Mac's Final Relativity Thread

[James R]

Is this thread still going? Why bother?

 

[MacM]

post659

--Time dilation is a function of absolute velocity i.e. relative to light in a fixed frame. As mentioned, currently this cannot be determined. If A leaves B at .5c to the right (+x), it could be that A & B were moving to the left at .5c, therefore B is in fact moving at 0c. In SR there is no determination of how much dilation occurs until two clocks are rejoined.

OK. I actually only skimmed the rest of this paragraph because:

1 - You and I agree that something like an absolute motion and not mere relative velocity causes permanent physical change. However, I have to point out that if I instead launch -0.5c I might well also be now going 0c. or now -1.0c depending on the absolute )unknown) veloicty of the inertial rest condition. So it is not so straight forward and simple as that.

2 - I have also advocated the results from clocks that are return to a common rest frame for comparison. That makes the point easier to see. However, I have also posted scenarios where synchronized clocks pass each other and have them transmit digital information about their accumulated times at that point. It is the same result. In other words you don't have to re-join clocks to get the data. It doesn't alter the result.

Follow along for a bit. Assume light emission does leave a marker in the form of a radioactive particle that is not affected by anything else. Photons are emitted at random locations within a sphere 1 lyr in diameter. The markers can be detected and the distances from any one to all the others can be measured. The interesting property of the markers is they don't move, i.e. they represent a fixed frame. Now expand the sphere to include all events in the universe. If you could measure the speed of an object relative to a marker, it would be equivalent to measuring the speed relative to light speed. That object speed would yield the actual td. Until there is a method to do this, we only have relative td. For slow speeds and large mass ref frames, the relative td is probably close. Since I'm not convinced of 'expansion' of the universe as currently presented, it is not included here.

You seem to be setting the stage in a simular fashion to my having projected a 3D grid on to the observable universe. It becomes an absolute rest reference. But the problem is:

1 - In my case fnding objects at rest to the edge of the universe to tie the grid to since it is exxpanding.

2 - In your case is finding the center of the universe. Today itv appears we are at the center which makes no sense. The general view is there is no center but it is like being on the surface of an expanding ballon.

That of course means there is no edge either. There is only aour limit of view other wise we could look east and see thebald spot on the back of our heads.

--They all have td, if A&B return to C they have the most, if C moves to A&B C has the most. (one leg vs. two).

I don't buy this I have posted a scenario which demonstrates it does not matter who goes to who's frame. The data is the same. Now data can change if you are not careful how you move the observers.

-- The accumulated loss of time will will be greatest for A because it makes the two-legged trip.

A, B & C are at common inertial rest. A launches and accelerates in a short period such that we can ignore the acceleration period. He goes inertial at 0.2c to the common rest frame (B's current condition) after 1yr according to B, A suddenly stops.

According to SR we should expect that A's clock has accumulated only 11months, 22 days, 17 hours, 26 minutes, 11.58 seconds. (0.979795897 years)

At that juncture B launches to A and quickly reaches 0.99c and arrives at A after 1 month, 20 days, 18 hours, 49 minutes, 19.16 seconds (0.14106736 years) by his%2

 

[MacM]

Is this thread still going? Why bother?

Maybe because you might finally learn something. -

 

[Billy T]

You would of course be comparing that to SR's zillion different simultaneous time tick rates for a clock. Why do you have a problem with that and not with time dilation?

No, it is exact the same thing. Reality is not that a meter stick contracts a zillion different ways for the frame the meter is at rest in. Likewise the clocks of the frame the clock is at rest in do not tick at a zillion different ways. In both cases it is in the reality of another frame A that the stick contact 50% and the clocks slow down 50%, and the reality of frame B that they contract 50.0001% and slow down 50.0001% - Each frame has a different reality but each frame only gets one reality.

…Maybe you are starting to realize that relative velocity doesn't really cause physical change.

That has always been my POV for relative velocity, which you call “illusionary velocity,” for your “real velocity” and if you invent “green velocity” that will be my POV for it too. Again from many post back: All cesium clocks tick at the same intrinsic tick rate. They tick slower in some other frame’s reality. (Physics is the same/ energy levels are the same/ etc.) In their own frame muons ALWAYS decay at the same rate but in the earth’s frame the very fast ones produced by cosmic rays REALLY DO decay at a slower rate so reach the surface of the earth.

I have told you repeatedly that to assume relative veloicty produces a real physical change led to multiple tick rates, now multiple lengths. You want to object to lengths but were perfectly happy with mjltyiple time dilations. - Hmmmm.

You must be having reading trouble again. NEVER is there a contraction or a time dilation in the reality of the moving frame M itself. In ever other frame that Frame is REALLY CONTRACTED AND DILATED. The contraction is part of reality for the other frames only and different for each, but each only haws one percentage contraction and dilation for frame M.

If either time dilation or length contraction are real then the traveling observer traverses a 100 mile course in one hour if tick dilation or length is 50% such that he MUST compute his velocity (speed) was 100 Mph

You are not clear here as for whom the 100 mile course exists. If it is in the travels own frame, for example 100 miles between his home and a friends then yes going at a steady 100mph from home to visit his friend will take an hour.

Yet a resting observer sees him require 2 hours or computes was going 50 Mph. SORRY there is no alternative to this conclusion. I've been screaming about this now for several years and you seem to be starting to see the point.

If I understood you, then keep screaming as if it is some observe in some other frame see him and his friend house for that other observer the separation really is only 50 miles, not 100 miles. Again you are not clear enough for me to be sure what other frame the “resting observer” is in, etc.

C set his clock to 1 year the instant he received a confirmation signal transmitted 1 lyr away.

Yes that would be correct for C, but not for A (or B) as their reality is that the light signal did not travel 1 Lyr; but less as the distance it traveled was contracted. C added the seconds corresponding to one year – too many if light did not need to travel1 Lyr. That was my point (1).

…emperical data has demonstrated time and again a desynchronization of a clock that accelerates away from a resting click that were synchronized at common rest.

Yes, it is impossible to have clocks in two differ frames. At most only one clock can be in sync with one in another frame, but I will not get drug into this question (or the question of simultaneity –we will just need to agree to disagree if you think two simultaneous events in one frame can be simultaneous in another, or if you think all the clock in two frames can be synchronized together. I am not sure what your current POV is on either of these questions but you’re “A & B head to C” scenario strongly suggest you think that the starting of the three accumulators was at the same time. (It was only simultaneous for C and even then for C only via adding one year of seconds to his accumulator at t = 0. ) I agree that when all three were at C they stopped their accumulators at the same time.)

