Some things are not so simple as yes or no replies but I will try:
In their own frame, yes. Compared to clocks of another frame, no.
Great then as the diagram I'm posting prove that indeed clocks do dilate and hence MUST shift frequency and all your BS trying to qualify ticking "in their own frame" and then attacking MacM's views as being silly is nothing more than double talk.
All posts I have ever made discusses ticking compared to clocks in other frames. Further How many times have I posted that an observer cannot detect nor measure any change in his frame. So I have said precisely what you just said and you call me silly. Guess what that makes you.
Yes I have heard of it. You tried to put words in my mouth here:I.e. I never made such an assertion. If Lorenz theory contradicts SR theory, it is wrong so I have forgotten everything I may have once known about it.
You seem confused here. I said nothing about Lorentz Relativity. You apparently don't understand that lorentz contraction IS length contraction in SR.
Neither. All of SR effects are due to making use of your frames units (seconds and meters) to DESCRIBE events / conditions in another frame. There is NO PHYSICAL CHANGE in that frame. Physics there is the same as in your frame. To measure lengths or time intervals (such at tick rates period from one tick until the next) in another frame you need TWO simultaneous observations. (For example where both end of a ruler are or when time period begins and when it ends.) Only one event can be simultaneous for both frames. For example, time dilation is due to (assuming the first tick of his and my clock is simultaneous) the fact that the other frame had his final or terminal tick after my clock's final tick. Or his clock took more than an hour by my clock to advance an hour.
More "in their frame double talk. Frame to frame the traveling frame MUST undergo physical change otherwise they would contrinue to have their clocks tick in synch. Nobody cares about the physics are the same issue because we are not violating it by pointing out the fact that conditions between frames have changed.
In each frame justv as I had posted before if a clock tick dilates so does the clock measuringit in tht frame and hence no change accordingvto the observer in that frame but that does not alter the fact that it changed.
I know you do neither believe nor understand how this can be, but that does not make it false. These SR results follow mathematically from: Speed of light is constant and physics is the same in all inertial frames. I trust math much more than your assertions, one of which the end of this post shows is illogical.
More selfserving BS. I apparently know things better than yourself since you have tried to divert others from the truth. Clocks tick differently between frames.
I answered them both in prior post. You must have read at least (2) as you commented on it.:
On (2): I do not think I have ever even (prior to this post) typed "lorentz contraction of distance." If I ever knew anything about lorentz contraction of distance I have completely forgotten it. I believe SR is correct in all cases where there is disagrement with the lorentz model. Point (2) is thus entirely your fabrication and NOTHING to do with me or my POV.
See above FYI: Lorentz Contraction IS SR Length Contraction. Thought you knew this stuff.
On (3) Yes, except for one Velocity being negative of the other. It is, as I usually say, the speeds of separation that are equal. I.e. if frame A is speeding away from frame B at speed S, then frame B is speeding away from frame A at S - no exceptions.
Correct at least in an absolute sense if not as the locally calculated value.
Let me review for you one of your most easily refuted silly assertions (I.e. that there is a physical change in the clocks of the moving frame to make their seconds take longer or “time dilation”):
(1) Math in the moving frame is unchanged (2+4 = 6 still etc., including the matrix math of QM).
(2) Quantum mechanics is ONLY math. Thus does that THEORY not change with speed,
(3) Quantum mechanics can calculate the energy levels extremely precisely (in some case agreeing with experiment to 10 significant figures!) Thus the energy levels of atoms do not change with speed.
(4) Thus the frequency of radiation produced when atom emits A photon does not change with speed. (The photon has exactly the energy of the difference between two energy levels of the transition to conserve energy. The energy of a photon is Planck’s CONSTANT times the frequency so if energy level difference is unchanged, Then the photon frequency is unchanged with speed.)
(5) Thus the time period required for # cycles of this identical frequency, in all frames, is the same.
(6) Atomic clocks advance one second with each block of # cycles of that frequency they count.
(7) Thus the duration of a second is the same in all inertial frames, independent of their speed.
ALL DOUBLE TALK HIDING BEHIND THE FACT THAT IN THE FRAME THE CLOCK BEING USED TO CALCULATE FREQUENCY IS THE ONE DILATED SUCH THAT FREQUENCY BETWEEN FRAMES MUST ALSO BE DILATED FOR PHYSICS TO REMAIN THE SAME.
#7 is an unfortunate play on words. The duration is based on the frequency of the atom. What you are attempting to hide here is that the duration in the moving frame is dilated compared to the resting frame and hence duration between frames is NOT the same. Only the definition of duration is the same betrween frames.
You are frequently demanding I answer your question (even demanding I only respond with Yes or No when that would be too simple minded to be possible.)
Only for you the poster of diatribes and over qualificatons to avoid direct clear answers.
Thus I demand (for first time, I think) that you tell which of the seven logical steps above is not true and why.
Don’t duck and weave. Just tell which statement number (1 thru 7) is wrong.
I have comment. The points you post are true in their frame but that is and has never been at issue. The issue is the comparative values and SR only works if there is real physical change between frames.
This is made abundantly clear in the following diagrams:
****************************************************
Here are several possibilities done graphically. I will discuss each below the traveling twin cases.
***************************************************
CASE 1:
Round trip according to resting Twin. Relative velocity is assumed symmetrical. .Times
are in hours.
.............................................................Resting Twin..............................................
Distance A.....................................................B....................................................A
Time...... 0............1............2............3............4............5............6............7............8
Clock dilates 50%. Distance remains fixed.
...........................................................Traveling Twin...............................................
Distance A.....................................................B.....................................................A
Time...... 0..........................1..........................2..........................3..........................4
A dilated clock matches emperical data.
********************************************************
CASE 2:
.............................................................Resting Twin..............................................
Distance A.....................................................B....................................................A
Time...... 0............1............2............3............4............5............6............7............8
Clocks ticking in synch. Distance traveled 50%.
...............................Traveling Twin..................
Distance A........................B..........................A
Time...... 0............1...........2............3.............4
Bogus results in that it is alleged that while clocks ticked the same the twin arrives back in half
the time. If clocks were in synch the resting twin could never get to 8 hours.
*******************************************************
CASE 3:
This is more clear if you view real world examples with both clocks ticking in synch.
Speed = 60 Mph. Time is in hours.
..........................................Resting Twin.................................................................
Distance.A ..........................480 Miles...........B....................................................A
Time...... 0............1............2............3............4............5............6............7............8
......................................................................!
...................................Traveling Twin...............!
Distance.A.........................B.........................A
Time...... 0............1............2............3............4
Distance ......................240 Miles....................!
If the speed and clock tick rates are the same then all clocks must agree when I return and
stop my clock at 4 hours. Therefore the assertion that the resting observer has you travel
480 miles and take 8 hours is not possible since I return in 4 hours. Further if clocks do not
stay in synch and the traveling clock has dilated such that the resting observer accumulates
8 hours when you return then you have case #1 and distance cannot change.
*******************************************************
SUMMARY:
The only case that fits emperical data and is physically possible is #1 for clocks to dilate and
distance to remain the same. Seems MacM has heard this view before.
Last edited: