trying to help you make your POV more general.

I think I understand your POV now and do not think it correct. It all comes down to the “strong conflict” with SR in the case (2b). Your scenario with two clocks far apart and starting at rest in frame with C at rest and then A & B accelerating up to the same speed prior to crossing a “start accumulation line” and then meeting at C (a near miss of collision) where both their accumulators report their total tick count is clever, but not surprising to SR that they are equal from the POV of C. I hope James and Pete will discuss it.

I think that the reason A’s determination of TDb would show it less than his time accumulated as SR predicts. I.e. A would say B cheated and got the same Nb as A did to report to C by in terms of A’s clock, by starting earlier to accumulate. A does not care that from C’s POV everything was symmetric. A wants that B accumulate tick for the same duration A did.

Alternatively perhaps A would measure the velocity of B as less than his own wrt C so of course B used more time to go from the marked start line to the location of C, the finish line. Again this would explain why (from A’s POV) that B’s slower ticking clock also reported to C the same number of total ticks, N = Na = Nb.

I am not as up on SR as James or Pete, but think that you are too impressed by what C is told and what was symmetric from C’s POV, but never really discussed what the results would be if A were measuring B’s tick rate. I hope one or both of them will confirm at least one of these “if A had measured B’s tick rate” alternatives.

15. MacM:

Originally Posted by MacM
For the rest of your post I don't plan on beating dead horses. I have shown you in error and that your relative velocity view is not reality.

Thanks for the chat.
I knew you'd wimp out sooner or later - once the sheer mindnumbing stupidity of your proposed theory was exposed. It's not hard to stump you with scenarios your "theory" can't cope with, is it? It's undeveloped and full of holes.

Originally Posted by MacM
Pathetic. You ignore the key point about the reality. You did not move C in #3 and you did not move D in #4.
You missed my point about C or D previously accelerating with respect to another clock E. As soon as you introduce an extra clock, your theory starts giving different answers - or can't give an answer at all, more usually.

16. Originally Posted by Billy T
Finally you say: “I have not tried to decipher all of this. It gets far to muddy. But you said in the beginning that they moved perpendicluar to each other….”

Unfortunately you are not very well versed in the cross product of two vectors (as I remember from years ago) so I could not just say:
“Now let’s consider the case where Va x Vb > 0. ”
If you have such a memory then you should also remember that I have had mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering and have had higher math including matricies and calculus.

Do I waste time doing a bunch of math questions posed by James R or others NO because they are a waste. As I rightfully pointed out this issue is not based on mathematical errors. It is based on false premisis for relativity.

Originally Posted by Billy T
If you do not wish to consider any case but the most simple (parallel or anti-parallel motions only) that is OK with me. I was just trying to help you make your POV more general.
I answered your question regarding !/ motion. As to the lengthy confusing post about "Cross Product" you also used the term perpendicular. I referred to that since it is more generally understood motion. I also understand what is a cross product at what grade school level do you recall learning about cross products. I don't but it was well before high school.

Originally Posted by Billy T
I think that the reason A’s determination of TDb would show it less than his time accumulated as SR predicts. I.e. A would say B cheated and got the same Nb as A did to report to C by in terms of A’s clock, by starting earlier to accumulate. A does not care that from C’s POV everything was symmetric. A wants that B accumulate tick for the same duration A did.
Holly cow the old simultaneity dodge. "What A or B or C thinks does not affect the emperical data" - Shssh.

Originally Posted by Billy T
I am not as up on SR as James or Pete, but think that you are too impressed by what C is told and what was symmetric from C’s POV, but never really discussed what the results would be if A were measuring B’s tick rate.
I haven't stated what A would measure??????? Give me a break I have said they may measure each other as being dilated but I have also made it clear that is NOT the physical reality and hence is just an "Illusion of Motion".

17. Originally Posted by James R
MacM:

I knew you'd wimp out sooner or later - once the sheer mindnumbing stupidity of your proposed theory was exposed. It's not hard to stump you with scenarios your "theory" can't cope with, is it? It's undeveloped and full of holes.
Same old James R. Just keep posting more and more complex lengthy scenarios until it becomes nummingly repeatitive and you are told to buzz off and you want to make false innuendos.