……ISSUE:
Given that either time dilation (clock tick rate) or distance via length contrction MUST provide a physical basis for emperical data indicating a moving clock accumulates less time how do you justify ignoring that the moving observer MUST compute a higher relative veloicty?

Higher than what? But it does not matter as both time dilation and contraction are NOT some physical change in the moving system, but a change in the reality of the other frame which compares the moving clocks and meter sticks to his. I.e the cosmic ray muons did not have any change in their frame. Their decay rate was that of all other muons in their frames. The reality for the muons is that earth’s atmosphere is less than 10 meters thick. – Easily crossed before most of them have time to decay. Each frame has its own reality, but physic is the same and lght speed is the same in all frames.
THERE IS NO PHYSICAL CHANGE. (Your "given that ... must have a physical basis" is false, so I can not discuss it further.)

SUMMARY: The strange SR effects come from one frame using it clocks or meter sticks to make a statements about another frame. E.g. by earth’s clocks (not the muon’s) the cosmic ray muons lived too long – had time "dilated" according to Erth's clocks applied to another frame's events.

 

[phyti]

post661macm

What is found is that the physical accumulated times are:

C = 56,764,800 seconds
A = 45,411,840 seconds
B = 45,411,840 seconds

This is in complete agreement with the predictions of the common rest frame.
A & B according to SR believe their relative velocity to be 0.88235c not the logical 1.2
based on .6c in opposite directions to C.

--Moving observers calculation and measurement of speeds is altered by time dilation and the choice of assuming a moving frame is a rest frame!

Based on that A predicted:
C = 45,411,840 seconds (this assumes SR's ludricrus assumption that A will see 0.6c to C
and not have a dilated clock, even though it is traversing 1 lyr in 1.44 years by his
clock which would compute to be 0.6944c not 0.6c.?
B = 12,885,884 seconds.
B predicts the same results for A and C.
But the ONLY valid prediction is the one that is made reference to the initial common
rest frame and NOT any made while in motion.

--In the fixed frame A & B will be closing at 1.2c, but nothing is moving faster than c.

Further it remains to be proven that A & B would compute 0.6c when they are seeing mile markers pass in 0.8 times as fast as they should or they would think they are going 0.75c regardless if the lesser accumulated time is due to TD or LC.

--An interesting point about velocities in space. The formula used for velocity composition (656) is symmetrical for either observer except for the sign,
and the speeds are independent of time dilation.

I do hope you got itv now because I WILL NOT repeat it again.
DO NOT come back with but A & B don't thik the other started simultaneously because what they think is irrelevant to the issue. The defacto simultaneous starting time of clocks
is. In contrast to your assertions that my view is silly consider this folks.

If A or B use any legitimate thoughtvprocess (assuming they actually see 0.6c not o,75c
that I argue) then they mightvwell conclude that since I see C approaching at 0.6c and B
approaching at 0.88235c then B must be moving 0.28235 relative to C hence B will have accumulated 54,455,123 seconds.

--I agree with you as to the calculated times and positions being fictitious, but in the real world if the values are used in a consistent manner they yield consistent results. Also SR does not make it mandatory that you assume you are at rest under all conditions. If you choose to be in motion and know SR, you avoid the anomalies and go on your way.

--my solution:
A is 1 ly left of C, B is 1 ly right of C:
per C:
A & B move 1 ly in 1.667 yr @ .6c, clocks read 1.333 yr at meeting
per A:
C moves .8 ly in 1.333 yr @ -.6c
synch signal from A reaches C at t = .8 ly/(1+.6) = .5 yr, C sets clock to 1 yr
time until meeting is 1.333-.5 = .833 yr.
time until meeting on C clock = (.833)*.8 = .666
C clock will read 1.666 at meeting
(small difference is rounding error)
per A:
sync signal arrives from B at t= .8*(2 ly/1.6)=1 yr
(no violation if we allow the signal to continue to A)
distance to B at t=1 is .33 yr * .88 = .294 ly
time since signal emitted from B = .294/(1-.88) = 2.45 yr
signal emitted at t = 1-2.45 = -1.45 yr
td @ .882c is .471
B clock will read .471*(1.33+1.45) = 1.31 yr
using lorentz transformations, t = 2.84, x = 2.50
Disregarding rounding errors they agree.

per B:
same as A except direction

 

[phyti]

billy t post 670

I much prefer the POV that it does not contract at all in my reality. It only contracts
(by one factor) in A's reality and (by another factor in B's reality)... Etc.

--I only used the 'idea' of length contraction as an example of scaling, i.e. if the clock rate is less by 10%, and your mind and biological processes are less by 10%, you will not be able to detect the slower clock rate in your frame, so your clock seems normal. I did not say length contraction physically occurs.

How can my rocket ship actually contract by a zillion different factors at the same time?

--I have used similar arguments against length contraction.

Thus such a false analogy, which changes the essential constant speed for all observers
of a light wave into a water wave does not show anything about light waves.

-- The common property is that the speed of the water wave and light wave are independent of any objects in the water or in space. That's as far as the analogy goes.

I do NOT think so. The observer traveling with the muons, finds that the decay at the SAME rate as the observer who measured them in an Earth lab. (Physics is same in all inertial frames shows this.)

--That's because his clock is slow, as explained above. The observer in the lab sees BOTH modes of behavior, and they are different, and the motion and resulting td explains that difference.

From the muon's frame POV, Earth has a very thin atmosphere to pass thru, less than 10 feet thick.

--and here you are using length contraction, which you don't accept per your quote,

"I much prefer the POV that it does not contract at all in my reality".

How does the muon frame viewer conclude space is contracted because of his clock reading?
We can explain the slow clock in terms of physical processes, but there are no known rules of physics to explain spatial distances changing. If you know of any, tell me.
Also, we can adjust clocks to run slower or faster, so their rates are not invariant.

What do you think of post 612?

--I prefer problems stated in a simple manner, without extraneous or complicated details.
So I read it and ignored it, thus have no opinion.

 

[Billy T]

...The common property is that the speed of the water wave and light wave are independent of any objects in the water or in space.

I understood your original post differently but this seems simply wrong. If glass is in the space where the light is traveling it travels at approximately 2/3 of its speed in vacuum.

...and here you are using length contraction, which you don't accept per your quote,
"I much prefer the POV that it does not contract at all in my reality".

You misunderstood what I said. In the earth, or more specifically, the atmosphere’s own frame there is no contraction. There is never any time dilation or contraction in your own frame – only in the reality of OTHER frames does your frame object contract and your clocks tick more slowly. Thus, of course, you should prefer that the atmosphere does not contract as you are in its frame (Here I am assuming you are not a cosmic ray produced muon.)

