Mac's Final Relativity Thread

[MacM]

Not with view point, but with velocity. SR says that the reality of a physical tick rate is quite definitely a matter of observer velocity.


Let us be quite clear: SR dictates that the physical tick rate reality is frame dependent. The physical reality according to SR is that clocks in relative motion each tick slower than the other, according to the chosen frame of reference.


SR says that tick rate is relative to velocity, just as 'further away' is relative to position.

Then you are telling us what is WRONG with SR. Clearly tick rate is NOT simply a matter of observer perception. That ludricrus concept has a clock physically ticking at an infinite different rates simultaenously.

Further it is inconsistant within itself. As I have pointed out given "A", "B" & "C" all at rest and synchronized. Accelerate "A" & "B" away from "C" equally and it makes no difference if their vectors are co-moving (no relative velocity to each other) or launched in opposite directions (maximum relative velocity to each other) .

The time dilation is not a function of relative velocity between "A" & "B" but only between "A" or "B" to "C". When co-moving you have direct comparison without any deceleration or turn around being required. They are side by side and remain in synch but equally dilated to "C".


The same result is true when they move in opposite directions. I have already given a scenario where "A" & "B" move out to an equal remote distance from "C", accelerate back toward "C" passing a start line where they fire a light signal toward "C" and set their clocks to zero.

They then continue to move inertially until they pass "C". When "C" receives the start light signal it knows the distance hence light time required for the signal to arrive and presets it's clocks to that amount of accumulated time so as to be synchronized with the start of "A" & "B" clocks.

When "A" & "B" pass "C" it will be seen that they both have accumulated equal but dilated time relative to "C" such that without question your assertion that their tick rate depended on their relative velocity to each other is completly falsified.

Granted if you merely consider "A" & "B" without "C" your math might predict that "A" & "B" would be dilated to each other but that prediction is unsupported by emperical test data and is utter nonsense.

Belief is such a system is a black mark on human intelligence.

Please restrict your postivie claims about physics to that which has emperical testing support and not some fantasy of mathematics that is at the surface not only ludricrus but physically inmpossible.

Impossible is NOTthe same as the "Counter Intuitive" state that they like to hide behind verbally to ignore the facts.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

I'll start by answering your questions.

I assume you mean after the acceleration period, once the final speed is reached. Answer: It depends on which frame you're observing the tick rate in. The Lorentz factor for this speed is 1.666.

Correct and that means "A" is ticking slower than "B". When "A" ticks off 6 seconds "B" has ticked off 10 seconds.

This is NOT a frame dependant function it is the physical reality in all frames.

In A's frame, A's clock runs at the normal rate

Here is where you are lost. Yes in "A's" frame his proper time seems normal but his proper time has a different physical tick rate than "B's" proper tick rate. ta does not equal tb just because the observer can't tell the difference in his proper tick rate.

and B's runs slower by a factor of 1.666.

Not the physical reality. That is the "Illusion of Motion". "B's" tick rate has not changed because "A" now has motion. THAT is the physical reality.

In B's frame, A's clock runs slower than B's by a factor of 1.666 and B's clock runs at the normal rate.

Correct. In "B's" frame the "Illusion of Motion" IS the physical reality.

By the way, this scenario is indistinguishable from one in which A and B are originally at rest and B accelerates away, leaving A at rest, except that the direction of motion of B would be the opposite to your original scenario.

With one major difference. It would only be "B" that is actually dilated rather tha "A" which would have been physically dialted in the first case.

Permanently physically dilated means the clock that actually displays less accumulated time when directly compared without any "Illusion of Motion" percepton.

Put more directly a dilated condition supported by hard emperical data.

That is, once the acceleration is over, there's no experiment you can do to show that the acceleration ever happened.

Sure there is. You install digital transmitters in "A" and "B" clocks to send out data about their respective accumulated times. You can then be in any frame "A", "B" , "C", etc and you monitor which clock is assumulating time faster or slower.

The slower ticking clock (accumulating time slower) will be the one with the greatest acceleration history and hence has the largest change in velocity universally.

Examining current clock rates won't tell you anything about the acceleration history of A or B. Do you agree?

Absolutely not.

Now, comments on your reply:


You're not talking about special relativity here, are you?

Because you DO know that special relativity ONLY considers relative velocities. There are no absolute velocities in the theory of relativity.

You can't simply slip and slide away from the issue.

When you apply your "Who switched frames" criteria you are no longer merely considering relative velocity between frames. You are considering "Who has accelerated and changed velocity".

You are only correct in saying SR claims to only consider relative velocity. The fact is relative velocity is not used. As pointed out emperical data does not support the arguement that time dilation is an observer driven fuction that applies to two frames if both have accelerated but only applies to an accelerated frame vs an initial inertial rest reference frame.

It is only valid between clock when one clock remains fixed at the initial inertial rest reference - which is basically the case for all your accumulated emperical data.

Every thingelse is hypothetical speculation based on arbitrary mathematics

So, what theory are you thinking of, then?

Read above. Your SR doesn't function by m,ere relative velocity no matter how hard you try to conceal the truth to the contrary.

Do you apply "Who switched frames to you data when computing time dilation?" Yes or No.

Do you have any emperical data to support the arguement that from the "Switched Frame" view point the resting clock is physically dilated or is that simply mathematical conjecture based on assumptions about the physics of relativity?

Ah, sorry. I was obviously letting true physics slip into my thinking, instead of going with what your fantasy physics says. My mistake.

Lets keep this honest. You have absolutely no emperical data upon which to assert your claims are based on "True Physics" and you have proved no rebuttal to justify claiming my corrections as being "Fantasy Physics". Nice try but poetry may sound nice but it doesn't necessarily describe real life.

Ok. We're getting to the crux of this. Your statement in bold is very clear. Let me give you one more scenario, just so I understand your position.

You observe three clocks: A, B and C. At the time you observe them, you happen to be at rest relative to clock C. Note: I am not telling you that you are on Earth. For example, Clock C may be the clock you're carrying along with you in a spaceship travelling at unspecified speed v relative to Earth, for example.

So, you're at rest relative to C. From your reference frame, you measure the speeds of clocks A and B, which happen to be moving relative to C (you). You observe that clock A is travelling at 0.6c away from you. You observe that clock B is travelling at 0.6c away from you, but in the opposite direction to clock A. You have no information about how the three clocks might have accelerated (or not) before your observations.

Questions:

* Is it possible for you (C) to measure the tick rates of clocks A and B from your frame C?

If you had installed digital transmitters on those clocks yes. You could begin to monitor at what rate each clock was accumulating time.

* If so, what are the tick rates of clocks A and B?

Unknown until actually tested. That has been my point you want to assert that they are gong to tick a 80% of "C" but they may not have accelerated from "C's" frame as a rest frame.

Your mathematics are shear speculation and that is all. Every test ever done and all data is based on known and fixed frames of rest and relative motion such as a particle accelerator.

* Are A and B synchronised? i.e. do they tick at the same rate?

Not known until actually tested.

* If you can, please specify how you might measure the tick rates of clocks A and B (assuming that such a thing is possible at all).

Did above.

I get what you're saying. You're saying that my speedometer, which does just such a computation of my car's speed, will NOT read 50 mph if your radar gun reads 50 mph. The difference might be very small, but it would be a real difference, according to you. Right?

Can you tell me what maths I'd have to build into my speedometer so that it would always read the same speed as your radar gun's measurement of the car's speed?

Or, are you saying that if I have my own radar gun in my car and I point it at you it will read your speed as something other than 50 mph?

Since radar is based on timing signals out and back using an onboard clock the onboard traveling car radar will record the parked car as moving away faster than 50 Mph.

So, speedometers are impossible?

Hardly. However what they indicate may not be totally correct. Just as my radar in the traveling car saw you speeding whenn you infact were parked.

Do you think I should be able to drag you into court for speeding since you had a relative velocity to me in excess of the speed limit even though you were parked?

So, you stand still and your radar gun measures my speed at 50 Mph west. Let's assume, like in your example, that you are moving east at 1000 mph and my car is driving east at 950 mph.

Questions:

* Have I got it right that your radar gun would measure my speed at 50 mph west?

The result from the radar gun is a function of acculated time on the onboard clock attached to the radar. Such that what it computes is a function of it's physical tick rate.

That is speculation until tested. The only problem is that for most everyday motion time dilation plays no role and we do not see nor can measure the affect so we go along content that relative velocity truely measures symmetrical.

* What would the speedometer on my car say in this case?

See above.

* What would the radar gun in my car read when I point it at you?

See above.

* Is there any way I could tell from the measurements (radar guns and speedmeter) our actual speeds (1000 and 950 mph)? Bear in mind that the road may also be moving relative to something like the Sun.

See above.

* Actually, just to be clear, what are these 1000 and 950 mph speeds relative to? The road? A fixed point at the centre of the Earth? The Sun? Or what?=

Center of the earth.

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here.

Possibly because I missed a typo. It should have read + or - not =/-. But in your SR mathematics you apply a numerical sign to tell the mathe to increase or decrease clock tick rate. That is how you get a clock that was accelerted away and become dilated to then return to normal tick rate when returned to its original frame.

This addresses my next question to you which was "I forgot to tell you that "A" & "B" had previously launched in a co-moving direction from "C" and that they then would be ticking at gamma = 1.66666n or 0.6 as fast as "C".

In the example I gave you we agree "A" is ticking slower than "B" as it leaves "B" but it is also ticking slower than "C" bu it must now also be starting to tick faster so as to return to "C's" original tick rate.

How do you justify a clock physically starting to tick slower and faster at the same time?

My math has the clock speeding up or slowing down depending on the reference frame it is observed from.

Correct. I understand that is your theory but that makes physical tick rate a function of observer perception and observers for "A" and "B" where they have relative velocity are not correct in their assumption that each is accumulating time slower than each other when in fact they have had equal acceleration from some common rest frame.

