Mac's Final Relativity Thread

[MacM]

MacM:I don't know what you're talking about. I bowed out of this conversation pages ago. You have not directly asked me about your issues with "frame switching" and "relative velocity". I don't even know what you're talking about. If you explain what the issue is, then I might be able to make a statement about it.

Interesting. Pretending to not know the question after argueing with you now for (5) years.

You know damn well what the issues are.

1 - You advocate that SR's claims that "Relative Veloicty" causes time dilation is a physiocal reality. I hve pointed out that that is not supported by emperical data.

Emperical data ONLY supports time dilation in an accelerted frame. What you refer to is "Illusion of Motion" where the affect vanishes once relative velocity has ended.

True time dilation is when a moving clock has accumulated less time than a resting clock.

The issue of "Moving" vs "Resting" when it comes to inertial veloicties is resolved by:

2 - SR applies the "Frame Switching" standard to break the inherent symmetry of a relative velocity view. Frame switching can only happen if one accelerates. The consideration of frame switching is stipulating who has "Axctual Velocity" vs mere "Relative Velocity" and hence is no longer applying relative veloictyv but a form of absolute velocity change.

Nothing wr5ong with doing that it is in fat necessary but the probelme is you refuse to recognize it for what it is. It is abandonement of Special Relativity and relative velocity as a cause in favor of a form of Lorentz Relativity where one has velocity and the other is always at rest.

You're constantly telling us about all the hundreds of supportive emails

More exaggeration and lies. Look at it folks I mention ONE physicist recently e-mailed mer and said he had read this thread and generally agreed.

from supposed physicists that you receive, and how people are planning to publish your ideas in peer-reviewed journals

More exaggeration and lies. I did post the fact that I recently received notice from an author that is publishing a paper that he had referenced UniKEF.

1 - I never knew much less stated what journal or anything about the peer review group.

2 - I repeat ONE author and I've never claimed I was going to be published, etc. In fact I have repeatedly stated that UniKEF is primarily food for thought and incomplete, not formalized at all.

(even though that never happens) and so on. To listen to you, you'd think that 90% of physicists support your crazy ideas, when in fact about 99.9999+% think you don't even understand relativity properly.

More exaggeration and lies. I have recently posted a few (maybe 5) e-mails from physicist that agree with me (I actually got 15 replies and 13 agreed) because you and others state falsely that I have no idea what I'm talking about and nobody agrees with me.

Yeah, accepting relativity is a worldwide conspiracy to put down innovative people like you. It's a massive 100 year coverup of the obvious flaws in relativity. Ho hum.[/quore]

Can you actually read? I just stated in plain english "I do NOT support the idea that there is a conspiracy". Do you really think you can just keep lying and people won't notice?

Are you surprised that qualified physicists get frustrated that you can't grasp the simplest concepts of the theory of special relativity, even after years and years of supposed thinking about them?

Aren't you surprised when qualified physicist have to make up crap and pretend they don't understand because they don't have actual direct bonafide rebuttal to the issues raised

If that thread hasn't been moved yet it is an oversight that will soon be corrected.

Don't bother. I can go back and post a whole list of threads in that catagory. Frequently shear nonsense, unscientific BS gets posted and stays in Physics and Math. But get a thread that raises actual questions about relativity and has it's arguements based on emperical data and you trash it.

So says you, ignoring a long history of careful explanations in a fruitless attempt to educate you.

So says you James R and readers have seen me post numerous sceanarios where TD and LC have been proeprly computed so you again are guilty of negative innuendo, lies, slander, texas two step dodge, etc.

It really is pathetic the trash you proclaim is supposed to be educational when I already know what SR claims and are posting opposition to it.

 

[MacM]

You are talking about when calculating distance traveled.

Not sure of your question here. It comes at the end of the entire post I made.

But I do talk about the unavoidable affect of physical relativity (not the reciprocity affect while in motion).

What evidence do you have that shows that SR ignores the time dilated rate?

It is in the very process. They declare that relative velocity is symmetrical while ignoring that velocity based on computation of v = ds / dt but then do not retain the stipulated time dilation between frames.

That is while having concluded that the moving frame accumulates less time (hence must be either time dilated or appear dilated due to length contraction) they treat 1 second in the moving frame as equivelent to 1 second in the resting frame t' = t.

If the accelerated frame had a velocity of 0.6c to the rest frame then it would have been dilated to 0.8 or tick only 8 times per 10 ticks of the resting frame clock. In which case t' = 0.8t.

When the accelerated clock accumulates less time as emperically demonstrated once relative velocity ends then it MUST have undergone some physical change.

Being physical it MUST remain physical in all frames. Physical conditions are NOT subject to observer perception. Observer perception can be decieved while in motion or at great distance but not locally while at common rest.

Regardless of you view of relativity one thing is unavoidable.

Given that the acelerated frame accumulates less time than the resting frame and that the moving observer cannot sense or measure a change in his time standard or meter stick length, he only knows he traversed between two points in less time which means

v' = ds / dt' and where dt' = 0.8dt v' = 1 / 0.8 = 1.25v.

In other words while the resting clock would say you are traveling 0.6c you would compute you have to be going or have gone 0.75c.

Ignoring the dilated condition of the accelerated clock is the ONLY basis to assert that distance has changed. If one retains the emperically demonstrated time dilation of the clock then distance MUST remain fixed otherwise time does not come out correct. Time for the trip is fully accounted for by either time dilation or length contraction but it is not sound physics to hold that these are observer dependant qualities and change as a matter of perception.

Something physical happens to cause a clock to accumulate less time. Being physical one must choose either time dilation of clocks (which makes more sense duev topossible energy functions with accelertion) or length contraction (which has never be observed and makes no sense).

 

[Billy T]

To James R:

MacM asserts:

...You {James R.} advocate that SR's claims that "Relative Velocity" causes time dilation is a “physical reality.” ...

I think this is his distortion of your POV, but will ask:

Do you think:

(1) There is a physical change in the moving frame? I.e. that the energy levels of cesium in an atomic clock are all less so that the radiation frequency is lowered and the clock takes longer to count # cycles and then declare a second has passed?

OR, like me (and my understanding of the standard SR Theory), that:

(2) The seconds of the moving frame are longer ONLY because the fixed frames seconds (and meter sticks when speaking of contraction in the moving frame) are used to describe the event, such as clock ticks, in the moving frame?