...We can explain the slow clock in terms of physical processes, but there are no known rules of physics to explain spatial distances changing. If you know of any, tell me.

Both you and MacM error, IMHO, to look for some “physical process” to explain EITHER time dilation or contraction as NEITHER TAKES PLACE in the frame of the clock or the meter stick. These SR effects are real for all other frames but due not to some physical cause, but due your strong bias towards using your clocks and meter stick which are not stationary in the frame you then say (and it is true for your) has slow clocks and contracted meter sticks. This follows directly and simply from the fact physics is the same in all inertial frames. For example, the energy levels of of cesium atoms are the same in all inertial frames so the frequency of the radiation cesium atoms emit is the same in all inertial frames, so when # of cycles of that identical radiation has been counted to define a second the second of all frames is identical to, (but not if compared to your “not in the frame” moving clock clock’s second. In that comparison the moving clock’s second will be longer than your second). Likewise, as light speed is the same in all frames, and as just shown, the second is too, the meter can be define in all frames as the fraction, f, of the distance light travels in one second, where of course “f” is the same in all frames. Hence the meter is the same in all frames, but again will be short in comparison to your “not in the frame” but moving wrt that frame meter.

Not only is this simple direct application of “Physic is the same in all frames,” but “reciprocity” directly follows also. I.e. everything you can do, the guy in the other frame can do too. I.e. his reality is that your meter stick has contracted and your clock is running slowly.

...Also, we can adjust clocks to run slower or faster, so their rates are not invariant.

Sure you can. For example cut off ¾ of the pendulum of a grandfather clock and it will run twice as fast and you will need to rewind the weights twice as often but it no longer will be a correct time telling clock. I must be missing your point here if there was one.

...I prefer problems stated in a simple manner, without extraneous or complicated details.

So do I. It does not get any more simple than stated above (and still be correct.) All you need to understand about SR is that it is statements about the reality of things in OTHER frame for you in your frame and has perfect symmetry ( “reciprocity” if you like that term) as depends only on the relative velocity of the two frames. (That is everything is the same for the other frame guy when he makes statements about your frame’s clocks and meter sticks as your velocity wrt to him is same except for minus sign and that drops out as only v^2 occurs in the time dilation and contraction equatons.)

...So I read it and ignored it, thus have no opinion.

It is not any more complex than required to expose the non-sense of using ancient history and CRFs instead of standard SR theory. Here is a quick summary of the Scenario:

Clocks a&b go from mutual rest in Frame C to Frame P which is moving at 0.6C wrt C. They stay on a table there 100 years and then together leave P’s table for final frames, but rocket transporting clock a lost some fuel during the 100 years so ended up in frame A with only 0.05C wrt to P but clock b ends in frame B with 0.15C wrt P. (this is to give them ~0.1 relative speed for all eternity)

This is “case 1” as b never move in on the table nor does a during the 100 years. “Case 2” is identical except b moves on the table very slowly constantly during the 100 years. (This is to change what is MacM’s ;last CRF from case 1’s P to C. I.e. that tiny 1 m in 100 years move of b on the table makes MacM insert velocities wrt C in case 2 int the SR formulae and they are 0.6C larger than he inserts in case 1 as on case 1 the last CRF is P, not C. So a 1m move on the table, so slow that humans can not even see it watching for 8 hours, completely changes the computed time dilations of the two cases when clocks are in their final, eternal, inertial states, say a million years after they left the table.

That is not much to read. And point is even explained in that scenario paragraph!

 

[MacM]

--Moving observers calculation and measurement of speeds is altered by time dilation and the choice of assuming a moving frame is a rest frame!

That is according to SR. However, the recipocal views are not supported by any actual emperical data. The only data available is that of a moving frame.

In the fixed frame A & B will be closing at 1.2c, but nothing is moving faster than c.

Correct because it sees each closing to itself at 0.6 but C's view that A & B must be closing at 1.2c is based on standard 2+2 = 4 math and not Einstien's 2+2 = 3 math -

An interesting point about velocities in space. The formula used for velocity composition (656) is symmetrical for either observer except for the sign, and the speeds are independent of time dilation.

Yes, interesting. I have not seen anybodyelse point outvthe obvious and that is according to emperical data a moving observer MUST compute a higher relative veloicty. My comments were directed at A & C and B & C where one was at rest and the othe in motion such that velocity addition and the fact tht both were in motion was not considered.

As to the compound affect between A & B. Where each is moving 0.6 to a common point and have a 0.88235c according to SR then each traveling observers computations of v = ds/dt using their clocks which no tick at 0.47059 or gamma = 2.125 meaning they must compute 2.125 x 0.88235c = 1.875c!!!!

An FTL number prohibited by the very theory that causes that calculation by an observer. That is even more interesting. -

--I agree with you as to the calculated times and positions being fictitious, but in the real world if the values are used in a consistent manner they yield consistent results.

Put into plain English: "If you are very selective of which predictions of SR you actually try to use you will get consistant results". Of course it is very useful tool to be able to ignore those aspects of a theory that are inconsistant and then claim historical consistancy.

Also SR does not make it mandatory that you assume you are at rest under all conditions. If you choose to be in motion and know SR, you avoid the anomalies and go on your way.

Not so, you cannot arbitrairly choose which is the physical reality. Don't mis-understand what I'm saying. Of course you can choose that you are in motion even though you have remained at rest however it is not true and you will not get supporting emperial data for you claims.

--my solution:
A is 1 ly left of C, B is 1 ly right of C:
per C:
A & B move 1 ly in 1.667 yr @ .6c, clocks read 1.333 yr at meeting

Correct

per A:
C moves .8 ly in 1.333 yr @ -.6c
synch signal from A reaches C at t = .8 ly/(1+.6) = .5 yr, C sets clock to 1 yr
time until meeting is 1.333-.5 = .833 yr.
time until meeting on C clock = (.833)*.8 = .666
C clock will read 1.666 at meeting
(small difference is rounding error)
per A:
sync signal arrives from B at t= .8*(2 ly/1.6)=1 yr

I don't follow this.

1 - It is 2 years between A & B by light speed

2 - and only times 0.8 to "A" if "A" has 0.6c motion to dilate his clock. My impression here is that "A" is assuming he is at at rest?

3 - I concur that the physdical reality will be that "A" will be dilated and compute 0.8 x 2 yr = 1.6 years to get the singal but that is not what SR would say. At least I don't think so.