Originally Posted by James R
You missed my point about C or D previously accelerating with respect to another clock E. As soon as you introduce an extra clock, your theory starts giving different answers - or can't give an answer at all, more usually.
The result I have posted are the results that will emperically supported. Now it is incumbent upon you to explain why, not me. It is not adeqwuate to simply recite what SR predicts. You must explain why those predictions have never been verified emperically. The only predictions confirmed are those where frame switching (acceleration hence actual motion not relative motion) have been applied.

Further it might be interesting about now to have you explain this.

A, B &C are at common rest.

B launches and becomes inertial moving away at 0.6c.

At this junction we would agree that B is now ticking at 8 ticks to A & C's 10 ticks. Yes/No?

Now A launches and joins B.

Again I think we would agree that A & B both now tick in synch and are dilated relative to C. Yes/No?

A & B both physically slowed down due to their motion.

Now A launches back toward C and since B and A were at rest and inertial then A must beginning to tick slower than B. Yes/No?

However, we know that the reality is tha A is increasing tick rate such that once back at C, A & C now tick in synch and must be ticking at 10 ticks to 8 B ticks.

Explain how you mathematically get A to know to speed up and not slow down when leaving B because if it launched away from C you would have it dilate even further.

Then explain how you can disregard the B frame to justify what we know must be true which is A&C are ticking in synch when A returns to C.

We are waiting.

18. MacM:

Moving on to avoid uncomfortable truths, I see. Ok.

Further it might be interesting about now to have you explain this.

A, B &C are at common rest.

B launches and becomes inertial moving away at 0.6c.

At this junction we would agree that B is now ticking at 8 ticks to A & C's 10 ticks. Yes/No?
No.

What we agree is that in A and C's frame of reference B is observed to be ticking 8 ticks to A and C's 10 ticks.

On virtually everything else, we disagree. For example, you say "B is ticking at ...". Now, if it came from a physicist, such a statement would be uncontroversial. But when you say it, you mean "In MacM reality, B is ticking ...", and there's no way to know whether, in MacM "illusion of motion" land the tick rate is the same or different. Besides, you can't even make such a statement of your "reality", since you don't know the absolute motion of A and C prior to the launch of B. A and B may previously have accelerated, which would completely stuff up your measurement of tick rates.

Now A launches and joins B.

Again I think we would agree that A & B both now tick in synch and are dilated relative to C. Yes/No?
We agree that in C's frame, C sees A and B ticking at the same rate. We probably agree that A and B both see each other ticking at the same rate in their mutual frame, too.

I say that C ticks slower than A and B in the frame of A and B. From what I know of your nonsense, you disagree with that. That's "illusion of motion", according to the MacM useless theory. In MacM "reality", supposedly C ticks faster than A and B in all frames.

So, we don't agree on much.

A & B both physically slowed down due to their motion.
Relative to what? A and B both sped up relative to C. Didn't they?

Now A launches back toward C and since B and A were at rest and inertial then A must beginning to tick slower than B. Yes/No?
What do you mean "B and A were at rest"? In which frame? They were at rest in A and B's frame, but not in C's.

A's tick rate as seen by B depends only on A's speed relative to B. But yes, B sees A as ticking slower than B, just as B sees C ticking slower than B.

However, we know that the reality is tha A is increasing tick rate such that once back at C, A & C now tick in synch and must be ticking at 10 ticks to 8 B ticks.
No. That's your own special "reality", which real physicists do not share with you. It's MacM crazy physics "reality", which is not reality as we know it, Jim.

In B's frame, A's tick rate slows as it moves back to C's speed.
In C's frame, A's tick rate increases as it moves back to C's speed.

That's the real physics.

Explain how you mathematically get A to know to speed up and not slow down when leaving B because if it launched away from C you would have it dilate even further.
You're thinking of your own fantasy physics again. This is a problem for your silly ideas, not relativity.

As A speeds up relative to B, A's clock rate slows down in B's frame. It doesn't matter whether A was launched from clock X by a magic pixie, and details of A's prior accelerations are irrelevant.