I gave MacM, several times, the following analogy to help him understand that using your standards to describe something of another realm or frame can lead to an SR like effect:

Back in the days when the yard was the distance from the king's nose to his finger tip, if the French king was short and describing his buying of English made rope, He very likely would say: "The English are fools. They sold me 115 yards of rope for the price of only 100 yards!" Point is there does not need to be ANY physical change when your time or length standards are use to describe time or length in another realm or frame.

In that same post 734, I also quoted and discussed phiti’s “photon travel time clock” as it also make clear that no physical effect in the moving frame is needed to explain and understand time in the moving frame is time dilated when compared to time in the stationary frame. (The one that the moving frames is moving wrt.) Phiti’s example is better than mine as it is not analogy, but a specific case of time dilation, making very clear why it occurs WITHOUT any physical changes in either frame.

I cannot see how anyone could believe there are real physical changes as that would mean even the energy levels of Hydrogen are changed and they can be predicted by Quantum THEORY to ~10 significant figures (in all frames, as physic the same in all inertial frames). How could a THEORY be changed by prior acceleration, to preserve this beautiful agreement with experiment?

So which is it James? Is MacM distorting your POV or do you agree with him that there is a physical change in the moving frame: Choice (1) above; Or do you agree with me that choice (2) above is both correct and what SR states?

PS
I know my posting here helps MacM keep his thread alive, but feel the need to try to avoid innocent new comers from being mislead, especially as MacM often states parts of his version of SR as if they were part of the standard SR version.

For example his post quoted at start does this. I.e. Standard SR does NOT assert there is a physical change, but does assert that ALL of the strange SR effects are caused ONLY by the current relative velocity. Thus, the SR effects do not depend on which frame accelerated away from the other in some earlier era and MUST be reciprocal effects as relative separation speed is the same form both frames.

 

[quantum_wave]

When the accelerated clock accumulates less time as emperically demonstrated once relative velocity ends then it MUST have undergone some physical change.

Sure, it functioned at a different energy density while there was a difference in relative velocity. If true then high energy density acts to slow the function of mass while low energy density acts like a lubricant to the functioning of mass . An accelerated clock moves slower.

As the difference in velocity is eliminated the clocks show different times as a result. This higher energy density would have to correspond with the change in mass of an accelerated object.

Being physical it MUST remain physical in all frames. Physical conditions are NOT subject to observer perception. Observer perception can be decieved while in motion or at great distance but not locally while at common rest.

Regardless of you view of relativity one thing is unavoidable.

Given that the acelerated frame accumulates less time than the resting frame and that the moving observer cannot sense or measure a change in his time standard or meter stick length, he only knows he traversed between two points in less time which means

v' = ds / dt' and where dt' = 0.8dt v' = 1 / 0.8 = 1.25v.

In other words while the resting clock would say you are traveling 0.6c you would compute you have to be going or have gone 0.75c.

I agree but I will have to lurk your thread a bit to see if I can overcome my ignorance of the particulars of both sides of the discussion.

Something physical happens to cause a clock to accumulate less time.

I'm with you there.

Being physical one must choose either time dilation of clocks (which makes more sense duev topossible energy functions with accelertion) or length contraction (which has never be observed and makes no sense).

Time dilation is physically observed by the difference in the time on the clocks when they re-enter the same frame. Length contraction has taken place while they were in different frames but original length has been restored when they re-enter the same frame. Why couldn't both be true?

 

[Billy T]

MacM said: "Something physical happens to cause a clock to accumulate less time."

...I'm with you there.

You should not be as there is nothing physically changed. See my last post, 743 to James R (or many prior ones). The moving clock was making fewer ticks than / compared to / the stationary clock tick rate on both the way out to the turn-a-round point and also on the way back so of course its total of ticks is less when it gets back.

If the turn-a-round point was 100miles from the final “start / reunion” point in the stationary observer’s frame, it was only say 80 miles of travel each way for the moving and returning “twin” so of course it too less time to make a 160 mile round trip.

Time dilation is physically observed by the difference in the time on the clocks when they re-enter the same frame. Length contraction has taken place while they were in different frames but original length has been restored when they re-enter the same frame. Why couldn't both be true?

Yes, both time dilation and space contraction are true as you suggest. In fact, to continue the prior example, if the distance to the turn-a-round point were NOT reduced for the traveler to only 80 miles, then there would be serious a problem for the moving frame guy: His cesium clock would need to be physically running slow to accumulate less ticks as both agree that:
(1) In their own frame, cesium atomic clocks define the same second.
(2) That their speed of mutual or relative separation is the same.

For the stationary guy, Reality is that the total trip was 200 miles and the moving clock was ticking slow.
For the moving guy, Reality is that the total trip was 160 miles and his moving clock was functioning perfectly.

Both of their POVs are correct in their own frame’s reality and both POVs explain why the clock that made the round trip is showing less time was required for the trip than the clock which remained stationary all the time.

,NO Physical Change required only both SR’s time dilation AND contraction. No need to postulate cesium energy levels physically change nor any need to modify quantum mechanics for each frame differently. -- That is problem for MacM to discuss, but of course he will not.

You are also correct with "physically OBSERVED" - Yes the time dilation of events, like clock ticks or number of heart beats in one of your minutes are less in the moving frame when you compare to yours. It is a reality in your frame that the moving frame has time dilation. Likewise it is a reality for the moving frame (when describing your clock tick rates by comparing to his own frame tick rates) that your clocks tick more slowly than his does.

Study phiti’s “photon travel time clock” in post 733. He illustrates the stationary frame’s reality in his “typed drawing.” I.e. the photon does NOT reflect at a 90 degree angle off the mirror in the reality of the stationary frame, so takes longer to make “one tick.” (Return back to the source.) Also image the moving frame’s reality – i.e. the one in which the photon reflects off the mirror at 90 degrees to retrace it path. In the moving frame, the reality is that 90 degree reflection, a shorter trip (sort of like the above 160 mile round trip was real for the moving guy) in his own frame so the clock is ticking perfectly.

 

[MacM]

MacM said: "Something physical happens to cause a clock to accumulate less time." You should not be as there is nothing physically changed. See my last post, 743 to James R (or many prior ones).

The moving clock was making fewer ticks than / compared to / the stationary clock tick rate on both the way out to the turn-a-round point and also on the way back so of course its total of ticks is less when it gets back.

If the turn-a-round point was 100miles from the final “start / reunion” point in the stationary observer’s frame, it was only say 80 miles of travel each way for the moving and returning “twin” so of course it too less time to make a 160 mile round trip.