As pointed out when they pass "C" they are notr dilated relative to each other regardless of their hving relative velocity of not. Their tick rate is not a function of THEIR relative velocity but of thier velocity to the common inertial rest frame.

Another example: I am driving along the road at 50 mph, east. You are driving your car next to mine, also at 50 mph east. Now, you slam on the brakes. What does your car do, in my reference frame? Answer: You started at rest in my reference frame, and when you slammed on the brakes you accelerated with increasing speed to the west. Agree?

That would be true. Braking and accelerting backwards is the same thing.

Question: did you speed up or slow down when you hit the brakes? Answer: it depends on the reference frame we're looking at you from. From my car's frame, you sped up. From the point of view of a bystander on the road side, you slowed down.

Do you agree?

Correct.

How does it manage to do that? Surely if the maths is all wrong, it can't possibly work to even predict perceptions correctly. Is it just lucky?

I don't follow your conclusions here at all. The problem is you like to mix everyday velocities with relavistic predictions. Most all velocities we deal with on a daily basis are not affected by relativity and relative velocity IS virtually symmetrical in our experiences.

Why have we never observed any massive object moving faster than light, then?

Data suggests we have but only when generally orthogonal. That is remote objects have been timed at v>c but not in the line of sight. In the line of sight the physical dimensions of mass (but not space) do undergo Lorentz Contraction and therfore cease to exist physically to us.

Why have we never seen any object disappear from our universe into a different energy level universe, or any object suddenly appear in our universe from the other universe?

We may have but it hasn't been recognized for what it is worth. Massive objects near the edge of the observable universe are approaching v = c but you see nothing beyond that. That does not mean massive objects have not exceeded v = c and vanished.

Virtual particles appear and disappear all the time. Universe appear to form as expanding bubbles it would be logical that they push each other and do not generally mix. That is an expanding wave of energy forming space pushes agaisnt other expanding waves of other universes forcing them to seperate not mix mass content.

You think? *sigh*

I most certainly do.

I thought you would have learned after all these years that the entire theory of special relativity (for a start) is derived from only TWO postulates. From these two simple postulates, we get time dilation, velocity addition, "reciprocity", length contraction, relativity of simultaneity, and all the other good stuff you can't bring yourself to believe.

WEBSTER:

"Postulate" - 2) to assume without proof to be true or real, or necessary esp. as a basis for arguement.

Hmmmm. Hardly an over powering arguement.

What I have been proposing is that the invariance of light postulate is based on our ignorance and that what we think we see (measure) is actually based on an illusion caused by physics we yet do not understand and that in lieu of being invariant photons we are seeing different photons being generated.

What we may be seeing that we call traveling photons may be an energy pulse along a carrier which is moivng at multiple velocities FTL such that you are actually seeing an energy based function at v = c to the observer.

Further that this carrier may extend toward infinity and is the connection driving particle entanglement.

What is certainly NOT true is that Einstein could just add ad hoc mathematics to make things the way he wanted them. The velocity addition formula of special relativity is not an "extra" add-on to the theory. It is a direct and simply-derived consequence of the same two postulates. There's no choice in the maths once the two postulates have been specified. And they are exceedingly simple.

And potentially if not likely flawed.

And in all these years you have never been able to bring yourself to directly say that either of the postulates of special relativity is flawed.

Did you go deaf. Every time this issue has been raised for years I have given the same asnwer as above.

Which means, of course, that all your attacks on the mathematics and your comments about "reality vs. perception" are useless, because if the postulates are right then the maths must be right. If it wasn't, somebody would have shown the errors some time in the last 100 years.

Many have tried and they get the same circle jerk made here.

Similarly, the v=c speed limit is not something ADDED to the theory of relativity. It is a derived consequence of those same two postulates.

Covered above.

I'm extremely disappointed that you do not know these things.

False unsupported innuendo.

In short, what all this means is that to attack special relativity, you need to attack at least one of the two postulates - with reasons, of course. But you're not brave enough to do that, are you?

Have many time but you choose to ignore the evidence and possibilities.

So what you're saying is that the theory you wish to replace relativity with doesn't apply to our universe, but only to a different universe at a "higher level" - an unknown fantasyland MacM universe that we have no way of detecting.

Correct?

It applies to all potential universes.

 

[MacM]

Welcome to the physics of 19th century. We're a bit further on, now, but thanks for playing!

Philosophy. Oh, look, something else that is shiny and irrelevant!

If you ever graduate from 1st year mechanics, I dread to think how you would cope with quantum stuff: "'The superposition can never be the reality!' thundered MacM, as he spurred his trusty steed onward towards the windmill."

Thankls for joing funkstar. I have missed your rather irrelevant postings.

 

[Acitnoids]

MacM:
Here's an analogy that I believe fits your point of view. Time dilation can be thought of in terms of film speed. Humans view video at a frame rate of about 30 frames per second (30fps), this would be considered the "common rest frame" for people on earth. If I record something using high speed photography and then play back the tape at 30fps, time will appear to slow down do to the high speed recording (high velocity). Likewise, when using time laps photography the frame rate is slower. When I play it back at 30fps, time will appear to pass faster (low velocity). The increase and decrease of observed time is directly related to the "common rest frame" of 30fps. If there truly is a "pnysical difference" in a second then we can look for it using the above analogy (the frame rate becomes the clock). If a second is always a second then 30fps will always be viewed as 30fps. The tapes may disagree when filming a common observation from different frames of motion but they will always match up when filming separate (yet identical) experiments within each observers individual frame of motion.

 

[Billy T]

... I'll leave it to you to explain just how you propose to generate a relative velocity between clocks "A" & "C" when both are initially side by side at rest in a common inertial rest frame. Leave either one at rest and tell me just how the other achieves relative velocity.

I did not envision that either of the frames A & B were accelerated form a common rest frame, but if you want me to assume that then that common rest frame was the frame in which the two cameras, C & D are stationary and separated by 1km along the X-axis. (which is alinged with the X-axes of frames A & B, but 5 cm separated from each of the camera frame's X-axis. Recall the XY planes fo A & B are parallel 10 cm apart, at least as measured by observer in the camera frame.) At t = 0 frame A begins to accelerate camera's +X direction and B with same magnitude of acceleration in camera's -X direction. Both stop accelerating at the same time for observers in the camera's frame when that observer notes their velocities are: A has v =0.9C and B has v=-0.9C. I.e. everthing is perfectly symetrical wrt to the observers in the camera frame which is mid way between frames A & B.

Because it is possible to produce exactly equally any "accelerations effects" on the identical in their construction clocks in frames A & B, I did not describe these details, but just assumed that the clocks in A & B had the same ticking rates when compared to identical in their construction atomic clocks in their own frame. I.e. a cesium atomic clock in frame A makes # of cycles in one second time laps on a clock in frame A, and # also is the number of cycles Frame B's identical cesium clock makes in one second laps on a clock in Frame B.

... You are starting out with two clocks already having relative velocity. Now are you an observer from either one of these frames or are you a remote observer from a third frame?

Yes that is how I started, but now to keep you happy, I have above described how the two frames A & B (really their two networks of clocks with zero relative speed, as "frames" are just massless coordinate systemes with no objective reality.) were symetrically accelerated from being initially mututally at rest in the camera frame.

I am just a guy pounding on my lap top keyboard who imagines that there are observers in all three frames. Then "chief observers is in the camera frame, with assistents every where in that frame. The only role of the observers in frames A & B is to schnronize their own clocks. It the clocks were initially schronized at t =0 when at rest in the camera frame, I can not imagine anyway they could not still be schronized when they are moving at 0.9C wrt the camera frame. (If you think that identical accelerations applied to all can deschronized them you can assume they have been re-schronized after their acceleration period is over.)

... Please describe once you answer the above:

1 - how you propose to synchronize the moving clocks

2 - and what you expect the emperical data to show about such clocks respective tick rates.

I thnk I have already answered both to a large extent above. In geneneral I schronized two clock with zero relative velocity by flashing a light which is mid way between them and note what they indicate when the light flash. One clock the mastert clock, MC, is always showing the frame's time, FT. The clock being schronized to FT is highly unlikely to be showing FT when the light flash arrives at it so its error is corrected. For example if when the flash arrives at MC the FT = 15:13 and when at the other clock's display shows 13:34, then that clock is given the correction of -21 minutes so it next diplay after display of 13:34 is 13:14 or is now showing FT correctly.

Quickly, again: Test by comparing tick rates to # cycles of local cesium atomic clock.

... 1 - I assume your cameras are considerd at inertial rest, if so.

yes. They are 1km apart on X-axis of plane midway between the to planes A & B which relative to the cameras have v = +0.9C and v =-0.9C respectively wrt the cameras.

... 2 - you have just arbitrarily asserted that each has a velocity of 0.9c +/- to the cameras (or 0.994475 to each other if you assume velocity addition). Doing so your results are already limited to a symmetrical result. [/quolte] Yes from POV of the cameras everything is symmetric.

... 3 - They will not see each other as dilated but will see each other as tick synchronized. But that is only because you fixed that relationship in your scenario. The reality might be that the cameras are moving +0.05c, "A" is moving +0.95c and "B" is moving -0.85c.

I made "they" bold as not sure, who you are referring to, but think you mean the two cameras. I think there are many other mathematical frames including one in which the cameras do have the speed you indicate. So what? The basic dispute hangs on your idea that one of these infinitely possible mathenatical frames is "really" at absolute rest. I see not reason to assume these is any preferred frame - the burden of proof to show why one is at ablsolut rest is yours. My "camera frame" is unique in that it is the one in which frame A & B's clocks are measured to have the same speed or Va = -Vb.

