NONSENSE. "Intrinsic" means NOT dependent or related to other things.
So I post the WEBSTER definition of "Intrinsic" and you rresonse is "NONSENSE". I guess that tells us where the problem lies here doesn't it.
I used "intrinsic" as a shorter form of "in their own frame"
That doesn't cut it. You stated without qualification "I ALWAYS SAY
" In their own frames". My post shows that to be an outright lie.
Now you can argue "but that is what I meant". I would say perhaps but we'll come baqck to that in a bit. First you seem unwilling to let me qualify my words so you can't qualify yours.
C and never said that the clocks of one frame were in "sink" (synchronization) with those of another as this is impossible and I said so here: [/quote]
I'll let phyti speak for himself since I don't know what post you are referring to but my guess is another of your mis-interprentations of others posts.
I'm rather sure he was likely discussing two synchronized clocks that subsequently developed relative motion or perhaps was discussing some method of synchronizing clocks with relative motion.
That is setting them to t=0 simultaneously, not that they remained synchronized.
But unforunately for you some of the posts by you that I listed stated clearly that atomic clocks are based on frequency or energy and that energy is the same in all inertial frames and it would violate physics is the same in all frames if frequency differed and hence all clocks have the same intrinsic tick rate.
You can go back and lets see what qualifications you come up with to correct that phoo-pa.
BTW “absolute motion would be an external circumstance.” is your nonsensical POV.
Like saying “Unicorns would be an external circumstance.” Because neither unicorns nor absolute motion exist. Your belief that either or both do, does not make it so.
I simply pointed out that your POV was based on the assumption that atomic internal energy was based on it's inertial condition of being at rest and as such all rest (inertial velocities) are the same since you reject the idea that progressive relative velocites represent progressive energies to some possible absolute rest frame universally.
The point is we need not detect it for it to exist. Your assumption that "Absence of Evidence" is "Evidence of Absence" is a most unscientific position.
The fact is your energy claim for atoms is based on your preconcieved idea that SR is correct. You are attempting to used assumptions of the theory to prove the theory. A clear case of circular reasoning.
As far as my claiming: “you claim they tick differently from one frame to another.” That is true provided you state as I usually do that SR’s time dilation is caused by describing the tick rate of clocks in one frame with the units (seconds / hours etc) of another frame.
Oh. So you didn't say what you usually say. You mean like when I (talking with other using SR terms) say "I reject length contraction" but don't then enter a lengthy qualification saying "but I believe in contraction of mass by the same amount as SR's length contraction and spatial contraction but to a very minor degree compared to SR."
So you think I should divet every discussion with those qualifiers which would clearly wreck any topic because it spins off into numerous issues and explanations.
I have many times refuted your false claim that the clock, and only the clock, in the frame which accelerated away from your Common Rest Frame, CRF, is actually physically ticking slower intrinsically by pointing out that a cesium clock only counts the radiation frequency cycles and it is the same frequency in all frames as the cesium energy levels are the same in all frames.
I'm afraid you are somehow demented. Above you swore you never say all clocks tick at the same frequency in all frames. You just did and if you think inserting the term "Intrinsically" in there alters what you just said you are wrong. What you have stipulated "marked in red" is that all clocks tick the same in all frames.
You try to have it both ways by claiming intrinsically means in it's frame. But what you are saying then means absolutely nothing. You talk out of both sides of your mouth and simply attempt to confuse people. Well I don't confuse that easy.
The levels are computable from quantum theory, at least in principle but computers may not yet be able to make the calculations for atoms as complex as cesium. Theory does not change with frames and so the energy levels do not. You belief that they do is shear NONSENSE. – There is NO PHYSICAL CHANGE WITH SPEED OR PRIOR ACCELERATION of tick rates or lengths.
Contridiction. Further if there is no physical changes it would be impossible for one clock to become permanently dilated and display less accumulated time. You are just tallking in circles to hear yourself talk but are saying nothing regardng real physics..
Again, as you seem to be a slow learner, here is more help on my POV:
Restating the obvious flaw doesn't alter it. If nothing physically changes then an accelerated clock cannot permanently display a dilated accumulation of time once directly compared with the resting clock in a common rest frame.
No. it is much more than that as I just told you. It is based on quantum theory too. Yes it is from one of the two postulates of SR – namely that physics is the same in all inertial frames also.
Addressed above. You cannot have it both ways. You want to declare dilation but thenn claim is is not physical. That franmkly is just plain nuts. If it is not physical then it is mere illusion of motion.
Yes and
If the moon is made of green cheese, then many mice will want to be astronauts.
But neither of these “if clauses” is a fact or has ANY supporting evidence.
Addressed above with regrd to circular reasoning and preconcieved ideas.
PS I am glad you took the bait (ALWAYS)
I'm sure you are.
– I figured you could find at least one post where I was in a hurry and slipped up by failing to include either “intrinsic “
Now we are going to need to work on teaching you to count.
or “in their own frame” when saying “all good clocks tick at the same rate.” I often fail to include the word “good” too, but that not mean I am including broken or mal–adjusted clocks. Dozens of times have been careful to be accurate.
Nor does it mean when I reject length contraction when discussing SR and distance traveled or between objects with relative velocity mean I reject contraction of mass or some other form of "Spatial Contraction" other than SR.
You in contrast, do not even recognize that it is important to specify tick rates wrt which frames clocks (their own or some other frame) as you falsely believe clocks in different frames can all be synchronized.
Where in the hell do you get this new BS. I believe in fact that it is more likely that clocks in different frames physically tick at different rates than it is that distance traveled causes less accumulated time.
However, I have also frequently qualified that either could cause such dilation. But there are several good reasons to choose time dilation over length contraction as a cause and certainly never choose relative velocity as a cause.
Now when are we going to see you address the issue raised and that is:
Velocity addition causes what are physically simultaneous TNT blasts in the moving frame to become not simultaneous from the ground frame even though the TNT sticks are physically in the same location and distance away with a common velocity.