And somehow this is not physical????

Yes, both time dilation and space contraction are true as you suggest. In fact, to continue the prior example, if the distance to the turn-a-round point were NOT reduced for the traveler to only 80 miles, then there would be serious a problem for the moving frame guy: His cesium clock would need to be physically running slow to accumulate less ticks as both agree that:

Billy T above:The moving clock was making fewer ticks than / compared to / the stationary clock tick rate on both the way out to the turn-a-round point and also on the way back so of course its total of ticks is less when it gets back.

First it does then it doesn't. You can't even post one post without flip-flopping.

(1) In their own frame, cesium atomic clocks define the same second.

So says who? You stipulate a clock is ticking slower in comparison but then when you go to that frame you switch standards and claim 1 second is still 1 second, not the dilated second you just stipulated.

(2) That their speed of mutual or relative separation is the same.

Prove it.

Do the simple math. I (MacM) travel 60 miles in 48 minutes by my clock. You (Billy T), being at rest, monitor my trip and time the trip as taking one hour.

Velocity according to observers:

MacM v = ds / dt = 60 / 0.75 hours = 80 Mph.

Billy T v = ds / dt = 60 / 1 hour = 60 Mph.

Now you want to claim distance changed for me. I'm telling you I measured and there was no change in distance. Did you see or measure such change? I didn't think so.

The only basis for such nonsense is the screwed up physics of merging time and space and ignoring emperical data which mandates something physical takes place and then have physical issues become observer perception dependant.

For the stationary guy, Reality is that the total trip was 200 miles and the moving clock was ticking slow. For the moving guy, Reality is that the total trip was 160 miles and his moving clock was functioning perfectly.

REALLY. Show us how I measured 160 miles and not 200 miles. Go ahead twit. You stuck your foot in it lets see you pull it out. The course was marked by mile markers and I clearly saw 100 mile markers whiz by going and returning. I even double checked and according to my o-dometer and meter stick nothing changed.

So just where does this silly conclusion of yours come from and by what scientific basis do you support it?

Both of their POVs are correct in their own frame’s reality and both POVs explain why the clock that made the round trip is showing less time was required for the trip than the clock which remained stationary all the time.

Sorry but this is untrue. In the moving frames POV he is and/or has traveled faster. He senses and measures no change in his clocks tick rate nor distance. He ONLY measures v = ds / dt which is a larger number than the resting frame computes.

,NO Physical Change required only both SR’s time dilation AND contraction. No need to postulate cesium energy levels physically change nor any need to modify quantum mechanics for each frame differently. -- That is problem for MacM to discuss, but of course he will not.

Oh but I have tried and all you want to do is tout the merits of SR's ludricrus concept and insist that physical reality is observer dependant.

You are also correct with "physically OBSERVED" - Yes the time dilation of events, like clock ticks or number of heart beats in one of your minutes are less in the moving frame when you compare to yours. It is a reality in your frame that the moving frame has time dilation. Likewise it is a reality for the moving frame (when describing your clock tick rates by comparing to his own frame tick rates) that your clocks tick more slowly than his does.

Flip-Flop. Also talking about reciprocity during relative motion. Not at issue here. ONLY the fact that the accelerated frame has accumulated less time than the resting clock once relative velocity ends is at issue.

Study phiti’s “photon travel time clock” in post 733. He illustrates the stationary frame’s reality in his “typed drawing.” I.e. the photon does NOT reflect at a 90 degree angle off the mirror in the reality of the stationary frame, so takes longer to make “one tick.” (Return back to the source.) Also image the moving frame’s reality – i.e. the one in which the photon reflects off the mirror at 90 degrees to retrace it path. In the moving frame, the reality is that 90 degree reflection, a shorter trip (sort of like the above 160 mile round trip was real for the moving guy) in his own frame so the clock is ticking perfectly.

Correction of this whole mess. The view of the resting or traveling observer does not alter the actual path (distance) the photon travels. The photon distance is the same in both frames. The only difference is perceptional. The moving frame does not sense or measure his inertial velocity displacement. That doesn't make it NOT exist.

If I know the distance between mirrors, as the resting observer I will measure the time of reflections to agree v = c. Therefore the concept that something changed is perceptional. The added distance traveled by the photon is provided by velocity of the carrier frame.

The fact is the photon has forward velocity; plus propgation velocity, which collectively keeps it in synch between mirrors. The traveling observer has the same forward velocity and therfore does not sense or measure it.

Failure to measure does not equal non-existance.

 

[quantum_wave]

MacM said: "Something physical happens to cause a clock to accumulate less time."

You should not be as there is nothing physically changed. See my last post, 743 to James R (or many prior ones). The moving clock was making fewer ticks than compared to the stationary clock tick rate on both the way out to the turn-a-round point and also on the way back so of course it total of tick is less when it gets back.

If the turn-a-round point was 100 miles from the final “start / reunion point” in the stationary observer’s frame, it was only say 80 miles of travel each way for the moving and returning “twin” so of course it took less time to make a 160 mile round trip.

This is the distance calculated by using the tick rate of each twin, i.e. 200 miles vs. 160 miles and I agree that they would disagree on the distance.

The slower tick rate is due to a physical difference between the moving clock and the stationary clock, i.e. the moving clock is ticking while it is length contracted and time dilated by acceleration. That is a physical difference that affects the tick rate relative to the stationary clock.

Yes, both time dilation and space contraction are true as you suggest. In fact, to continue the prior example, if the distance to the turn-a-round point were NOT reduced for the traveler to only 80 miles, then there would be serious a problem for the moving frame guy: His cesium clock would need to be *physically* running slow to accumulate less ticks …

I think it was running physically slower and so it accumulated less ticks.

as both agree that:
(1) In their own frame, cesium atomic clocks define the same second.
(2) That their speed of mutual or relative separation is the same.
For the stationary guy, Reality is that the total trip was 200 miles and the moving clock was ticking slow.

For the moving guy, Reality is that the total trip was 160 miles and his moving clock was functioning perfectly. Both of their POVs are correct in their own frame’s reality and both POVs explain why the clock that made the round trip is showing less time was required for the trip and the clock which stayed stationary all the time. NO Physical Change required on SR’s time dilation AND contraction. No need to postulate cesium energy levels physically change nor any need to modify quantum mechanics for each frame differently. -- That is problem for MacM to discuss, but of course he will not.

