geistkiesel: Not at all. If I attach a ruler to my car and measure the positions of all objects by the mark they come to on the ruler, then I have set up a coordinate system which is attached to my car. It doesn't matter whether I drive along the road or leave my car in the driveway. I can still record the positions of objects along the ruler. Of course, the position of the car aerial will never change with respect to this ruler, even if I drive the car. So, we can say the ruler is in the rest frame of the aerial, or the aerial is in the rest frame of the ruler, for example. On the other hand, a set point on the road WILL change position on the ruler if I drive my car, in which case the road is not at rest with respect to the ruler. Surely you must be starting to get the hang of this reference frame stuff by now?
I understand STR rest frames also, James R. I have spoke of these before. An observer is always at absolute rest in his own frame of reference, doesn't matter about his location in the universe or the location or relative motion of other objects. When you drive your car, you are at rest and the road passes by you and your ruler. Remember, you cannot prove otherwise. The relatively moving object is always considered to be in motion in your own rest frame. By definition, you are at absolute rest in your own inertial frame of reference. All velocity is relative to your own STR inertial rest frame, the moving clock always beats slower, the OTHER GUY's clock.
I got the hang of this reference frame a long time ago, or so I thought. I am fortunate to have a scientist with your talents to clear up a small matter. The figure here shows the distance, ct traveled by a photon moving left and then reflected (white vertical mirror) back to the original emission point after moving another distance ct. There is an observer (green oval) originally located at the emission point when the light is emitted. This is the 0 point, as indicated. In the time it takes the light to travel the distance ct the observer has moving a distance vt to the right (1) and by the time the photon has returned to the emission point (2) the observer has, very symmetrically, moved another distance vt to the right. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The question: Does the figure accurately represent what the moving observer will see, which includes the emission point (0), the reflection (1) and arrival back at the emission point (2)? If not what will be the observer's perspective? Geistkiesel
Come on. I have never said they run slower than each other from a third frame. Making changes in what I have said is not a response to the issue. The issue is the only recoded emperical data shows that both clocks "Mutually Dilate" according to the third frame view and the 0.866c relative velocity and SRT's "A" is at rest and "B"is dilated by 50% according to "A" and the reciprocity of "B" is at rest and "A" is dilated 50% relative to "B", is completely ignored. There is no systemic dilation between "A" and "B" even though they have 0.866c relative velocity. That is the issue so stick with that. It is not I that has a misunderstanding. I have never said what you are claiming. It is you that are making up a false problem claiming it represents my issue. Now stick with my issue. "A" and "B" have a relative velocity of 0.866c and there is NO time dilation between them. Why not?
Why don't you stick to your own statements for a change. Complete bullshit. Who is the YOU in your above statement? A or B? If neither, then it's a third reference claiming these things. If it is A or B, then your definition is complete nonsense. You refuse to pick a frame of reference and stay there. In SRT the only claim of "reciprocity" is this: From A's frame B appears dilated, and from B's frame A appears dilated. From some other frame, you can only make statements about A or B from that frame. Can you understand this? You are completely and totally making up a problem that does not exist. Because ther are observed from a different frame!!! Quit asking WHY!!! We've all told you 1e^23 times! SRT involves frames. You can't get that, can you?
Geistkiesel, you not following Special Theory of Relativity procedure in your diagram. Remember, in STR, THE OBSERVER DOES NOT MOVE. The observer keeps the same coordinates for his inertial frame and the MIRROR in your example moves away from his coordinates. In your diagram as drawn, the observer would have to be located at the mirror, not the emission point of the photon as the emission point is in motion. Draw another diagram exactly like this one, except put the mirror in motion and the observer at the emission point of the photon at rest, and you will see how STR works its time dilation postulate and relativity of simultaneity postulate. Both legs of the photon path will then be equal in both outgoing and reflected directions according to the stationary observer. STR claims all inertial frames are equal, but the path of light is different if the observer considers himself always at rest and the other frame in motion.
geistkiesel: From your observer's point of view, the mirror moves to the left with speed v. The speed of light in the observer's frame, according to the second postulate of special relativity, is c in both directions (i.e. both before and after the reflection from the mirror). This is NOT what we would expect in a Newtonian universe. In a Newtonian universe the light would have speed c+v as it moved towards the mirror, and c-v after reflection, as seen by the "moving" observer.
Give it a break James R. This is bullshit. Frames my ass. The only frame(s) that count is the one that actually affects the clocks tick rate. If it ain't recorded it ain't happening. You deliberatly ignore the point about actual recorded time dilation, how dishonest. Irrelevant question. Read my statement once again. The only frame that counts is the one that affects actual clock tick rate. (AND it ain't due to "Relative Velocity" between clocks. The symmetrical acceleration case proves that to be the case. With 0.866c relative velocity there is no accumulated time differential between A and B and the affect on the clocks is 1.109 gamma not a 2.000 gamma. Hmmmm. Now address the issue and stop doing the two step. Stop lying. I have never made any such stupid statement. BTW: Your attempt to sweep this under the rug by making light and lying isn't working. Poor James R. All those wasted years memorizing all that worthless irrelevant crap.
MacM: Let me explain your argument to you. Which one actually affects the tick rates? The "special" one, according to you. The special one is the Earth frame, or whichever other "stationary" frame suits you at the time. What makes that "special", so that it affects clocks, while no other frames do? You don't know. You can't say. Not much of an argument is it? Yes you did. You claim that only one "special" frame "affects the clocks tick rate". You claim to be able to identify that special frame in any given situation. Why don't you stop the two step? Make up your mind about what you think.