(no violation if we allow the signal to continue to A)
distance to B at t=1 is .33 yr * .88 = .294 ly
time since signal emitted from B = .294/(1-.88) = 2.45 yr
signal emitted at t = 1-2.45 = -1.45 yr
td @ .882c is .471
B clock will read .471*(1.33+1.45) = 1.31 yr
using lorentz transformations, t = 2.84, x = 2.50
Disregarding rounding errors they agree.

per B:
same as A except direction

\

I can't respond to the rest until I have clarification as to who is being considered in motion by you and if actual motion is as I had described it between A & C and B & C.

 

[MacM]

No, it is exact the same thing. Reality is not that a meter stick contracts a zillion different ways for the frame the meter is at rest in. Likewise the clocks of the frame the clock is at rest in do not tick at a zillion different ways. In both cases it the reality of another frame A that the stick contact 50% and the clocks slow down 50%, and the reality of frame B that they contract 50.0001% and slow down 50.0001% - Each frame has a different reality but each frame only get one reality.

You are making us sea sick with your waffeling. First you say the only reality is the remote observers views. That there is no physical change in the resting frame according to that observer. You ignore that I note that the moving observer "CANNOT SENSE OR MEASURE ANY CHANGE IN HIS OWN FRAME" but that is entirely different and an important difference than "THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE MOVING FRAME" combined with "THE REALITY IS THE REAL CHANGE IS IN THE REMOTE OBSERVERS FRAME."

The red is physics the blue is bullshi_. Double talk and inconsistant physics. The physical reality is what is supported by emperical data and that is the RED view point. The change is physically real in the moving frame but is unmeasureable. That is why the moving observer MUST conclude his relative veloicty is higher. v = dfs/dt and he makes the trip in less accumulated time when he does not and cannot seanse or measure a change in clock tick rate or distance constracton.

My physics are consistant with emperical data. Yours and SR's is not.

You are not clear here as for whom the 100 mile course exists. If it is in the travels own frame, for example 100 miles between his home and a friends then yes going at a steady 100mph from home to visit his friend will take an hour.

If I understood you, then keep screaming as if it is some observe in some other frame see him and his friend house for that other observer the separation really is only 50 miles, not 100 miles. Again you are not clear enough for me to be sure what other frame the “resting observer” is in, etc.

Give me a break. I said it is 100 miles between cities. That means 100 miles between cities. I then clearly lay out the sceanrio where there are two or three views of the trip. One where the clock is dilated (due to battery not velocity for simplification). Which shows that the observer with a dilated (running slow watch) will compute a higher velocity.

Now it doesn't matter if TD is or is not the cause. If it IS LC then the affect is still the same. The dilated observer makes the trip in less time than he could have and since he cannot measure any changes i.e. - to him he still went 100 miles in 1 hour which means he will compute he was going 100Mph.

Now answer that question does an observer in a dilated frame compute a higher velocity since he makes the trip is less time and does not and cannot sense or measure any changes in his frame?

YES/NO? YES/NO? YES/NO? NO MORE BULLSHJI_ , NO MORE PROCRASTINATION SAYING YOU DON'T UNDERTAND.

Yes that would be correct for C, but not for A (or B) as their reality is that the light signal did not travel 1 Lyr; but less as the distance it traveled was contracted. C added the seconds corresponding to one year – too many if light did not need to travel1 Lyr. That was my point (1).

When are you going to learn it doesn't make a damn about what "A" & "B" think or what seems real to them. The only thing that counts is the ultimate emperical data which only supports a view made from the common rest frame - period. Because it matters not what frame you go to to compare data the data is unaffected by frame.

Yes, it is impossible to have clocks in two differ frames. At most only one clock can be in sync with one in another frame, but I will not get drug into this question (or the question of simultaneity –we will just need to agree to disagree if you think two simultaneous events in one frame can be simultaneous in another, or if you think all the clock in two frames can be synchronized together. I am not sure what your current POV is on either of these questions but you’re “A & B head to C” scenario strongly suggest you think that the starting of the three accumulators was at the same time. (It was only simultaneous for C and even then for C only via adding one year of seconds to his accumulator at t = 0. ) I agree that when all three were at C they stopped their accumulators at the same time.)

Oh, I'm sure you don't want this arguement since I properly have used light signals to synchronize clocks and since your simultaneity is only a perception of movign frames and not linked to the common rest fram,e where the emperical; data is xcomputed and demonstrated. Your computatin in the moving frames are NOT supported by emperical data. So I am sure indeed you don't want drug into that issue becaue it shows you are wrong.

Higher than what? But it does not matter as both time dilation and contraction are NOT some physical change in the moving system, but a change in the reality of the other frame which compares the moving clocks and meter sticks to his. I.e the cosmic ray muons did not have any change in their frame. Their decay rate was that of all other muons in their frames. The reality for the muons is that earth’s atmosphere is less than 10 meters thick. – Easily crossed before most of them have time to decay. Each frame has its own reality, but physic is the same and lght speed is the same in all frames.

More bullshi_ double talk, since the only emperical data you have after 100 years is for data collected in the restiing frame. " Higher than what"? Are you brain dead or just deliberately being obtuse? Of coures just as I clearly stated the moving observer with a dilated watch computed 100 Mph vs the resting observer that computed 50 Mph or his travel along buddy that made SR's nonsense arguement "No you only went 50 miles" even though they drove dside by side 100 miles.

THERE IS NO PHYSICAL CHANGE. (Your "given that ... must have a physical basis" is false, so I can not discuss it further.)

Of course I forgot in SR we don't need physical "CAUSES" to produce physical "AFFECTS" - :shrug: The fact that the moving frame will demonstrate to having caccumulated less time (a physical affect) happened because others in other frame said that is how it looks. Of course that is:

1 - Ludricrus

2 - Brings you back to the moving frame having to have a zillion differnt accumulated times to support those zillion different view points.

If you keep going in cirlces you are going to pass out and hurt yourself when you fall down.

You can argue there is no physical affect inthe moving frame but that does not square with physical reality and emperical data. Get real.

 

[Billy T]

You are making us sea sick with your waffeling. First you say the only reality is the remote observers views. That there is no physical change in the resting frame according to that observer. You ignore that I note that the moving observer "CANNOT SENSE OR MEASURE ANY CHANGE IN HIS OWN FRAME" but that is entirely different and an important difference than "THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE MOVING FRAME" combined with "THE REALITY IS THE REAL CHANGE IS IN THE REMOTE OBSERVERS FRAME."

The red is physics the blue is bullshi_. Double talk and inconsistant physics....