Oh darn, I hate to be on the wrong side of debates like this. But if you accelerate cesium it occupies less space, is length contracted, and has higher energy density IMHO. Unfortunately for me when it comes to this topic, I believe there is a physical change in the energy density of the matter. I believe that matter requires sufficient space to function normally and when the space is contracted by acceleration the matter functions differently, i.e. the cesium clock slows down while accelerating. The distance of the trip seems different for the twins based on their own clocks and true distance is adjusted for relativistic conservation of momentum. Something has to give in relativistic calculations vs. stationary situations and what “gives” in this case is the perceived distance travelled, the time it took to travel, the physical age of the travelers upon return, and the density of the mass of the traveler while accelerated.

So if I think like that do I agree with either of you? Or do I disagree with either or both?

 

[MacM]

This is the distance calculated by using the tick rate of each twin, i.e. 200 miles vs. 160 miles and I agree that they would disagree on the distance.

The slower tick rate is due to a physical difference between the moving clock and the stationary clock, i.e. the moving clock is ticking while it is length contracted and time dilated by acceleration. That is a physical difference that affects the tick rate relative to the stationary clock.
I think it was running physically slower and so it accumulated less ticks.
Oh darn, I hate to be on the wrong side of debates like this. But if you accelerate cesium it occupies less space, is length contracted, and has higher energy density IMHO. Unfortunately for me when it comes to this topic, I believe there is a physical change in the energy density of the matter. I believe that matter requires sufficient space to function normally and when the space is contracted by acceleration the matter functions differently, i.e. the cesium clock slows down while accelerating. The distance of the trip seems different for the twins based on their own clocks and true distance is adjusted for relativistic conservation of momentum. Something has to give in relativistic calculations vs. stationary situations and what “gives” in this case is the perceived distance travelled, the time it took to travel, the physical age of the travelers upon return, and the density of the mass of the traveler while accelerated.

So if I think like that do I agree with either of you? Or do I disagree with either or both?

Actually I believe you and I are very close. You mention the energy density of matter. While I don't discuss it much I too accept contraction of mass but not of spatial distance.

Actually I believe in spatial contraction but at a much lesser degree. I see matter and space as differnet concentrations of the same substance.

That is it is simular to the E=mc^2 ratio. Matter vs energy or space vs matter.

 

[MacM]

And for James R or others that like math vs reason. Here is some math from one of those "Hundreds" of physicist that agree with me.

Shsssh.

***************************Extract ********************
Dan,

..................................................................................

I personally do not think that the Lorentz transformation reflects a law of nature. See for example:

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO4PDF/V10N4ENG.PDF

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V11NO2PDF/V11N2ENG.PDF

.................................................................

Dr Engelhardt

*********************************************************

 

[quantum_wave]

Actually I believe you and I are very close. You mention the energy density of matter. While I don't discuss it much I too accept contraction of mass but not of spatial distance.

Actually I believe in spatial contraction but at a much lesser degree. I see matter and space as differnet concentrations of the same substance.

That is it is simular to the E=mc^2 ratio. Matter vs energy or space vs matter.

I think we could discuss that topic here in Pseudoscience without the demands of quantification that would be appropriate in the hard science forums like Physics and Math, or Astronomy and Cosmology. I'll just keep my eye on your thread and maybe when it gets settled in here we can talk ideas and speculation as they apply to increase of mass and reduction of space occupied by mass due to relativistic acceleration.

 

[phyti]

billy post 745:

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
Time dilation is physically observed by the difference in the time on the clocks when they re-enter the same frame. Length contraction has taken place while they were in different frames but original length has been restored when they re-enter the same frame.
Why couldn't both be true? ”

Yes, both time dilation and space contraction are true as you suggest.

If the A (astronaut) and E (earth) clocks are synchronized,
and the A-clock moves away from the E-clock,
and later rejoins the E-clock,
and the A-clock shows less time, i.e. a real physical difference,
what causes that?

If we assume the clocks always tick at the same rate, and nothing affects them, they should read the same.

 

[Billy T]

billy post 745:
If the A (astronaut) and E (earth) clocks are synchronized,
and the A-clock moves away from the E-clock,
and later rejoins the E-clock,
and the A-clock shows less time, i.e. a real physical difference,
what causes that?
If we assume the clocks always tick at the same rate, and nothing affects them, they should read the same.

Not if one travel a shorter distance. It is very much like your post 733 photon time clock, where the frame with the NOT 90 degree mirror reflection photon path is longer than the frame with the 90 degree mirror reflection angle.

Not if the duration of the trip was different for the two frame (the traveling twin aged less etc.)

Also, I am not sure what you mean to assert by "If the A (astronaut) and E (earth) clocks are synchronized."

(1)Certainly, at launch of A, A & E's clocks can both be showing 12:00 noon. Certainly later all E's clocks can be showing 12:53 PM. (2)Certainly at that later SAME time for E all of A's clocks (assume his rocket is 1Lyr long if you like with many clock spread over that 1 Lyr) can be showing 12:37 (as they are running slower when compared to E's clocks. (3)Certainly when all of A's clocks are showing 12:53 at that later SAME time for A all of E's clocks can be showing 12:37.

Now to uneducated humans there seems to be a definite conflict between (2) and (3) as we intuitively assume that at SAME time for E is the same as at SAME time for A Or in other words, we assume, based on our experiences that if event 1 and 2 are simultaneous of A, they are also simultaneous for B (or E), but like many of the intuitive "facts" we know (photon cannot go thru both slits, or knew the world is flat, sun goes around the earth, etc.) this too is a false "fact." Thus I add (4) to the above three "Certainities": (4)Certainly if A sets his clocks to show the same as E's all do A will complain: "Now they are not even sychronized with each other!"


SR demands more precise statements than humans are use to making, if there is any hope to getting it correct or even discussing it clearly.

For example, in MacM's recent post, 746, he challenges my assertion that both a & b moving wrt to the other NOW (never mind which experienced acceleration in the remote past) are separating at the same speed wrt the other by:

Prove it. Do the simple math. I (MacM) travel 60 miles in 48 minutes by my clock. You (Billy T), being at rest, monitor my trip and time the trip as taking one hour.

Velocity according to observers:
MacM v = ds / dt = 60 / 0.75 hours = 80 Mph.
Billy T v = ds / dt = 60 / 1 hour = 60 Mph.

Here about time and clocks MacM is clear: Trip takes a 48 minute by his clock and 60 minutes by my resting clock. However, MacM does not believe in contraction, so for him there is no need to be as clear as to whose "60miles" it is.