... This is totally inconsistant with emperical data of time dilation tests and the math for a symmetrical scenario. In a symmetrical scenario "A" & "B" will tick in unison and having been synchronized will display equal accumulated time. Their times however will be equally less (dilated) relative to a clock stationed with your cameras.

I think your first sentence here assumes measurements in some frame other than the one in which the cameras are stationary, so I will ingnore rather than try to understand the point of it. I am not sure exactly what the second sentence is stating but think that you agree that Clocks of A & B which happent to be next to Camera C will always show the smae time as I said, but the photos taken by cameras C &D as a result of trigger pulse M, say M = 3456, will not show the same time as observers in the camera frame do not see (photograph) the clocks in either frame A or B as being sychronized, despite the claim of observers in those frame that they are sychnronized. I.e. every oberserver clais his frame's clock are sychronized but that thsoe in the other two frames which are moving wrt to him are not schronized. - Not only that but they take more than one of his seconds to tick off another second.

... I have no idea what you are saying here.

Trying to make it clear, I gave this example:
" For example the photo taken with exposure pulse M shows a lack of synchronization of E seconds between the camera C & D photos. Likewise the two photos produced by exposure pulse N also have E seconds of difference, for all possible M & N."
I.e. the two cameras, C & D, both take dual photos, one of near by clock in frame A and other of near by clock in Frame B simultaneously from the POV of observers in the camera frame becuase their "shutters" were opened by the electronic pulse M = 3456 generated by the pulse generator midway between them. We can call these two dual photos C3456 & D3456. Each shows two clock displays. Camera C's two clock images I call Ca3456 & Cb3456 and of course Camera D's are Da3456 & Db3456. What I stated was about the time, T, shown in the photographed displays. I'll call those TCa3456, TCb3456, TDa3456, & TDb3456. My statement was that TCa3456 = TCb3456 and TDa3456 = TDb3456 but that TCa3456 differs from TDa3456 by E seconds. LikewiseTCb3456 differs from TDb3456 by E seconds.
I then explained that I thought any of you three could acutally calculate the value of E as in the clock frame the cameras are 1km apart and wrt that frame a clocks have speed 0.9C. Is what I state clear now? If it is, do you agree it is true?

... I have no objections to your setup but I do reject your conclusions as to what will be seen.

I do not know what you are "rejecting" to. Can you be more specific? Is it something related to my statements about the four times displayed in the images made with pulse 3456? Is it something about clocks not remaining sychronized with others in their own frame due to acceleartion? What is it?

... How was it that "A" & "B" have relative velocity if one or both have never been accelerated?

I answer that in my first reply above and explained why I thought it OK to initally just strated the discusssion with A & B moving wrt camera frame in opposite directions with the same speed. Now I start the problem dicussion earlier with a symmetric acceleration of colcks in A & B wrt the cameras.

SUMMARY TO NOT FORGET MY POINT:
You had said: "That is switching frames requires that a clock has accelerated to a new velocity. That is a change in absolute velocity universally.... "
Which I understrood to be your argument for the existance of some absolute rest frame in which the "absolute velocity" of objects could or should be measured. My point is that "switching frames" does not require any clock to accelearted unless you want to have the identcial clocks initially in a common frame. I have agreed to modify my thought experiment at your request, by having both frame A & B be initially at rest in the camera frame and symetrically accelerate to 0.9C, but just to make you happier. There is no need for this. The physics clock makers in Frame A and those in Frame B can both use the Timex Company's Cesium clock blue-print plans and instructions (for small fee) to build their identical clocks already stationary in their respective frames. Then with the aid of the camera photographs a physicist in frame A can switch times from his frame's clocks to compute the times shown on the clocks in frame B.
OR
He can just just use his measure of the speed of frame B (which you told me is 0.994475 C) and SR theory to get the times shown to an observer in Frame B by the clocks in Frame B. I.e. Times (all the same after schyronization) in frame A can be switched to times shown on clocks in frame B, except for one constant offset unless the A & B observes have agree to both use some common event flash, equally distant from both frames to be t = 0 for their master clock'sa T= 0. For example the pulse generator in the camera frame is equally distant from A and from B's XY plane. It could provide a t= ) flash to both. This flash would arrive at some clock in frame A before any other clock in frame A and that clock is then A's master clock.

(I had clocks every where as I am very rich, but if you want to quible and have some space between real clocks, then the time of flash arrival on many clocks in the XY plane of frame A is used to compute exactly where and when the expanding spherical flash made first contact with the XY plane. For example this "first contact point" might be between the clock at X = 234 and the clock at X = 235 (both on the x-axis so their Y is 0) If the first contact point 20% closer to Clock 234 than to clock 235. I.e. the (X,Y) corrdinates of the flash's first contact point are (234.4, 0) and simple computation tell how much to adjust the time displayed on all of clocks of Frame A so that if a clock had been at (234.4, 0) it would be showing t = 0 when the flash arrived.

If you did not intend to prove the existance of an absolute rest frame by this "swithing frames imples a clock was accelerated" they why do you think an absolute frame must exist? You can not just assume it must when SR works well in all tests without any need for referencing an absolute rest frame. That would be like saying the equations of physics work well but only because unicorns exist.

 

[MacM]

MacM:
Here's an analogy that I believe fits your point of view. Time dilation can be thought of in terms of film speed. Humans view video at a frame rate of about 30 frames per second (30fps), this would be considered the "common rest frame" for people on earth. If I record something using high speed photography and then play back the tape at 30fps, time will appear to slow down do to the high speed recording (high velocity). Likewise, when using time laps photography the frame rate is slower. When I play it back at 30fps, time will appear to pass faster (low velocity). The increase and decrease of observed time is directly related to the "common rest frame" of 30fps. If there truly is a "pnysical difference" in a second then we can look for it using the above analogy (the frame rate becomes the clock). If a second is always a second then 30fps will always be viewed as 30fps. The tapes may disagree when filming a common observation from different frames of motion but they will always match up when filming separate (yet identical) experiments within each observers individual frame of motion.

Excellent analogy. I agree 100%. Not to deminish your proper thought process here but some years back others here can verify that I posted a virtually identical analogy. I filmed a sun flare and had the film frames moving at v = c past earth I then had space travelers moving away from the earth and sun observing the film which showed the rate of sun activity speed up or slow down based on observer perception due to relative velocity.

 

[Billy T]

...{post 41} When "A" & "B" pass "C" it will be seen that they both have accumulated equal but dilated time relative to "C" such that without question your assertion that their tick rate depended on their relative velocity to each other is completly falsified. ...

In this symmetric case all agree, I think that observer at C "see" both A and B's clocks have accumulated the same number of fewer ticks than his clock has.

However, I think you MacM are not undestanding what is being stated by we who claim there tick rate does depend on who is measuring it.

Tick rate is by definition the number of ticks, N, accumulated between "begin" and "stop" times, Tb & Ts.

The tick rate is N / (Ts - Tb).

Now as I understand you example, observer in frame C observes that A's Tb, which I desigante as ATb, was simulatneous with BTb. He also observers that ATs was simultaneous with BTs. Thus for him (ATs - ATb) = (Bts - Btb) or 100 of his time units. He is not suprized that the number of A's and B's ticks in this same lapsed time interval are equal (Na = Nb) as the clocks were identical. In ignorance of SR, he is surprized that the number of ticks his clock made, Nc, in his 100 time unit interval is not the same but greater. i.e. Nc > Na = Nb.

Now as I understand your scenerio Observer in A, Oa, and observer Ob were side by side when they stopped, simultaneously, their tick accumulation intervals and so agree that Ta = Tb. They each photographed the others clock's counters as they passed and even agree that both were showing the same number of ticks at the instant of passing, i.e. agree that Na = Nb.

Each (Oa & Ob) however is accusing the other of having cheated. I.e. Oa claims that Ob started his accumulation interval earlier than agreed and that is why Ob's slower running clock also accumulated the same number of ticks. Ob replies that is a lie I started my accumulation interal when I should have. You cheated and started earlier to compenstate for your slower running clock.

Obeservers in two different frames with relative velocity can only agree that both act "simultaneouly" when they passing each other side by side. When they were separated each sees the other as starting the accumulation interval earlier than he did.

If I did not undestand you senarior correctly peahaps they agree both started the accumulation intervals simultaneously but each tobserved the other as not stopping it when he did, but letting ticks to continure to accumlate duroing a longer interal.

The fundamental problem* is that only side by side when passing can Oa and Ob agree they acted "simultaneously" and "tick rate" need both simultaneous "begin" and "stop" actions. If your secenarior has both A and B beginning and stopping simultaneously for observer C, then all observer in all other frames do not agree both started simultaneously. Hence Oa & Ob are convenced that the other cheated by either starting to accumulate early or let the accumulation continue too long to compensate for the others slow running clock.

----------------
*recall years ago in anoher thread i had train with side mounted photo-electric triggered bombs at front an tail and also on ground posts that the train bombs just avoided hitting as they passed. Mid way between the post was a flash lamp ready to flash but lacking an electrical contact to the ground, which was provided by a copper hoop extending from the mid poin of the train. The post bombs exploded simultaneously (stopped the hands of the schronized clocks just below the bombs) but the train's schronized clocks, mounted on the train just below the train's bombs, did not explode simultaneosuly. The tail mounted bomb explode prior to the front mounted bomb as the front bomb was trying to escape from the advancing light front and the tail bomb was racing towards the light front. Both train and ground observers agree the flash was at the mid point between their bombs.

Point being that any two events which are simulataneous in one frame (or for this case, have interval of 100 time units between them) are not simultaneous in any other frame (or for this case, do not have 100 time units between them) in another frame.