No you just do not understand plan English, the red states that there is no change for the observer in his own frame. The blue is stating EXACTLY the same thing. - I.E. that there is no change in the moving frame as all the changes are in all the other frames that see the frame moving, not the frame of the mover, not in his own frame NEVER.

I even illustrated this by noting that there is no change in the frame of the cosmic ray muons - there life time is unchanged. But their reality of the earth frame is that the atmosphere is less than 10 meters thick I.e. for the muons, and anyone traveling with them, there is no change in the muon frame but their reality of any different frame (such as the earth frame) is very different than the earth observer of his own Earth frame.

I do not know how to state it more clearly. Hope you get it this time. Never any change in your own frame but your relaity of ALL other frames is different from the people stationary in all those other frames.

It is late for me -I'll try to get back to the rest tomorrow, but you have so badly understood what I am stating that it probably has no point in doing so.

 

[stargazzer]

Heres a thought gentlemen...Imagine two guys resolved to, a duo. Now, before the event is to take place the witness's request that while standing back to back the
participents are to simutaneously fire a shot into the sky. The witness's are kean on the relativity buisness for the day and have pen and paper handy. As well the event was hugely advertised , theres a big crowd, and as luck would have it its right after church on Sunday . With good obedience the participents for the duo fire the shots. Both bullets have mini clocks and are set identically along with a clock on hand with the eager witness's. The shots are fired with bullets travelling at the speed of light , and the bullets are programmed to circle the earth 3 times , reduce speed on the third circle and
return to the point of fire. The participents are also eager and I guess you could say programmed to walk 10 steps each turn and fire. Of course the shots fired initially return before the participents achieve the 10 steps and the crowd are now at an ambience of
hush and a still quite is in the air anticipating the dreaded neccesity of this murderous event. The bullets are retrieved and there is an arguement about the setting of all three clocks due to the results. The arguement becomes so heated that the participents in the duo become distracted to the point of forgetting about the duo.
Everyone becomes confused and it is consistant with the results of these clocks.
The clock in Bullet #1 is showing a different time than the clock in Bullet #2
The clock on the ground shows yet another time. I have to have my supper now and will finish the story tommorow. I hope it gives something to look forward to and I know I can hardly wait to finish the gruesome ending

 

[MacM]

No you just do not understand plan English, the red states that there is no change for the observer in his own frame.

The blue is stating EXACTLY the same thing. - I.E. that there is no change in the moving frame

as all the changes are in all the other frames that see the frame moving, not the frame of the mover, not in his own frame NEVER.

Finally a decent sized post. I'll attempt to go through it. If it were your typical (3) pager I would not have.

1 - The red is not precisely what I have said. Read it again. Why would you post that and make it appear you are teaching? I made it very clear the moving observer cannot sense or measure any changes be they TD or LC in his frame. That is the only proper description of physics in that frame - Inability to detect any change. It does not state there is no change as you want to imply.

2 - The blue does not say the same thing. That is your lack english or reading comprehension. How on earth can you say it says the same thing. It make a statement AS fact that is not only not supported by emperical data but is shown false by emperical data. Data show the moving frame dilates for real not just while in motion.

3 - Then you end up repeating this assinine arguement that the reality is based on multiple observers views. That re-institues multiple TD or LC conditions as physical reality. But you are talking bullshi_ because what you want to call reality is not even in the active frame it is all possible viewer perceptions "Illusions of motions" frames about the moving frame.

4 - Being unable to detect change in ones own frame BTW unavoidably means he would compute a higher relative velocity since he made the trip in less time.

Further it mandates you recognize physical change which requires physical cause and not just somebody watching's reality. It is local reality to his (the moving) frame and that is supported by emperical data.

I suggest you acknowledge that and deal with it because it is completely counter to your false arguements. A question you still have not addressed.

There is ONLY one frame EVER affected physically and it is the moving frame. IT is the only real physics frame. OMG get your head out of that dark smelly spot before you sufficate.

I even illustrated this by noting that there is no change in the frame of the cosmic ray muons

Please post your supporting data for this statement.

- there life time is unchanged. But their reality of the earth frame is that the atmosphere is less than 10 meters thick I.e. for the muons, and anyone traveling with them, there is no change in the muon frame but their reality of any different frame (such as the earth frame) is very different than the earth observer of his own Earth frame.

Oh yes things are different. The muon either ticks slowr (it's frame) or it traveled less distance (it's frame). I got no idea what you are babbling about that the changes are not in the muon's frame.

It is merely that they could not measure them. In our frame they take to long to reach earth therefore the change is NOT in our frame as you keep errorneously saying.

Not to re-mention the fact that I posted a link to a recent finding that muon ansitrophy suggests that in fact muon life time is better calculated using an absolute velocity to the CMB than relative velocity to earth. I'm not claiming this is the answer I am merely noting that you have simply ignored the finding I posted.

I do not know how to state it more clearly. Hope you get it this time. Never any change in your own frame but your relaity of

I said in the first posts on the issue so why would you think I need to FINALLY get it as you put it. You are the one that in the later half FINALLY needs to get it and that is that the emperical data is in complete disagreement with what your are claiming. You need to learn and deal with it.

ALL other frames is different from the people stationary in all those other frames.

You are re-instituting that ludricrus arguement that the reality is what other see while in relative motion and not what your frame is actually doing. It is an assinine , stupid arguement which is not only not supportewd by emperical data but is contridicted by emperical data. You need to stop claiming it. It makes you look stupid.

It is late for me -I'll try to get back to the rest tomorrow, but you have so badly understood what I am stating that it probably has no point in doing so.

I understand perfectly.

1 - AS I SAID BEFORE YOU: A moving observer does not and cannot sense or measure any changes in his frame. However that does not mean they are not there it is just that the instruments by which you would measure such things as TD or LC are the very instruments that would be affected.

So a case of "Absence of Evidence" does not equate to "Evidence of Absence".

2 - I understand that you want to apply the above principle which is totally unscientific and in conflict with emperical data, to argue the nonsinsical SR view that the ONLY reality is the views of the remote observers. Which is utter nonsense and completely UNPHYSICAL.

Remote observers have no cause to produce an affect anywhere.