As he seems to be describing the MacM's time lapsed from Billy T's reality as contracted (48, not Billy T's 60 minutes). Thus, I will continue to describe the distance traveled from Billy T's reality: MacM's 60 miles is a contracted version of the Billy T reality distance. I.e. the separation between the "start" and "turn back" markers in Billy T's reality is 80/2 miles.

(MacM not clear on the "turn back" or "not" question, but it does not matter: If it was just a straight trip, then Billy T's brother is waiting at the finish line. Just "unfold" the "turn back" verion. I.e. there is a "mid pont" marker at 40 miles from the start marker in Billy T's reality and the "finish marker" is at 80 miles from the start maker in Billy T's reality. Billy T's brother at the finish line and will write down what his and MacM's clock show when MacM arrives at the finish line.) So I will continue the discussion assuming the "turn back" version you were discussing with your A & E.

Thus Billy T computes MacM a first receding and then returning at 80mph in agreement with MacM's own frame's reality that we are separating at 80 mph.
Billy T's 80mph = MacM's 80mph Q.E.D. Not the conflict that MacM achieves by accepting SR's time dilation and rejecting SR's space contraction.

Like James R and several other who know SR much better than I do, I have stopped responding to MacM directly, but when someone relative new and rational seems to be in danger of ignoring standard scientific discoveries and going with their more natural intuitive POV, I will if I have time and notice, try to get them thinking correctly again. I was doing this for DZion in several threads he has started related to his erroneous believe that despite the laws of thermodynamic it is possible to get useful energy (electric power etc.) for heat radiation of a single thermal source with no need of a colder one to reject waste heat to. I finally got him to understand that thermal radiation from the room falling on a photo cell also at room temperature will not produce electric power. He is however almost as self convinced as MacM that a single heat source can be produce electric power. (plans his inventions to show it etc.) so I have been forced to give up on him as I have with MacM. Some people just know they are right and 100,000 Ph.D. are just "brain washed" to the standard theory.

 

[James R]

MacM:

1 - You advocate that SR's claims that "Relative Veloicty" causes time dilation is a physiocal reality.

Viewing things from a different frame of reference "causes" time dilation, if you want to say things that way. Certainly, it is not "caused" by acceleration, because it is observed in inertial frames.

I have pointed out that that is not supported by emperical data.

So you keep claiming. I say there's 100 years+ of empirical data that supports relativity.

Emperical data ONLY supports time dilation in an accelerted frame.

Nonsense. Consider muons reaching the Earth's surface, for example.

What you refer to is "Illusion of Motion" where the affect vanishes once relative velocity has ended.

No. That's what you refer to.

True time dilation is when a moving clock has accumulated less time than a resting clock.

You're just seeking to redefine the term "time dilation" to suit yourself. I don't really care what your personal definition is. I'll use the one that physicists use, thanks.

2 - SR applies the "Frame Switching" standard to break the inherent symmetry of a relative velocity view. Frame switching can only happen if one accelerates.

I've never heard any physicist call this "frame switching" - only you.

What you're talking about, as far as I can tell, is the resolution of the classic twin paradox, which is a simple matter of realising that the motions of the two twins are not equivalent. The rest frame of the twin who stays on Earth never accelerates; the same is not true from the twin who goes away and then comes back.

The consideration of frame switching is stipulating who has "Axctual Velocity" vs mere "Relative Velocity" and hence is no longer applying relative veloictyv but a form of absolute velocity change.

Not at all. All that is considered in the twin paradox is whose motion was inertial and whose was not.


Billy T:

MacM asserts: I think this is his distortion of your POV, but will ask:

Do you think:

(1) There is a physical change in the moving frame? I.e. that the energy levels of cesium in an atomic clock are all less so that the radiation frequency is lowered and the clock takes longer to count # cycles and then declare a second has passed?

OR, like me (and my understanding of the standard SR Theory), that:

(2) The seconds of the moving frame are longer ONLY because the fixed frames seconds (and meter sticks when speaking of contraction in the moving frame) are used to describe the event, such as clock ticks, in the moving frame?

Of course I agree with you. Relativistic effects arise from viewing things in different frames of reference. MacM's idea of accelerations causing physical changes to energy levels etc. is completely wrong, for obvious reasons. If you view the energy levels (or whatever) from the rest frame of the object, you see no difference from normal.

MacM's idea incompatible with the idea that there are no preferred reference frames. He is trying opting to throw out a beautifully neat natural symmetry for a hodge-podge nonsense fantasy physics of his own making.

I cannot see how anyone could believe there are real physical changes as that would mean even the energy levels of Hydrogen are changed and they can be predicted by Quantum THEORY to ~10 significant figures (in all frames, as physic the same in all inertial frames). How could a THEORY be changed by prior acceleration, to preserve this beautiful agreement with experiment?

That's a good point. According to MacM, to predict the energy levels of hydrogen as measured on Earth, we really need to know the entire acceleration history of the Earth and all the hydrogen atoms from the big bang up to the time of observation. A clear nonsense.

So which is it James? Is MacM distorting your POV or do you agree with him that there is a physical change in the moving frame: Choice (1) above; Or do you agree with me that choice (2) above is both correct and what SR states?

In most cases you can probably safely assume that I disagree with anything MacM says. I'd hate to think his nuttiness is reflecting on me in any way.

I know my posting here helps MacM keep his thread alive, but feel the need to try to avoid innocent new comers from being mislead, especially as MacM often states parts of his version of SR as if they were part of the standard SR version.

The main problem is that MacM doesn't understand SR in the first place.

 

[MacM]

Not if one travel a shorter distance. It is very much like your post 733 photon time clock, where the frame with the NOT 90 degree mirror reflection photon path is longer than the frame with the 90 degree mirror reflection angle.

Not if the duration of the trip was different for the two frame (the traveling twin aged less etc.)

I have already pointed out the obvious fluke in this concept. The photon travels the saem distance in both frames. The only difference is the traveling observer doesn't "see" the forward motion. That does not make it vanish. It is still there.

Also as I pointed out knowing the distance between mirrors one will find that the reflection time is still v=c. Are you suggesting therfore that the greater distance means v>c? Likely not.

The simple truth is the extra distance is traversed using the forward velocoty or momentum of the carrier frame

Also, I am not sure what you mean to assert by "If the A (astronaut) and E (earth) clocks are synchronized."