To make this more exactly a time interval example, put the copper hoop flash trigger under the front bomb of the train and the flash on the same post as the first ground mounted bomb the train comes to. Then the train's front bomb and this first post bomb immediately and simultaneously explode to start the clock tick intervals. These intervals stop when the other bombs explode but both train and ground observers think the other did not stop the accumultions intervals when they stopped theirs. this is not an exact parallel to your problme still as one must include SR's length contractions. but again just trying to show that only the symmetric observer C can see both A & B have 100 time interavls between start and stop of the accumulation intervals.

 

[MacM]

I did not envision that either of the frames A & B were accelerated form a common rest frame, but if you want me to assume that then that common rest frame was the frame in which the two cameras, C & D are stationary and separated by 1km along the X-axis. (which is alinged with the X-axes of frames A & B, but 5 cm separated from each of the camera frame's X-axis. Recall the XY planes fo A & B are parallel 10 cm apart, at least as measured by observer in the camera frame.) At t = 0 frame A begins to accelerate camera's +X direction and B with same magnitude of acceleration in camera's -X direction. Both stop accelerating at the same time for observers in the camera's frame when that observer notes their velocities are: A has v =0.9C and B has v=-0.9C. I.e. everthing is perfectly symetrical wrt to the observers in the camera frame which is mid way between frames A & B.

No objection this is my "A", "B", "C" example but with out cameras already discussed. In my case I merely had accumulated time data cross transferred as "A" & "B" simultaneously passed by "C".

Because it is possible to produce exactly equally any "accelerations effects" on the identical in their construction clocks in frames A & B, I did not describe these details, but just assumed that the clocks in A & B had the same ticking rates when compared to identical in their construction atomic clocks in their own frame. I.e. a cesium atomic clock in frame A makes # of cycles in one second time laps on a clock in frame A, and # also is the number of cycles Frame B's identical cesium clock makes in one second laps on a clock in Frame B.

That would be correct except you must remember that there are only 10,000 1 second ticks on "A" & "B" for every 43,588 ticks of a clock at "C".

Yes that is how I started, but now to keep you happy, I have above described how the two frames A & B (really their two networks of clocks with zero relative speed, as "frames" are just massless coordinate systemes with no objective reality.) were symetrically accelerated from being initially mututally at rest in the camera frame.

Yes I agree and what the cameras show is that they remain synchronized but are equally dilated relative to "C". It matters not if they move in opposition and have relative velocity to each other or are co-moving in the same vector and have no relative veloicty. Their accumulated time remains equal and dilated relative to "C".

What more does it take to get you and others to understand that means relative velocity between clocks is not causing time dilation?

I am just a guy pounding on my lap top keyboard who imagines that there are observers in all three frames. Then "chief observers is in the camera frame, with assistents every where in that frame. The only role of the observers in frames A & B is to schnronize their own clocks. It the clocks were initially schronized at t =0 when at rest in the camera frame, I can not imagine anyway they could not still be schronized when they are moving at 0.9C wrt the camera frame. (If you think that identical accelerations applied to all can deschronized them you can assume they have been re-schronized after their acceleration period is over.)

They remain synchronized. I have said so many times here.

I thnk I have already answered both to a large extent above. In geneneral I schronized two clock with zero relative velocity by flashing a light which is mid way between them and note what they indicate when the light flash. One clock the mastert clock, MC, is always showing the frame's time, FT. The clock being schronized to FT is highly unlikely to be showing FT when the light flash arrives at it so its error is corrected. For example if when the flash arrives at MC the FT = 15:13 and when at the other clock's display shows 13:34, then that clock is given the correction of -21 minutes so it next diplay after display of 13:34 is 13:14 or is now showing FT correctly.

No problem with that but it is unnecessary. As I had "A" & "B" located at equi-distances from "C" and once moving toward "C" crossed a start line, also equi-distance from "C" and they set their clocks to zero and sent a light start signal toward "C". "C" upon receipt of the start signal computed the light travel time from the start line and preset it's clock to that time such that all clocks had the same start time.

Quickly, again: Test by comparing tick rates to # cycles of local cesium atomic clock.

See above.

yes. They are 1km apart on X-axis of plane midway between the to planes A & B which relative to the cameras have v = +0.9C and v =-0.9C respectively wrt the cameras.

Yes from POV of the cameras everything is symmetric.

Not from the point of view of cameras (observers) but from their common initial inertial rest frame. Remember that frame encompasses the entire universe not just the cameras.

I made "they" bold as not sure, who you are referring to, but think you mean the two cameras.

No. We are talking about symmetry of moving clocks "They" means clocks "A" & "B".

I think there are many other mathematical frames including one in which the cameras do have the speed you indicate. So what?

So what indeed. You have made a break through. Do you agree that "A" and "B" at crossing with "C" (your midway camera) will display equal accumulated time and that those times will be dilated relative to "C" clocks?

If so now have a third moving observer in a frame at 0.05c pass by "C" simultaneously with the crossing of "C" by "A" & "B". Guess what the observer moving at 0.05c will get the precise same readings as the clocks at "C". Those readings do not change due to the moving monitoring clock's motion relative to the initial inertial rest frame of "A" & "B".

The basic dispute hangs on your idea that one of these infinitely possible mathenatical frames is "really" at absolute rest. I see not reason to assume these is any preferred frame - the burden of proof to show why one is at ablsolut rest is yours. My "camera frame" is unique in that it is the one in which frame A & B's clocks are measured to have the same speed or Va = -Vb.

Not a valid assessment. I do not rely upon there being an absolute universal rest frame. I have said it is logical that there should be one but it in no way is required or is part of the issues I raise. I have said that every concievable inertial velocity is it's own absolute rest frame.

I think your first sentence here assumes measurements in some frame other than the one in which the cameras are stationary, so I will ingnore rather than try to understand the point of it. I am not sure exactly what the second sentence is stating but think that you agree that Clocks of A & B which happent to be next to Camera C will always show the smae time as I said, but the photos taken by cameras C &D as a result of trigger pulse M, say M = 3456, will not show the same time as observers in the camera frame do not see (photograph) the clocks in either frame A or B as being sychronized, despite the claim of observers in those frame that they are sychnronized. I.e. every oberserver clais his frame's clock are sychronized but that thsoe in the other two frames which are moving wrt to him are not schronized. - Not only that but they take more than one of his seconds to tick off another second.

I got no idea what you are talking about here. "Trigger pulse M = 3456?????"

I only agree thatv "A" & "B" remain synchronized regardless of their respective vectors if they have undergone equal acceleration from their common initial inertial rest frame.

That symmetry remains valid for any observer with any velocity that takes emperical data from them at a common location or collects digital data at any time but can compute and add or subtract information delays from their data at the time of collection.

Trying to make it clear, I gave this example:

" For example the photo taken with exposure pulse M shows a lack of synchronization of E seconds between the camera C & D photos. Likewise the two photos produced by exposure pulse N also have E seconds of difference, for all possible M & N."
I.e. the two cameras, C & D, both take dual photos, one of near by clock in frame A and other of near by clock in Frame B simultaneously from the POV of observers in the camera frame becuase their "shutters" were opened by the electronic pulse M = 3456 generated by the pulse generator midway between them. We can call these two dual photos C3456 & D3456. Each shows two clock displays. Camera C's two clock images I call Ca3456 & Cb3456 and of course Camera D's are Da3456 & Db3456. What I stated was about the time, T, shown in the photographed displays. I'll call those TCa3456, TCb3456, TDa3456, & TDb3456. My statement was that TCa3456 = TCb3456 and TDa3456 = TDb3456 but that TCa3456 differs from TDa3456 by E seconds. LikewiseTCb3456 differs from TDb3456 by E seconds.
I then explained that I thought any of you three could acutally calculate the value of E as in the clock frame the cameras are 1km apart and wrt that frame a clocks have speed 0.9C. Is what I state clear now? If it is, do you agree it is true?
I do not know what you are "rejecting" to. Can you be more specific? Is it something related to my statements about the four times displayed in the images made with pulse 3456? Is it something about clocks not remaining sychronized with others in their own frame due to acceleartion? What is it?
I answer that in my first reply above and explained why I thought it OK to initally just strated the discusssion with A & B moving wrt camera frame in opposite directions with the same speed. Now I start the problem dicussion earlier with a symmetric acceleration of colcks in A & B wrt the cameras.

This unfortunately reminds me of why you and I did not continue to communicate. Your posts are far to lengthy and overly complex requiring unnecessary effort to respond if even possible.


KISS (Keep it simple stupid) Not meant personal here but in principle.

 

[MacM]

In this symmetric case all agree, I think that observer at C "see" both A and B's clocks have accumulated the same number of fewer ticks than his clock has.

Not just this case but in every case where data is collected by an observer at the moment of "A" & "B" passing "C" regardless of the velocity of the motion of the observer taking the data.

Any observer any where in any frame can also determine that "A" & "B" are and remain in synch as long as he has the ability to add or subtract information delays of the digital information being received from or to the respective data.

However, I think you MacM are not undestanding what is being stated by we who claim there tick rate does depend on who is measuring it.

Tick rate is by definition the number of ticks, N, accumulated between "begin" and "stop" times, Tb & Ts.

The tick rate is N / (Ts - Tb).

Now as I understand you example, observer in frame C observes that A's Tb, which I desigante as ATb, was simulatneous with BTb. He also observers that ATs was simultaneous with BTs. Thus for him (ATs - ATb) = (Bts - Btb) or 100 of his time units. He is not suprized that the number of A's and B's ticks in this same lapsed time interval are equal (Na = Nb) as the clocks were identical. In ignorance of SR, he is surprized that the number of ticks his clock made, Nc, in his 100 time unit interval is not the same but greater. i.e. Nc > Na = Nb.

Now as I understand your scenerio Observer in A, Oa, and observer Ob were side by side when they stopped, simultaneously, their tick accumulation intervals and so agree that Ta = Tb. They each photographed the others clock's counters as they passed and even agree that both were showing the same number of ticks at the instant of passing, i.e. agree that Na = Nb.

