... If you answer Reality says so, then you must provide a mechanism at least for this to occur.
I answer that SRT is reality, in that its predictions have never be falsified and many have been confirmed. One of the most persuasive to me is that muon have such as short half life, HL*, that they can only go about 100 meters if traversing that distance at non-relativistic speed. However cosmic ray muons have a very relativistic speeds so most can travel down from 100,000 feet to the ground because enjoy Time Dilation, TD’ (Their clock is running slowly wrt to ours.) Again the asterisk indicates the time in the moving objects own frame (muon in this case) and the prime indicates my time. Thus for slow muons produced in the lab, HL’ which I measure is approximately the same as HL* but for the very fast cosmic ray muon HL* <<< HL’ that is to say both lab and cosmic muon have the same HL* as they do not have any speed wrt themselves, but by my clocks, HL’, of a cosmic ray muon is enormously greater that the slow ones I measure in the lab.
...Relative simultaneity is a theoretical outcome and unable to be tested directly, in reality.
I skip comment on this as there is no attempt to make any events simultaneous in the question you keep refusing to answer. That is the lady lights her “guaranteed precisely 4 sec” fuse whenever the urge strikes her. I lite my IDENTICALLY FUSED firecracker on the 4 of July when it gets dark. We are both ever rich so have hired observers and within frame synchronized clocks ( NOT mine to hers) thru out our respective frames. It may be a week or two before my observer that was her her at the time of lighting her fuse T1* in her frame but T1’ in mine is reported back to me. Likewise another of my observers (very slightly injured) recorded T2’ and reported it back to me.
Although (T2*-T1*) = (T2-T1)* = 4 sec the lady told me, I find (T2-T1)’ much greater than 4 seconds. (Recall her event use captial letter, mine lower case.)
She told me (but could be lying if SR is false) that (t2 –t1)* was also much greater than the guaranteed 4 sec. Or to relax to the somewhat ambiguous words only you and MacM use Both she and I claim the others identical fuse burned too long. (Sort of like the cosmic muons lived too long. ) SRT supports both us as telling the truth, but you and MacM, for different reasons, believe one of us must be lying as it is impossible (you assert without evidence except your “common sense”) for both to measure the others fuse as burning slower than our own as they are identical.
... If you answer that it is correct because SRT says so then you are not as good a physicist as I would have thought.
I admit to accepting many things, based on both theory which has NEVER been violated and has been confirmed in many of its predictions as a good physicist should EVEN if it violates all common sense. For example I believe that a single photon does actually go thru two widely separated arms of an interferometer. I believe very well prepared, but not yet measured, pairs of photons can become separated by more than 10 Km (as was done in Southern Germany Alps at least a decade ago) and finding (measuring) one vertical polarized at the same time (timing error less than time it take light to travel the 10Km) is always found to be horizontally polarized as they are a “linked” pair in a common mixed quantum state the has no net polarization. (Einstein, Rosen & Polinski did not like Quantum Mechanc as a statement about reality – it was only a fantastically accurate means of predicting the probably of results but each was deterministic so proposted this ERP experiment to show up QM for the fraud it was based on their common sense. It did not go the way Einstein expected, but I think he was dead by time it was done. Bell with some really simple but thoughtful math developed and inequality that can be tested, which made Einstein’s “hidden variables” possible only if ever worse violations of common sense were true.)
... And it certainly appears that you may be accidently at least implying that causation that is only theoretical in origins is sufficient with out at least some physical credibility.
Why are they not the same?
What is the causation that leads to the effects you describe?
No, they ARE the SAME, assuming your “they” refers to the two clocks in different frames, so there is no “effect” on them to “cause”. An effect would be implied ONLY if there were some physical change in the clock which was accelerated; but unlike you who thinks (if I understand your POV) that there is a physical change induced by the acceleration, I think the other frame clock is NOT changed, just like I think the muons of cosmic rays are identical to the lab muons.