(1)Certainly, at launch of A, A & E's clocks can both be showing 12:00 noon. Certainly later all E's clocks can be showing 12:53 PM. (2)Certainly at that later SAME time for E all of A's clocks (assume his rocket is 1Lyr long if you like with many clock spread over that 1 Lyr) can be showing 12:37 (as they are running slower when compared to E's clocks. (3)Certainly when all of A's clocks are showing 12:53 at that later SAME time for A all of E's clocks can be showing 12:37.

Here you go again. In the previous post you claimed time does not change that cesium clocks all tick the same and that the difference in accumulated time is distance.

Tell us just how distance plays any role here. You haven'tv definede and travel distance you have correctly just pinted out that the clock is accumulating less time than the resting clock. Travel distance has not been defined and is not at issue here.

The ony time distance could appear to have contracted is upon completeion of a trip that has been timed for comparison and "Assuming - WRONGFULLY" that both clocks ticked in synch.

Now to uneducated humans there seems to be a definite conflict between (2) and (3) as we intuitively assume that at SAME time for E is the same as at SAME time for A Or in other words, we assume, based on our experiences that if event 1 and 2 are simultaneous of A, they are also simultaneous for B (or E), but like many of the intuitive "facts" we know (photon cannot go thru both slits, or knew the world is flat, sun goes around the earth, etc.) this too is a false "fact." Thus I add (4) to the above three "Certainities": (4)Certainly if A sets his clocks to show the same as E's all do A will complain: "Now they are not even sychronized with each other!"

There you go again. Simultaneity need only be considered DURING relative motion or over great distances.

Further educated humans would not assume distance changed. They would take out their caluclators and press 60 miles divided by 48 minutes = 80 Mph.

SR demands more precise statements than humans are use to making, if there is any hope to getting it correct or even discussing it clearly.

For example, in MacM's recent post, 746, he challenges my assertion that both a & b moving wrt to the other NOW (never mind which experienced acceleration in the remote past) are separating at the same speed wrt the other by:

Here about time and clocks MacM is clear: Trip takes a 48 minute by his clock and 60 minutes by my resting clock. However, MacM does not believe in contraction, so for him there is no need to be as clear as to whose "60miles" it is.

Like I said educated humans would not assume distance changedthey would computre a higher velocity.

As he seems to be describing the MacM's time lapsed from Billy T's reality as contracted (48, not Billy T's 60 minutes). Thus, I will continue to describe the distance traveled from Billy T's reality: MacM's 60 miles is a contracted version of the Billy T reality distance. I.e. the separation between the "start" and "turn back" markers in Billy T's reality is 80/2 miles.

How would MacM's 60 miles be contracted sicne it was 60 miles from the start. You then state Billy T's reality is 80/2 or 40 miles. LEts see you said it took 1 hour so therefore you now say he traveled 40 MpPh?

It is assinine to even suggest distance is an observer dependant variable.

(MacM not clear on the "turn back" or "not" question, but it does not matter: If it was just a straight trip, then Billy T's brother is waiting at the finish line. Just "unfold" the "turn back" verion. I.e. there is a "mid pont" marker at 40 miles from the start marker in Billy T's reality and the "finish marker" is at 80 miles from the start maker in Billy T's reality. Billy T's brother at the finish line and will write down what his and MacM's clock show when MacM arrives at the finish line.) So I will continue the discussion assuming the "turn back" version you were discussing with your A & E.

MacM has given sufficient number of secenarios using one way trips to show that round trip has no bearing on results. You should stop referring to MacM unless you can remember what he has actually said.

Your posts are FULL of distortions and out right fabrications.

Thus Billy T computes MacM a first receding and then returning at 80mph in agreement with MacM's own frame's reality that we are separating at 80 mph. Not the conflict that MacM achieves by accepting SR's time dilation and rejecting SR's space contraction.

You do no such thing.

Like James R and several other who know SR much better than I do, I have stopped responding to MacM directly,

Only because I insist you post emperical data to support your assinine view and all you can do is recite theory and claim modern science says you are right. Well if you are right poost the god damn data.

but when someone relative new and rational seems to be in danger of ignoring standard scientific discoveries

Discoveries have emperical data. Letrs see you emperical data supporting relative velicty as a cause for time dialtion. Better yet that all clocks tick in unison and it is distance that varies. Go ahead post that data.

He is however almost as self convinced as MacM that a single heat source can be produce electric power. (plans his inventions to show it etc.) so I have been forced to give up on him as I have with MacM.

I demand you clarify that I have no part in your discussion about heat and available energy. Your post suggests I am of a simular mind and damn you Billy T in spite of you and James R's attempt to claim otherwise I do have considerable formal technical education, experience and achievements.

Some people just know they are right and 100,000 Ph.D. are just "brain washed" to the standard theory.

There was also a time when scientist believed the earth was the center of all universal motion and that the earth was flat. Were they brain washed or just wrong headed?

 

[MacM]

MacM:Viewing things from a different frame of reference "causes" time dilation, if you want to say things that way.

False, false ,false. You have just restricteed your comment to "Illuison of Motion" DURING relative motion.

I REPEAT FOR OTHERS AND FOR THE 900TH TIME - THIS IS NOT ABOUT OBSERVATIONS DURING RELATIVE MOTON. It is about the fact that an accelerated frame accumulates less time as demonstrated by emperical data once relative velocity has stopped.

[Certainly, it is not "caused" by acceleration, because it is observed in inertial frames.

Funny you should say that since I have not once claimed acceleration causes time dilation. Acceleration causes a change in absolute moton - i.e. causes relative velocity between an observer and his initial inertial rest frame. Which is where the only true time dilation has been demonstrated emperically. Not between him and other moving observers.

[So you keep claiming. I say there's 100 years+ of empirical data that supports relativity.

And NONE of which supports the inherent reciprocity of a mere relative velocity view.

All such data only supports the fact that the accelerated frame which must therefore have "Actua lVelocity" dilates, NEVER the resting clock predicted by SR.

[Nonsense. Consider muons reaching the Earth's surface, for example.

Consider:

1 - Muons are produced by cosmic radiation impinging into earths atmosphere and therefore have the velocity (energy) of their origin and at some point that radiation did accelerate.

2 - Muon ansitrophy to earth supports the concept of Lorentz Relativity more so than Einstien's Relativity since it has been discovered that you can compute the solar systems motion in the universe by muon absolute velocity against the CMB.

[No. That's what you refer to.