Each (Oa & Ob) however is accusing the other of having cheated. I.e. Oa claims that Ob started his accumulation interval earlier than agreed and that is why Ob's slower running clock also accumulated the same number of ticks. Ob replies that is a lie I started my accumulation interal when I should have. You cheated and started earlier to compenstate for your slower running clock.

This is nothing more than a simultaneity shift BS arguement. We have already established that the clocks were properly synchronized and launched simultaneously. Just as James R and other like to talk about what others "Think" you want to argue that the reality of symmetry suggest they didn't actually start their cocks simultaneously.

I voided that arguement hands down in this thread when I had "A" and "B" deliberately start at different times and showed that when they each crossed "C" they still have the same recorded accumulated times. So simultaneity of launch has no bearing on time accumulated over the trip course.

Obeservers in two different frames with relative velocity can only agree that both act "simultaneouly" when they passing each other side by side. When they were separated each sees the other as starting the accumulation interval earlier than he did.

Ok folks I really hope you are awake here. Please note the red "sees". We do not care what other "Think", "see", "Percieve", etc. We only care about accumulated digital data and sound correct physics about what distance and accumulated time at different velocities acually means.

In that respect Both "A" and "B" were put on a course with equal distance to launch and achieve a specified velocity and cross a start line to synchronize all clocks by. It matters not if they start simultaneously, start sequentially after each other have finished their test or if they move in opposition having relative velocity or co-move with no relative velocity. The results are aslways identical.

They are identical for any observer in any frame if data is properly compensated for information delays between "A", "B" and the observer.

PERIOD.

If I did not undestand you senarior correctly peahaps they agree both started the accumulation intervals simultaneously but each tobserved the other as not stopping it when he did, but letting ticks to continure to accumlate duroing a longer interal.

?????? The case has been specified very simply and correctly. There are no simultaneity issues.

The fundamental problem* is that only side by side when passing can Oa and Ob agree they acted "simultaneously" and "tick rate" need both simultaneous "begin" and "stop" actions. If your secenarior has both A and B beginning and stopping simultaneously for observer C, then all observer in all other frames do not agree both started simultaneously. Hence Oa & Ob are convenced that the other cheated by either starting to accumulate early or let the accumulation continue too long to compensate for the others slow running clock.

As shown this is all totally false.

 

[Pete]

Then you are telling us what is WRONG with SR. Clearly tick rate is NOT simply a matter of observer perception. That ludricrus concept has a clock physically ticking at an infinite different rates simultaenously.

So you keep saying. But, the fact is that this is what SR says, and that's where you should be addressing your arguments.

Any thought experiment in which you assume that SR does not say that the physical tick rate of clocks is frame dependent (like the one in the opening post) is a waste of time, because you are not addressing SR.

Further it is inconsistant within itself. As I have pointed out given "A", "B" & "C" all at rest and synchronized. Accelerate "A" & "B" away from "C" equally and it makes no difference if their vectors are co-moving (no relative velocity to each other) or launched in opposite directions (maximum relative velocity to each other) .

The time dilation is not a function of relative velocity between "A" & "B" but only between "A" or "B" to "C". When co-moving you have direct comparison without any deceleration or turn around being required. They are side by side and remain in synch but equally dilated to "C".

See, you're doing it again. SR clearly says that time dilation is frame dependent. It doesn't say that "A" has a specific time dilation depending on how it has accelerated, it says that the time dilation of "A" depends on what frame of reference you consider it in.

SR quite clearly says that in A ticks very slowly in B's rest frame, B ticks very slowly in A's rest frame, and they both tick slowly in C's rest frame. Asserting anything else in the analysis just means that you are not analysing the consequences of SR.

Granted if you merely consider "A" & "B" without "C" your math might predict that "A" & "B" would be dilated to each other but that prediction is unsupported by emperical test data and is utter nonsense.

Belief in such a system is a black mark on human intelligence.

Nevertheless, it is exactly what SR says, and it is where you should be directing your argument. Anything else is a waste of time.

Please restrict your positive claims about physics to that which has empirical testing support and not some fantasy of mathematics that is at the surface not only ludicrous but physically impossible.

Impossible is NOT the same as the "Counter Intuitive" state that they like to hide behind verbally to ignore the facts.

This is where the real argument is. Show that it is physically impossible for time dilation to be truly frame dependent as dictated by SR. Stop wasting time by showing the impossible consequences of something else.

Here's a challenge for you: Describe how your thought experiment pans out under what SR actually says, and explain why it is impossible.

 

[Billy T]

... What more does it take to get you and others to understand that means relative velocity between clocks is not causing time dilation?

I agree that relative velocity alone is not the cause. But operationally to measure "time dilation" Observer in A, Oa, must observe clocks in B tick as well as his own for some non zero time interval, Ia, as measured by A's own clocks (and conversely Observer, Ob, does the same for his time interval Ib).

To have these two intervals, there must be both a "begining" and "stopping" times in each of the two frames, A & B for letting your own clock run and feeding its tick pulses into a local electronic accummulator. I called these four times ATb, ATs, BTb & BTs. The "b" and "s" subscripts obviously are for begining and stopping the counting of ticks in the intervals. The interval in Frame A is Ia = (ATs -ATb) and in frame B it is Ib = (BTs -BTb).

To avoid correction calculations, we want both intervals Ia & Ib to be the same, for example both Ia & Ib are 1000 ticks or 1000 of the local time units.

This interval equality would be achieved if somehow we could be sure that (1) ATb was simultaneous with BTb and (2) that ATs was simultaneous with BTs. You do not seem to understand that there is no way both (1) and (2) can be achieved.

I know that there exists a third frame, C, in which both frames A and B have the same relative SPEED (either by VA = -VB or by VA = VB) that we measures simultaneous start and stop times. The VA = VB case is not interesting as then frame A is identical with frame B and you are only using two different names to refer to the same frame - not comparing anything between two differnt inertail frames. So, yes a frame C observer measures that conditions (1) and (2) are both satisified, but ONLY this frame C which has VA = -VB can satisfy both (1) and (2) conditions.

The best you can do in any other frame is to statisfy either (1) or (2) but not both. That is one can arrange for either simultanesous start or simultaneous stop conditions, but not both from the POV of observers in ANY FRAME not the same as frame C. Note that "ANY NOT FRAME C"certainly includes both frame A and Frame B. Thus observers Oa & Ob and either agree that they did start the intervals simultaneosly or that they stoped accumulating the clock ticks simultaneously but not that both start and stops were simultaneous. Both Oa and Ob will call the other a cheater.
For example, if they agree that they did start the acumulation intervals simultaneously then both claim the other let the accumulation run longer than the agreed 1000 clock ticks, (exactly enough longer so that the other's slower clock could also tick 1000 times.)

... Do you agree that "A" and "B" at crossing with "C" (your midway camera) will display equal accumulated time and that those times will be dilated relative to "C" clocks?

I think you have misunderstood my arrangement, so I can cannot understand your "pass by C" questions. I had two cameras, C & D, separated by 1km and both are always mid way between Frame A and Frame B's infinite extent and parallel XY planes. There are clocks everywhere on the parallel X-axes of both of A & B frames, which are 10 cm separated in the Z direction. Each camera has two lenses with 45 degree mirrors in front of it so can photograph the digital displays of the adjacent clocks simultaneously The cameras were trigger by a pulse generator located mid way between the cameras. I.e. with each pulse M what is showing on the display of four clocks is photographed. But I will try to switch to your experimental design. I do not fully understand it - in what post number is it well described (operational details)?

... I got no idea what you are talking about here. "Trigger pulse M = 3456?????" ...Your posts are far to lengthy and overly complex requiring unnecessary effort to respond if even possible.

Each trigger pulse makes four photos as just again discussed. I only expanded my original two sentences (one was an example) as you said you did not understand.
----------------------
PS, later by edit after reading your red "see" comments.:

Yes I hate to use the term "see" in these discussions - that is why ALL observations in my thought experment were photographs made by the two cameras C & D, separated by 1000m, with one shutter trigger pulse from pulse one generator midway between C & D. (Two electric cables, each 500 meters long, deliver the pulse to cameras C & D simultaneously.)

One can analyse these photos a week later if you like. Each trigger pulse creates four photos, two by camera C, and two by camera D. (The simultanious photos are labled by the pulse number to keep them properly assoicated as many photos are taken. In a prior post I discussed the relationships between the four images of clock displays obtained with the exposure pulse 3456.)

I imagine these cameras are like the old two lens cameras that made steroscopic photos but have a 45 degree mirrors in front of each of the four lenses so that the digital display camera C photographs are the two clocks which are 10 cm separted in the Z direction (one in frame A the other in frame B) but at the same X coordinate at the time the shutter opens. (I have a very large number of clocks on the parallel X-axises)

 

[James R]

MacM:

Permanently physically dilated means the clock that actually displays less accumulated time when directly compared without any "Illusion of Motion" percepton.

You have no way to determine whether a clock has accelerated in the past or not, because you admit that there is no absolute standard of rest. Therefore, your "actual" accumulated times are no different from observed accumulated times, which makes the distinction you propose meaningless.

That is, once the acceleration is over, there's no experiment you can do to show that the acceleration ever happened.

Sure there is. You install digital transmitters in "A" and "B" clocks to send out data about their respective accumulated times. You can then be in any frame "A", "B" , "C", etc and you monitor which clock is assumulating time faster or slower.

The slower ticking clock (accumulating time slower) will be the one with the greatest acceleration history and hence has the largest change in velocity universally.

This is nonsense that may be true in MacM fantasyphysics land. In the real world of relativity, if A ticks slower than B in B's frame, then B will tick slower than A in A's frame. Therefore, there's no way to "monitor which clock is accumulating time faster", since the rate of accumulating time is, in reality, different in every frame.