False. Your distortion of what I say is wrong. I never said they did. I gave you a case of 0.866c relative velocity. SRT (and you) want to claim that those clocks will suffer a time dilation of 50% due to a gamma of 2.000. It doesn't happen. That has nothing to do with the third referance. It is proof positive that the correct calculation must be based on a third referance. The third referance method that I have introduced works in all cases. SRT only works "half assed" in special cases.
This is all fine and dandy. Use the mathematics of the theory in question to jprove the theory. :bugeye: The point is and shall remain tha tthe emperical data and gendakins demonstrate the falicy. No amount of verbage can cover that up.
This is not actually a valid complaint or restriction. I have pointed out before that accumulated time dilation is the consequence of tick rate and clocks tick rates can be compared without bringing them back together. This is what GPS does sucessfully and those results verify my view using a third referance and falisfy the SRT view with only two referances and reciprocity. It doesn't exist period.
We are saying the same thing. I'm just assuming these educated people understand that to say a clocks contribution means the clocks velocity componet contribution. Maybe I shouldn't give them so much credit eh? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And you should understand that if the ruler or ariel are in motion referance the road that it is improper physics to declare that they are at rest and at the same time declare that the road can be at rest. One or the other must be in motion and it is physical nonsense to waffle back and forth claiming both are at rest. Either one or both are in motion and you cannot rightfully claim relavistic affects for each assuming the other is at rest. Your assumption that either is at rest is just that an assumption. Just like you would assume a gamma = 2.000 if told two clocks have a relative veloicty of 0.866c but you then learn that they actually had equal but opposite velocities and that NO systemic time dilation occured between them. Your assumptions are unjustified. This is because yo are working with gendankins and not real physics. The physics of the real universe dictates which becomes dilated (if either) and that dictates which had what amount of velocity. It is generally understood that such function means an absolute velocity based relativity.
That is the theory but unfortunately it is not born out by emperical data or logic. As I have presented the A and B case. Their assumption of rest and the other moving at 0.866c with a gamma of 2.000 vice-versa, did not occur because they had equal but opposite velocities that collectively produced the 0.866c relative velocity. What occurs is a gamma = 1.109 in both A and B relative to their origin of motion (hence relative rest position) at point C, and NO systemic time dilation between A and B even though they still have 0.866c relative velocity.
And why don't you stick to my statements as well and stop distorting what has been said. No YOU (Superluminal) and every other SRT fool. False. I point out that for the same 0.866c relative velocity that your assumption one or the other is at rest and a gamma = 2.000 is false. Relative velocity tells you nothing and the assumption of being at rest is just an assumption more likely than not to be incorrect. I've said it many times before. While I disagree with the purported illusion, I will not yet argue the issue of "Appears" but am and have only argued against the physical reality and accumulated times on clocks according to SRT and those (like James R) that claim it is physical. Unfortunately SRT and you make many such judgements. My point is and has been that such jproclamations are unjustified and unsupported by emperical data. Emperical data and reason dictate you are wrong and gamma is a function of actual motion if measured, sensed or not. That means an absolute system of relativity and not SRT with its reciprocity. Can you understand this. You are completely ignoring a very apparent inconsistancy in and failure of SRT. And I have pointed out just as many times that Frames be damned. The only thing that counts is the accumulated time on cocks and they only accumulated and display ONE time value. That time is a function of the clocks "absolute relative velocity" and not mere relative velocity to another clock or observer where multiple such views consequently exist. It is absolutely amazing that you can't get that can you?
Ignoring the fact that the 0.866c relative velocity does not affect the clocks but that they have a 1.109 gamma relavtive to their origin of acceleration to inertial equal velocity Futher, I don't have to prove which is the correct referance. The clocks will not, cannot and do not record both a time dilation between them based on a gamma of 2.000 and no time dilation between them based on a gamma of 1.109 relative to their velocity origin. One is false. Which one do YOU prefer to deny and claim is the failure of SRT? Isn't much of an arguement is it? I believe that is true but I also point out that if it is not true, it still doesn't matter since both views are not up held and SRT is therefore clearly falsified. So argue with yourself as to WHICH frame is special. I know but I don't have to prove that to you. You have to defend SRT because it fails one or the other. Which is it?
MacM: Yes, that's right. In the road frame, only the road is at rest. In the car frame, only the car is at rest. They can't both be at rest. See? You're finally starting to get a handle on this reference frame stuff. Yes, it is. It depends entirely on how I define my coordinate system as to whether any particular object is at rest or moving. And, as we all know, no coordinate system is "preferred" or "special". One is just as good as another. Since there's no way to tell which is "really" moving, either can be regarded as being at rest. As long as we stick to the same reference frame, everything works just fine. Agree? It's only when you start mixing frames incorrectly that you see problems that don't exist. Oh, give it a rest. Try something new. We've heard enough of that crap. An "absolute velocity based relativity" requires an absolute standard of rest, and there isn't one. Bad luck. They will, they can, and they do. Want to deny it again, without proof? I'm sure you do. Go for it. You love repeating yourself, but never providing any argument to back yourself up. What you have to do, by the way, is establish why any particular frame is "special", since you assert that some frames actually affect clocks while others do not. Can you do that? No, you'll just keep whinging about how you're right, because you say so. Trying to dodge again? You always quit when you're cornered, don't you? I bet you'll change the topic again soon, and forget this conversation ever happened. You'll probably bring up GPS again in the next 5 minutes or so.
Stop flip-floping. We all know the routine. You still choose to ignore the point that there is only one real physical frame. The one that actually affects a clocks tick rate and your response is therefore bullshit.