So if it is NOT an "Illusion of Motion" please provide us with emperical data showing that a resting clock is (was ) dilated compared to the accelerated clock once the relative velocity has ended.

Go ahead the ball is in your court. We are waiting.

[You're just seeking to redefine the term "time dilation" to suit yourself. I don't really care what your personal definition is. I'll use the one that physicists use, thanks.

I'm not redefining anything. I have concurred that your "Illusion of Motion" is real but ceases to exist once relative velocity ends.

Are you denying that there is emperical data showing clocks in accelerated frames accumulate less time than resting cocks? If so post your supporting data.

If not then it is my perogative to ignore your "Illusion of Motion" events and demand you address ONLY that emperically supported time dilation which is where there has been permanent change even in absence of relative moton.

It is not my problem that you are unable to comply.

I've never heard any physicist call this "frame switching" - only you.

\

What are you saying here. You have never heard of "Frame Switching"? I don't think so. The point is you have never heard a physicist tell the truth and that is "Frame Switching" is only achieved via acceleration and that that is a method of considering who has "Actual Velocity" breaking the symmetry and reciproicty of a mere relative velocity view.

In other words you switch from Einstien's relativity to Lorentz Relativity and try to claim proof of Einstein.

In the later case I agree with you modern physicist deliberately avoid making that connection because it destroys the "Relative Velocity" claim as a cause for real time dilation , even though it is physical reality.

[What you're talking about, as far as I can tell, is the resolution of the classic twin paradox, which is a simple matter of realising that the motions of the two twins are not equivalent. The rest frame of the twin who stays on Earth never accelerates; the same is not true from the twin who goes away and then comes back.

There you have said it. Was that so difficult. The twin that accelerates accumulates less time. Finally after (5) years we agree.

[Not at all. All that is considered in the twin paradox is whose motion was inertial and whose was not.

Double talk. non-inertial is accelerating. Acceleration did not cause the time dilation. The velocity induced by acceleration did.

[Billy T:Of course I agree with you. Relativistic effects arise from viewing things in different frames of reference.

Don't buy this crap folks. Real physical change does NOT occur because you are watching. While you are watching you may see things differently than they are but they are what they are in spite of your dillusions.

While in relative motion both see the other as dilated. That view is NOT supported by emperical data. It is nothing more than an "Illusion of Motion".

MacM's idea of accelerations causing physical changes to energy levels etc. is completely wrong, for obvious reasons. If you view the energy levels (or whatever) from the rest frame of the object, you see no difference from normal.

Why is it necessary to follow you around correcting your distortions. I HAVE NOT ONCE EVER CLAIMED ACCELERATION CAUSES PHYSICAL CHANGE. Acceleration causes absolute veloicty change and v"Actual" elocity causes physical change.

[MacM's idea incompatible with the idea that there are no preferred reference frames. He is trying opting to throw out a beautifully neat natural symmetry for a hodge-podge nonsense fantasy physics of his own making.

No I'm tryig to get folks to understand that what you preach is pure BS. i.e - to claim (as Billy T did) that educated people would conclude that distance had changed is an example of the ridiculus logic you want to apply.

It goes without any question that should I go 60 miles in 48 minutes by my o-dometer and clock and was unable to detect that my clock was ticking slow OR that distance was only really 48 miles, then I as an intelligent educated person would conclude that I was going 80 Mph.

The fact that you at rest timed the trip as 1 hour and measure the distance to be 60 miles means you would conclude I was traveling 60 Mph.

We would logically disagree of velocity not distance. Your theory makes wrongful assumptions all over the place.

[That's a good point. According to MacM, to predict the energy levels of hydrogen as measured on Earth, we really need to know the entire acceleration history of the Earth and all the hydrogen atoms from the big bang up to the time of observation. A clear nonsense.

That is NOT according to MacM. The energy depends on current velocity not historical velocities. The number of atomic vibrations have been affected by historical acceleration and velocities but not current energy.

[In most cases you can probably safely assume that I disagree with anything MacM says. I'd hate to think his nuttiness is reflecting on me in any way.

Your loss.

[The main problem is that MacM doesn't understand SR in the first place.

So says James R. The guy that has not posted direct rebuttal in (5) years.

Now do us favor and stop with the personal attacks and negative innuendo and just post emperical data to support your view.

Better yet I posted a couple of links to some papers. You will of course point out it isn't your favorite journals. But never mind there is math in there lets see you point out any specific errors in his work. It is easy to just blow off something verbally without actually rebutting it factually lets see you rebutt him. He says you and Einstien are wrong. Show him wrong.

If you can't just admit you can't.

 

[MacM]

Finally folks it is easy to deflect James R and Billy T's nonsense.

They claim distance foreshortens in the direction of motion.

So lets place two TNT sticks with equal fuse lengths in the following configuration:


*************************
*..........................................*
*./\fuse................................*
*..!.......................................*
*..!.......................................*
*.T.......................................*----------------> Frame velocity
*.N.......................................*
*.T.......................................*
*..........................................*
*..........................................*
*..T N T-----> fuse.................*
*..........................................*
**************************

According to them the fuse pointed in the direction of motion will become foreshortened. The one pointed to the orthogonal direction (90 degrees from motion) will not.

Therefore in one frme (the moving frame observers physics the TNT will go off simultaneously since he measures no change in fuse lengths.

In the resting frame view they must detonate at different times.

Now to make this interesting lets put a temperature sensor on the orthogonal fuse just before detonation and have it clip the fuses and stop the blast.

Lets put Billy T and James R in the pilot seat with the TNT underneath. Ready to gamble boys?

 

[James R]

Finally folks it is easy to deflect James R and Billy T's nonsense.

They claim distance foreshortens in the direction of motion.

So lets place two TNT sticks with equal fuse lengths in the following configuration:


*************************
*..........................................*
*./\fuse................................*
*..!.......................................*
*..!.......................................*
*.T.......................................*----------------> Frame velocity
*.N.......................................*
*.T.......................................*
*..........................................*
*..........................................*
*..T N T-----> fuse.................*
*..........................................*
**************************

According to them the fuse pointed in the direction of motion will become foreshortened. The one pointed to the orthogonal direction (90 degrees from motion) will not.

Therefore in one frme (the moving frame observers physics the TNT will go off simultaneously since he measures no change in fuse lengths.

In the resting frame view they must detonate at different times.

That's true, and a prediction of special relativity.