You have half adopted relativity yourself, in that you believe in time dilation. Why you believe time dilation happens at all is a bit of a mystery to me. But you only half believe it anyway, because you think it only happens in one direction, without what you call "reciprocity". You believe this even though there's no way to establish which of two given frames is to be "preferred" according to your criteria.

Your SR doesn't function by m,ere relative velocity no matter how hard you try to conceal the truth to the contrary.

In relativity, whenever a "v" appears in the Lorentz transformations or the in the definition of the Lorentz factor, or whatever, it ALWAYS represents relative velocity between two frames. There is no "v" for absolute velocities, and there are explicitly no preferred frames.

So, what you're dreaming about here is a mystery, too.

You observe three clocks: A, B and C. At the time you observe them, you happen to be at rest relative to clock C. Note: I am not telling you that you are on Earth. For example, Clock C may be the clock you're carrying along with you in a spaceship travelling at unspecified speed v relative to Earth, for example.

So, you're at rest relative to C. From your reference frame, you measure the speeds of clocks A and B, which happen to be moving relative to C (you). You observe that clock A is travelling at 0.6c away from you. You observe that clock B is travelling at 0.6c away from you, but in the opposite direction to clock A. You have no information about how the three clocks might have accelerated (or not) before your observations.

Questions:

* Is it possible for you (C) to measure the tick rates of clocks A and B from your frame C?

If you had installed digital transmitters on those clocks yes. You could begin to monitor at what rate each clock was accumulating time.

So, contrary to what you stated earlier, you now believe that tick rates cannot be determined by any kind of theory, but only directly measured experimentally. In other words, you have no theory of time dilation.

* If so, what are the tick rates of clocks A and B?

Unknown until actually tested.

i.e. you have no viable theory that allows you to make useful predictions, which means no physical theory at all.

* Are A and B synchronised? i.e. do they tick at the same rate?

Not known until actually tested.

This is in clear contradiction to what you said previously in this thread. You were confidently predicting that two clocks A and B travelling at the same relative speed to a third clock C, would tick at the same rate. But now, you don't know that they will do that. In other words, you have no viable theory of time dilation, since you can predict nothing mathematically.

Since radar is based on timing signals out and back using an onboard clock the onboard traveling car radar will record the parked car as moving away faster than 50 Mph.

The particular velocity a radar gun measures in ANY frame, according to you, would depend on the "true" speed of the radar gun, or its acceleration history, or something like that. Right? So, we can conclude that radar guns are not to be trusted. If you got booked for speeding, would you try your argument in court?

So, speedometers are impossible?

Hardly. However what they indicate may not be totally correct.

Yeah. We'd need to know all about the acceleration history of a car before we could calculate anything using a speedometer. Right?

So, you stand still and your radar gun measures my speed at 50 Mph west. Let's assume, like in your example, that you are moving east at 1000 mph and my car is driving east at 950 mph.

Questions:

* Have I got it right that your radar gun would measure my speed at 50 mph west?

The result from the radar gun is a function of acculated time on the onboard clock attached to the radar. Such that what it computes is a function of it's physical tick rate.

That is speculation until tested.

Yep. Of course. So, we are to conclude that radar guns are useless pieces of trash, since we can never know the entire acceleration history of an individual radar gun, and we don't know that the "common rest frame" was, and we can't ever know the "physical tick rate" of the radar gun's onboard clock.

Right?

The only problem is that for most everyday motion time dilation plays no role and we do not see nor can measure the affect so we go along content that relative velocity truely measures symmetrical.

That's not the only problem. The effects of the radar gun's "true" motion may be very very relevant. Maybe when it is sitting by the side of the road, it is really travelling at half the speed of light relative to the special "common local frame of rest" that we need to know about to determine time dilation rates.

* What would the speedometer on my car say in this case?

See above.

i.e. you have no theory that can predict what speed the speedometer of my car will show at any particular time.

* Is there any way I could tell from the measurements (radar guns and speedmeter) our actual speeds (1000 and 950 mph)? Bear in mind that the road may also be moving relative to something like the Sun.

See above.

Your answer is "No.", I take it.

But in your SR mathematics you apply a numerical sign to tell the mathe to increase or decrease clock tick rate.

No. The Lorentz factor in the time dilation equation depends on the squared magnitude of the velocity. Whether the velocity is positive or negative is irrelevant in the time dilation equation.

How do you justify a clock physically starting to tick slower and faster at the same time?

I don't know what you're talking about. Such a thing is never predicted by the theory of relativity, unless you're perhaps talking about two different frames. In which case, Pete's examples are very relevant. How can a city physically be closer and further away at the same time?

Correct. I understand that is your theory but that makes physical tick rate a function of observer perception and observers for "A" and "B" where they have relative velocity are not correct in their assumption that each is accumulating time slower than each other when in fact they have had equal acceleration from some common rest frame.

Their previous accelerations are irrelevant in the theory of relativity.

I don't follow your conclusions here at all. The problem is you like to mix everyday velocities with relavistic predictions. Most all velocities we deal with on a daily basis are not affected by relativity and relative velocity IS virtually symmetrical in our experiences.

Relativistic effects apply at ALL velocities, including everyday velocities. The effects may be smaller, but they don't go away. So, there's nothing wrong with using everyday examples. And I find they are very useful to show how flawed your reasoning (?) is.

I thought you would have learned after all these years that the entire theory of special relativity (for a start) is derived from only TWO postulates. From these two simple postulates, we get time dilation, velocity addition, "reciprocity", length contraction, relativity of simultaneity, and all the other good stuff you can't bring yourself to believe.

WEBSTER:

"Postulate" - 2) to assume without proof to be true or real, or necessary esp. as a basis for arguement.

Hmmmm. Hardly an over powering arguement.

Now you're being stupid. ALL scientific theories have postulates - unprovable assumptions that can be justified only by comparing the theoretical predictions derived from them with experimental results or observations of the real world.

The fact that special relativity makes so many accurate predictionswith only TWO postulates makes it one of the most compelling theories in physics.

If you had any guts, you'd attack one of the two postulates as being wrong, but you always dodge the issue. Well, semi-dodge it (see below).

What I have been proposing is that the invariance of light postulate is based on our ignorance and that what we think we see (measure) is actually based on an illusion caused by physics we yet do not understand and that in lieu of being invariant photons we are seeing different photons being generated.

So you're saying that it only looks as if the speed of light is constant, but it isn't "in reality", where "reality" means vague and useless "physics we yet do not understand"?

What is certainly NOT true is that Einstein could just add ad hoc mathematics to make things the way he wanted them. The velocity addition formula of special relativity is not an "extra" add-on to the theory. It is a direct and simply-derived consequence of the same two postulates. There's no choice in the maths once the two postulates have been specified. And they are exceedingly simple.

And potentially if not likely flawed.

Potentially? You hope for a flaw, you mean, but you've never been able to find one.

Similarly, the v=c speed limit is not something ADDED to the theory of relativity. It is a derived consequence of those same two postulates.

Covered above.

I don't think you understand the point at all.

Do you concede that your accusation that Einstein "invented the v=c speed limit" because he just wanted that is nonsense? Do you accept that it is a derived consequence of the two postulates of special relativity?

So what you're saying is that the theory you wish to replace relativity with doesn't apply to our universe, but only to a different universe at a "higher level" - an unknown fantasyland MacM universe that we have no way of detecting.

Correct?

It applies to all potential universes.

So, your answer is "yes".

 

[MacM]

So you keep saying. But, the fact is that this is what SR says, and that's where you should be addressing your arguments.

Any thought experiment in which you assume that SR does not say that the physical tick rate of clocks is frame dependent (like the one in the opening post) is a waste of time, because you are not addressing SR.

I appreciate what you are attempting to say but it is not a valid position. To take your position it would become impossible to challenge SR. Pointing out the inconsistancies of the SR predictions IS addressing SR. That is when I generate a scenario where SR predicts one thing but we know emperically that the results are different then SR has been falsified.

i.e - "A" and "B" are at relative rest and synchronized. "A" launches away from "B" to some inertial relative velocity putting it in a frame with "C". SR claims "A" became dilated relative to "B" and is now in synch with "C".

Emperical data supports that conclusion.

But if I now add additional information for example that "A" first was at relative rest with "C" which has an inertial relative velocity to "B" and then was launched to join "B's" frame, then "A" is ticking slower than "C" and is in synch with "B". Emperical data would support that conclusion.

Now if when "A" launched from "B" it's vector was back toward "C" then it must increase tick rate.

So in one view it is decreasing tick rate and by the same change in motion it must also increase in tick rate but strickly as a matter of arbitrary added information.

That is there is nothing to say that "A" first launched from "C". "C" may have existed all the time and in the first case when "A" launched from "B" to "C" it decreased tick rate.

See, you're doing it again. SR clearly says that time dilation is frame dependent. It doesn't say that "A" has a specific time dilation depending on how it has accelerated, it says that the time dilation of "A" depends on what frame of reference you consider it in.

And that claim can be shown to be false. Add digital transmiters to your clocks that broadcast their accumulated times as they pass through a marked course.

As "A" and "B" move through the course at whatever respective velocties and vectors any observer moving at any velocity will record that "A" and "B's" tick rates are based on their respective velocities to the course and not to each other.

SR quite clearly says that in A ticks very slowly in B's rest frame, B ticks very slowly in A's rest frame, and they both tick slowly in C's rest frame. Asserting anything else in the analysis just means that you are not analysing the consequences of SR.

SR does say that but the point is that is not what happens.

1 - Those predictions are mere mathematical extrapolations without any supporting emperical data.

2 - As pointed out above they are inconsistant if properly analyzed.

Nevertheless, it is exactly what SR says, and it is where you should be directing your argument. Anything else is a waste of time.