 

[MacM]

Heres a thought gentlemen...Imagine two guys resolved to, a duo. Now, before the event is to take place the witness's request that while standing back to back the
participents are to simutaneously fire a shot into the sky. The witness's are kean on the relativity buisness for the day and have pen and paper handy. As well the event was hugely advertised , theres a big crowd, and as luck would have it its right after church on Sunday . With good obedience the participents for the duo fire the shots. Both bullets have mini clocks and are set identically along with a clock on hand with the eager witness's. The shots are fired with bullets travelling at the speed of light , and the bullets are programmed to circle the earth 3 times , reduce speed on the third circle and
return to the point of fire. The participents are also eager and I guess you could say programmed to walk 10 steps each turn and fire. Of course the shots fired initially return before the participents achieve the 10 steps and the crowd are now at an ambience of
hush and a still quite is in the air anticipating the dreaded neccesity of this murderous event. The bullets are retrieved and there is an arguement about the setting of all three clocks due to the results. The arguement becomes so heated that the participents in the duo become distracted to the point of forgetting about the duo.
Everyone becomes confused and it is consistant with the results of these clocks.
The clock in Bullet #1 is showing a different time than the clock in Bullet #2
The clock on the ground shows yet another time. I have to have my supper now and will finish the story tommorow. I hope it gives something to look forward to and I know I can hardly wait to finish the gruesome ending

Hello,

I see this is your 5th post. So welcome. I read your sceanario looking for some possible intriguing new paradox.

1 -You are merely interjecting the Sagnac affect into the firing of the bullets.
But you did not specify orientation of the firings. That is they could have been standing North and South.

2 - More importantly your story lacks scientific basis. That is the averge human walking pace is 1.556 feet/sec to 1.98 ft/sec depending on age and gender.

a - You haven't specified gender or age.

2 - It doesn't mater since the bullets would have circumvented the earth 9 -12 times before a human would move 10 feet.

3 - What keeps the bullets following the curvature of earth? The speed of light is 25,717,959.7 to 27,945,971.1 times Earth's escape velocity depending if you launch East or West.

 

[Billy T]

... Further it mandates you recognize physical change which requires physical cause and not just somebody watching's reality. It is local reality to his (the moving) frame and that is supported by emperical data.
I suggest you acknowledge that and deal with it because it is completely counter to your false arguements. A question you still have not addressed.
There is ONLY one frame EVER affected physically and it is the moving frame. IT is the only real physics frame. OMG get your head out of that dark smelly spot before you sufficate. ...

NO, I have "addressed it." I have already responded / "dealt with" / shown how silly it is to think that there is any change in the moving frame M.
For example: my prior response from post 684 was:

... Reality is not that a meter stick contracts a zillion different ways for the frame the meter is at rest in. Likewise the clocks of the frame the clock is at rest in do not tick at a zillion different ways. In both cases it is in the reality of another frame A that the stick contact 50% and the clocks slow down 50%, and the reality of frame B that they contract 50.0001% and slow down 50.0001% - Each frame has a different reality but each frame only gets one reality.

I.e. you are in the silly position of stating that the moving frame M has physical change that contracts it 50.0001% and at the same time contracts it at 50% and at the same time contracts it 72%, and at the same time contract it 17% etc. etc. for a zillion other contraction ratio.

My POV is that there is no physical contraction of the meter sticks in moving frame M. Hence no need to postulate any physics cause for what does not happen. It is however true/ part of the reality/ for frame B that the meter sticks in frame M are 50.0001% contracted. Likewise, It is however true/ part of the reality/ for frame A that the meter sticks in frame M are 50% contracted. I.e. as I said before, Every frame but M has a different REAL contraction for meter stick in frame M, but only one contraction ratio to each frame, not your zillions of different contraction ratios all in frame M due to a zillion different “physical causes" all acting at the same time on the meter sticks in Frame M. Again as I stated in the summary of post 684:

SUMMARY: The strange SR effects come from one frame using it clocks or meter sticks to make a statements about another frame. E.g. by earth’s clocks (not the muon’s) the cosmic ray muons lived too long – had time "dilated" according to Earth's clocks applied to another frame's events.

… I got no idea what you are babbling about that the changes are not in the muon's frame.

I am sorry that you are dense, cannot understand the plain English I have repeatedly told you. AGAIN: There is no “physical cause” as there is NO CHANGE in the muon’s moving frame M. Read the SUMMARY (just above in my self quote) several times and perhaps you will understand what is the NON-PHYSICAL cause for the SR effects.

… It is merely that they could not measure them {the physical cause} In our frame they take too long to reach earth therefore the change is NOT in our frame as you keep errorneously saying.

I agree there is no physical change in our frame too as there is no physical change ANYWHERE. There is a change in the reality of our Earth frame about the facts of the muon frame (as you say the muons live too long in our frame). They REALLY do live too long by our clocks - This is our REALITY!
BUT NOT THE REALITY FOR OTHER FRAMES. For example:

If there were an observer moving towards earth along the same line as the muons are, but at 0.5C, not the muon’s ~ 1.0C, wrt the center of the Earth, then in his reality the muons would also be living too long, but not as much too long as the reality of the earth based observer.

You are silly in trying to say that there is a change in the muon frame M due to some “physical cause.” - How can it be making one change IN THE MUON FRAME for the earth based observer and yet another DIFFERENT change for the observer in the frame approaching Earth at 0.5C AT THE SAME TIME! (and a zillion other changes at the same time ALL IN THE MUON'S moving frame)????

Again, if you want to understand, cease with his sillyness about multiple simultaneous different physical changes in the moving frame.
Read the above post 684 SUMMARY until you have a less silly POV.

… You are re-instituting that ludricrus arguement that the reality is what other see while in relative motion and not what your frame is actually doing. It is an assinine , stupid arguement which is not only not supported by emperical data but is contridicted by emperical data. You need to stop claiming it. It makes you look stupid.

No it is consistent with all empirical data. It seems to me that my “ONLY one contraction per frame POV” and “NO physical causes” POV is self consistent, not contradictory as your “Zillion different physical causes all acting on the one frame at the same time” (the muon's frame for example) POV is - very self contradictory. (Unless you think multiple realities exist in each frame and for every observer in it.) I will let others judge which POV is “stupid.”

… AS I SAID BEFORE YOU: A moving observer does not and cannot sense or measure any changes in his frame. However that does not mean they are not there it is just that the instruments by which you would measure such things as TD or LC are the very instruments that would be affected.

I know this is your POV and agree that if it were true then the observer would not notice the physical changes in his frame as the instruments are effected. It is however strange that the meter stick, which is contracted 50.0001% for frame B mentioned in my second response to you above, can not detect the 50% contraction as in your POV all possible contractions are occurring in the moving frame M at the same time. If the difference between 50 & 50.0001% is too small for easy notice, use the meter stick that is contracted only 17%.