You have never understood the relativity of simultaneity and I don't expect you'll start now, but this isn't a bad example of it.

 

[James R]

MacM:Viewing things from a different frame of reference "causes" time dilation, if you want to say things that way.

False, false ,false. You have just restricteed your comment to "Illuison of Motion" DURING relative motion.

Your "illusion of motion" is nonsense. I'm not buying into it.

What are you saying here. You have never heard of "Frame Switching"?

Only from you.

In other words you switch from Einstien's relativity to Lorentz Relativity and try to claim proof of Einstein.

I don't know much about Lorentz relativity, and I would certainly never try to use it to prove Einstein's special relativity.

What you're talking about, as far as I can tell, is the resolution of the classic twin paradox, which is a simple matter of realising that the motions of the two twins are not equivalent. The rest frame of the twin who stays on Earth never accelerates; the same is not true from the twin who goes away and then comes back.

There you have said it. Was that so difficult. The twin that accelerates accumulates less time. Finally after (5) years we agree.

We agreed about this 5 years ago. You never understood why it happens, though.

Not at all. All that is considered in the twin paradox is whose motion was inertial and whose was not.

Double talk. non-inertial is accelerating. Acceleration did not cause the time dilation. The velocity induced by acceleration did.

According to my understanding of logic, if A causes B and B causes C then it follows that A causes C. Your understanding of logic is obviously different.

Don't buy this crap folks. Real physical change does NOT occur because you are watching.

Correct. It occurs when you change the reference frame you're watching from.

Why is it necessary to follow you around correcting your distortions. I HAVE NOT ONCE EVER CLAIMED ACCELERATION CAUSES PHYSICAL CHANGE. Acceleration causes absolute veloicty change and v"Actual" elocity causes physical change.

So you say acceleration (A) causes velocity change (B), and that velocity change (B) causes physical change (C), but you deny that acceleration (A) causes physical change (C).

Interesting MacM logic there. Not only are you trying to replace physics now, but also basic logic.

That is NOT according to MacM. The energy depends on current velocity not historical velocities.

Current velocity relative to what? Relative to your MacM fantasyphysics "common local rest frame", which requires that you know all the historical velocities. Duh!

 

[MacM]

That's true, and a prediction of special relativity.

You have never understood the relativity of simultaneity and I don't expect you'll start now, but this isn't a bad example of it.

WOW. James R has just said that in one frame the TNT detonates simultaneously bout in another frme it does not. Now considering tht the TNT was rigged to not detonate if the fuses were burning simultasneously it blows up in one frame and doesn't in the other. Seems a bit more than "Counter Intuitive" doesn't it.

Now if you believe (as I do ) that length contraction is nothing more than a mathematical artifact of a poorly constructed physical theory and that the emperical data supports time dilation of clocks then you can see that orientation of the fuses would have no affect on the physics between frames.

The burning process slows comperable with time dilation such that in the traveling frame I would still meaure a 3 minute fuse to take three minutes to burn the same as they burn in a resting frame.

The frames could have the TNT detonate at different times. That is accordingv to the resting observer you would think the 3 minute fuse took 4 minutes but the two sticks of TNT would still detonate at the same time. but not if you contract one fuse and not the other.

James R needs to re-think his response here. He can't just claim it is predicted by SR because that doesn't work.

 

[MacM]

Your "illusion of motion" is nonsense. I'm not buying into it.

Of course you don't but that is your problem. You can continue to argue that physical reality is subject to observer perception but that doesn't alter the fact on the ground which is that emperical data disagrees with you..

Only from you.

Then you are a liar about being educated and a physicist. It is standard in virtualy any discussion about relativty. It is as YOU mentioned above the accelertion of an observer.

So you have never herd of it but you rely on it as part of the solution to the twins paradox. Really sort of neat how you pick and choose what, and when you believe something.

I don't know much about Lorentz relativity, and I would certainly never try to use it to prove Einstein's special relativity.

Oh but you do you just don't know enough about the subject to understand what you are claiming. When you claim one twin has switched frames (accelerated) you are eliminating the reciproticy inherent in a mere relative velocity view.

You are putting the traveling twin in a preferred frame where the traveling twin can no longer claim he is at rest while trveling inertial and tht it is his stay at home brother that has the veloicty. Remember it is NOT the accelerton period that cause time dilation it is the veloicty induced by the acceleration.

That is a LOrentz Relativity feature. Preferred frames tht can't b e reverse - i.e. Just like GPS and teh ECI frame.

We agreed about this 5 years ago. You never understood why it happens, though.

So says James R. Wrongfully but your perogative. My posts atest to the fact that I understand relativity quite well.

According to my understanding of logic, if A causes B and B causes C then it follows that A causes C. Your understanding of logic is obviously different.

I should hope so. Your logic is that physical reality is subject to observer perception and that mere relative velocity causes physical change. Even though the resting clock has no cause to change.

Your logic has "Frame Switching" to resolve the issue by saying he was temporarily non-inertial, without recognizing that what you really mean is he accelerated and hence changed absolute velocity and you therfore are no longer just considering relative veloicty but actul veloicty of one observer.

Correct. It occurs when you change the reference frame you're watching from.

What a joke. We are watching from the same frame because it is ONLY the time dilation emperically demonstrated once relative veloicty ends that is being discussed. There are no different frames at the data collection point.

Get real for a change.

So you say acceleration (A) causes velocity change (B), and that velocity change (B) causes physical change (C), but you deny that acceleration (A) causes physical change (C).

Correct because you can theoretically accelerate a particle from 0 - 0.9999c in a matter of ms and then have the particletravel for ions. Guess what the time dilation is based on the velocity not the acceleration.

Acceleration causes veloicty and veloicty cause time dilation. If you have trouble with that then it is rather obvious why you have trouble seeing your way out ot the mess you are in.

Interesting MacM logic there. Not only are you trying to replace physics now, but also basic logic.

Since it is fact I would hope people make note of it. I can't help it if I'm right and you are wrong.

Current velocity relative to what? Relative to your MacM fantasyphysics "common local rest frame", which requires that you know all the historical velocities. Duh!

Bullshi_. When you accelerate what is your velocity relative to? Alpha Centrui, the Sun, Pluto or an inertial rest frame (v = 0) before acceleration?

If you haven't noticed yet having one TNT fuse foreshorten and not the other in one frame but both be the same length in another frame creates a bit of problem for physics is the same in all frames. Having time dilate s a physical reality does not.

Stop being such a dumbass jerk.