I do still disagree. I have pointed out what SR claims but also point out those predictions do not produce consistant emperical data. Using digital tracking it can be shown that tick rate is not observer dependant but is dependant upon "Actual" motion" not mere "Relative" motion between clocks.

Even SR as actually applied is not relative motion between clocks. It requires you consider who switched frames (i.e. - accelerted to some new velocity). Doing so you are now only applying the SR time dilation mathe to the clock that had "Actual" velocity and never to the resting clock.

Applying the math to the resting clock produces a prediction but that is shown to be a logical falicy and there is no emperical data to support that mathematical extrapolation.

This is where the real argument is. Show that it is physically impossible for time dilation to be truly frame dependent as dictated by SR. Stop wasting time by showing the impossible consequences of something else.

I do believe that is what I am doing.

Here's a challenge for you: Describe how your thought experiment pans out under what SR actually says, and explain why it is impossible.

In the scenario given above the tick rate of "A" can be predicted to both increase or decrease as a matter of arbitrarly added information about "C" frame but uses the same change in motion of "A".

The same physical cause cannot simultaneously produce opposite affects which is must since the issue of "C" being present or not is surperflous to the motion specified for "A".

 

[MacM]

I agree that relative velocity alone is not the cause. But operationally to measure "time dilation" Observer in A, Oa, must observe clocks in B tick as well as his own for some non zero time interval, Ia, as measured by A's own clocks (and conversely Observer, Ob, does the same for his time interval Ib).

To have these two intervals, there must be both a "begining" and "stopping" times in each of the two frames,

Sorry to cut this short but I don't see the merit to working through your entire post since in the outset it can be disproved.

Given clocks are equipped with digital transmitters that broadcast their accumulated time and position in a marked grid course, any observer anywhere in the universe moving at any velocity, that recieves the data can tell that the dilation of clocks "A" and "B" are a function of their respective motion to the grid and not to any relative velocity between each other.

"A" and "B" need not even have been synchronized since the remote observer can compute the rates of change in accumulated time as "A" and "B" cross new mile markers.

Since the grid spacing is known the remote observer also knows his own rate of time accumulation from marker to marker. There is complete transparancy of process here and any predictions about relative velocities between clocks are shown false.

The only predictions that can be justified are those made relative to a common initial inertial rest frame. In this case the grid.

 

[Pete]

I appreciate what you are attempting to say but it is not a valid position. To take your position it would become impossible to challenge SR. Pointing out the inconsistancies of the SR predictions IS addressing SR. That is when I generate a scenario where SR predicts one thing but we know emperically that the results are different then SR has been falsified.

But Mac, when you simply state that A and B are necessarily synchronized in all frames of reference, you aren't addressing SR. You aren't acknowledging what SR predicts at all.

i.e - "A" and "B" are at relative rest and synchronized. "A" launches away from "B" to some inertial relative velocity putting it in a frame with "C". SR claims "A" became dilated relative to "B" and is now in synch with "C".

Almost.
SR claims that A's tick rate becomes dilated in B's rest frame. To say that "A becomes dilated relative to B" is an imprecise shorthand which can be misinterpreted.

SR claims that the changes A's tick rate is different when considered in different reference frames. In C's rest frame, for example, A's tick rate was first dilated, then increased.

And that claim can be shown to be false. Add digital transmiters to your clocks that broadcast their accumulated times as they pass through a marked course.

As "A" and "B" move through the course at whatever respective velocties and vectors any observer moving at any velocity will record that "A" and "B's" tick rates are based on their respective velocities to the course and not to each other.

An empty assertion, Mac.
That experiment hasn't been carried out, so you don't know what the result would be.
You haven't analysed it in SR, so you don't know what SR predicts.

If you so analyse that scenario according to what SR says, you will find that there are no inconsistencies.
SR says that any observer (including A and B) would find that A and B's tick rates are based on their velocity relative to the observer.

SR does say that but the point is that is not what happens.

1 - Those predictions are mere mathematical extrapolations without any supporting emperical data.

So you keep saying, but you never argue it.

2 - As pointed out above they are inconsistent if properly analyzed.

No, you aren't analyzing it at all. You are simply not considering what SR predicts in the analysis of your scenarios, and until you do you are only wasting time.

I do still disagree. I have pointed out what SR claims but also point out those predictions do not produce consistant emperical data. Using digital tracking it can be shown that tick rate is not observer dependant but is dependant upon "Actual" motion" not mere "Relative" motion between clocks.

Even SR as actually applied is not relative motion between clocks. It requires you consider who switched frames (i.e. - accelerted to some new velocity). Doing so you are now only applying the SR time dilation mathe to the clock that had "Actual" velocity and never to the resting clock.

Applying the math to the resting clock produces a prediction but that is shown to be a logical falicy and there is no emperical data to support that mathematical extrapolation.

Mac, it's quite clear from those paragraphs that you don't know exactly what SR claims, and you don't how how to apply it.
For example, in the case of an accelerated clock you can happily consider a reference frame in which the unaccelerated clock's tick rate is dilated, and the accelerated clock's tick rate increased from dilated to normal.

I do believe that is what I am doing

And yet you continue to demonstrate that you are not.

The same physical cause cannot simultaneously produce opposite effects.

And this is the heart of the matter. You are not considering the possibility that tick rate (and simultaneousness) is a relative measure.

The same case can simultaneously produce opposite effects, if the effects in question are relative measures.

For example, consider applying the brakes on your car while traveling East at noon. What happens to the kinetic energy of the car?
In the obvious reference frame of the road, the kinetic energy of the car decreases.
But in the reference frame of the Sun, the kinetic energy of the car increases.

What's going on? What really happens to the car's kinetic energy?
The answer is that the kinetic energy of the car both increases and decreases at the same time, depending on the reference frame you choose to consider it in. This isn't an impossibility or a paradox, it is simply due to the nature of kinetic energy as a relative measure. And the same applies to a clock's tick rate.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

Posted by MacM:“ Permanently physically dilated means the clock that actually displays less accumulated time when directly compared without any "Illusion of Motion" perception. ”

James R Response:"You have no way to determine whether a clock has accelerated in the past or not, because you admit that there is no absolute standard of rest. Therefore, your "actual" accumulated times are no different from observed accumulated times, which makes the distinction you propose meaningless."

Just how do you skip from "Illusion of Motion" comment to some disertation about whether a clock has accelerated in the past or not?

Your mathematical predictions are based on extrapolating emperical data for known conditions into cases of unknown conditons. I suggest rather that such predictions are without any scientific base and that inclusion of digital transmiters broadcasting accumulated time and grid postion proves such predictions are false.

This is nonsense that may be true in MacM fantasyphysics land. In the real world of relativity, if A ticks slower than B in B's frame, then B will tick slower than A in A's frame. Therefore, there's no way to "monitor which clock is accumulating time faster", since the rate of accumulating time is, in reality, different in every frame.

Making declatory statements about what is real and referring to SR as the same proof is hardly a defense of the challenge to the issue. I wouldn't be saying what I do unless I knew what SR claims. It is those claims that are being challenged.

You have half adopted relativity yourself, in that you believe in time dilation. Why you believe time dilation happens at all is a bit of a mystery to me.

I would think since I have stated virtually in every thread the fact that time dialtion has been demonstrated as fact in thousands of tests might be one reason.

Of course I also hasten to point out that such data only supports the case where a clock has been accelerated and not the predicton that time dilation is a function of relative velocity between clocks such that a esting clock is physically dilated also.

But you only half believe it anyway, because you think it only happens in one direction, without what you call "reciprocity". You believe this even though there's no way to establish which of two given frames is to be "preferred" according to your criteria.

Here is where you fall off the turnip truck. Granted hypothetically one (according to SR) cannot determine who has motion unless acceleration histories from inception are known.

However that is not the crux of the issue. The issue is that you proceed from that fact to then claim postiviely that time dilation must therefore be recipocal between frames, even though you have no emperical data to support that conclusion.

Such claims are no more valid than to claim as I do that if properly tested one will find that one clock is ticking slower than the other unless they have had equal accelertion histories.

But you say "That disagrees with SR". Well, , "I Would Hope So" because that is the point. The claim made in SR is baseless and unsupported by emperical test data. Your view is no more founded than mine. And mine is more rational than yours.

In relativity, whenever a "v" appears in the Lorentz transformations or the in the definition of the Lorentz factor, or whatever, it ALWAYS represents relative velocity between two frames. There is no "v" for absolute velocities, and there are explicitly no preferred frames.

So, what you're dreaming about here is a mystery, too.

Re-consider the case where two clocks having digital transmitters are moving through a marked course broadcasting their accumulated time and grid location.

Any remote observer moving at any velocity can determine that the broadcasting clocks are dilated only by their motion to the grid and not each other.

Your unsupported, untested assertion that they are dilated realtive to each other does not hold water. Relative to each other means relative to their respective frames.

So, contrary to what you stated earlier, you now believe that tick rates cannot be determined by any kind of theory, but only directly measured experimentally. In other words, you have no theory of time dilation.

Why is it you always want to jump from the frying pan right into the fire? I have said no such thing. SR works fine but only for the accelerated frame (how you actually apply SR, test SR and have emperical data for SR). But it does not work fine to claim that because you don't know who accelerated that both frames must now become dilated relative to each other.

The only such dilation is "Illusion of Motion" while there is relative velocity and is not based on any physical reality. Absolutely like putting on those red glasses and then claiming the universe is actually physically red. The predicted reciprocity in SR, and by you, is without question not a physical possibility and is without any supporting emperical test data.

Why you continue to insist that it is real merely because it is predicted by SR is nothing short of amazing.

i.e. you have no viable theory that allows you to make useful predictions, which means no physical theory at all.

Absolutely untrue. You (and SR are the ones predicting things untested and unsupported. I am saying physical theory reuires you measurecto determine who accelerated. You wanted to claim that doesn't work but you have given no basis for that position.