Then explain how you can disregard the B frame to justify what we know must be true which is A&C are ticking in synch when A returns to C.
I don't disregard the B frame. In B's frame, when A is moving with C at the same velocity relative to B, then A's clock rate is the same as C's, and both are slower than B's by the same amount. Only relative velocity matters.

You've tied yourself in such knots that you no longer are aware of what your silly theory says and what relativity says.

We are waiting.
I wish you and the Queen all the best in your wait.

19. Originally Posted by James R
MacM:

Moving on to avoid uncomfortable truths, I see. Ok.
As stated the point was to avoid yourv habit of continued increasing lengthy and cumbersome scenarios and failing to acknowledge that failure of SR at the simple level is all thqt is required. 1,000,000 tests that confirm SR are completely meaningless if (1) test fails it.

Originally Posted by James R
No.

What we agree is that in A and C's frame of reference B is observed to be ticking 8 ticks to A and C's 10 ticks.
Oh wonderful now we want to just talk about what A & C think and not what is any physical reality in B. Never mind that emperical data suggests time dilation is a physically real phenomena and has been tested showing that B (the particle in the lab accelerator) is in FACT time dilated.

It never ceases to amaze me that you want to adhere to the ludricus concept that clock tick rates are just a matter of observer view point suv h that every clock has an infinite number of tick rates simultaneously to satisfy every possible observer.

Originally Posted by James R
On virtually everything else, we disagree. For example, you say "B is ticking at ...".
So what else is new.

Originally Posted by James R
Now, if it came from a physicist, such a statement would be uncontroversial.
Correct. You have hit the nail on the head. There is no emperical data that disagrees with my assesment and none that supports yours, so it is a matter of "WE" (meaning the scientific community) are right and you are wrong. All based on an ethnocentric view of the world.

You would be far more believable if you just admitted the possibility of my view and stopped advocating your view as confirmed experimentally - it has not been and none of the test done exclude my view, so stuff your ego.

Originally Posted by James R
But when you say it, you mean "In MacM reality, B is ticking ...", and there's no way to know whether, in MacM "illusion of motion" land the tick rate is the same or different.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You have finally admitted yours is not some proven view better than my own. PLEASE MAKE NOTE EVERYBODY, I HAVE JUST BEEN VINDICATED BY JAMES R. He finally admits he cannot demonstrate his view is correct and mine is not.

Originally Posted by James R
We agree that in C's frame, C sees A and B ticking at the same rate. We probably agree that A and B both see each other ticking at the same rate in their mutual frame, too.
Yep but we disagree that this is merely observer dependant and the fact of physical tick rates are confirmed emprerically.

Originally Posted by James R
I say that C ticks slower than A and B in the frame of A and B. From what I know of your nonsense, you disagree with that. That's "illusion of motion", according to the MacM useless theory. In MacM "reality", supposedly C ticks faster than A and B in all frames.
How can you pretend to even be superior when you can't even keep things straight?

You complain about Mac's useless theory where I simply state that given Bis ticks slower than C then C must tick faster than B and you want to have atissy fit and talk about "In C's frame". That is a perception issue and I have repeatedly stated the perception is not challenged.

Get with it. Physical reality IS NOT a matter of observer perception.

Originally Posted by James R
So, we don't agree on much.
And to your loss unfortunately.

Originally Posted by James R
Relative to what? A and B both sped up relative to C. Didn't they?
Are you completely dense? We are discussing time dilation due to having accelerated (sped away) here not their new velocity.

Originally Posted by James R
What do you mean "B and A were at rest"? In which frame? They were at rest in A and B's frame, but not in C's.
Keep it up you are showing just how ludricrus you must be to post these ongoing ditribes.

I clearly stated A & B became inertial and were in the same frame hence they have relative rest. I'm sure others here read things correctly. You need a bit of reading comphrension.

Originally Posted by James R
A's tick rate as seen by B depends only on A's speed relative to B. But yes, B sees A as ticking slower than B, just as B sees C ticking slower than B.
We don't care about what each "Sees" we care about the accumulated time on clocks when properly tested.