You seem to think that there is only the Earth frame E, and muon frame M. But there is a frame moving at 0.5C towards center of Earth (and a zillion others) which must have a different than Earth frame contraction acting on frame M also in your POV, even though the observers in Frame M can not detect any of these zillion differ contractions (unless the cheat and use the 17% contracted meter stick to measure an object in their frame which is contracted 50%)

Again your POV is silly as it postulates a zillion different physical causes, all acting at the same time on frame M, to produce real, but not observable in frame M zillion different REAL contractions in frame M’s meter sticks at the same time. Your POV would not be so silly if there were only two frames in the universe, but frames are just mathematical concepts and there are an infinite number of them. BTW that is more than the zillion different frames I have been mentioning. Thus your strange SR requires more than a zillion different physical causes producing more than a zillion different contractions (all real but not observable inside frame M) of frame M’s meter sticks at the same time.

…Please post your supporting data for this statement.{about my having previously posted that there is no change in the muon’s own frame, in contrast to MacM’s belief that there is a real change in the muon’s frame, but it is just not detectable as the instruments used to detect it would be effected too. (My prior post was answering MacM’s post, so to be complete I reproduce that too.)}

OK.Here is last part of post 684 again:

…ISSUE:
Given that either time dilation (clock tick rate) or distance via length contrction MUST provide a physical basis for emperical data indicating a moving clock accumulates less time how do you justify ignoring that the moving observer MUST compute a higher relative veloicty?

… both time dilation and contraction are NOT some physical change in the moving system, but a change in the reality of the other frame which compares the moving clocks and meter sticks to his. I.e the cosmic ray muons did not have any change in their frame. Their decay rate was that of all other muons in their frames. The reality for the muons is that earth’s atmosphere is less than 10 meters thick. – Easily crossed before most of them have time to decay. Each frame has its own reality, but physic is the same and light speed is the same in all frames.
THERE IS NO PHYSICAL CHANGE. (Your "given that ... must have a physical basis" is false, so I cannot discuss it further.)

SUMMARY: The strange SR effects come from one frame using it clocks or meter sticks to make a statements about another frame. E.g. by earth’s clocks (not the muon’s) the cosmic ray muons lived too long – had time "dilated" according to Erth's clocks applied to another frame's events.

As you did not read 684 here is some more showing I have been consistently stating the same thing (for years, long before 684):

No, it is exact the same thing. Reality is NOT that a meter stick contracts a zillion different ways for the frame the meter is at rest in. Likewise the clocks of the frame the clock is at rest in do not tick at a zillion different ways. In both cases it is in the reality of another frame A that the stick contact 50% and the clocks slow down 50%, and the reality of frame B that they contract 50.0001% and slow down 50.0001% - Each frame has a different reality but each frame only gets one reality.

That has always been my POV for relative velocity, which you call “illusionary velocity,” for your “real velocity” and if you invent “green velocity” that will be my POV for it too. Again from many post back: All cesium clocks tick at the same intrinsic tick rate. They tick slower in some other frame’s reality. (Physics is the same/ energy levels are the same/ etc.) In their own frame muons ALWAYS decay at the same rate but in the earth’s frame the very fast ones produced by cosmic rays REALLY DO decay at a slower rate so reach the surface of the earth.

You must be having reading trouble again. NEVER is there a contraction or a time dilation in the reality of the moving frame M itself. In every other frame that Frame is REALLY CONTRACTED AND DILATED. The contraction is part of reality for the other frames only and different for each, but each only haws one percentage contraction and dilation for frame M. …

 

[MacM]

NO, I have "addressed it." I have already responded / "dealt with" / shown how silly it is to think that there is any change in the moving frame M.

Sorry Billy T if you can't tell the difference between not being able to sense or measure change because your time standard or meter stick have changed then I can't help you. But the physical facts on the table are that the moving frame (and only the moving frame) are affected physically in that they demonstrate a permanent shift physically in accumulated time after having had relative velocity due to acceleration. That change is it accumulated less time during a trip compared to time recorded by the resting observer.

Frames of observers with mere relative velocity that did not accelerate do not change physically even though they may appear to change to the moving observer. That is the illusion of motion.

You cannot merely ignore the fact that the moving frame requires less time to make the trip. That is a physical change. Either his clock ran slow and was dilated or it appears dilated because he traveled less distance.

It is different than the apparent dilation seen of a resting frame by the moving observer. That affect vanishes when relative velocity ends.

Therefore the affect is linked to "Actual Velocity" induced by acceleration and not "Mere Relative Velocity" generated to every other observer in the universe.

There is one option left but it violates energy conservation. If as you say nothing physically changes in the moving frame then the traveling observer is right and he was traveling faster than you (the resting observer) says he did. Becuse that is the affect the physical changes have on the traveling observer since he cannot sense or measure such change he MUST conclude he traveled faster since v = ds/dt. However since a = F/m and v = at then fuel consumed in the different frames do not equal the same work.

Wk = F * d Power (energy) = Wk/t.

End of conversation.

The rest of your lengthy diatribe will not and cannot resolve this issue. You must first get a grasp on physical reality otherwise you are wasting your time.

I repeat: Not being able to sense or measure a change because your tools of measuremnt have changed does not mean there was no change. The change is dictated by the emperical data that shows the accelerated frame times a trip differently. The accelerated frame accumlates less time for the trip. That can only happen if either his clock dilates or appears to dilate because he traveled less distance.

Now address this physical reality and stop the nonsense. It did not happen just because somebodyelse was watching, it happens because something physically changes in the moving frame because the change is permanent when the relative velocity ends. Pick one - either one - TD or LC, I don't care but you must have a physical cause for a physical change.

 

[Quantum Quack]

possibly to highlight your point even more clearly add one more variation.

Two objects, one gets accellerated using it's own mass as fuel so it leaves half it's mass behind with the un-accelerated object.

Obviously the object that has less mass is the one that has the velocity in this relationship and treating their TD as relative is nonsense....

so not only has it got time dilation and so called length contraction it has physically less mass as well...

so to clarify which observer has the velocity use a mass sacrifice for acceleration and use the reduction in mass to show clearly which object has acquired velocity by giving the other object some of it's mass.

just a thought that might help....

 

[MacM]

possibly to highlight your point even more clearly add one more variation.

Two objects, one gets accellerated using it's own mass as fuel so it leaves half it's mass behind with the un-accelerated object.

Obviously the object that has less mass is the one that has the velocity in this relationship and treating their TD as relative is nonsense....

so not only has it got time dilation and so called length contraction it has physically less mass as well...

so to clarify which observer has the velocity use a mass sacrifice for acceleration and use the reduction in mass to show clearly which object has acquired velocity by giving the other object some of it's mass.

just a thought that might help....

