Sorry about the delay answering your post. I had to react to some of the things you had sayed simply because they are irrelevant or not true. You said: Why? Pay attension to the equation I had posted: dtA = dtB * [ sqrt(1 - vEarth^2./c^2) / sqrt(1 - vAB^2./c^2) ] vEarth - the velocity of Earth wrt the absolute space since vEarth is small the term sqrt(1 - vEarth^2./c^2) is just neglected. Where did you see something depending from seasonal changes? vEarth is just the velocity of Earth wrt the Cosmos (if you don't like absolute space phrase) , it is constant. It do not depend from any seasonal changes. Did you see that in time dilation equations participate the square of this velocity? The sign is insignificat. Here you says that because speed of light seems to be constant there can't be no absolute space. The reason that speed of light is contant is that because in every frame time and distance changes proportionaly, I mean that their ratio - the velocity of light do not change. So what? That only means that space and time are glued together in a space-time continiuum. This do not prohibit the existing of absolute space or absolute space-time to be more precize. In this space both the time interval and space distances had maximal values. Really? Tell me then what is relativity? What is the space-time? Why time is running slower in a moving frame? What is the elementary, low-level mechanism by which relativity is realized? What is it physical sense?
How much are tickets to wacky MacM physics land? I need a break from reality Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Illusion? I think not. The moving observer would not perceive the effect of time dilation of his clock because the EM pulses between synapses in his brain which regulate his perception of time are dilated at the same rate as his clock. The same effect is apparent in a universe which has an absolute time, if you choose to consider time dilation as frequency contraction.
It isn't. The Earth revolves around the sun, so the velocity changes constantly. That means that during the course of a year, the Earth's velocity in the plane of the planets changes with 60 km/s in two directions. Eh? Absolute spacetime, I'll give you. I have absolutely no beef with that. However, this doesn't make absolute space or absolute time any more real. In fact, if there's nothing distinguishing absolute space from any other inertial frame, then what's absolute about it? Take a course. Read a book. I'm not going to do your work for you.
Yes but the rotational velocity of Earth around Sun is swamped by its rotation around galaxy center, I don't remember the figures but I can check it. It can be considered with a least approximization that Earth velocity is linear. Even if there are deviations are you sure that there had been maded precise enough experiments about it? "sqrt(1 - vEarth^2./c^2) " variation per year would be even smaller. And it is not true that it will affect light velocity, it will affect time dilation. How we can catch so small differences? Yes but it can be defined absolute frame. It is special. The clock ticks are maximal in that frame, that is why it is special. The muons for example will live shortest time in the absolute space and the bacteria will be the maximal number. There is many things which makes absolute space special. There is things that are not in the books.
Xgen: There's no evidence for absolute space. Also, your new interpretation lacks a fundamental explanation of why there should be such a reference frame, i.e. a mechanism for why time should tick faster (or whatever you claim) there instead of everywhere else, and a quantiative description giving it predictory power.
Just as there is no evidence for reciproicty or spatial contratction advocated by SRT. Actually SRT is almost there, if you adapt (amend) SRT to an absolute concept you would now get the same results we see emperically via GPS. You make an unjustified assumption that an absolute concept must be based on some absolute rest or absolute velocity value. It does not. It is based on nothing more than recognizing that time dilation is the consequence of actual motion. That is velolcity induced as a consequence of acceleration, not relative velocity produced between clocks by only one clock accelerating from a common frame. The latter is SRT and results in the unsupported and unsuportable concept of reciprocity.
