MacM:
You have developed a new fixation-of-the-moment, I see. Suddenly you imagine that "digital transmitters" will provide the solution to all of your problems.
You are getting senile. I have used the digital arguement many times in the past. You were unaable then as you are now to defeat that approach.
In other words, they broadcast their proper times, measured in the moving frame, and ... what? Grid locations in the rest frame of the grid? Or grid locations in the moving frames of the clocks? Because the two sets of location information will be different due to length contraction of the grid in frames moving relative to the grid.
Now you have done it again you are showing your ignorance by assuming either you are smarter or that I am dumb. Both of which are baseless egotistical views on your part.
1 - Do not post BS rebuttals which you have failed to fully think through. I established a universal grid. It therefore establishes a point of absolute rest universally. You can say but maybe the universe is moving. go ahead nobody cares.
2 - It doesn't matter if you broadcast accumulated time and grid location using the absolute rest view or the moving transmitter view because unlike you erroneous knee jerk response where you want to claim distance changed hence you get different results is BS.
It does not matter if the universe is normal static distance or a forshortened distance to the length of a football field the grid is proportionally contracted such that both views yield the same result.
How? You haven't even attempted to justify your assertion.
I could go to the trouble of doing your work for you and doing the calculations showing that everybody in the universe would know their absolute velocity and hence could compute their own dilation and make comparative analysis to deterimne others as well.
But I'll leave that to you to see if you really have the mathematical whomp you claim to have or if after having thought about this for two seonds if you still want to pursue this losing arguement.
Consider the classic test of muons created when cosmic rays hit the upper atmosphere.
* Do you agree that the muons' time is dilated in the ground frame?
We have had this discussion before and you couldn't win then and won't win now.
Yes they are (appear to be dilated in the earth frame. But I must remind you and tell others not aware of it that a test was done which used muon ansitrophy to earth to compute our solar system motion in the universe and it produced the same general result as other methods such as CMB ansitrophy.
What that means for those not familiar with it and according to the conclusions of the test is:
The muon time dilation was more properly linked to an absolute motion than relative velocity to earth!!!!!!
You of course rejecteed the study (without due indepth consideration) as crap and phoo-phood it.
* Please tell me when the muons and the ground were in a "common local rest frame".
Whenever they came into existance. That frame according to the above study is the absolute rest frame.
* Please tell me when the muons accelerated relative to the ground (given that they were created in the upper atmosphere travelling at some speed relative to the ground).
Same answer given before: They are by-products of particles that had motion due to acceleration at some point in history. Their inertial veloicty is defacto proof of some historical acceleration in their existance or creation.
* If length contraction does not happen, as you assert, then please explain from the muons' frame how they can reach the ground without decaying. Are the muons' clocks dilated in their own frame of reference, as well as in the ground frame? Or what?
ABSOLUTELY. I've been trying to teach you that for years. Anything PHYSICAL is indeed physical in all frames.
Even knowing acceleration histories doesn't help, since there's no absolute standard of rest you can compare to. Agree?
Nope. Just measure muon ansitrophy or CMB ansitrophy and you will find they both suggest there is an absolute rest frame.
We're not talking about practicalities of measurement here, MacM. We're talking about the theory. You think that radar guns are fundamentally inaccurate, even if the inaccuracy in practice may be too small to be noticed. Correct?
This has nothing to do with inaccuracy it has to do with if time dilation is a physical reality.
If clock tick rate is dilated in the radar frame then the radar will compute a higher speed.
If SR is correct and that physical condition is observer dependant (a stupid concept) and the clock is not dilated but distance is contrating then guess what v = ds/dt. The contracting distance produces faster change in distance and with a fixed time produces a higher speed calculation. - Hmmmmm.
You can't know that. How do you know the Earth hasn't some time in the past undergone an acceleration relative to the "local common rest frame", so that Earth is now moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light? If it had, it would really make those radar guns useless, wouldn't it?
Hardly. You must have fell asleep in my first class here showing that equally accelerated clocks remain in synch and are equally dilated. That is the earth and the radar don't care about any universal motion. The radar results is based on only the respective dilation between frames being measured.
I.e. - Assume earth (and hence the radar) are only ticking at 0.5 the rate a clock would tick if truely at absolute rest.
Now 0.5 is the standard from which any acceleration and hence velocity induced between the radar and it's target is based.
i.e. - The radar cop car velocity has its clock ticking at 0.499999 and earth is still 0.5 such that the radar computes 0.000001 as your speed not 0.50000001.
That's only the speed of the solar system relative to the galactic centre, which is itself moving considerably faster relative to other galaxies. We really need to factor in the total motion of the galaxy relative to the "common local rest frame" to determine speeds or clock rates of any objects on Earth, don't we?
Keep trying you are talking nonsense because yu have no real rebuttal.