I think I see what you are attempting to do and that is eliminate the energy error of the accelerated frame going faster. Yes/No?

If so I don't think that works because the F = ma gets less but over the integrated acceleration hence v = at will still be and average mass with an average F where Wk = F * d would be closer but still not correct. I think.

But in any case his refusal to recognize that the emperical data mandates a physical change in the moivng frame is telling. He is completely indoctrinated and will not accept anything not advocated by SR. Facts are not important only defending the flawed concept is.

 

[Billy T]

MacM your post 695 does not even try to address the fact that the universe has more than two frames, as I mentioned in my post 694. It has an infinite number of different frames and by your SR each is making a different “physical change” in “Frame M,” a frame which is moving with respect to them all. I mentioned a few in 694: I.e. By your version of SR, Frame A was causes a 50% contraction in M, Frame B was causing a 50.0001% contraction in M etc for “zillion” other contractions cause by a “zillion” other frames (one being 17%).

I think you will say: “NO, NO – only the frame M accelerated from is making the contraction in M” but this is silly too as if M is accelerating away for A along A’s x-axis and frame B’s x-axis is the same line as A’s x-axis, then M is accelerating away from B (and “zillion” other frames also) making contractions of both 50% and 50.0001% (and 17% for one of the others of the “zillions” etc.) all at the same time!

Then I think you may say: NO, NO – only the frame M was originally at rest in (The CRF) and then accelerated away from is making the contraction in M” the “zillion -1” other frames do not affect M.

Well if that is the case, and to keep it simple for you let’s just consider only two frames A & B, and M of course. All three are at mutual rest initially and occupy the same plain surface. Their Cartesian coordinate systems origins are called A(0,0) , B(0,0) and M(0,0). I will tell where their origins of A & B are by using using the coordinate the coordinate system of M:

Both A & B origins are on the y-axis of M. (I.e. their x-value is zero.) A & B are each one unit from M. Origin of A is at M(0, 1) and origin of B is at M(0, -1). I will even type draw a picture for you (The y-axis is vertical, as is usual in drawings.):

|
3
|
2
|
A
|
M ------1-------2------3------4-- (the x-axis) ---7------8-----9-- See how M is at (0,0); A is at (0,1) & B is at (0.-1)
|
B
|
-1
|
-2
|

Even you can understand a picture, I assume.

Now I hope you know there exists a right angle triangle with sides of 3 and 4 and hypotenuse of 5. I cannot type draw that for you, but will tell where the corners are: They are at (0,0) , (4,0) and at (4,3). That is the 4 side is along the x-axis, the 3 side is vertical, and the smallest angles’s point is at the origin M(0,0). Got it?

Now at the famous t = 0, frame M, and of course it origin, where a clock and ruler are and remain located, accelerates away from the, three way, mutual rest, condition along the hypotenuse of that triangle. M soon (when has only traveled 10 miles) is leaving the point (0,0) at a large fraction of C with no more acceleration ever.

Now its speed and acceleration wrt A & B are not exactly the same as wrt to (0,0).* So you say that produces different contractions in M as M did not accelerate away at exactly the same rate wrt A & B. For convenience, I will assume the same contraction as before. The “physical change” contraction induced by the acceleration away from A is 50% and that produced also in M, by the acceleration away from frame B is 50.0001% (Slightly more as the acceleration away from B is slightly more.*)

Now you may want to say, despite these different acceleration away from A& B that A & B are really the same frame. OK to counter that, I will assume, as I did in post 612 scenario, that B was not actually exactly at rest wrt to A & M. – It was moving at 1cm/ 10 billion years rate (B has moved less than 2 cm in the entire history of the universe.) – Do you think that “speed” makes any difference if A & B were separated by 2 light years? and M is inertial when only 10 miles from (0,0)?

If you do, then let me also tell you the direction of this extremely slow speed is perpendicular to M’s motion so it has no effect on the frame M by either standard SR or by MacM’s SR.

What say you to this simple case that by your version of SR, with it CRFs etc. has two different, but concurrent, “Physical Changes” in the moving frame M.
Can M really contract 50% and 50.0001% and 17% etc. all at the same time? Or is that just too silly for words?

------------------
*If you doubt this, imagine the graph’s units are Light Years. I.e. A and B are 2 light years apart. Then it should be clear that the distance from M to B is increasing more rapidly than from M to A as there will come a time when M, like A, is exactly one Lyr from the x-axis. Then the separation of M from A is only a horizontal line parallel to the x-axis; (No vertical separation) However at that time, the separation from B is that same horizontal line plus more, as then M is 2 Lyrs vertically separated from B also.

 

[MacM]

MacM your post 695 does not even try to address the fact that the universe has more than two frames, as I mentioned in my post 694. It has an infinite number of different frames and by your SR each is making a different “physical change” in “Frame M,” a frame which is moving with respect to them all. I mentioned a few in 694: I.e. By your version of SR, Frame A was causes a 50% contraction in M, Frame B was causing a 50.0001% contraction in M etc for “zillion” other contractions cause by a “zillion” other frames (one being 17%).

Like I said pull your head out of that dark smelly spot before you sufficate.

Those zillion other frames mean jack shit to physical relativity . The ONLY frames of importance in real physics is the accelerated frame vs it's initial inertial rest frame.

Until you recognize the requirement for a physical change in the accelerated frame to account for the fact that it accumulates less time physically vs it's rest frame then I'm done talking to you because it is a fruitless circle jerk of nonsense.

 

[phyti]

Bill T post 687

--When referring to 'space' we mean devoid of matter. We know there is an index for different materials that determines light speed for those materials. We know an observer in their own ref. frame measures things as 'normal'. We have been there and done all that!
If you check the lorentz transformations, you will see they allow for lengths to contract and expand.
As mentioned in the last post, there is no physical length change of objects,
only the apparent change due to simultaneous observation of points not simultaneous in the object ref. frame.
Time dilation is a physical change in all material objects because light is the
mediator between particles, and light moves with a constant finite speed independent of the source. If the material is in motion the light moves greater distances to accomplish a given process.
Every observer who has a velocity different from T the test subject, will
see/measure the rate of the (standard edition) T clock as different from their own clock. The reason T is not aware of a change in his clock is because he is moving with his clock and experiences the same effects.
question:
Alpha Centauri is about 4 ly distant. Traveling at .8c the distance appears contracted to 2.4 ly.
Do you want enough fuel for an 8 yr trip or a 5 yr trip?