The ambiguous words only notation you and MacM both use causes a confusion that appears to make SRT results impossible.
No. It lets us talk freely without having our hands (tongues) tied by mathematical formalities designed to limit challenges.
I. e. it lets you both say things like: “both clocks cannot be ticking slower than the other” and conclude that only one is so SRT is wrong.
SRT is wrong because it was based on mere relative velocity and in fact doesn't use it but considers who has actual velocity due to frame switching acceleration.
MacM thinks it is the “real” rather than “illusionary” velocity that causes its TD.
And so does current physics since they consider "Frame Switching" (who has actual motion due to having accelerated). Are you saying you disagree?
Yes/No?
Both think that TD is only wrt clocks remaining in the “common rest frame.”
You are assuming to much. Putting clocks in a common rest frame subsequent to having had relative veloicty is to eliminate all your BS about simultaneity and what each observers "Sees" while in motion.
I have not claimed observers in motion do not "See" each other dilated. I just point out that that is not a true representation of the physical condition of the clock(s).
It is no more valid than a claim that the univerrse is bright red just because you put on red glasses or that the paralax of rain coming down at a 45 degree angle when you are driving into it at the speed it is falling straight down.
These are things observers might"See" but dare you to claim they are physically real descriptions of the universe and or direction of the rain falling because I can drop a plumb line from a tower and prove that the rain is falling straight down and what you see is an "Illusion of Motion".
For your convenience, below in blue text is the heart of post 423 again. It has clearly defined terms using symbols to avoid your and MacM's more vague words only discriptions.
We (I) don't need your legthy overly complex statements. What we need is you to respond directly to the points raised asnd not try to divert the discussion by posting endless new scenarios that haven't addressed our posts.
SR states time is dilated in the frame moving wrt you. I.e. that (T2 -T1) < (t2-t1)* and also (T2 -T1)' > (t2-t1). Or in the less well defined words: “Both measure the others identical fuse as burning more slowly.” You MacM assert that this is not physically possible. So you go on to conclude that since what SR asserts is nonsense, SR must be at least partially wrong.
Yes and see above. You are ignoring the term "physically" and want to interject what observers "See". That is perception distorted by motion.
But it is not impossible because (t2 -t1)* IS NOT THE SAME AS (T2-T1)' it is your lack of well defined symbols to aid clear thinking is at the heart of your belief that SRT is wrong, I think.
I take exception you do not think. See above.
All agree that all cesium clocks tick at the same rate in their own reference frame. They are not altered by non-destructive acceleration. In fact they could be cesium clocks built long after the acceleration was over. Thus to fail to measure time passing locally in its frame would violate the concept that physic is the same in all inertial frames.
No they don't. That is the farce. If the clock is dilated it is NOT ticking the same. It only appears the same in the dilated frame because you cannot detect the shift. It is based on that falicy that produces the mathematical conclusion that there is spatial contraction in the moving frame.
It should be obvious to 1st graders that if clocks dilated physically they are dilated in all frames. That given a slower tick rate the observer calculates his reduced trip time as being a higher velocity.
That is the proper physical view, not that relative velocity is a cause for physical change in a resting clock or that relative velocity causes one physical condition such as TD in one frame but in the other frame it ticks in synch (that is ludricrus on the surface) and then that in the dmoving frame the physical response is that distance contracted.
WHAT A LOT OF VODOO BS. THIS IS NOT PHYSICS. PERIOD.
If that were true, then a preferred absolute frame could be defined at least as the one in which the cesium clocks ticked faster than all others so frames clocks in other frames have TD wrt it.
Likely true but not necessarily so. It actually appears the process is more complex.
I have repeated asked you which of the following is correct. (You and MacM think TD is not an effect of relative velocity as SRT states it is)
Choice A: (T2 -T1) < (t2-t1)* i.e. she measures my clocks as with TD.
Or
Choice B: (t2-t1) < (T2 -T1)' i.e. I measure her clocks as with TD.
SRT state both are true.
This description of SR is only for while the clocks are in relative motion. How many times do I have to repeat that this is not at issue.
The issue is that once the clocks are restored to a common rest frame for comparison only one is dilated and it is always the most accelerated. The observed reciprocity is not a permanent feature but only an "Illusion of Motion" which vanishes once the motion has stopped.