As I already explained in my example, that depends entirely on the frame you use to synchronize the clocks. Both observers will correctly argue that their measurements prove the other observer's clock was dilated.
We seem to be talking past one another. There is no choice of frames to synchronize. I said "Two clocks are at common rest and are synchronized......". They are in the same frame.
And yes both will "Observe" the other as dilated for as long as there is relative velocity but when they are once again in a common rest frame only one will be dilated relative to the other or they will both still be synchronized if both accelerate equally regrdless of whether they are co-moving (no rlative velocity) or in opposite directions and have maximum relative velocity.
The relative velocity they experience does not affect either clock physically. The "Actual Velocity" induced by acceleration does and the more acclerated clock will be dilated relative to the other.
Please confirm this fact or provide falsification.
Both observers are also free to disagree about when the other person's clock was started with respect to their own. The twin who stays at rest argues both clocks are synchronized at the start of the acceleration. The twin who accelerates argues that the "stationary" twin's clock started ticking too soon.
Sorry this makes no sense. They are synchronized side by side, no relative motion and no simultaneity shift. You seem to be trying to take a situation where you stumble acrosss something already having relative motion, go through some synchronization procedure and then claim to be able to predict who is dilated.
I would say that is fantasyland physics and can never be proven.
My response above already adresses this complaint. SR leaves zero ambiguity about how the clocks will compare at the start and finish of the experiment. At no point in the calculations does anyone need consider that "A is at absolute rest, B is in absolute motion" or vice versa. You can pick any frame you want to be the "rest frame", and the math says the clocks will still compare in the exact same way.
And I say hogwash. That is nothing more than a mathematical extrapolation of theory into an area never tested and for which there is no supporting emperical data.
In any case, I work with all kinds of particle data, and quite often the lab frame is not the most convenient frame to treat as the rest frame, it all depends on what the particles are doing and how fast they're moving.
Tell us what moving frame you have tested showing by emperical data that the lab frame became physically dilated once compared in a common rest frame. We wait your data.
Because this is the only issue I have raised. I have not objected to the "Illusion" during relative motion that both will appear dilated.
So then you acknowledge relativity is perfectly self-consistent, and doesn't leave any ambiguities as to how it's applied to solve real world problems?
As applied the math is ultra precise and should not be thrown out with the bath water. But it shouldn't be referred to as SR. It is more equivelent to LR but without the universal absolute rest frame. As applied the predictions consider who switched frames (accelerated and therefor has actual velocity, not mere relative velocity. There is no emperical data to support the arguement that the resting clock dilated relative to the traveling clock. That feature vanishes once the relative velocity vanishes. It is not a physical condition. It is like saying the universe is red because you put on red glasses.
You agree there's no experimental evidence to rule it out, even if you think there's something wrong with the experiments that verify it?
The only experiments I think are being mis-evaluated or pplied is that showing light to be invariant. I find it more rational to believe that is a phenomena of photon generation that is not yet understood where different observers are seeing different photons rather than all observers are seeing the same photon with an invariant quality.
Your argument is that all this space and time stuff is an illusion, and every experiment we do is just subject to this same illusion?
Not at all. The time dilation seems real enough but there is just no logic or support for time-space perse' That is spatial contraction is nothing more than a mathematical artifact from a forced and flawed construct.
You stipulated an accelerated clock is dilated but then once in the moving frame you treat clock ticks as being equal to a resting clock tick and since the moving clock accumulates less time you then justify it by saying he traveled less distance.
Whereas if you stipulate the axxelerated clock is dilated (physically ticking slower) compatred to the resting clock and treat it as physical in all frames the accumulated time of the moving clock for a trip is fully and correctly accounted for ONLY if distance remained fixed.
It is my position that in creating the "time-space" construct Einstien has you switch time standards between frames. i.e. - If accelerated to 0.6c, gamma = 1.25 and t = 1,000 ticks then t' = 800 ticks.
If you missed my car going between cities 60 miles apart let me know otherwise please comment on that scenario.
Ok, fine. I don't think it's an illusion, because I believe it explains an enormous amount of anomalous findings,
What findings (emperical data) do you suggest falsifies my view?
and there's nothing to contradict this viewpoint, no natural reason to rule it out.
Other than common sense backed by the fact that reciprocity has never been tested; hence there is no emperical support, nor does it appear testable; which standard applied to anyother theory falsifies it at face value.
Please tell us how you propose to test a situation where you observer two objects in space with relative velocity to each other where you will emperically prove each is physically dilated relative to the other.
I repeat "Physically", not "Appears". That is set up a grid and have them traverse the grid such that you have control over when data is compared to synchronize and subsequently test accumulated time and have them transmit a digital tally of accumulated time and tell me you have the capability to correctly predict the results.
YOU DO NOT.
Help me out here a bit. I'm having trouble seeing how your sense of logic should dictate the way nature chooses to work.
I have to say only that Einstien also dictated how nature should work. I am not making a comparison but it is a fact. SR is just theory. It seems mostly correct with respect to there being relavistic affects but in practice the basis "Relative Velocity" is ignored and you apply relativeity along the LR view where you select a preferred frame when it comes to actual testing and emperical data predictions.
I'd like to see just what your viewpoint adds to the discussion, what progress you've been able to make.
1 - I'm not sure I can say my view adds anything other than a bit of realisim to physics.
I doubt there is any, just like Lorentz got stuck with the aether a century ago.
Yes and I do not advocate a static aether either. I have made some suggestions about possibilities but they are backed by nothing but conjecture and the fact that they would seem to eliminate the numerous "Counter Intuitive" aspects of relativity.
Sorry, not going to buy into Mac's arguments just because Mac doesn't think a relativistic spacetime is plausible.
Yes and I don't suggest we should abandon relativity but to at least start being honest about it and stop being so defensive of any suggestion that perhaps it should be modified in some way.
1 - The first step would be to acknowledge what basic SR advocate includes a lot of "Transitional" affects (maybe you like that better than Illusions) but that to get emperical data showing physical affects one must consider who has actual motion vs mere relative motion.
2 - The second step would be to re-evaluate the concept itself of time-space and dwetermine what it means to have each observer calculate his own velocity using his own time standard and not assume conditions from another frame apply to that frame.
I'll be the first to admit that my view is more complex to work with but I don't think that should be a consideration, the consideration is what is more rational as a physical theory. You can continue to use what you hve as is but you need to explore the alternatives.
I just acknowledged your past as a means of explaining why your arguments will receive at least some considerations, whereas Quantum Quack's will be treated as if he doesn't know anything more about Relativity than the name of its inventor.
He He. For this forum that is great progress.
You misquoted me, I didn't say the stuff you attributed to me in this reply, it was AlphaNumeric. Please be more careful about who you quote saying what.
My bad and I know what it is like to have others put words in your mouth. Sorry.
One last point in my own defense. In contrast to the many names I've been called here, Crank, Crackpot, etc.., I am not entrenched into an idea. If anyone provides hard proof that the concept is flawed I would abandaon it forthwith.
However to date what I get is a series of snide innuendo, etc about intelligence, understanding, appeal to authority or "but SR says" type replies.
When features of SR are being challenged what SR says is not adequate rebuttal. There must be physical proof that the alternative is not consistant with emperical data.