Again: I am not implying any physical change – no “effect” so do not have “effect” on anything. I do not think time is a thing that can be effected either, but that does not mean time is some “invisible river” that “flows” uniform speed for all frames. Time is just an natural human creation to couple the observable rates of two or more processes in your frame.
For example, the rate that the car is traveling to the rate that the wheels are rotating. But if I measure (compare to rate my clocks is ticking) the rate of some process in a different frame I do not get the same rate as some one in that frame measures the rate with his clocks. For another example If you were traveling with the cosmic ray muon, you would find they have the rapid rate of decay than my measure of their HL’ in the lab shows Only when a “cross frame” measurement is made are the results different form an “in frame” measurement. Nothing physical about the muons (or the clocks) has change –All “in frame” measurements give the same rate – that fact follows from physics being the same in all inertial frames. Muon, cesium clocks, fuse burn times, everything is the same in all inertial frame as physics (and chemistry) are the same. You want a “cause” for the effect is very much like your wanting to Yes or no to question: “Are you still beating your wife.” In that it asks about something that does not, did not happen. Was your first unassisted flight (only arms waving) difficult? Yes or No.
...To simply say they are not the same is because SRT says so is th hub of the issue. It is not what SRT says that is that is in question it is whether it truely reflects reality that is.`Can you not see the distinction?
I am an agnostic. I do not accept anything as true without evidence. All the evidence available supports SR and none contradicts (You have only your “common sense, notr evidence telling you SR is wrong I think. If that is wrong what is your evidence SRT is worng?)
...You have thrown simultaneity out the window ...why?
Mainly because (1) there are always long discussion and argument about it because common sense (falsely) says that if A&B happen at the same time for me they happen at the same time for everyone, and (2) My use of two identical “4sec fuses” removed all need to try to make anything in one frame happen when something else happened in another frame.
...You have accelerated one clock only and claimed causation for both? why?
No NEITHER clock was accelleratate. They were only made last week and both frames have been inertial frame for 150 years. I even once told that during the Big Bang the matter of one formed at a different location than the gas that became our solar system and had a different velocity. I.e. they were “born” with different velocities, just as light is born form hot matter with the speed of lght and never was slower needing to be accelerated up to the speed of light. But usually just asy the acceleration ceased 150years ago and rely on the fact that there is no difference in the energy level of the cesium atoms used to make the atomic clocks last week in the two inertial frames. –
Do you really think the energy levels were permanently changed by the acceleration of 150 years ago?
...I assume that the only answer to the above is that that is what SRT tells us..And I say so what...
If i have read your post correctly and please correct me if I am wrong. I am sitting in cafe tryng to type on a micro keyboard and makes sense in all the noise here.
No, I do not take anything as true without evidence. So I again ask you why you think the supporting SR evidence is wrong?
I am not opposed to being a “crackpot” with 100s of supporting accepted facts. - In fact I am proud to be one when it comes to how human perception works. – I did not become one lightly as usually the collective judgment of the scientific community is right. I spent a full year, with nothing else to do, in the Cognitive Science Dept of Johns Hopkins. (I got a full pay sabbatical from the Applied Physic Lab of JHU after working there about 27 years and retire after about 30.) The last two years, after that year sabbatical year, I did little but think and read more on how the brain function.
After I retired I spent five more years in deep study before firmly concluding that perception is provided by what I call the Real Time Simulation running in parietal lobs, that it does not “emerge” from many stages of neural transformation of sensory impulses – they only keep the simulation (when not dreaming) a usually quite accurate model of the sensed external world.
Probably no one else active here is both as staunch defender of conventional physic POV and also a crackpot in another science field slowing winning converts to his POV. Note that before I started to try to overturn the establishment, – I spent years becoming an expert in the conventional POV. In contrast, AFAIK, you are very ignorant of SRT, never read anything but a popular press account etc. and are armed only with your common sense, yet are trying to do the same.