MacM: Once again, you failed to comprehend my question. I asked: Let me step you through it, slowly. 1. You claim that a moving observer will not see his own clock slow. 2. You claim than, in fact, the moving observer's clock is, in fact, slowed. 3. You say that (1) is therefore an "illusion of motion". Now read my question again, and try answering it. I haven't asked you to explain SRT's description of time dilation, since it is coherent and logical. I've asked you to explain YOUR claims, which are messy and illogical. Your problem is that you don't even know what you think, yourself. Your ideas are a mish-mash of whatever jumps to mind at the time
I don't claim to have much of a handle on all this, but mixing frames just makes matters worse. The muon's clock is only supposed to be dilated when viewed from the laboratory frame. The thickness of the earth's atmosphere is only supposed to be contracted from the muon's frame. So: Lab frame: Lab clock rate 100%, Muon clock rate 50% Atmosphere thickness according to Lab 100%, according to Muon 50% (and) Muon frame: Muon clock rate 100%, Lab clock rate 50% Atmosphere thickness according to Lab 100%, according to Muon 50% Notice that the second line in each frame's case is identical, "Atmosphere thickness according to Lab 100%, according to Muon 50%". Length contraction is just a byproduct to prevent horizontal clocks from ticking differently than vertical clocks. The length contraction has no effect on the time dilation reciprocity problem, which remains a paradox in my opinion.
First let me point out that your questions contains clear and obvious assertions known to be totally false. MacM's physics are sound and unrefutted by such innuendo. And so does SRT what is your problem? Recorded time dilation proves that nicely. You are extrapolating. But yes I guess you could call the fact that an observer does not sense nor can measure his clock being slowed an illusion since we know that it is ticking more sloly just as predicted and recorded numerous times in emperical tests. Really. Just where do you see a disagreement. 1 - Does SRT claim that being in an inertial velocity condition is equivelent to being at rest or not? 2 - Does SRT claim you can measure time dilation from your own frame or not? Seems the answer to #1 is "yes", and #2 is "no". It further appears that is precisely what I have said. Crap. Innuendo and totally unresponsive to the issues raised. I am not on the defensive here. You are. So defend and stop trying to play offense. You are not very good at it.
You at least are honest. We (I included) know and understand what is advocated. I am pointing out that is a matter of selective convience. That is time dilation is not simply restricted to the view of one frame but has been recorded numerous times and demonstrated and observed in the other frame as a permanent real physical change. If it were not physical but merely perception then perhaps one could argue the SRT case. But that is not what happens. Clocks in motion DISPLAY time dilation (less accumulated time upon subsequenct direct comparison in a common frame). It is therefore physically real and cannot be ignored and claimed to just exist in one frame. That is the abbreviated physics claim. It is not consistant with observation and data. Paradox is a polite word to avoid noting impossibilities.
MacM: You still don't get it. Yes. It says you can't measure time dilation of a clock in your own rest frame. Ok, let's move you on to my original question then, now that you've managed to get to first base. SRT does not regard the fact that you can't observe time dilation of a clock in your own rest frame as any kind of "illusion of motion", but you do. SRT has an explanation of why you can't observe time dilation of a clock in your rest frame. I am asking you two things: 1. What is YOUR explanation of why you can't observe time dilation of a clock in your own rest frame? (Do you even have one?) 2. If your explanation is that you are just seeing an "illusion of motion" that your clock isn't really slowed, then what is your physical explanation of that illusion? Third time lucky, MacM. Can you understand the question now? And, if so, can you answer it? Or will we see the usual fancy Texas dancing you're famous for, once again?
You can't even make up your own original lines. The Texas Two Step was my line. You also make it clear you refuse to answer the challenges put forth, so why should I allow you to dictate this discussion by asking questions rather than anwsering them. Further more I have no obligation to provide an answer for why one cannot sense their own motion. It is known and understood that you can't. So there is no relevance to your question regarding the issue raised. If you don't have a physics response then simply admit it. Stop trying (in vain) to shift the burden and issue or question.
Not with me it isn't. It is serious discussion about physics issues. But James R seems to think it is a game and he can keep shifting the rules around, cast innuendos and avoid the embarassing fact that he has no answers.
Actually it is totally irrelevant to the issue. Which is why I will not be dragged off topic chasing your strawmen. Now justify why you ignore the physical time dilation of a clock in motion when computing distance.
