Well perhaps on a technicality you can say this but to do so you are attempting to dodge the bullet since your post referenced a post by SL which is a discussion of those issues and you simply make the false claim that I somehow miss the point by assuming an absolute motion. etc. Sorry, for the benefit of others reading your post I leave my posted response stand.
Regardless of what you think your theory is (absolute motion or not), you cannot superimpose your concepts into a special relativity interpretation and call it something like the "correct version of relativity". Your version is contrary to the postulates of special relavity and as such your entire argument is flawed.
Actually this is an incorrect assumption on your part. Valid physics with standing in my calculations and applications, the solution is not that "I must be in error somewhere" but that "The postulates must be in error somewhere". Now please detail any physical or mathematical errors on my part.
It is NOT an assumption on my part. I have personally derived the equations for special relativity as well as the equations for another theory that only uses time-dilation, not length contraction or reciprocity. I'm not going to post that derivation here, but it is needless to say that I know a little bit more than just assumptions.
what this all means is that SRT whilst a very valuable theory is essentially unfalsifiable. The question of MOD is unfalsifiable due to the lack of simultaneity. The lack of simultaneity is due to the invariant nature of light speed.......So in essence it is the invariance factor that forces non-simultaneity and MOD upon us all. The invariance factor apparently has been proven however and the rest of the theory appears to be the outcome of this scientific "fact". The question really is :"if MOD is unable to be proven and if Non-simultaneity is unable to be proven does this make SRT Unfalsifiable. Can this be considered to be a weakness in the theory? I have come to the conclusion that the very nature of SRT requires the invalidation of invariance of speed of light to invaidate SRT. [I don't see this happening for quite a while]
Well this is a most interesting post. I would like to have some PM conversations at your discretion. Seems we may see things much a like after all. I to agree with gamma but not reciprocity, spatial length contraction (note 1). What is you take on the VAF.? Note 1: I deliberately specify "Spatial Length Contraction" in that I find reason to believe in contraction of physical objects but of space only with an inverse c^2 relationship. That is spatial contraction may exist in a very minor way but nothing near the magnitude of dimensional contraction of a relavistic rocket for example.
QQ, I take exception to your position. I believe emperical data already falsifies SRT. It does not however, explain why the postulates are false or are mis-interpretations of observations. Simultaneity is not a stumbling block either in that it can be calculated and taken into consideration. I believe I understand why the invariance postulate is flawed but it is not because light isn't measured invariant. But that is another subject.
I started to read it but couldn't determine to my satisfaction what frame you were referring to and when so I stopped reading it.
From what I understand we can't observe both relativistic observations simultaneously thus non-simultaneity can not be proven....... Maybe you can show how non-simultaneity can be proven as non-simultaneous? MOD [Mutually observed dilation] also can not be proven and only the subject of a mathematical extrapolation. Can any one show how these two aspects of SRT can possibly be shown by direct observation?
QQ, MOD can easily be shown by having an accurate clock on the ISS report it's time to a ground station and vice versa. In 2007 the PARCS (Primary Atomic Reference Clock in Space) will be flown. It's main purpose is not to show MOD (nobody seems to care!) but it could be used to demonstrate it. The ISS is sufficiently "inertial". How is this affected by the earth clock not being inertial? Not sure.
Damn it SL you just don't seem to want to recognize that Mutual Dilation is not Reciprocity. Which are you trying to prove here? Are you trying to prove that two clocks with equal velocity dilate equally? That is mutual dilation. or Are your trying to prove reciprocity as advocated by SRT where each clock runs slower than the other?
I thought SL , described his definition quite clearly with this post earlier: and IMO it requires simultaneousness to prove, which SRT forbids....
So you are unable to hold casual discussion on principles alone and must have specific gendankins to calculate? That seems limited to me.
What he described is Reciprocity. Why he insists on calling it Mutual Dilation is beyond me. Mutual Dilation is entirely a different matter. It confuses the issue. Especially since he once joined Yuriy in claiming muon collisons proved reciprocity and they are based on mutual dilation to properly intersect.
Mac, All I ever expect to see is a report from spaceship A that says he got timing data from B that indicates B's clock is running slow compared to his (A), and vice-versa, where A and B have a relative velocity difference. Is this a problem? Is this reciprocity or mutual dilation?
maybe it's mutually reciprical obervable dilation.....hmmmmmmmm MROD Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
A couple of clarifications. 1 - You are not totally incorrect using the term Mutual. But you must be careful because the conotation or meaning behind the word is different used in different contexts. I have found numerous disucssions of "Reciprocity" which refer to it as Mutual. But in those descriptions the term mutual means like relavistic affects and does not mean recipocal or equal dilation other than in the magnitude of the dilation relative to itself. Mutual as you sometimes used it is merely equal dilation as in co-moving clocks or muons with equal velocity to some third collision point. In that case mutual means the same absolute dilation and no relative dilation. 2 - Your description above would be best refered to as reciprocity in that the meaning of mutual can be mis-interpreted. Mutual Dilation in fact can only be observed from a third FOR since it generally means no systemic dilation between the clocks but that they both have slowed equally from their rest tick rate with no differential between them. Reciprocity means as you state above "Each has a tick rate equally slower than itself".