Originally Posted by James R
No. That's your own special "reality", which real physicists do not share with you. It's MacM crazy physics "reality", which is not reality as we know it, Jim.
I didn't think you would address that issue. Why because you can't. All you can do is talk about what others see and not about what drives actual physical time dilation.

Originally Posted by James R
In B's frame, A's tick rate slows as it moves back to C's speed.
In C's frame, A's tick rate increases as it moves back to C's speed.
Show your work mathematically. Show the math to support C's view. c And I'll then show you your long standing error.

Originally Posted by James R
You're thinking of your own fantasy physics again. This is a problem for your silly ideas, not relativity.

As A speeds up relative to B, A's clock rate slows down in B's frame. It doesn't matter whether A was launched from clock X by a magic pixie, and details of A's prior accelerations are irrelevant.
You still have not shown your work here and mathematically how you get C to think A is speeding up. Come on. close your arguekent that your view is superior. We are waiting. (Actually I'm waiting so I can cram it down your throat.)

Originally Posted by James R
I don't disregard the B frame. In B's frame, when A is moving with C at the same velocity relative to B, then A's clock rate is the same as C's, and both are slower than B's by the same amount. Only relative velocity matters.
Still waiting. Show your mathematical method of getting A to increase tick rate approaching C when they have the same relative velocity if it is just moving away OR returning to C. These are only differences in vectors of motion, not in the relative motion which you want to claim is causing relavistic time dilation.

Show you work. We are waiting.

Originally Posted by James R
You've tied yourself in such knots that you no longer are aware of what your silly theory says and what relativity says.

I wish you and the Queen all the best in your wait.
I didn't think you would answer.

20. Members,

Since James either cannot address this issue or chooses to dodge it let me clarify what we are looking at.

James R's continued arguement is very much like an affect we have all experienced.

That is a train whistle. As it approaches it sounds "Weeeee"
and as it passes and begins to receed it sounds "Woooooo."

The approaching sound has a higher pitch because as the train approaches each sound wave arrives sooner because the distance to travel is less than it would have been if the vehicle were sitting at rest relative to you and sound arrived at a normal rate..

When it receeds each sound wave now takes longer to reach you because distance is steadily increasing such that observed frequency decreases.

So the affect is to increase and decrease frequency or pitch from your resting frame of reference.

If you now count each sound wave using on board counters.

Mark off an equal distance east and west of your location.

Have two trains with calibrated and synchronized whistles.

One train remains at rest and the other moves at 0.6c approaching from the east.

As the train passes the east marker it and the resting train begin to count sound waves and they each transmit a digital total count as it passes your location.

If the resting train transmits a count of 30,000 pulses. The traveling train will transmit a digital count of only 24,000 pulses.

The traveling train and resting train both reset their counters and as the traveling train receeds they both continue to count until the traveling train passes the west marker.

It then will transmit a digital total count of 24,000 counts and the resting train will have recorded 30,000 counts.

The synchronizaton is done any number of ways; including light signals and computing time delay of signals to and from respective frames with adjustments to the counts accordingly.

So the change in pitch to you is an "Illusion of motion" and did not affect the actual frequency of the whistle.

The "Perception" by observers that frequency is changing (speeding up and slowing down with vector of motion) and physical count results are two different issues.

In this example the wistle count represents time ticks.

The "Illusion of motion" of changing frequency does not have any bearing on the physical reality of time dilation of an accelerated frame.

It is equally important to note that while both the resting and traveling observer will experience the shift in frequency of respective whistles as they approach and pass, it is MORE important to understand that the digital information does not include reciprocity.

That is any prediction that both actually physcially tick slower is falsified. Because the traveling train is notified that the resting train had 30,000 counts to his 24,000 counts. So the time dilation view in SR is only valid physically for the traveling train which is what is supported by emperical data.

The suggestion that the approaching clock increases tick rate to match a previous rest frame after having slowed due to having accelerated away is not supported since an inertial condition at turn around would create a new rest reference and during the return flight is decreasing tick rate from that frame new rest frame.

Clocks cannot and do not both physically increase and decrease tick rates simultaneously. They can "Appear" to do so but not actually do so. The digital count of both frames is physical reality in both frames.

Sorry James R. Back to the drawing board.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•