My position agrees with SR data. That is that when the accelerted clock is known you can predict time dilation and it is emperically supported and that reciprocity physically exists is false.

You have no emperical data to suport your claim that I'm in error other than that is what SR claims. There is NO supporting data for reciprocity. So where do you get off trying to interject an untested , unsupported claim into our conversation as though it were absoute fact and I am wrong.

You can't and shouldn't. At most you should admit your limit and simply say but I prefer to believe in SR. You have absolutely no basis to claim I am in error.

This is in clear contradiction to what you said previously in this thread. You were confidently predicting that two clocks A and B travelling at the same relative speed to a third clock C, would tick at the same rate. But now, you don't know that they will do that. In other words, you have no viable theory of time dilation, since you can predict nothing mathematically.

Correction. I did mis-read your post. Yes if they are synchronized they do tick in unison. I read it as If they were (as in had once been synchronized) but then not knowing if they had moved do they sill tick in unison. My response was correct for my misinterpreation of what you had meant.

The particular velocity a radar gun measures in ANY frame, according to you, would depend on the "true" speed of the radar gun, or its acceleration history, or something like that. Right? So, we can conclude that radar guns are not to be trusted. If you got booked for speeding, would you try your argument in court?

Your basis of operation for radar is correct but your remaining post is ludricrus. We all know that one does not drive at speeds sufficient to produce measureable shift in the onboard clock of a moving radar cop car.

Yeah. We'd need to know all about the acceleration history of a car before we could calculate anything using a speedometer. Right?

The idea about a speed-o-meter is an interesting thing to look into. But only indirectly. That is since a speed-o-meter uses a mechanical gear rotating a cable shaft turning a magnet (orthogonal to the vehicle motion)
so as to create drag on a movable component beign supressed by a weak spring. It is unclear if the speed-o-meter woudl agree with a calculation by the traveling observer using his watch and the o-dometer to compute speed.

That is would a mechanical speed-o-meter be affected by time dilation - Hmmmmmmmmmm. You might be onto something here. You may have opened a real door to burying SR once and for all.

Yep. Of course. So, we are to conclude that radar guns are useless pieces of trash, since we can never know the entire acceleration history of an individual radar gun, and we don't know that the "common rest frame" was, and we can't ever know the "physical tick rate" of the radar gun's onboard clock.

Right?

Technically correct but not a viable arguement since you are not radaring object from luminal moving radars, etc.

That's not the only problem. The effects of the radar gun's "true" motion may be very very relevant. Maybe when it is sitting by the side of the road, it is really travelling at half the speed of light relative to the special "common local frame of rest" that we need to know about to determine time dilation rates. [/quote]

Not a likely problem since it is know that our solar system is moving relative to the rest of the universe in a direction at aveloicty on the order of 300km/sec or enough to cause a time dilation loss of only -4.3E-8 sec/day.

i.e. you have no theory that can predict what speed the speedometer of my car will show at any particular time.

Stop being silly.

 

[James R]

MacM:

You have developed a new fixation-of-the-moment, I see. Suddenly you imagine that "digital transmitters" will provide the solution to all of your problems.

Re-consider the case where two clocks having digital transmitters are moving through a marked course broadcasting their accumulated time and grid location.

In other words, they broadcast their proper times, measured in the moving frame, and ... what? Grid locations in the rest frame of the grid? Or grid locations in the moving frames of the clocks? Because the two sets of location information will be different due to length contraction of the grid in frames moving relative to the grid.

Any remote observer moving at any velocity can determine that the broadcasting clocks are dilated only by their motion to the grid and not each other.

How? You haven't even attempted to justify your assertion.

---

I would think since I have stated virtually in every thread the fact that time dialtion has been demonstrated as fact in thousands of tests might be one reason.

Of course I also hasten to point out that such data only supports the case where a clock has been accelerated and not the predicton that time dilation is a function of relative velocity between clocks such that a esting clock is physically dilated also.

Consider the classic test of muons created when cosmic rays hit the upper atmosphere.

* Do you agree that the muons' time is dilated in the ground frame?
* Please tell me when the muons and the ground were in a "common local rest frame".
* Please tell me when the muons accelerated relative to the ground (given that they were created in the upper atmosphere travelling at some speed relative to the ground).
* If length contraction does not happen, as you assert, then please explain from the muons' frame how they can reach the ground without decaying. Are the muons' clocks dilated in their own frame of reference, as well as in the ground frame? Or what?

Here is where you fall off the turnip truck. Granted hypothetically one (according to SR) cannot determine who has motion unless acceleration histories from inception are known.

Even knowing acceleration histories doesn't help, since there's no absolute standard of rest you can compare to. Agree?

The particular velocity a radar gun measures in ANY frame, according to you, would depend on the "true" speed of the radar gun, or its acceleration history, or something like that. Right? So, we can conclude that radar guns are not to be trusted. If you got booked for speeding, would you try your argument in court?

Your basis of operation for radar is correct but your remaining post is ludricrus. We all know that one does not drive at speeds sufficient to produce measureable shift in the onboard clock of a moving radar cop car.

We're not talking about practicalities of measurement here, MacM. We're talking about the theory. You think that radar guns are fundamentally inaccurate, even if the inaccuracy in practice may be too small to be noticed. Correct?

Yep. Of course. So, we are to conclude that radar guns are useless pieces of trash, since we can never know the entire acceleration history of an individual radar gun, and we don't know that the "common rest frame" was, and we can't ever know the "physical tick rate" of the radar gun's onboard clock.

Right?

Technically correct but not a viable arguement since you are not radaring object from luminal moving radars, etc.

You can't know that. How do you know the Earth hasn't some time in the past undergone an acceleration relative to the "local common rest frame", so that Earth is now moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light? If it had, it would really make those radar guns useless, wouldn't it?

Not a likely problem since it is know that our solar system is moving relative to the rest of the universe in a direction at aveloicty on the order of 300km/sec or enough to cause a time dilation loss of only -4.3E-8 sec/day.

That's only the speed of the solar system relative to the galactic centre, which is itself moving considerably faster relative to other galaxies. We really need to factor in the total motion of the galaxy relative to the "common local rest frame" to determine speeds or clock rates of any objects on Earth, don't we?

 

[James R]

MacM:

This one deserves a post of its own.

Let's go back to the three clock example. I'll give you two versions.

Version 1

Clocks A, B and C start at rest relative to one another and synchronised. A and B are then launched in opposite directions and accelerate until the speed of A is 0.6c and the speed of B is 0.6c in the opposite direction, in the frame of C.

Version 2

This scenario is exactly the same as Version 1, but we view everything from point D, which is initially moving at 0.6 c relative to C in the direction of A's final motion. In other words, in D's frame, the final speeds of the clocks are:

A: zero
C: 0.6 c.
B: 0.88c, in the same direction as C. (Here I used the SR velocity addition formula)

Now, notice that Version 1 is exactly equivalent to the very first scenario you talked about in this thread. You claimed that A and B would be synchronised IN ALL FRAMES, and that their tick rates would be the same in frame C.

In Version 2, which still has A and B starting from your favorite "local common rest frame" (C), I now want to know if A and B will still be ticking at the same rate in the frame of D. It is my understanding of your claims that you believe that A and B must still be synchronised in frame D, since synchronisation in one frame means synchronisation in all frames. Is that correct?

Also, I'd like to know if the tick rates of A and B are the same as each other in frame D, according to your "reality".

And are A and D are ticking at the same rate as each other after the accelerations? If they are, then is B ticking at the same rate as D, too?

 

[Billy T]

... clocks are equipped with digital transmitters that broadcast their accumulated time and position in a marked grid course...

I think you want me to assume the receiver of the digital transmissions is stationary wrt to the gird, or at least will not object if I do so, for clarity of discussion. I will call the receiver "C" and the velocity of A wrt C is Va and that of B is Vb. Also assuming, for clarity, that the speed of Va is greater than that of Vb but that their directions of travel are the same and that the clock of A is identical in construction to that of B (perhaps both are cesium atomic clocks).

Note the bold in your text. That implies accumulation from some time when the count was zero. or what I called ATb and BTb for the begin times of frame A & B's accumulation counters, but this is not important if C notes the differences in the digitally reported pulse counts that have occured say during the time reqired for the location (also reported in each digital msg) of A and B to have changed by exactly 1 mile on the grid. Let's call these pulse count differences Da & Db. It took C less time in C's time units to learn Da than to learn Db because Va > Vb and also, I think, because grid miles for A are more contracted than for B.

SR predicts that C finds that the clock of A is both running slower than the clock of B and both are running slower than his. (Slower = less ticks accumulated between mile marker crossings.) However the standard SR calculation for this time dilation does not give the observed results as the space between grid mile marker lines is less for A than for B.

Imagine that there are two mutually stationary grids in C's frame, one with broken lines (- - - - - ) and the other with solid lines. The space between the broken lines is shorter than between the solid line grid and that A uses only the broken line grid, and B only the solid line grid. Thus even if Va = Vb then Da < Db.

Point is, the way you have set the problem up is more complex to calculate. This difference in "grid contraction" must also be considered.

I gave the discussion above to clarify your new model and to make sure you understood the additional complexity (differential grid contraction) your new model introduces.

I must leave house now so will stop, but do not see how any of what you have stated contradicts SR or what I have stated.

Can you be a little more clear as to how this new "moving by a grid and digital transmission of current location and count" model shows SR is wrong or that I made some error?

 

[Pete]

I'm going to work up a tutorial that covers good old galilean relativity, so that people can learn about relative velocity, reference frames and spacetime diagrams without worrying about time dilation, length contraction, and simultaneity.

I think a lot of confusion about SR arises because not everyone has a good grasp of those basic concepts, and that many of us still struggle to escape the same mindset that Galileo was up against 400 years ago.

1600 A.D.