MacM:
We have nothing to discuss. You admit that my analysis of the TNT example is correct, so we're done.
You have presented nothing to suggest that there is any error in the relativistic analysis of that example, and you have no altenative analysis of your own.
Goodbye.
I accepted your analysis without verification of your mathematical conclusion, only because it demonstrates the very purpose of the post.
That is it is a physical impossibility for Lorentz Contraction to function as a real physical affect as you claimed. Lorentz Contraction is relinquished to the status of being an artifiact of a poorely constructed physical theory and failure to recognize the most simple basis of physics.
1 - That observer perception is NOT a physical cause.
2 - Relative Velocity between clocks is not a physical cause.
3 - ONLY actual velocity induced by acceleration of a clock to an inertial rest frame is demonstrated by emperical data to cause time dilation.
4 - Where two clocks have relative motion but each has moved "Switched Frames" since having had a commmon rest frame, the only correct time dilation is computed by the difference of each clocks time dilation to the common rest frame and not by computing time dilation between clocks.
5 - Intelligent, educated men would NOT assume distance contracted from relative velocity. They can ONLY compute a higher velocity since the only data they have at hand is distance as measured by both observers being equal and clocks recording trip time from each frame being different. v = ds / dt.
In the accelerated frame the ONLY rational choice is to conclude a higher velocity not that distance forshortened.
For any and all onlookers be it known that James R has thrown in the towel without having posted emperical data to support his arguement that lorentz contraction is physically real. or that the inherent reciprocity of a relative velocity view is physiclly real, or that the ECI frame as are frames of observers that have accelerated are not preferred frames.
All James R has done is recite theory.
a - Swearing "There are no preferred frames" - Inspite of the fact that GPS uses just such a frame, the ECI frame and that when they claim to be doing Special Relativity and compute timed dilation after considering "Frame Switching" they have in fact stipulated that ONE observer has actual velocity and ignore the resting observer's relative velocity in their calculations.
That is establishing a preferred frame where ONE has velocity and the other does not. This is Lorentz Relativity NOT Einstein's Relativity which includes reciprocity. But they sure want credit for it for Einstein.
b - Swearing "There are no absolute velocites only relative velocity" when in fact any velocity which cannot be switched to rest as advocated in Special Relativity is a preferred frame with an absolute velocity. That velocity is ONLY relative to the rest frame. Mere "Relative Velocity" that it creates to all other objects in the universe are not absolute but merely relative.
In contrast I do believe I have given sufficient cause for you to question highly any who advocate SR is a valid theory.
c - Swearing that "Lorentz Contraction is a real physical process" in spite of the fact there is no permanent change once relative velocity has vanished. Nor any emperical data to support the assertion it occurs.
d - Swearing that "Time Dilation is a real process" which it likely is BUT:
e - Swearing that these "Physical Affects are subject to observer perception". A non-existant cause such as mere relative velocity makes physical changes that in one frame is time dilation and in another frame is length contraction all as a matter of who is watching.
Have you EVER heard of such nonsense in describing anything physically real?
Reciprocity has NEVER been tested and appears UNTESTABLE.
That by scientific standards falsifies Special Relativity as a valid theory.
Until they test the theory and produce even ONE piece of emperical data demonstrating reciprocity of time dilation, or at least specifiy a reasonable method to test the theory's advocated reciprocity showing it to be physically real, it cannot even be accepted as science.
To clarify the issue beyond dispute change the TNT sticks to fire crackers and have a control system that if the detonations are NOT simultaneous then control systems in each frame fire a shot gun that will kill the observer in the frame where detonaton was NOT simultaneous.
Now in one frame the observer gets killed but in the other he survies. - Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Something physically wrong with such a conclusion. Must be that one of these is not physical reality but only perception since both cannot be physically real.
Keep in mind that what testing has been done and emperical data from such testing actually ONLY supports Lorentz Relativity and not Einstein's relativity.